Interarea: Table of Contents


Session 198: Roundtable: Dissonance in the Policy and Practice of HIV/AIDS Discourse: Case Analyses of Better Linkages from Southeast Asia


Organizer and Chair: Marjorie A. Muecke, Ford Foundation, New York

Discussants: Chris Beyrer, Johns Hopkins University; Chou Meng Tar, Cambodian AIDS Social Research Project; Wu Zhunyou, Chinese Academy of Preventative Medicine; Irwan Julianto, KOMPAS Newspaper; Michael Tan, Health Action Information Network, Philippines; Waranya Teokul, National Economic and Social Development Board, Bangkok; Jamie Uhrig, UNAIDS, Hanoi

Discrepancies between the rhetorics of government and intergovernmental HIV/AIDS-related policy, and the practices of the media and HIV/AIDS service programs are commonplace. Often this reflects inadequate political will to assure implementation of the policy by providing resources needed for programs and research. It may also reflect biases, fears, stigma and stereotypic thinking at the level of implementation. While UNAIDS policy, for example, calls for respect for the human rights of all persons with HIV/AIDS, abuse of those rights at the local levels of programs and media, is widespread. Such discrepancies block more effective, just and humane approaches to prevention efforts, and, because they are largely unaddressed, tend to become accepted as inevitable and routine.

One presenter per country will identify for discussion selected discordances between national and global AIDS policy rhetoric and local realities, with a view towards analyzing efforts and contexts that are more constructive in linking policy and practice. Attention will focus upon the enactment of policies through the work of both government services and NGOs. The implementation of policies related to the distribution of prevention interventions, to the accessibility/distribution of treatments, and to the protection of the rights of the infected and affected are of particular interest. Together, these brief presentations will comprise a corpus of cases from up to seven countries for discussion among the panel and with the audience. The audience will be asked to participate in formulating comparative analyses of the country presentations.