Bush’s foreign policy; what will he be remembered for? Most say the war with Iraq. Yet others, mostly AIDS infected people, disagree. In Africa, Bush’s foreign policy doesn’t look quite as dismal.
Bush launched a $15 billion global anti-AIDS program in 2003. This plan has provided 50,000 HIV patients with lifesaving antiretroviral drugs. Rwanda health officials state that the impact has been outstanding. Just U.S. foreign aid to Africa alone has increased from $1.4 billion to $5.6illion, $300 million of it is specifically for helping fight AIDS. Bush hopes to add $30 billion more even after his term is over.
Bush himself is actually visiting Africa on a five-nation tour that lasts for six days. He hopes to show Africans his commitment to their economic development and share with the citizens the progress on AIDS and malaria. However, his visit to Africa might be made difficult because of Sudan’s Darfur region and its growing violence. But Bush has hope that Africa will come out of it’s AIDS and malaria epidemics, for it is “a place where democracy is advancing, where economics are growing and leaders are meeting challenges with purpose and determination.” This program of Bush’s just might be his most popular foreign polity plans.
The money to Africa gives local aid agencies the ability to help patients. 12 out of the 15 countries hit worst with AIDS programs are located in Africa. Sadly, Rwanda is ranked 158th out of 177 of the poorest countries in the world, according to the United Nations index of development. Eight million people populate the tiny country, and yet have only 438 clinics and hospitals to serve the sick. However, through US and global funding, two thirds of Rwandans with AIDS are receiving free antiretroviral drugs.
Bush’s program isn’t without critics. Many complain that spending is inefficiently channeled through AIDS agencies, not boosting Africa’s overall health system. Others grumble about the requirement that some of the funds must be put to promoting abstinence. Yet an AIDS expert who works at the Center for Global Development stated that Bush’s program’s emphasis on drug treatment rather than prevention might lead to it’s eventual downfall. Also, the future cost of treatment for these patients will soar. He suggested promoting the use of condoms and other protections instead of focusing solely on drug treatments.
I agree with the AIDS expert. A problem with Western medicine is that it only cures symptoms, not the actual cause. AIDS are permanent - Bush’s policy should focus on how to prevent it from spreading, not only treating it. A treated AIDS person will still pass the disease along when they have sex - and not a whole lot of people can faithfully practice abstinence.
It’s similar to abortion. Abortions will happen whether they’re legal or not. Sex will happen, with AIDS or without. Pro-life people should focus on reducing the need for it. Bush’s policy should focus on preventing the need for antiretroviral drugs.
Personally, I’m glad that Bush is trying to do something to help this AIDS epidemic in Africa. True, his program has a major flaw, but you’re not supposed to look a gift horse in the mouth. I didn’t know very much about any of our president’s foreign policies, and was glad to hear that he at least has a couple good plans. I agree that his most famous policy will be the Iraq war, but when is war ever good, and who else but the president gets credit? All presidents are remembered for whatever war happens to be going on at the time of his term.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
Well, that's good at least. Though I couldn't help but think of one other aspect possibly wrong with this. Do Americans with AIDS receive free antiviral drugs? If they don't, I want to know why foreigners are getting free pharmaceutical drugs and Americans aren't. The US has a lot problems of its own that should be addressed before we look to help other countries.
Foreign aid in general is very much smiled upon by the American people, but it also causes a dependency in the country receiving the aid. There will be no incentive for the country to develop its own solutions, and American tax money will be poured into programs without a offering true, lasting aid. When it comes to immediate emergencies, like medical relief, disaster relief, or famine relief, I fully support sending these countries aid. But I'd also like to see some investment in these countries to develop their own, self-sufficient emergency programs, like investment in more hospitals, medical training, agricultural technology, etc.
That's a good question. Health care in America is quite a rare commodity lately. I mean, it is great that Bush is helping others who need it, but I am curious to know whether or not all of the American AIDS patients are able to obtain the medicine they need.