The New York Times article

My buddy Adam sent this over to me and I do believe it points out many important aspects about the manner in which we are treating our development abroad. The article highlights various ethical problems with the manner we tend to impose our cultural values, while neglecting to think that our way is not the ideal for cultures that are different than our own. Cultural hegemony is not the way to go. Furthermore, Kristof makes various references to the idea of stigma and the way social hierarchy works in the third world. The problem with AID work is that it isn't making the right changes, those that are culturally sensitive. Rather, we impose what we see as best when the receivers don't have the energy or the courage to argue against this. One of the better examples that he makes is the one made about nursing mothers with AIDS that are offered Nevirapine to block the transmission of the virus to the child. The author mentions that a couple hundred feet down the road, all of the medicines will be discarded in the ditch, due to the stigma that accompanies taking the drug in the first place. Everyone would of course assume that you have HIV/ AIDS and you don't want that stigma- you already have to live with the disease.

So the appropriate measures are taken in certain circumstances, but in many cases, the international agenda has taken development entirely the wrong way. This is perpetuated in the media. Another example that was brought to my attention in a recent lecture is that there been so much attention given to treatment of HIV/AIDS, but the evangelist movement of the Bush administration abroad has really inhibited the efforts to prevent transmission in the first place. In countries such as Botswana, there was major progress being made where with the ABC program which promoted
1. abstinence
2. faithfulness
3. condom use

This was all fine until the UNAIDS definition was compromised by that of PEPFAR which promotes:
1. Abstinence for youth, including the delay of sexual debut and abstinence until marriage
2. Being tested for HIV and being faithful in marriage and monogamous relationships
3. Correct and consistent use of condoms for those who practice high-risk behaviors.
from www.avert.org/abc-hiv.htm

There are many obstacles in uniting the differences between both of these definitions. The one problem is that you can't stop youth from having sex. Also, there are some areas where the Western definition of faithfulness in marriage is not the same one that is relevant on the ground. Furthermore, we are forgetting that sex trade is often a last resort to getting economic benefits. I went to a conference once where one panelist talked about SEX 4 FISH, a witty spin-off of the OIL 4 FOOD program, but one that made the point all the same. He was describing an the situation around Lake Victoria, one of the biggest fresh water lakes in the world. The fishermen leave their wives and their villages to go fishing. The women stay in coastal towns and pawn off the fish that they receive from the fish. With current educational possibilities at times limited because of economic difficiencies, there are many younger people that pick up the trade. This causes much competition for selling the fish in the towns for the best price. In short, this causes the women to trade sexual favors for fish to sell. In an area where there is much movement and migration, this causes HIV/ AIDS infection to spread a lot more rampant. This is only one story that shows how our idea of truth as a condensed process does not lead to accurate changes in policy. In fact, the problem are so intrinsically complicated that the idea of truth as a semi-monolithic concept is just not enough.

And this is where alternative sources of information come in. We MUST be weary of information given. Otherwise, there will be no change.