[Intl-tobacco] Bush admin and intl tobacco issues
Robert Weissman
rob@milan.essential.org
Tue, 1 May 2001 18:10:43 -0400 (EDT)
Big Tobacco and Free Trade
http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/tobacco/featured/2001/rweissman.html
By Robert Weissman
Special to CorpWatch
April 12, 2001
An international conspiracy to poison
millions of men, women and teenagers around the world is killing four
million
people a year. By 2030, it will take 10
million lives annually, 70 percent of them in developing countries. This
"conspiracy" is run by Big Tobacco: companies
like Philip Morris, British American Tobacco and R.J. Reynolds, to
name just a few.
If we lived in a rational world, the Bush
administration's foreign policy team would focus energy and attention on
how
to stop the health ravages of the global
tobacco trade. But we don't live in a rational world. As a result, far
more is
known about the Bush administration's plans
to pursue a fantasy-world Star Wars missile defense system than
whether the new administration will confront
the global scourge of tobacco-related death and disease. In fact, the
new administration has so far been silent on
almost every important tobacco control policy question.
That's not surprising, given the record of
key players in the administration and the strong support Philip Morris
and
the rest of the tobacco industry provided to
the Bush campaign and the Republican Party. Critics say there is little
reason to be hopeful that the administration
will adopt a pro-public health posture on international tobacco control.
Instead, trade considerations are expected to
trump global health concerns.
Meanwhile, a growing international public
health movement is advocating for meaningful tobacco control. Tobacco
activists are demanding that the Bush
administration oppose Philip Morris' efforts to increase overseas sales,
and to
support -- or at least not undermine --
efforts to negotiate an international tobacco control treaty. And they
are
calling attention to a series of domestic
policy fights that will have significant ripple effects on international
tobacco
control, including conflicts over federal
regulation of tobacco.
Tobacco and Trade
International trade issues are central to the
world's largest tobacco company, U.S.-based Philip Morris. Philip Morris
now earns more than half of its cigarette
profits overseas, garners almost two-thirds of its tobacco revenues in
foreign markets, and sells more than
three-quarters of its cigarettes outside the United States. The
company's
international gains come after two decades of
heavy overseas spending to advertise its products, buy newly
privatized cigarette companies, set up joint
ventures, and build distribution networks. (The second leading U.S.
tobacco company, R.J. Reynolds, has sold its
international operations, including the right to market RJR products in
foreign countries, to Japan Tobacco.)
Activist concern about potential trade
impacts on tobacco control has risen dramatically over the last year.
They
worry about both the harmful consequences of
market opening measures, and that tobacco control regulations
could be vulnerable to challenge in the WTO
or other trade institutions. (For example, regulations that call for
plain,
black-and-white cigarette packaging could be
considered a violation of trademark protections contained in the WTO
agreement on intellectual property.) Even Ira
Shapiro, former USTR general counsel, now states that he believes
tobacco should be excluded from international
trade agreements.
The most critical test of whether tobacco
control advocates are able to win a "carve out" of tobacco from
international trade agreements is likely to
come during upcoming negotiations on the proposed Free Trade Area of
the Americas agreement (FTAA). That agreement
would effectively extend NAFTA to cover the entire Western
hemisphere, except Cuba.
The new USTR, Robert Zoellick, has signaled
that he intends to aggressively advance corporate interests in trade
negotiations, which includes seeking
fast-track negotiating authority from the U.S. Congress on the FTAA.
However,
he has not been forced to specifically
comment on tobacco-related issues.
A Framework For Health
The biggest showdown on international tobacco
control policy for the new administration will be the proposed
Framework Convention on Tobacco Control
(FCTC). In 1999, member states of the World Health Organization
unanimously agreed to launch negotiations on
a global tobacco treaty. If adopted, it will constitute the first treaty
negotiated through the WHO.
The Framework Convention could make an
enormous contribution to stemming the global tobacco epidemic by
fostering international cooperation on issues
such as smuggling and the global marketing of tobacco products.
Tobacco control advocates are also pressing
to ban tobacco advertising all together, or at least limit it to the
extent
permitted by the law in member countries.
Many involved in the process hope to see two protocols adopted
simultaneously as part of the Framework
Convention, one on advertising and marketing, and one on smuggling.
If adopted, the smuggling protocol is likely
to involve a system of tracking cigarette exports, including labels
indicating the intended final destination.
Cigarette smuggling is at epidemic levels -- an estimated one in three
internationally traded cigarettes is smuggled
-- and newly emerging evidence from company documents suggests
the tobacco industry is facilitating,
encouraging or even directing smuggling on a massive scale. Smuggling
allows
tobacco companies to evade excise taxes,
which in most countries make up a considerable portion of the consumer
price -- and which deter smoking by keeping
prices up.
Activists are focusing on other issues, as
well. The Network for Accountability of Tobacco Transnationals (NATT),
for
example, is emphasizing the need for measures
to hold companies accountable for the health impacts they
perpetrate, and for limits on tobacco
companies' multi-million dollar lobbying efforts.
The Bush administration has yet to create its
team to handle Framework negotiations, which resume in Geneva in
late April. While it is unclear exactly how
the Bush administration will position itself, few expect the Bush
negotiators
to be more positive than the Clinton
delegates, who got only fair grades from activist groups. Many fear the
new
administration will be actively
obstructionist.
"If the Bush administration can't support
major provisions in the Framework Convention, then it should keep quiet
or
get out of the way," says Judith Wilkenfeld,
Director of the Framework Convention Initiative at the Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids.
Wilkenfeld and others want the United States
to abstain on provisions it may find unacceptable, rather than block
other countries from adopting effective
tobacco control measures. And while almost all U.S. activists would like
to
see the United States sign the treaty, they
say they would rather Washington pull out of negotiations than torpedo
an agreement.
One recent development that is sure to
profoundly affect the U.S. position on the Framework Convention is that
Philip Morris, the only remaining U.S.
tobacco giant which is truly international, has done an abrupt about
face and
now claims to support a tobacco treaty.
"It is time for regulation," says David
Greenberg, Philip Morris International's Senior Vice President for
Corporate
Affairs. The company is ready to embrace
regulation around the world whether by international institutions and/or
at
the national level.
"We'd like to see a convention have as broad
a reach as possible," Greenberg says, "so we know what the rules
are."
Philip Morris would support treaty provisions
on youth smoking prevention, information to adult smokers, ingredient
disclosure, disclosure of the constituents of
tobacco smoke, marketing standards and smuggling. The company also
supports government regulation of the tobacco
product itself, so that cigarettes can be "made as safe as they can
be," Greenberg says.
He says the company is even willing to cede
to governments the right to regulate nicotine levels, although this
agreement comes reluctantly and seems of
uncertain scope. "We're not going to get anywhere in [achieving] public
health goals if manufacturers are required to
make a product that no one wants to smoke," he warns. Then
governments would just be "stepping on the
gas" of increasing illegal products, he contends.
However, tobacco activists are skeptical of
Philip Morris' last minute about face. "Philip Morris is spreading
disease
and death around the world, and now calls for
a seat at the negotiating table," says INFACT Executive Director
Kathryn Mulvey. Boston-based INFACT is
spearheading a boycott of Philip Morris products, including Kraft Foods
and other subsidiaries.
"Through decades of deceit, Philip Morris and
the rest of the tobacco industry have disqualified themselves from the
FCTC process," adds Mulvey. "If Philip Morris
had really changed its ways, it would stop trying to manipulate the
treaty into protecting corporate profit over
human life."
Not surprisingly, the company does not agree
with most of the basic positions advocated by the tobacco control
movement. For example, Philip Morris supports
restrictions on broadcast advertising of tobacco products, bans on
the use of cartoons in cigarette ads and
prohibitions on the placement of advertisement in locations with a
"particular appeal to minors" -- measures
that many activists believe to be of little value. However, the company
strongly opposes a total marketing ban.
What Philip Morris wants taken off the
negotiating table are proposals for a worldwide taxation level, any
elements
that might create new opportunities for
litigation, and efforts to exclude tobacco from world trade rules. In
general,
Greenberg says, the company supports "things
meant to be good, solid public health regulations... [and] opposes
things that are either punitive against
companies or smokers."
Again, tobacco campaigners are suspicious of
the company's motives. "On product regulation, Philip Morris' primary
goal is to gain governments' stamp of
approval for the so-called 'reduced risk' products that it plans to
market with
the goal of getting more people to start
smoking," notes Judith Wilkenfeld of Tobacco Free Kids. "Right now, with
the treaty at such an early stage, there are
major public relations benefits to appearing to be cooperative," she
adds.
How Philip Morris' approach to the Framework
Convention will affect the Bush administration remains unknown. "This
is barely a blip on the screen for the
administration," says Greenberg, who says he has had virtually no
contact with
Bush officials on the issue. Asked if the
transition from Clinton to Bush will affect the U.S. position on the
FCTC,
Greenberg professes to have "no idea."
Whether or not Philip Morris has the White
House's ear, it seems unlikely that the Bush administration will pursue
constructive measures on international
tobacco policy. The unresolved question is whether activists will be
able to
muster sufficient pressure to stop the
administration from doing harm.
Robert Weissman is editor of Multinational
Monitor magazine and co-director of Essential Action, a corporate
accountability group.