Is This The Return Of U.S. ‘Gunboat Diplomacy’ Serving Foreign Corporations?

[eridani]

http://www.nationofchange.org/news/2016/05/13/return-u-s-gunboat-diplomacy-serving-corporations/

The World Health Organization has declared Gleevec as an “essential drug.” A year’s supply of Gleevec costs twice the national income per capita. The extraordinarily high monopoly pricing of this drug creates a health emergency in Colombia. The World Trade Organization rules allow countries to do this in the case of health emergencies.

This year the Colombian government agreed to do this, issuing a “compulsory license” enabling local production of a generic form of the drug.

There are indications that right after Colombia enabled local production of a generic version of Gleevec, the U.S. government stepped in to protect pharmaceutical industry profits by threatening to withdraw funding for a peace initiative between the Colombian government and the rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and threatening the country’s involvement in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

<snip>

Has the “Swiss” firm Novartis becomes the 21st-century version of United Fruit and ITT? At least they were “American” companies. This time the U.S. appears to be engaging in gunboat diplomacy in support of multinational corporations in general.

[pampango]

1. "Issuing generic drugs is consistent with WTO treaties and the U.S. trade agreement."

In February, President Barack Obama committed $450 million to aid peace talks between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, a Marxist rebel group known as FARC. The money would help the Colombian government fight the illegal drug trade and retrain FARC members.

But in an April 27 memo, Colombian diplomat Andrés Flórez said he was worried the U.S. would withhold peace funding if the Colombian government lowered prices on the drug Gleevec, also sold as Glivec. The memo was first posted by the think tank Knowledge Ecology International.

“Given the direct link that exists between a significant group of members of Congress and the pharmaceutical industry in the United States, the case of GLIVEC is susceptible to escalate to the point that it could impair the approval of the financing of the new initiative “Paz Colombia” as well as become an issue in the framework of the free-trade treaty.”

Good article, eridani. Thanks for posting it.

Glad that Obama provided funding to help the peace talks in Columbia. I don't blame Columbia for being worried about "the direct link that exists between a significant group of members of Congress and the pharmaceutical industry in the United States". It exists.

I wonder if "the approval of the financing of the new initiative “Paz Colombia”' has to go through congress (in which case that 'direct link' will be a major factor) or whether Obama's funding of the peace initiative is a discretionary expenditure he can make without congressional approval. Orrin Hatch (he of the VERY direct link to Big Pharma) is unhappy with the relevant section of the TPP and is demanding further negotiations. I doubt he will be happy with Columbia in this case even if what Columbia is doing is consistent with WHO, WTO and trade agreement rules. Following international law, if it benefits poor people in foreign countries, is not something that is high on Hatch's priorities list.

I don't blame that Columbian diplomat for being 'worried' and 'concerned' even if not direct threats have been made yet.

[Hoyt]

2. We've been meddling in Columbia long before this drug, so I doubt that prompted withdrawing funds.

On the other hand, "compulsory licensing" is part of the reason why we pay more for drugs than poorer countries. There are other reasons too -- that need to be addressed.

"Compulsory licensing" makes sense unless we find a solution. It is also a reason one can't just look at agreements like the TPP and say that it will keep poor countries from getting access to drugs during a longer patent period. Yes, they can get access to some -- but not all -- drugs through "compulsory licensing," just like before the TPP.

Drug pricing/cost is a big issue for everyone that we need to get a handle on, without stifling innovation. Fortunately, most costly drugs do save money in other ways -- hospitalization, testing, other treatments, etc. -- and save/improve lives. And, most of the big drug companies have programs that attempt to help the poor get access to the drugs.

Personally, I'm fine with nationalizing all drug companies worldwide. Problem is, producing drugs is expensive and requires massive investment that most governments aren't willing to, or can't be depended on to, provide.

[Scuba]

3. "Return"? When did we ever stop?

[Human101948]

4. Exactly...

It is built into our politics and our economic model.

[FlatBaroque]

5. The only thing changed is that everyone knows

and we still can't do jack shit about it. This thing has gone global. Did you read into what we just helped engineer in Brazil, another ouster of a liberal, elected president in favor of a reviled friend of Goldman Sachs.

[djean111]

6. The TPP and TTIP will just triple down on this.

We never stopped.