The Religious Consultation
|
|
The Economist (UK), August 20, 2005 AIDS, aid and
prostitution; A challenge to America's anti-AIDS
policy SINCE it was announced in 2003, PEPFAR, America's $15-billion aid package to help fight AIDS abroad, has stirred up a storm over its socially conservative stance on such issues as sexual abstinence and condoms. The latest controversy is over commercial sex work, as prostitution is delicately known in the AIDS-prevention community. DKT International, a social-marketing organisation that supplies condoms and other family-planning goods in the developing world, has sued USAID, America's foreign assistance agency, for requiring it to sign an "anti-prostitution pledge" in order to receive funds. DKT regards this restriction as not only detrimental to the global fight against the disease, but also a violation of its constitutional right to free speech. According to the congressional legislation that covers PEPFAR, government funds may not be spent on activities that promote or advocate the legalisation or practice of prostitution and sex trafficking. Nor may this money be used to assist any group or organisation that does not have an explicit policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. DKT says it lost $60,000-worth of funding for a condom project in Vietnam, with the prospect of larger funding losses to follow, when its local representative refused to accept the latter requirement. Phil Harvey, the head of DKT, argues that the government's policy undermines the battle against AIDS by forcing groups to condemn the very people they seek to help—commercial sex workers at high risk of catching the disease. This is hardly the basis of a trusting, effective partnership to prevent the spread of AIDS. Moreover, the policy does not clearly define what it means by prostitution. Does it include, for example, so-called "transactional sex", when women exchange favours for food or clothing and which is a fact of life in many developing countries? Nor does it make clear what "opposing prostitution" means in practice for a group receiving American government money. "No one pretends that such a policy will contain or ameliorate the darker aspects of the world's oldest profession," says Mr Harvey. "Rather it represents posturing by American politicians who are increasingly seen around the world as patronising, bullying and obsessed with sex." This is not the first time that sex has put American foreign-development aid in a twist. In another controversial piece of legislation, the "Global Gag Rule" as its critics call it, government money cannot be given to foreign non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning, even if the money they are using to do so comes from other sources. (America has long banned the direct funding of abortion services abroad.) But the Gag Rule does not apply to American NGOs because it was deemed a violation of the right to free speech. The requirements for anti-prostitution policies in the current AIDS legislation are being applied to both foreign and American groups, however, after a letter from the Department of Justice late last year said that "there are reasonable arguments to support their constitutionality". DKT and others, including lawyers at the Brennan Centre for Justice at New York University's School of Law, disagree. Hence DKT's case against the government for a violation of its First Amendment rights. Jodi Jacobson, the head of the Centre for Health and Gender Equity, an American advocacy group, worries that if DKT loses its case, then conservatives in the government might have another go at trying to apply the Gag Rule to domestic groups. Things should be a little clearer in a month or so, when Mr Harvey expects a court decision on DKT's application for a preliminary injunction against USAID. This injunction, if granted, would prevent the agency from applying its anti-prostitution policy until the full case is heard, which could take more than eight months. Mr Harvey, who has a long history of challenging government on free speech and other issues, with several wins to his credit, says he will stay with the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Many of those working in international public health and sexual rights hope that he can add this one to his list of victories. << The Economist -- 8/20/05 >>
|