FAO Quotables

"But being right, even morally right, isn't everything. It is also important to be competent, to be consistent, and to be knowledgeable. It's important for your soldiers and diplomats to speak the language of the people you want to influence. It's important to understand the ethnic and tribal divisions of the place you hope to assist."
-Anne Applebaum

Friday, August 25, 2017

Ambassador Yamate, Paul Revere, Albert Meyer and AFRICOM walk into a bar

Following is a speech that I wrote for the US Ambassador to give at the closing ceremony of the AFRICA ENDEAVOR Senior Leader Communications Symposium the year that Madagascar hosted it.  The week long event brought together senior communications generals from across Africa with the goal of building communications/signals interoperability. The US Army Signals officers from AFRICOM geeked out over the short speech which highlight a few instances of early signals innovation.  

I didn't realize it when I first arrived in Madagascar, but an important facet of security cooperation work overseas is speech writing.  A supportive Ambassador can be a powerful force multiplier for any security cooperation program.  In Madagascar, I was fortunate to serve under a superb ambassador who always made himself available to speak at training and cooperative events.  His presence meant that we'd always have a large media contingent covering the event.  In Madagascar, that meant the event and subsequent interviews would be carried on the widely watched local news program in the evening.  A large part of security cooperation is managing and shaping public perception of long-term strategic goals--media coverage is a vital part of this.  The Ambassador's presence meant that I'd often need to prepare remarks for him to deliver.  Ideally, writing speeches for someone gets easier the longer you know the person as you are able to better intuit their voice. This was the case with my Ambassador--by the end of my tour there, the edits required became very minimal.  






















His Excellency the President of the Republic of Madagascar
The Honorable Minister of National Defense
Distinguished government and military members from more than 40 countries and international organizations,
Ladies and gentlemen,

It is a privilege to speak before such an accomplished group of officers from more than 40 countries and international organizations.  We gather here to honor and acknowledge the hard work that each of you, the Africa Endeavor communications experts, has put in these past five days. 
The importance of military communications is deeply ingrained in the history of the United States, dating back to the American Revolutionary War and our independence.  In 1775, it was the American patriot Paul Revere, who took his famous horseback ride from Boston to Lexington – warning his countrymen that “the British are coming.” 
A week earlier, Paul Revere played a pivotal Signals role in alerting the colonial militia of approaching British soldiers.  Revere had arranged for lanterns to be hung in the bell-tower of Christ Church in Boston, and these lanterns would indicate if the British troops were coming by land or by sea – two lanterns if by sea, one lantern if by land.  Ultimately, the British ended up crossing the Charles River, two lanterns were hung in the bell-tower, and the local militia was alerted to the enemies’ arrival by sea.  The subsequent battles of Lexington and Concord signaled the start of the American Revolutionary War on April 19, 1775. 
After this auspicious start, however, there were hardly any Signals or Communications innovations until the American Civil War, nearly 100 years later.  This innovation was driven by technological advances in weaponry during the Civil War that revealed a need to quickly command and control units over long distances. 
Out of necessity, an Army doctor named Albert Meyer created the first Signals system that used a series of flags for daytime signals and torches for nighttime signals to direct movements of troops on the battle field.  Before Dr. Meyer’s system, commanders relied on horseback couriers to pass messages to other units in the field.  Dr. Meyer’s new and innovative signaling system allowed for a commander to call for reinforcements and receive a near instantaneous response.
I share with you the story of these two innovators because that is the role that all of you play today.  The battlefield has fundamentally changed in the last twenty years – even more so in the past ten years.  What we face today are often transnational or asymmetric challenges that exist in cyber space, in famines and floods, in insurgencies, in terrorist attacks, and in post-conflict peacekeeping missions. 
The United States cannot meet these challenges alone; Madagascar cannot meet these challenges alone, no country can do it alone.  However, we can – and we must – meet these challenges together.  This 8th Africa Endeavor symposium is important because you had the opportunity to share your own experiences and best practices.  You had the opportunity to work together and create standard operating signals procedures – so that when we face these challenges together, we are speaking the same “language.” 
While this morning in the closing ceremony, the work of the AFRICA ENDEAVOR symposium must not end.  In order to continue our standardization efforts, each of you will take your newfound knowledge home and share it with your defense leadership and the soldiers under you.  And I encourage each of you to continue to invest in the personal relationships formed here and leverage those to continue your military’s C4I development. 
I’d like to conclude by thanking the government of Madagascar for doing such a phenomenal job in hosting the symposium.  Madagascar, and each of you as representatives of your respective countries, understands the importance of investing in the capabilities of a right-sized military force. 
Madagascar, and each of you as representatives of your respective countries, understands the importance of your fundamental role as impartial guardians of democracy, and as protectors of the fundamental human rights of the all its people – to include women, children, and the most vulnerable.  
To all of you here, my congratulations on a job well done.  Thank you.

Wednesday, May 3, 2017

Weekly Reading: Give Tax Credits, Not Abortions, Maps, Burglars, Brown Rice and the best hitter on the best pilot

Williams called Glenn the best pilot he ever saw.  Enough said there.

NPR's Best Books of 2016

I love me some good book recommendations.  And NPR's sorting mechanism is great to drill down on their recommendations.

Why the $160 Suit Makes Sense (Men's Journal)
At only $160 it's worth a shot checking out Combatant Gentlemen.

We Asked 86 Burglars How They Broke Into Homes
Terrifying, essential reading.  Key quote:  "All of the inmates who responded said they would knock on the front door before breaking in."

An Earlier FUUO Post on Updike's 6 Rules of Literary Criticism
Literary criticism is hard to do well--heck, it's hard to do period.  Reading Updike's rules confirms just how difficult the process is.

Library of Congress Putting Its Map Collection on the Map
I love old maps.  The back section of the weekend flea market in Eastern Market DC has some great old maps that are worth the trip to peruse.  This article notes that the LOC is going to be putting three major collections online here.

How to Cook Perfect Brown Rice
This advocates for a method where you boil and cooked like pasta.  Willing to give it a shot.  But isn't white rice now the new brown rice?  Who knows these days.

Want to Reduce Abortion Rates, Give Parents Money
I am pro (spectrum of) life.  That means I believe that a unborn baby's value is not diminished by their development, size, or level of dependence.  It also means, though, that I value the life of the mother and the child post-birth (it also means I am for gun control and against capital punishment).  This article describes one way to demonstrate that ALL life is valued.

Friday, April 28, 2017

Poem of the Week (Somalia): Fatwo (The Decree)

Poet of the Week from Somalia: Abdirashid Omar: A brave poet of the week from Somalia!

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE LINK FOR THE FULL ARTICLE. MY HAT'S OFF TO THIS BRAVE YOUNG MAN!

Abdirashid Omar, 28, is in hiding after writing a poem criticizing the Somali Islamist group al-Shabab, which controls much of southern Somalia and is fighting interim government forces for control of Mogadishu.

Somalia: 20 years of anarchy

Omar breaks it down in "Fatwo":


Some of Fatwo (The Decree) Translated:
Somalia's consuming plague; The inferno that did ensue; And the guns that burn and blaze; For sport, and the sake of fun; The carnage that devoured and ruined; Facing down in a pensive stoop; I brood, pensive in thought.
Slumped, in a distant droop; Seized by sobs of grief; Lodged in my core and self; In a feat so shocking in deed; A butcher that Lucifer unleashed; The envoy of wicked devil; Bequeathed Hamar a bath in blood
Scions of the Somali stock; Since the space of time; The tragedy that set its march; On Somalia it chose to perch; Wiping masses in a purging rout; Forcing them into frenzy flight; Flowing wild in a second decade
This fad of raging cults; First of note; al-Shabab; The felicity they oft flaunt; Just like the fumes of essence; That infest the nose and lungs; Then choke and fog the snout; They thrive on flimsy feuds; Conceived in blinding mental fog
Scions of the Somali stock; The fanatics of Shabab; Whatever good they flaunt; Via blasts and fear of bombs; Is blight, and ravaging plagues; A taboo, in The Text of Time; With no grounds in the Holy Book; So heed the word, and stay advised.


FUUO Past Poets of the Week:
http://fuuo.blogspot.com/2012/05/african-poets-of-week-compilation.html
Some of my favorite poetry books:

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Poet of the week from Cameroon: Mbella Sonne Dipoko

In celebration of Cameroon's Independence Day (20 May 1972) my poet of the week is Mbella Sonne Dipoko.  I have provided a slew of links that can give you more background on his very interesting and colorful life.  I think that the poem that I have featured below aptly captures the spirit of the man whose life spanned the breadth of the human experience: poet, writer, chieftain, mayor, rebel and thinker.

NOTE: When I feature these poems I am not cutting and pasting them from anywhere since most of them aren't readily available on the web.   Instead I am retyping (transcribing) them from a book of poetry.  Initially this was tedious, but I have found that I enjoy it now.  Typing out the words, the stanzas, the periods, the capital letters, the commas, illuminates the poet's intent and state of mind for me. 
*From what I can tell, Dipoko wrote this poem in English.  I intend to translate it into French at a later date.

A Poem of Villeneuve St. Georges
(for M-C)
I am tempted to think of you
Now that I have grown old
And date my sadness
To the madness of your love.

All those flowers you hung
On my gate
All those flowers the wind blew
On the snow!
Why must I remember them now
And recall you calling me
Like a screech-owl

While I watched you
Through the window-pane
And the moon was over the Seine
And Africa was far away
And you were calling
And then crying
In the snow of exile
And the neighbor’s dog barking as if bored
By the excesses of your tenderness?

When I came down for you
And opened the gate
Cursing the cold of your hand
You always went and stood
Under the poplars of the river Yerres
At the bottom of the garden
Silently watching its Seine-bound waters;
And the moon might take to the clouds
Casting a vast shadow
That sometimes seemed to reach our hearts.

And then following me upstairs
You stopped a while on the balcony
As high as which the vines of the garden grew
With those grapes which had survived
The end of the summer
You picked a few grapes
Which we ate
I remember their taste
Which was that of our kisses.

And then in the room
You in such a hurry to undress
And you always brought
A white and a black candle which you lit.
Their flames were the same colour
Of the fire glowing in the grate
And you were no longer white
You were brown
By the light of the fires of love
At midnight
Years ago.

Dipoko was born in 1936 at Mungo, Cameroon.  He left Cameroon for Paris in 1960 and lived there for about 25 years (I think); he died in Tiko, Cameroon in 2009 .  He published two novels: A Few Nights and Days and Because of Women.  He also published a book of his poetry entitled Black and White in Love.  From what I have been able to research, he was also a controversial figure in his service as a mayor in Cameroon (in Tiko) under the CPDM after previously denouncing authoritarianism.


http://www.dibussi.com/2006/06/mbella_sonne_di.html
http://www.joyceash.com/2009/12/mbella-sonne-dipoko-dies-at-73.html
http://www.palapalamagazine.com/2009/12/in-memoriam-mbella-sonne-dipoko.html
http://www.peuplesawa.com/fr/bnvip.php?prid=4085&wid=2
FUUO Happy Birthday Cameroon Post


Friday, March 24, 2017

Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo: a listing of THE Malagasy poet's works



The ridiculous thing is that you can't buy this book for less than $200 on Amazon--it's like no one wants you to read his poetry--a shame.



dadfadf


Jean-Joseph Rabearivelo
  • La coupe de cendres (1924)
  • Sylves (1927)
  • Volumes (1928)
  • Enfants d'Orphée (1931)
  • Presque-Songes (1934)
  • Traduit de la Nuit (1935)
  • Imaitsoanala (1935)
  • Chants pour Abéone (1936).

18° Latitude Sud and Capricorne.
Calepins Bleu (Blue Notebooks)
Anthologie de la nouvelle poesie negre et malgache




Poetry of the Indian Ocean




http://fuuo.blogspot.com/2014/03/comoros.poetry.anthology.fao.html

Saturday, February 18, 2017

AIDS in Africa: A Death Sentence for Whom?


Link to all my grad school notes and papers here.
An essay from my NS3321 US Foreign Policy in Africa class at NPS


In evaluating the design and execution of U.S. foreign policy in Africa with regard to HIV/AIDS, one must consider the United States’ own history that served as the initial motivating factor and which shaped (and continues to shape) the scope of our involvement.  HIV/AIDS erupted and ripped through the United States beginning in the 1980s.  With infections most vocally felt within the urban gay community, an HIV-positive diagnosis equaled a death sentence during the early years.  David France’s documentary “How to Survive a Plague” tells the story the herculean efforts by dedicated activists members of the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACTUP) and the Treatment Action Group (TAG) who waged a guerilla campaign of protests and stunts over a decade and a half that forced the U.S. government to acknowledge and address the problem.  The pharmaceutical industry was also a primary target and activists’ lobbying efforts forced the industry to innovate and streamline testing and development processes, as well as pricing.  These men and women (many of them HIV-positive and slowly dying themselves) were directly responsible for the 1996 antiretroviral therapy drugs (ARV) breakthrough that represented a turning point for the pandemic in the United States (Schneider, 7).
These lobbying efforts reaped incredible dividends for the United States—a developed nation with a modern health care system—curbing new HIV infections and enabling near universal treatment for those living with AIDS by the late 90’s.  For most nations in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), however, new infections continued to skyrocket and the majority of those living with HIV/AIDS were unable to get needed treatment.  Of the 33 million HIV infections globally, two-thirds are in SSA (Lyman, 74-5). What are the mechanisms and agencies responsible for U.S. HIV/AIDS policy?  What were the initial policies and goals?  How have these changed since their inception?  In this essay I argue that while morally well intentioned, the U.S. HIV/AIDS policy has been doomed from the start due to mirror-imaging and an ignorance of the reality on the ground in most Africa nations.  I begin by outlining the central actors and their initial policies and goals.  Then I analyze the effectiveness of the design of the myriad programs themselves.  Next, I evaluate the manner in which the U.S. has executed its programs and policies.  Finally, I address the local realities of most African states that stymie the prospect for fiscal independence.

The global effort to fight HIV/AIDS is a dizzying array of agencies, countries, individuals and organizations.  With regard to U.S. policy there are also a plethora of players but the thrust of the American international effort began with President George W. Bush’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) in 2003.  The year prior, the National Security Strategy (NSS) took into account new societal indicators from increasingly accurate and far-reaching data collection agencies and placed an increased emphasis on global health (especially infectious diseases) as a stabilizing factor for partner nations (CFR, 65).  In a marked departure from a U.S. policy that had previously focused on HIV/AIDS prevention since the early 1990’s, 1993’s bipartisan PEPFAR expanded the policy to focus on treatment through a bilateral approach (CFR, 65, 68).  Its immediate focus was to prevent further deaths; in 2004 2.3 million people in SSA died as a result of AIDS (CFR, 66).  Congress originally approved its design as a $15 billion five-year long program that would focus on 23 African states and 3 others outside the continent. PEPFAR’s stated goal was to deliver ARV treatment to two million people (this was 55% of its budget), prevent the infection of seven million more and provide orphan care for 10 million children (CFR, 64-5).  These treatment efforts were helped by former president Clinton’s foundation that negotiated with various pharmaceutical companies to garner agreements to produce generic ARV drugs.  These efforts drove down prices for first-line ARV drugs to just $86 per patient per year (Schneider, 10).  Since its beginning, PEPFAR has greatly expanded.  From 2005 to 2008, the U.S. spent $25 billion, an increase in keeping with a $6 billion increase of U.S. assistance to Africa between 2001 and 2009 (Lyman, 73).  By 2009, PEPFAR had provided treatment for half of the four million who received treatment that year—this still left, however, another six million unable to get any ARV treatment (Lyman, 74-5). 
Six year later, President Obama’s administration passed PEPFAR II which
authorized $48 billion to be spent from the fall of 2009 through the fall of 2014 (Schneider, 2014).  While this is a staggering sum, its efficacy has been stymied in part due to the allocation process, where decisions on its use and implementation are made not by healthcare professionals and scientists but by politicians (i.e., congressmen).  In concert with PEPFAR II, the president established the Global Health Initiative (GHI) that same year in an expansive attempt to tackle the problem of global health.  While PEPFAR falls under its umbrella, GHI’s official purpose is to build up foreign health-care infrastructures and systems so that nations are able to develop their own capacity to provide and care for their populace (Lyman, 77).   Central to this task is eliminating redundancies and ensuring a maximal return for U.S. effort and investment.  It aims to accomplish this through a “whole of government” approach that uses a principals committee composed of the USAID Administrator, the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator (who reports directly to the Secretary of State) and the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).  Through this triad, they further consolidate the efforts of NGOs, IGOs and the DoD.
The Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) was created as part of PEPFAR and is today headed by Ambassador Eric Goosby.  He oversees the implementation of PEPFAR and coordinates the U.S. government interaction with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.  This position also leads the newly created Office of Global Health Diplomacy that supports the goals of the GHI as well as coordination of diplomatic-health efforts at the country team level.
Outside of the direct purview of the U.S. government are two other key players in the effort against HIV/AIDS: the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund).  While neither of these are direct instruments of U.S. foreign policy, their funding and efforts are deeply enmeshed with Washington’s.  UNAIDS developed out of the World Health Organization and was created in 1996 to synchronize the global UN efforts against AIDS.  It also aggregates global HIV/AIDS data and assists developing states in implementing sound AIDS policy and strategies (Schneider, 7).   The Global Fund is an international organization launched in 2002 to independently and multilaterally finance the battle against the three aforementioned diseases (CFR, 63-4).   Originally setting out to close the gap in funding needed to effectively combat the three diseases, its function was never that of an implementer but rather a collector and distributer of funding received by states and private donors (Schneider, 8). In 2005, over half of its funding went to Africa and more than half of those funds were appropriated for HIV/AIDS (CFR, 72).  The Fund’s efforts and fundraising are complicated, though, by large principal donors such as the United States (who contributed $1.05 billion in 2010) who must balance its own contributions with its principle bilateral PEPFAR efforts.
The impetus and arc of American policy today largely stems from the 2005 G-8 Summit’s pledge to enable “as close as possible to universal access to treatment for all those who need it by 2010” (Lyman, 80-81).  While this promise by eight of the world’s wealthiest


countries was a morally laudable one, its design also reflected a clear ignorance on their part as to the realities on the ground in most developing states (especially in Africa).  Practically, this commitment meant funding a lifetime of treatments (typically three to four decades for the average 20 or 30 year old Africa AIDS patient).  Ultimately, this idea of universal access may be discarded as impractical with a greater proportion of a finite amount of funding dedicated to prevention (Lyman, 80-81). 
For wealthy nations like the U.S., there was a mirror-imaging assumption that simply pouring more money into SSA could solve the problem as it had done in the U.S.  This was further complicated by a lack of understanding of HIV/AIDS as a disease—this was due to both its recent emergence and to how relatively quickly it was slowed in the United States.  The reality on the ground in SSA was that Africa was not one country but 49 states with separate needs and problems.  In SSA, there were not 49 effective and modern national health care systems.   There were not 49 effective CDCs.  There were not 49 nations with modern transportation systems capable of connecting the country.  There were not 49 states with the medical staff needed to implement and treat millions of AIDS patients.  There were not 49 African presidents who all recognized the importance of preventing and treating HIV/AIDS.  There were not even 23 states (the initial PEPFAR focus) that possessed any of these prerequisites.   This oversight partially came from a lack of any corporate memory within the U.S. of what it takes to perform tasks such as building a national health care system or a CDC—or what its like to live in a state without them.  This same could be said for America’s initial misunderstanding of malaria treatment in Africa. Malaria was highly prevalent throughout the southern United States up until the first half of the 20th century.  American only eradicated malaria in 1949 because as a nation it had industrialized and possessed the government infrastructure necessary to implement a massive three-year DDT campaign through the South.  There are very few fully industrialized nations with similar modern infrastructures in SSA today.   
As expected with a morally admirable but structurally flawed design, the execution of U.S. HIV/AIDS policy in Africa has had its peaks and valleys.  A high point came in 2004, when the U.S., the UK and UNAIDS agreed to work with NGOs and donors to synthesize their efforts through “The Three Ones” policy: one common action framework, one National HIV/AIDS Coordinating Authority and one country-level monitoring and evaluation system (M&E) (CFR, 74).  While this policy and moment is much touted within the websites and documents of most health organizations, it has yet to materialize practically more than eight years later.  A large hurdle to it lies in the capacity of the countries themselves.  A country level M&E system means that there needs to be an effective national AIDS council which can act as a synchronizer for the myriad organizations and bodies within a state.  For many states in Africa this is still an un-scalable hurdle.  Furthermore, there is scant evidence of implementation for the other two principles.
Today there is a common lamentation that decries the deleterious effect of U.S. humanitarian assistance in Africa thus far as an expenditure that has provided little to no political leverage for its investment (Lyman, 75-7).  These critics largely miss the point of the nature of the U.S. commitment.  When poorly understood moral imperatives are intertwined into policy decisions, one cannot expect positive results (Lyman, 83). Disdain for the inability of the State Department to influence political change in Uganda, Zimbabwe and Ethiopia miss the mark from a logical standpoint.  The U.S. commitment to fighting HIV/AIDS in Africa did not begin as a political effort to promote western democratization.  How then can it be evaluated in the same vein?  Furthermore, these
critics ignore longtime U.S. support for other African dictators, such as those in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt.  The point is that one loses credibility when one cherry picks which countries “need” democratization.  Ultimately, those inside the Beltway need to be dissuaded of their assumptions that aid necessarily buys influence, especially aid dedicated to food and medical assistance (i.e., between 80% and 90% of U.S assistance in Africa) (Lyman, 76,83). 
Aside from this perceived lack of return on investment, as a public relations campaign PEPFAR has created a lasting tide of U.S. popularity in Africa (the elite-excepted).  The price of this popularity, however, is likely to be costly (Lyman, 81-82).  In the long-term, if the U.S. (even in concert with the G-8) was able to ensure universal treatment, the practical output of that achievement would mean a century-long fiscal commitment to fund the treatment (Lyman, 82).  Strategies to broaden the number of countries that support programs may certainly lighten the U.S. load but do little to correct a misguided arc.  Strategies and funding must instead focus on health infrastructure development (a central, if underfunded, GHI objective) and reducing redundancies of effort. This seems unlikely, though, with $51 of the $61 billion GHI budget going toward PEPFAR in 2010 (Lyman, 79).  The entire international community involvement must be invited and encouraged under the auspices of an international organization such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS (Lyman, 84).  A thoughtful and gradual departure from using HIV/AIDS assistance as a hopeful political tool could free valuable U.S. budget dollars to the Global Fund and other endeavors and help break the cycle of aid dependence so prevalent in most African states. 
A large detractor of much of the U.S. progress is that these stated financial aid commitments require a lasting fidelity and longevity over the course of numerous electoral and budgetary cycles—a monumental if not impossible task.  One example of this is President Obama’s pledge to honor the U.S. commitment to bring the number of those receiving ARV treatment in Africa up to four million by 2014.  Such a goal requires yearly increases in budget allocation—increases that weren’t met in 2011 (Lyman, 78).  Practically these inconsistencies damage progress made by organizations on the ground and have trickle down effects on those receiving treatment.  These patients sometimes share their medication with infected family members who are unable to enroll in underfunded local ARV treatment programs (Lyman 78-9).  While morally laudable, these patchwork strategies by infected local citizens only weaken the ARV treatment’s efficacy and put more people at risk for infection (Lyman, 79). 
In countries where U.S. policy has been successful, there have been two key contributing factors: leadership buy-in and government capacity (especially within its health care ministry).  The leadership buy-in needs to occur at both the U.S. Embassy level (i.e., from DOS/USAID down to the Ambassador) and within the country’s political leadership itself (CFR, 66-67).  In South Africa, the missing element for a number of years was the leadership buy-in. It wasn’t until Jacob Zuma took the reins that the government recognized the importance of taking decisive steps to combat new infections and to treat existing ones (Lyman, 79-80).  In most Africa states, however, the enthusiasm of its leaders cannot overcome dilapidated or non-existent health care systems.  These efforts are further hampered by personnel shortages in the health care system that are driven by shortfalls in both retention and recruitment (CFR, 70). 
Overall, the execution of American HIV/AIDS policy is becoming an increasingly precarious balancing act.  Each year an increasing portion of the PEPFAR budget is allocated towards treatment which means that less goes to combatting new infections (Lyman, 79)—this is a trend likely to only increase as lifetime patients develop immune resistance to first-line ARV drugs.  This problem is exacerbated by the inability of African states to pay for HIV/AIDS treatment within their borders. Despite the promises of the 2001 Abuja Declaration, the goal of  

15% of national budgets being dedicated to building capacity within the health sector remain a distant dream for nearly every SSA nation (Schneider, 8). 
From a practical perspective, the prospect of the average citizen in an Africa country being able to afford their own treatment in the foreseeable future is highly unlikely.  In 2011, the GDP Purchasing Power Parity per capita (PPP) of every state in Africa was less than $25,000 with more than 85% of countries coming in below $10,000.  This means that even a yearly treatment cost of $86 (the price in 2007 for the most common ARV combination) is well outside the average family budget (Schneider, 10).  Couple this poverty with a widespread economic disparity (i.e., GINI index rating for the few African states that have a rating) and the likelihood that most Africans living with AIDS will ever be able to afford their own treatment is nil. 
Even in a relatively wealthy country such as South Africa, 50% of its HIV/AIDS funding is externally sourced (Lyman, 79-80).  As countries like South Africa make steps broaden access to treatment, they are forced to cut or freeze funding for other health initiatives.  The commentary of a trio of South African bioethicists carries applicability beyond the borders of their nation:  “It would be medically, politically and morally—and probably—legally—unacceptable for expanded treatment of the HIV population to come at an unacceptable cost to patients who bear the burden of other chronic diseases and health conditions . . .” (Lyman, 80).   The call for universal access as a moral imperative is a slippery slope.  While few would make the emotional argument that a poor man in Senegal does not deserve access to the same second-line ARV as a wealthy one in Chicago—the follow-on reasoning then assumes the same should be said for cancer treatment and costly organ transplants, etc. (Schneider, 4).  Meanwhile, the overwhelming apportionment of humanitarian assistance toward HIV/AIDS the past decade amounts to wealthy states playing God as they decide which diseases and social conditions are the most important.
Today, HIV/AIDS certainly no longer carries a death sentence for those with access to and the means to pay for ARV treatment.  Without a vaccine or cure, however, much is still unknown about the long-term path and associated costs of the disease.  With no official U.S. policy (i.e., funding) focused on finding a cure or vaccine, that “no major viral epidemic [was ever] defeated without a vaccine” must serve as a stark warning for those trying to determine the future of U.S. fiscal support (Lyman, 84).  Even if a vaccine were to be discovered in the near future, the infrastructure does not exist in most Africa states (or the U.S.) to immunize hundreds of millions of adults (Schneider, 2).   In the meantime, with aging patients increasingly requiring second and third-line ARV treatment it is difficult to predict what the coming century will hold.   It is clear, however, that the U.S. must depart from a short-sighted policy that fails to focus on treating both the cause (i.e., prevention and poverty) and the cure (i.e., health care infrastructure).  If the United States does not devise a strategy by which it can withdraw from bilateral commitments that will become increasingly unaffordable in the future, AIDS may end up spelling a death sentence for the nation’s influence and prestige around the globe.