Why did the President do this?
As we all know, the HIV and AIDS epidemic rages on. Nowhere in the world is this more true than in sub-Sahara Africa. In some places the HIV infection rate is reaching one in four persons. So what does this have to do with our national security? As the epidemic continues, and the infection rate rises the potential for unrest in areas that are already politically fragile also increases. As established governments are picked apart by HIV infection and AIDS, the potential for radical groups assuming power looms heavy. Such groups in power could jeopardize any stability that may exist in the area, as well as risking relationships with democratic nations such as the U.S. In fact, researches have examined 75 factors that directly impact the political stability of an area. The AIDS epidemic has the potential to directly or indirectly cause many of those factors. All this adds up to a situation that could spark ethnic wars and undo decades of democratic efforts around the world.
Another potential danger of the AIDS epidemic is the effect it could have on world finance. Preventing HIV, treating AIDS, and researching new treatments all cost money. In addition, as members of the labor force become infected, get sick and are unable to work, production and income falls. These pressures on economies of already poor countries are a major destabilizing factor. And again, any destabilization financially or politically could result in U.S. involvement, both in dollars and military resources.
Finally, politics played a large role in this dramatic decision by the President. African American leaders from the U.S. and around the world have called on the President to do something to prevent the catastrophe that looms in some parts of the world. Politically, what better way for the President to remind his constituents, especially those in the African American community, that he realizes there is a huge problem and he and his party wants to help.
What does it mean?
What has resulted from this designation? First, such a designation potentially frees up much needed federal monies that can be used to fight the epidemic. In fact, $240 million already earmarked for the worst hit areas of Africa stands to grows larger as HIV/AIDS awareness increases. This money will be used for research, prevention, education and medications in those areas where services are most needed. In addition, the designation re-emphasizes the United State's commitment to fighting the epidemic alongside other industrial nations of the world.
The President also suggested that an interagency group be formed to direct expanded efforts and lead the international fight against the disease. While the U.S. admits that $240 dollars is nowhere near sufficient to make a significant impact, they are hoping that other industrialized nations will join the U.S. in this concerted effort.
Should we be concerned?
This step by the U.S. repesents a first step in the world-wide fight of HIV and AIDS. It will free up monies and resources that will help those countries unable to provide education and treatment themselves. However, there are groups that have raised concern about the designation as a "threat". Some feel that this will lead to problems here in the U.S. Will the term "threat" be applied to individuals already living with HIV and AIDS? Could this "threat" be used as a reason not to hire infected people into government jobs? Will this push forward the effort of required names reporting of HIV infected people? Will voluntary testing decline? Some groups are concerned and have vowed to watch the situation closely. As one concerned health care worker put it:
"In the minds of so many, people who are infected are already labeled. We don't need the government to make it easier for people to run scared."
