| The attempted but failed
public relations exercise by the office of the United States
Trade Representative (USTR) of announcing an interim plan
to help poor countries import generic medicines to combat
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other diseases that pose
national health crises is a political farce.
Negotiations in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) on
TRIPS and Public Health that were supposed to be complete
by the end of 2002 did not yield any positive results due
to the mixing of issues by the US in an attempt to save the
corporate interests of pharmaceuticals. The US in a bid to
salvage the negotiations announced at the end of December
2002 that it would not object to the importation of
drugs to cover other diseases. In earlier negotiations, the
US had insisted that only three diseases be covered
HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.
The WTO TRIPS Council failed
to meet the 31 December 2002 deadline to agree on a solution
under Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement
and Public Health when the US rejected the solution due to concerns over the
scope of diseases covered. The US
suggested the inclusion of a footnote that would expand its
previously proposed three-listed diseases to 23. This proposal,
as rejected by developing countries, would restrict the mandate
given by the Doha declaration, which refers more generally
to measures to protect public health.
The USTR said some WTO
members had wanted to expand the targeted poor country
epidemic focus of Doha to allow richer countries to override
patents on a range of drugs. This did not go down well with
the US, because of its pervasive protectionist attitude of
big business. The US argued this approach could seriously
undermine the WTO rules on patents that provide incentives
for development of new pharmaceutical products, including
those to treat diseases of a non-epidemic nature.
It is evident that the
US position is designed to block the developing countries
from making some inroads in reaching a permanent solution
to the public health problems that these countries are facing.
And for the USTR to announce a plan that goes some steps backwards
at the same time speechifying that the US is committed to
helping developing countries solve the health crises smacks
of hypocrisy.
This botched public relations
exercise was meant to appear as if the US has compromised on the scope of diseases when
in fact it has actually restricted the scope of diseases to
be covered. and had given a lifeline to its pharmaceutical
industries. The fact that the plan announced would not apply
to developed country members and high-income developing countries
in one way or the other violates the basic WTO principles
of National Treatment and Most Favoured Nation.
Salivating in the wings
of the USs offer is the European Union Commissioner, Pascal
Lamy who has made a proposal on an initial list of diseases
that would be covered under Paragraph 6 of the Declaration.
Lamy argues that other diseases applicable under the Declaration
could be checked or approved by the World Health Organisation
(WHO) as the situation arises. Such proposals are nothing
but measures to protect the corporate world. In addition to
limiting the scope of diseases, the EC effectively adds one
more bureaucratic and political hurdle for poor countries:
to go through the rigours of the WHO system to prove that
a health problem actually exists in the country for a disease
that is not on the initial WTO list.
It is most likely that
there will be some logistical problems when a country tries
to seek advice from the WHO and meanwhile people will be suffering.
Arguably the whole process of consulting the WHO and then
granting a licence to a third part to manufacture the generic
drug or to import the patented drug might take well over a
year and that particular disease will be spreading and causing
untold suffering to the countries, their economies and the
people.
Lamys letter to WTO Member
states, written on the 7th of January 2003 reads in part:
&I wanted to begin
the year with a proposal for a multilateral solution, which
is outlined below. You will find attached a list of infectious
epidemics, which are generally recognised by health experts
as those, which have the most damaging impact on developing
countries. We assume that all WTO Members agree that these
diseases are without doubt effectively covered by the solution
proposed by the Chairman, but we understand that certain Members
still have concerns as regards other potential public health
problems. For these problems, we therefore need to find a
mechanism to ensure that the Doha Declaration can be used
in good faith. I return to an idea, which we have already
floated in Geneva during the course of the discussions. Since
there is a global organisation dedicated to health questions,
the WHO, we should encourage Members to seek advice from the
WHO and we should entrust the WHO with the task of assessing
the occurrence of other public health problems. To this effect,
I attach a possible wording on the involvement of the WHO.
This kind of thinking is
not good at all for developing countries in general and for
those countries in real need of drugs in particular. The WHO
is a United Nations Organisation whose budget is mainly supported
by the EU and the US. A question that immediately comes to
mind is what happened at the UN World Summit on Sustainable
Development (WSSD) in South Africa in August last year? The
summit was hijacked by transnational corporations who were
pushing the corporate agenda of the WTO. Some like-minded
persons thought that because it was a UN summit, then it was
going to be free from the influence of the corporate world
and save the agenda of sustainable development for the social
world. Alas it was exactly the opposite. So the same kind
of a situation, as proposed by Pascal Lamy, will happen if
the WHO is dragged into the TRIPS and Public Health negotiations.
Involving organisations like the WHO is like a scapegoat for
the EU who want to legitimise their proposal by bringing in
an organisation that is perceived to be neutral when dealing
with issues of public health. Developing countries must continue
to stand their ground and reject the dubious solution offered
by the EU. Japan, on one hand, which is also part of the Group
of 8 like the US and some EU countries, had long proposed for the
removal of vaccines from the list of diseases. Their argument
was that vaccines were not technically pharmaceuticals yet
they play a major part in addressing potential public health
problems.
The Doha Declaration on
TRIPS and Public Health has provisions that provide for countries
without manufacturing capacity of drugs to use flexibilities
in the TRIPs Agreement of Compulsory Licensing. Compulsory
licensing is granting authority to a third party to manufacture
generic equivalence of patented drugs without the consent
of the patent holder under certain conditions. However, after
a year of intensive negotiations, no consensus was reached
by WTO members to implement Paragraph 6 of the Declaration
because some countries insisted that the solution cover all
health problems whilst other, especially the US wanted only
a limited number of diseases.
The developed countries
have a tendency of using their political and financial power
to sway the negotiations in their favour. This is unacceptable,
the US and EU positions must be rejected.
*Machemedze is a Programme Officer with SEATINI
and Editor of SEATINI popular publications. |
