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.''
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.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)