USA wants Africans to Die

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

US blocks cheap drugs agreement

The deal was agreed by 143 countries

The United States has blocked an international agreement to allow poor countries to buy cheap drugs.
One-hundred and forty-three countries stood on the same ground, we were hoping to make that unanimous

Sergio Marchi
Canada's negotiator

This means millions of poor people will still not have access to medicines for diseases such as HIV/Aids, malaria and tuberculosis.

US negotiators say the deal would allow too many drugs patents to be ignored.

Talks have now been rescheduled for February, but the international medical organisation, Medecins Sans Frontieres, told the BBC that there was little chance of them succeeding.

Hopes dashed

The talks, held at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, broke up early on Saturday.

"I have to say, there is no way to sugar-coat this bitter pill. We are disappointed," the Canadian representative, Sergio Marchi said.

Aids drugs are too expensive for many governments

"One-hundred and forty-three countries stood on the same ground, we were hoping to make that unanimous."

The principle of allowing developing countries access to cheap versions of drugs still protected by copyright had been agreed at WTO talks a year ago.

But it is not clear if that principle can be turned into a detailed agreement that all sides are happy with.

Under current rules, countries are required to respect drugs patents for 20 years.

Critics say this delays the production of much cheaper generic medicines, which are needed in developing countries because patients and health services cannot afford the more expensive versions.

The WTO talks are aimed at relaxing the rules on intellectual property rights to enable countries in need to import cheaper versions of essential drugs.

While the talks have dragged on through the year, the problem of HIV/Aids has grown worse.

Figures released by the United Nations last month showed that more than 40 million people are now living with the disease.

Consensus not possible

The United States said the proposed deal would mean that illnesses that are not infectious, such as diabetes and asthma, could also be treated with cheap, generic drugs.

This is not just a failure of the Geneva talks, but of two years of negotiations

Medecins Sans Frontieres

The US negotiator, Linnet Deily, said her country "could not meet the consensus on the issue".

In sub-Saharan Africa, nearly 30 million people are estimated to be infected with the HIV/Aids virus.

African negotiators say the fears expressed by the United States are unfounded.

"Any attempt to redefine this declaration will unravel the careful balance achieved on many issues," Kenyan negotiator Amina Chawahir Mohamed told the Geneva meeting, the AFP news agency reports.

The medical organisation Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF) told BBC News Online that it was now "time to find solutions outside the WTO".

"If there had been any flexibility to reach an agreement, the United States would have shown that flexibility.

"This is not just a failure of the Geneva talks, but of two years of negotiations," Ellen 'pHoen said.

She said individual countries should now go ahead and allow their own pharmaceutical industries to export to other countries that need cheaper drugs.

MSF argues that that is already allowed for under the 1994 agreement brokered by the World Trade Organisation.

Such moves would almost certainly trigger disputes with the US and major western drugs companies which the WTO would have to settle.

― Mike Hanle y (mike), Saturday, 21 December 2002 15:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Yes, I heard - this is so disgraceful - though anybody who knows anything about the pharmaceuticals trade shouldn't be even slightly surprised

― J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Saturday, 21 December 2002 15:11 (twenty-three years ago)

The US blocks drugs, the EU blocks food... I guess everybody wants Africans to die, huh.

― Stuart, Sunday, 22 December 2002 05:22 (twenty-three years ago)

i am really disgusted. i still don;t understand what the point of being the richest nation in the world is if we won;t use the money to help anyone? If I had a million dollars, I would at least buy all of my friends a round of drinks each week. In terms of ratios, it would probably be more expensive for me to buy the drinks then for the US government to rid the entire world of AIDS.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Sunday, 22 December 2002 05:30 (twenty-three years ago)

i realize that mine was a shitty argument. i am just very angry.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Sunday, 22 December 2002 06:15 (twenty-three years ago)

If your argument is that the United States, the richest nation in the world, doesn't use its money to help anyone, then not only is it shitty but it's completely disconnected from reality as well.

― Stuart, Sunday, 22 December 2002 06:32 (twenty-three years ago)

wow you are really reading way too much into that. i am actually a little freaked out that you would think that I didn;t know that a percentage of the US budget is spent on international aid.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Sunday, 22 December 2002 06:35 (twenty-three years ago)

it is more than likely that pharmaceutical companies have enough money to withstand any losses that might be incurred if they allowed generic drugs to be produced. most drugs are too expensive for many Americans, so it is likely that these drugs are also too expensive for many Africans, as average wages in sub-Saharan Africa are lower than those in the US. If many Africans cannot afford the drugs, then the pharmaceutical companies that sell them are not losing profits by making generic drugs avaialble. A company can't lose money it never had. The only reason to hold out, then, is because governments can raise money to pay full-price for the drugs. The idea of a private company seeking to exploit public governments for money and seemingly succeeding is disgusting, esoecially since the health of millions is at stake.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Sunday, 22 December 2002 06:53 (twenty-three years ago)

the us wants everyone to die, except the little dark people who make the shoes and the funny looking ones who sell them cheap oil. And the crocodile hunter.

― Queen G (Queeng), Sunday, 22 December 2002 06:54 (twenty-three years ago)

Sorry Aaron, I'm probably just pissy that so many people either don't seem to realize or actively ignore all the good the US does, while attributing hatefulness and malice to the mistakes it makes... Didn't really mean to project all of that onto you though.

― Stuart, Sunday, 22 December 2002 07:46 (twenty-three years ago)

But Stuart, "the good the US does" is actually surprisingly minimal compared to most industrialized nations. Which isn't to say that it doesn't exist, just that we should probably not be patting ourselves on the back for what turn out to be relatively paltry contributions to the welfare of the third world.

― nabisco (nabisco), Sunday, 22 December 2002 07:57 (twenty-three years ago)

most 'aid' comes straight back into the host nation, in fact a large amount doesnt even bother with the round trip but goes straight to whichever company is providing the goods! i mean, there is a reason for giving aid! its excellent for stimulating the economy bakc home

― gareth (gareth), Sunday, 22 December 2002 10:06 (twenty-three years ago)

Talks have now been rescheduled for February, but the international medical organisation, Medecins Sans Frontieres, told the BBC that there was little chance of them succeeding.

And by February, more people will have died.

Touching on Gareth's point, the companies rarely think about long-term effects when they are appealed to give aid. If there won't be any immediate profit in it, why give help? When asked, the conglomerates always say that it's the government's decision not to make the HIV drugs available to their citizens.

Another fine example of passing the buck.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Sunday, 22 December 2002 15:41 (twenty-three years ago)

"The U.S. foreign-aid budget as a percentage of gross national product (GNP) ranks last among the world’s wealthiest countries (at about 0.1 percent). In raw dollars, however, the United States is now the world’s top donor of economic aid, although for more than a decade it was second to Japan, which is far smaller and has been beset by economic woes. In 2001, the United States gave $10.9 billion, Japan $9.7 billion, Germany $4.9 billion, the United Kingdom $4.7 billion, and France $4.3 billion. As a percentage of GNP, however, the top donors were Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden. The tiny Netherlands (pop. 5.3 million) gave $3.2 billion in 2001—almost a third of what America contributed.

Do Americans understand how much of the U.S. budget goes to foreign aid?
No. A 2001 poll sponsored by the University of Maryland showed that most Americans think the United States spends about 24 percent of its annual budget on foreign aid—more than 24 times the actual figure.

Do Americans support increasing foreign aid?
Yes. A University of Maryland poll, which was conducted in July 2002, indicated that 81 percent of Americans support increasing foreign-aid spending to fight terrorism. According to the poll’s findings, the typical American would like to spend $1 on foreign aid for every $3 spent on defense; the real ratio in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2003 is $1 on aid for every $19 spent on defense."

From here. I do wonder what is behind Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Sweden giving a higher percentage to aid. And where is it going? I somewhow suspect it isn't entirely out of good will and charity but maybe that's just the capitalist in me.

― bnw (bnw), Sunday, 22 December 2002 17:12 (twenty-three years ago)

there is a reason for giving aid! its excellent for stimulating the economy bakc home

― gareth (gareth), Sunday, 22 December 2002 17:25 (twenty-three years ago)

24% would surely be 240 times the current figure.

That poll indicating support for an increase is dodgy as fuck! "81 percent of Americans support increasing foreign-aid spending to fight terrorism" is very different from just spending money to feed people, to provide healthcare, and so on. Yes, I know these matters are not entirely unconnected, but they're not exactly the same thing either.

If I remember correctly, there is a wide agreement with the UN for developed nations to donate 0.7%, I think it is, of their annual budget in condition-free aid (a lot of aid is given for specific contracts with the donor nation!). I don't know how many countries give that amount. Certainly not the US or UK.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 22 December 2002 17:51 (twenty-three years ago)

and USA for the World was worse than all the live aid and band aid put together. where's kissinger when you need him? sucking off mick jagger on the airplane.

― Queen G (Queeng), Sunday, 22 December 2002 20:09 (twenty-three years ago)

"Sorry Aaron, I'm probably just pissy that so many people either don't seem to realize or actively ignore all the good the US does, while attributing hatefulness and malice to the mistakes it makes... Didn't really mean to project all of that onto you though. "

It is all good. Don;t worry about it. No te preocupes.

Some people on the Left in America are given to spouting vacuous critiques of the US government without working to understand what actually goes on. Though I can't be objective about whether I am succeeding at NOT being one of these people, I am always trying my absolute best, which is why your statement above freaked me out.

What geets me about all of this is that, given the article above as my only information, I am getting the impression that the US simply needs to approve the manufacture of generic drugs without contributing money. If that is the case, then I am even more saddened. After all, the Republican party has always sold itself as being laissez faire, or at least more so than the Democrats, and for them to engage in this type of protectionism is hypocritical and especially frustrating because during the next election, they will try, and probably succeed, to market themselves again as being in favor of free markets, and will win another round elections.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Sunday, 22 December 2002 20:22 (twenty-three years ago)

and for them to engage in this type of protectionism is hypocritical and especially frustrating

shit, they must be getting k-hypocrit herre cos basicaly the whole american market is not a supa free-trade thing

― Chupa-Cabras (vicc13), Sunday, 22 December 2002 20:42 (twenty-three years ago)

(Aaron it's not actually hypocritical insofar as the reason for barring generic drugs is ostensibly the protection of the drug developers' patent, and in some cases the long-term argument that doing so minimizes incentives to go on developing wonderful new drugs. The argument for allowing generic production, obviously, is a moral one: that if a slight compromise on the patents can prevent the suffering or death of millions upon millions of people, this surely outweighs the good that comes of effective patent protection. Anyway the former argument isn't necessarily hypocritical: hardly anyone anywhere is "laissez-faire" enough to not believe in things like patents and copyrights, without which the entire basis for creative production is threatened.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Sunday, 22 December 2002 21:36 (twenty-three years ago)

It all depends on how the poll was worded. The question may have been "do you think increasing foreign aid would help fight terror?" And if aiding other countries is the end result, who cares what the motivation is? (I guess it depends on where the aid is actually going. Although how much control we have over that is another tricky issue.) (And there's also something to be said for "trade not aid." Although I'm not going say it because I don't know anything about the economics of developing nations.)

― bnw (bnw), Monday, 23 December 2002 00:30 (twenty-three years ago)

Chupa-Cabras and Nabisco are both right, and I guess my frustration comes from the fact that if another country posessed a medication needed desperately by Americans, we wouldn't give a shit about patents.

― Aaron Grossman (aajjgg), Monday, 23 December 2002 06:09 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.