The [him] moderator has received this anonymous comment on the posting on the Ditmore paper.

More comments?

[him] moderator

++++++++++++++++++++

"This kind of biased and unfair analyses and conclusions (to the degree that insult many other actors in the response by crediting just one chosen actor) seem viable in a world and in this corner of development business because 1) donors are usually too eager to hear that particularly their support works, 2) there is little checks and balances on the over-claims of those who have the gut and skills but lack the ethics, 3) real ability to assess such a situation requires some technical expertise and relevant field experience, 4) Burma/Myanmar is a complex situation where access to information for people outside the country is extremely limited: they usually have a couple of days of a 'guided tour', and 5) this is a country where biased messages are believed, expected, and sometimes even encouraged.

What is scary and damaging about this publication is that the brand of the source, the name of the writer, and the logos attached to the article have the power to mislead development partners and international communities with insufficient access to the realities of the country towards relying on only one actor in the response at the expense of other necessary actors, and towards undermining solidarity among partners and the wide range of complementary efforts which are vital for an effective and sustained national response against HIV.

And sadly, Ditmore is not alone. There have been and will be many more who see things from their narrow and convenient perspectives."