As you may be aware of, South Asia has a rampant AIDS/HIV epidemic that has afflicted the subcontinent. There are "about 5.5 million people infected with HIV in South Asia," and

India accounts for about 40 percent of all Asia's population and has more than 60 percent of the continent's estimated HIV infections, according to UNAIDS 2004, a global report on the AIDS epidemic [Link].

In comparison, Bangladesh's HIV/AIDS percentage is quite low, but it is in a vulnerable position: 

Bangladesh is still considered as a low HIV/AIDS prevalent country. However, it is at a critical moment in the course of its AIDS epidemic. It is estimated that there are 13,000 HIV-positive people in the country and that HIV prevalence in the adult population is less than 0.01%. However, the country's vulnerability is very high. National HIV surveillance indicates that the rate of HIV infection among street-based sex workers in central Bangladesh is high compared with sex workers in other parts of South Asia. HIV among injecting drug users is already 4%.

The presence of covert multi-partner sexual activity and denial, the low level of knowledge and low condom use, unsafe professional blood donations, lack of a desirable environment and violation of Human Rights, all contribute to the spread of HIV in Bangladesh [Link].

Amongst industrialized countries, the US is one of the countries that gives the least amount of foreign aid. When the US does give "aid," it is usually with strings attached.

And that's why a group in Bangladesh is upset.

According to Reuters,  a group named Durjoy Nari Shangha closed drop-in centers for sex workers in Dhaka in order to recieve US funding for HIV/AIDS:

A U.S. "loyalty oath" that aims to curb prostitution and prevent sex trafficking has stymied one group's efforts to educate sex workers in Bangladesh and left thousands of women without support, a local activist said on Thursday.

The sex workers collective -- its name translates roughly as "organization of women who are hard to repress" -- had 20 drop-in centers before December, offering sex and literacy education as well as moral support, toilets and a place to wash and rest for up to 5,000 women.

It closed them after signing what aid groups call the "prostitution loyalty oath" that requires groups receiving USAID funding to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking. The group now has just four centers, geared to children and childrens' rights [Link].

The article continues to state that "the group sold 73,000 condoms a month. That has fallen to 30,000, even though health experts agree that condoms are the best way of stopping the spread of AIDS."

Condom use can greatly prevent the spread of HIV and AIDS, as well as sex education. A "recent study found the number of HIV affliction is declining in southern Indian states. They believe sex workers in the area have begun using condoms." So if this center was selling condoms - which are the best method of stopping the spread of AIDS and HIV - and offering sex and literacy education, why should a group of this kind have to shut down? BBC reveals the answer:

Stephen Lewis, UN Special Envoy on Aids, said President George Bush's $15bn Emergency Plan for HIV/Aids was too focused on promoting abstinence.

The Bush administration backs an "ABC" plan to fight Aids: Abstinence until marriage; Being faithful to one sexual partner; and if those conditions are not practised, the use of Condoms.

In 2003, the US Government approved a $15bn package over five years to fight the spread of Aids.

But the US Congress has stipulated that a proportion of the funds must be spent on encouraging abstinence-until-marriage programmes.

Top US officials have rejected the criticism, denying it promotes abstinence to the detriment of other HIV prevention strategies, or that it is designed to appease conservative Republicans.

Mr Lewis said abstinence programmes had been shown not to work [Link].

Groups in Bangladesh aren't the only ones to voice protest over "conditional aid" of this type, which exacerbates - rather than improve or alleviate - the problem. Officials have severely criticized the same US "aid" package to Africa, where 2/3 of all HIV infected persons come from. Other organizations simply refused this funding and forged ahead on their own:

Some organizations say they have chosen not to accept USAID funding rather than compromise their positions, even though the locally available funding may be far smaller than the amount available through the United States.

"We are very proud of our decision," said Gabriela Leite, who works with eight local sex worker organizations in Brazil.

"It's our conviction that the sovereignty of our country should be respected." [Link]

It is a sad day indeed when "restrictions apply" and groups which try to combat the spread of HIV and AIDS find it more beneficial to reject ideologically colored US funding, even if it means having comparatively less financial resources.