Features > December 9, 2005 > Web Only

Beatrice Were: Fighting a Deadly U.S. AIDS Policy in Uganda

By Christopher Hayes

In the early ’90s, something remarkable happened in Uganda: While the AIDS epidemic spiraled out of control in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa, prevalence of the disease began a steady decline, from 15 percent in the early ’90s to 5 percent by 2001. Thanks to a massive grassroots mobilization, unprecedented financial support from international donors and the leadership of Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni, the country became a model for effectively combating the spread of AIDS in the developing world.

One component of Uganda’s strategy was a campaign to promote abstinence until marriage and monogamous relationships (or “zero grazing,” in local slang). Though these programs were just part of a multi-faceted approach, the Bush administration seized on abstinence as the key to Uganda’s success and flooded the country with money to exclusively promote those and only those programs. In the last two years, Uganda has started to abandon programs like condom distribution and sex education for teens that were also part of its success. Condom billboards are coming down, and last year, the president’s wife, Janet Museveni, lead a march of thousands of virgin girls through the streets of the nation’s capital, Kampala.

One of the voices speaking out against this dangerous shift in public health policy is that of Beatrice Were. In 1991, after losing her husband to AIDS, and discovering she was HIV positive, Were battled her in-laws in court to inherit her husband’s estate, avoided forced marriage to his brother, and set up an independent life for herself and her children. She then founded National Community of Women Living with AIDS (NACWOLA), an organization that advocates on behalf of AIDS widows. In These Times spoke with Were in Chicago, where she’d come to receive an award from Human Rights Watch for her work. She talked about the effects of stigma, the importance of grassroots activism and the dangers of mixing politics and religion.

Could you tell me a little bit about the circumstances under which you lost your husband?

In 1991, my husband went down with a very bad illness. He didn’t have any of the symptoms that were normally talked about in association with AIDS—diarrhea, weight loss, and skin rash—so I thought it was a headache from malaria or something. I’d just graduated from university and I thought AIDS was a disease that was special to truck drivers, sex workers and people in the military. He was my first boyfriend, the first person that I married, and I abstained until I met him. When the doctor told us it could be HIV, I was very, very surprised. I panicked, and my husband was very angry at me for that. He told the doctors to take me out of the room. So I think he knew all along.

When the doctor confirmed he had HIV, did you get tested?

I didn’t immediately because I didn’t want to confront it. I only did my test a month after he was dead.

What happened after he died?

One of the things I faced, which most widows face, was the struggle to inherit property. My husband didn’t leave a will, so I had to go through a fight with his family to keep his estate. Also, like many women I was customarily married [married through common law], so there was no documentation.

So, you had no documented rights to the inheritance.

Yes, but because I went to university, I could find friends who I went to school with and ask them for advice. They told me to go to an organization in Kampala run by women lawyers and through them I managed to get representation. But because of the combination of illiteracy and lack of strategic connections, most women are very vulnerable. They don’t know where to go.

So what happens to them?

They’re dispossessed. If they stay on communal land—most land is owned communally—they don’t have a lot of room for decision-making. If I had stayed on communal land, my brother-in-law would have married me, and I would not have had any say in it. I also believe I wouldn’t have gotten treatment and proper care for HIV, because it’s not available in many villages in Uganda. I would probably be long dead, and my children would have been orphaned very, very early. The fact that I went to school, the fact that I could use my education to find a job and also to battle with my in-laws and raise my children without depending on my in-laws made all the difference.

Was it realizing this that led you to found NACWOLA ?

Yes. By bringing women together, we are a stronger voice. So our organization tries to make women living with HIV visible so they have social support. We stand up for the rights of women and fight the kinds of injustice I went through.

NACWOLA is one of many organizations that emerged to advocate for people with AIDS. How did that organizing happen?

The first cases of AIDS appeared in rural Uganda in 1982. By 1986, the country’s ministers had started feeling the impact of AIDS, and families were already coming together to do something. Doctors were so scared they wouldn’t even touch anyone with AIDS. People were going to hospitals just to stare at the patients. And because the patients were so stigmatized, they decided they had to do something. That’s how TASO, The AIDS Support Organization, started.

Around the same time, Museveni sent troops to Cuba for training, and Castro discovered that a large number had AIDS. When Museveni was told the disease had reached his army, he began a nationwide campaign. After he took the leadership, we began to see other members of civil society get involved as well as a very large multilateral donor response from the international community, including the United States.

What were the approaches Uganda used during this period to reverse the spread of the disease?

The president appointed an AIDS Commission whose role was to coordinate responses from different stakeholders. It developed a policy called the “multi-sectoral” strategy: educate the public about AIDS, give comprehensive HIV tests and voluntary counseling, and give comprehensive HIV prevention, including sex education and a clear condom policy.

And who was funding all this?

Multinational donors mainly. The U.S. was the biggest funder and it invested a lot of money in local organizations and small programs that aimed at educating young people in prevention and sex education. A lot of money—again by the United States, if I remember—went into the AIDS Information Center, which was the first non-government organization that was started by a woman to provide voluntary counseling and testing. So it was from the grassroots, and the funding accelerated and supported initiatives that were already started.

Tell me, then, what’s changed in the last few years.

Abstinence, faithfulness, and condom use had all been part of the bigger picture. What we have seen coming in the last two years from the Bush administration is that they have interpreted Uganda’s success story as being based in the abstinence until marriage program, and they’ve been magnifying that part of the whole strategy more than everything else. And, unfortunately our president is also taking that line of thinking. What you see now is that all the other things are not regarded as being important. Condom use is now attacked as something that is evil, and you don’t see the president showing concern about the impact of stigma on people living with AIDS.

As for the promotion of abstinence until marriage, they are completely blind to the fact that a high proportion of the women infected in marriage are infected by their husbands like I was. It’s as if they think if you abstain until marriage, and you are faithful, then you’re free from HIV. They’re ignoring that women don’t have control over their sex lives often, and for those decisions to be made, women need to be empowered. They’re ignoring the fact that there are many young women, and some boys, who are forced into commercial sex because of poverty. They’re ignoring the fact that poverty is a major driving factor in HIV. There are many young women who are having sex with older men for survival. They’re ignoring the fact that there’s a whole population that is living under conflict in northern Uganda. There are women and young girls who are not choosing either to abstain or be safe because those choices just don’t apply in a setting like that.

AIDS is now being looked at as a moral issue, not a public health issue, not a human rights issue, and the way that it’s being handled is more ideological than anything else.

It sounds from what I’ve read that Janet Museveni, the first lady of Uganda has had a big role in this.

Yes. She’s an evangelical, born-again Christian, and I think one of the things that has mixed up the whole situation is mixing politics and religion. The first lady has been, in my own opinion, responsible for that.

And is there a very strong, growing evangelical population in Uganda?

Yeah, it’s moving towards being popular; it’s like a fashion for young people. I think it takes advantage of the fact that people are living in very difficult times where we have people worried about political transition. Evangelicals use AIDS as a scary thing, because in Uganda it largely means death. And they use AIDS in a way to say God will judge you, you will go to hell.

If the United States wasn’t giving money to Uganda, do you still think the policy would be moving in the puritanical, stigmatizing direction?

No. I don’t think it would. The civil society has been divided by the huge amount of funding the U.S. government is pushing into abstinence and marriage programs. In my opinion, Museveni is using AIDS for his political benefit because elections are around the corner. He’s pushing Bush’s agenda as a way of maintaining power, and I think that Bush is using Uganda’s success story to also push his political agenda because he’s been imposing on Uganda what it does not want. I look back, at the time when we worked with the U.S. government very well, when we had the U.S. Agency for International Development funding comprehensive prevention, sex education and AIDS care in Uganda, and things went very well. Because at that time, the United States was committed and respectful of the communities. But now what the United States is doing undermines the success that we’ve had in the past.

• subscribe to print magazine

  First Name Last Name Home Address City State Zip Code Email

  2-year, 24-issues, $44.95 1-year, 12-issue, $24.95

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  I suppose the one bright spot in the Uganda/AIDS crisis is that the evangelicals, who are pushing the abstincence only policy in the face of evidence that it does not work and that the previous policy did work, is that the evangelicals will pretty much die out as AIDS spreads among them. It’s just too bad that they are and will be responsible for the deaths of so many thousands of rational, normal people who are just trying to get on with their lives, to survive in an increasingly difficult world ruled increasingly by the ignorant, the stupid, the ideological - usually religious, usually conservative. Unfortunately for the evangelicals, and the rest of us, a virus, whether HIV or any other, doesn’t give a good goddam about religion or politics. It will kill anyone, anyone at all, starting with the poor, and gradually working its way up to eventually get the rich and the powerful, like Bush and Museveni, who give it a helping hand.

  Posted by Ric on Dec 10, 2005 at 8:33 AM

  It appears as though Beatrice Were is bemoaning a loss of funding.  Traditional AIDS agencies are combative against any idea that threatens their access to money.  Their cash stream is based in several axioms: AIDS is sexually transmitted, Condoms and new needles stop the spread of AIDS, and that AIDS medications cure the disease.  There is no other reason for Ms. Were to respond in a negative manner towards Ms. Museveni whom is helping young women live responsible lives in it’s most complete form.  Ms. Were counters that condoms are necessary to prevent husband to wife and rape transmissions.  How ridiculous! are married women to demand condom use throughout their lifetime?  I doubt such events are occurring due to Uganda’s healthy 3.0% growth rate.  Condoms obviously are not being used by this population.  Are rape victims supposed to hand their attacker a condom? Ridiculous.  AIDS is easy to understand once the money trail is followed. 

  It is inportant to note that AIDS is not a new disease, it is actaully a syndrome of the modern world.  The AIDS category is 30 old diseases, and when combined together create a diagnosis called AIDS.  A blood test is not necessary; even though the test identifies antibodies, the very sign of immune health.  Is AIDS sexually transmitted?  of course not, prostitutes have never beeen on the CDC’s populations at risk list, and prostitute studies show very low anti-body rates - especially when compared to traditional STD’s.

  AIDS in Africa is actually old endemic diseases given a new name.  They are the diseases of poverty and malnutrition.  Yes there are a few exceptions, but they also have alternative explanantions that do not involve a putative virus.

  Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 10, 2005 at 9:30 AM

  Thanks to Rethinkit for reminding me that arrogance is the handmaiden of ignorance and ideology.

  Posted by Ric on Dec 10, 2005 at 10:17 AM

  Well, I won’t get into name calling.  I wish to inform the public that there are bilions of dollars that are applied for every yearin the fight against AIDS.  Applicants make their case and hope for the best.  I certainly do not believe Ms. Were’s heart is in the wrong place, she presents as a sincere and caring person.  I, however, do not accept any statement that is absolutely politically correct.  The story on Ms. Were is lock-step with established ideas - and I’m called an idealogue?  I encourage anyone whom is reading this article to do a web search on AIDS and add the word “controversy”, that way you can read for yourself.  Follow the threads in all directions until a balanced argument has been reached. Enter “Mbeki AIDS controversy” to gain an African, a black definition of sickness and premature death in Africa.  Is Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa an ignorant man? He has raised the same questions I have asked.  Keep in mind he is one of the architects of “Truth and Reconcilliation”.  A strategy that provided South Africans with the chance for peace and prosperity.  I am hopeful the strategy works in Iraq and in Lebanon/Israel.  So is Mbeki a fool?  It is not the fool who questions status quo.  It is not the ignorant who questions the dominent paradigm.  It is not the arrogant whom is always seeking better answers.  I predict that within a year it will be proven that nutrition is the answer to “AIDS” in Africa.  It is a shame that someone, such as myself, receives enmity for advocating common sense approaches to assissting Africa.  Food, housing,clean water, employment, basic healthcare, good government, conflict/war resolution… statements made by Mbeki and the president of Nigeria.  Unfortunately Westerners do not listen to the words of Africans

  Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 10, 2005 at 12:18 PM

  P.S. Ric, all the names that you called me, are actually a reflection of yourself.

  Posted by Rethinkit on Dec 10, 2005 at 5:57 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 40 posts.

Member Login

Also by Christopher Hayes

• The New Road to Serfdom
  Over the course of 500 pages in The Shock Doctrine, Naomi Klein documents the moments of chaos and disruption that allow a small coterie of experts to swoop in and administer what's invariably called "bitter medicine," "painful reforms" or "shock therapy"
• Who’s Afraid of Democracy?
  Believing that "people are rational as consumers and irrational as voters," many conservatives would favor free markets without democracy
• What We Learn When We Learn Economics
  Is a little economics a dangerous thing?
• The Abramoff Babies
  Like the "Watergate Babies" of 1974, the new Democratic Congress will have to pick between sustanative or procedural reforms.
• The Good War on Terror
  How the Greatest Generation helped pave the road to Baghdad
• Economic Populism Proves Popular
  To thwart legislation that put caps on payday lending rates, Republican lawmakers in Oregon had to pass it