In January, Peace Corps volunteer Jeremiah S. Johnson tested
positive for HIV. He was deported from host country Ukraine and
discharged from the Corps. A nation that reports Europe’s highest
HIV-AIDS death rate turns out unsurprisingly to have qualms about
foreigners with life-threatening communicable infections. The
Washington Post, however, has qualms not only with the
Corps but also with Ukraine.
In a fiery editorial Tuesday, the Post
blasted the deportation, calling Ukraine’s policy “misguided” and
“discriminatory.” It dodged the objection that a post-Soviet
country that the International HIV/AIDS Alliance reports is
experiencing “one of the fastest growing HIV epidemics in the
world” might not be crazy for prioritizing its public health
worries above the rights of a foreigner, such as they are, in Mr.
Johnson’s tragic position. It also dodged the inconvenient fact
that the United States metes out very similar treatment to most
HIV-infected foreign nationals.
This is one of those cases where the editorialist’s fire strikes
one good target — the Peace Corps — and mows down the less
culpable guy nearby. The Corps’ discredit is an unnecessary and
probably discriminatory discharge of Mr. Johnson. As it turns out,
finding him suitable work in a place other than Ukraine would have
been quite feasible with a little ingenuity.
That is where the just criticism ends. Ukraine was simply acting
similarly to the United States’ own policies regarding HIV-positive
foreign nationals, but with a bigger public-health crisis on its
hands. And second-guessing the Corps’ acquiescence in Ukraine’s
deportation is to suggest that the Corps should order Ukraine to
accept an American citizen it has decided to expel as a matter of
public health. This sort of foreign-policy behavior is normally
called “unilateralism” by the punditocracy.
GENERALLY, THE Peace Corps has disqualified HIV-positive candidates
along with sufferers of a variety of other health conditions.
Traveling to and working in often impoverished, health-care-bereft
developing countries, it is not difficult to see why.
(In the wake of this controversy, the Corps’ spokeswoman is
busily stressing that HIV status is not an automatic disqualifier
to joining. Don’t buy it. The organization’s own website says that
it is “typically unable to reasonably accommodate applicants” with
any of 51 listed conditions including common ailments such as
asthma and kidney stones and debilitating illnesses such as
diabetes and Parkinson’s. HIV infection is among them.)
If and when the Corps revises that policy, it will open itself
to charges of discrimination against the sufferers of at least some
of the 50 other conditions. Some aggrieved asthmatics or
kidney-stone passers probably also consider themselves fit for
duty, as Mr. Johnson says he is.
The Corps will need to cross that awkward bridge when it comes
to it, and field charges — arguably very justified charges — that
it has created a special, protected status for the HIV-positive it
does not afford others. It will also need to contend with
health-insurance and liability costs, which Congress would need to
be ready to fund.
But on the diplomatic merits alone, it might surprise readers
that the Corps could probably now consider accepting HIV-positive
applicants, subject to country restrictions, without much
difficulty. A number of Peace Corps participant countries might
accept HIV-infected volunteers, if the Corps were to send them.
Visa, immigration and naturalization rules around the world for
the HIV-positive vary widely: Some countries are draconian; others
are surprisingly liberal. The United States tends to be more
restrictive than many other wealthy countries. But a number of
developing-world countries that do not unduly restrict the entry of
HIV-positive foreigners could probably be convinced to host
HIV-positive Peace Corps volunteers.
Some of these countries, particularly the poorer ones, are much
less capable than the United States of treating HIV and AIDS as a
“lifestyle” issue — to the point that a disinterested observer
might question the wisdom of such an approach. But as a matter of
policy in countries with democratic governments, who is to object
when a country arrives at the decision voluntarily? Who would be in
a position to protest if Zambia or Botswana, say, were to agree to
admit HIV-positive Peace Corps volunteers?
AS IT HAPPENS, the State Department will soon be finding its own
way on this issue. In February, facing a lawsuit, it opened the
Foreign Service to HIV-positive candidates for the first time.
Insofar as the host country permits, there’s no real objection (the
cost to the federal budget is a rounding error).
The Post, though, seems to want to challenge the right of
Ukraine to determine its own visa, entry and work policies for
HIV-positive foreigners, as if the country has no right to use
those policies in the fight against a burgeoning epidemic. This is
not a standard the United States woud want applied to itself on
this or a great many other subjects.
It was President Kennedy who, when ordering the Peace Corps’
creation in 1961, pledged to “only send abroad Americans who are
wanted by the host country.” The Post may not like how
Ukraine goes about fighting Europe’s worst HIV/AIDS death rate, but
the case against its right to fight it is exceedingly weak.
