The COP11 Truth-Avoiding Performance in Geneva
The WHO’s eleventh Conference of the Parties (COP11) shuffled to a close in Geneva on 22 November with a result that can only be described as deeply unsatisfactory, to a very specific group of people. The most damaging proposals towards less harmful nicotine products such as vapes, heated tobacco and pouches failed to secure consensus, and from the wailing and gnashing of teeth that followed, it is clear that the mostly Bloomberg-funded NGOs who had been pushing hardest against harm reduction products were not best pleased.
What followed has been a masterclass in desperate deflection. Instead of accepting that national delegations, representing elected governments no less, simply refused to rubber-stamp policies they found extreme, unworkable, or lethal, the blame was swiftly redirected. Industry, apparently, was responsible for everything.
When a report appeared in the Tobacco Control Journal solemnly declaring COP11 a success, it was difficult to take it seriously. According to this account, the only reason certain agenda items failed was dastardly industry interference, not, heaven forbid, because those ideas were absurd, ethically indefensible, and likely to cost hundreds of thousands of lives had they been implemented. Also, it was somewhat jaw-dropping for the authors to warn ominously about “external influence” while every one of them was employed by heavily funded anti–harm reduction organisations which had proposed the agenda items in the first place. Pots and kettles do not merely come to mind, they are so prevalent that one could form an orchestra with them. One wonders how the authors could keep a straight face while submitting it for publication.
This is a convenient story if one prefers to ignore the uncomfortable reality that COP decisions are made by Parties, not by the unelected FCTC Secretariat. And certainly not by NGOs whose influence is driven by hefty donations from private philanthropy.
Then there were the awards. New Zealand, a country whose harm reduction policies have helped more than halve smoking rates in just a few years, was presented with the first “Dirty Ashtray” award of the event. Mexico, a nation battling violent drug cartels, received the Orchid award.
Together, these choices suggested that the Bloomberg-funded Global Alliance on Tobacco Control (GATC) had finally disappeared into the warm, echoing depths of its own ideology. The notion that New Zealand is only pretending that its policies are successful requires such heroic mental contortions that one wonders whether a neurological medical team should be on standby. When outcomes contradict ideology, it seems the outcomes must be wrong.
Still, COP11 was not without its silver linings. One of the most encouraging developments was the growing number of Parties openly expressing frustration at being sidelined. In their opening statements, several delegations called for greater involvement in FCTC treaty work between COPs, a diplomatic way of saying they are tired of being locked out while decisions are shaped elsewhere. Their displeasure was clearly directed at a Secretariat and a cluster of Bloomberg-funded NGOs that appear increasingly comfortable acting as gatekeepers and usurping the Parties’ authority. That governments are beginning to notice and object can only be healthy.
The interference of heavily-conflicted NGOs at COP meetings is also being noticed by more people. David Zaruk of The Firebreak published a meticulous investigation, Mapping Bloomberg’s Billions Against Tobacco Harm Reduction, which examined the 29 WHO-approved civil society organisations admitted to the conference. Released on the morning of day two, its timing could not have been better. Delegates suddenly had a roadmap of who was in the room, who was paying them, and why the chorus sounded so eerily in tune.
So, considering the GATC accused New Zealand of pretending its policies were successful, let us talk about pretence. How can any Bloomberg-funded organisation be serious about claiming COP11 wasn’t a propaganda exercise given the participant list was littered with organisations given huge sums of money to parrot the personal whims of one American billionaire?
Among the NGOs present were the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids with 31 delegates, the European Network for Smoking Prevention with 38, the Smoke-free Partnership, 10, the University of Bath, 12, Vital Strategies, 6, and the GATC with a staggering 61 delegates.
And representing people with lived experience of smoking or quitting using consumer products? Not a single organisation. Not one. Apparently, the voices of those most affected by these policies are only to be heard at a distance, preferably from outside the building.
The European Union delegation added its own form of anti-democratic dogma to the spectacle. Leaks suggested that Denmark and the European Commission were quietly pursuing bans on vapes and nicotine pouches just one week after EU Member States had agreed a common COP11 position that did not call for global bans on safer nicotine products. The resulting recriminations have been remarkable. Reading about EU representatives attempting to throw elected member state governments under the bus to protect a deeply entrenched anti–harm reduction stance has been staggering. One can only wonder what irresistible force drove this sudden urge to protect cigarettes. Surely it couldn’t be something as crude as anxiety over declining tobacco tax revenues as Europeans quit smoking en masse? Perish the thought.
The conference concluded on a note that felt almost inevitable under the circumstances. The president of COP11 closed proceedings by incorrectly referring to novel nicotine products as bringing “disability and death.” It was a fitting finale. Cult-like disinformation delivered confidently from the podium by one of the true believers.
The last word must go to Clive Bates, who captured the moment in a tweet that perfectly summed up the administration of COP11.
A macabre spectacle of arrogance and ineptitude, indeed. On that, at least, we can find consensus.
