Ugandan AIDS Cut More Suspicious
The reason cited by BBC for the grant cut is suspicious:
An investigation carried out for the Global Fund said it found a shortfall when grants in dollars were converted into Ugandan shillings.Certainly, suspicion is always in order in matters like this, but no details have been released regarding what the investigation by Price, Waterhouse Coooper found about about the $41 million Uganda has received so far on the grant. The UN has not posted a promised news release on the matter on its Web site. I requested it tonight, but am not holding out hope.
Cutting all the grants makes no sense, as it will certainly lead to the cessation of Uganda's successful AIDS programs, which have dropped infection rates from 15% for 5% -- largely by changing Uganda's culture to reject promiscuity.
So why cut it? Here's a smoking gun, again from the BBC report:
A spokesman for the Global Fund said it still wanted to continue working with Uganda's National Aids Commission directly, so the provision of condoms and anti-retroviral drugs would not be interrupted.Reworded, the Global Fund wants to keep pressuring Uganda to drop its morality based program, which it blames on "American Christian conservatives," and replace it with the Global Fund's desperately failing, but PC, sex and condoms approach. No country following the Global Fund's approach has an HIV infection rate anywhere near as low as Uganda's 5%.
The US is far and away the Global Fund's biggest financier -- giving over $1 billion while the #2 nation contributor (UK) has given only one-quarter that amount. We should stop our contributions, which we use to influence support for Uganda-like programs, until an independent review of the matter can be conducted.
Uganda Punished for Abstinence?