Our hot chocolate prevents AIDS

Buku restaurant and 4 the World partnered on December 1, 2012 World AIDS Day at Raleigh Winterfest to bring HIV awareness to the local community as well as the international community.  Winterfest patrons indulged in a cup of rich Belgium hot chocolate or steaming Mexican pozole knowing that $1 of every purchase would help HIV prevention in Central America.

Buku’s generosity supports 4 the World’s AIDS campaign in Belize and Guatemala.  Researchers have made a lot of progress in the treatment of this disease and HIV is not the killer it once was.  Treatment, however, is expensive costing $3,000 a month and is often inaccessible to marginalized populations.  4 the World believes that empowering young people through education is the first step in creating an AIDS free generation.  Prevention, rather than treatment, is always our hope.  Executive Director, Robert Froom stated, “This awareness campaign will be different because it will really inform people about AIDS/HIV facts, especially needed in the small villages without power.”

The theme for World AIDS Day 2012 is “I am my brother’s/sister’s keeper.”  Buku and 4 the World’s partnership embodied this spirit of togetherness in the fight against AIDS.

Zero Deaths NOT Zero Funding – Millions of Lives in the Balance

This year’s World AIDS Day is about “Getting to Zero”  by 2015 – Zero AIDS Related Deaths, Zero New Infections and Zero Discrimination. This will not happen and millions of people will die unnecessarily unless more governments do the right thing and live up to the financial pledges they have made.

2011 saw unprecedented progress in science, political leadership and results in the AIDS response, but that now looks to be ripped apart as a major financial crisis hits the sector.

This year’s global AIDS Report demonstrates that treatment scale-up is beginning to deliver results, both in averting AIDS-related deaths (an estimated 2.5 million since 1995) and in halting  new infections (at their lowest levels since 1997).

World AIDS Campaign Chair, Allyson Leacock said: “Just when we should be increasing our  efforts to achieve universal access to treatment, we are tearing apart the progress made and  losing momentum in the HIV response.”

Her comments came as the Global Fund to fight against AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria announced its intention to scrap the next funding round in face of a ten billion dollar shortfall. While transitional finance is expected to provide for the continuation of services currently  financed, this decision postpones any possibility of new funding until 2014.

“Round 11 funds would have enabled scale-up of lifesaving treatment and prevention services for HIV, TB and malaria to millions of people in developing countries,” Ecumenical Advocacy Alliance Executive Director Peter Prove said. “People currently dying for lack of access to treatment and prevention have been betrayed – just when the science is showing that the end of AIDS is within our grasp.”

But rather than building on the new evidence that AIDS treatment saves lives and prevents new infections, and scaling up treatment programs to try to end this epidemic, many donor governments are now seemingly turning their backs on millions of the world’s poorest and most marginalized people.

The International Treatment Preparedness Coalition says funding for HIV had already begun to flat line at the end of the last decade. Last year the Global Fund failed to raise the minimum $13 billion that was needed to maintain its current programmes. And of the overall $20 billion target, it raised roughly one-half, with $11.5 billion secured in pledges. In a challenging year the Global Fund also faced mixed publicity as it unearthed some misuse of funds by recipients in a small number of countries.

The reduced funding capacity indicates a worrying slow-down in international commitment to the global AIDS response. Several donors have since reneged on their pledges or delayed in converting their pledges to cash.

The AIDS epidemic is far from over, but with a sustained commitment to comprehensive treatment, prevention and care services, it is still possible in our lifetime to create an AIDS-Free Generation.

We call on world leaders to live up to their promises and find the funds so “Getting to Zero” is more than a slogan.

 

For more information please contact:

World AIDS Campaign International World AIDS Campaign

38 Hout Street 20

Cape Town, South Africa 1013

Source: http://www.worldaidscampaign.org

Cooperatives

Cooperatives are an old concept but a new issue. Issue not in the form of a problem but in the form of a solution.  That’s right. I said it.  SOLUTION!  As the economy presents challenges to many, cooperatives offer a solution.  Cooperatives (coops) are a group of people working together for a common mission.  It can be a business model or a social structure.

As the U.S. saw a dramatic dip in demand for artisan work and a heightened demand for mass-produced cheaper goods with the industrial revolution in the 1800’s, so the developing world is experiencing a shift now.  The local basket weaver in Rwanda cannot make a basket as cheaply as the factory that now operates in her same village.  The solution? Either find a new trade or find a new market.  But without access to education and the global market, change seems out-of-reach.

This is where a cooperative comes in.  If 25 talented basket weavers join together, they can reach the American market, which has consumers desiring the originality of handmade goods as opposed to the inexpensiveness of mass-produced goods.  Joined together, the weavers can share the cost of a website or etsy.com account and keep up supply for the international market.

Cooperatives also offer social assistance to people struggling.  The Sankofa Center in Ghana provides food and shelter for HIV victims.  To keep the nonprofit sustainable, the HIV victims create products that can be sold in the Sankofa Boutique website.  Director Ronnie Shaw states, “All products are skillfully made using fair trade practices by our HIV/AIDS community cooperative in Ghana with pride for its purpose.”

As the economy of the U.S. shifted from artisans and trades to standardization and mass-production, people experienced a higher standard of living, though not without trade-offs.  We again are experiencing a shift from industrialization into the human capital arenas of the economy.  I believe we will again experience a higher quality of life, but not without some trade-offs.  One trade-off is that workers need a higher education than high school.  While scholarships and financial aid can offset the price of tuition, other costs associated with higher learning, such as room and board, can be overwhelming.  Cooperatives offer a solution.  Cooperative Housing is a house where people share the responsibilities of cleaning, cooking, and maintenance in order to offset the price of those things.  Cooperatives also provide social and academic support through the group of people working toward the same goal: a college degree.  Purdue University, close to where I grew up, hosts a number of successful coops and offers the pictured chart comparison.

Another trade-off we now see from mass-production is the use of toxic chemicals in our food.  Organic producers are popular, but many consumers find the option too expensive.  Food Cooperatives offer a solution for this as well.  These cooperatives offer produce and dairy from locally grown sources for a cheaper price as members of the group work together to collect and store the food.  The Produce Box in North Carolina even offers delivery to your front door, which saves members time and gas.

Coops aren’t new, but could they be the new solution?  A mixture of what was right in different forms of economic structures?  The U.N. is celebrating cooperatives by declaring 2012 the Year of the Cooperative.  “The International Year of Cooperatives is intended to raise public awareness of the invaluable contributions of cooperative enterprises to poverty reduction, employment generation and social integration,”  as described at http://social.un.org/coopsyear/.  Only time will tell.

The Controversy of International Adoption

Celebrities do it.  My friends do it.  I am even doing it.  So, what is the controversy with international adoption?  

On a sociological and economical level, children are the future of a country.  Human resource is a resource.  Human capital is capital.  If a country is losing their children to another country, then the country is losing the gifts and talents inherent in those children.  Culturally, we pass on our values and beliefs through our family structure and our heritage is part of our identity.  People who are raised in another country will possibly miss out on learning about their ethnic heritage.

And tragically, babies have been stolen and then taken to adoption agencies where the thief acting as mother receives compensation for her “medical needs.”  A rotten apple spoils the bunch and a bit of tragedy can ruin international adoption policy between nations.

Even though I hope to adopt, I realize that if a mother is forced to adoption because of poverty, this is a problem.  (If a mother chooses adoption though completely empowered to care for the child, that is a different story.)  I am passionate about education of the underprivileged on an international level. Through girls’ education and empowerment, we can not only decrease the poverty level but also decrease the number of children categorized as orphans, meaning parents will live longer and be more financially able. The best solution to a problem is a solution that stops the root of the problem.

Instead of hitting the root, poverty, some countries have dissolved international adoption programs. Foster programs have been implemented with government support, which could be good.  But when taken to an extreme, the results are the opposite of the intended.  In order to promote fostering and “solve” the problem of institutionalization, an African nation actually put international adoption on hold and outlawed orphanages.  This, however, created more street kids who did not have a home and were then not allowed to stay in nonprofit group homes or be adopted by American families.

Why did multicultural or international adoption begin?  Some cultures have a mindset of helping one’s family but not people outside of their own bloodline.  This means that adoption is not part of their social paradigm.  Furthermore, some countries were hit hard by HIV/AIDS or natural disaster and did not have an infrastructure to care for the sudden number of orphans within their borders.  Because there are more Americans that wish to adopt than American infants to adopt, the average wait time for a domestic infant adoption is 2 years, international became a means of adoption for the hopeful parents and orphaned children.

Whenever I bring up adoption, the response has been, “It’s a shame adoption is so costly and so difficult.  They should make it easier for people to adopt.”  Yes and no.  While there are for-profit agencies that are exploiting Americans, most agencies are nonprofits.  More importantly, the 3 home visits, 4 background checks and 567 question psychological test are to protect the child from abusers.  There are policies regarding adoption that can be improved, but there are also policies that were created for good reason.

Fencing Girls In

Cultural norms fence girls inside the private sphere, keeping them out of the public sphere of the market and school. Females have been considered beneath males in every culture.  Many cultures see this as positive, as protectiveness, and as a way to honor a woman.  However, this sheltering can prevent girls from getting an education and becoming empowered to make decisions for their own lives.

One deterrent to girls attending school is the distance between home and school. The further the distance, the more vulnerable the girl is, as opposed to a boy, to abduction or rape.  In some cases, the risk is real.  Some instances the perception of vulnerability has caused cultural traditions of females being escorted by males when in public, and a girl would bring dishonor to her family by walking alone.  Without transportation or an escort, the female children are forced to stay home while the male children walk to school.

More importantly, within the doorway of school, girls are sexually abused and this atrocious behavior continues to higher education. According to UNICEF’s Girls, HIV/AIDS, and Education, “In an educational setting in Ecuador, 22 percent of adolescent girls reported being sexually abused at school” (n.d. pg. 10). Rape in secondary schools by fellow students and teachers is a horrible problem in South Africa (UNICEF, n.d.). In certain Latin American law, rape if followed by marriage negates punishment. Rape is not the only cause of young brides in developing countries, but is a cause that victimizes young scholars who would choose to delay marriage in order to go to school. Many researchers see sexual harassment and assault at the secondary level as one cause of girls not attaining higher education.  This safety issue creates a barrier to girls even when they are able to physically attend.

Another barrier to girls education is traditional gender roles.  Male or female roles are very specific in many developing countries with girls taking care of the responsibilities within the home, such as child and elderly care. The traditional role of females in the home leads to many girls speaking the mother-tongue language only, not the language of instruction that their brothers learn at the market. In countries where AIDS is prevalent, the girl in the family must forfeit school to care for the infected or orphaned. Also, teenage pregnancy causes girls to drop-out of school to care for their child while the father continues his education.

Fencing girls inside the private sphere may be done with good intentions, but the effect is more boys getting an education than girls around the world.  This creates gender inequality and the social ramifications of such.