March, 04 2013, 10:13am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Phone,+1 617 482 1211 (Toll-free 1-800-77-OXFAM),Email,info@oxfamamerica.org
US Trade Policy Putting Public Health at Risk
Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement to exacerbate Vietnam’s access to medicines crisis
WASHINGTON
The United States is again pursuing an important free trade agreement that will lock in high drug prices out of poor people's reach - this time across the Asia-Pacific region, warns international agency Oxfam.
Talks resume in Singapore this week for the 'Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement' (TPPA). The US is again insisting that countries must take on strict intellectual property protection and drug pricing rules when they sign the deal.
Oxfam believes this will harm their ability to effectively negotiate prices with the world's big drug companies. For a county like Vietnam that already struggles to keep up with high medicine prices, the TPPA could be devastating.
Dire consequences for millions of people
Oxfam spokesperson Rohit Malpani said: "The US proposals will have dire health consequences across Asia and Latin America. Millions of people are already struggling to find affordable medicines. These rules could price medicines out of reach for future generations too."
In the past ten years, the US has consistently demanded in these trade negotiations that poor countries should introduce measures that will increase medicine prices.
In particular, the US wants rules that either interfere with basic, WTO-sanctioned safeguards that allow a country to override patent monopolies in order to protect public health, or rules that extend the monopoly for a medicine beyond twenty years, and so delay cheaper generic competition from entering the market.
Malpani said: "The US is putting the interests of the drug industry above those of public health. It needs to reconsider this approach because it undermines the sustainability of public health-care programs and discredits trade itself as a tool for poverty reduction."
Vientamese already struggling to pay for health care
In Vietnam, government officials, experts and civil society groups are already worried about the possible impact of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement on medicine prices. Patients in Vietnam already pay 72% of their medicine costs.
Thousands more people could be pushed into poverty there. They will have to choose between medicines and other basic necessities, or forego treatment altogether. Many drugs for diseases including HIV and AIDS, cancer and hepatitis B and C are already too expensive for most people there.
The TPPA also comes at a bad time for efforts to provide universal treatment to HIV and AIDS. Up to 170,000 people still require basic treatment in Vietnam and thousands more will soon need new, patented anti-retroviral medicines as they will develop resistance to their current treatments. The US proposals will increase these medicine costs too.
To make matters worse, the US - which currently finances more than half of the country's HIV and AIDS treatment budget - may pull this funding in 2015.
Malpani said: "At a time at which both the government and patients in Vietnam are struggling to pay for medicines, a trade agreement that will make medicines more expensive is unacceptable. The US should be investing in programs that will foster a sustainable health system in Vietnam, not driving thousands of patients into poverty and poor health."
Notes to Editors
Download Oxfam's media briefing:Putting public health at risk: Proposals under the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) to exacerbate Vietnam's access to medicines crisis
More on Oxfam's Health and Education For All Campaign
Contact Information
For further inquiry, please contact:
Caroline Hooper-Box
+1 202 496 1173
+1 202 321 2967
caroline.hooper-box@oxfamaminternational.org
Permalink:https://oxf.am/3V6
Oxfam International is a global movement of people who are fighting inequality to end poverty and injustice. We are working across regions in about 70 countries, with thousands of partners, and allies, supporting communities to build better lives for themselves, grow resilience and protect lives and livelihoods also in times of crisis.
LATEST NEWS
Trump Says Iran and Israel Agree to Cease-Fire
"Let's hope it's real," said CodePink's Medea Benjamin. "But let's also stay clear-eyed. And let's demand a cease-fire where it's urgently needed: Gaza."
Jun 23, 2025
President Donald Trump said Monday that Israel and Iran have agreed to a "complete and total cease-fire" following 12 days of escalating attacks, including unprovoked U.S. attacks on multiple Iranian civilian nuclear facilities meant to be under international protection.
"It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE (in approximately 6 hours from now, when Israel and Iran have wound down and completed their in progress, final missions!), for 12 hours, at which point the War will be considered, ENDED!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social network.
"Officially, Iran will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 12th Hour, Israel will start the CEASEFIRE and, upon the 24th Hour, an Official END to THE 12 DAY WAR will be saluted by the World," Trump added. "During each CEASEFIRE, the other side will remain PEACEFUL and RESPECTFUL."
A senior Iranian official toldReuters that Tehran has agreed to a cease-fire following persuasion from Qatar, which hours earlier was the site of a symbolic Iranian missile attack on a base housing thousands of U.S. troops.
"Trump says there's a cease-fire between Israel and Iran. Is it true? We don't know but if it is, it's great news," Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, said on social media following the president's post. "Because Iran has been under attack. The world has been on edge. And while a cease-fire would be a tremendous relief, let's not forget: Trump lies."
Trump says there’s a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Is it true? We don’t know but if it is, it’s great news.
Because Iran has been under attack. The world has been on edge. And while a ceasefire would be a tremendous relief, let’s not forget:
Trump lies.
Israel violates… pic.twitter.com/MZbxAc0nEu
— Medea Benjamin (@medeabenjamin) June 23, 2025
"Israel violates cease-fires all the time in Gaza, in Lebanon," Benjamin continued. "Israel has nuclear weapons. Iran does not. The U.S. and Israel have attacked Iran illegally. So yes, let's hope it's real. But let's also stay clear-eyed. And let's demand a cease-fire where it's urgently needed: Gaza."
"No more starvation. No more bombings," she added. "No more fake 'humanitarian corridors.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
'There Was No Imminent Threat,' Says Sen. Chris Murphy After Iran Intelligence Briefing
The Connecticut Democrat blasted Donald Trump as "a weak and dangerously reckless president."
Jun 23, 2025
In addition to pushing back against U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson's claim that President Donald Trump "made the right call" attacking Iran's nuclear sites, U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy on Monday spelled out "ideas that should guide Americans' thinking as they digest the hourly news updates during the early days of what may become yet another American war of choice in the Middle East."
Johnson (R-La.) claimed in a Saturday night post on the social media site X that "leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the commander-in-chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act."
Responding early Monday, Murphy (D-Conn.) said that "there was no imminent threat. I got briefed on the same intelligence as the speaker."
"This is also a moment for the American people to stand up and say we do not want another war in the Middle East."
That echoed a statement the senator put out on Sunday, in which he said that "I've been briefed on the intelligence—there is no evidence Iran posed an imminent threat to the United States. That makes this attack illegal."
"Only Congress can declare preemptive war, and we should vote as soon as possible on legislation to explicitly deny President Trump the authorization to drag us into a conflict in Middle East that could get countless Americans killed and waste trillions of dollars," he added, calling Trump "a weak and dangerously reckless president."
Murphy—a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations—also published a long piece on his Senate website on Monday, stressing eight key points:
- There is an industry in Washington that profits from war, and so it's no surprise that the merits of conflict are dangerously overhyped and the risks are regularly underestimated.
- Almost every war plan our military has devised for the Middle East and North Africa in the last two decades has been a failure.
- The strikes are illegal, and a major setback for the international rule of law that has undergirded American security for 75 years.
- You cannot bomb knowledge out of existence. Iran knows how to make a nuclear bomb.
- We didn't need to start a war with Iran because we know—for sure—that diplomacy can work.
- Even opponents of this strike need to admit Iran is weak, and we cannot know for sure what the future holds.
- There are many very, very bad potential consequences of Trump's attack. The worst consequence, of course, is a full-blown war in the region that draws in the United States.
- Israel is our ally and Iran IS a threat to their people, but we should never allow Israeli domestic politics to draw us into a war.
"This is a moment where Congress needs to step in," Murphy argued. "This week, we are likely to take a vote that makes it crystal clear President Trump does not have the authorization for these strikes or a broader war with Iran."
"This is also a moment for the American people to stand up and say we do not want another war in the Middle East," he added, recalling the U.S. invasion of Iraq. "In the last 20 years, we have seen the untold damage done—the lives lost, the billions of dollars wasted, and our reputation squandered—and we won't allow Trump to take us down that path again."
After Tehran on Monday responded to Trump's attack by firing missiles at a base in Qatar that houses American forces and, reportedly, a site in Iraq, the U.S. president announced on his Truth Social network a cease-fire between Iran and Israel—which was bombing its Middle East opponent before the United States started also doing so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Strikes on Iran Nuclear Sites Called 'Devastating Blow' to Nonproliferation
"It's such a terrible precedent that could drive states to determine that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty no longer benefits their security," one expert warned during a virtual event on the conflict.
Jun 23, 2025
Experts said Monday during a webinar on the escalating Mideast crisis that U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran's civilian nuclear facilities—which were ostensibly under International Atomic Energy Agency protection—further exposed the United States as untrustworthy and severely damaged efforts to stop the global proliferation of nuclear weapons.
ReThink Media hosted Monday's webinar, during which host Mac Hamilton discussed issues including Saturday's U.S. attack on Iran with panelists Sara Haghdoosti, the executive director of Win Without War; Yasmine Taeb, the legislative political director at MPower Change; Kelsey Davenport, Arms Control Association's director for nonproliferation policy; and Arti Walker-Peddakotla, chair of the board at About Face: Veterans Against the War.
"Military action is not an effective long-term strategy for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran."
President Donald Trump ordered the attacks on the Fordow Uranium Enrichment Plant, the Natanz Nuclear Facility, and the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center despite decades of U.S. intelligence community consensus—including his own administration's recent assessment—that Iran is not trying to develop nuclear weapons. Trump also disregarded international law, his own two-week ultimatum for Iran, and the fact that the three facilities were supposed to be safeguarded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
"From a nonproliferation perspective, Trump's decision to strike Iran was a reckless, irresponsible escalation that is likely to push Iran closer to nuclear weapons in the long term," Davenport said during Monday's webinar. "The strikes did damage key Iranian nuclear facilities, like the underground Fordow enrichment site. But Tehran had ample time prior to the strikes to remove its stockpile of near-weapons-grade uranium to a covert location, and it's likely that they did so."
"This underscores that the strikes may have temporarily set back Iran's program, but military action is not an effective long-term strategy for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran," she continued. "Because technically, Iran has retained its nuclear weapons capability and critical aspects of the program."
"And politically, there's greater impetus now to weaponize," Davenport contended. "I mean, strikes are already strengthening factions in Iran calling for withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and strengthening arguments that nuclear weapons are necessary to deter further attacks."
Rejecting the president's claim to have "completely and totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear sites, Davenport said that "all Trump has destroyed is U.S. credibility, I think Iranians have less reason now to trust the United States to negotiate an agreement in good faith."
Davenport continued:
Iran has certainly learned the lessons of past history. I mean, [former Libyan Prime Minister] Moammar Gadhafigave up Libya's nuclear weapons program, and later was overthrown by Western-backed forces. Syria, its nuclear weapons program was bombed while it was still in its infancy. Decades later, [former Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad was overthrown.
The United States has demonstrated it is not interested in credible negotiations under the Trump administration, and that if a deal is struck there's no guarantee that the United States will abide by its commitments, even if Iran is abiding by its end of the bargain. That's what we saw in the [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action] scenario. So it really raises questions about U.S. nonproliferation policy going forward, and the risk of erosion, you know, to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
In 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), also known as the Iran nuclear deal, despite his own administration's assessment that Tehran was in full compliance with the agreement. Critics argued Trump's move was meant to satisfy Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has boasted about being able to control U.S. policy and whose country has an undeclared nuclear arsenal and is not a party to the NPT.
Davenport highlighted the "uptick in conversation" in Tehran about quitting the NPT, given that "the treaty cannot preserve and protect civil nuclear activities."
"I think it is worth underscoring that the United States struck sites that were under International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. These were not covert enrichment facilities," she stressed. "These were not sites where Iran was dashing to the bomb. You know, there's no evidence of that. These were safeguarded facilities that the IAEA regularly has access to."
"This is a devastating blow to the nonproliferation regime," Davenport said. "And I think over time, this is going to contribute to erosion of the treaty. It's such a terrible precedent that could drive states to determine that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty no longer benefits their security, that their civil programs can become targets without any evidence of weaponization, and drive further questioning of whether remaining in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is in their interest."
IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi—who last week said there was no proof Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb—also warned during a Monday meeting of the body's board of governors in Vienna that "the weight of this conflict risks collapsing the global nuclear nonproliferation regime."
"But there is still a path for diplomacy," Grossi said. "We must take it, otherwise violence and destruction could reach unimaginable levels and the global nonproliferation regime that has underpinned international security for more than half a century could crumble and fall."
"Iran, Israel, and the Middle East need peace," he emphasized. "Armed attacks on nuclear facilities should never take place and could result in boradioactive releases with grave consequences within and beyond the boundaries of the state which has been attacked. I therefore again call on maximum restraint. Military escalation not only threatens lives, it also delays us from taking the diplomatic path."
"To achieve the long-term assurance that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon and for the continued effectiveness of the global nonproliferation regime, we must return to negotiations," Grossi added.
Iranian officials and other observers have accused Grossi and the IAEA of complicity in U.S. and Israeli attacks on Iran. Last week, Iran filed a complaint against the agency's chief for allegedly "undermining the agency's impartiality."
This, following last week's IAEA board of governors approval of a resolution stating that Iran is not complying with its obligations as a member of the body, a finding based largely on dubious intelligence that skeptics compared to the "weapons of mass destruction" lies in the lead-up to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.
In an opinion piece published Monday by Common Dreams, Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies of the peace group CodePink wrote that the U.S. and Israel "used Grossi" to "hijack the IAEA and start a war on Iran."
"Rafael Grossi should resign as IAEA director before he further undermines nuclear nonproliferation and drags the world any closer to nuclear war," Benjamin and Davies added.
On Monday, the Majlis, Iran's Parliament, began weighing legislation to suspend cooperation with the IAEA.
"The world clearly saw that the IAEA has failed to uphold its commitments and has become a political instrument," Majlis Speaker Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf said on the chamber floor Monday.
Qalibaf added that Iran would "will definitely respond in a way that will make gambler Trump regret" attacking Iran.
Later Monday, Iran fired a salvo of missiles at a military base housing U.S. troops in Qatar and, reportedly, at an American facility in Iraq. There have been no reported casualties or strike damage.
This was followed by Trump's announcement on social media of a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Iran.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular