If you read those reports btw, the level of knowledge about HIV is quite frightening. In Malawi for instance, only 57% know that condoms protect against HIV/AIDS, and only 68% know that limiting sexual partners protects against HIV/AIDS.
There are people who havenʼt even heard of condoms. It just seems really misguided to be hailing male circumcision as the way forward. It would help if some of the aid donors didnʼt refuse to fund condom education, or work that involves talking to prostitutes.
If anyone really cares about men, women, and children dying in Africa, surely theyʼd be focussing on education about safe sex rather than surgery that offers limited protection at best, and runs a high risk of risk compensatory behaviour.
Circumcision cannot possibly help anyone unless they have unsafe sex with an HIV+ partner. It might even make things worse – circumcised male virgins are more likely to be HIV+ than intact male virgins, as the operation itself sometimes infects men.
The latest news is that circumcised HIV+ men appear more likely to transmit the virus to women than intact HIV+ men (even after the healing period is over). Eight additional women appear to have been infected during that study, solely because their husbands were circumcised.
Cameroon http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR163/16chapitre16.pdf table 16.9, p17 (4.1% v 1.1%)
Malawi http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR175/FR-175-MW04.pdf table 12.6, p257 (13.2% v 9.5%)