HIV, AIDS and security: where are we now?

Abstract

HIV/AIDS is one of the greatest single causes of death and suffering on the planet. Over the last decade the societal impact of HIV/AIDS has been widely discussed in terms of national and international security. This article assesses the securitizing move and suggests that HIV/AIDS was only partially securitized at best and both the political consensus and strength of evidence were overestimated. It argues for greater nuance in our understanding of the link between HIV/AIDS and security, and the effects of its securitization, suggesting that neither is straightforward, and both are subject to case sensitivities.

HIV/AIDS and securitization theory

“…The evidence is mixed, but seems to suggest that security has not become a major part of global AIDS responses except in a few cases, the clearest of which is the US, reflecting the prior and fuller securitization there. Beyond the US, although the security dimensions of HIV/AIDS have continued to be an occasional feature of policy statements, it is questionable how many governments and agencies actually see and respond to the pandemic in security terms (Ingram, 2005;McInnes and Rushton, 2010). Many of the most important developments in the global response to HIV/AIDS (including the MDGs, the 2001 Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS and the creation of the Global Fund) have not rested on security considerations or logics.…”

“…We have argued elsewhere (McInnes and Rushton, 2010;Rushton, 2010a) that this orthodox account of the securitization of HIV/AIDS is problematic on a number of empirical grounds. In this section we attempt to use some of those insights to develop securitization theory in three ways.…”

Global health financing: Priority to poor people or poor countries?

“…The impact of health on education (Bundy 2011) also has value beyond the direct economic benefits that follow, and good health can contribute to political participation, political stability, and national and global security (Kassalow 2001;Feldbaum et al 2006;McInnes and Rushton 2010;Mattila et al 2013). With respect to the natural environment, a healthy population may have a greater capacity to adapt to changes in climate and other environmental changes; and reduced child mortality and increased life expectancy may contribute to lower fertility rates and thereby promote a sustainable world population (Shenk et al 2013;Stephenson et al 2013).…”

Security trumps drug control: How securitization explains drug policy paradoxes in Thailand and Vietnam

“…The security / HIV link has been contested by academics (see Barnett, 2008;Fourie, 2007; for support see Ancker, 2007;McInnes & Rushton, 2010;Singer, 2002). Evidence is not, however, necessary for policy (Monaghan, 2011) Why then did Thailand not roll out harm reduction policies, when it too had a significant HIV population?…”

“…In this case harm reduction broke zero tolerance policies founded upon an ultra-prohibitionist philosophy; as did development-orientated opium suppression in Thailand. Furthermore, as Abrahamsen (2005) and McInnes and Rushton (2010) have argued, security and normal politics are not binary positions but rather represent ends of the spectrum: HIV and opium may have been partly securitized.…”