Published July 6, 2005

KAREL PRINSLOO/ASSOCIATED PRESS Help for Africa: A young boy in the Kibera slum in Nairobi. On the Web To learn more about The Global Fund, visit: www.theglobalfund.org

Bush deserves credit for stepping up AIDS fight

Working with world partners would stretch dollars further.

Protesters at this week's G8 Summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, will decry the United States' alleged failure to do its part in the global fight against AIDS. They aim at an easy target, the wealthiest country in the world. The United States could never give enough money to satisfy some critics.

Instead, President Bush and Congress deserve praise for being relatively generous the past few years in funding overseas initiatives to fight AIDS, TB and malaria. The U.S. government should, however, loosen the strings it attaches that hamper the funding's effectiveness.

In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush pledged $15 billion over five years to fight global disease, with a particular focus on AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, where AIDS kills a child every 30 seconds. Congress is close to being on track to fulfill that pledge. In the past two years, it has appropriated $5 billion.

But the United States could do a better job in how it spends its money, by shifting more dollars from U.S.-led AIDS programs to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

The Global Fund brings together everyone from medical groups to religious organizations. It's a partnership between governments, the private sector, communities and people living with the three diseases. It collects countries' contributions, reviews programs and funds them in 128 nations. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson was a recent chairman of the fund.

But the United States pours the vast majority of its aid into U.S.-led programs that operate in fewer countries and get mired down in politics. For example, stipulations to promote abstinence have been attached to funding for AIDS prevention and treatment. And the Bush administration has refused to allow overseas relief organizations to purchase drugs that haven't been reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration. Last week brought good news on that front, when the FDA tentatively approved two generic versions of AIDS drugs manufactured in India. Allowing purchase of the cheaper, generic drugs will stretch dollars further and help more people.

In contrast, the Global Fund takes a global approach - the best way to fight a world epidemic that devastates economies and has already left 15 million orphans in its wake.

Chanting protesters aside, the United States deserves credit for stepping up AIDS funding in recent years. But it could do more to partner with the world in fighting AIDS.

Congress should fund President Bush's proposal to spend $1.2 billion over five years fighting malaria in Africa. It should be new money, and it should be directed to the Global Fund, the largest and best-organized player in fighting malaria.

"In the overwhelming majority of cases, the victims are less than 5 years old - their lives ended by nothing more than a mosquito bite," Bush said in a recent speech.

In sub-Saharan Africa, malaria kills an estimated 3,000 people each day. Preventing sickness and death from this ancient illness isn't complicated - it requires buying common-sense items like mosquito nets and preventative medicines - but it takes bucks.

The president's other Africa disease-fighting initiative, against AIDS, has been mired in controversy over advocacy of abstinence versus use of condoms.

Malaria isn't controversial. It's not transmitted via sex. It's transmitted by an insect. Increasing U.S. dollars to fight it could help save the lives of Africa's children.