Story Link

How America demonised a disease
By RAY CASSIN
Sunday 7 May 2000

Do you remember when communists lurked under our beds? No, I can't remember finding any either. But those of us who are old enough certainly remember the Cold War metaphor of reds under the beds, with its combination of political and sexual menace. The phrase itself was only ever uttered by people intent on parodying the rhetoric of cold warriors, but it vividly conveyed the sense of threat that was part of the political atmosphere of those times.

I do not wish to be misunderstood. I am not arguing that communism was not an oppressive system, or that it never posed a threat to democratic politics. But it is curious how the sense of threat - or, perversely, perhaps, a desire to feel threatened - lingers in Western countries, even though the source of the threat has self-destructed. It is not that politicians are running around making McCarthyist accusations about covert communist influence in various organisations and institutions. Some politicians and their advisers, however, are making accusations every bit as lurid, and every bit as ill-founded, as those associated with Joe McCarthy, and they are making them about new sources of threat that they seem almost relieved to have discovered. It is as though they had been waiting for some other danger to insinuate its way under our beds, now that the metaphorical red rapists have been vanquished.

Last week, the United States National Intelligence Council, a body that co-ordinates the work of the various US intelligence agencies, published a report on the global spread of AIDS. With the help of alarming World Health Organisation statistics and an over-schematised analysis of "75 factors that tend to destablise governments", the spooks who compiled this report managed to come up with the conclusion that AIDS is a security threat.

We have now come full circle. Instead of feared political beliefs being described metaphorically as virulent, we now have a real viral disease being spoken of as though it had a capacity for political action.

Again, I do not wish to be misunderstood. One cannot doubt that the AIDS epidemic, especially in Africa, requires an urgent response. The WHO statistics cited in the report estimate that in sub-Saharan Africa there are about 5000 new HIV infections a day, and that deaths from AIDS are expected to result in 40 million children being orphaned, the doubling of child mortality and the trebling of infant mortality. A quarter of the population of southern Africa is likely to die from AIDS, and the number of AIDS-caused deaths is predicted to keep increasing for a decade before there is much chance of improvement.

An epidemic on this scale is bound to cause enormous strain on the social fabric, especially in countries where poverty is widespread, civil authority is weak and health services are rudimentary. It is conceivable that the spread of the disease could result in the kind of social breakdown that the Black Death wreaked in the Middle Ages; and it is because some African countries face this prospect that the National Intelligence report, fearing "humanitarian emergencies and military conflicts to which the US needs to respond", speaks of AIDS as a security threat.

The humanitarian emergency already exists, of course; the Clinton administration has commendably doubled to $434 million the amount it is asking Congress to allocate to tackling the global spread of AIDS, and the United Nations estimates that much more will be needed - $3.4 billion for preventive measures in Africa alone, and as much again for treatment.

But none of this makes the notion of a disease as a security threat any less bizarre or disturbing. Some may see it as a useful way of galvanising public opinion. Do we, however, expect that, as a result of this kind of rhetoric, the US and other Western governments really will find the $6.8 billion the UN says is needed to combat AIDS in Africa? It is entirely appropriate to argue for concerted action against AIDS by governments, but the National Intelligence report is doing more than that. It has militarised the terms of debate about health policy, and its doing so, I suspect, says less about Africa's problems than about American political anxieties.

I suspect, too, that those anxieties are only accidentally connected with attitudes towards sexuality. HIV, which is transmitted in the vital fluids of blood and semen, does indeed offer the rich metaphorical combination of political and sexual menace once posed by the reds under the beds. But most interesting is why this empire that has lost its enemy seems compelled to find a new one?

Those who lead the modern American empire, like those who led the ancient Roman one, seem to vacillate between a recognition that imperial status imposes global responsibilities on those who have it, and the knowledge that imperial status rests on superior force that may one day be challenged. The price of empire is that you are always looking for the challenge.

Ray Cassin is a staff writer.

------------------------------------------end

Comment:
In the FutureShock post below, changing views of world are canvassed. This article presents a view, a perception. It helps if you have had a previous life. Mine is Euro-centric, so this article strikes a bit of a cord...

Regards from Down Under

-- Pieter (zaadz@icisp.net.au), May 07, 2000

Answers

Dear Pieter

I actually remember the days when the names of the local members of the Communist Party were published in the newspaper.

I think the social stigma of "sexually" transmitted AIDS is far worse. I realise that Tasmania is far behind most of oz as far as homosexuality laws go but I would question how the 'average' Australian' or "American" feels about this subject.

From my own experience, most people tend to squirm when the topic arizes. For some reason, male homosexuality seems to make most peple more uncomfortable than female homosexuality.

The fact that AIDS is so prevalent in Africa is fuel to the fire. People, like my Mother, still believe that anyone that doesn't have a 'white'skin is inferior, and 'after all, what else could you expect from 'jungle bunnies?' She still manages to ignore the fact that we have homosexual and bisexual family members.

As to the amount of funds that governments are allocating to fight this epedemic...it is ludicrous.

I have cancer and even that has negative conatations in the community.....AIDS is much worse. After all, as far as the community is concerned you don't chose to have cance but you do chosse to have AIDS.

I think I might go and hug a tree......

-- Kerry Maszkowski (masz@southcom.com.au), May 09, 2000.