15 February 2001 Edition
European Parliament opposes `Plan Colombia'
On Thursday 1 February 2001 the European Parliament voted by 474 to 1 to reject the US-backed `Plan Colombia' and announced that the path to peace in Colombia lies through dialogue and lantd reform.
The Euro MPs urged the EU to pursue ``its own, non-military strategy combining neutrality, transparency, the participation of civil society and undertakings from the parties involved in negotiations''. This recommendation pointedly excluded the possibility of a role in negotiations for the paramilitary death squads - responsible for at least 80% of human right abuses in Colombia - who have recently been running a PR campaign to be declared a legitimate force in their own right.
``Lasting peace cannot be achieved in Colombia without deep-seated changes to the means by which wealth is distributed,'' said the Parliamentary resolution, ``since many of the problems confronting the country stem from the fact that peasant farmers do not own land.''
The EU parliament's slap down of `Plan Colombia' came 10 days after Colombia President Andres Pastrana, on a visit to Paris, urged Europeans to support the militaristic US-designed plan with 750 million euros.
In its resolution, the European Parliament said: ``Stepping up military involvement in the fight against drugs involves the risk of sparking off an escalation of the conflict in the region. Military solutions cannot bring about lasting peace.''
BY SOLEDAD GALIANA
On Monday, 12 February, relief agency Oxfam accused international drug companies of denying developing countries life-saving medicines to treat diseases such as AIDS. The organisation criticised world trade rules on drug patents that ensure high prices and restricted access to vital drugs.
Oxfam is appealing to the World Health Organisation (WHO) to change the patenting rules to enable developing countries to produce cheap generic copies of drugs to treat preventable diseases.
Oxfam's accusations came days after aid agencies and governments of developing countries applauded the Indian generic drug company Cipla's decision to offer AIDS treatments to poor countries at reduced price. Cipla announced it would supply a triple cocktail of AIDS drugs to the world's poor at less than 80 pence a day, significantly undercutting multinational companies. But the company's goodwill gesture may yet see it in trouble with international rules governing patent protection and could lead to disputes at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
WTO rules allow developing countries to issue licenses for generic production of drugs where the company holding a patent is not using it, but in other circumstances wide protection is offered for patent holders.
These kind of disputes have led to questions about drug corporations' commitment to combating the AIDS epidemic, which is decimating populations in developing countries. Many accuse these global players of putting profits before the health of people in poor nations.
Cipla, India's third largest drug company by sales, is offering AIDS drugs stavudine, lamivudine and nevirapine. US firm Bristol-Myers Squibb holds the patent on stavudine, or Zerit, in much of the world; Britain's GlaxoSmithKline has patents on lamivudine, or Epivir; and Boeringher Ingelheim of Germany owns the patent on nevirapine, or Viramune. Indian drug firms are allowed under local law to make drugs that are under patent elsewhere in the world, providing they use a process that differs from the original patented process.
Cipla's offer is aimed primarily at Africa. Of the world's 34 million people infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, 25 million live in sub-Saharan Africa. Only a tiny proportion of them receive the anti-retroviral drugs that have slashed AIDS death rates in the developed world.
Cipla is offering the medicines to international charity Medecins Sans Frontières (MSF) for $350 per year per patient and to governments for $600. The Paris-based medical relief organisation said it was seriously studying the proposal. The initiative has put pressure on multinational firms to cut their prices further. To date, however, the only reaction of drug companies to years of campaigning by AIDS activists has been foot-dragging. Leading drug companies have recently negotiated discount deals of 60%-90% with Senegal, Uganda and Rwanda under a United Nations initiative - but that still leaves their products more expensive than Cipla's price.
More than 15 developing countries, including India, the Dominican Republic, South Africa, Brazil and Thailand are currently being threatened with trade sanctions over the use of generic drugs rather than patented products. In January, Thailand changed its drug regulations to allow locally produced generic drugs to be distributed at the same time as higher-priced imported equivalents, rather than after a two-year testing period.
South Africa, which has the largest number of HIV infections, is on a collision course with drug firms, as more than 40 companies are taking Pretoria to court, arguing that its plan to promote the importation or local manufacture of generic AIDS drugs infringes their intellectual property rights. The case is due to be heard in March.
Brazil, too, has clashed with the companies, in a case that has sucked in the U.S. government and World Trade Organisation. At the beginning of this month, the United States asked the WTO to appoint a panel of trade experts to examine a Brazilian law under which the government issues manufacturing licenses if a drug is not manufactured in the country. Brazil's HIV and Aids programme is widely regarded as one of the most successful in the world. In contrast to many other countries, the number of infections in Brazil has plummeted and the government has been able to provide free treatment to 90,000 patients - something that would be unthinkable in other developing nations with miniscule health budgets. Annual treatment now costs the Brazilian Government less than $5,000 per patient - compared to $12,000 in the US.
However, the involvement in the dispute of the WTO could eventually allow the US to impose sanctions on Brazil for violating patent rules giving the pharmaceuticals exclusive rights to produce the drugs. The Americans say they are merely concerned about whose workers make the drugs and that their case is not about the health of Brazilians with HIV and AIDS, but vulnerable Brazilians would pay the ultimate price should the US have its way.
That is the reason why Oxfam has launched its global campaign, accusing industry and rich governments of waging ``an undeclared drugs war'' against the world's poorest countries. ``This is the shadowy side of globalisation, said Oxfam. ``The WTO must change the rules that the drug industry is now using to cripple cheap, local competition.'' Medecins Sans Frontières is backing the Oxfam campaign.
The Euro MPs urged the EU to pursue ``its own, non-military strategy combining neutrality, transparency, the participation of civil society and undertakings from the parties involved in negotiations''. This recommendation pointedly excluded the possibility of a role in negotiations for the paramilitary death squads - responsible for at least 80% of human right abuses in Colombia - who have recently been running a PR campaign to be declared a legitimate force in their own right.
``Lasting peace cannot be achieved in Colombia without deep-seated changes to the means by which wealth is distributed,'' said the Parliamentary resolution, ``since many of the problems confronting the country stem from the fact that peasant farmers do not own land.''
The EU parliament's slap down of `Plan Colombia' came 10 days after Colombia President Andres Pastrana, on a visit to Paris, urged Europeans to support the militaristic US-designed plan with 750 million euros.
In its resolution, the European Parliament said: ``Stepping up military involvement in the fight against drugs involves the risk of sparking off an escalation of the conflict in the region. Military solutions cannot bring about lasting peace.''
Drug multinationals put profit before patients
BY SOLEDAD GALIANA
On Monday, 12 February, relief agency Oxfam accused international drug companies of denying developing countries life-saving medicines to treat diseases such as AIDS. The organisation criticised world trade rules on drug patents that ensure high prices and restricted access to vital drugs.
Oxfam is appealing to the World Health Organisation (WHO) to change the patenting rules to enable developing countries to produce cheap generic copies of drugs to treat preventable diseases.
Oxfam's accusations came days after aid agencies and governments of developing countries applauded the Indian generic drug company Cipla's decision to offer AIDS treatments to poor countries at reduced price. Cipla announced it would supply a triple cocktail of AIDS drugs to the world's poor at less than 80 pence a day, significantly undercutting multinational companies. But the company's goodwill gesture may yet see it in trouble with international rules governing patent protection and could lead to disputes at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).
WTO rules allow developing countries to issue licenses for generic production of drugs where the company holding a patent is not using it, but in other circumstances wide protection is offered for patent holders.
These kind of disputes have led to questions about drug corporations' commitment to combating the AIDS epidemic, which is decimating populations in developing countries. Many accuse these global players of putting profits before the health of people in poor nations.
Cipla, India's third largest drug company by sales, is offering AIDS drugs stavudine, lamivudine and nevirapine. US firm Bristol-Myers Squibb holds the patent on stavudine, or Zerit, in much of the world; Britain's GlaxoSmithKline has patents on lamivudine, or Epivir; and Boeringher Ingelheim of Germany owns the patent on nevirapine, or Viramune. Indian drug firms are allowed under local law to make drugs that are under patent elsewhere in the world, providing they use a process that differs from the original patented process.
Cipla's offer is aimed primarily at Africa. Of the world's 34 million people infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, 25 million live in sub-Saharan Africa. Only a tiny proportion of them receive the anti-retroviral drugs that have slashed AIDS death rates in the developed world.
Cipla is offering the medicines to international charity Medecins Sans Frontières (MSF) for $350 per year per patient and to governments for $600. The Paris-based medical relief organisation said it was seriously studying the proposal. The initiative has put pressure on multinational firms to cut their prices further. To date, however, the only reaction of drug companies to years of campaigning by AIDS activists has been foot-dragging. Leading drug companies have recently negotiated discount deals of 60%-90% with Senegal, Uganda and Rwanda under a United Nations initiative - but that still leaves their products more expensive than Cipla's price.
More than 15 developing countries, including India, the Dominican Republic, South Africa, Brazil and Thailand are currently being threatened with trade sanctions over the use of generic drugs rather than patented products. In January, Thailand changed its drug regulations to allow locally produced generic drugs to be distributed at the same time as higher-priced imported equivalents, rather than after a two-year testing period.
South Africa, which has the largest number of HIV infections, is on a collision course with drug firms, as more than 40 companies are taking Pretoria to court, arguing that its plan to promote the importation or local manufacture of generic AIDS drugs infringes their intellectual property rights. The case is due to be heard in March.
Brazil, too, has clashed with the companies, in a case that has sucked in the U.S. government and World Trade Organisation. At the beginning of this month, the United States asked the WTO to appoint a panel of trade experts to examine a Brazilian law under which the government issues manufacturing licenses if a drug is not manufactured in the country. Brazil's HIV and Aids programme is widely regarded as one of the most successful in the world. In contrast to many other countries, the number of infections in Brazil has plummeted and the government has been able to provide free treatment to 90,000 patients - something that would be unthinkable in other developing nations with miniscule health budgets. Annual treatment now costs the Brazilian Government less than $5,000 per patient - compared to $12,000 in the US.
However, the involvement in the dispute of the WTO could eventually allow the US to impose sanctions on Brazil for violating patent rules giving the pharmaceuticals exclusive rights to produce the drugs. The Americans say they are merely concerned about whose workers make the drugs and that their case is not about the health of Brazilians with HIV and AIDS, but vulnerable Brazilians would pay the ultimate price should the US have its way.
That is the reason why Oxfam has launched its global campaign, accusing industry and rich governments of waging ``an undeclared drugs war'' against the world's poorest countries. ``This is the shadowy side of globalisation, said Oxfam. ``The WTO must change the rules that the drug industry is now using to cripple cheap, local competition.'' Medecins Sans Frontières is backing the Oxfam campaign.