The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria has become a focal point of this conference. In an attempt to drive home the point that money committed to the Fund by developed countries has to date been an embarrassment, activists have attacked the European Union, American, Spanish and Canadian government conference exhibitions.

In a Tuesday evening satellite, “Financing HIV/AIDS,” the chair, Stephen Lewis, noted that only US$2.1 billion has been pledged to the Fund, with only US$300 million of that actually received. In remarks he delivered earlier in the day, Dr Richard Feachem, executive director of the Fund, called this amount “nothing like enough.”

Speaking at the satellite, Jeffrey Sachs, Columbia University economist, called upon states to “fully commit the money that has been identified as required – US$10 billion per year for HIV/AIDS and US$3 billion per year for TB and malaria. Sachs argued that the “money is available and that the Fund represents our last best hope in the fight against AIDS.”

Earlier on Tuesday, Tommy Thompson, the US Secretary of Health and Human Services, was savagely booed and berated in his attempt to outline the position of the Bush administration. Again, the charge was led by activists who were joined in their “shaming” of the US by most of the audience in attendance.

According to Sachs, Thompson may actually have been surprised by the loud reaction to his attempted speech because, based on Sachs own discussions with administration officials, the position of the Bush government is based on confusion about the numbers. In part, this is because the US has no HIV/AIDS strategy.

In order to break out of its fog, Sachs said, the US government must “develop for the first time a comprehensive and serious HIV/AIDS plan of action, including a plan to fight the epidemic internationally through an adequate commitment to the Global Fund, development aid and debt relief.”

The members of the satellite were equally forthright in their comments about the international monetary system and its detrimental impact on the capacity of developing states to deal with AIDS. Kevin Watkins of Oxfam argued that additional aid and debt relief are not the same things, with debt relief liberating more national revenue for the provision of treatment and prevention efforts.

In response to concerns expressed by Joy Phumaphi, the Minister of Health of Botswana, about the vicious circle in which heavily indebted developing countries find themselves, Sachs encouraged such states to consider sending a postcard to the World Bank and International Monetary Fund advising them that payments would henceforth be made to fight AIDS and not to service their debt.

It is Sachs’s view that international financial institutions would be hard pressed not to back down if such funds were transparently used to address the health crisis.

The next 90 days are of critical importance for the Global Fund and for the countries and communities that it is intended to assist. Feachum has promised that by 2 October 2002, the Global Fund will have laid out a global plan of action for HIV/AIDS. UNAIDS and WHO have been asked to do the same.

In addition, the second round of proposals to the Fund was launched on 2 July 2002. Sachs noted that during this round it is important that much more money be committed to the Fund by developed countries, particularly the G8, and that “lots of comprehensive and carefully drafted proposals be submitted.” Indeed, Sachs has offered his assistance to proposal drafters in the next 90 day period and provided his email address for this purpose: sachs@columbia.edu.

While the assistance of independent experts in this process is laudable, as was noted at the satellite, it is completely inappropriate for donor states to attempt, as they apparently did in respect of the first round of proposals, to pressure recipient states in the design of their submissions.

Hopefully, all of these efforts will be undertaken on the basis of a human rights approach and with the participation and guidance of people living with HIV/AIDS and of groups that have been particularly affected by the disease both globally and in the particular countries in which funding proposals are made.

Civil society must continue to be active in pressuring donor states to contribute to the Global Fund, in ensuring that the Fund uses its resources responsibly and designs a plan of action that respects human rights and gives voice to persons living with HIV/AIDS and affected groups, and in ensuring that lots and lots of good proposals are submitted.

AIDS 2002 Conference News produced by Health & Development Networks/Key Correspondent Team