Marie Clark: Thank you all for joining us, and welcome to the Jubilee USA Network and the Health Global Access Project conference call on international debt and AIDS. We will have three speakers with us today, Professor Jeffrey Sachs, the Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University and Special Advisor to the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, on Millennium Development Goals. WeÕll then hear from Fr. Pete Henriot, the Director of the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection, who is a key force in the Zambian Debt Cancellation Movement and is calling in from Lusaka, Zambia, and then Sharon Anne Lynch of the -- Director of International Policy for Health GAP will close our opening remarks. We should have ample for questions. We will actually move to questions specifically for Professor Sachs right after his remarks since he will not be able to stay with us for the whole time, but just to get us started, my name is Marie Clark, and IÕm the National Coordinator of the Jubilee USA Network, and I will provide a brief background for you on the current US proposal on debt cancellation which will be discussed by the G7 on October 1st.

So, jumping right in, as many of may know, the international Jubilee movement has brought people of faith and conscience throughout 60 nations in Asia, Africa and Latin America and a dozen other nations in Europe and North America together, calling for debt cancellation as a tool to build right relationships between nations and as an effective way to address poverty and the health crises of our times. Jubilee USA Network calls for 100 percent debt cancellation for all impoverished nations without harmful conditions. In 1996, you might recall, the G7 and the international financial institutions responded to the growing Jubilee call with the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, HIPC, which has provided some interim debt relief to impoverished countries.

In Cologne, Germany, in 1999, HIPC was expanded and the G7 announced commitments for 100 percent bilateral cancellation of the debts of HIPC countries. And in the past eight years, we have seen that when a country has more access to their own resources through debt relief, they use this money extremely well. And the latest HIPC report of the IMF and the World Bank shows that on average, eligible countries have at least doubled poverty reduction expenditures since 1999. However, the HIPC programÕs extensive conditions have been counterproductive for impoverished country development. And the debt relief has been too slow for too few countries and with too many burdensome obstacles. With the HIPC initiative scheduled to end at the end of this year, we are at a critical juncture and this brings us to the point of this call which is that in June, the G8 discussed options for deeper debt reduction including the concept of a 100 percent debt cancellation by the multilateral creditors. And while they did not come to an agreement at Sea Island, Georgia, they had released a statement at that time extending the HIPC initiative until 2006 and instructing the G7 finance ministers to explore options for deeper debt cancellation.

Shortly after that summit, we learned the US has crafted a very specific proposal for 100 percent multilateral debt cancellation for 30-some nations as an extension of their previous grants, not loans policy. The US is proposing that this cancellation be paid for from the institutionÕs own resources, specifically that the $8 billion that it will cause the IMF to cancel this debt would come in part from gold and in part from removing the eligible countries from what is called the Poverty Reduction Growth Facility which is the structural adjustment lending arm of the IMF. These countries would no longer be eligible for the PRGF, but instead would receive only grant financing from IDA. The World Bank proportion would be paid by World Bank reserves. We also understand that on the G7 level, the most -- most of the nations have been generally supportive of the idea of a 100 percent debt cancellation, but that some of the G7 are concerned that the financing plan will not bring a net increase in resources to impoverished countries. This would propose -- they would propose instead that there should be additional resources, which we would argue could come either from additional gold sales or gold revaluation or from bilateral contributions from donors. This concern has been echoed by a few in the NGO community as well. We would argue we would like to see the IMFÕs large gold reserves put to use.

Now, while almost every other member of the G7 can take credit for working to resolve the debt crisis at one point or another, the fact that the United States is putting forth this proposal during the US presidency of the G8 and in advance to close presidential election race makes this a unique political moment for debt cancellations. Jubilee USA Network believes that it is absolutely critical that the G7, as a body, announce on October 1st a commitment for 100 percent debt cancellations. We call on the G7 to expand the proposal to include all impoverished countries that need full access to their own resources to fight poverty and address the AIDS crisis, and for that cancellation to be free of harmful conditionality. Now, we must have a deal on debt in October. A unilateral declaration by the United States will not be enough to carry this through. We hope that the US will do whatever is necessary to come to a consensus with the rest of the G7. For example, we would propose that a good compromise would be the responsible gold sale that could provide the additional money that the Europeans demand, but we also hope that the rest of the G7 will not scuttle this opportunity. Our call is that each of the seven leaders recognize the moral imperative of achieving 100 percent debt cancellation on October 1st and not allow this critical moment for the worldÕs poor to be squandered because of an unwillingness to compromise. We cannot delay. There must be a debt deal now.

IÕd like to now ask and invite Professor Jeffrey Sachs to be able to speak a little bit about the connection between that and AIDS, and how a delay on this decision could leave lives in the balance.

Jeffrey Sachs: Thank you very much. Well, let me thank everybody for being on the call and thank Jubilee for the invitation. The issue is actually quite straightforward, which is that the worldÕs poorest countries have been bled for years to repay debts that they cannot afford to repay except at the cost, literally, of millions of lives lost because of the -- lack of access to even the most basic health services. WhatÕs been happening for years in the poorest countries is that money that should be invested in health care, whether itÕs AIDS, whether itÕs bed nets to fight malaria, whether itÕs basic antibiotics and immunizations, has been funnelled off to repay debts. And the results are very plain and quite obvious, in fact, for many years which is that there is mass death in the poorest countries that nobody wants, nobody in their right mind could realize the situation and let it continue and yet, that is what has been happening inadvertently and tragically for years.

I was on a commission several years ago, for example, in March 2000, the so called Meltzer Commission which was a congressional commission on the international financial institutions, and that was a commission filled with conservative Republicans as well as liberal Democrats and by a vote of 11 to nothing, the commission voted that the IMF, the World Bank and the regional development banks should write off in their entirety all claims against heavily indebted poor countries that implement an effective economic and social development strategy. So, already, this was crystal clear right across the political spectrum, that we were making demands of impoverished countries, which were simply self-defeating. Since that report, a number of things have happened that I think are important to underscore. The United States and a 190 other governments around the world endorsed the Millennium Development Goals which are commitments to cut by half extreme poverty by the year 2015, and as a follow-up to the Millennium Development Goal commitment which was made in September 2000, the United States joined the other countries in March, 2002, in what is called the Monterrey Consensus, and interestingly, President Bush mentioned the Monterrey Consensus and endorsed it, took pride in it when he spoke to the General Assembly a couple of days ago. In the Monterrey Consensus, the rich countries promised a vast increase of help to the poorest countries including much greater debt relief and including much greater development assistance. In fact, all countries pledged to make concrete efforts to the target of 0.7 percent of Gross National Product in development aid, and that would mean an increase in the United States of about $55 billion per year of aid.

So, the United States is signed on to increase support for the poorest countries so that the poorest countries can fight disease, can fight AIDS, can fight the other killer pandemics like TB and malaria, can get children in school, can provide safe drinking water to the populations and so forth. We have not followed through. The rest of the G7 has not followed through. The step of a 100 percent cancellation of the debt is a common sense step that has been widely recognized right across the political spectrum for years. It should be combined, in fact, with a significant increase of development assistance, something that has not happened. The combination of debt cancellation and an increase of aid exactly what the US and Europe have promised, would enable even the poorest countries of the world to cut, by millions, the number of people dying, to get AIDS, TB and malaria under control, to put people on treatment that desperately need it in order to stay alive from these diseases, and much more importantly, to not only solve these problems temporarily, but to solve them permanently by giving the poorest countries a chance to achieve economic development. This is what the President promised at the General Assembly --

Jeffrey Sachs: Yeah. Couple of days ago and this is what needs to be followed through right now. I am just coming out of a UN session on Africa where speaker after speaker, African presidents, heads of state, the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, many other distinguished speakers all spoke about the need to break out of business as usual if weÕre going to have a chance to follow through and succeed in all the things weÕve pledged to do. And this dropping the debt is an obvious, crucial step, very straightforward, recognized for years, easy to implement, it will not be enough by itself to solve these problems, but itÕs a vital step in solving the problems. Let me stop there.

Marie Clark: Thank you very much. Now, moderator, if we could have some initial -- IÕm sorry, operator, if we could have some initial questions, and if reporters could really focus only on the questions that are specifically to Professor Sachs, we will have time for general questions and discussion later.

Operator: Ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question or a comment at this time, please press the Ō1Ķ key on your touch-tone telephone. If your question has been answered or you wish to remove yourself from the queue, please press the Ō#Ķ key. Our first question comes from Andrew Balls.

Andrew Balls: Oh, hi, itÕs Andrew Balls with the Financial Times. Just on additional resources, I would have thought that the question of debt relief and whether it comes from additional resources or not is -- is pretty crucial and itÕs not just an unimportant concern of the other G7 countries. Just wanted to get your feel on that.

Jeffrey Sachs: I have no doubt that there are going to be additional resources because weÕre going to keep after the world to honor the commitments that have been made and the debt is only a modest part of the overall story.

Andrew Balls: Yeah.

Jeffrey Sachs: ItÕs a very important part, itÕs a very salient political part because itÕs the chance for freedom from the -- these chains of the past, but it, by itself -- even if all the debtÕs wiped out, the poorest countries are going to need massive increases on top of debt cancellation and thatÕs what the G8 summit next July is going to be about. ThatÕs what the International Finance Facility of Chancellor Gordon Brown is about. So, one thing at a time: LetÕs cancel the debt because itÕs a necessary step. The added resources are much more than the question of whether the specific flows in IDA and the IMF will be made up one way or another because however those technical tweaks are made in the next couple of weeks, thatÕs a very small story compared to the much larger story that development assistance is less than half of what it needs to be right now. And weÕre going to have to increase by 10s of billions of dollars, 10s of billions every year, the level of development assistance, and Chancellor Gordon Brown and Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Jacques Chirac and dozens of other world leaders have said as much in -- in recent days at -- at the United -- those at the United Nations and those who have been speaking about this in -- in recent weeks. So, my feeling is, cancel the debt, donÕt solve the general development assistance issues in the next week or two, but do expect that by the time the G8 summit comes next July, weÕre talking about moving annual development flows up by doubling essentially another 70 billion a year or so during the coming decade.

Marie Clark: Operator --

Operator: Our next question comes from Cyrille Cartier.

Cyrille Cartier: Yes. Hello, Cyrille Cartier with Reuters. Apologize if you already answered this, but how much money would this debt cancellation of HIPC countries amount to and how is it going to be funded and -- and how will it be essentially carried out? And if I could follow up with another questionÉ

Jeffrey Sachs: Yeah, I think Jubilee should provide you, and I suspect that they will with specific numbers of current debt servicing by country and -- and exactly the amounts, but weÕre talking about flows on the order of $10-15 billion of debt servicing in -- in recent years to -- depending on exactly which group of countries weÕre discussing which is sizable, of course, and crushing compared to the size of the health budgets of those countries. For example -- but again, I have to stress that even if all of that flow were stopped by cancelling the debt outright, these countries would need increased assistance on top of that by 10s of billions of dollars in the aggregate. But since the rich world is so rich, as a share of income, itÕs tiny fractions of 1 percent of the annual income of the rich world. So, this is really very, very small flows compared to the rich world income even though crushingly large compared to the incomes of the impoverished countries whose income levels are often 1/200th of those -- of the United States, for example, per person.

So, the way that this would be done is quite straightforward. The bank and the fund, the IMF and the World Bank would say to the countries, you donÕt have to pay anymore. We basically donÕt collect from you any longer. And there would be conditions attached, which I think are appropriate personally, which is that you would have to demonstrate -- you, the current debtor country would have to demonstrate that the saving youÕre going to get from this will be invested in high priority areas such as controlling AIDS, TB and malaria or helping, I should say, and helping to keep young children in school and other very high priority poverty reduction areas. And this is whatÕs been done in recent years and it actually works. And itÕs demonstrated over and over again, that you tell the countries, you donÕt have to pay, but you have to channel the money into something else and the money actually goes there, not only one for one, but more than one for one. It gives the countries the idea to increase their own spending on top of the savings in schools or in health care or in water and sanitation.

Now, the question that many people are discussing is, well, if the moneyÕs not coming back to the World Bank, that is a modest part of the income that the bank uses for the new round of loans. And the point that IÕm making is that is correct, but vastly, more than that amount is going to have to be made available through the World Bank, in fact, to the poor countries through new direct grants from donor governments such as the United States or the UK or others in replenishments of the World Bank financing facilities like IDA. So, there are a lot of technical issues involved, but there are no deep conceptual issues. Rip up the debt, insist that the saving be used for social purposes, replenish the bank and the fund, not so specifically for the specific debts because that can be handled in many ways even out of existing resources, but for future flows from those institutions, replenish the institutions as necessary with larger grants coming from the rich countries.

Cyrille Cartier: Thank you. Maybe IÕll ask an unrelated question later.

Operator: Our next question comes from Kristiana Oelrich.

Kristiana Oelrich: Yes, Professor Sachs, this question relates to the one you just answered. You are saying, cancel and debt and replenish the World Bank coffers. What if the first part of this is going to happen, but the second one is not, and I think that is the -- the main concern at the World Bank and the IMF, that they will just not get the funding. And as a result, poor countries will be worse off in the end.

Jeffrey Sachs: I think that it is a wrong concern. ItÕs wrong for two reasons. One, if the World Bank thinks itÕs actually doing any good, collecting money from Malawi so that it can re-lend money to Malawi, then itÕs misunderstood.

Kristiana Oelrich: Uh-huh.

Jeffrey Sachs: So, I donÕt think that thereÕs any real benefit of taking back money from impoverished countries so that you can re-lend it to those countries, and thatÕs the shell game thatÕs underway right now. So, I would say to the World Bank, forget it, calm down, chill out, collecting from the poorest people in the world so you can re-lend them the money is no great joy and itÕs beneath the dignity of your institution anyway. Just cancel it. I would say to the bank as I did write in the Economist magazine recently, it is absolutely right that the World Bank say to the rich countries, look, you promised to back the Millennium Development Goals, you havenÕt done what youÕve promised, you are far short of the targets, I am speaking specifically of the United States right now, Germany, Japan, some of the other large creditors, not the Nordic countries which always follow through on their commitments, but the United States, for example, and you know that the best way to get the job done to follow up on your promises is increase your donor assistance and put it through multilateral funding mechanisms like IDA. So, IÕm a big fan of IDA, but IÕm not a big fan of IDA financing its loan to Burkina Faso by collecting from Malawi. I think thatÕs preposterous. IÕm in favor of financing a grant to Burkina Faso from money from the United States. That makes sense.

So, I think the European supporters of the World Bank also should just face the reality of this proposition. These are countries that are broke. Charging them debt is killing their people. Asking them to repay the debt so that the World Bank can lend them the same money or lend some other impoverished country their money makes no sense. The only thing that makes sense is the net transfer of resources from rich to poor countries, not the transfer of resources from impoverished countries to other impoverished countries. And I will be the first to be standing up everyday as IÕve already been doing, to say weÕve got to get much more money into IDA, vastly more than these little reflows that are coming right now anyway, which shouldnÕt even be counted as net aid because youÕre taking away from one hand, giving it back to the other and calling that aid. What we need is for the United States and Europe and Japan to agree that instead of IDA running at about $8 billion a year, it should be giving grants of about $25 billion a year funded by the exact promises that the United States and Europe and Japan made in the Monterrey Consensus in 2002, but have not yet fulfilled.

Operator: Our next question is a follow-up question from Cyrille Cartier.

Cyrille Cartier: Yes, thank you. Well, speaking of the World Bank, the -- Sebastian MallabyÕs book is coming out on Wolfensohn, do you think heÕs been a good World Bank President, and if so, why, and should he serve another term?

Jeffrey Sachs: I -- I think that he has been a good president because he has drawn a lot of attention to the problems of extreme poverty and heÕs shown a tremendous dedication and -- and energy to that. But, I donÕt think that the Bank and the Fund have been effective institutions in actually solving real problems. But thatÕs not the problem of the President of the World Bank. ThatÕs the problem of the Board. The Board of these -- of the Bank and the Board of the Fund are, of course, dollar weighted votes. So, these institutions are controlled by the leading shareholders and mainly by the United States. And the whole structural adjustment era which started in the early 1980s and has basically continued until very recently and now has changed rhetorically, but has not yet changed in practice was an imposition of the donor countries which told the Bank and the Fund, look, you have a little bit to lend or a little bit to grant and you can give a little bit of debt relief, but basically, your job is to squeeze poor countries so that they get their budgets balanced, even though weÕre not giving them very much help, and if that means squeezing their social sectors so that theyÕre spending $3 or $4 per person per year for health or they canÕt afford to treat people with AIDS, well, so be it.

That has been the deep essence of the last 20 years, which is the rich countries have not followed through on longstanding promises to provide financial help to the poorest countries so that they could escape the trap of extreme poverty and disease and hunger. They have not followed through. So, the IMF has said, well, our job is to tell these countries to balance their budgets and even if that means balancing them at killer levels so that effectively, thereÕs no health care system in much of Africa because there is no way to pay for it in impoverished countries. And the donors arenÕt giving the money. Well, thatÕs the -- thatÕs the -- the nasty job of the IMF. And unfortunately, the Bank and the Fund were misused badly in this process by the United States and some of the other leading shareholders. I think that President Wolfensohn has done a very good job of drawing attention to this challenge and he has spoken up bravely for the need for more resources. But the actual job of the Bank and the Fund in the field has been so much less than it should be, tragically less because of the way that the United States and some of the other countries have faced up to this challenge or failed to face up to commitments that theyÕve made for adequate financial help for the poorest countries to get out of this poverty trap.

Marie Clark: Thank you, Professor Sachs. I know that your time is short. So, operator, letÕs hold questions now for the more general questions after weÕve hear -- heard the two other speakers. Thanks again.

Jeffrey Sachs: Great. Thank you very much.

Marie Clark: Bye.

Jeffrey Sachs: Thanks. Bye, bye.

Marie Clark: Next, IÕd like to invite to share a couple of comments about how all of what has been said so far translates on the ground to ask Fr. Pete Henriot of the Jesuit Centre of Theological Reflection to speak specifically on the crisis of debt and AIDS in Zambia and the social and faith-based movement there to drop the debt.

Fr. Pete Henriot: Thank you very much, Marie, and I thank very much Jubilee USA for this opportunity. Probably the first most obvious point to make is that I agree 100 percent with both the analysis and the recommendations that Jeffrey Sachs has made, theyÕre very clear, theyÕre very strong to the point. IÕve lived and worked in Zambia for 15 years. Let me just say three points about this discussion on debt and on HIV/AIDS.

The first one is that Zambia is a very good case study. Just one month from now, weÕll celebrate the 40th anniversary of independence from Great Britain. Zambia is a rich country with tremendous resources. It is a peaceful country. ThereÕs been no conflict in those 40 years, but it is a very poor country, one of the poorest in the world, 163 out of a 173 on the United NationsÕ Development Index. But itÕs a country that is deep in debt. And I think what Jeffrey Sachs made his point was that it has been bled for years, funneling off some scarce resources to pay the debts. ZambiaÕs debt currently stands at US$ 6.5 billion. ThatÕs in a country of 10 million people, US$ 650 per capita. ThatÕs double the GNP per capita. ItÕs a country that pays a tremendous amount of its scarce resources in servicing debt, not in servicing the people. We did a study here at Jubilee Zambia a short time ago that showed that during the 1990s, 20 percent of the Gross Domestic Product was paid in servicing debt, but only 2 to 3 percent during the 1990s was paid for health and education. Now, you canÕt build a healthy -- you canÕt build a developing country without healthy and educated citizens, no matter how much of the debt might be paid.

So, weÕre looking at a case where you have a very serious problem of debt, not all the problem of Zambia, Zambia went into debt because itÕs main product for exports, copper, declined; itÕs main import, petrol, increased; some things that Zambia had no control over. Zambia went into debt because it stood up against South Africa and the apartheid regime. It hosted the freedom fighters. It was a leader in freeing Southern African countries and it paid heavily in debt for that. So, Zambia is a classic case study of a heavily indebted poor country that suffers greatly as it tries to pay back, as it tries to maintain its own sustainability. ItÕs a country that has, as I said, richness, but poorness. And itÕs a country strongly challenged by HIV/AIDS. Some 15 to 20 percent of the sexually active citizens of Zambia are infected. And as we say, a 100 percent of Zambians, all of us, are affected. Now, thatÕs Zambia as a case study with the relationship between debt, debt servicing, HIV/AIDS, and the need to respond to that.

But the second point is to make that Zambia is getting some assistance. ItÕs called HIPC, but I think itÕs quite significant that the President of Zambia just two days ago, in addressing the United Nations General Assembly, President Mwanawasa made very clear, itÕs in the headlines all over the newspapers here in Zambia this day, that the HIPC approach is not a sufficient approach. It has three major faults.

First of all the, HIPC approach is based upon a sustainable debt being defined not in terms of how much money does the country need to service its people, but how much must be gathered through export earnings to service debt. Now, this simply, as Professor Sachs made so obvious, youÕre saying, first of all, return the money to the rich countries and then if you have something left over, serve your poor people. The second thing is that the HIPC comes with a lot of conditionalities, liberalization, that simply ignores -- so often ignores the social consequences, privatize the industries. What does that mean in terms of employment? Stretch the budget, make the budget very thin. What does that mean in terms of health and education? These are the conditionalities that are tied to HIPC. ItÕs not a social, friendly program. And thirdly, even with HIPC resources -- even with HIPC reducing some of the debt stock, Zambia will still be paying some US$120 to US$150 million each year on debt servicing. Now, thatÕs more than itÕs paying on health and education.

So, I simply repeat what President Mwanawasa said in addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations, the HIPC approach is not the way. And so, the third point to make is thatÕs why Jubilee Zambia says 100 percent debt cancellation. ItÕs not just an economic issue itÕs a moral issue. But we donÕt, here in Zambia call, just cancel the debt and everything will be okay. The Jubilee Zambia movement here is very strong in saying that the Zambian government must also be responsible, put in place what we call a debt mechanism with two parts; an oversight of how the debt relief resources are spent so that they go towards the poor, and secondly, very strict contraction processes so that no new debt is contracted without full accountability, full transparency. And then, of course, calling for 100 percent cancellation, we also echo what Jeffery Sachs has said, increase the aid, no more loans, but grants. Let there be additional aid coming in, and we make the obvious point. I think everybody in the world recognizes it. There are tremendous resources available to do what has been done in the past year in Iraq. Cannot at least a little of those resources increase the livelihood of the poor and not just be used for destructive purposes? Zambia is a good case study. HIPC is not working for Zambia. Jubilee says 100 percent. ThatÕll make the difference. ThatÕs what IÕd say now.

Marie Clark: Thank you very much, Fr. Pete Henriot. And to close us out I would like to invite Sharonann Lynch to speak from hook-up.

Sharonann Lynch: Thank you, Marie. Hello, everyone. I will not take long with my remarks because my colleagues have already covered so much on the issue and in any case, when you get down to it, this is the simplest story to tell. We know that people are dying needlessly on the order of 8,200 people everyday due the lack of access to AIDS treatment. We know that 6 million people currently are in immediate need of clinical therapy with antiretroviral drugs. We know that the current programs to fight AIDS and provide ARV therapy are not good enough or big enough. So, what we are saying is that our only hope now is to free up the money that is now used for debt servicing for treat -- for treatment scale-up. We need more than slow growth relief that is touted by Bush at the UN General Assembly. We need a 100 percent debt cancellation for all poor countries, certainly more -- much more than the 30 countries now floated in the US proposal. A 100 percent debt cancellation can happen on October 1st at the ministerial meeting in Washington DC with enough political will of G7 countries and negotiation and commitment from the US.

At this moment, it is not good enough for the US to make an announcement or float proposals that have sweetened the deal for countries to swallow the consideration of debt relief for Iraq while doing little for impoverished nations battling HIV/AIDS. The US must have an advocacy plan. The US must use the next eight days to negotiate effectively with the rest of the G7 countries and the G7 countries on October 1st must commit themselves for the most -- necessary and effective intervention to fight AIDS which is a 100 percent debt -- debt cancellation for all poor countries on the IMF and World BankÕs own dime and without the harmful conditions imposed by the IMF and World Bank.

Marie Clark: Thank you very much, Sharonann Lynch. And now, operator, if you could open the lines for questions.

Operator: Once again, ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question or a comment at this time, please press the Ō1Ķ key on your touch-tone telephone. Our first question comes from David Moberg.

David Moberg: Hello. You mentioned that 30 countries are included in the US proposal. How many countries does Jubilee propose to include and what are the range of criteria being discussed for countries to qualify?

Marie Clark: At this point -- I can answer this, Marie Clark from Jubilee. At this point, the US proposal is offering about 30 countries. WeÕve also heard the number 33 which would be all of the heavily indebted poor countries that are currently actively within the program and the next several countries that are about to qualify or hit what they call the decision point in HIPC. Jubilee internationally calls for that cancellation to be applicable for all impoverished countries that are unable to meet the needs of their citizens, the basic human needs of their citizens because they are servicing debt, and for all countries who are burdened with odious or illegitimate debt that -- that was a result of irresponsible lending to dictators who used the money to oppress their own people and itÕs those who had been oppressed by the loans that are paying them back. ThatÕs a broad number of countries. Very specifically, Jubilee USA has been supportive of a bill called the Jubilee Act which has been in the House of Representatives that lists specifically 50 countries that include not only the heavily indebted poor countries, but an additional set of countries that fall under one or the other of those criteria. We would argue that there probably are still other countries that would need debt cancellation, but our initial target is for the first 50.

David Moberg: And -- and as far as this meeting of the G7, then youÕre asking for how many countries to have their debt cancelled at this meeting coming up?

Marie Clark: So, we are calling for the G7 to consider measures on how to cancel a 100 percent of the debt of all of the impoverished countries that are forsaking access to health care and education for their citizens in order to repay debt and would suggest that they start with the 50 countries that are most heavily indebted.

Operator: Our next question comes from Margaret McElligott.

Margaret McElligott: Yeah, hi. I guess IÕm interested in whatÕs going on in Zambia in terms of the relationship between debt and treatment or prevention for AIDS. How -- how are you seeing some of the different, you know, PEPFAR, the Global Fund, the World Bank, other organizations that are lending on AIDS, how do you see their efforts in relationship to debt cancellation and larger health budgets in those countries? WhatÕs the difference and whatÕs the impact?

Fr. Pete Henriot: Thanks very much. ItÕs a very good question because I think weÕre all aware, and certainly in Zambia aware that a -- a direct targeting of HIV/AIDS patients here in Zambia simply through health servicing is not sufficient, that even the provision of ARVÕs which are coming in much more now these days through a variety of different programs, we all know require the tripod Đ ARVÕs require the tripod of good testing, the constant CD scanning, good nutrition which is a very serious problem here in Zambia, and good psychological environment of community support. Now, those are things that are requiring other kinds of assistance, good education systems particularly, for instance, for the girl child, good health systems that are addressing other issues like malaria, something like this which is a very -- itÕs still the very -- number one killer here in Zambia. So, when we say, yes, itÕs important we have a global fund, yes, itÕs important that some of this special money comes in, but it has to be within a context of overall development of the country because AIDS is not just a medical question, itÕs a development question. And so, the -- the debt servicing, as IÕve mentioned, that continues to provide a drain -- a constant drain on the scarce resources of the country. A drain on the kind of assistance that might come in from other countries. That means that those resources canÕt be addressed to improving the education system. Just in the past year -- weÕre trying to do something about it now, but just in the past year, 9000 trained teachers were unable to be put into the schools because the government lacked sufficient funds. And yet, the government each year, can pay -- must pay its debt servicing.

You look at the question of nutrition. Zambia is -- this year been blessed as it was last year blessed, by good crop, a good bumper crop. We were able to feed the people, indeed able to even export some of that food, but how that food gets to the people, what kind of a diet they have, how nutritionally, those are all development issues that have a tremendous bearing upon the HIV/AIDS question. So, itÕs not sufficient just to have ARVÕs come in. ItÕs not sufficient just to have some new special medical treatment or testing. It has to be within a context of development and the debt situation is crippling the development approach. And thatÕs why thereÕs this close link between debt, debt servicing, HIV -- HIV/AIDS suffering, and the way to meet those problems. Zambia is a good case study of that.

Sharonann Lynch: This is Sharonann, IÕd just like to add to that, stepping outside of the Zambia example, just to talk about these other alternatives that the G7 nations and the international community as a whole are offering to poor nations fighting AIDS, one certainly is PEPFAR, as you mentioned. This is obviously a very controversial ideology-driven US global AIDS program that is in a year and a half into itÕs launch is only 1.25 percent towards its treatment goal, and while Bush speaking in front of the UN on Tuesday touted this 15 billion over 5 years program, we know that this is the same amount -- this $15 billion of debt servicing paid by countries in Africa in just one year. So far, the PEPFAR has appropriated approximately $2.3 billion annually for the 14 countries, 15th being the -- Vietnam, heavily impacted by the AIDS pandemic. One, itÕs important to point out that very little has actually been released, and two, in regards to debt, these same countries send more than $9 billion each year to wealthy creditors in the form of debt repayments.

You also mentioned the Global Fund. ThatÕs yet another alternative that the international community is offering poor nations. However, countries, particularly the US, have consistently under-funded the Global Fund to the point where the Fund at this moment, will have to close its door to all new requests for funding. Come November, at its Global Fund board meeting, during what would otherwise be a launch -- a new launch or request for proposals, itÕll likely come out that the Fund does not have enough money to put out a new RFP, much less even cover the cost of renewing current programs. So, in sum, there are -- there are too many holes in todayÕs global response to AIDS and debt cancellations enacted this year and announced on October 1st can at least help to fill the holes that are counted in human lives and shattered health care systems and stunted development. So, while the global community has certainly dropped the ball in fighting AIDS, this opportunity still exists to free up critically needed resources that would enable countries to commit funds to AIDS and health and thereby at least releasing one hand that is now tied behind their backs.

Marie Clark: Thank you. Next question?

Operator: There are no further questions at this time.

Marie Clark: Okay. With that, maybe IÕll ask if anyone of our speakers would like to say any last comments.

Sharonann Lynch: You know, I wouldnÕt --

Fr. Pete Henriot: Let me just make a --

Sharonann Lynch: Oh, go ahead, Fr. Pete.

Fr. Pete Henriot: Please, go ahead.

Sharonann Lynch: No, please, please.

Fr. Pete Henriot: Thank you. IÕll just make a comment from far away Zambia that -- you know, we follow a lot of the politics of the United States, we follow a lot of the issues that certainly have an immediate effect here in Zambia, but I think one of the things that we find very, very encouraging are groups like Jubilee USA and groups of the AIDS coalitions that are focusing so clearly on issues that daily affect the lives of people here in Zambia. ThatÕs why itÕs so important to get this information out. We, in Jubilee Zambia, campaign very strongly for the 100 percent cancellation of debt, campaign very strongly for a good government of Zambia, response to how it administers, how itÕs open, how itÕs accountable, but what we need is colleagues who are also campaigning for that in the north. And so, we appreciate very much this kind of an opportunity and please keep that campaigning up.

Sharonann Lynch: I just wanted to add to that if anyone is still remaining on -- on the call, to just mention that the US proposal and also the other -- the other nations that are -- could be close to supporting a 100 percent debt cancellation have done so under or will be doing so under immense pressure from activists and people living with AIDS and other advocacy groups because the naked truth is that nations constrained by debt cannot effectively fight AIDS. We -- we know what works, weÕve been saying for four years now what works and what keeps people alive and stems new infections, and that is antiretroviral therapy as part of comprehensive AIDS treatment programs. ItÕs nationally driven strategies, not the cherry-picking of countries or the cherry-picking of interventions by the Bush administration, AIDS prevention and treatment programs integrated with national public health care and social systems. WeÕve already seen examples of countries using resources freed up from debt servicing to fight AIDS. Every nation has an AIDS plan. Hiring and increasing wages for health care workers can be a reality. Bolstering the infrastructure can happen, scaling up to at least meet the WHO goal of 3 million people on AIDS treatment by the end of 2005 can be a reality if this money is freed from debt.

Marie Clark: ItÕs true. We have eight days -- eight days for the G7 to put aside any political differences to be able to all collectively claim credit for making the one step that can actually make a critical difference in this year, and of course, it will be added to with the absolute call for resources to fight AIDS fully, and we need, right now, this immediate action on debt to be able to launch us into the 2005 year when we will be looking at the benchmarks for meeting the Millennium Development Goals to say that we are actually going in the direction to meet those goals. We cannot delay, we really need for each of the G7 leadership to put aside their pens, their pads, their papers, to close their eyes and place themselves in the footsteps of Fr. Pete Henriot and look around and see whatÕs happening on the ground in a country like Zambia, and then make the commitment to cancel 100 percent of the debt. Thank you very much everyone for joining us. If you have any --

Fr. Pete Henriot: Thank you for the opportunity.

Marie Clark: -- follow-up -- if you have any follow-up questions, if thereÕs anyone still left on the telephone, you can feel free to reach me at (202) 255-7849 to follow up, and I can also provide you, if you give me a call, with the details for Sharonann Lynch from Health GAP and how to be in touch with Professor Sachs or Fr. Pete Henriot. Thank you very much.

Sharonann Lynch: Thanks, bye.

Fr. Pete Henriot: Thank you very much.

Marie Clark: And there -- there will be a transcript that will be available.