By Phillip Bailey
Dr. Pedro Chequer, director of Brazil’s National HIV/AIDS program, would not be regarded highly in red-state America. In the Brazilian AIDS program, called Fio da Alma, “We view prostitutes as partners in this effort, partners who are efficient and competent,” Chequer said. I can feel the Bible belt tightening, but the question is, what is the more realistic way to combat HIV/AIDS? That’s the dividing question that has resulted in a clash between Brazilian and U.S. policymakers over AIDS funding. For years, Fio da Alma has dispatched government workers into the heaviest red-light districts to distribute more than 1 million condoms and raise awareness among the people who are, logically, most vulnerable to sexually transmitted diseases — prostitutes. Brazil has been praised by international health organizations for its practical approach to AIDS prevention. Dr. Helene Gayle, president of the International AIDS Society, said Brazil’s model is leading the global community. Original estimates were that at least 1.2 million Brazilians would be HIV-positive by 2002. Because of prevention programs like Fio da Alma, experts’ estimations fell short by almost fifty percent. The conflict with the U.S. stems from ideological stipulations from Washington, that Brazil condemn prostitution or risk losing U.S. funding. This “global gag” is part of the Bush Administration’s larger anti-abortion, pro-abstinence agenda. Under Bush & Co., even foreign agencies that have nothing to do with commercial sex workers have to codify their opposition to prostitution. That contradicts Brazilian tactics, which utilize cooperation, not condemnation, through a policy based more on practicality than religious or ideological dogma. As a result, Brazil has rightfully spurned the Bush administration by rejecting $40 million in U.S. funds, which partly financed Fio da Alma in the past, becoming the first country to refuse AIDS funding from the U.S. “We must remain faithful to the established principles of the scientific method and not allow theological beliefs and dogma to interfere,” Chequer said. “Biblical principles [are] their guide, not science.” That still doesn’t sway social conservatives in Washington who argue that sex trafficking and the practice of prostitution are based on female exploitation. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) acknowledges Brazilian sovereignty and its right to refuse U.S. funding, but insists that the U.S. must maintain a position against prostitution. “We’re talking about promotion of prostitution, which the majority of both the House and Senate believe is harmful to women.” Brazilian AIDS workers counter they do not support illegal sex trafficking or exploitation, and their work reflects this. “With what we do, we are definitely not encouraging the sexual exploitation of women and girls,” said Ivanilda Lima, 64, a former prostitute and director of Fio da Alma. “We just want women who are already on the streets to be able to protect their health.” With the loss of U.S. bursary, Chequer says the Brazilian government will increase spending itself and continue its collaboration with legal sex workers. Brazilian policy will not bow to a stubborn effort to impose a parochial religious viewpoint into a paramount AIDS program. Using dogma to trump pragmatic science is “generating carnage,” Chequer said. “It’s not a realistic vision, and the epidemic is going to grow larger and larger.”
PHILLIP BAILEY is a senior pursuing a double major in Political Science and Sociology, and a columnist for The Louisville Cardinal. Contact him at:opinion@louisvillecardinal.com
