Brazil has balls (but we already knew that)

[escorpion]

Brazil spurns US terms for Aids help

 

Sarah Boseley and Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington

Wednesday May 4, 2005

The Guardian

 

Brazil yesterday became the first country to take a public stand against the Bush administration's massive Aids programme which is seen by many as seeking increasingly to press its anti-abortion, pro-abstinence sexual agenda on poorer countries.

 

Campaigners applauded Brazil's rejection of $40m for its Aids programmes because it refuses to agree to a declaration condemning prostitution.

 

The government and many Aids organisations believe such a declaration would be a serious barrier to helping sex workers protect themselves and their clients from infection.

 

The demand from the US administration, heavily influenced by the religious right, follows what is known as the "global gag" - a ban on US government funds to any foreign-based organisation which has links to abortion. This has resulted in the removal of millions of dollars of funding from family planning clinics worldwide.

 

Yesterday Pedro Chequer, the director of Brazil's HIV/Aids programme, said the government had managed to resist US pressure during negotiations on the Aids funding to focus on promoting abstinence and fidelity rather than condoms - another ideological battle being waged by the religious right. But the US negotiators insisted that the clause on prostitution had to stay.

 

"I would like to confirm that Brazil has taken this decision in order to preserve its autonomy on issues related to national policies on HIV/Aids as well as ethical and human rights principles," he told the Guardian.

 

Campaigners congratulated the Brazilian government for its stance, and voiced concerns that the declaration on prostitution could damage efforts to tackle Aids among sex workers in many countries.

 

Jodi Jacobson of the Centre for Health and Gender Equity in the US said that, unlike the global gag, the declaration on prostitution looked likely to be imposed on US-based organisations as well as their subsidiaries abroad. The office of Randall Tobias, the global Aids coordinator who is responsi ble for spending the $15bn President Bush promised for the fight against Aids, was working on the language to be adopted, she said.

 

"Any organisation receiving US global Aids funding will have to agree to the policy," she said. That would include charities as large as Care, Save the Children and World Vision.

 

"It is a hugely problematic policy from the standpoint of public health alone. It goes against the entire grain of public health principles in not judging the people you are trying to reach."

 

But Sam Brownback, a leading Senate conservative, told the Wall Street Journal: "Obviously Brazil has the right to act however it chooses in this regard. We're talking about promotion of prostitution which the majority of both the house and the Senate believe is harmful to women."

 

Most US Aids funding goes directly to organisations working in the field and much will be channelled through faith organisations that back the no-abortion, pro-abstinence and anti-prostitution stance of the US neo-conservatives.

 

But the Brazilian government has strong HIV/Aids policies and insists that all negotiations go through its own committee. It also has a strong partnership between government and non-governmental organisations that encouraged a united response to Washington.

 

"This would be entirely in contradiction with Brazilian guidelines for a programme that has been working very well for years. We are providing condoms, and doing a lot of prevention work with sex workers, and the rate of infection has stabilised and dropped since the 1980s," said Sonia Correa, an Aids activist in Brazil and co-chair of the International Working Group on Sexuality and Social Policy.

 

"The US is doing the same in other countries - bullying, pushing and forcing - but not every country has the possibility to say no."

 

Adrienne Germain, president of the International Women's Health Coalition, said: "The importance of the Brazilian government decision can not be overstated."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/brazil/story/0,12462,1475966,00.html

[+ Axiom2001]

Thanks for keeping us apprised. Please use the acronym AIDS when typing. It alleviates confusion on the part of some people.

[+ Italiano]

Nobody can predict the HUGE DAMAGE this government is doing and will do to the WHOLE WORLD... x(

[trilingual]

Oh yes one can!!! :-( Just check out the Politics forum! Where (as I recall) there are also some posts about this story.

 

In a country where many things go wrong and good intentions go FAR astray, the Brazilian government's AIDS program has been a resounding success. They've managed to keep the rate of infection surprisingly low by doing heavy advertising and education campaigns for years now, plus giving out billions of free condoms and helping people who become infected with HIV to get antiretrovirals quickly and for FREE. Brazil is rightly proud of its record in this area, and I'm proud of Brazil for telling the U.S. to take its phony morality and shove it. Brazil will cover the loss of U.S. funding from its own resources, something it should be able to do now that its economy is growing and exports are booming.

[Luv2play]

I don't understand your comment. The article was from the UK newspaper The Guardian. Their writer used the acronym HIV/Aids. You use AIDS. Is there an accepted spelling? Or is this another case of British versus American usage of the English language?

[+ Axiom2001]

>I don't understand your comment. The article was from the UK

>newspaper The Guardian. Their writer used the acronym

>HIV/Aids. You use AIDS. Is there an accepted spelling? Or is

>this another case of British versus American usage of the

>English language?

 

 

Apparently the writer for THE GUARDIAN isn't completely aware that all acronyms are to be capitalized, thus his/her reasoning for writing as indicated. The accepted spelling is as I mentioned merely as an aid, not in being critical!

[trilingual]

Interesting point (although perhaps NOT in a forum about Escorts South of the U.S.A.). I don't think British and American usage differs on acronyms: the letters should be capitalized. The writer, or the editors at the Guardian, weren't exactly consistent, either, as they spelled it "HIV/Aids." It should either be "Hiv/Aids" or "HIV/AIDS." BOTH are acronyms!!! Feel free to write the editor of the Guardian!!! }(

[Luv2play]

Agree this has nothing to do with escorts south of the USA but some acronyms are not capitalized such as laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation). ;-)

[vers7]

I think I read that after Brazil's objection, this policy AIDS mondy with strings attached (regarding sex workers) has been reconsidered. I hope so.

[Knabegeil]

This question touches on grounds similar to the visa reciprocity topic. Certainly Brazil has the right to act according to its own lights. But SO DOES THE USA. Too long and too often the agenda seems to have been: Hand over the money and then thanks us for taking it. Hello? Is the US the only nation that doesn't have the right to do as it sees fit?

[Guest Tampa Yankee]

> Is the US the only

>nation that doesn't have the right to do as it sees fit?

>

 

The US certainly has the right to do as it sees fit. So does Brazil. I think that is the subject of this thread.

[vers7]

Plus, as a US taxpayer, I certainly would question the point of an anti-AIDS policy which used moral concerns in deciding to whom the money is sent. Chances are, AIDS is not affecting those who are married, living in a monogomous relationship. Rather AIDS effects sex workers, and heterosexuals and homosexuals (such as us) who are not living in a monogomous relationship. To the credit of the State Dept., I understand that someone with common sense realized that putting limits on this type of relief was absurd -- and as I understand it, reconsidered the original policy. Again, I congratulate Brazil for challenging this administration. I wish more US citizens would do the same.

[kjun]

One question. Who is the United States? Aint it us?

 

the Cajun