 |
| |
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
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."
Đ 2003 The Washington Post Company |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Great, so we can restrict advertising in our own country, but American tobacco companies can do whatever they like when they are not targeting US citizens.
I'm all for letting people smoke just as long as I don't have to deal with the eye-watering, asthma aggravating, putrid smelling consequences. (Not to mention the ill health effects that I might suffer from what some other guy wants to do)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
I am not surprised.
It is the Behavior I expected from the Bush administration.
This Administration seems to sign only treaties where the USA is given the exclusive right to alter or disregard passages they donīt like.
International rules are only there to be followed by others but not by the USA.
Bush has shown this attitude in most of his decisions, be it the cancellation of the Kyoto Protocols, be it the International Court, be it the war in Iraq and many many other decisions.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
yes gs we can legislate our own country but not others. particularly in obvious choice issues like tobacco.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Yavoon, we can legislate the actions of US companies abroad. I've always thought we should do this, as I don't believe sweatshops, union busting and other transgressions do much to foster democracy in other countries nor do they do much for our image abroad.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
yavoon
|
|
yes gs there are some moralities worth attempting to persuasively legislate. some worth forcefully legislating. Afterall I am hardly a relativist.
I find this neither tho.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gsmoove23
|
|
No ones banning smoking here and this treaty wouldn't significantly change any US domestic policies. The problem seems to be what our tobacco companies do abroad. My question would be what is the constitutional problem to signing a treaty that might restrict tobacco companies abroad the same way they are already restricted here?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:27
|
|
I hope the US doesn't sign this. Absolutely ridiculous.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Oh come on Proteus.
You don't expect any country to ratify a treaty that is problematic with it's constitution.
Notice the US doesn't ask to completely disregard the treaty, but rather to change things which are deemed unconstitutional according to their stadards. |
Of course it is difficult to sign treaties which conflict with the constitution of yourt country.
But the big Problem is:
What worth does an international treaty have, if every signing country asks for the right to disregard or alter Articles which it doesnīt like?
What worth would for example an Treaty about a Ban on atomic Tests have if major signing Powers such as USA, Russia or France would insist on the right to make atomic Tests if they see the need to do it, regardless of one of the Articles which says that atomic tests are completely banned?
I would see it as "slightly" unfair if every country had to follow every single Article of this Treaty except of the USA, France and Russia, which donīt need to.
So, if the question is wether the Treaty on Tobacco should contain certain concessions towards the USA or the USA wonīt sign it, Iīd say they should do it without the USA.
Any concession towards a single country (which gives a single signing country special rights in the treaty, that other countries donīt have) would water down the treaty.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
Do you perceive the USA being out of step with the rest of the world on this one or the rest of the world being out of step with the USA?
This is about the tobacco industry influencing politicians, not about the US constitution. If the reservation clause is included the treaty is meaningless. If it isn't then either the US signs or it doesn't - either way the rest of the world enforces the treaty!
What is the problem with the treaty vs. the Constitution anyway? What happens to US companies overseas depends on local law, not US law. Domestically the US government can set taxes as it wishes. The sticking point is going to be the size of health warnings and restricting advertising. Requiring a product to carry health or safety warnings isn't new. As for free speech - if that includes an absolute right to advertise a product known to cause harm to people who use it or are exposed to it then maybe it is time the US thought again about how far free speech should go.
How much have the US tobacco companies contributed to the Republican party in the last few years anyway?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Personally though, I hope we stay away from this. Government should not be in the business of protecting us from our own stupidity. |
And who is going to protect you from other people's stupidity?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Templar
|
 |
People's Republic of the East Village
Oct 2001
time: 00:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
Free Speech? When did advertising become free speech? |
Since always. While Templar would like to blame five current justices on the bench, the idea that commerical speech is just as valid as any other speech is a well held belief.
|
Commercial speech has not traditionally enjoyed equal status with other types of speech. The Supreme Court in Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 US 52 (1942) that the constitution does not protect purely commercial speech (i.e. advertising). This absolute denial of constitutional protection was later weakened by the Warren Court, but the distinction has remained until now. Again, the current Nike case will likely see the distinction eliminated.
quote:
And silly me, I thought tobacco was a legal substance. If these countries think it is so bad, why don't they ban it? Oh right, because they don't want to ban it, but want to play nanny  |
Tobacco, and other drugs, should be legal. People will always want to get high/drunk/what-have-you. Besides, going to jail for getting high is ridiculous. On the other hand, advertising is something else.
You may have noticed that most products do not engage in "tombstone" advertising - that is, a plain just the facts about the product ad. Most ads are calculated to affect the psychology of the victim (I mean 'consumer'). Most psycology majors I knew in school ended up on Madison Avenue after all.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-05-2003 04:04
couldn't have put it better...
|