Indonesia finally blinks, buckling under pressure from the global community. After three months of negotiations with the World Health Organization (WHO), Indonesia finally surrenders to the global health body its precious H5N1 samples for vaccine development and production. Earlier, this Southeast Asian country from where 74 people have died of bird flu, had dug in its heels and refused to release samples, citing the fear that large pharmaceutical companies would use the virus to make vaccines that would be unaffordable to developing countries.
But Indonesia changed its mind. Whatever happened to Indonesia’s brave attempt to stand up for its fellow-third world countries until WHO addresses this pressing concern?
After all, WHO did not give any concrete assurance of how it would ensure that cash-strapped countries would benefit equally with cash-rich nations when time for handing out the fruits of sample-sharing.
Muted for reasons unclear, Indonesia held out, gave in: Did its cry for fairness register? Unless WHO presents clearly how the H5N1 study results will be shared, Indonesia’s efforts may very well all go to waste. And sad but true—even if the power struggle between super power and third world had ended in stalemate, Indonesia, with its impoverished majority, may likely be incapable of taking advantage of the vaccines once effective ones are developed.
“Previously, WHO used a mechanism that was not fair for developing countries,” Siti Fadilah Supari, the health minister, said at a March 27 press conference in Jakarta. “This mechanism was not fair and transparent in terms of the expectations of developing countries. We think that mechanism was more dangerous than the threat of pandemic H5N1 itself.” See full story on FluRadar
Not fair? Not transparent? Has this mechanism, this system been changed that Indonesia finally gave in? Is the “danger” no longer present? The danger is still there, and the glaring disparity still gnaws on the inadequate resources of developing countries. This imbalance will persist if the international community continues to feed it.
Consider WHO’s statement:
“H5N1 vaccines are a different issue,” said Dr. David Heymann, WHO assistant director-general for communicable diseases. “We will now modify our best practices to ensure that they are transparent to the developing countries which are providing samples and which have requested to share in the benefits resulting from those viruses.”
Can an assurance to modify an age-old system grant Indonesia the medical stockpile it needs when the next pandemic comes?
Heymann’s assurance of transparency comes out only as convenient, a pat on the back, a mere consolation, a feeble effort for WHO at best. From WHO, we need concrete action plans on how third world countries will gain more of the fruits of their sample-sharing and other bird-flu related endeavors.
4 Comments:
"The needs of the many override the needs of the few."
The World Health Organization, the world's only health body not dictated to by local turf issues, was only applying this principle to the Indonesia case.
Sometimes, we have to be ruthless so we can serve the greater cause--which is finding a cure for and a vaccine against bird flu.
For this, we need those viral strains.
I agree with LB's final analysis that the WHO needs to operate in a more transparent fashion, not only in regard to cases like Indonesia but in allowing all concerned states the chance at participation in fighting avian flu.
I would also argue that the WHO is very much beholden to local turf issues. Look at the secret MOU that the WHO Secretariat signed with China in 2005 that effectively gives Beijing first refusal at any participation at any level by Taiwan.
Despite the importance of cooperation among all regional states in heading off a possible pandemic, in this case the needs of the few (the Beijing leadership and their political agenda) actually took precedence over the needs of the many (23 million Taiwanese, plus anyone else who might be affected by avian flu thanks to Taiwan's absence in anti-bird flu operations).
Why should precedence define all future actions? Granted that politics can make a mockery of so many grand intentions, a time comes when something so serious--like a flu pandemic wiping out a third of the population--should overcome even the meanest vested interest.
WHO's response to Indonesia's beligerence sets the path towards creating this assertive stand that would benefit not just the antibird flu campaign but also other international causes.
Indonesia has no choice in the matter, really. Any belligerence from the world’s largest Muslim nation is bound to set the knees of those old men at the Pentagon shaking, in this post-911, paranoid world. Better that WHO gets its hands on those samples before the terrorists get them. After the anthrax scare, bird flu is clearly high on the list of Homeland Security issues. No place for bleeding heart, softie, idealists like you, Grand Puppet Mistress. Such bleeding-heart liberalism went out of style after the 80s, together with bell-bottom blues, free love, and all that childish mess…But on the other hand, this may not really be all about "the needs of the many override the needs of the few." Really, that’s pushing the envelope, Michael Cross. We all know that in this case—as in virtually everything else in the world today – it’s all about serving the needs of the few in power. Who are mostly old, white, men, like, well, me. Take note, it’s only now that the first cases of bird flu have been discovered in Turkey and Sweden that the WHO is getting really aggressive. There’s no debate, really. It’s all about realpolitik. It’s all part of the war on terrorism. It’s all connected. So what are you going to do about it, Grand Puppet Mistress?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home