Hidden deep in this week’s NYT article, “In Global Battle on AIDS, Bush Creates Legacy,” I noticed this paragraph:
Colin L. Powell, then the new secretary of state, was deeply troubled by demographics showing that in some African nations, AIDS threatened to wipe out the entire child-bearing population – a condition that could create instability, and a climate ripe for terrorism. Just weeks into his new job, he called Tommy G. Thompson, the new administration’s health and human services secretary.
“I said, ‘Tommy, this is not just a health matter, this is a national security matter,'” Mr Powell recalled. They vowed to work together, and the president, Mr. Powell said, “bought into it immediately.”
Am I crazy, or is there not a compelling argument for addressing AIDS outside of the “national security” angle? What happened to the notion of fighting AIDS merely because it’s an extremely pressing moral and humanitarian issue? Honestly, is it truly not enough of a reason for action that AIDS threatens to “wipe out the entire child-bearing population” of some African nations? I don’t get it.