At a time of enormous wealth, money is at the heart of a global AIDS crisis.

The divide between rich and poor nations is tragic. While more must be done to combat AIDS in the United States, we've reduced our mortality rates by 75 percent since approval of the first protease inhibitor in 1996. In contrast, 95 percent of people carrying the AIDS virus live in developing countries; 13.7 million Africans have died and 24 million more are carrying the virus. Over 40 million African children have been orphaned.

The United States and other developed countries have a clear choice. In the last century, Americans fought to meet global responsibilities. Graves in Normandy prove our willingness to sacrifice abroad to honor our values at home. We should not begin a new century by allowing untold millions of graves in Africa to mark our retreat from global and moral responsibilities. Global markets cannot be allowed to leave millions of human beings behind. We must invest a fraction of our wealth in addressing AIDS in Africa.

Many shift the blame to a patent system that gives drug companies the option to charge prices far beyond the ability of African nations to pay. Bureaucracy should never stand in the way of drugs reaching those in need, and we should demand the highest levels of corporate citizenship.

But, as documented by the International Intellectual Property Institute, a comprehensive approach to AIDS in Africa must recognize the benefits and pitfalls of the patent system. Most drug companies have not applied for patent protection in African countries. Even where patent protection has been obtained, provisions in the World Trade Organization Treaty (WTO) allow countries to waive patent laws to cope with emergencies like the AIDS crisis. The problem goes far beyond patents.

We must also acknowledge that the patent system _ the reason why consumers in developed countries pay higher prices for patented drugs is a market incentive to test and develop new products. Without it, AIDS therapies would simply not exist _ even for the wealthiest patients.

Unfortunately, with patent issues dominating the global AIDS debate, scant attention has been given to the critical question of direct funding of the purchase of drugs and treatment. Patients in poor countries will not survive without funding by the governments of developed countries for these therapies. Current levels of foreign assistance are not even remotely adequate to address needs from the manufacture and use of generic pharmaceuticals to deeply discounted drugs made available under license from patent holders.

Directly subsidized drug purchases can be made at deeply discounted prices. Five major pharmaceutical companies have agreed with UNAIDS to sell their drugs at substantial discounts. Senegal negotiated a price of $1.60 per day with one company to purchase two HIV therapies _ a deal Senegal could afford to strike because its infection rate is low compared to most African countries.

Brazil has taken advantage of WTO exceptions to provide free generic versions of drug therapy to 85,000 of its citizens at a cost of $462 million. But Brazil is a rich country compared to the countries in sub-Saharan Africa and has far fewer infected people _ their expenditures far surpass the means of sub-Saharan countries where per capita annual incomes are less than $1,000 and one-third of the population is HIV-infected.

Similar drug purchases by most affected countries would be unthinkable without substantial foreign aid. Just as today's inadequate commitment by wealthy countries guarantees that millions of Africans will not receive treatments taken for granted in the developed world, a meaningful multilateral commitment could make a positive difference.

As it considers its foreign policy options and moral obligations, the Bush administration should revisit a shortsighted and woefully inadequate program of humanitarian assistance.

For the United States, it's a major test of our most cherished values. For the world's developing countries, it may be something more important: Our investment may be their only hope for survival.

John F. Kerry, D-Mass., is a member of the U.S. Senate. Bruce Lehman is president of the International Intellectual Property Institute and former assistant secretary of commerce and commissioner of patents and trademarks.