Khalil Elouadighi on Clinton Annoucement

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

This is a message from Khalil Elouardighi on the Clinton Announcement.
Khalil is from Act-Up Paris.  I would add to his comments, that one high
placed DHHS official told me that the US would decide "if we will let them
use compulsory licensing," based upon a review of their health
infrastructure -- as though it was natural for the US government to limit
national rights in this area.  To the degree that the new DHHS policy is
part of a transparent system of medical colonialism, it will simply signal
a new phase of the controversy.  I agree with much of what Khalil says
here, but am more optimistic about the benefits of the Clinton
announcement. Ultimately, as has been said before, the real test will be
in terms of actual policy decisions by US trade officials, particularly in
current disputes involving Thailand, the Dominican Republic, India and the
Philippines, where we can see some more immediate evidence of policy.

   Jamie

------------------------
>From treatment-access@hivnet.ch Fri Dec 17 07:48:30 1999
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 09:05:59 MET
From: TREATMENT-ACCESS - Khalil Elouardighi <treatment-access@hivnet.ch>
To: Treatment-access <treatment-access@hivnet.ch>
Subject: [671] RE: Critical Analysis of Clinton Announcement on Relaxing US
    Trade Policy [568]

*************************************************************
'Treatment Access' is an independent forum provided by
the Fondation du Present http://www.fdp.org
*************************************************************

Comments on the so-called US "cooperative effort to help poor countries
gain access to affordable medicines"

- Khalil Elouardighi 

Quoting the White House : "When a foreign government expresses concern
that U.S. trade law related to intellectual property significantly impedes
its ability to address a health crisis, USTR will seek substantive
information from HHS on the health conditions prevailing in that country."
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/New/WTO-Conf-1999/factsheets/fs-012.html).

The US government does not propose that USTR stops pressuring countries
trying to import generic versions of patented drugs, only that those
pressures will become *challengeable* before USTR and HHS where health
crises are concerned. That makes a hell of a lot of difference.
Incidentally, what is to protect countries from US pressure against
challenging USTR IP trade policy ?

I am convinced that this is indeed a very clever plot to stifle both
governmental initiatives and civil society activism :

Developing countries will have to challenge USTR policy in the US
("express concern"). That increases the "commitment" barrier for
governments which are otherwise commonly delinquent in committing to
public good and public emergencies. To civil society's pressures against
unilateral pressures, the US government will now be able to argue that the
matter is under review by HHS and USTR, and, if USTR is successful at
stopping countries from challenging its opposition to generics, that since
very few countries choose to "express concern" what are we complaining
about. US public opinion will now be entirely convinced that the US is
doing everything right by AIDS-stricken countries : civil society will
have lost its major leverage against USTR.

Clearly, the whole HHS stunt is designed so that the US can refuse to
"grant" (!) patent right exception, based on the argument that in the
present state of healthcare systems generics would fail to offer a
response to the health crisis (it's true, generics alone are of course not
a panacea, but you've got to start somewhere, and that first somewhere
lies withs price-accessibility). It's especially disgusting that the US
plans for its HHS to take its time and review the merit of what even the
World Bank describes as an absolute emergency, with more than 200 000
deaths each month in 1999 (how many months/lives will HHS review cost ?).

"we [the USG] continue to assist developing countries create the public
health infrastructure that will allow treatments to be utilized
effectively" : How much money exactly is the US government devoting to
strengthening third-world healthcare systems ? The IMF and creditors from
the North (all US-led) are mainly responsible for the current decrepitude
of many countries' public services. This 'assistance' bit sounds very much
like an empty boast. WB recommendations on financial commitment by the
North to respond to the AIDS crisis in developing countries are very, very
far from met yet, including in the US.

Khalil Elouardighi
Act Up-Paris
gerrold@wanadoo.fr



--------------------------------------------------------
- A posting from treatment-access@hivnet.ch

- To submit a posting, send to this address
- For anonymous postings, add the word "anon" to the subject line
- To join or leave this forum, add the word join or leave to the subject line
- Browse previous postings or post new messages at:
  http://www.hivnet.ch:8000/topics/treatment-access/

- Reproduction welcomed, provided source and forum email address is quoted
- The forum is supported and managed by the Fondation du Present (FdP)

The views expressed in this forum do not necessarily reflect those of FdP,
unless otherwise stated

--------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------
James Love 
Center for Study of Responsive Law | Consumer Project on Technology 
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036 | http://www.cptech.org
Voice 202/387-8030 | Fax 202/234-5176 | love@cptech.org