Chap wrote:
EAllusion wrote:
I also think the resolution that was shot down was overstated to the point of inaccurate it's not a big deal that it was shot down.
The resolution was not 'shot down'. It was simply proposed by Russia after the US delegation threatened Ecuador with very heavy economic sanctions and the withdrawal of military aid if they persisted in proposing it.
That sounds as if the US thought a quite 'big deal' was involved. And reportedly the 'big deal' for them was that the proposal included a provision to prevent 'inappropriate marketing' of formula as being equivalent to or better than breast milk (which it is not). That aspect of the affair has been fully discussed on this thread.
However, since the US delegation did not feel like imposing further sanctions on Russia rather than on tiny little Ecuador, the resolution was proposed and passed. As is normal, there were no doubt some modifications between the first proposal and the final version. Since the final version was not yet been published by WHO, we can't tell exactly what those changes were.
EAllusion wrote:
I was referring to the US using its leverage to shoot down the initial resolution, which is what this thread is about. I'm less certain that this is entirely about protecting formula manufacturers, but in any case, the language of the resolution was problematic enough that I don't think it's a big deal that it was opposed.
The resolution was not shot down, although the US tried very hard to get it withdrawn and to intimidate nations who might propose it once they had scared off the original proposers, Ecuador. In the end it was proposed by Russia.
viewtopic.php?p=1130182#p1130182Quote:
A resolution to encourage breast-feeding was expected to be approved quickly and easily by the hundreds of government delegates who gathered this spring in Geneva for the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly.
Based on decades of research, the resolution says that mother’s milk is healthiest for children and countries should strive to limit the inaccurate or misleading marketing of breast milk substitutes.
Then the United States delegation, embracing the interests of infant formula manufacturers, upended the deliberations.
American officials sought to water down the resolution by removing language that called on governments to “protect, promote and support breast-feeding” and another passage that called on policymakers to restrict the promotion of food products that many experts say can have deleterious effects on young children.
When that failed, they turned to threats, according to diplomats and government officials who took part in the discussions. Ecuador, which had planned to introduce the measure, was the first to find itself in the cross hairs.
The Americans were blunt: If Ecuador refused to drop the resolution, Washington would unleash punishing trade measures and withdraw crucial military aid. The Ecuadorean government quickly acquiesced.
The showdown over the issue was recounted by more than a dozen participants from several countries, many of whom requested anonymity because they feared retaliation from the United States.
Health advocates scrambled to find another sponsor for the resolution, but at least a dozen countries, most of them poor nations in Africa and Latin America, backed off, citing fears of retaliation, according to officials from Uruguay, Mexico and the United States.
“We were astonished, appalled and also saddened,” said Patti Rundall, the policy director of the British advocacy group Baby Milk Action, who has attended meetings of the assembly, the decision-making body of the World Health Organization, since the late 1980s.
“What happened was tantamount to blackmail, with the U.S. holding the world hostage and trying to overturn nearly 40 years of consensus on the best way to protect infant and young child health,” she said.
In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.