So after months of preparation and work, we’re finally at the close of the UN High Level Meeting on HIV/AIDS. Was it worth it? What did we get? What did we learn? And where do we go from here?
Let’s start with the process. “Dazed and confused” best captures our attempts to fathom the torturous negotiations around the political declaration. The lack of transparency resulted from the fact that the UN instituted a completely new process for this meeting jettisoning the standard procedures that we all understood and that provided a pretty clear read on individual nation’s positions on various issues. The new approach featured a convoluted co-chair process that cloaked individual nation’s intentions and created new drafts without governments really negotiating the tough issues together.
NGOs were extremely frustrated with the co-chairs and did not feel they were receptive to civil society views. The whole affair felt like a rush to consensus by avoiding the real issues- a perception that only fueled further discontent. Governments friendly to our issues such as EU and Canada felt the co-chairs were openly hostile to them for continuing to request changes in the document. The President of the General Assembly intervened and became intricately involved in the document drafting after pressure from civil society.
The Rumor Mill is hearing that Scott Evertz, former AIDS Czar for the Bush Administration, was forced to cancel all pending media interviews as a result of interference and intimidation from government officials. We understand government officials contacted his place of employment and urged that he stop speaking out. As we reported earlier this week, Mr. Evertz was speaking out against the current efforts by the U.S. delegation at the UN, stating the Bush administration has reached out to Islamic governments, including those it considers terrorist states, to promote a new declaration supporting abstinence and fidelity as important tools in preventing the spread of HIV. As we have reported all week, it appears the US has successfully used this alliance to block more inclusive language being promoted by Latin American nations and India, and public health advocates that were included in these meetings as Civil Society Organizations.
Throughout the past three days, youth members of civil society have traveled a rollercoaster of emotional and political turbulence, as moments of exasperation and elation, gratitude and outrage flowed throughout continued civil society meetings. Following on the high hopes that many carried in from the youth summit, the present (and likely final) version of the declaration, though it includes positive language on youth—thanks in large part to the demands and pressure of youth advocacy—remains a disappointingly watered down document. Youth and civil society at large have expressed a variety of grievances towards the meeting, ranging from the impotency of institutional process through to the lack of access for civil society to actual negotiations.
The first official speech of the UN General Assembly meeting today on HIV/AIDS was made by King Mswati III of Swaziland, the nation with the world's highest rate of HIV. Not sure if his prominent placement was to underscore the importance of being married (he has 13 wives), or women's rights (women compete bare-breasted to be chosen as his wife) or to promote abstinence-only (they must be virgins) or the need for women's economic empowerment (being chosen is the ticket to the good life), but it certainly is worth noting.
The final political declaration of the United Nations, to be endorsed today by a unusally large assembly of global governmental officials and diplomats, improved on its commitment to women and girls and young people generally compared to earlier drafts. That's the good news.
How that language gets implemented is hard to imagine given that the UN fails to set specific targets for the 2001 Declaration of Commitment. The equally vulnerable populations who failed to get specific mentions in the document (men who have sex with men, sex workers, prisoners, and intravenous drug users) remain officially invisble to governments of the world. Thus, the lessons from 25 years of AIDS are largely being ignored by the global community. That, quite obviously, is the bad news.
Letters of the alphabet are increasingly becoming used as more than just letters but as words, abbreviations, acronyms and HIV prevention strategies amongst other things.
As the 2006 High-Level Meeting for HIV/AIDS unfolds, I continue to witness the dramatic effect HIV/AIDS has on people and not just on a personal level but also internationally. The first two days of this meeting started with a Youth Summit getting together 60 young people from at least 28 countries to discuss the progress towards reaching the commitments relevant to other young people in the 2001 Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS, to identify actions to be taken by governments and other stakeholders to address youth needs, to establish advocacy movements for change in our home countries and to train us on effective lobbying.
When AIDS first became public 25 years ago, angry, vocal and visible protest from outside the halls of power was necessary to focus political leadership on the pandemic and potential for human tragedy. Today, the tragedy is no longer potential, but fact.
It is fitting then, that at the United Nations last night, the UNAIDS "Evening of Remembrance and Hope" was interupted by protesters chanting and walking out. Through [img_assist|nid=243|title=|desc=|link=none|align=left|width=100|height=65]speech and song, film and photo, 25 years of the disease was traced, 25 million souls remembered. At the conclusion of remarks by Noreen Kaleeba, an African activist, in which she "invited the spirits of those we loved and lost to AIDS" to come into the room in silent remembrance, protestors shouted demands for specific targets, more treatment, human rights for women and girls and harm reduction for vulnerable populations.
What's the fuss all about? Do the words in the political declaration the UN is negotiating to review its commitment to fight AIDS make any difference? Why do people fight over these specific words: human rights, global targets, treatment, women and girls, vulnerable populations, harm reduction? It is hard to imagine that people will ever know the words that are so passionately parsed, carefully nuanced and artfully arranged to hide political agendas.
A panel discussion was hosted today by the Center for Health & Gender Equity and other NGOs that focused on US sexual and reproductive health policies as they affect HIV/AIDS work abroad. Rolake Odetoyinbo from Nigeria, Beatrice Were from Uganda, Meena Seeshu from India, Gabriela Liete from Brazil, and Rev. Johannes Petrus Heath from Namibia all had nearly the same message to share: that despite the benefits that have come from PEPFAR and other work of the Bush Administration, moralistic policies are making their work difficult.
Hoy es un día particularmente interesante, encontré a mis delegados de sociedad civil quienes me orientaron mucho mejor en las reuniones, además me hablaron de la posibilidad de conversar con la Ministra de Salud de mi querido Perú quien a su vez es la representante política nacional para la reunión de revisión que ya es mañana, mientras tanto entre a uno de los paneles que se estaba dando, a estas Alturas querrás saber que son los paneles, bueno, los paneles, son mesas con invitados que discuten sobre algún tema en particular y que cuya sistematización se supone influye en la declaración de compromisos.
