International AIDS Society Newsletter, no. 16

lAS
SOCIETY==
Why We Chose South Africa- Part 11*
As I write my final Report from the President, the HIV epidemic in Africa has continued to worsen. At the same time the power of those
who deny that HIV is the cause of AIDS has continued to grow. To many it must seem that we are living through a sort of "Theatre of
the Absurd", when these two scenarios are juxtaposed, yet we cannot and will not surrender our principles, including that of scientific
truth, to political expediency.
Against this background, it is worth revisiting the idea of why Durban was chosen as the venue for this year's International Conference
on AIDS. First, it should be remembered that Durban is probably the only city in Africa that possesses the necessary infrastructure, i.e.
convention centre and hotels, for a conference of this size. Second, we decided that it was high-time that the Conference was held in an
endemic area, so as to show solidarity with the millions of HIV-infected persons worldwide. Third, recognizing the immense amount of
publicity and journalistic attention that the Conference receives, we decided that it was time to make extraordinary efforts to promote
the concepts of HIV awareness and education throughout Africa in unprecedented fashion.
It must be emphasized that the latter goal will hopefully be achieved, no matter the political pressures that have already befallen the Conference and those that will doubtlessly yet occur. It is also clear that, while our motives in choosing Durban were entirely altruistic, other
parties may have serious misgivings about this decision. One such group includes several of the governments of Southern Africa that
will see their policies in regard to the HIV epidemic subjected to intense scrutiny both by international journalists and scientists. Is it
conceivable that our choice of Durban may have contributed, in part, to the pressures felt by South African politicians on such issues as
access to drugs for prevention of mother-to-child transmission (MTCT) of HIV? One thing is certain. Many politicians in different parts
of the world would prefer to be able to develop policies in regard to the HIV epidemic, without those policies being subjected to microscopic examination and second-guessing by the international community.
And, what about the pharmaceutical industry? In spite of programs that have drastically reduced the costs of antiretrovirals (ARVs) for
prevention of MTCT of HIV, the companies that have come forward with these incentives have only been subjected to even greater pressures in regard to ARV access programs. However, there is broad consensus among health care economists as well as scientists that many
of the demands being made on the pharmaceutical industry are unrealistic. No wonder that some pharmaceutical company executives
may not feel that their considerable financial support of the Conference has been appreciated.
Where, then, does this leave the Durban meeting? The answer is that the motives for selecting Durban were the right ones and that the
Conference should still achieve its universal message of HIV awareness, as well as serving as a key venue for the latest exchange of scientific information. The need for solidarity with HIV-infected people in sub-Saharan Africa and elsewhere is greater than ever. And the
Conference will accomplish these goals. As my term as President draws to a close, I want to reiterate what an honour it has been to lead
IAS during these past two years and to have expanded the mandate of IAS into new areas. I know that my successor, Stefano Vella, shares
my views of the larger role that IAS must play in the future. I want to thank him, our Secretary-General Lars Kallings, our past-President David Cooper, our Executive Officer Rodrigo Garay, and the rest of the IAS staff for the support that they have given to me during
my term in office.
Yours,

Mark A. Wainberg
see IAS Newsletter, issue No 13, July 1999.
U