Imperatives of reform

THE President has initiated a process of consultations with representatives of various sections of society on the proposed constitutional amendments, and signified his readiness to modify the package, to ensure that it reflects the widest acceptance among the people. Even as the process is under implementation, a certain polarization of views has manifested itself, with some of the major political parties targeting the perceived move to concentrate too much power in the president.

It is understandable that various segments of the population are focusing on those aspects of the constitutional package that affect them or their concepts. This is an exercise that has recurred far too often during our brief history as an independent country. We are also a country with a turbulent history, during which the greatest challenge to our survival and viability has been the hostility of our eastern neighbour.

Despite protestations to the contrary that have been made from time to time, the Hindu elite has never reconciled itself to the partition of the subcontinent. Mrs. Indira Gandhi availed herself of what she called the “opportunity of the century” to dismember Pakistan in 1971. The rhetoric that flowed out of India during the first fortnight after its nuclear tests in 1998 included suggestions for reuniting the subcontinent. Only Pakistan’s own tests ended that train of thought.

Today, we have to cope with a global and regional environment more daunting than any since our birth as an independent state. The events of September 11, 2001 have resulted in the focusing of attention on Islamic fundamentalism and extremism as the main source of the terrorist threat. India, which had been set to resume the Agra process in September, changed its strategy, expecting to capitalize on the pressure that was bound to come on Pakistan.

It was disappointed when Pakistan, under President Musharraf, joined the anti-terrorist coalition and became a frontline state in the anti-terrorist operations in Afghanistan. However, having earlier achieved some success in linking the Kashmiri freedom movement to some jihadi outfits, India has skilfully put Pakistan under pressure for sponsoring or supporting “cross-border terrorism”.

Since December 2001, we have been living with an unprecedented concentration of Indian forces along our borders, whose withdrawal is being linked to the end of “cross-border terrorism”. Despite their acknowledgement of Pakistan’s crucial role, and active support in the fight against Al Qaeda and their Taliban sponsors, the US and its allies appear to be supportive of India, and are backing its goals in Kashmir. Pakistan faces a major challenge to its security and survival, and needs internal cohesion and unity more than ever.

Our economy is also just beginning to improve again and there is need for the continuation of current strategies. Therefore those who are injecting political controversy bordering on upheaval into the constitutional debate should realize that this is not a time they can rock the boat that is already in turbulent waters politically and economically.

Coming to specifics in the realities behind the constitutional package, let us admit that the continuation of General Pervez Musharraf as the head of state, after the three year tenure given to the military regime by the Supreme Court finishes in October, is a necessity in the national interest. He has provided leadership of a high order, in facing difficult challenges, and launched a programme of reforms in the areas of the economy, governance, and accountability, that have shown results. One could say that the powers above have worked in his favour. The traumatic events of September 11 created a situation in which his decisions not only restored Pakistan to a position of influence in the world, but also benefited its economy.

We have foreign exchange reserves approaching $7 billion, and the international community has given high marks to Pakistan for the management of its economy. Our fiscal deficit is down, our balance of payments is positive, and our agriculture and industry are prospering. With the national debt under control, and foreign aid resuming, there are bright prospects for improving the life of the common man, and for reducing poverty.

The political component of the reforms introduced by the military government has concentrated on empowering the people through devolution. The system of district government, headed by elected nazimeen, had been expected to throw up a new leadership, that would feel greater loyalty to President Musharraf than to the traditional political parties, the largest of which were still loyal to Benazir Bhutto and Mian Nawaz Sharif. However, the hold of the largest parties has not been eroded seriously, and their vote bank has remained intact.

The constitutional package, and related reforms, have been seen as designed to limit or reduce the influence of the PML (N) and the PPP. The stipulation that nobody can have more than two terms as prime minister specifically excludes the two politicians, both abroad, who have enjoyed the distinction, though neither of them had two full terms. Such limitations do exist in many countries, though they are more often applicable to heads of state than heads of government. The two former political heads of government are also affected by the ban on holding of political office on those convicted of crimes, whether financial or other.

The requirement of graduation, though it has passed muster in the Supreme Court, still remains a subject of controversy. The basic fact is that this limits eligibility to only 1.3 per cent of the population, and has disqualified thousands of active politicians, some of whom are held in high regard. Some critics have recalled that there used to be a property qualification for voting in the British times, which was seen as undemocratic. As education up to the graduation level is also related to the economic status of families, this requirement merits a review, despite the stamp of approval by the Supreme Court.

Perhaps the greatest controversy has erupted over the proposal to create a National Security Council. The president, in his address to the nation on July 12, had pointed out that there appeared to be consensus on the restoration of the provisions of Article 58 2 (b), to create a balance between the president and the prime minister. He had pointed out that all he was proposing was that the decision to remove a sitting prime minister would be taken not by one man, but by the National Security Council, in which both the president and the prime minister would be present.

While this sounds reasonable enough, it must be admitted that the creation of the NSC does create legitimate concerns. The democratic concept of a civilian control of the state apparatus is compromised, and one is left with doubts whether the body with powers to remove cabinets and prime ministers would be only advisory, and would not become intrusive. In our set-up, its existence would reinforce the power of the president, who would have appointed most of its members. One would hope that this aspect of the constitutional package would be pondered over carefully before a final decision.

There are many aspects of the Constitutional package, over which there is hardly any controversy. The provision to lower the voting age to 18, and to increase the representation of women, as well as the total number of seats in the elected bodies have found general acceptance, as has the principle of proportional representation in some elections. However, the most critical issue before the public is that the impression that the president would have a predominant role and powers needs to be corrected.

President Musharraf has gained broad acceptance in the country as the leader we need under our challenging domestic and foreign situation. When he took over power, the estimate of popular support to the act was over 90 per cent. His agenda of reform, that focused on improving the economy, the governance, and accountability, and on strengthening the federation, also acquired credibility. Born into the family of a professional diplomat, he acquired negotiating skills even as he grew up, and then rose to the highest level in the army by sheer merit. Since circumstances propelled him to the top in 1999, he has displayed skills in identifying and tackling the real problems of the country, and earned popular recognition both for his performance, and his personal integrity.

Conscious of the pitfalls of dictatorial power, he has adopted the approach of seeking broad support to key decisions through a process of consultations with all segments of society. One recalls such consultations before he proceeded to Agra for the summit with Prime Minister Vajpayee last July, and those he held after the landmark decision to join the coalition against terrorism. The one major decision, on which he overlooked such consultations, was that to hold a referendum in April. Its conduct and outcome resulted in a controversy, but the president was frank in acknowledging the doubts about it, and has resumed the process of wide-ranging contacts before finalizing the package. This is welcome.

One last thought appears appropriate. President Musharraf has not only gained fairly wide support at home, but is held in high esteem by most of the world leaders, with whom he has interacted. This background is especially vital for the dialogue that would eventually materialize with India.

The Supreme Court had given him the authority to introduce such amendments into the Constitution that are required prior to holding of elections, and that do not affect its fundamental character. As such, one can venture the suggestion that perhaps the scope of the Constitutional package might be kept restricted to those critical to the electoral process. There is a strong sentiment that the 1973 Constitution, which was a unanimously agreed document, should be safeguarded in its original form, as far as possible. In any case, the elected parliament would have to endorse the changes introduced before its time.

A domestic role for US military

OF all the bad ideas that have been pouring from the Bush Administration — the faux war on terrorism, the Palestine mess, invading Iraq, curtailment of civil liberties, unilateralism, growing deficits, farm subsidies, steel tariffs — among the very worst is the dangerous proposal that US military forces be given domestic police powers.

Bush Administration officials, notably the chief of the newly created Northern Command, Gen. Ralph Eberhart, have been calling for the Pentagon to assume a much greater domestic role in the so-called war against terrorism. A role, apparently, that would give the military power to conduct investigations and surveillance, use troops to ‘maintain order and security,’ and arrest American citizens. Canadians might be next, since Canada has been involuntarily placed under the US Northern Command.

This frightening plan comes on the heels of Bush’s cutely-named but sinister TIPs programme, a network of citizen informers that recalls evil memories of ubiquitous Soviet and Chinese civilian informers, children denouncing their parents, and East Germany, where a quarter of the adult population spied for the Stasi secret police.

In the Roman Republic, father of all western democracies, consular armies were forbidden by law to enter the city. The Romans realized over 2,400 years ago that soldiers had to be strictly kept out of politics. The Roman Republic died during the 1st Century BCE civil wars after military leaders Marius, Sulla, and later, Caesar, brought their armies into politics.

America’s Congress — which was patterned on the Roman Senate — clearly recalled this history when it passed the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which outlawed the use of federal military forces for domestic law enforcement. Congress was intent on maintaining supremacy of civilian rule and protecting civil liberties. Properly restrained, the military was a useful tool; unrestrained, a dangerous and ruthless master.

Soldiers are trained to kill enemies, not to perform complex police duties that require professionalism, restraint, and knowledge of the law. Long, painful experience around the world has repeatedly shown that once the military is brought in to ‘maintain order,’ perform policing, or fight corruption, it almost inevitably become corrupted, despotic, and politicized.

One need only look at the doleful history of Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Nigeria, Egypt, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Chile, and Venezuela to see that when soldiers take over internal security, they inevitably end up taking over the government as well. When soldiers are allowed to police, they suddenly realize their latent power and go from being a second class citizens to cocks of the walk. Law quickly gives way before raw power. Those who have served in the military — as this writer has — have a healthy fear of military justice and its drumhead implementation.

Interestingly, the Soviet communists were even more sensitive to this threat. Lenin repeatedly warned of ‘Bonapartism’ and urged the party to keep control of internal security and police in the hands of civilians.

The Posse Comitatus Act was amended under the Reagan Administration to allow use of the military in an earlier bogus ‘war,’ the war on drugs. In this case, the military was sent to identify and intercept drug smugglers outside America’s borders. At the time, the idea seemed reasonable. But in retrospect, the inflow of drugs has barely been reduced while the military has ended up with a boot in the door of domestic law enforcement.

In 1997, the US Congress gave the military the power to cooperate with other government departments in countering biological or chemical attacks. This made sense because the military had an arsenal of biowarfare detection, neutralization gear, vaccines and the training to use them. But Congress expressly forbade the military from arresting civilians during biowarfare operations.

Now, some of the far-rightists who populate the darker corners of the Bush Administration are using public fear and hysteria generated by incessant claims of imminent nuclear or biowarfare attack to press for what amounts to the beginning of national martial law. We hear calls for greater surveillance of phones and email. Next will come calls for limits on speech and dissent. George Orwell laid out this whole grim process in his epochal novel, ‘1984.’ Anyone who wants a feel of what martial law would be like should see the gripping Burt Lancaster film about a Pentagon coup against the White House, ‘Seven Days in May.’

Fortunately, Congress, much of the top military brass, and even Pentagon super-hawk Donald Rumsfeld seem opposed to this daft idea. Well they should be. Separation of the civil and military is even more basic and sacred an American concept than separation of church and state.

The voice Americans should be listening to is that of the closest thing the United States had to a noble Roman tribune, President Dwight Eisenhower. As this great American and former general was leaving office, he warned his people that the gravest threat their democracy faced was not from abroad but from their own military-industrial complex,

The US has ample civilian law enforcement agencies to ensure domestic security. Americans don’t need soldiers to act as super-cops.—Copyright Eric Margolis

Retrieving ill-gotten wealth

PRESIDENT Musharraf, speaking at an anti-corruption moot organized by the National Accountability Bureau, said he wants the western world, particularly the Swiss and American banks that harbour ill-gotten wealth of the leaders from developing countries, to put in place institutional checks to see that such money does not find a safe haven in the West.

He also wants the world to wage a war against corruption with the same resolve as the war against terrorism and narcotics is being waged. This is not the first time our Chief Executive has made such an appeal. At the UN General Assembly in September, 2000, he had joined some other developing countries’ leaders, and asked the western governments to ‘help them retrieve’ the ill-gotten wealth stowed away in some western banks by their corrupt politicians. These statement may be good as rhetoric, but little results are likely to follow them.

The US government under Clinton, at the tail end of its tenure, did advise the US banks that they adopt such measures as would deter foreign leaders and their associates from money-laundering in US banks. These measures envisaged that banks voluntarily keep watch on the accounts of foreign leaders, and their associates to prevent them from using fake companies and similar devices to transfer large sums of dubious source.

But even these voluntary guidelines were arrived at only with difficulty owing to differences between the governments and the banks. Some large banks are said to be holding assets of foreign leaders, and claim to have ensured that the money is not corruption-linked. ‘Guidelines’ require the banks to watch carefully and to inform the authorities of suspicious transactions, like large, irregular transfers, but who in his right mind would believe that this could really take place as a routine procedure required by law. When it does take place, it is in exceptional circumstances, usually for political reasons. Hence these ‘voluntary measures’ are just eyewash.

Actions like the one taken by the Bank of England and other western regulatory authorities against BCCI have tended to harm only foreign banks who got too big for their boots, or pose a danger to the interests of western banks. Thus it is a vain hope on our part to think that the western governments will force their own banks to seriously implement legislative measures that would make the banks incur substantial administrative overhead costs, just to ensure that the developing countries’ governments could hound their political opponents when they need to. The recent strong actions by western governments, of curbing transfer flows to organizations that, in their view, could ‘finance terrorism’ are driven by political considerations.

One can well recollect how the Shah of Iran and his companions had stashed away billions of dollars in America. The US made no attempt to deliver this money to the Revolutionary Iranian government when demanded by them and froze it instead, until the crisis led the Iranian revolutionary guards to lay a siege of the American embassy in Tehran.

The problem with macro level mega corruption, often involving the multinationals and other powerful companies is that it is a form of collusion in which kickbacks are offered to political leaders and high government officials of the developing countries, to reap huge financial benefit to mutual advantage at the cost of the developing countries’ governments and people.

The kind of checks and balances present in the developed, industrialized nations within the system that can minimize shady deals, even if not eliminate them altogether, are often absent in the developing countries, or poorly implemented at best. Onus for instituting measures to stop this kind of collusion, therefore, lies on the developing countries’ governments themselves.

In an anarchic world of sovereign states, we can’t expect anyone to retrieve the ill-gotten money for us from the bank account of our ‘corrupt nationals’ and hand it back to our governments on a silver platter. Neither foreign banks, nor governments, have disliked money coming into their coffers.

The ruling elite have to be honest with themselves and tackle the problem at the source. Our own institutions should be strengthened to keep checks and balances, and curtail the discretionary powers of officials. From the way each government hounds its opponents, the world has come to regard corruption charges levelled on its predecessors as merely power play.

It is difficult for any government to sustain the claim that it is altogether corruption-free, just because the country is now lower down on the so-called ‘corruption perception scale’ of the Transparency International. Whether you are 2nd or 11th on the list does not necessarily tell about the real quantum of corruption. There is a plethora of western institutions and think tanks that issue all manner of reports every year with regard to corruption. Asia Foundation report in 2001 asserted that Pakistan, alongside China, Indonesia and the Philippines, was among the states that are weakening because of “rapid domestic change, internal conflict and widespread corruption.” Corruption is not an isolated phenomenon and it cannot be divorced from the overall polity.

Instead of basing our views and actions on reports by foreign agencies and think tanks, we should be able to research and form our own objective judgment about the prevailing state of affairs within the country and look within ourselves for solutions. As observed by the president himself, corruption is socially quite acceptable in Pakistan. In this environment, curbing corruption is not a simple matter of setting up accountability bureaus. We have enough laws already on the books; the real need is to implement them. You cannot keep adding watchdogs to keep watch on other watchdogs, ad infinitum.

The efforts of the government to check corruption are laudable, but are wanting in many respects. All sorts of opinions circulate about corruption and find their adherents. One high government official I came across expressed the view that the corrupt are ‘efficient’ while the honest are ‘inefficient.’ Behind all such views seems to lurk the unconscious desire to justify corruption. If there is anything more dangerous than corruption, it is a corrupt mindset.

Where have the Spartan brand of honest officers of a few decades ago gone? Do the corrupt flourish because they have managed to create a culture of corruption, is the real question to determine. When the government’s top bosses condemn corruption, but not the corrupt, and when they ignore the root causes of corruption, their fight against corruption is simply not likely to be fruitful.

Salary of the government servants is one consideration, but not the only one. Perhaps a reasonable salary is one of these factors which are necessary but not sufficient to prevent corruption. The previous government appointed people on some higher posts in the CBR at fabulous salaries to bring about miracles in the working of the department, but did that help? No amount of salary increase would satisfy persons once they have embarked on the path of corruption.

Another officer says that he is prepared to work even without a salary, if his authority is sufficiently augmented. Give me more authority, he says and I will create my own salary! But he has no conception that authority and responsibility go together. The real source of corruption is bestowing authority on people without inculcating a sense of responsibility in them, and without making them accountable for their actions.

Money as a game

AFTER the president’s speech, a group of us gathered at the dinner table to talk about money.

Not little money, but big money.

“What is the difference between a billion dollars and two billion dollars?” I asked.

A gentleman on my right (I mean really on my right) asked, “Are you a liberal?”

“No,” I said, “but what can you do with two billion that you can’t do with one billion, except possibly cheat on your taxes?”

I could tell I hit a sore nerve. He said, “It’s a game. If you have one billion and I have two billion, then I win.”

“It’s not a game for those who lose their jobs and their pensions.”

“If you can’t afford it, you shouldn’t play.”

“Does it matter if you have to cheat to win?”

“Why don’t you talk about the honest billionaires and not the few bad apples in the barrel?” he said.

“President Bush said he wants the bad apples to be punished and go to jail.”

“He has to say that. It’s an election year.”

“He also failed to mention that he broke the SEC rules when he was CEO of an oil company.”

“That accusation is nothing but politics. Bush didn’t violate the law, his lawyers did.”

There was silence at the dinner table, except for one lady who said, “Please pass the chutney.”

I said, “The highest members of his administration made a fortune in the stock market before they joined the government. Now they are in charge of fiscal responsibility.”

“Are you going to hold that against them? They are the best examples of how the capitalist system works. It appears you have to be educated.”

He then said, “If you are not a billionaire, then how do you know what it feels like to be one?”

He had me there.

I said, “If a billionaire is sent to jail for stealing the company’s money, taking out loans that were illegal and cooking the books, will the president pardon him?” “He didn’t say so in his speech, but there will be a lot of pressure to do it,” was the reply .Look, not everybody who was a billionaire is still one. There are quite a few who are now only multimillionaires, but you don’t hear them complaining about the rules.

Our hostess was getting nervous, “Would anyone like more baby broccoli?”

“Did anyone see the Martha Stewart show where she featured baby squash on her program?”

The man who was defending billionaires said, “That’s exactly what I was talking about. Martha was a billionaire, and now she is left with nothing but millions. In the big game, she lost.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

The battle against AIDS

TWENTY-ONE years after the first description of the illness and nineteen years after the discovery of the HIV virus, the AIDS epidemic continues to spread throughout the world. More than 22 million have already died. Henceforth, nearly 40 million people are affected by the virus, one-third of whom are between the ages of 15 and 24 years.

About 95 per cent of the people with HIV live in developing countries, and three-fourths in sub-Saharan Africa. In the year 2000, nearly 5.3 million people were contaminated by the virus, 3.8 million of them in Africa. Without HIV, the average life expectancy in Africa would be 62; currently it is 47.

Far from being stabilized, the epidemic, which mistakenly seems contained in the rich countries, continues to spread. Today, in Southern and Southeast Asia, some 5.6 million people have HIV. According to UNAIDS, more than a million people have been infected in China and, at the rate the epidemic is spreading this figure could exceed five million in 2005. The Russian Federation is threatened by the explosion of the scourge, if the trend towards an annual doubling of contaminated people holds. In a number of regions, the statistics themselves are deficient or under-estimated. If radical measures are not taken, the pandemic could kill more than 100 million people between now and 2010.

‘The sick are in the South, and the treatments in the North’: the phrase has gone round the world. And it is true that the rich countries account for barely more than 4 per cent of the people with HIV on the planet but spend 92 per cent of the funds used for preventing and treating AIDS. For twenty years now, the North-South gap has continued to grow wider. However, these figures are deceptive, for they bring illusory security to the populations of the rich countries. There will be no quarantine line against AIDS. In the most developed countries, the infection remains rampant. Owing to the limits of treatments and the slackening of prevention, it could once again increase in the near future.

So, should we give up? Certainly not. Obviously, there is no magic formula capable of eradicating the epidemic. But neither is AIDS a destiny. We have lost a number of battles against it, through negligence, lack of anticipation, prevention and long-term political will. But we have not lost the war.

For it is indeed a matter of war: we must declare war on AIDS. If there is one scourge that threatens world civilization, this is it. The AIDS epidemic has, in fact, become a major issue of international security. Moreover, it threatens the development of nations and the very idea of progress. We can win this war if we give ourselves the means.

It is necessary to reaffirm that the policies of prevention, education and information are vital to curbing the scourge. Need one recall that the diversity of the advance of HIV in the world is gripping? While 16 countries of sub-Saharan Africa have announced a prevalence amongst adults more than 10 per cent, there remain 119 countries on the planet where it is less than 1 per cent. This diversity allows us to hope that the scourge may be stopped in vast parts of the world, as long as massive education, information and prevention policies are implemented. In Brazil, Thailand and even in Uganda and Cambodia, the infection rates are dropping.

But this policy cannot suffice. As was emphasized by Peter Piot, executive director of UNAIDS, ‘prevention alone, without access to treatments, is no longer acceptable’. The experience of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention and the Unesco, which have been co-operating in this area for more than ten years, leads us to believe that the efforts and investments, both public and private, must also favour three priority lines of action: access to antiretroviral treatments, the development of a preventive vaccine and the creation of the structures necessary for prevention, treatment and research programmes in those countries that are hardest hit.

Access to antiretroviral treatments, first of all. The experience acquired over the past six years in the wealthy countries shows that the mortality rate of patients infected with HIV has been reduced considerably through continuous antiretroviral triple therapy. It is therefore ethically justified, as the Unesco had requested in its 1999 world future-oriented report, “The World Ahead: Our Future in the Making”, to make these medications accessible to all patients of the South who need them.

The Pretoria trial turned the spotlight on the battle opposing those who favour the rights of patents and those who put forward the right to health. The World Fund, launched by the G-8 and the UN, aims precisely at favouring the access of southern patients to the therapies. Granted, one can be delighted that the principle of national urgency is beginning to assert itself, that the director-general of the WTO himself pleaded for the setting up of ‘differentiated price’ laboratories, and that the large laboratories are beginning to accept the principle of generic medications for the poorest countries.

However, the problem of the cost of these antiretroviral treatments is resolved only in part by the lowering of the price of medications. For the triple therapies also call for considerable logistics investments, the tests for the follow-up treatments are expensive, and the duration of treatments, unlike those that are used for treating other chronic illnesses such as tuberculosis, is indeterminate. Any interruption of the treatment brings with it an increase in the plasmatic viral load. In addition, the limits of the antiretroviral treatment are known: important secondary effects, the emergence of mutants of the virus that are resistant to treatment, and the difficulty of long-term observance of the treatment.

By favouring the universalization of access to antiretroviral treatments, it is therefore necessary to launch clinical tests that enable developing less expensive and less toxic relay-treatments that cause a lasting decrease in the viral infection. Here, the research paths are multiple. In particular, it is advisable to favour specific antiretroviral immunotherapy, the rational use of antioxydants and immunostimulants and the treatment of infectious cofactors.

The introduction of effective treatments in those countries hardest hit by AIDS would have three beneficial effects: it would reduce hospital stays and the mortality resulting from opportunistic infections; it would lower the transmission of the virus, since treated patients are less contagious; and it would increase the effectiveness of prevention through information, and favour massive screening. Need we recall that, even today, 95 per cent of those individuals infected by HIV do not know it and often do not wish to know, in the absence of all prospect of treatment?

A second line of priority action is the development of a preventive vaccine. Need we recall that a vaccine costs much less than a medication? Considered the pathway to arresting an epidemic, the development of this preventive vaccine has turned out to be quite difficult in the case of AIDS, notably due to the variability of the virus, its genital transmission and difficulties of testing.

Moreover, it is probable that the vectorization of the virus by proteins or mycoplasma membranes plays an important role in its sexual transmission. If it is thus, any vaccine, in order to be effective, would have to include mycoplasma proteins in addition to viral proteins: that implies advanced epidemiological studies for identifying the mycoplasmas at cause, which can vary from one geographical area to another. Recently, a project of vaccinating children born of HIV-positive mothers was undertaken (Professor Montagnier’s team in collaboration with the teams of Professors Vittorio Colizzi and Robert Gallo and African teams), thanks to financing from the Italian government.

The third course of priority action: the creation of structures necessary for prevention, treatment and research programmes in those countries that are hardest hit, i.e., for the most part, in the South and East. While, in fact, the laboratories of the wealthy countries have an important role to play in the aforementioned innovative research, the fact remains that the essential must be carried out on the spot, in the countries most affected by the scourge: clinical tests, experimentation with plant extracts having antioxydant or immunostimulant properties, laboratory follow-ups, identification of co-factors... The political will of governments of course constitutes a necessary condition for the creation of such structures; international support is also essential.

It is thus that the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention created, under the aegis of the Unesco and with the support of the Ivory Coast government, the Abidjan Integrated Centre for Bioclinical Research (CIRBA), which combines prevention through education, treatment of patients, and laboratory work. We propose that every country concerned create or develop such a reference centre that could then extend out towards mobile units located in rural areas. It is only by combining prevention, research and treatment in the same place that we will begin to win the war against AIDS.

Luc Montagnier, president of the World Foundation for AIDS Research and Prevention, is the co-discoverer of the HIV virus. Jirtme Bindi is director of the Division of Foresight, Philosophy and Human Sciences at UNESCO.