Richard Roth: What the U.N. Conference on AIDS will accomplish

Richard Roth, CNN United Nations correspondent

Richard Roth is CNN's correspondent at the United Nations in New York. This week he is covering the U.N. Conference on AIDS.

Q: South Africa -- which has the highest AIDS rate in the world -- has sent a delegation to the United Nations, but President Thabo Mbeki, who is meeting with President Bush in Washington, did not attend. How has the United Nations reacted to this?

RICHARD ROTH: There are at least 20 heads of state and government leaders here, but Mbeki is not one of them. His delegation is 50 strong; the South African delegates say he is not coming because there was no reason for him to be here. The mission here never recommended that he come. The say the other African leaders have come for other reasons and people "shouldn't blow it out of proportion. It's not a summit, it's not a heads of state meeting," and it would be wrong to criticize any head of state for not coming. They point out that George Bush is not here.

But South Africa has the most cases of AIDS in the world -- nearly 5 million, or 11 percent of its population. So Mbeki's absence is notable. He remains embroiled in a controversy from when he convened his own group of scientists and questioned the link between HIV and AIDS, and at one point questioned the need for HIV testing.

Analysts say, "South Africa is a heavyweight among developing countries," and many have challenged the Mbeki administration's policies and its ability to do something about AIDS. Mbeki countered that today when he said, "All I would say to that, really, is that people must look at what we are doing in South Africa, not their perception of what they think we are doing, but we are doing actually. And I don't think on the basis of facts, an accusation like that can be sustained. Can't be."

Q: You mentioned the "bitter divisions between mostly Islamic and conservative nations against Western Europe and Latin countries." Can you expand on that? Are some countries not willing to admit certain sexual behaviors in their countries?

ROTH: The Organization of Islamic countries is still not happy at all with sections of the draft that would mention or discuss lifestyles -- sexual practices -- involving high-risk groups that get AIDS, including homosexuals, sex workers, intravenous drug users. The delegates blast what they say is an affront to their cultures. They said there is no reason to mention this in a U.N. document.

Other countries disagree with that. Canada challenged them, saying that certain groups should not be "blackballed." Norway said the attempt on Monday to block access to a meeting for a gay and lesbian group was "threatening the soul of the U.N."

New Zealand's Minister of Health Annette King said Monday: "Hiding behind the traditional taboos about prostitution, sex before marriage, the use of condoms, homosexuality and injecting drug users will doom millions of people, and see the spread of HIV and AIDS accelerate."

The vote in General Assembly dealt with whether the conference should permit international gay and lesbian groups to participate in roundtable discussions. Finally, the group was admitted, to the cheers of those in the hallways.

The president of the General Assembly was exasperated at the attempts by countries such as Malaysia and Pakistan to block this group. Nicaragua spoke for everyone in saying this is what the news media will report, and of course that is exactly what happened.

This West v. East, or Islamic v. capitalist -- this type of debate plays out in every U.N. conference now, and in the past five to six years.

Q: Will there be any action as a result of this conference?

ROTH: There are going to be these timetables and targets the General Assembly is going to approve that each country is supposed to follow -- percentage decreases over 10 to 15 years in transmission of AIDS, increases in treatment programs. But will the governments follow through? It is really the new thing at the U.N. to shame fellow members into doing something, and it is too early to knock it and say it will not work. There have sometimes been improvements: The shaming, the media pressure, build momentum that some countries cannot turn back from. Is it lip service? We do not know.

Q: Is the focus at the conference only on AIDS in Africa?

ROTH: It is the whole world, but one sense is that Africa is drawing the most attention because that is where officials are calling HIV/AIDS a pandemic. There are 25 million infected in sub-Saharan Africa alone, out of a total of about 36 million worldwide. Most of the government leaders are from Africa, so you can't help but note that's where it is.

Q: In his speech Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell alluded to -- but did not specifically announce -- more money from the United States: "Last month President Bush announced a pledge of $200 million to jump start the global fund -- a bold new public-private partnership to combat HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. We hope this seed money will help generate billions more from donors all over the world and more will come from the United States as we learn where our support can be most effective."

What was the reaction to his statement?

ROTH: Most AIDS activists are not happy. They think the U.S. should send a stronger message by giving more money now. They said the U.S., being the most powerful country, would send a better signal to other countries if it stepped up to the plate. Paul Davis from the Health Gap Coalition said Powell's speech was "fairly devoid of substance ... a paltry contribution from the Bush administration ... $200 million, in an era when the U.S. budget has $40 billion for a helicopter program -- well, $200 million is shameful."

Everybody is looking to get more clout by when they announce their country's contribution. The U.N. has only about $500 million so far. There is confusion over money that is announced and whether it is actually in the fund. A country can announce they are contributing, but it is not clear whether it is in the fund. There is concern about how the money would be managed. For instance, Sweden pledged an additional $60 million over the next two years, but it is unclear where that goes. Some countries -- like the United States -- want more say in where the money goes.