Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs), like heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes and chronic lung disease, are responsible for 70 percent of all deaths. There is incontrovertible evidence that tobacco use, inactivity, unhealthy diets and excessive alcohol consumption increase the odds of dying prematurely from an NCD.
Yet, despite widespread knowledge of the risks, global obesity goes largely unchecked, while tobacco and alcohol use continue to rise. It is against this backdrop that networks of NCD alliances met from last Saturday to Monday at the second Global NCD Alliance Forum in the United Arab Emirates.
As they search for solutions to bring NCDs under control, they should look for inspiration in the movement to fight AIDS. People living with and affected by HIV continue to drive response efforts, and their unique form of mobilization has been instrumental to progress. While the battle is not over, AIDS activists know that it can be won.
Similarly, a mobilized NCD movement can turn the tide against that epidemic. Yet, in 2015, The Lancet editor Richard Horton described the NCD community as needing an “electric shock to its semicomatose soul.”
“But who has the courage to deliver it?” he added.
There are lessons to be learned from AIDS activists. As global attention focuses on NCD prevention, those seeking to control preventable illnesses should look to the “ABCs” of AIDS organizing for guidance.
The first letter that the NCD community should consider is “A,” for activism. Anyone over 40 will recall images of AIDS activists performing “die-ins” at scientific meetings around the world. In the US, AIDS activists took to the streets, even shutting down the US Food and Drug Administration’s headquarters for a day in October 1988.
Globally, activists lobbied governments and pharmaceutical companies to make medicines more affordable. This activism continues and should serve as a model for action on NCDs.
Next, the NCD community must adopt a bolder approach to budgets — the “B” of the AIDS movement’s strategy. Civic organizing and grassroots activism may fuel early energies, but organizing and sustaining a broad-based coalition takes money.
The AIDS movement was clear about this from the beginning, and lobbied for resources to support its advocacy and accountability effectively.
“C” is for coalitions: The AIDS movement was quick to understand that progress would come only with diverse support. Activists established links between people living with HIV and those with other concerns, such as women’s rights, intellectual property, nutrition and housing.
Issue-specific coalitions and campaigns work best when they bring together government insiders and outsiders, to combine perspectives and expertise.
The AIDS movement also understood that a holistic response to the epidemic was essential if support was to spread. Thus, “D,” the determinant of success, was to draw attention to the interconnectivity of the challenge.
For example, lobbying education leaders to keep girls in school longer has contributed to providing young people with the knowledge and agency to make smart decisions about when and with whom to negotiate safe sex.
Similarly, links were forged between groups working on poverty, gender and nutrition — factors that played a role in driving the AIDS crisis. NCDs are no less isolated in their causality and similarly require a multisector approach to prevention.
Engagement — “E” — was what helped the AIDS movement become so influential. By borrowing from the playbook of the disability rights movement, which championed the mantra “Nothing About Us Without Us,” AIDS advocates demanded representation on the bodies established to address the disease.
For example, UNAIDS remains the only UN agency with seats on its board for representatives from civil society. This norm is so powerfully embedded in the AIDS movement that it would be almost unthinkable for an AIDS meeting to take place without representation from the community.
Disease prevention movements must also develop persuasive narratives, and “F” — framing the issue — was essential to the AIDS community’s effort to gain support from political leaders. In particular, access to AIDS treatment was framed as a matter of economic justice.
Framing the narrative this way led to a dramatic reduction in the price of medicines, so much so that more than half of people living with HIV in low and middle-income countries are in treatment.
An equally important framing issue for AIDS, which is highly relevant to the NCDs movement, is that of responsibility. The AIDS community worked hard to shift the focus from blaming individuals’ lifestyle choices to putting the onus on the state for providing healthcare and removing legal discrimination.
In the AIDS debate, gender — the movement’s “G” — was a significant focal point. HIV was initially seen as a “gay disease,” and gender identity was embedded in the DNA of the AIDS movement early on.
Gender dimensions of NCDs are no less important; one only has to consider how alcohol and tobacco are marketed to understand that. Gender, therefore, must become a focus of NCDs prevention efforts.
Finally, “H” — human rights — was the bedrock of the AIDS response. Campaigns were launched against discrimination in workplaces, schools and health centers. Strategic litigation helped ensure equality under the law.
The AIDS movement refused to hold major conferences in countries with punitive laws against people living with HIV. The NCD movement could take a similar tack by, for example, refusing to meet in countries that fail to restrict advertising of junk food to children.
The list of AIDS lessons could continue throughout the alphabet, but ending with “H” is apt, given that human rights drove the response and should drive the response to NCDs. Poverty, exclusion, and social and economic marginalization put people at higher risk for HIV. It is no different for NCDs.
The early mainstream reaction to the AIDS epidemic was to ask: “Why don’t those people make better choices?”
The AIDS movement made clear that that was the wrong question.
Today, with 70 percent of the planet at risk of premature death from preventable illnesses, “those people” are many of us.
The NCD and AIDS communities can learn from one another. We are a stronger movement when we join forces.
Kent Buse is chief of Strategic Policy Directions at UNAIDS. Laurel Sprague is executive director of the Global Network of People Living with HIV.
The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of UNAIDS.
Copyright: Project Syndicate 2017
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers