After my last diary, a lot of Clinton supporters seemed to have trouble believing that the Clintons really did do everything they could to stop South Africa and India from fighting the AIDS epidemic right as it was starting. Before 19% of South Africans and 1.5 million Indians became infected with HIV.
Unfortunately, the facts speak for themselves. Again, lest anyone accuse me of being ‘anti-woman’, let’s start again with this quote from Marcia Angell. She was the first ever female editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, on of the top two most prestigious medical journals in the U.S. Here is that quote:
Both the Clinton and Bush administrations carried water for the pharmaceutical industry when Third World countries complained that big pharma was pricing HIV/AIDS drugs out of reach. When the World Trade Organization was formed in 1995, members were required to honor twenty-year patents on drugs. At the time, many countries did not even consider drugs patentable. Exceptions were to be allowed for public health emergencies. (In that case, governments could issue 'compulsory licenses' to have needed drugs produced by other manufacturers.) Poor countries were given until 2005 to comply. It was in this context that in the late 1990s South Africa — desperate to control its HIV/AIDS epidemic — threatened to produce or import generic drugs to fight it. The pharmaceutical industry adamantly opposed any such move and the Clinton administration, no doubt reflecting the industry's influence in Washington, warned of trade sanctions. Subsequently, the administration was so embarrassed by the public outrage that it backed off. A few drug companies, also embarrassed, announced they would lower prices in parts of Africa, but the reality appears to have fallen far short of the promises. Even the discounted drugs are priced higher than generic drugs made in India, and they have been difficult to obtain. [...] The United States is generally seen as siding with drug company interests against the needs of millions of HIV/AIDS victims in the Third World. Source: The Truth About Drug Companies, p. 206
Still don’t believe me? Here is what The Guardian said in 1999:
South Africa is now the epicentre of the global Aids quake. Twenty-two per cent of its pregnant women are HIV-positive. Within 10 years, the country's average life expectancy will drop from 59 to 40. [...]
Bill Clinton's administration [...] started applying unilateral pressure. Preferential trade treatment for South Africa has been withdrawn. Its government has been told that the US will apply sanctions if it persists in its attempt to stop the spread of Aids.
And here is what Huffington Post said in 2013:
Mandela signed a law in 1997 authorizing his administration to shop the globe for cheaper drugs. If the same medication was available at a lower price in another country, Mandela's government would simply buy the drug abroad and import it. In the years since, some U.S. states -- including Kansas under former Gov. Kathleen Sebelius -- have experimented with similar policies to obtain prescription drugs from Canada in order to lower prescription drug prices for American seniors.
But American pharmaceutical companies were livid. The Clinton administration insisted the South African law violated World Trade Organization treaties -- an interpretation later discredited. Clinton's team pressured Mandela in trade talks to drop the new law, and began punishing South Africa by rescinding U.S. trade benefits for goods produced in the country.
Here is how PBS described the situation in 2003:
TAC joined the A.N.C. in supporting the Medicines Act, legislation that would make it possible for South Africa to override drug patents and provide more affordable generics. The measure had passed but never gone into effect, thanks to an intense lobbying effort by the pharmaceutical industry and the Clinton Administration.
To quote Social Issues in America: An Encyclopedia:
Although international trade rules allowed [compulsory drug licensing] in the event of a national emergency, the Clinton Administration had long threatened developing countries with a Section 301 designation (of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974) if they did not provide sufficient intellectual property protection. The 301 list is a sort of warning, often a precursor to the imposition of sanctions.
This was the official health policy of the United States, at the time when Hillary Clinton was the top advisor on US health policy. (Which she reminds us of constantly, even going so far as to ask where Bernie was the other day.)
Hillary supporters who defend her for having ‘misspoken’ about Nancy Regan’s AIDS policies are going to have a LOT more defending to do. As the Guardian put it, the Clinton administration “let millions die of Aids.”
Some of her defenders claim that the Clinton foundation later has since done a lot to promote AIDS treatment. Sure. After they purposely helped the AIDS epidemic get started back when it still could have been stopped, or at least greatly minimized. Now that millions are paying extortionate fees every year just for a chance at staying alive a few more years, the Clinton Foundation helps give free treatment to the lucky few who win that lottery.
Some help indeed.
