This is a critical decision in that there are individuals and organizations who feel that increasing the funds alone would not lead to success in combating the epidemic. The critics argue that the government’s policies for combating the disease hinder substantial progress in efforts to reverse the trends. They claim that the policies focus so much on the abstinence programs which the government perceives as the best option. There has also been dissatisfactions among individuals and organizations which claim that rather than the US government joining other multilateral partners in fighting the epidemic, it should launch its own program.
Another school of thought says that the government is focusing too much on Africa while committing too little funds for its own population, and that this has led to a steady increase in the prevalence rates in the country. It is from such arguments that the critical decisions have to be made by the incoming regime on whether to increase funds to combat the AIDS epidemic in Africa. The US government has let the HIV AIDS in Africa become an issue by not together with the international community responding to the matter in time.
In addition to this, the budgetary allocation that the US and the international community give out to combat the African HIV AIDS crisis is very low, to be specific, 300 million dollars instead of the 3 billion dollars that were proposed by the United Nations’ agency for HIV AIDS, the UNAIDS. The UNAIDS in 2003 posited that the money was too minuscule to manage the HIV prevention programs. The decision to increase the funding to combat AIDS in Africa has become critical now because many people feel that the approach should be changed.
As noted by (Siplon, 2002), clear policies have to be put in place so as to address the issues surrounding the fight against the scourge. Progress in the campaign can only be realized if the policies are revised. By virtue of the US being the wealthiest nation in the world, it should lead the way in combating the epidemic by increasing the funding because the current budget is only a fraction of what it should be offering (http://apic. igc. org/resources/page. php? op=read&documentid=2632&type=6&issues=1). As stated earlier, the U. S government’s involvement in combating the epidemic started way back in the 1980s.
Despite this, too little progress has been made in reversing the trends. In some African countries, considerable progress has been achieved. These include countries like Uganda and Kenya, among others where the prevalence rates have been declining over time. The greatest success story is that of Uganda where the rates have gone down tremendously from about 15% in the early 1990s to about 5% in the year 2001. However, critics are quick to point out that the success of Uganda can not mainly be attributed to the U. S. funding, but rather to a comprehensive campaign by the government of Uganda.
The U. S. government’s policy concentrates mainly on abstinence which cannot be sufficient to combat the epidemic. The campaign by the government of Uganda included the ‘ABC’ of AIDS ( abstinence, being faithful to one partner and use of condoms). There are other cases where countries have recorded an increase in the prevalence rates. One such country is Botswana. As a result of this, it is important that the funds be coupled with comprehensive policies. For instance, clear policies should be put in place so as to outline clear plans that can be used to combat the scourge