E-DRUG: USA seeks to remove IPR section from AIDS resolution at WHO
-------------------------------------------------------------------
[copied from Pharm-Policy; many messages combined into one. WB]
I just heard from people on the ground in Geneva, that the US Government
is lobbying to remove language in the World Health Assembly Executive
Board Resolution on HIV/AIDS (EB 105/12, on the web at
(http://www.who.org/wha-1998/EB105/PDF/ee12.pdf).
The Clinton/Gore administration is apparently working with the
International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers, Merck and
other parties to remove this language from page 6 of the HIV/AIDS
resolution:
The Executive Board . . . REQUESTS the Director-General:
7) on their request, to advise governments
on their options under the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS) to increase their capacity to
negotiate for more affordable HIV/AIDS-related
drugs;
This is similar to the language that passed the World Health Assembly
in 1999, after a bitter two year fight between the developed and the
developing countries. The drug companies are very unhappy having the
WHO involved in these trade issues, but the USG supposedly just endorsed
this for our own trade policy.
This is a strange development, coming so soon after Vice President
Gore and President Clinton's recent speeches on HIV/AIDs and US trade
policy. According to one MSF official, "it is same old same old
policy" from the US, and the "US embassy is all over this."
Apparently the US government has also asked that other language in
the resolution be replaced with language that came from an IFPMA
roundtable session on HIV/AIDS.
I'll ask for some explanation from the White House, and I would
encourage others to make some calls. This is happening right now. The
WHA Executive Board will be meeting again tomorrow.
Jamie
--
I talked to a second person in Geneva regarding the World Health
Assembly Executive Board (EB) Meeting. Dr. Tom Novotny is leading the
US Delegation. He works for Sec. Shalala at DHHS, and he apparently
surprised everyone by saying the US government was opposed to the EB
resolution language on WHO providing advice to countries on IPR/Trade
issues, as it relates to the HIV/AIDS crisis.
Dr. Novonty reportedly said that this was something for the WTO or WIPO,
(institutions that historically have had the mission of raising levels
of IPR protections) and that the US would offer some "new language" on
this section. He also said he wanted the EB resolution on AIDS to more
reflect the perspectives from the IFPMA (the big Pharma) roundtable, so
he wasn't pulling any punches.
People were pretty shocked because (a) they thought this issue had been
settled in 1999 with the approval of the much debated Revised Drug
Strategy, which called for WHO to do this, and (b) President Clinton and
VP Gore had both made recently highly publicized speaches about how the
US health authories are going to participate in reviews of US trade
policy, particuarly in the context on HIV/AIDS.
One African country was going to offer as a substitute for the language
in paragraph 2.7 the exact language the World Health Assembly passed
last year, to force the US to formally oppose something it had already
voted for (albeit something they had lobbied against for 2 years).
Big Pharam has been very unhappy with WHO involvement in trade issues,
particularly after the WHO issued the Red Book/Blue Book, which
explained to countries how the TRIPS works and what types of things they
could do under the TRIPS to enhance access to essential drugs. The
publication of these documents came at a time when the US government and
the industry was telling countries a much different story about what
TRIPS required. WHO was seen by many as providing a "public defender"
type service to the poor countries, giving them some talking points they
could use against the very aggressive and powerful US government and
industry lobbying efforts. The US was very unhappy about this, but we
had thought that the US position had moderated and that they had
accepted this. Dr. Novotny's comments reflected more the old hardline
viewpoint that was evident prior to May 1999, and was not expected
given the President and VP speeches on trade policy.
The Clinton/Gore administration have to know how this will be perceived
by the groups that worked so hard for two years to get the Revised Drug
Strategy passed, and so it is a provcotative statement, to say the
least. Even more so is the fact that Dr. Novotny is doing in the
context of the WHO resolution on HIV/AIDS, and that at the same time, he
is officially asking that the WHO analysis of the HIV/AIDS problem be
replaced with language drafted by the drug companies.
One has to wonder who is making the decisions about this for now. This
had to be cleared by Shalala, and there is evidence that policy on this
issue (the trade and health controversy) is being reviewed John Podesta,
the White House chief of staff, who apparently modified some of the
provisions of the President's December 1 WTO annoucements.
I'll ask the Gore people if they agree with the rest of the
Administration on the USG proposal to stop the WHO from providing
information to poor countries on IPR issues, as they relate to AIDS.
Jamie
-----
Well, messages posted on the Internet seem to have gotten the attention
of the US delegation in Geneva (and others), and we will have to wait to
see what emerges from the World Health Assemby Executive Board on the
HIV/AIDS resolution.
Apparently there is a closed drafting session at noon today. No one
has seen the actual language the US will propose, and of course, that
may be changing by the minute too. Other countries have some proposals
to. There should be some information later today on this.
To Dr. Novotny or his colleague, feel free to send us whatever you
like and it will be posted here, so you can explain yourself what is
going on at the meeting. (Why didn't the US consult with HIV/AIDS
activits before they announced they were going to ask for changes in the
EB resolution on AIDS?).
Jamie
------
The IFPMA report that Dr. Novotny referred to is on the IFPMA web page,
here:
http://www.ifpma.org/pdfifpma/FINAL%20REPORT%20WHO.pdf
People might want to take a look at this right now, and offer comments.
Jamie
--
James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176
love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org
--
Send mail for the `E-Drug' conference to `e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.
Mail administrative requests to `majordomo@usa.healthnet.org'.
For additional assistance, send mail to: `owner-e-drug@usa.healthnet.org'.