MR. BUSH AND TOBACCO

MR. BUSH AND TOBACCO
Washington Post: Organizations that violate U.S. sanctions on Iraq cannot usually expect sympathy from the Bush administration. Nor can groups that collude with Russian mobsters or Colombian drug gangs. If the allegations recently filed by 10 European governments in a New York district court have merit, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Holdings Inc. (RJR) has run a smuggling conspiracy involving all three offenses. Even so, the Bush administration persists in siding with RJR and the other cigarette giants in international tobacco-control negotiations convened by the World Health Organization.
The smuggling allegations are based on information compiled by the 10 countries' law enforcement agencies. They suggest that RJR knowingly sold large volumes of cigarettes to mobsters, partly because criminals can be helpful in gaining access to some overseas markets, and partly because they pay more than legitimate partners. The lawsuit also claims that: RJR obliged the mobsters by removing marks and numbers from its products to prevent them from being traced; the firm and its affiliates frequently switched bank accounts to cover up their actions; and its smuggling operation in Iraq yielded vast profits for Saddam Hussein's son, Uday. As well as selling a product that kills people, RJR allegedly finances people who kill people. If the suit succeeds, similar complaints against other tobacco majors are expected.
Deaths
Of course, the suit also may fail, and RJR's reputation may recover to its former level. But that level is still pretty low. Tobacco causes 4.9 million deaths a year and is expected to double its kill score by 2020. That marketing advance will be achieved by hooking people least able to resist, especially teen-agers in poor countries. Already, worldwide one in seven children aged 13 to 15 smokes; two-thirds say they want to quit but can't, according to a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute. By 2020 an estimated 70 percent of tobacco-related deaths will occur in developing countries.
To combat this epidemic, the World Health Organization has sponsored negotiations on a global tobacco-control treaty. The penultimate round finished last month; the next and final one will take place in February. Most of the participating countries support a range of sensible measures. Tobacco advertising should be banned, except in countries (such as the United States) where this would be unconstitutional. Tobacco-control measures should not be subject to challenge on trade grounds, because trade rules should promote the free exchange of goods, not bads, such as tobacco. Smuggling should be suppressed wherever possible. Cigarette packs should carry prominent health warnings, and misleading terms such as "light" and "mild" should be forbidden. All these policies are common-sensical. And yet the Bush administration has mostly dragged its feet. It needs to start lifting them.
THE CELLUCCI PROMPT
Toronto Globe and Mail: Paul Cellucci isn't the first U.S. ambassador to complain about Canada's low defense spending. His predecessor, Gordon Giffin, who served a Democratic administration, did so too, once suggesting that "benign neglect or flawed assumptions" could undermine Canada's security. Previous ambassadors weren't successful, either.
Cellucci, though, seems to rub Ottawa the wrong way. It's his undiplomatic manner and the regularity with which he speaks out on his pet issue. It's also a reflection of Canada's strained ties with the Bush administration generally. Cellucci, a former Republican governor, is viewed widely as the personification of a tough government prone to bullying. Ottawa also suspects Washington really wants increased defense spending for the purchase of American-built Boeing C-17s, used to transport troops and equipment.
Canada's decision
Still, is it impossible for Cellucci to suggest that Ottawa do more without him getting slapped down by federal politicians waving a flag? Earlier this fall, (Finance Minister) Paul Martin suggested the ambassador should pipe down. Last week, Defense Minister John McCallum said Canada's defense spending is a matter for Canada to decide.
Yes it is. But Ottawa frequently criticizes the United States, insisting the relationship between the two countries is strong enough to withstand disagreements. Canada has been downright hostile to Washington's handling of the Kyoto accord and the International Criminal Court. It worries in a public way about American hegemony. Yet, when Washington suggests that Canada play a larger role on the continent and within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Ottawa hints at inappropriate interference in domestic affairs.
Friends and allies should speak freely. In any case, Cellucci is right, and he isn't alone. Canadian organizations too are pressing for more defense spending, and U.S. ambassadors worldwide are working to boost expenditures in their host countries. Ottawa should do more. In the meantime, McCallum should eschew the strained nationalism.