The bullet points below have been debated by U.N. member states.  Should the U.N.: 

• Support developing countries as they generate their own national strategic plans to combat HIV/AIDS;

• Assist communities and community groups in their responses to HIV/AIDS;

• Promote sustainable human development, especially in the areas of basic education, primary health care and gender equality?

According to Mark Malloch Brown, Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and Chairman of the Committee of Co-sponsoring Organizations of UNAIDS the following would be a possible plan of action to effectively combat the problem of HIV/AIDS in Africa.

First, support Africa’s frontline efforts to combat the disease. We can see that where promoting awareness leads to honest discussion leads to behavior change, that the momentum can be broken. But there is no substitute for the region’s own opinion makers, from statehouse to community media to town and village, leading that campaign.  Second, promote inter-country cooperation so that Uganda’s best practice is effectively transferred to countries doing less well. And best practice means a strong national plan and full community mobilization.  Third resources: the U.S., with 40,000 new cases annually, spends approximately $10 billion annually from all sources for prevention, care, treatment and research, whereas approximately $165 million is spent on HIV/AIDS related activities in Africa where there are 4 million new case a year. We must mobilize more.  Fourth, a coordinated response: between the committee of UNAIDS and co-sponsoring organizations – UNICEF, UNDP, UNFPA, UNESCO, WHO, the World Bank and UNDCP. Together the private sector and NGO's must do more at the country and global levels. We applaud the formation of the International Partnership Against HIV/AIDS in Africa which is a foot in the door to private-sector supported affordable care.  Fifth, UNICEF, WHO and the World Bank together with UNAIDS and a number of innovative foundations have begun to innovate new public-private partnerships that by guaranteeing a market for affordable vaccines will give incentives for drug company research and development. The African market for international pharmaceuticals now accounts for less than 1.5 per cent of the industry. This “pull” must be combined with the “push” to increase basic public health research spending.  Sixth, we cannot lapse into a global two-tier treatment regime: drugs for the rich; no hope for the poor. While the emphasis must be on prevention, we cannot ignore treatment – despite its costs. We must work with the co-operation of the pharmaceutical industry to bring down treatment costs.  Seventh, we cannot break this epidemic in isolation from the broader development context. Weak government, poor services and economic failure translate directly into failed vaccine and contaminated blood supply chains. More broadly it means the failure of schools, families, workplaces and economies to be able to meet the challenge. In this region where official development finance is drying up, own projection that our programme resources for Africa next year will be only a third of what they were five years ago.  Amidst the good news of more help for HIV/AIDS, progress on debt relief, and some improvement in private sector flows, the overwhelming fact is the region’s basic development needs are not being met. There is a money gap and a governance and capacity gap. Neither the finance nor the institutions and policies are adequately in place.

Humanitarian aid workers, educators, health workers and military and police forces that are well trained in HIV prevention and behavior change can be a tremendous force for prevention as long as it is made one of their priorities. And this can apply to their service within and outside their own countries, as well as, in the case of military personnel, when they return home for demobilization.

War fuels the epidemic. But undoubtedly, the epidemic itself is now, as the Secretary-General has already argued, causing social and economic crises, which in turn threaten political stability, particularly when set against a background of complex and fragile geo-political systems. Indeed, an important part of UNAIDS work is developing strategies for the control and mitigation of AIDS in countries in crisis.

But we are far from powerless against this epidemic. In countries where strong political leadership, openness about the issues, and broad, cross-cutting responses come together, the tide is turning and clear success is being demonstrated. In Uganda, the rate of new infections is falling: the infection rate among pregnant women in towns has fallen by more than half, from 37 per cent to around 15 per cent. In Senegal, HIV infections have been rolled back significantly as a result of massive information and prevention campaigns. We now know what works: two decades of experience have identified the essential elements of effective strategy:

• visibility and openness, and countering stigma;

• addressing core vulnerability through social policies;

• recognizing the synergy between prevention and care;

• targeting interventions to those most vulnerable;

• encouraging and supporting strong community participation in the response;

• focusing on young people.

Internationally too, the tide is turning. In June 1999 the international community responded to global AIDS epidemic by negotiating a new international development target. The United Nations General Assembly Special Session set a target for 2005 of reducing new infections by 25 per cent in 15-24 year olds in the worlds 25 most affected countries, 24 of which are in Africa.

Over the last year, many African leaders have spoken out in unprecedented ways, breaking the silence and the stigma of the epidemic. The challenge is formidable. In financial needs alone, we are a long way short of the mark. In 1997, the international community mobilized only $165 million for AIDS prevention for the most affected countries. In Los Angeles, that would buy less than twelve kilometers of four lane highway - less than the cost of a single jumbo jet. To sustain and expand the success stories of Uganda and Senegal, we need to mobilize between $1 and $3 billion a year. It is worth pondering how the international community successfully mobilized hundreds of billions of dollars over the last few years to minimize the impact of that 'other' virus Y2K. 

Over the last year, African governments, the UN, international donors, civil society and the private sector have come together to form a new international Partnership against AIDS in Africa. Last month, the Secretary-General tasked us to formulate a response commensurate with the epidemic.

The following are suggestions of Dr. Peter Piot, which he feels should be the priority of each constituency of the Partnership? 

From African Governments: the commitment to create the environment for effective action; to be aggressive in protecting and promoting human rights so that stigma can be reduced; to ensure that, through decentralization, local responses can flourish, with adequate financial and human resources to support them; commitment to increase their own investment and to ensure the productive investments of others. 

From the UN System, particularly the UNAIDS Co-sponsors, WHO, UNICEF, UNESCO, UNFPA, UNDP and UNDCP, and the World Bank: responding to the epidemic has already brought the UN together in unprecedented ways. But there is still much more to be done. We need to mobilize additional and reorient existing resources to respond to the epidemic; to demonstrate concerted action in support of governments and civil society, ensuring the technical and programmatic resources that governments required are. 

We need to continue to involve people living with HIV/AIDS in AIDS prevention programmes and in efforts reduce discrimination, to support efforts to reduce mother-to-child transmission, to develop and make available female-controlled prevention methods, to promote national business councils on HIV/AIDS as well as to increase involvement of the private sector to become the leading players in helping their stakeholders - customers, employees and the community - face the challenge of the epidemic. 

From donor governments: to take concerted action to work together at country level under nationally owned strategic plans; to mainstream AIDS in setting priorities, and to accept the challenge - following the example of our US colleagues - to urgently treble assistance for HIV/AIDS in Africa as a first step for more rational financing of the international response. 

From the private sector: to work in concert with governments to balance the difficult issues of intellectual property rights with the urgent need to develop and make available at affordable prices key life-saving commodities, to act immediately to strengthen work place and community outreach interventions, including an intensification of the efforts of organized labour in addressing the epidemic. From the NGO sector, including religious organizations: to carry on and intensify work at the front line of the epidemic, recognizing that to do so they need enabling systems to access financial and human resources at community level. 

Committee Directive

Is the problem of HIV/AIDS in need of the attention of the global community?

Many steps toward possible solutions have been presented (i.e. vaccinations, further R & D, increased funding and assistance, etc.); which are feasible?

Delegates should consider their nation's policy toward the problem, as well as the policy of other nations, in attempting to come to an amicable solution.  Many African nations have expressed discontent that little is being done to halt the progression of HIV/AIDS in comparison to the global effort that was given to Y2K.  Does an unstable Africa present a need for action by not only the Security Council, but also the global community?