http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Art icle_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035777648098&call_pageid=970599119419
U.S. blocks poorest countries' access to medicines DAVID CRANE When 144 nations assembled last December to provide the world's poorest countries with assured access to low-cost medicines, one country opposed the initiative, blocking it from implementation. That country was the United States, and what it did was to reject a declaration that members of the World Trade Organization, or WTO, believed was non-controversial and already agreed to in principle. Since the WTO operates by consensus, that single negative voice from the United States was enough to postpone implementation of a promise made to the poor countries by all WTO members, including the United States, at the launch of the Doha round of trade negotiations in November, 2001. Yet in a way the U.S. action should not have been a total surprise because U.S. pharmaceutical companies never have been happy about the idea. And with the Republican Party firmly in power in Washington, the big pharmaceutical companies have lots of clout. That was made clear on the front page of the New York Times during last year's U.S. Congressional elections, which saw the Republican Party regain control of the U.S. Senate and retain control of the U.S. House of Representatives. As the New York Times reported, the pharmaceutical industry had played a key role by investing millions of dollars in close Congressional races in support of Republican candidates. Then, last week, the Wall Street Journal ran a similar story, reporting that "after aid to Republicans," pharmaceutical firms had won out over the world's poorest nations. The industry poured more than $50 million (U.S.) in Congressional elections last November in support of the Republicans, the Journal reported. So "days after the election, when international trade talks threatened their profitable drug patents, the companies sought help from the Republicans. And they got it." And so on Dec. 20, alone among the 144 WTO members, the United States blocked agreement. As the Wall Street Journal emphasized, "the episode makes one fact of American political life undeniably clear: After spending millions of dollars on campaign help in recent years, the pharmaceutical industry has accumulated powerful friends it can turn to in a pinch." The need to help the world's poorest countries deal with deadly diseases has been on the global agenda for some time. The poorest countries simply could not afford to pay the high prices of drugs charged in the rich countries. And under WTO rules, while a country with pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity could issue a compulsory licence to produce a generic version of a drug otherwise protected by a patent � as the United States itself talked of doing at the height of the anthrax scare after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks � this does not help countries with no pharmaceutical manufacturing capacity, as was the case for most small and poor countries in Africa and other parts of the world. In November, 2001, the WTO agreed to "promote access to medicines for all" by amending the WRTO provisions on intellectual property. In particular it was intended that, under strict conditions, a small poor country could obtain a compulsory license to have the medicines it needed solely for its own use produced in another country with drug manufacturing capacity. That agreement said, "each country has the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency, it being understood that public health crises, including those related to HIV/AIDs, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, can represent a national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency." But in their lobbying effort to severely limit the use of this provision, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry created phoney fears, such as poor countries seeking compulsory licenses for a wide range of lifestyle drugs, such as Viagra. And the United States used this as its excuse to block agreement. Fortunately, negotiations are still continuing and must. The world's developing countries were betrayed by the rich countries in the Uruguay round of trade negotiations. So the Doha declaration in 2001 promised to "place their needs and interests" at the heart of this round. Failure to reach an early agreement on access to medicines will only reinforce the belief that international agencies such as the WTO operate mainly to serve the interests of rich countries rather than all countries. It is unfortunate that the United States, which rejected the International Court on Criminal Justice and the Kyoto accord on climate change, is now the only holdout on providing cheap medicines to the world's poorest people. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
