Discussion Forum

How Best to Combat the Spread of AIDS/HIV in Africa – Condoms or Abstinence?

A piece of correspondence with Mr. David, a student at the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada and an exchange student at the French University in Lille, France.

(David and Jake are students of the University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. They worked as volunteers at Africa We Care in the Spring and Summer of 2004. They are presently exchange students at the university in Lille, France. David wrote me this email from France.)

From: David
Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2004 7:48 AM
To: Chukwuemeka
Subject: Can I get your opinions?

My friend,

A couple of weeks ago, Jake and I attended a lecture presented by the head of an African Christian charity in Botswana. He had some interesting ideas which left me with much to think about. First of all on the subject of AIDS, he suggests that the path that South Africa is taking in combating the disease is flawed and will ultimately fail. The path I am referring to (and I may be wrong) is to advocate condom use, and encourage retroviral drugs. He said that the use of condoms is ineffective (I believe he said 75% success rate against AIDS, the virus being smaller than latex pores, and condoms being prone to break) and particularly ineffective when used by uneducated people. His conclusion is that condoms encourage riskier behavior, because people believe they can "condomize and stay free" (an actual South African ad campaign). He then criticized retroviral drugs, because they extend the lives of sexually active people and enhance the risk of spreading the disease. As you can imagine, he encourages only abstinence and monogamy as the only effective ways of treating AIDS. To highlight this idea, he points to the case of Uganda, which has been advertising abstinence and is apparently the only country in Africa where AIDS transmission is in regression.

Another, more controversial idea he forwards is on African governance. There is where I disagree with him. He states that when African states were granted independence in the 1960's, civil wars broke out across the continent. He stated that different tribes or nations fought for power, and once the system stabilized the idea of democratic elections seemed ridiculous. He suggests that if a party or an individual fought for power and succeeded, there would be no interest to freely give up what they had fought for by means of a democratic election. Personally, I find this reasoning terribly flawed and almost racist, as if to say that Africans, suffering from the curses of primitive "tribalism" are incapable of democratic governance. The man who gave this presentation, despite being of European, has lived in Africa his entire life. I suppose I should give him the benefit of that doubt because he surely he understands Africans, their culture, their beliefs and their manner of thinking better than I, but I would nevertheless like your opinions on this.

I was visiting your website yesterday and I read the article you had written on debt relief, Why Nothing Changes. In the article you give the metaphor of a parent cutting up his adolescent son's credit cards. Please allow me to critic. I don't have a problem with your reasoning – it makes perfect sense – but unfortunately, I don 't know how probable it is. I recently read that in the 1960's in the Congo, the Americans lent the Mobutu government something like 2 billion dollars to construct power lines from Kinshasa to the diamond and gold mines in the south. So these power lines were built, despite having a cheaper energy source in the south through hydroelectricity, and despite the Congolese government having no way to maintain them. This was all known well in advance, but the real purpose of the loan was not built power lines, but to permanently indebt the Congo and put the country into a crippling position of dependency, allowing the United States and the West unlimited access to the country's natural resources. This idea comes from the Dependency Theory of Economic Development, a Marxist approach to third world development which states that there are certain Western implements (such as a foreign debt and the IMF) which are used to keep the third world in a position of dependency. I agree with this view to a certain extent, and I view the relationship between the West and Africa as more exploitive than paternalistic relationship you suggest with the cutting up of credit cards. If one considers this theory, there would be no reason for the west to relieve African debt, and especially to "cut up the credit cards", because this would inherently reduce the dependent relationship between the rich and the poor. Anyways, these are some issues that I have been thinking about lately, and I would greatly appreciate your opinions on these matters. Sincerely, with all my love and support,

Your friend David

(Below is my opinion as was sought by my dear friend, David.)

From: Chukwuemeka Obiajunwa
Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 2:27 PM
To: 'David'
Subject: RE: Can I get your opinions?

My dearest friend, David:

Thank you very immensely for your email, and for the opportunity to discuss these issues that are very dear to me. I agree with the "African Christian charity man" totally. I believe that the best AIDS/HIV prevention is abstinence. I know that the Africans are not monogamous by nature. African governments ought to legislate matrimonial relationship to make men stay with their wives, whether they marry one wife or ten wives. In Canada, bigamy and adultery are criminal offences. No African country has any law tying a man to his wife or wives; rather their laws encourage African men to run wild, wide and around promiscuously abusing, assaulting, and raping with impunity any woman along their path and way. And because it is a man's world in Africa, women are helpless victims not protected by any laws. Condoms engender false security, and promote promiscuity. The campaign for condom use is immoral because it provides and legitimizes the occasion to sin which is evil and offensive to God. I subscribe to abstinence all the way, and to faithful relationship between men and their wives as the only sure prevention for AIDS/HIV. I do not know very much about retroviral drugs for AIDS/HIV. But I do very much concur with the man in his reasoning. Moreover, you David would know my stance on putting people on life support. I don't believe in it. If all that retroviral drugs is doing is prolonging the inevitable, why jeopardize the lives of other people by so doing? (2 for 2 for the man!)

The architects, purveyors, perpetuators, and perpetrators of Apartheid in South Africa and Rhodesia (modern Zimbabwe and Zambia) were born and bred in Africa. Your "African Christian charity man" may have "lived in Africa his entire life", that does not immunize him from being a "racist" counterfeit white African. The man's explanation as to why African leaders tend to perpetuate themselves in power is more of a condescending notion, and does smack on racist bias. If you had read the book by Dr. George B.N. Ayittey, Africa in Chaos, as I had recommended to you, you would solidly have understood why African rulers / leaders as malevolent despots like to rule for life. If you remember and bring this topic up when we meet in December for our dinner, we will have a lively discussion. And I am sure you and Marie-Elaine will learn a lot on African system of government before the advent of the barbarians (the Europeans). Believe me, before the Europeans set foot on the African soil, the system of government in Africa, even though not uniform in all parts of Africa (some were monarchical, like the Yorubas and Binis of Nigeria, the Ashantis of Ghana; others were republican, like the Igbos of Nigeria) true democratic rule did flourish in Africa.

On the Theory of Economic Dependency which I am quite familiar with, I do not dispute it. But my metaphor on the issue of debt relief stands very relevant in my assertion. In fact there are many examples of the case for the theory as you cited. Nevertheless, nothing but selfishness and greed on the part of the African leaders make them to embark on all their "white elephant" projects. I will bet you that more than half of the 2 billion dollars the Americans gave for the construction of the power lines in Congo went into the Swiss bank accounts of Mobutu Sese Seko. It is nothing but personal self interest on the part of the "vampire leaders of Africa" as Dr. Ayittey calls them that allow for the Dependency Theory to persist and flourish in Africa. It takes two to tango. The Vampires could take the money and channel it to where, and as to how it would do the most good to its people. Or they could say no to the dependency and white elephant projects, and make the powers (cold war powers) compete for their allegiance. Japan and China never allowed the Dependency Theory hold ground or sway in their realms, not because the Americans of this world did not try, but because the rulers of Japan and China, even though despots they were, were benevolent despots who had the best interest of their people at heart.

My dear David, I am looking forward to seeing you in December. We are going to have a very lovely meeting.

Your friend who loves you dearly,

Chukwuemeka.