Page 3
Property rights vs. public health needs
If the US is no longer threatening the Global South as aggressively as before, it is nevertheless continuing with its agenda that places intellectual property rights ahead of people’s lives. On the very day that President Bush gave his major post-September 11th address to the nation, US officials were in Geneva fighting – almost alone – to protect the interests of pharmaceutical companies against the cry for affordable AIDS medicines for Africa.
The issue now focuses on the call by African and other developing nations for a fundamental review of TRIPS, with particular attention given to access to medicines. They want agreement that TRIPS shall not prevent WTO member nations from taking measures to protect public health, and when they do, other WTO members shall use “utmost restraint” in taking action against measures that poorer countries adopt to promote public health. Essentially the US answer to Africa is no.
Meanwhile, garnering immense worldwide hostility by its suit against South Africa, the pharmaceutical industry shifted from its retaliatory approach, trying to defuse the issue by making offers of reduced prices. Stimulated by UN-agency involvement, five major pharmaceutical companies announced in May 2000 that they would slash prices for people living in poorer nations, on the condition that recipient nations would affirm their support for “adequate and enforced intellectual property rights.”
Negotiations over pricing has continued, drug by drug, company by company, country by country. Drug companies continue to argue that anything other than their own agreed reduction in prices will reduce incentives for companies to do research and development, an argument countered by the fact that much of AIDS research has been funded by the US government, and Africa accounts for only about 1.3 percent of the worldwide pharmaceutical market anyway.
The pharmaceutical industry has been pressured further by the increased activism of generic drug manufacturers. In the past year, for example, Cipla, the Indian drug company, has offered to supply generic triple-therapy drug “cocktails” for $350 per patient annually – a far cry from Western prices – which would then be distributed free.
Affordable access to quality medicines is critical for the Global South
These developments have led to the temptation to conclude that access to drugs is no longer the confrontational issue it was. Secretary of State Colin Powell said as much in April when he rejected Europe’s interest in a global tiered pricing system: He declared that “recent decisions by several pharmaceutical companies to make drugs available at more affordable prices lead us to believe that a formal government-driven tiered pricing plan is unnecessary.” This was widely interpreted to mean that the Bush administration considered announcements by different companies about cuts in prices and negotiations with African nations have dealt with the issue.
This is simply untrue, and beyond the WTO itself, there is no better evidence than the current deliberations related to the establishment of the Global Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, to which nations have been modestly contributing this year, and which is slated to come into being in 2002. The current draft setting out principles and scope of the Fund does not become lost in a prevention vs. treatment dichotomy – which is to the good – but it establishes as a criterion for proposals that they “respect intellectual property rights… and encourage efforts to make quality drugs and products available at lowest possible prices.”
Next Page | 1, 2, 3, 4
