The HIV/AIDS pandemic has finally reached the centre of the global agenda in a way that stirs action, not just fear, stigmatisation, study and warning. The world is living with AIDS.

Not only does it affect all nations. It also reveals to us some of the ills of the global community. AIDS makes visible powers of marginalisation and consequences of inequities.

The burden of the pandemic is now more and more being carried by the poor.

• by women.
• by children.
• because those with access to information, influence, purchasing power and options available for protection and care can better cope.
• because trading systems, technological development and industry interest have not sufficiently taken into account the implications of rules and codes of conduct for those without purchasing power.

This is why we now cannot only focus on AIDS "as such", but on "AIDS and development", "AIDS and poverty", "AIDS and gender", "AIDS and trade", AIDS an business, "AIDS and human rights", "AIDS and conflict". And when we do that, we see what should have been obvious long ago: that the world cannot live well with the global and national inequities that separates the "haves from the have nots".

• Inequities linked to structures and systems and influence on the agenda
• Inequities linked to relations and perceptions – who counts and what is just, important and right.

The AIDS epidemic has the potential to break down some of the existing barriers and open our eyes – if we dare to. But then we must also be ready to take the consequences of what we see.

We see the complexities, realities and debate over these issues played out in front of our eyes: The court case on pharmaceuticals in South Africa. The issue of patent rights and compulsory licensing. But also the debate about political imperatives when making choices in public policy. How making choices means priority to something and less priority to something else. The interest groups pursuing isolated agendas. The demand for access to care and government provision of both the basic and the sofisticated. Primary care and highly specialised care all at the same time,- in health systems that are threatening to fall apart.

We are talking about coping with AIDS and at the same time struggling to overcome other barriers of marginalisation. The unfinished agenda of fighting poverty through good governance, rights, empowerment and balanced pro-poor investments in social and economic development.

The AIDS agenda also challenges the Human Rights agenda forward. The individual and political rights along with the collective rights, social, economic and cultural. This debate has long been stuck in the law domain. The AIDS agenda is more than an individual rights agenda. It is also a collective agenda, an equity agenda and an agenda where states are required to act on their responsibilities and duties together. It may be that the AIDS agenda is what it takes to push beyond current barriers between individual and collective rights, and lead into some basic rights elements in a global ethical framework. This is where the Convention on the Rights of Children is a close companion, and while an agency that is concerned with childrens rights should be at the forefront in taking these issues forward.

An obvious observation is that the AIDS agenda leaves no space for political rhetoric. Nor for organizational rhetoric and competition for public support. Taking the consequences of HIV/AIDS means working together – the civil society, the state and the private sector. It demands that all actors identify how they can contribute through aligning policies to the challenges and to the kind of dynamic interaction that it now takes to find creative solutions. It means overcoming barriers and putting in place concrete action.

Politicians have power and need to use it. But politicians and governments are vulnerable and dependent – on a public opinion, on civil society and market actors that generates push, options and sustains will.

This is what the AIDS-project in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is meant to be a tool for. Making us more able to work with these complexities – both here in Norway and as partners at the global and national level. Linking the fight against HIV/AIDS to the fight against poverty and marginalisation. Exposing that we cannot do it alone. Mobilising partnerships and opening up for correctives. And getting our own act together as government, being clear on the substance of our policies and standing accountable for it.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has established an AIDS project with three elements. Firstly, the AIDS-team. Members of the AIDS-team are the general managers of nearly all the departments in the ministry as well as the director of NORAD. They meet on a regular basis and discuss ideas, problems and possible measures linked to HIV/AIDS within their different areas of responsibility.

In November 2000 the Minister of International Development launched a "Forum for AIDS and development" – the second element of the AIDS-project. Members of the forum include eminent persons - representatives from the church, culture, sports, the press, business, NGOs and a labour union. They are there because they have connections and can link up and go beyond what the government itself can do.

The third element of the AIDS-project is the "Aidsnet". Members here are NGOs, researchers and technical experts who are involved in issues related to HIV/AIDS. Members participate through thematic groups, and in policy dialogue. The aim is to stimulate to a more coherent Norwegian effort, and increase the quality and effectiveness of our collaborative efforts. But also to have channels of consultation and dialogue, windows to realities in the field.

In our own work of the Ministry and of NORAD, we have tried to broaden the perspectives, understand better the way everything we do is affected by – or could we say infected by AIDS. That means each actor must catch what this means in their own field – agriculture, trade, peace keeping forces, humanitarian action and relief. As with the infection itself – the obvious symptoms come late – and when it may be too late. Therefore we need to watch and act on the risk areas now.

We have chosen to be somewhat selective in our more specific bilateral agenda, knowing that we cannot as a small country take on the whole spectrum of challenges and do them well. We must act with more than our money. We must act with insight and engage in changing things, with focus on the work place, gender relations, youth and children affected. We must deal with the issues of care and coping, and particularly engage in child survival and livelihoods. We must understand better how AIDS affects national poverty plans, national development plans and priorities. We must be sensitive to how the wide variety of coping mechanisms in local communities can be nurtured and strengthened. We must focus on youth, through the engagement of and dialogue with youth. This we must do within the framework of national plans and in support of national leadership.

On these terms we have increased the attention to HIV/AIDS related issues in our dialogue with development partners, with prevention as the primary focus. Subsequently we have also increased our financial support. In 2001 the Norwegian support earmarked HIV/AIDS through multilateral organisations is doubled compared to 2000. Doing things better together must be matched with additional resources and better use of existing resources.

There is an obvious need now to be more concrete through concerted actionin countries. It is the result on peoples lives, making a difference in countries, that matters. In each country partnering and strategising is likely to take different shapes and patterns. The obvious focus must be on coping with complexities and learning together, each partner using its own potential available in that specific situation to its full.

The AIDS agenda is a shared agenda for NGOs, bilateral and multilateral partners. We need to link what we see and learn in countries to the global arena. The UN Special Session on HIV/AIDS, the debates in the World Bank, the WHO, the WTO and the UNAIDS system are those kinds of arenas where we need to become more concrete in what they can do. That is also where we need the insights and challenges as coming out of the local communities that struggle with AIDS and the national systems that seek to cope and put policies in place. We need to learn more about what the right questions are, and about the smaller and bigger pieces in the puzzle that appear to give results in each place. We also need to hear about the things that do not work.

We have a high respect for Redd Barna and the Save the children network as partners in fighting aids. We know how you have focussed your work on the rights of children. You have taken up the challenge here in Norway to act together, both in the Aidsforum and the Aidsnet. You are willing to share, relate and join forces. You are ready to confront and push. Both here in Norway and in the countries where you work.

Let me wind up my reflections through a challenge to you as partners in fighting AIDS: please avoid simplistic statements that deviates attention from the need to find context specific responses. A critical issue in this respect is the question about access to care. Regardless of what the world can achieve in the debate on pricing of pharmaceuticals and compulsory licencing, coping with the burden of care for AIDS victims is goiung to be an almost impossible challenge for governments that also have the huge backlog of poverty, of diseases of poverty and of ailing health systems. Policy makers and legislators in countries are faced with some very hard choices, none of them very helpful in attracting votes. Through partnering between the private, the public and the voluntary sectors across geographical divides, we need to engage in those choices with honesty, open to the complexities, determined to figure out where we can make changes and create new opportunities.

We need to talk about enabling policies for AIDS control and for coping with AIDS. We need to talk about civil society and corporate sector actors that make the full use of their opportunities and stand up to the social responsibility that we all carry. We need to name the barriers, and particularly the barriers that we ourselves put up. That is why I was happy to see that the Bishop Conference of Norway in their fresh statement on HIVAIDS also talked about sexuality, the churches responsibility for overcoming marginalisation and condom availablity. We all need to focus on where we can make a difference.

We cannot talk about AIDS without talking about accountability. We easily say that it takes political leadership. Countries that have taken the lead in turning the epidemic around has demonstrated that. Political leadership is a challenge to all of us and also means accountability for policies that are coherent, that are not AIDSblind, that link the local, the national and the global.