Tweet
U.S. Seeks to Alter Anti-Tobacco Treaty
'Reservations' Clause Sought as Way Out of Some Provisions
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 30, 2003; Page A01
The United States told the World Health Organization this week that it is unlikely to sign the first treaty to curtail tobacco use worldwide unless the 171 nations that hammered out its language agree to a clause that would allow governments to opt out of any provision they find objectionable.
The Bush administration says it needs the "reservations" clause to ensure that the United States could disregard treaty requirements it considered constitutionally questionable. But anti-tobacco activists and foreign diplomats say the demand is an attempt to water down the treaty to benefit tobacco companies or to unravel the agreement entirely.
The draft of the treaty, which calls for nations to adopt a wide range of tobacco-control initiatives, was overwhelmingly approved at a Geneva conference in March. Since then, only the United States and the Dominican Republic have objected, WHO officials said.
"It is the intent of the United States to sign the [treaty] and to press for its ratification by our Senate," said the letter, delivered Monday to WHO Director General Gro Harlem Bruntland and to health and foreign ministers worldwide. "However, as noted in our statement at the final negotiating session, our ability to sign and ratify the [treaty] is undermined by the current prohibition on reservations."
While the treaty would change the way many nations regulate tobacco, it would do little to change American tobacco control practices or policies. Provisions such as global restrictions on advertising, however, would have a potentially great impact on American tobacco companies that increasingly make their profits from cigarette sales abroad.
In Monday's letter, the United States asked for support in changing the language before the treaty is officially adopted at a World Health Assembly meeting May 19. WHO officials and delegates to the negotiations said they do not expect the language to be renegotiated at that meeting, and doubt that a consensus to include a "reservations" clause can be reached informally beforehand. During more than three years of negotiations, U.S. officials have tried to have the clause added.
"I think it is impossible to reach a consensus, and this could easily be the end of the entire tobacco convention," said Belgian negotiator Luk Joossens. "If you open one article, it will encourage other nations to open articles they don't like. And if the reservations are included, then crucial aspects of the entire effort will be weakened. There is a lot of anger in so many countries about this American action."
The goal of the treaty, which would be the first successfully negotiated under the auspices of WHO, is to significantly reduce cigarette smoking worldwide. It includes a ban on tobacco advertising except where a ban would violate national laws, it encourages nations to raise tobacco taxes to discourage smoking, and it calls for specific steps to control tobacco use, such as requiring that health warnings on cigarette packages take up 30 to 50 percent of the display area.
The treaty also includes tobacco-control programs that require considerable funding. The United States has been the largest donor to that effort, and some delegates said they believed the United States was using the threat of cutting off its funding to persuade delegates to vote for its positions.
In recent years, the United States has balked at or pulled out of a series of major international agreements -- including the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the International Criminal Court and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
William Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the primary concern of U.S. negotiators is that parts of the treaty could prove to be unconstitutional by interfering, for instance, with tobacco companies' free speech rights. In addition, he said, the treaty calls on Congress to approve policy changes it might not accept -- such as changing the size of warning labels.
"A lot of our problem has to do with the broadness of the treaty," Pierce said. "Broadness and vagueness are something our court system oftentimes takes a dim view of. Since we are signing on to a treaty with other nations, they could bring this up and use this vagueness in a way that, in this country, would not be constitutional."
Pierce said no formal decision has been made on what the United States will do if the "reservation" clause is not adopted. If the United States does not sign the agreement, its representatives cannot take part in meetings that will follow to refine and implement the treaty. He said this would be a problem in at least one issue that the United States is keenly interested in -- cigarette smuggling and the connection between illicit cigarette sales and terrorist groups.
Tobacco-control activists say that the United States has already won a number of concessions over constitutional concerns and that U.S. officials appear to be acting now for other reasons. "This looks like an American effort to blow up the treaty, or to neutralize it for the benefit of Philip Morris and other cigarette makers," said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Myers said many smaller nations have voiced concern that tobacco companies will pressure them to opt out of specific provisions -- such as the advertising ban -- if the reservations clause is added. "Basically, allowing reservations would let the tobacco companies go back to these smaller nations and renegotiate the treaty," he said.
Even before the Bush administration's letter was released, Democrats had sought to make a political issue of the tobacco negotiations. In a letter to President Bush sent Friday, Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) applauded him for his public statements that tobacco use is the greatest health issue facing the nation, but said the delegation in Geneva negotiated in a different spirit.
"In contrast to these public statements, your Administration went to great lengths to weaken many important provisions of the treaty," they wrote. "In addition to advancing weak language, the U.S. delegation also inappropriately pressured other nations to adopt U.S. positions."
WHO officials sought to put the best face on the dispute. "We appear to have 95 [percent] to 98 percent of nations happy with the text, and two that want to have changes," said Derek Yach, who has led the WHO effort. "I think we have to be quite pleased with that."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
'Reservations' Clause Sought as Way Out of Some Provisions
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 30, 2003; Page A01
The United States told the World Health Organization this week that it is unlikely to sign the first treaty to curtail tobacco use worldwide unless the 171 nations that hammered out its language agree to a clause that would allow governments to opt out of any provision they find objectionable.
The Bush administration says it needs the "reservations" clause to ensure that the United States could disregard treaty requirements it considered constitutionally questionable. But anti-tobacco activists and foreign diplomats say the demand is an attempt to water down the treaty to benefit tobacco companies or to unravel the agreement entirely.
The draft of the treaty, which calls for nations to adopt a wide range of tobacco-control initiatives, was overwhelmingly approved at a Geneva conference in March. Since then, only the United States and the Dominican Republic have objected, WHO officials said.
"It is the intent of the United States to sign the [treaty] and to press for its ratification by our Senate," said the letter, delivered Monday to WHO Director General Gro Harlem Bruntland and to health and foreign ministers worldwide. "However, as noted in our statement at the final negotiating session, our ability to sign and ratify the [treaty] is undermined by the current prohibition on reservations."
While the treaty would change the way many nations regulate tobacco, it would do little to change American tobacco control practices or policies. Provisions such as global restrictions on advertising, however, would have a potentially great impact on American tobacco companies that increasingly make their profits from cigarette sales abroad.
In Monday's letter, the United States asked for support in changing the language before the treaty is officially adopted at a World Health Assembly meeting May 19. WHO officials and delegates to the negotiations said they do not expect the language to be renegotiated at that meeting, and doubt that a consensus to include a "reservations" clause can be reached informally beforehand. During more than three years of negotiations, U.S. officials have tried to have the clause added.
"I think it is impossible to reach a consensus, and this could easily be the end of the entire tobacco convention," said Belgian negotiator Luk Joossens. "If you open one article, it will encourage other nations to open articles they don't like. And if the reservations are included, then crucial aspects of the entire effort will be weakened. There is a lot of anger in so many countries about this American action."
The goal of the treaty, which would be the first successfully negotiated under the auspices of WHO, is to significantly reduce cigarette smoking worldwide. It includes a ban on tobacco advertising except where a ban would violate national laws, it encourages nations to raise tobacco taxes to discourage smoking, and it calls for specific steps to control tobacco use, such as requiring that health warnings on cigarette packages take up 30 to 50 percent of the display area.
The treaty also includes tobacco-control programs that require considerable funding. The United States has been the largest donor to that effort, and some delegates said they believed the United States was using the threat of cutting off its funding to persuade delegates to vote for its positions.
In recent years, the United States has balked at or pulled out of a series of major international agreements -- including the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, the International Criminal Court and Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.
William Pierce, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the primary concern of U.S. negotiators is that parts of the treaty could prove to be unconstitutional by interfering, for instance, with tobacco companies' free speech rights. In addition, he said, the treaty calls on Congress to approve policy changes it might not accept -- such as changing the size of warning labels.
"A lot of our problem has to do with the broadness of the treaty," Pierce said. "Broadness and vagueness are something our court system oftentimes takes a dim view of. Since we are signing on to a treaty with other nations, they could bring this up and use this vagueness in a way that, in this country, would not be constitutional."
Pierce said no formal decision has been made on what the United States will do if the "reservation" clause is not adopted. If the United States does not sign the agreement, its representatives cannot take part in meetings that will follow to refine and implement the treaty. He said this would be a problem in at least one issue that the United States is keenly interested in -- cigarette smuggling and the connection between illicit cigarette sales and terrorist groups.
Tobacco-control activists say that the United States has already won a number of concessions over constitutional concerns and that U.S. officials appear to be acting now for other reasons. "This looks like an American effort to blow up the treaty, or to neutralize it for the benefit of Philip Morris and other cigarette makers," said Matthew Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Myers said many smaller nations have voiced concern that tobacco companies will pressure them to opt out of specific provisions -- such as the advertising ban -- if the reservations clause is added. "Basically, allowing reservations would let the tobacco companies go back to these smaller nations and renegotiate the treaty," he said.
Even before the Bush administration's letter was released, Democrats had sought to make a political issue of the tobacco negotiations. In a letter to President Bush sent Friday, Senate Democratic leader Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) applauded him for his public statements that tobacco use is the greatest health issue facing the nation, but said the delegation in Geneva negotiated in a different spirit.
"In contrast to these public statements, your Administration went to great lengths to weaken many important provisions of the treaty," they wrote. "In addition to advancing weak language, the U.S. delegation also inappropriately pressured other nations to adopt U.S. positions."
WHO officials sought to put the best face on the dispute. "We appear to have 95 [percent] to 98 percent of nations happy with the text, and two that want to have changes," said Derek Yach, who has led the WHO effort. "I think we have to be quite pleased with that."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
couldn't have put it better...
Comment