Mark Dybul Out as Global AIDS Coordinator
Two weeks ago I reported that Bush appointee Mark Dybul had been asked by Obama to stay on in his capacity as Global AIDS Coordinator. That appears to have changed, according to the Washington Blade:
"Two sources familiar with the U.S. Global AIDS Office said Obama’s senior advisors were concerned about the negative reaction from some AIDS activists and reproductive rights groups to news that Dybul was keeping his job. 'What I can say is that Ambassador Mark Dybul has been asked to submit his resignation as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator and he is no longer serving in that role,' said State Department spokesperson Amanda Harper. Asked if she knew why Obama decided to replace Dybul after reportedly asking him to stay, Harper said, 'I can’t give any insight into the background. All I can say is that he has been asked to submit his resignation and that he’s no loner in the role.' The office is an arm of the State Department. News of the Obama administration’s decision to replace Dybul came one day after the Senate confirmed former Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) as the new Secretary of State. In his role as Global AIDS Coordinator, Dybul, a physician specializing in HIV medicine, was in charge of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, a multi-billion dollar program to fight AIDS in developing countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. The program enjoys widespread bipartisan support and is considered one of Bush’s most successful initiatives."
Previously
Report: Obama to Name Gay Men, Lesbian to White House Posts [tr]
Condi Delivers the Labels of Gay Marriage without the Laws [tr]
All I can say is that it's brutal when one administration succeeds another. Even when one president succeeds another of the same party, it's usually a bloodbath.
Having said that, it's too bad that Obama seemingly caved to far left groups and fired an otherwise accomplished administrator.
Posted by: 207guy | Jan 26, 2009 11:16:00 AM
If he was supportive of Bush's AIDS policies, especially in terms of family planning and abstinence, then it really can't be any surprise that he was let go. (Even if he wasn't personally supportive, he did implement them for a few years...something of a stain.) And it would be a major surprise if they don't replace him with a gay man (or possibly woman).
Posted by: Paul R | Jan 26, 2009 11:25:36 AM
Are CARE and the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation "far left groups"? They've criticized PEPFAR policies, so I guess the must be.
Dybul may have a heart of gold, but he CHOSE to administer AND DEFEND the Bush Theocracy's scientifically indefensible and, therefore, criminally negligent insistence on wasting tens of millions of dollars on the "A" [Abstinence] and "B" [Be Faithful] of PEPFAR's "ABC" program. "C" refers to condoms, but not only were they discouraged but were officially supposed to only go to "high risk" groups.
According to the international AIDS charity AVERT, Dybul has insisted:
"'The notion that there's an excessive focus on abstinence is just untrue....'
In April 2006, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the results of an extensive investigation of PEPFAR's policies for preventing sexual HIV transmission. Seventeen of the twenty country teams interviewed by the GAO said that fulfilling the spending requirements set by PEPFAR presented 'challenges to their ability to respond to local prevention needs'. Some said that they had had to scale down efforts to prevent mother-to-child transmission or to improve blood safety in order to try to meet the one-third AB requirement, and many said that not enough emphasis was being placed on condoms. In one country, the budget for outreach work with high-risk groups such as sex workers, sexually active youth and discordant couples [in which one partner is HIV+] was cut from $8 million to $4 million in order to meet AB requirements. ...
'There are perceived restrictions in PEPFAR about what you can discuss with whom, so everyone is being very cautious... People are afraid to discuss family planning, condoms, abortion - so many groups don't address them at all'."
Dybul was more a part of the problem than a part of the solution.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Jan 26, 2009 12:58:22 PM
With HRC there, I'm surprised anyone will get to keep their job at State without signing a blood oath.
Posted by: anon | Jan 26, 2009 4:50:10 PM
Leland Frances:
I respect your position and agree that people have to be held accountable for the policies they advance even if they don't fully support them.
But with respect, I don't think your conclusion is informed by full awareness of the situation here or by a fair consideration of the facts.
In the interest of disclosure, I have known Mark Dybul for almost 20 years and I personally respect and admire him. But profesionally I have had occasion to follow and report on his work at PEPFAR, and while not fully objective, I believe my analysis is informed by much more detailed awareness and consideration of the facts than others I have seen (yours included).
While the PEPFAR program is absolutely susceptible to broad criticism for its overemphasis on A and B over C, the fact is that Mark Dybul worked within the (wrongheaded) constraints imposed on him by the Bush administration to create what may be the SOLE signature foreign program success of the past administration. He literally created programs and systems where previously there were none, and through a combination of political acumen and managerial skill he navigated the federal policy-making and policy-implementing bureaucracies in a way I have seen few others do.
Would you have preferred that there NOT have been a Mark Dybul at State running PEPFAR during the last administration? If there hadn't been, then trust me and all the other independent observers on the issue, more people would have died or suffered from the symptoms of AIDS than actually did.
Few government officials can say with absolute certainty that their work has SAVED LIVES, let alone hundreds of thousands or millions of them. Mark Dybul can. A good and, I would argue, uniquely effective man has been badly treated by the new administration's political gamesmanship when, by the way, we've been led to believe it would be above such things.
If Timoghy Geithner can be confirmed at Treasury despite his difficulty paying taxes because he's the alleged only man who can get the job done (which itself stretches credibility to a breaking point) then surely Mark Dybul, who is in fact probably the BEST man to continue the work of PEPFAR once unshcakled my the Bush administration's ludicrous limitations, should be forgiven the fact that he made the best of what he could during his previous term.
Posted by: Hermes in DC | Jan 29, 2009 10:48:14 AM
If I understood your response correctly, Hermes, you are essentially saying that Dybul deserves praise—and to remain in the position—because at least some lives were saved through his successful application of a kind of political triage forced upon him by his masters. One can imagine him reasoning, "Yes, some people will die because of the AB parts of the program, but the troglodytes in this administration will let the program die itself if I don't stay and save as many as I can with C and delivering anti-retrovirals."
Therefore, I could buy the "praise" part IF he not, as I quoted and you chose not to address let alone defend, DENIED that "A" and "B" were an "excessive" part of the program when people on the proverbial ground [which I trust he rarely was] AS WELL AS the GAO said the opposite.
Nor was what they said merely "broad criticism." Revealing that a program directed at people most likely to become infected/spread infection was "cut from $8 million to $4 million in order to meet AB requirements" is as specific—and indefensible—as one could get.
If the issue was that the administrators of programs in FIFTEEN of 17 states the GAO studied wrongly understood what PEPFAR required then whose fault is that but the person in charge, i.e., Dybul?
Not blinded by your subjectivity, the Obama administration was right to remove someone who had, whatever his successes, failed to either be entirely honest or failed to remedy the realities of practice "in country" regardless of what the "letter" of the program intended.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Jan 29, 2009 1:51:08 PM