Prostitution and American Foreign Policy

My wife almost had to douse me in cold water after I listened to a report on Sudbury CBC radio about the Americans putting stipulations on their AIDS programme. I was already a little sceptical about the intentions of the US government after the details emerged following George Bush’s first state of the union address. In it, he promised some ten billion dollars in aid to fight HIV / AIDS in foreign countries, especially in Africa.

The day after the speech it was announced that the spending would be over six years, and not unlike our last spate of federal pre-election promises, most of the spending was back-loaded where it can be conveniently dropped or scaled back. Still, I thought, it was a proper thing that the richest nation in the world should step up and help fight this serious health problem.

In the CBC interview it turned out that the US has added a few stipulations to its AIDS funding. If a country has legalized prostitution, they do not qualify for funding to fight the disease. And if there is a policy to give free condoms to prostitutes, the program does not qualify. It seems that prostitution is immoral and any country that legalizes it is also immoral.

Disregarding the fact that prostitutes who are monitored for their health pass along fewer sexually transmitted diseases and that such systems are likely one of the better ways to fights AIDS, the oldest profession goes against the thinking of the religious right in the US. There can be no argument if the US wants to have their own set of moral laws, but when they now want to set the moral standards for other countries, they go too far. If they wish to remain in the dark ages in their thinking about decriminalizing marijuana, the death penalty, same-sex marriage, abortion and evolution, so be it. But to judge the health needs of others by their moral standards of their country smacks of shoddy imperialism.

For the past sixty years the US has used its economic power to subvert the governments of many countries, often in their fight against communism. They are continuing their same foreign policy in the name of democracy. Reports that they funded the uprising in Georgia to the tune of billions of dollars hardly raised an eyebrow on the world stage. That there is some advantage to gaining a hold over Georgian oil exports through the newly installed democratic government had no bearing on the whole exercise. That they are continuing this fight for democracy in the various other former Soviet States will come as no surprise to Putin.

But Brazil is a democracy and yet the US is not satisfied. Now they want to dictate that country’s morals. You see, Brazil has legalized prostitution and when they were told to either change their democratic laws or not get help fighting AIDS, the Brazilians told the US to take a hike. Bully for them. Unfortunately, many of the poorer African nations cannot take this stance and will do whatever they must to get the promised health aid.

Just what is new American foreign policy? One can hardly argue against their desire for world-wide democracy but what is behind this morality push by the US? Are we all to fall into line with their religious thinking? Drop the same-sex marriage or we’ll keep the beef embargo and softwood lumber tariffs until you do? After all, if they will use a disease like AIDS to push their moral agenda in Brazil, where will they stop?

I used to think that the average American was unaware of the darker dealings of their government in overthrowing or suborning governments and the propping up dictators for their own idea of global stability, but now I am not so sure. It may be a minority that is driving the agenda, but they are obviously very much in control. If American citizens outside of Washington or Langley are supporting the stipulations on the AIDS programme, their stock value has just plummeted on my books. Hopefully, and sadly, they probably are just as unaware of what their politicos are doing as we are.

Chrétien’s (Canada’s) AIDS programme, although smaller in monetary value, was designed to help the African victims of the disease. Our focus was on helping people cope with their health problems, to slow and control the spread of the disease. The Bush (American) plan seems to be about changing the political and social mores of a country first and then to look after the people.

We have no expectation of changing anything only helping. If somebody manages to say a thank you, that is a bonus. I suppose this is just another little thing that makes Canadians different from Americans.