If you look at the top 30 donors to the East African Famine, number one is the US. It is one of the richest countries in the world, although donations as a percentage of per capita income are nowhere near the highest.
But the US is also pretty good when it comes to land grabbing. This time it's Tanzania, where a substantial deal is being questioned by opposition MPs. But recently, it came to light that big, wealthy US educational institutions were snapping up land in various African countries that are, or have had, shortages of affordable food.
An estimated 162,000 Tanzanian smallholders stand to lose their land if the deal goes through. This means that more than half a million people would be impoverished as a result. And all so that some US energy company can produce what they refer to as food crops, but are much more likely to be used for biofuels.
'Affordable' food is the key term. There isn't a shortage of food in Tanzania as a whole (nor in Kenya or several other countries where people are starving). Indeed, some of Ethiopia's most productive land is also being grabbed, as millions there face starvation. Famines typically involve lack of access to affordable food, not lack of food.
One of the culprits mentioned in relation to Ethiopia is Italy, which also appears in the top 30 donor list, albeit at number 19. (The EC, number 2 in the list, is busy trying to ensure that India will no longer produce affordable drugs for HIV positive people by pressing them to sign an 'Economic Partnership Agreement'.)
The most generous also stand to reap far more than they sow. The UK is number 5 on the list and their history of land grabbing, which is still a huge contributor to the country's wealth, is legendary. They are one of the biggest grabbers in Africa, though they are more likely to boast about how much they 'contribute' in aid. Another big and long running land grabbing incident in Tanzania involves a British company called Sudeco.
It's interesting how a lot of the land being grabbed is being used for sugar cane. This can conveniently be referred to as a food crop but is far more likely to be used these days for biofuels. Western powers spend decades driving African sugar producers out of business by subsidizing their own producers and dumping their surplus on African markets. But now they seem to want African sugar again.
Canada is number 6 on the list. Much of Tanzania's gold, much of Africa's gold, is extracted by a Canadian company, which pays little or nothing in taxes or royalties. The US, UK and even South Africa, number 28 on the list, also extract gold at massive cost to ordinary Africans. Gold extraction puts huge tracts of land out of use, though direct contamination, water contamination and through forcibly excluding indigenous people, often people who once made a living from the gold.
Make no mistake, famines like the one currently developing in East Africa, are generally not 'natural' disasters. They occur and last because they are a consequence of large scale theft, government sponsored, multinational sponsored, philanthropic institution sponsored, even international institution sponsored, theft.
I don't wish to suggest that contributing money to the current famine is wrong, I would encourage people to contribute. But, bearing in mind what we are 'contributing' to next year's famine, giving money is not the only thing we can do. We can also ask public representatives tough questions about things that are often presented as 'business' or 'aid' or 'partnership', especially when they involve land and water use.
The majority of people in all East African countries depend very directly on land for their food and income. If that land is taken from them, or even if its use is dictated by those whose sole aim is profit, their lives and livelihoods are threatened. A famine is not an 'act of God', it's a consequence of human activities.
Showing posts with label economic partnership agreement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label economic partnership agreement. Show all posts
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
UNAIDS Now Open About Being Pharmaceutical Industry Mouthpiece
The English Guardian has suddenly noticed that "Beating copyright infringement in the third world could be as simple as making products affordable". I have argued this on several occasions in the last few years, including here and here, but I would not be the first person to make this point.
However, I'm happy to hear that Joe Karaganis and others have spent three years researching the issue and come up with the Media Piracy in Emerging Economies report. But I don't expect that to make much difference to the position of people in developing countries.
It is also worth stressing that intellectual property (IP) protection, one of the most popular forms of trade protection among those who ostensibly oppose trade protection, is not paid for by those who benefit from it; it is paid for by consumers, in rich and poor countries alike. It's like a kind of tax that we pay to protect the interests of the rich. And it can represent well over 90% of the revenue that IP owners receive.
The report is also important in being independent, unlike much of what we read about IP, copyright issues, piracy, counterfeiting, fakes and whatever else industry is currently whining about.
We might think that everyone can do without luxury goods, especially people who are also short of water, food and medicine. However, various multinationals are doing everything in their power to control water, somehow or other, they already control food to a large extent and the drug industry is almost entirely run on profits inflated by IP protection.
There may be a lot of talk from Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, the World Trade Organization (WTO), UNAIDS and others about generic medicines and making drugs affordable. But prices of vital drugs are also protected by the same means as other goods. Even drugs whose cost has 'dropped' from the astronomical thousands of dollars per year to not much more than 100 dollars, are protected. The ultimate price charged is 100% controlled by the rich and powerful.
Therefore, the 'South African Generic Medicines Association' may sound touchy-feely enough, what with the 'African' and the 'generic' bits. But it is as much part of the pharmaceutical industry as AVAC or any of these other front groups that claim to be trying to keep costs down and make pharmaceutical products more accessible.
A speech by Paul de Lay of UNAIDS makes it clear who his intended audience is and who stands to benefit from any agreements that are made when it comes to generic drug pricing. The prices discussed may seem affordable when compared to the ridiculous prices they are replacing. But in reality, they are only affordable to the aid industry, not to the people who need them.
And the aid money going towards overpriced generic drugs is effectively another subsidy for those who ostensibly despise subsidies. This is money that could be better spent on the care people need, beyond the mere distribution of drugs, nurses, doctors, other health personnel and much else. But it is not the needs of HIV positive people that are being served here.
Incidentally, de Lay's speech mentions what he considers to be three areas of discussion, HIV prevention, treatment and health delivery. In reality, all three of these refer to drugs, to be paid for by aid money. To date, a relatively small percentage of HIV spending has gone towards prevention, but the industry has agreed that putting more people, HIV positive and negative, on drugs will prevent HIV transmission. And health delivery may sound like more than drugs, but it isn't really. Just read the speech.
It's wonderful how the interests of UNAIDS and the HIV industry as a whole now matches the interests of the global pharmaceutical industry. In fact, UNAIDS' HIV strategy can be summed up in one word: drugs. You can waste a lot more words on it, and you can be sure that UNAIDS and others will, but in the end, drugs are it.
De Lay advocates TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights), TRIPS Plus, Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) and all sorts of other institutions and instruments that only point to one thing: intellectual property and the protection of the very rich against the very needy. The consortium of partners includes the wHO, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation (financed by IP protection) and a few others.
So it's official: the entire HIV industry, fronted by UNAIDS, is run by and for big pharma, and much of the aid industry will continue to subsidise and represent the interests of other industry sectors. The whole pretense of humanitarian motives can now be abandoned, as no one was fooled anyway. But, more worryingly, few seem to object to this either.
However, I'm happy to hear that Joe Karaganis and others have spent three years researching the issue and come up with the Media Piracy in Emerging Economies report. But I don't expect that to make much difference to the position of people in developing countries.
It is also worth stressing that intellectual property (IP) protection, one of the most popular forms of trade protection among those who ostensibly oppose trade protection, is not paid for by those who benefit from it; it is paid for by consumers, in rich and poor countries alike. It's like a kind of tax that we pay to protect the interests of the rich. And it can represent well over 90% of the revenue that IP owners receive.
The report is also important in being independent, unlike much of what we read about IP, copyright issues, piracy, counterfeiting, fakes and whatever else industry is currently whining about.
We might think that everyone can do without luxury goods, especially people who are also short of water, food and medicine. However, various multinationals are doing everything in their power to control water, somehow or other, they already control food to a large extent and the drug industry is almost entirely run on profits inflated by IP protection.
There may be a lot of talk from Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, the World Trade Organization (WTO), UNAIDS and others about generic medicines and making drugs affordable. But prices of vital drugs are also protected by the same means as other goods. Even drugs whose cost has 'dropped' from the astronomical thousands of dollars per year to not much more than 100 dollars, are protected. The ultimate price charged is 100% controlled by the rich and powerful.
Therefore, the 'South African Generic Medicines Association' may sound touchy-feely enough, what with the 'African' and the 'generic' bits. But it is as much part of the pharmaceutical industry as AVAC or any of these other front groups that claim to be trying to keep costs down and make pharmaceutical products more accessible.
A speech by Paul de Lay of UNAIDS makes it clear who his intended audience is and who stands to benefit from any agreements that are made when it comes to generic drug pricing. The prices discussed may seem affordable when compared to the ridiculous prices they are replacing. But in reality, they are only affordable to the aid industry, not to the people who need them.
And the aid money going towards overpriced generic drugs is effectively another subsidy for those who ostensibly despise subsidies. This is money that could be better spent on the care people need, beyond the mere distribution of drugs, nurses, doctors, other health personnel and much else. But it is not the needs of HIV positive people that are being served here.
Incidentally, de Lay's speech mentions what he considers to be three areas of discussion, HIV prevention, treatment and health delivery. In reality, all three of these refer to drugs, to be paid for by aid money. To date, a relatively small percentage of HIV spending has gone towards prevention, but the industry has agreed that putting more people, HIV positive and negative, on drugs will prevent HIV transmission. And health delivery may sound like more than drugs, but it isn't really. Just read the speech.
It's wonderful how the interests of UNAIDS and the HIV industry as a whole now matches the interests of the global pharmaceutical industry. In fact, UNAIDS' HIV strategy can be summed up in one word: drugs. You can waste a lot more words on it, and you can be sure that UNAIDS and others will, but in the end, drugs are it.
De Lay advocates TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights), TRIPS Plus, Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA) and all sorts of other institutions and instruments that only point to one thing: intellectual property and the protection of the very rich against the very needy. The consortium of partners includes the wHO, the World Bank, the Gates Foundation (financed by IP protection) and a few others.
So it's official: the entire HIV industry, fronted by UNAIDS, is run by and for big pharma, and much of the aid industry will continue to subsidise and represent the interests of other industry sectors. The whole pretense of humanitarian motives can now be abandoned, as no one was fooled anyway. But, more worryingly, few seem to object to this either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
