Reading Response #2

There is no question that AIDS/HIV is a global epidemic with serious implications. In her article, Hunter identifies several reasons why the rate of infection in Africa and Asia is expected to increase despite relatively cheap preventative measures. I will discuss two if these reasons in detail.

The first reason that Hunter gives for the expected increase is that the governments of African and Eurasian countries are in denial about their situations or are suppressing information on purpose. She says that the reasons for this are that the countries do not want to lose money from tourism or foreign investment revenues. Few companies would be eager to invest in places with high infection rates, where they would incur high costs in health insurance and lose money due to fluctuating productivity from sickly workers. Tourism is increasing in Africa and Asia, and those governments fear that if tourists fear they may be infected during their visits, then they will stop coming. This is especially true in some Asian countries where the sex trade is a big draw for tourists who are looking for experiences that they can’t have in their home countries. If the tourists think that the infection rates are low, then they will be more likely to frequent these countries. In some of these countries, tourism makes up a significant part of their GDPs. It is unlikely for governments in these countries to be truthful about the infection rates, if it could so adversely affect their economies. De Waal adds though, that while this denial may be profitable in the short term, the costs to these countries in the long term could be great.

The second reason that Hunter mentions for the expected increase is that little is being done to prevent the spread of the disease. There are multiple reasons why, even though we know that AIDS is a problem, preventing the spread of the disease is occurring so slowly. Hunter explains that prevention requires a huge “investment of time, money, and commitment by individuals, communities, businesses, and governments.” This has been difficult to obtain in poor countries, some of which have cultural barriers preventing their actions. To change this requires education for the masses, especially for populations that are illiterate or are isolated. Distributing information or condoms to people is even more difficult in countries with weak infrastructure. Also, developed countries have to take a greater interest in helping poorer countries afford better testing supplies and medications for treating the infected.

The spread of AIDS is related to what Friedman calls the flattening of the world. Globalization has provided a more level playing field for the individual. People have greater ability to affect the global market now. This could be great if it leads to greater awareness and action in combating this problem. Greater ability to communicate could be especially beneficial to women, who in many Asian and African countries, because of cultural reasons, are at the mercy of their husbands and remain ignorant to protection methods or means. However, the rise of infection rates is probably due in part to globalization. For example, in Hunter’s article she discusses how poverty and infection rates are closely related. One of the side effects of globalization is the rapid urban migration of many people and the increased need for a mobile workforce. These people travel to urban economic centers seeking opportunities and a way out of poverty which globalization has provided. According to Hunter, migrant workers show the highest rate of infection in the beginning stages of epidemics in many countries because of their lifestyle.

The most critical correlation between globalization and AIDS is the increasing interdependence between countries. The global economy is more closely knit that ever before now in history, as proved by the Asian and Latin American financial crises. If any one country suffers, then many suffer because we all have a stake in each other now. China has greatly financed the Iraq War by purchasing bonds; they have a stake in the US winning the war on terror. The growing AIDS epidemic could have serious repercussions for the world economy if as many people are stricken with the disease as some scientists project. This is especially important to watch in Asian countries where many world goods are produced. If there were a sudden shortage of healthy workers, then the world economy would feel the strain.

The potential impact of the epidemic on the economies and governments of afflicted countries could be staggering. Hunter predicts that the epidemic will affect and alter the economic potential and by extension the military power of the region’s major states and will also change the relationship that states have with the rest of the world, on top of being a catastrophic humanitarian crisis. I also think that this prediction will be especially true in African countries, some of which are already poor and unstable. In Africa, reduction in military power could spell disaster in places that are points of conflict already. AIDS could change the balance of power in a war.

De Waal agrees with Hunter that the impact of AIDS, particularly in Africa, will be severe if the effort to prevent it is not increased. He says that the scenario is that “AIDS-impacted populations, economies, and governments, simply failing to progress and being caught for the foreseeable future in a structural impasse, in which development is simply impossible.” I think that De Waal is correct in predicting this scenario. If a government does not have enough healthy people, they will not be able to function. Basically there will be too many people dying and everyone else will be taking care of them. The prediction may seem a little dramatic but I don’t think that it is unrealistic.