Ti(RED) of Bono?

Those of you who use the Swedish music provider Spotify as your chief form of procrastination will have undoubtedly seen the obnoxiously large pop-ups sporting crimson representations of the year 2015, preventing you from accessing your Arcade Fire or whatever (I’m fooling no-one, I mean Rihanna) at quite the speed you would like.

After accidentally clicking on the shiny red balloons in my fervour to play ‘What’s My Name’ again before the Justin Bieber advert started, for the first time in the last month, something actually managed to oust that addictive chorus from my brain – it appears that the charitable giant product(RED), famously promoted by U2’s Bono, think that they can bring the world’s first HIV-free generation of newborns into the world by 2015. In a war we have been fighting since 1985, a major breakthrough is now projected to be barely four years away.

Incredible, right? Exactly. It took centuries to eradicate smallpox from the world, yet after 26 years,
one sometimes-shady charity is trying to convince us that it is actually possible that in 2015, no child on Earth will be born HIV+? I doubt it, Bono.

Of course, amazing progress has been made in HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment. Male
circumcision, which cuts the risk of contracting STIs via unprotected sex by up to 50%, has never been at such high levels, and in many African countries, anti-rape legislation is becoming more effectively enforced every day. Treatment clinics are running strongly, sex education is more widespread in some regions of Africa than in some of the USA’s red-states, and antiretroviral drugs have never been more sophisticated.

But the biggest hurdle to overcome as far as new cases of HIV are concerned will be the treatment of expectant mothers and newborn babies, and this is where I begin to doubt (RED)’s lusciously seductive campaign. Pre-natal care in many regions of Africa is patchy to say the least; HIV-free mothers need consistent ante-natal care, let alone mothers who need to be on carefully controlled doses of antiretrovirals and be educated on how their alternatives to breastfeeding their child, all of which works towards making sure that the baby is born, and remains, HIV-free.

This isn’t like influenza – there’s no vaccine for HIV, and we’re not close to finding one – the key to actually eradicating HIV from the world is down to prevention, because it’s a far easier virus to prevent than treat. (RED)’s right in approaching it this way, but the lack of transparency in exactly how they plan to achieve this isn’t reassuring. Actually, (RED)’s lack of transparency on the whole isn’t reassuring.

The (RED) brand is an alarmingly ubiquitous one, which works with the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria by licensing itself out to its high-profile partner companies – so pervasive are (RED)’s advertising strategies, I guarantee, you will have seen their handiwork. Brands which have endorsed (RED) with special products and ranges include Converse, Apple and Starbucks, among many others. All of this means that (RED)’s income is astronomically high, which bodes well for the same being true for their impact on HIV/AIDS prevention, yes?

However, in 2007, (RED) invested $100million (£65million) into advertising and raised only $18million (£13million) for the Global Fund. That’s an $82million deficit which can’t all be going towards paying staff and overheads – that leaves how much they are paying their advertisers; something tells me that Nike, Gap and American Express aren’t cheap clients.

(RED) don’t need to be high-profile – they need to get trained people into every corner of this continent. They need to effectively target vulnerable pregnant women – this isn’t about ‘bringing together global artists’ to create ‘inspirational’ images which frankly, are just an insult to the plight of every impoverished HIV+ person – they need to stop paying rockstars seven-figure sums to front a campaign no one has any idea how to donate to without buying a new iPod or a £4 cup of coffee.

So much about HIV/AIDS has come to light in the last couple of decades; it’s Human
Immunodeficiency Virus, not Gay-Related Immune Disease. The percentage of HIV+ heterosexual
people outstripped that of HIV+ homosexuals long ago. Do (RED) really think that HIV-positive mothers need ‘the talent of global artists’? What they need are their drugs. And they need them _yesterday_.