Mass Murder By Complacency

The situation in Africa is bad, a true pandemic. Attempts to treat the ill have been blocked and hampered though. As usual it comes down to money. Pharmaceutical companies have spent a lot of money on the research and development of AIDS drugs. They want that money back no matter what that means for the people of Africa. The drugs were really developed for the North American and European markets and the profits will be there eventually, but the developing world could represent a much quicker return and a much higher end profit. Since Africa represents only about one percent of the $400 billion the pharmaceutical industry pulls in, it should not be a real issue. Thanks to bald-faced greed it is though. The result of that greed has been resistance from the pharmaceuticals to deal with the disease.

When South Africa tried to produce generic versions of AIDS drugs, they were threatened with trade sanctions by the Clinton administration. So were Kenya and Uganda. It didn’t matter that under Article 31 of the World Trade Organization's TRIPS Agreement they had every right to produce their own generic version of the drugs because of a national emergency.

The Clinton administration was being heavily lobbied by the pharmaceutical companies. The drug companies argued that their products alone are not enough, that patients need to be monitored by physicians and that African nations lack the infrastructure to properly carry out that monitoring.

Clinton backed down under criticism from African nations, the UN and AIDS groups. He signed an executive order in July 2000 that lessened patent enforcement and allowed African nations to get AIDS medicine at lower prices. In 2001 39 pharmaceutical companies took the South African government to court to challenge a law that allowed the importation of generic drugs. The suit was dropped under pressure from non-governmental organisations and AIDS activist groups.

Kofi Annan, as head of the UN, announced the establishment of The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria in 2001. The idea was to create a fund of about $10 billion to provide funding to local experts and programs attempting to deal with these diseases, which are so prevalent in the developing world. So far only about $3 billion has been pledged and some of that is questionable, such as the $1 billion pledged by George Bush in 2003.

In August 2003 the WTO announced a plan to provide generic drugs to fight the HIV/AIDS pandemic. The agreement was a simple fifty two words. Then the Bush administration, at the prompting of the pharmaceutical companies, got involved. The final agreement, one that US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick praised, grew to a confusing 3,200 word document so full of provisions and hoops to jump through that a coalition of NGOs called it "A 'gift' tightly bound in red tape." The document that Zoellick likes so much hinders not only African nations’ fight against AIDS, but countries wishing to help in that fight by exporting generic drugs to those African nations.

Bush pledged $15 billion over five years for AIDS relief in 2003. The pledge largely skirts the UN, reducing yearly funding to $200 million from 2002's $380 million. The plan is also subject to domestic American politics, with conservatives insisting on the teaching of abstinence over condom use and trying to drastically reduce the amount of money involved. Those politics include Bush’s decision to make former CEO of Eli Lilly, Randall Tobias to head the American global AIDS initiative.

Bush’s plan focuses on only 14 countries, instead of the entire world. It concentrates only on AIDS where the Global Fund also distributes money for TB prevention and anti-malarial drugs. Since mortality rates from malaria have doubled and tripled because of people being infected with AIDS and tuberculosis is increasing tremendously, it is important that treatment take these things into account.

Instead of providing generic drugs, or allowing such drugs to be provided, the Bush plan is to provide name-brand medicine at cut rates. Those rates are still at least twice as high as the price of the generic counterparts. It also leaves the supply of the drugs at the whim of politicians and under the control of the pharmaceutical companies. Such deals have been known to collapse quickly under political pressure in the past.

Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are not known for agreeing on much, but something they have agreed on is that Canada should provide generic AIDS medicines to Africa. Chretien announced plans to use the World Trade Organisation’s document to provide generic drugs to Africa. Martin supported the Chretien plan when it was introduced, saying, “These drugs must be provided to these countries as quickly as possible." Stephen Lewis, former Ontario NDP leader and present UN special envoy for AIDS in Africa, has called the Canadian plan, which includes rewriting patent legislation to allow the export of generic drugs to Africa, a global breakthrough.

The plan to supply generic drugs reduces the cost from between $8,000 and $15,000 per person to about $250 per person. That’s a huge savings, especially among poor populations dependent on outside relief for help battling disease.

The Canadian initiative is not popular with the US. Suddenly the US pharmaceutical industry was back at it again. Even though Canada was using the rules outlined in the WTO document, there was suddenly renewed opposition. Harvey Bale, director general of the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations, who had previously said that the 3200 word WTO plan had a “fairly balanced text” and “added clarity” over the original fifty-two word document, was highly critical of the Canadian plan. He said that the initiative “wouldn’t solve a thing” and was “window dressing” resulting in a “negative black eye for Canada.”

Efforts to stop the AIDS pandemic in Africa are up in the air right now. While some governments wish to maintain the appearance of doing the right thing, the politics and buck-passing continue. Corporate interests are being given precedence over human lives and the money being pledged is minuscule in the present, becoming barely adequate only in the future. A span of five years for funding to reach its full levels is not acceptable when 6,000 people die every day. Arguing patent laws and protecting corporate interests is an exposure of nothing less than greed when only a few thousand out of millions have access to medicine.

December 1, 2003 was World AIDS Day. Speeches were made and some rock bands played and then the issue kind of sunk into the background again. By Christmas most of us had forgotten the day and what it meant. Bono made a few speeches and tried to raise some money while some politicians made themselves feel a little less guilty by pledging money that won’t be due until after they leave office, but not much has really happened. Stephen Lewis, the speaker of the words I started this column with, said something else once...something that points to how truly vile the idea of profit above humanity is. He said, "There may yet come a day when we have peacetime tribunals to deal with this particular version of crimes against humanity."

Recommended links:
http://www.un.org/ecosocdev/geninfo/afrec/newrels/lewis.htm
http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/
http://www.unaids.org/en/default.asp
http://allafrica.com/stories/200402270741.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030129-1.html

---
Reverend Blair was raised in Saskatchewan and currently lives in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He comes from a long line of social activists and cried on Tommy Douglas before his first birthday. His column appears biweekly on Vive le Canada.

Note: http://www.un.org/ecoso... http://www.theglobalfun... http://www.unaids.org/e... http://allafrica.com/st... http://www.whitehouse.g...