David Corn, Gore to South Africa: Drop Dead

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Posted with permission from the author.  Jamie


LOYAL OPPOSITION -- New York Press -- June 2, 1999

By DAVID CORN

Gore to South Africans:
Drop Dead
        Last week in Atlanta, Vice President Al Gore dropped one of his 
big-think speeches, this one praising the work of faith-based social
service outfits and calling for Washington to  fund religious-oriented 
charities that assist the needy. This was, in part, a response to the 
values-first pitch of Bill Bradley, the former Democratic Senator from 
New Jersey who is discomfitting Gore in the contest for the Democratic 
presidential nomination. The speech was also an occasion for Gore--a 
stick-figure politician to many voters--to trumpet his spiritual side. 
"Without values of  conscience, our  political life degenerates," he 
said. The Vice President hailed the "hunger for goodness" among 
Americans, and declared, "A politics of community can be strengthened 
when we are not afraid to make connections between spirituality and 
politics." Let's hope Gore's speech was not broadcast in South Africa. 
There, millions of poor people infected with the HIV virus would have
had good reason to choke if they heard Gore express these noble 
sentiments, for the spirit-filled Veep has helped pharmaceutical 
companies deny South  Africans easier access to anti-AIDS drugs.

        Last year, in South Africa--where one-quarter of pregnant
mothers in some areas are HIV-positive--President Nelson Mandela signed 
into a law a measure that would allow South African firms to manufacture 
low-cost generic versions of the high-price AIDS-busting drugs produced 
and sold by major Western drug companies. Under international trade 
rules, a country can engage in such "compulsory licensing" to combat a 
national emergency. With 22.5 million people living with AIDS in 
sub-Sahara Africa, the emergency seems real enough. The law also would 
permit the country to buy drugs when they are found to be cheaper in 
other nations and import them to South Africa--a practice called 
parallel importing. (Drug manufacturers often sell their products at 
different prices in different nations, with the cost varying
as much as by a factor of ten.) 

        Not surprisingly, the transnational drug companies were not keen
on this legislation. They fear their profits will be undermined by a 
gray market of low-cost AIDs drugs, which can run $10,000 a year. 
(Average annual income in South Africa: $2600.) The drugmakers scurried 
to try to block the law in South African courts. In the United States, 
they turned to the Clinton-Gore Administration for help. The White House 
obliged, threatening South Africa with sanctions if it does not yield. 
The drug industry found a friend in Gore, who, as chairman of the United 
States/South Africa Binational Commission, has leaned on the South 
Africans to repeal the medicines law. The Administration has been quite 
forceful in this campaign. On April 30, the US Trade Representative 
placed South Africa on its "watch list" for unfair trade practices, 
citing Pretoria for its attempt to abrogate patent rights.
One of the charges in the USTR's report was that South African 
"representatives have led a faction of nations in the World Health 
Organization (WHO) in calling for a reduction in the level of protection 
provided for pharmaceuticals." Since when, in the face of a global
public 
health crisis, is speaking out at international organizations for 
affordable drugs an unfair trade practice? It's telling that the 
Administration has not sought to pursue its complaint before the World 
Trade Organization, where a trade gripe of this sort ought to be 
registered. Presumably, this is because the Administration's case
is not strong enough to win a favorable WTO ruling. Instead, the
Clinton-Gore gang has chosen to exert political pressure. It's posible 
that the drug  manufacturers have a legal argument, and not just 
greed, on their side. But if that were the case, Gore should let the 
appropriate international tribunals resolve the matter rather than act 
as an enforcer for the industry. 

        On April 8, consumer advocate Ralph Nader and James Love, who
runs the Nader-founded Consumer Project on Technology, wrote to Gore,
accusing him of having "engaged in an astonishing array of bullying 
tactics to prevent South Africa from implementing policies, legal 
under the rules of the WTO, that are designed to expand access to 
HIV/AIDS drugs." The two noted that several European nations maintain 
extensive trade in parallel imports of pharmaceutical drugs and that the 
United States itself has issued compulsory licenses on pharmaceutical 
products. "It is gross hypocrisy," they said, "to act as if South Africa 
is an outlaw in the world community because it is considering the use of 
compulsory licensing for essential medicines....Africa is confronted 
with a public health crisis of historical proportions. Of course South 
Africa should use compulsory licensing to expand access to essential 
medicines....Why should President Nelson Mandela, Deputy
President Thabo Mbeki and Dr. Nkosazana Zuma [the Health Minister] 
permit their  population to be defenseless simply because Glaxo Welcome 
and Bristol-Myers Squibb want the power to set prices for US taxpayer 
funded and government developed HIV/AIDS drugs in Africa?" The United 
States, they added, "is  literally asking South Africa to abandon the 
lives of millions of infected citizens in order to receive reductions 
in US barriers to trade or economic aid." They called for the 
Administration to consult with public health groups regarding this 
controversy.

        Gore, as of last week, had not written back. He may have been
too busy hungering for goodness.

-- 
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
I can be reached at love@cptech.org, by telephone 202.387.8030,
by fax at 202.234.5176. CPT web page is http://www.cptech.org