[Intl-tobacco] US and the FCTC

[Robert Weissman]

Tobacco treaty in limbo - San Francisco Chronicle

 Lazarus at Large
 David Lazarus

 Sunday, May 25, 2003
 Chris Christensen, manager of Marquard's Smoke Shop in downtown San
Francisco, isn't too worried that 192 nations have
 unanimously adopted a global treaty aimed at curbing tobacco use.

 Nor is he terribly concerned about a provision of the treaty banning
all "tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship," even
 though his shop, which has been in business for almost half a century,
is festooned with cigarette ads and promotions.

 Christensen has been following the issue and he knows that even though
the United States was among the nations adopting the
 treaty last week, it still must be first signed by President Bush and
then ratified by the U.S. Senate.

 As we've seen with the Kyoto global-warming treaty, not all accords
adopted internationally end up being embraced by this
 administration.

 So will Bush sign the tobacco treaty?

 Christensen smiled. "Probably not," he said.

 Indeed, while anti-smoking advocates hailed passage of the tobacco
treaty as a milestone in protecting global public health, they
 know chances remain slim that the United States will join the party.

 Enactment of key treaty provisions will be bitterly opposed by the
tobacco industry, which, according to regulatory filings, has
 doled out more than $26 million in political contributions since 1997.
Eighty percent of that sum went to Republican interests.

 "Nearly every nation at the ceremony in Geneva stood up and said they
not only support the treaty but look forward to signing
 and ratifying it," observed Matt Myers, president of the Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids, an anti- smoking lobbying group.

 "The United States was the only nation that stood up and said, 'We
support it but our president is still reviewing the text and hasn't
 decided what he'll do.' "

 This isn't an exaggeration. Tommy Thompson, the health and human
services secretary, represented the administration in Geneva
 and said that while the United States "celebrates" the tobacco treaty,
the Bush administration "is carefully reviewing the text of the
 convention that we adopted today."

 Carefully reviewing. How's that for a declaration of rock-solid
commitment?

 And this is after three years -- three years -- of intense negotiations
on the matter. What, you have to wonder, could possibly be
 left for the president and his posse to chew over?

 "It's hard to say if the United States will ever sign and ratify,"
Myers said.

 The treaty takes effect once it's ratified by at least 40 nations. But
without the political and economic heft of the United States
 behind it, there's some question about whether developing nations will
find the will to enact some of the accord's more stringent
 provisions.

 Along with a ban on cigarette advertising, the treaty calls for
promotion of taxes and prices that deter smoking, as well as devoting
 up to half the space on cigarette packs to health warnings.

 Cigarette producers like Philip Morris, the world's largest tobacco
company with $19 billion in sales last year, closely followed
 the treaty talks and played an active role in trying to shape the
outcome.

 Only weeks before the treaty vote, the United States announced that it
wanted to revisit portions of the accord. It wanted
 signatories to be able to ignore any provisions they disagree with.

 Then, just as abruptly, U.S. officials signaled before the vote was
taken that they'd support the treaty as it stands.

 "I have deep skepticism that passage of the treaty represents a new
position on the administration's behalf," said Kirk
 Kleinschmidt, vice president of advocacy for the American Heart
Association. "Even if the president signs it, ratification could take
 months, years."

 Moreover, even if the United States ratifies the treaty, Congress and
the president would then have to pass laws accommodating
 the treaty's various provisions. And that wouldn't sit well with the
tobacco industry's legion of lobbyists.

 In the 2002 election cycle, Philip Morris ranked third overall among
Republican contributors, handing party affiliates $2.4 million,
 according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

 That places the tobacco giant ahead of Microsoft ($2 million), AT&T
($1.8 million) and Citigroup ($1.1 million). The largest
 corporate donor to Republican causes was Pharmaceutical Researchers and
Manufacturers of America, a trade association, which
 contributed $2.9 million.

 Earlier this month, a senior World Health Organization official blasted
tobacco companies for "dirty tricks" in trying to sway the
 outcome of the treaty vote.

 Derek Yach, head of WHO's noncommunicable diseases division, cited an
internal memo from British American Tobacco calling
 on employees to "influence the drafting process" by lobbying government
officials.

 Mark Berlind, legislative counsel for Altria, parent company of Philip
Morris, told me that his company did nothing inappropriate
 in the run-up to the vote.

 "We advocated our position with government officials in many
countries," he said. "That's not dirty tricks. That's stating our
 position."

 Berlind said Philip Morris supports the tobacco treaty, "although there
are some provisions we have concerns about." For
 example, he said, the company has issues with banning all cigarette ads
and hiking tobacco taxes willy-nilly.

 "We are very hopeful that adoption of the treaty will inspire every
country to enact meaningful and effective tobacco legislation,"
 Berlind said.

 After careful review, of course.