|
TWN Info Service on Free
Trade Agreements
18 June 2006
WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION AND US INFLUENCE
We wish to bring to your attention an interesting article which states
that the late Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO),
Lee Jong-wook, had bowed to US efforts to prevent access to cheap life-saving
drugs, hindering some of the organization's own programmes.
One victim is Thailand. According to sources, Lee had blatantly bent
to US government pressure ((and by association US corporate interests)
in March when he made the controversial decision to recall the WHO country
representative to Thailand, William Aldis, after the latter wrote in
a local newspaper in February urging Thailand to carefully consider
before surrendering its sovereign right to produce or import generic
life-saving medicines as allowed by the World Trade Organization in
exchange for a bilateral FTA with the US, which is currently under negotiation.
The WHO official wrote that the stricter intellectual-property protection
measures in the proposed US-Thai FTA would inevitably lead to higher
drug prices and thereby jeopardize the lives of "hundreds of thousands"
of Thai citizens who now depend on access to locally produced
cheap medicines to survive.
As the US' strong influence over Lee comes into posthumous light, the
selection process for his replacement will almost certainly be politicized
along rich- and poor-country lines, with the divide threatening to widen
into a full-blown schism within the organisation.
Regards,
Third World Network
2-1, Jalan 31/70A
Desa Sri Hartamas
50480 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: +603-2300 2585
Fax: +603-2300 2595
email: twnkl@po.jaring.my
website: www.twnside.org.sg and www.ftamalaysia.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Asia** Times, **June 17, 2006 (www.atimes.com)***
*World health: A lethal dose of US politics
*By Dylan C Williams
(http://atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HF17Ae01.html)
BANGKOK - When World Health Organization (WHO) director general Lee
Jong-wook died of a cerebral hemorrhage last month before the start
of the United Nations agency's annual World Health Assembly, the world's
most prominent public-health official was arguably of a conflicted mind.
The WHO veteran was caught in the middle of an intensifying global debate
over how to reconcile intellectual-property protection with the pressing
public-health need to expand access to expensive life-saving medicines,
a hot-button issue that has sharply divided WHO member states along
developed-and developing-country lines.
An Asia Times Online investigation reveals that at the time of his death,
Lee, a South Korean national, had closely aligned himself with the US
government and by association US corporate interests, often to the detriment
of the WHO's most vital commitments and positions, including its current
drive to promote the production and marketing of affordable generic
antiretroviral drugs for millions of poor infected with the human immunodeficiency
virus (HIV), which can cause AIDS.
According to senior and middle-ranking WHO officials familiar with the
situation, Lee blatantly bent to US government pressure in March when
he made the controversial decision to recall the WHO country representative
to Thailand, William Aldis, who had served less than 16 months in what
traditionally has been a four-year or longer posting.
*A wrong opinion*
Aldis had made the mistake of penning a critical opinion piece in the
Bangkok Post newspaper in February that argued in consonance with WHO
positions that Thailand should carefully consider before surrendering
its sovereign right to produce or import generic life-saving medicines
as
allowed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in exchange for a bilateral
free-trade agreement (FTA) with the United States, which is currently
under negotiation.
The WHO official also wrote that the stricter intellectual-property
protection measures in the proposed US-Thai FTA would inevitably lead
to higher drug prices and thereby jeopardize the lives of "hundreds
of thousands" of Thai citizens who now depend on access to locally
produced
cheap medicines to survive. He noted too that the Thai government's
current production of generic treatments had allowed the country to
reduce AIDS-related deaths by a whopping 79%.
Aldis' arguments directly mirrored stated WHO positions, but significantly
were at direct odds with the objectives of current US trade policy,
which through the establishment of bilateral FTAs aims to bind signatory
countries into extending their national intellectual-property legislation
far beyond the parameters of current WTO agreed standards.
A recent US Congressional Research Service report states that the United
States' main purpose for pursuing bilateral FTAs is to advance US intellectual-property
protection rather than promoting more free trade. The Bipartisan Trade
Promotion Authority Act of 2002, the applicable
USlegislation for bilateral FTAs, states explicitly that Trade-Related
Intellectual Property Standards, or TRIPS, are by law non-negotiable
and must reflect a standard of protection similar to that found in US
law.
A US ambassador to the UN in Geneva paid a private visit to Lee on March
23 to express Washington's displeasure with Aldis' newspaper commentary,
according to WHO officials familiar with the meeting. A follow-up letter
from the US government addressed to Lee strongly impressed Washington's
view of the importance of the WHO to remain "neutral and objective"
and requested that Lee personally remind senior WHO officials of those
commitments,
according to a WHO staff member who reviewed the correspondence.
The next day, Lee informed the regional office in New Delhi of his decision
to recall Aldis.
Perhaps strategically, Aldis' removal coincided with the height of Thailand's
recent political crisis, and failed to generate any local media attention
at the time. Internally, Lee had characterized Aldis' transfer to a
research position of considerable less authority in New Delhi as a promotion.
But a Geneva-based WHO official familiar with the situation said the
article "was seen as stepping over unseen boundaries which the
director general set for himself and his staff when dealing with the
US. It was a disappointing reaction, a sad reaction, but under Lee's
administration not a surprise."
Suwit Wibulpolprasert, senior adviser to the Thai Ministry of Public
Health, early this month sent a formal letter to acting WHO director
general Anders Nordstrom, requesting an official explanation for Aldis'
abrupt removal.
According to a WHO official in Geneva with knowledge of the correspondence,
the letter raised questions about possible US influence behind the irregular
personnel rotation and said that if the WHO decision was motivated by
Aldis' comments on the US-Thai FTA, then the WHO should reconsider the
transfer.
Suwit also raised his concerns about the level of transparency and freedom
of speech inside the WHO. In e-mail communication with this correspondent,
Suwit said WHO officials had already denied that Aldis' recall was related
to the opinions stated in the Bangkok Post article. A regional WHO official
in New Delhi told a senior Thai public-health official that Aldis' removal
was related to "inefficiency" in performing his functions
– a characterization that Thai officials who worked alongside him through
the 2004 tsunami and ongoing avian-influenza scare have privately contested.
News of Aldis' transfer, which oddly was first leaked by a Bangkok-based
US official, quickly spread through the global health organization.
The June edition of the highly regarded medical journal The Lancet,
which otherwise painted a flattering portrait of Lee's tenure, drew
on anonymous WHO sources to characterize Lee's decision on Aldis as
a "clear signal of US influence on WHO".
A senior WHO official who spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of
anonymity believes that Lee's decision and its subsequent leak by the
USgovernment was specifically designed to engender more self-censorship
among other WHO country representatives when they comment publicly on
the intersection of US trade and WHO public-health policies.
A large number of WHO staff members are employed on renewable 11-month
contracts, meaning that their standing inside the organization is on
perpetually shaky ground and hence curbs their ability to voice critical
opinions.
*Mixing health and commerce*
Aldis, a US national and permanent WHO staffer, was known among his
colleagues for privately airing views critical of the Bush administration
and its policy toward the WHO, particularly in relation to the USgovernment's
alleged tendency to mix its commercial and public-health agendas.
Aldis reportedly chafed at WHO regional headquarters' instructions to
receive representatives from US corporations and introduce them to senior
Thai government officials to whom the private company representatives
hoped to sell big-ticket projects and products.
In recent months, major US companies such as pharmaceutical giant Pfizer
and technology company IBM have asked the WHO in Thailand to facilitate
access to senior Thai officials. In turn, some senior WHO staff members
have expressed their concerns about a possible conflict of interests,
as the requested appointments were notably not related to any ongoing
WHO
technical-assistance program with the Thai government.
It's not the first time that the US has played hardball with the WHO
and Thailand. In 1998, when member nations proposed that the WHO be
granted more power to monitor international trade agreements and their
effects on global public health, particularly in relation to the access
to patented medicines in developing countries, the US government threatened
to withhold funding to
the organization.
Under that financial threat, the WHO has since largely refrained from
commenting critically on the drug-patent issue. International and independent
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as Oxfam and Medecins Sans
Frontieres have filled the WHO's leadership vacuum on the issue by filling
the information gap with highly critical research reports.
From the United States' perspective, Aldis, and by association the WHO,
had publicly sided with Thailand on the pivotal drug-patent debate during
a crucial stage in the FTA negotiations. Washington reportedly hopes
that the comprehensive deal it is pursuing with Thailand will serve
as a template for other bilateral trade pacts in the region, including
soon-to-be-negotiated
deals with Malaysia and Indonesia.
Thai civil-society groups, meanwhile, have complained about the lack
of transparency surrounding the negotiations, which caretaker Prime
Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has unilaterally conducted without consultations
with parliament.
The US and Thailand have in the past sparred over the Thai government's
decision to use its WTO-approved compulsory licensing rights to produce
certain generic antiretroviral drugs for HIV carriers and AIDS sufferers.
In 2001, for example, Washington threatened retaliatory trade sanctions,
including curbs on sensitive Thai export products, if the Thai government
allowed the production of certain generic antiretroviral drugs.
Thai activists, meanwhile, have given certain US pharmaceutical companies
legal fits. In 2001, for instance, they challenged the legality of US
pharmaceutical company Bristol Meyer Squibb's patent over the antiretroviral
drug didanosine, or DDI, because it was originally developed by a
public USagency, the National Institutes of Health.
In 2002, a Thai court cited international statutes when it ruled that
Thai HIV/AIDS patients could be injured by patents and had legal standing
to sue if drug makers holding patents restricted the availability of
drugs through their pricing policies.
The verdict was upheld in January 2004, and as part of an out-of-court
settlement Bristol Meyer Squibb decided to "dedicate the [DDI]
patent to the people of Thailand" of that particular version of
the drug by surrendering it to the Thai Department of Intellectual Property.
The dedication, however, did not carry over to third countries. Under
the provisions of a US-Thai FTA, future legal challenges to US-held
drug patents would be nearly impossible, Thai activists and international
NGOs contend.
*WHO at the crossroads*
Lee's unexpected death has already engendered some serious soul-searching
inside the WHO. Lee was widely lauded after his death, but his final
legacy to the organization he served for 23 years is very much in doubt.
US President George W Bush said, "Lee provided tremendous leadership
to the international community as it confronted the challenges of the
21st century." UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, Microsoft founder
Bill Gates and former US president Jimmy Carter all made similar eulogies
to Lee's long commitment to improving global public-health standards.
Lee frequently denied allegations that US political pressure influenced
his decision-making, most notably perhaps during a recent television
interview with the British Broadcasting Corp. However, it is just as
likely that Lee will be remembered for the many times he caved to US
pressure on crucial public-health issues, frequently in areas where
WHO positions and commitments required that he take a stronger stand,
some WHO officials contend.
Moreover, the secretive way that Lee sometimes conducted WHO business,
apparently in some instances at the United States' behest, already has
some officials inside the UN agency talking about the need for greater
transparency and accountability under the next director general. "It
will be very rough waters ahead for the new [director general],"
said a Geneva-based WHO official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
As the United States' strong influence over Lee comes into posthumous
light, the selection process for his replacement will almost certainly
be politicized along rich- and poor-country lines, and if the US openly
pushes its favored candidate, that divide could widen into a full-blown
schism inside the traditionally cohesive organization. Those sharp lines
are already emerging.
A report by a WHO-mandated independent commission recently recommended
that as a general rule governments should avoid bilateral free-trade
treaties that reduce access to medicines in developing countries. An
annex to that report, signed by mainly Western experts who adhered to
positions held by big pharmaceutical companies, highlighted the glaring
differences in opinion
emerging among WHO member states.
For its part, the US has long advanced the argument that without strong
intellectual-property protection, the pharmaceutical industry will not
have the commercial incentive to conduct research and development for
crucial new medicines.
However, Brazil and Kenya recently claimed that about 90% of total global
health-related research and development of Western pharmaceutical companies
went toward addressing the medical needs of about 10% of the world's
population. Those two countries have since called on the WHO to adopt
systems for intellectual-property protection that would increase developing
countries' access to health innovations and medicines.
WHO staffers say they resent what they view as the United States' political
agenda toward vital public-health concerns, ranging from reproductive-health
issues to promoting good dietary standards.
At the 2004 World Health Assembly (WHA), the US broke with the meeting's
proposed resolution that reproductive and sexual rights should be considered
human rights, and strongly protested the meeting's focus on the public-health
risks of unsafe abortions. Lee had earlier that year held up a list
of essential WHO-recommended medicines drafted by an independent expert
committee for more than two months because of US objections about two
listed abortifacient drugs that could be used to induce abortions in
emergencies.
The US delegation to another recent WHA took issue with a WHO-proposed
diet and health resolution, particularly concerning the acceptable level
of sugar content in foods, which by the WHO's expert assessment would
have cast US fast-food and soft-drink companies in an unfavorable light.
Lee famously bent to the US objections and signed off on a significantly
watered-down version of the original resolution.
US interference with UN personnel and policy decisions, of course, isn't
an entirely new phenomenon. The US is the largest donor to the UN and
by association to the WHO, and in light of the US-inspired events in
Bangkok, senior WHO representatives throughout the organization are
likely to be more guarded when commenting on public-health issues that
Washington considers sensitive.
The Bush administration's tactics, often cloaked as reform measures,
in reality aim to bring UN agencies like the WHO more in line with US
commercial and political interests.
At the WHO, at least, that process has come at the expense of the UN
agency's stated mission, commitments and, perhaps most significant,
its global credibility as an impartial and apolitical actor.
*Dylan C Williams** is a Bangkok-based correspondent.*
BACK
TO MAIN | ONLINE
BOOKSTORE | HOW TO ORDER
|