The resolution and the politics:

At the 116th Session of the Executive Board of the World Health Organisation (27 May 2005) discussed a short paper (EB116/4) prepared by the Secretariat entitled “International Trade and Health”.  The paper summarises WHO’s previous work in the field of trade and health and some of the key issues associated with trade liberalisation.  The paper argues that health policy officials at the national and global levels need to be able to advise trade negotiators about the health implications of various trade reform options.  The paper describes the current work program of WHO in this area and argues for ‘policy coherence’ between health and trade. 

http://www.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB116/B116_4-en.pdf

Thailand, along with Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Iraq, Jamica, Kenya, Nepal, Sudan, Tonga and Viet Nam tabled a resolution on "International trade and health" (EB116/Conf.Paper No.1) at the Executive Board meeting calling upon WHO Member States to engender more policy coherence between their respective health, trade, commerce, and finance ministries and requested WHO to continue its technical assistance activities to Member States to "frame coherent trade and health policies" and to help Member States "build the capacity to understand the implications of international trade agreements for health and to address relevant issues through polices and legislation that take advantage of the potential opportunities; and mitigate the potential risks, that trade and trade agreements may have for health".

(more) 

Politics and vested interests defer the resolution:

Following interventions from the US, Australia, France and Luxembourg a decision on whether to present this resolution to the World Health Assembly was deferred to January 2006.

The US has been reported as commenting: 

        “We do not share the enthusiasm shown by other countries toward the Secretariat     document on trade and health.  Its analysis is superficial.  We have real concerns about the nature of WHO's technical assistance activities.  There is a perception that WHO's advice is anti-industry, anti-free trade, and anti-intellectual property.

The US is expected to organize its troops to defeat or emasculate the resolution when it returns to the WHO Executive Board in January. "

Call to support the resolution and resist the move by the US.

The People’s Health Movement (PHM) sees the move by the US and its allies to prevent WHO exploring the relationships of ‘trade and health’ as directed to protecting the economic interests of the rich countries (and rich classes in poor countries) at the cost of a rising burden of disease and increasing barriers to health care for poor people in poor countries.  PHM believes that a grossly unfair trading regime is jeopardising the health of the poor and a barrier to their accessing reasonable health care.

PHM supports:

PHM supports the new resolution to enable the WHO and calls upon organisations and individuals and networks to inform their governments and WHO representatives of the importance of this resolution and to press them to support it. 

Doctors, health workers, academicians, politicians, media and health and social activists in countries who will be members of the Executive Board in January 2006 are being called to ensure that policy makers have a deep understanding of this issue. PHM urges activists and organizations to lobby their political representatives accordingly.

(The membership of the Executive Board is at: http://www.who.int/governance/eb/eb_members/en/index.html  )

Doctors, health workers, academicians, politicians, media and health and social activists  in countries who participate in the various blocs represented on the Executive Board should ensure that their representatives urge the EB members to support resolution.  In particular, Brazil and the African Group should be encouraged to support the resolution.

Representatives from all countries should be urged to defend the integrity of the resolution if it comes before a drafting group of which they are a member.

Countries which have criticised or obstructed this resolution (in particular Australia and the US) should be made accountable for their position.

PHM (and other technically informed bodies and advocacy groups) should have a lively presence at the WHO when the issue is returned to the Executive Board to give prominence to the issue and provide technical advice if needed.

Unfair trade regulation is one of the major determinants of health; a major burden of disease.  The WHO must be empowered to exercise its technical responsibilities in this field.

To participate in the campaign, contact:

PHM Global secretariat: secretariat@phmovement.org  : +91 80 5128 0009

Dr David Legge: d.legge@latrobe.edu.au (+61408991417)

Dr. Ravi Narayan : secretariat@phmovement.org  : +91 80 5128 0009

For Media enquiries:

Dr Unnikrishnan PV: unnikru@yahoo.com +91 98450 91319

More resources:

1>2>3