Canada's pledge erroneously quoted in U.S. dollars
UNITED NATIONS - The billions of dollars in "new money" the United Nations is seeking to fight HIV/AIDS remained a distant goal yesterday at the conclusion of the world body's first international conference on the disease.
The three-day event saw announcements of millions -- not billions -- of dollars in spending on AIDS. Some of those making pledges were vague about whether the money was intended for the global health fund, announced with great fanfare by Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, in April.
Maria Minna, Canada's Minister of International Cooperation and head of the Canadian delegation at the conference, called a news conference to announce how she would spend money already budgeted to fight the disease internationally.
She outlined AIDS prevention and treatment projects costing $73-million, which turned out to be in Canadian dollars. This enabled Ottawa to look good when some major news outlets reported it had donated US$73-million in "new" money to the fight.
The journalists had assumed a politician would not talk about past commitments at an international conference that was supposed to be looking forward.
They had also been mistaken in thinking the figure on the news release was U.S. dollars. After all, the Minister made the announcement in the United States at an institution that deals only in that currency. The difference is about $40-million in Canada's favour.
During the news conference, Ms. Minna and the Canadian delegation emphasized the amount was part of the $270-million she said the Canadian government committed last fall for combatting HIV/AIDS globally between 2000 and 2005.
Yesterday, Mr. Annan said he was pleased by the initial response to his proposal for the fund, and hoped it would be up and running by the end of the year.
As of the end of the session, pledges to the fund stood at just more than US$700-million, well off the US$7-billion to US$10-billion Mr. Annan is seeking.
Most of the biggest donors have already been heard from, with US$200-million apiece pledged by the United States and Britain. A congressional committee yesterday proposed boosting the U.S. contribution to US$750-million, but must pass numerous hurdles before the money can be approved.
As the conference unfolded, UN accountants were writing a cheque for US$67,650 to pay for red window film used to create the impression of a giant AIDS red ribbon on the side of the 38-storey headquarters building at night.
Ms. Minna said continued discussion on the structuring of the fund was one reason Canada had yet to pledge any money. Another reason is that Jean Chrétien, the Prime Minister, wants to announce the contribution at the Group of Eight summit, scheduled for July 20-22 in Genoa, Italy. Mr. Annan is hoping for a flood of donations from the gathering.
One reason countries are hesitant to pour money into the fund is the lack of detail about how it will be run. Mr. Annan said yesterday he expects much more wrangling for control of the fund than over allocating the money he hoped the UN would raise.
Rich countries, which are expected to provide at least two-thirds of the money, are eager that management be kept out of the hands of the UN, which some see as a bureaucratic black hole.
Developing countries, where most of the fund will be spent, want the UN to have some say in running it. The UN General Assembly is one of the few international institutions where they can overrule the developed world through sheer numbers. They particularly want to keep the fund away from the World Bank, whose technocrats, they say, are Western controlled.
The UN, which has never managed a single fund bigger than the US$3.3-billion gathered from Iraqi oil sales, is talking about a middle road.
"The emerging consensus is that these funds should be governed by a partnership of both donor and recipient countries and foundations," said Louise Frechette, the Canadian who is the UN's Deputy Secretary-General.
"There should be some way of associating to the fund the full range of stakeholders in this."
She added: "It would not be a United Nations fund. It would not be linked to a decision of the General Assembly, nor would it be a World Bank fund linked to its own governing body. It would be a stand-alone fund with its own governing institution. It would have some mechanism to draw on the best expertise around the world."
UN agencies that specialize in one area, such as UNICEF or the World Health Organization, would play an important role in providing expert advice.
Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, who led the U.S. delegation to the conference, believes the UN goal of having the fund running by the new year is achievable.
U.S. backing is spurred by Washington's view the spread of HIV/AIDS poses an international security threat. Worldwide, 36 million people have HIV/AIDS. In some countries -- especially in sub-Saharan Africa -- it could wipe out a generation of wage earners, which could lead to economic collapse and wars over resources.
Part of the problem for politicians is that the number of HIV/AIDS conferences exceeds their budgetary capacity.
At an international HIV/AIDS conference in Toronto last June, Ms. Minna launched her plan to spend $120-million in 2000-2003.
Two months after attending the 13th International AIDS Conference in Durban, South Africa, in July, she rolled the $120-million into the five-year $270-million plan.
Mr. Annan's launching of the UN global health fund, with the call that funds should not be diverted from existing programs, meant Canada either had to step up its HIV/AIDS spending or say no to the UN.
Finding new money "is a matter of working through our budgets, and we will arrive at a total [for the global fund]," said Ms. Minna. "I think the Prime Minister would want to get involved with that one." (30)