Brazil rejects US Financial Aids Assistance

[Malchik]

I noted in the papers yesterday that Brazil rejected $40million offered by the US to help their Aids education programme. The reason was that the US wished the Brazilian government to condemn prostitution. Now I am not going to pursue that particular line because (according to the article) the Brazilian government rejection was that the caveat was on religious grounds unsupported by factual evidence (indeed contradicted by it). That could lead to a religious debate not allowed here.

 

However it is the wider principle that interests me. In the past loans made to poor countries by the world bank have imposed such stringent financial conditions that the life of the people in those countries deteriorated substantially.

 

Should we not be more compassionate?

 

I'm not advocating throwing good money after bad. Help establish infrastructure, don't just offload surplus food. But if people need help we should give it without thought to what we get out of it. That is uncharitable. It is of course necessary to monitor the situation to make sure the funds or whatever are not being misused but in my opinion that is an end to it.

 

To me offering the money as a 'bribe' is a form of corruption.

 

Does anyone want to post a different view?

[Switch]

I agree with you. But unfortunately, as has been discussed in the other thread about communism, capitalism always has people taking advantage of almost every situation. I can't really see a government giving out $40 million without getting something in return. That whole thing about condemning prostitution without offering them any factual reasons however, if it's true, is just plain idiotic... :P

[thranduill]

Prostitution is not the cause of AIDS, it can just be one of the infine ways it can be tranmitted. If it was the problem it would be enough encouraging use of condoms...

This is a strange way of approaching the problem:prostitution is there from few thousands of year (just remember the gardens of Ishtar,goddess of love in

Babylonia),when AIDS it's a very recent problem.

So the solution to it is elsewhere.

And I dont know exactly what happened , but USA are very famous for helping other people in change of something related to theyr own interests...

I remember that for famine in Zimbabwe they offered a loan of 300 millions USD,

to be spent in genetically modified corn (supplied from US multinational

companies like Monsanto...).

As it is not sure what GM food can do in medium -long term the loan has been refused. As one of the counselors of the Zimbabwean governement was

a christian association, the US protested with the Vatican saying that the association was in favour of the famine in Africa...

P.S. As one of the ways AIDS is transmitted is blood transfusion, why not to condemn it?

[ThetaOrionis01]

According to an article on the BBC site, there are a lot of conditions attached to this 'aid'.

 

US President George Bush has allocated $15bn to the worldwide fight against Aids.

 

...

 

Much of the spending is being channelled to programmes that advocate abstinence, rather than condom use, and cannot be used for abortions or to treat prostitutes.

 

IMO, those conditions, which seem to reflect the religious bias of the current US administration, would seriously impede the effectiveness of this so-called aid, and are not therefore in the best interest of the recipient.

 

And if aid is not in the best interest of the recipient, but instead used to promote the giver's values and interests, can it really be called aid?

[draighox]

US could have offered nothing at all. They are lucky to get such sum of money for condemning prostitution. And no-one's forcing them to accept it. You are talking like offering money for something is a bad thing.

[Switch]

I don't think we're saying that. I'm saying, at least, that it's bad to offer money that could save lives, while trying to get them to comply with your ideals at the same time. Sure they don't *have* to accept it, but if they don't a lot more people will die, so they are under *pressure* to accept it. It seems to me a rather underhanded and low way to get people to comply with your policies. Especially since it sounds like, from what Malchik says, they aren't even giving any factual evidence to back up their demands. More of an arrogant "this is what we believe, accept it and enforce it or don't get the cash!".

[thranduill]

When somebody tries to teach me his own "moral"values I always get very

suspicious as this was the way of Inquisition, not to remember some people

saying "Got mit uns".

To me people who try to impose his "moral behaviours" are from my long

experience the worst in their private life. They show an aspect and they are inside

exactly the opposite.

If 0,01% of what is said about Bush is true (from the Illuminati toTrance-formation)

all the world is in good hands.......

[KzinistZerg]

P.S. As one of the ways AIDS is transmitted is blood transfusion, why not to condemn it?

 

...because anyone who is intelligent checks blood for impurities and diseases before they transmit it....

 

 

And as for your other post, it's more likely "Gott ist mit uns" or, "god is with us", not "god with us". Improper German...

 

And lastly, answering the debate question, no, there should be fewer strings attached- they should try to find something actually worth pressing for, something that the receiving country is willing to do but didn't have the money for or means to do.

[thranduill]

P.S. As one of the ways AIDS is transmitted is blood transfusion, why not to condemn it?

 

...because anyone who is intelligent checks blood for impurities and diseases before they transmit it....

 

 

And as for your other post, it's more likely "Gott ist mit uns" or, "god is with us", not "god with us". Improper German...

 

And lastly, answering the debate question, no, there should be fewer strings attached- they should try to find something actually worth pressing for, something that the receiving country is willing to do but didn't have the money for or means to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for your lesson of german...Anyway I just forgot one "t" (Got instead of Gott)

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/942

 

I agree that " anyone who is intelligent checks blood for impurities and diseases before they transmit it....". Unfortunately this is not the case, as thousands of people all over the word have been infected through transfusions of blood...

Even now 1-2% of transfusions are at risk (before 1985 much more)

Transfusions.

HIV seems to be present in most of the components of human blood; red and white blood cells, platelets, which help blood clotting and scab formation, and plasma. People receiving blood transfusions have caught AIDS from whole blood and from blood components, including platelets, red blood cells, plasma, and clotting factor concentrates manufactured for hemophiliacs. Neither pasteurized (heat-treated) albumin gamma-globulin nor other immunoglobulins (blood proteins isolated and transfused into ill patients) have been reported to transmit HIV.

In 1985, a blood-screening test became available to blood testing centers. Though not 100% accurate, this test enables them to screen all blood donations for HIV. The test, however, had an unfortunate side effect. Individuals started donating blood in order to find out if they were HIV infected. Fortunately, now we have anonymous, free testing clinics in many locales rendering this practice unnecessary.

 

By current accounts, the blood test, which finds HIV antibodies, is close to perfect (reportedly 99.9% accurate), but it is not perfect. Also, in newly infected individuals, there is a "window" after HIV infection, but before the development of antibodies, when this test is useless. On limited evidence, this window now seems to be 3 to 6 months long. Thus it is possible that HIV infected blood could be collected during this window.

 

The 1-2% is the same risk you have using condoms...

Beside that , you should know that in the world we have nations like India or many african nations who cannot make the screen because it is very expensive,

and here we have still many cases of infection through blood transfusion.

May be you dont care as you are living ,as I do, in a rich country and what happens in other parts of the world is not your business.

 

Edit : "Gott mit uns" was often written on the helmets or on the belts by german soldiers, for your information. (Just search "gott mit uns " on google.....)

[Malchik]

US could have offered nothing at all. They are lucky to get such sum of money for condemning prostitution. And no-one's forcing them to accept it. You are talking like offering money for something is a bad thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Perhaps I was at fault for bringing up the reference to loans. This was supposed to be a gift for aid.

 

If a gift comes with conditions it is not a gift but a financial transaction, a purchase. The US will 'pay' Brazil as long as it's prepared to get into bed with it!

 

So just like those who turn to prostitution as the only way to escape complete poverty, Brazil is being asked to become the USA's angel.

 

Talk about double standards.

 

Also it is aid designed to help a problem. As the Brazilians rightly pointed out, if they agreed to the US 'price' it would mean that the aid was totally wasted.

 

BTW draighox, although I disagree with a great deal of what you say, I'd defend to the death your right to say it.

 

But how about this analogy. My company assembles parts for motor cars, it is not doing well, so I get cheaper components. They are discovered to have a flaw that could just possibly make the cars they are used in life threatening. A wholesale buyer discovers this but I offer him free international holidays and buy him a luxury car in exchange for him not telling anyone. This is in principal the same transaction. I am offering a gift (read bribe) or in a capitalist society let us say I am buying a service. The conditions I put on my 'gift' are likely to be harmful. The same applies to the US's offer of 'aid'. And let me assure you this little scenario is usually conducted on a much bigger scale with drugs companies for example(all due to the capitalist profit motive).

 

And I've had another thought. Putting impossible conditions on 'aid' is an excellent way of being able to make a grand gesture knowing you'll never have to pay up! Which of GWB's carers - er I mean minders - um advisors thought that one up?