trade
May 27, 1998 Department of State cable: REVISED DRUG STRATEGY AT W.H.O.: ATMOSPHERICS OF THE DEBATE, AND RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION
CONFIDENTIAL RELEASED IN FULL
CONFIDENTIAL PTQ1906
PAGE 01 GENEVA 03470 01 OF 09 271621Z ACTION 10-00
425261 271705Z /38 O 271615Z MAY 98
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 6208 INFO IO COLLECTIVE AMEMBASSY LONDON
AMEMBASSY BRASILIA
AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES AMEMBASSY PRETORIA AMEMBASSY HARARE
AMEMBASSY LILONGWE AMEMBASSY LUSAKA
AMEMBASSY WINDHOEK AMEMBASSY BERN
AMEMBASSY CANBERRA
AMEMBASSY STOCKHOLM AMEMBASSY TOKYO AMEMBASSY OSLO
AMEMBASSY BRUSSELS AMEMBASSY BONN
AMEMBASSY OTTAWA AMEMBASSY CAIRO CDC ATLANTA
CONFIDENTIAL SECTION 01 OF 09 GENEVA 003470 FOR UNVIEi FODAG, UNEP, ICAO, UNESCO MISSIONS
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE
REVIEW AUTHORITY: EDWARD W. HOLMES DATE/CASE ID: 26 MAY 1999 199802817
UNCLASSIFIED
n/a FOR STATE IO (SOUTHWICK, BOYER, BLODGETT, BLACKWOOD), EUR, ARA, AF, EAP, NEA
DEPT PLEASE PASS TO DOC (PTO, ZALIK), DEPT PASS TO USTR (BURCKY )
DEPT PASS TO USAID (G/PHN -DAULAIRE, GILLESPIE, RIGGS-PERLA, GIBB, BONI)
DEPT PASS TO HHS (HOHMAN, SATCHER, VOGEL), NIH (STAHELI, BALDWIN), FDA (HOLSTON, NIGHTINGALE)
CDC FOR BLOUNT, GAYLE
E.O. 12958: DECL: 1/1/05
TAGS: AORC, ETRD, ECON, WHO
SUBJECT: REVISED DRUG STRATEGY AT W.H.O.: ATMOSPHERICS OF THE DEBATE, AND RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION
REF: A) GENEVA 3128 B) GENEVA 3151 C) STATE 83664 D) GENEVA 3256 E) GENEVA 3338 F) GENEVA 3406
CLASSIFIED BY AMBASSADOR GEORGE MOOSE FOR REASONS 1.5 B AND D.
SUMMARY
1. (U) THIS IS AN ACTION CABLE (SEE PARAS 23-25). THIS REPORT ADDS IMPRESSIONS, COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DEBATE SUMMARIES INCLUDED IN REFTELS E AND F.
2. (C) THE REVISED DRUG STRATEGY RESOLUTION (EB101.R24), FORWARDED BY THE JANUARY EXECUTIVE BOARD, TO THE WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY (WHA), PROMPTED THE MOST DIFFICULT NEGOTIATIONS DURING THE 51ST WHA. (REFTELS)
DRAFTING GROUP SESSIONS LASTED WELL INTO THE NIGHT AND FAILED TO REACH COMPLETE CONSENSUS ON THE RESOLUTION.
HHS SECRETARY SHALALA AND AMBASSADOR MOOSE BOTH RAISED THE ISSUES WITH COUNTERPARTS IN GENEVA, PUSHING FOR A REASONABLE NEGOTIATED OUTCOME. THE MOST OBJECTIONABLE LANGUAGE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE SOUTH AFRICAN, ZAMBIAN, BOTSWANAN AND NAMIBIAN DELEGATIONS AND INVOLVED THE STATEMENTS THAT PUBLIC HEALTH SHOULD HAVE PRIMACY OVER COMMERCIAL INTERESTS UNDER WTO TRADE AGREEMENTS SUCH AS THE TRIPS ( TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS). THE PROBLEM FOR THE US AND OUR ALLIES WAS NOT WITH THE SENTIMENT OF THE STATEMENT, BUT RATHER THE LINKAGE OF THE SPECIFIC WORDING TO THE TRIPS AGREEMENT ITSELF, THEREBY POTENTIALLY UNDERMINING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR). IN THE END, FULL COMMITTEE DEBATE DID NOT LEAD TO CONSENSUS, HOWEVER THE WHA VOTED TO CONVENE AN “AD HOC WORKING GROUP” TO REVIEW OPTIONS AND REDRAFT THE RESOLUTION FOR PRESENTATION TO THE JANUARY 1999 SESSION OF THE WHO EXECUTIVE BOARD.
3. (C) MISSION RECOMMENDS A USG STRATEGY TO PREPARE FOR INPUT INTO THE AD HOC GROUP DELIBERATION, INCLUDING
1) IMMEDIATELY RECONSTITUTE THE WASHINGTON-BASED INTERAGENCY GROUP ON TRADE AND PHARMACEUTICALS IN ORDER TO DISCUSS THE PLAN OF ACTION FOR DEALING WITH REDRAFTING THE RESOLUTION;
2) RAPID USTR REVIEW OF A PROBLEMATIC W.H.O. PAPER ON “GLOBALIZATION AND ACCESS TO DRUGS;”
3) USG INTERAGENCY GROUP REVIEW OF ALL PAPERS PREPARED BY W.H.O. FOR ITS AD HOC WORKING GROUP TO ENSURE THAT THEY ARE FAIR AND BALANCED (MISSION GENEVA WILL INFORM THE DG-ELECT DR. BRUNDTLAND AND THE SECRETARIAT OF THE IMPORTANCE OF W.H.O. IMPARTIALITY);
4) ENSURE ACTIVE U.S. PARTICIPATION AT W.H.O. REGIONAL MEETINGS AND WORKING GROUPS WHERE THE ISSUE IS BEING CONSIDERED;
5) HAVE USTR BACKUP ALL U.S. DELEGATIONS DEALING WITH REDRAFTING THE RESOLUTION OR DISCUSSING TRIPS;
6) PUSH THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY TO ARGUE ITS POINTS MORE CONVINCINGLY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, AND ESPECIALLY DEAL WITH THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT LOCAL DRUG AVAILABILITY AND PRICING;
7) INITIATE FORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CONCERNED NGO COMMUNITY; AND
8) DEVELOP, WITH OUR ALLIES AND OTHERS, AN ACTIVE DIALOGUE ON TRADE, IPR, AND PHARMACEUTICALS INCLUDING BOTH THE TRADE AND HEALTH SECTORS.
END SUMMARY.
DRAFTING GROUP SESSIONS
4. (C) THE DRAFTING GROUP ON THE REVISED DRUG STRATEGY, CHAIRED BY DR. J. F. GIRARD (FRANCE), MET EVERY DAY DURING THE WHA, AND OFTEN SEVERAL TIMES EACH DAY. THE U.S. WAS REPRESENTED IN THE DRAFTING GROUP BY DR. STUART NIGHTINGALE, FDA, ACCOMPANIED BY MISSION HEALTH ATTACHE AND A USAID REPRESENTATIVE. ON FRIDAY, MAY 15, 1998, AFTER 15 HOURS OF NEGOTIATIONS, THE GROUP FINALLY COMPLETED A BRACKETED REDRAFTED RESOLUTION THAT COULD BE PRESENTED TO COMMITTEE A OF THE WHA. THE DOCUMENT REFLECTED GENERAL AGREEMENT EXCEPT IN 2 AREAS: IN OPERATIVE PARAGRAPH 1, SECTION (2), THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION (EB101.R24) REFERRED TO THE PRIMACY OF PUBLIC HEALTH OVER COMMERCIAL INTERESTS IN PHARMACEUTICAL AND HEALTH POLICIES AND TO REVIEW THEIR OPTIONS UNDER TRIPS. WHILE ON THE SURFACE THIS LANGUAGE SEEMS INNOCENT, IN FACT, THE SPECIFIC WORDING COULD HELP TO UNDERMINE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR) GUARANTEED UNDER THE WTO TRIPS AGREEMENT, AND COULD EVENTUALLY HAVE WIDE-RANGING IPR IMPLICATIONS; THE SECOND DIFFICULT SECTION WAS PARAGRAPH 2, SECTION (6) WHICH, IN EFFECT, DIRECTS W.H.O. TO ADVISE’ MEMBER STATES ON INTERPRETATION OF WTO AGREEMENTS. THIS IS A PROBLEM, IN THAT WE BELIEVE THAT TRADE EXPERTS AT WTO, NOT HEALTH EXPERTS, SHOULD BE THE PRIMARY INTERPRETERS OF TRADE AGREEMENTS (FOR EXACT WORDING AND USG POSITION, SEE REFTEL C).
5. (C) THE U.S. CHIEF DELEGATE TO THE WHA, SECRETARY DONNA SHALALA, DURING EACH OF HER MANY BILATERAL MEETINGS AND LUNCH/DINNER ENGAGEMENTS, PRESSED THE U.S. POSITION AND OUR DESIRE TO FIND RESOLUTION LANGUAGE ACCEPTABLE TO ALL PARTIES. CONSENSUS WAS ACHIEVED ON MOST OF THE RESOLUTION, AND A NUMBER OF THE REDRAFTED SECTIONS WERE MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS OVER THE ORIGINAL. HOWEVER, IT WAS CLEAR THAT EVEN IF THE DRAFTING GROUP HAD SEVERAL MORE DAYS, NO CONSENSUS WAS TO BE ACHIEVED ON THE WORDING OF THE TWO SECTIONS CRITICAL TO SOUTH AFRICA AND ITS NEIGHBORS, AND OPPOSED BY THE UNITED STATES AND A NUMBER OF EU COLLEAGUES (ESPECIALLY UK AND GERMANY), AUSTRALIA, AND SWITZERLAND (SEE PARA 4).
6. (C) DURING THE FINAL DAY OF THE DRAFTING GROUP, THE USDEL BECAME CONCERNED ABOUT LACK OF VOCAL SUPPORT FOR THE U.S. POSITIONS, AND MISSION OFFICERS PUT CONSIDERABLE PRESSURE ON COUNTERPARTS IN THE UK (ACTING FOR THE EU PRESIDENCY), THE NORWEGIAN MISSION, AND DG-ELECT BRUNDTLAND’S STAFF, ASKING THEM TO HELP US AVOID AN UNPLEASANT OPEN FLOOR DEBATE IN COMMITTEE OVER THE ISSUES. AT ONE POINT, AMBASSADOR MOOSE CALLED THE UK PERMREP TO REQUEST MORE ACTIVE UK AND EU INVOLVEMENT. ON THE LAST DAY OF THE DRAFTING GROUP, THE UK AND NORWAY CRANKED UP THEIR DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS AND PUSHED ALL PARTIES FOR ADOPTION OF ACCEPTABLE CONSENSUS LANGUAGE.
7. (C) IN THE END, THE HARD LINE THAT SOUTH AFRICA TOOK MADE CONSENSUS IMPOSSIBLE. DURING DISCUSSIONS, IT WAS CLEAR THAT SOUTH AFRICA, NAMIBIA, ZAMBIA, BOTSWANA, AND ZIMBABWE WERE COMMITTED TO THE EXACT WORDING THAT THE U.S. AND OTHERS FOUND THE MOST PROBLEMATIC IN THE RESOLUTION (REFTEL C).
8. (C) COMMENT: SOUTH AFRICA ARGUED THAT EVERYONE KNEW WHAT WAS WRONG WITH TRIPS, AND INSISTED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO RETAIN THE PEJORATIVE REMARKS ABOUT TRADE IN THE PREAMBLE AND TO KEEP THE OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS PHRASED IN A WAY THAT WOULD LOOK AS THOUGH MEMBER STATES NEEDED TO “END-RUN” THE TRIPS AGREEMENT IN THE INTEREST OF PUBLIC HEALTH.
SOUTH AFRICA CONTINUALLY COMPLAINED THAT THE MULTINATIONAL PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY WAS ONLY INTERESTED IN ITS PROFITS. IT ALSO INAPPROPRIATELY USED EXAMPLES FROM U. S. CASES BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION AND THE NIH PARTIAL FUNDING OF DRUGS TO JUSTIFY CERTAIN PRACTICES SUCH AS “COMPULSORY LICENSING.”
9. (C) COMMENT CONTINUED. ALTHOUGH THE U.S. NEVER REFERRED PUBLICLY TO THE LEGAL SITUATION OVER THE NEW SOUTH AFRICAN MEDICINES BILL AND ITS TRIPS CHALLENGES, IT WAS CLEAR THAT MUCH OF SOUTH AFRICA’S USE OF U.S.CASE STUDIES AND MANY OF THE ARGUMENTS IT CITED WERE DEVELOPED TO HELP DEFEND THIS LEGISLATION AND ITS POLICIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ARENA. DR. OLIVE SHISANA, SOUTH AFRICAN DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR HEALTH, AND ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THE MEDICINES BILL, LED THE CHARGE FOR THE AFRICANS IN THE DRAFTING GROUP DEBATE. SHE CLEARLY HAS A VESTED INTEREST, AND CAN PRESENT CONVINCING ARGUMENTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN TALKING TO HEALTH RATHER THAN TRADE OFFICIALS. AND HER PREVIOUS TENURE AS A HEALTH OFFICER IN THE WASHINGTON DC HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS GIVEN HER GOOD INSIGHT INTO THE U.S. NEGOTIATING STYLE. END COMMENT.
10. (C) MANY TIMES DURING THE DRAFTING GROUP DISCUSSIONS, SOUTH AFRICA AND NEIGHBORING MEMBER STATES THREATENED TO STOP THE ATTEMPT AT CONSENSUS, ADJOURN, AND GO IMMEDIATELY FOR A VOTE IN COMMITTEE ON THE ORIGINAL EB RESOLUTION (THE LANGUAGE OF WHICH WAS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE TO THE USG) –SUGGESTING THAT THEY BELIEVED THEY HAD THE VOTES TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION WITH NO CHANGE OR ATTEMPT AT CONSENSUS.
HEALTH ASSEMBLY DEBATE
11. (C) IN INTRODUCING THE AGENDA ITEM IN COMMITTEE A (A COMMITTEE OF ALL 191 MEMBER STATES), DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL F. ANTEZANA AND DRAFTING GROUP CHAIR GIRARD EXPLAINED THE EXTENSIVE WORK DONE BY THE DRAFTING GROUP AND “OPENED THE DOOR” FOR REFERRAL, NOTING IT WOULD BE A SHAME TO LOSE THE CONSENSUS HAMMERED OUT ON MOST OF THE RESOLUTION JUST BECAUSE OF A FEW DISAGREEMENTS.
(NOTE: THESE COMMENTS WERE VERY HELPFUL TO THE UK AND U.S. STRATEGY OF REFERRAL BACK TO THE BOARD AS THE FIRST CHOICE FOR HANDLING THE RESOLUTION.)
12.(C) ITALY WAS CONVINCED BY THE U.S. AND UK TO MAKE THE PROPOSAL FOR REFERRAL TO THE BOARD AS THE COMMITTEE OPENED. THE U.S. THEN ENDORSED ITALY’S PROPOSAL. USDEL NIGHTINGALE ALSO PRAISED WORK LEADING TO THE CONSENSUS PARAGRAPHS IN THE DRAFTING GROUP PAPER, BUT EXPLAINED THAT IN ADDITION TO THE SEVERAL CONTENTIOUS BRACKETED PARAS, THERE WERE OTHER AREAS OF THE RESOLUTION STILL NEEDING SOME AMENDMENTS THAT, FOR THE LACK OF TIME, HAD NOT YET BEEN DEALT WITH IN THE DRAFTING GROUP. EXAMPLES INCLUDED PROBLEMS WITH THE LANGUAGE IN THE OPERATIVE PARAGRAPHS ON DRUG DONATIONS, AND ETHICAL CRITERIA FOR MEDICINAL DRUG PROMOTION. THIS WAS AN ADDITIONAL REASON FOR REFERRING THE DRAFT RESOLUTION BACK TO THE EB FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.
13. (U) EXPECTING EASY VICTORY (DEFEAT FOR THE ITALY/U.S. PROPOSAL TO DEFER), PAKISTAN, FOLLOWED BY SOUTH AFRICA, ASKED THAT THE PROPOSAL BE PUT TO A VOTE WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY. TO THEIR ASTONISHMENT THE ITALY-U.S. MOTION FOR DEFERRAL WAS APPROVED BY A VOTE OF 39 (U.S.) -18, WITH 5 ABSTAINING.
14. (U) AFTER THE VOTE, SWAZILAND ASKED IF A QUORUM HAD BEEN PRESENT, NOTING THAT ONLY 57 WERE PRESENT AND VOTING. THE LEGAL COUNSEL SAID A QUORUM FOR VOTING WAS 91, BUT THAT THE NUMBER PARTICIPATING IN A VOTE, BY UN PRACTICE, DID NOT INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT A QUORUM WAS PRESENT AND IN ANY EVENT, ANY CHALLENGE TO A QUORUM NEEDED TO BE MADE BEFORE A VOTE AND NOT AFTERWARD. SOUTH AFRICAN AMBASSADOR SALEBI THEN ARGUED THE COMMITTEE ACTION HAD BEEN ILLEGAL AND FOR NEARLY AN HOUR SHOUTED ABUSE ON THE LEGAL COUNSEL AND CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE (GILLIAN DURHAM OF NEW ZEALAND) AND TRIED TO PREVENT THE COMMITTEE FROM ADJOURNING.
15. (C) COMMENT: THE BEHAVIOR OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN DELEGATION DURING THE ENTIRE WEEK SUGGESTED THEY WERE UNDER VERY STRONG INSTRUCTION TO NOT TO ALLOW THIS RESOLUTION TO BE WATERED DOWN AND AMBASSADOR SALEBI’S TEMPER TANTRUM HAD TO BE SEEN TO BE BELIEVED. SEVERAL DELEGATIONS LATER SAID THAT THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT THE DISPUTE MIGHT EVEN TURN PHYSICAL. THIS IS AN EXAGGERATION THAT US MISSION HAS BEEN AT PAINS TO DISPEL. END COMMENT.
16. (C) ALTHOUGH CLEARLY HAVING LOST A BATTLE IT WAS INSTRUCTED NOT TO LOSE, THE SOUTH AFRICANS AND THEIR NEIGHBORS AGREED THE NEXT MORNING (BEFORE THE PLENARY) NOT TO FIGHT THE EB REFERRAL FURTHER, AFTER THE SECRETARIAT PROPOSED CONVENING AN AD HOC WORKING GROUP TO AIR THE ISSUES AND REDRAFT THE RESOLUTION BEFORE THE JANUARY EB MEETING. ALL PARTIES AGREED, AND THE WHA CLOSED WITHOUT FURTHER CONTENTIOUS DEBATE.
AD HOC WORKING GROUP IS CREATED
17. (U) AT A 2-DAY “ORGANIZATIONAL” SESSION OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD ( WHICH INCLUDES THE U.S. MEMBER, DR. JO IVEY BOUFFORD) CONVENED ON MAY 18-19, THE DRAFTING GROUP CHAIR, DR. GIRARD, HELD A 2-HOUR MEETING TO SET UP THE TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE WORKING GROUP. JAPAN, THE U.S., AUSTRALIA, AND BURKINA FASO ARGUED FOR MAINTAINING AN OPEN, “EVERY CONCERNED PARTY SHOULD COME” GROUP. SOUTH AFRICA, ON INSTRUCTIONS, SAID THAT THE WORKING GROUP ITSELF SHOULD ONLY BE COMPOSED OF MEMBER STATES AND RELUCTANTLY AGREED TO WTO, WIPO, INDUSTRY AND NGO INPUT TO THE DISCUSSIONS. THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE MEETING WERE THEN APPROVED BY AN EB DECISION ( PARA 18).
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE AD HOC WORKING GROUP
18. (U) THE FOLLOWING DECISION WAS TAKEN BY THE BOARD: “THE EXECUTIVE BOARD DECIDED TO ESTABLISH AN OPEN-ENDED AD HOC GROUP TO EXPLORE THE MANY COMPLEX ISSUES RAISED BY EB101.R24 ON THE REVISED DRUG STRATEGY. THE GROUP WILL TAKE NOTE OF THE OUTCOME OF CONTACTS PURSUED BY W.H.O.WITH OTHER PARTNERS, INCLUDING THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION (WTO), THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (WIPO), INDUSTRY AND NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS. THE OBJECTIVE OF THE AD HOC GROUP’S WORK WILL BE TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD AT ITS 103RD SESSION IN JANUARY 1999.
HAVING STUDIED TOGETHER WITH THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL AND THE CHAIRMAN OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD VARIOUS OPTIONS FOR ACHIEVING THIS GOAL, THE EXECUTIVE BOARD HAS ESTABLISHED A TWO-TIERED SYSTEM OF WORKING, AS FOLLOWS:
1) THE AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON THE REVISED DRUG STRATEGY WILL BE OPEN TO ALL MEMBER STATES WISHING TO PARTICIPATE AND IT WILL MEET IN GENEVA;
2) A SUB-GROUP WILL BE CREATED COMPRISING THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DRAFTING GROUP ESTABLISHED DURING THE 51ST WORLD HEALTH ASSEMBLY, AND TWO MEMBER STATES FROM EACH REGION, OF WHICH AT LEAST ONE WILL BE A MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD. THIS GROUP WILL ASSIST W.H.O. IN ITS CONTACTS WITH RELEVANT INTERESTED PARTNERS;
3) THE SECRETARIAT WILL PREPARE A CONCISE REPORT FOR THE REGIONAL COMMITTEES ON WHICH DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS SHOULD BE BASED;
4) THE REGIONAL COMMITTEES SHOULD DISCUSS THIS ISSUE LATER THIS YEAR, AT WHICH TIME THEY WILL NOMINATE THEIR REPRESENTATIVES FOR THE SUBGROUP;
5) THE AD HOC GROUP WILL MEET SHORTLY AFTER THE REGIONAL COMMITTEES AND PRIOR TO OR SHORTLY AFTER THE OPENING OF THE 103RD SESSION OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD IN JANUARY 1999 IN ORDER TO FINALIZE THE DRAFT RESOLUTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD;
6) THE EXECUTIVE BOARD NOTED THAT ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES WILL NEED TO BE PROVIDED FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED ACTIVITIES;
7) THE WORK OF THE SECRETARIAT AND W.H.O. MEMBER STATES ON THIS ISSUE MAY NEED TO CONTINUE BEYOND JANUARY 1999.
COMMENTS AND CONCERNS
19. (C) ONE OF THE REAL DISAPPOINTMENTS TYPICAL OF ALL W.H.O. DISCUSSIONS ON PHARMACEUTICALS, WAS A LACK OF CLARITY OR INTERNAL SECRETARIAT EXPERTISE CONCERNING TRADE-RELATED ISSUES. ALTHOUGH WTO EXPERTS ATTENDED THE DRAFTING GROUP MEETINGS, THEY WERE NOT GIVEN THE FLOOR TO SPEAK OR CLARIFY INTERPRETATIONS OF TRIPS OR WTO AGREEMENTS. THIS MUST BE RECTIFIED IN ALL FUTURE DISCUSSIONS. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOUTH AFRICA AND THE U.S. (IN WHICH BOTH DELEGATIONS WERE WELL BRIEFED), MOST DELEGATIONS DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH TRADE-RELATED EXPERTISE TO NEGOTIATE LANGUAGE RELATED TO TRADE OR IPR.
20. (C) IN AN OUTRAGEOUS AND BIASED ATTEMPT TO MOLD INTERNATIONAL OPINION, THE DRUG ACTION PROGRAM (DAP) AT W.H.0. PUBLISHED A DOCUMENT, “GLOBALIZATION AND ACCESS TO DRUGS: IMPLICATIONS OF THE WTO/TRIPS AGREEMENT,” WITH THE DISCLAIMER THAT IT WAS NOT A FORMAL PUBLICATION OF W.H.O.AND ALL VIEWS WERE THOSE OF THE TWO AUTHORS ONLY, GERMAN VELASQUEZ AND PASCALE BOULET. HOWEVER SOUTH AFRICA, AND MANY OTHERS ARE USING THIS DOCUMENT TO CLAIM THAT W.H.O. AGREES THAT TRIPS IS DETRIMENTAL TO PHARMACEUTICAL AVAILABILITY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
21. (C) THE DAP, DIRECTED BY JONATHAN QUICK (AMCIT), AND THE DIVISION OF DRUG MANAGEMENT AND POLICIES (DMP), DIRECTED BY DR. IDANPAAN-HEIKKILA (FINLAND) HAVE COMBINED RESPONSIBILITIES FOR PHARMACEUTICAL AND TRADE ISSUES AT W.H.O. DEPUTY DG ANTEZANA (BOLIVIA) AND THE NEW RUSSIAN ASSISTANT DG, DR. V. LEPAKHIN, ALSO HAVE ILL-DEFINED SUPERVISORY DUTIES IN THIS AREA. (COMMENT: BASED ON HALLWAY DISCUSSIONS AND OVERHEARD COMMENTS, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT DR. IDANPAAN-HEIKKILA [PROTECT] WILL BE HELPFUL TO THE U.S. POSITION, BUT THAT DR. QUICK SUPPORTS THE SOUTH AFRICAN POSITION IN THE TRIPS AND OTHER TRADE DEBATES. DR. QUICK ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS INDICATED HIS ENTHUSIASTIC SUPPORT OF THE CONCLUSIONS IN THE BIASED AND INACCURATE DRUGS/WTO DOCUMENT CITED IN PARA 20. END COMMENT.)
22. (C) THE MISSION HAS BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH IFPMA, PHARMA, AND OTHER INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES BOTH TO INDICATE OUR SUPPORT OF TRIPS AND IPR ISSUES, AND TO EXHORT THEM TO TAKE A CONSTRUCTIVE AND NON-CONFRONTATIONAL ROLE IN COUNTERING THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY SOUTH AFRICA AND ITS ALLIES ON TRADE AND PHARMACEUTICAL ISSUES. DR. HARVEY BALE FROM IFPMA AND MR. TOM BOMBELLES FROM PHARMA HAVE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH MISSOFFS AND THE AMBASSADOR, AND WE FORESEE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES IN GENEVA.
RECOMMENDATIONS
23.(C) THE ISSUE OF WTO TRADE AGREEMENTS, SUCH AS TRIPS, AND ACCESS TO DRUGS WILL BE A MAJOR POINT OF DEBATE IN GENEVA IN UPCOMING MONTHS. IT ALSO RAISES OTHER IMPORTANT AND COMPLEX ISSUES REGARDING DRUG AVAILABILITY AND PRICING IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. THE USG, IN CONSULTATION WITH OUR ALLIES, HAVE BOTH THE RESPONSIBILITY AND OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP A POSITION ON THE REVISED DRUG STRATEGY RESOLUTION THAT WILL ENABLE HEALTH AND TRADE TO MOVE TOGETHER IN A COMPATIBLE MANNER, NOT BE USED TO FOSTER A NORTH-SOUTH TRADE DISPUTE USING HEALTH AS A PROXY.
24. (C) WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS: IMMEDIATELY RECONSTITUTE THE INTERAGENCY GROUP ON TRADE AND PHARMACEUTICAL ISSUES IN WASHINGTON, INCLUDING HHS, FDA, STATE, USAID, USTR, COMMERCE (PTO) AND OTHER USG AGENCIES AS APPROPRIATE. INDUSTRY INPUT SHOULD BE SOUGHT FREQUENTLY ON AN “AS NEEDED” BASIS. THE GROUP’S FIRST TASK SHOULD BE TO REVIEW THE CURRENT DRAFT OF THE RESOLUTION AND THE WORK PLAN FOR THE W.H.O.AD HOC WORKING GROUP, AS WELL AS DEVELOP A PLAN OF ACTION. USTR AND OTHER EXPERTS SHOULD CAREFULLY REVIEW THE W.H.O. PAPER ON “GLOBALIZATION AND ACCESS TO DRUGS” (PARA 20), AS WELL AS ANY OTHER WORKING DOCUMENTS AND WHERE NECESSARY, PREPARE SPECIFIC TALKING POINTS TO REFUTE ARGUMENTS ATTEMPTING TO UNDERMINE THE TRADE AGREEMENTS. AS OUTLINED IN PARA 18, SUBPARA 3, THE SECRETARIAT WILL BE PRODUCING A DOCUMENT ON TRADE AND IPR ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE SIX REGIONAL COMMITTEES WHICH MEET IN SEPTEMBER. WE SHOULD MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO OBTAIN AND HAVE TRADE LAWYERS AND HEALTH EXPERTS CRITIQUE THIS PAPER, AND WE SHOULD INSIST THAT IT BE UNBIASED AND FAIRLY RELAY THE FACTS. (MISSION WILL STAY IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH DG -ELECT BRUNDTLAND AND THE W.H.O.SECRETARIAT TO ENSURE THAT ALL BACKGROUND PAPERS ARE FACTUAL, NOT IDEOLOGICAL.) THE U.S. SHOULD BE REPRESENTED BY SOMEONE WELL BRIEFED ON THIS ISSUE AT EACH REGIONAL COMMITTEE MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. WE BELONG TO THE AMERICAS AND WESTERN PACIFIC REGIONS, AND ALWAYS ATTEND THE EUROPEAN MEETING AS AN OBSERVER. WE SHOULD DETERMINE IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO ATTEND IN SOME CAPACITY, THE OTHER THREE REGIONAL MEETINGS, MOST ESPECIALLY AFRICA. WE SHOULD ATTEMPT TO BE A MEMBER OF THE SMALLER SUB-GROUP OF THE AD-HOC WORKING GROUP. IF THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE, WE SHOULD ATTEND ALL OF ITS MEETINGS AS AN OBSERVER.
ALL MEETINGS OF THE WHOLE AD HOC WORKING GROUP SHOULD BE ATTENDED (IN THE CHAIR) BY A HEALTH EXPERT, MOST APPROPRIATELY DR. STUART NIGHTINGALE, FROM THE FDA. DESPITE THE TRADE’ ORIENTATION OF THE ISSUE, IT WOULD BE UNWISE, AT THIS TIME, TO HAVE THE US REPRESENTED UP FRONT BY A TRADE EXPERT. NIGHTINGALE HAS THE EXPERTISE AND EXPERIENCE TO CARRY THE ISSUE FORWARD AND HAS A CLOSE PERSONAL AND WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH DR. IDANPAAN-HEIKKILA. HE SHOULD BE BACKED BY A USTR EXPERT AND OTHER MISSION, PTO, HHS AND STATE PERSONNEL AS NEEDED. THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY SHOULD BE CARRYING MORE OF ITS OWN WATER ON THIS ISSUE, ESPECIALLY IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, AND NOT SOLELY DEPEND ON THE ARGUMENT THAT “IPR PROTECTS PROFITS THAT THEN ARE USED FOR DEVELOPMENT OF NEW DRUGS IN THE FUTURE.” THE SOUTH AFRICANS AND OTHERS ARE MOSTLY CONCERNED ABOUT AVAILABILITY OF DRUGS NOW, NOT 10 YEARS FROM NOW. PROBLEMS RELATED TO LOCAL AVAILABILITY AND PRICING OF DRUGS THAT ARE UNRELATED TO TRIPS WILL UNDOUBTEDLY REQUIRE FURTHER DISCUSSION. INITIATE FORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITH RESPONSIBLE NGO AND PVO GROUPS. DEVELOP, WITH OUR ALLIES AND OTHERS, AN ONGOING DIALOGUE ON PHARMACEUTICAL AND TRADE ISSUES WITH BOTH THE HEALTH AND TRADE SECTORS, AND CONSIDER ACTIVE, AND EARLY, CAPITAL DEMARCHES AS APPROPRIATE TO GAIN SUPPORT FOR CONSENSUS LANGUAGE FOR THE REDRAFTED RESOLUTION.
25. (C) WE BELIEVE THAT SOUTH AFRICA AND ITS NEIGHBORS (AS WELL AS EGYPT AND INDIA, AND POSSIBLY ARGENTINA, BRAZIL AND OTHERS) WILL TAKE A VERY HARD LINE ON THE NEGOTIATION OF THE REVISED DRUG STRATEGY RESOLUTION. ALTHOUGH THEIR POSITIONS ARE PRIMARILY MOTIVATED BY TRADE (AND ANTI-IPR), PROBLEMS DO REMAIN IN THE LOCAL AVAILABILITY OF DRUGS COVERED BY WTO AGREEMENTS, AND THE SOUTH AFRICAN’S CONCERN ABOUT TRIPS HAS SOME BASIS IN FACT. WE MUST BE WELL PREPARED, THEREFORE, FOR THE DISCUSSIONS AND WORK ON THIS ISSUE OVER THE NEXT SEVEN MONTHS IN THE RUN-UP TO THE JANUARY EXECUTIVE BOARD.
MOOSE
CONFIDENTIAL NNNN
Current Glass: CONFIDENTIAL Page: 26 UNCLASSIFIED
The post May 27, 1998 Department of State cable: REVISED DRUG STRATEGY AT W.H.O.: ATMOSPHERICS OF THE DEBATE, AND RECOMMENDED PLAN OF ACTION appeared first on Knowledge Ecology International.
UN rejects amendment to limit technology transfer to “voluntary and mutually agreed terms” in resolution on global health
Revised May 6, 2024
Against the backdrop of the tortuous negotiations among WHO Member States on technology transfer and know-how at the last mile of the pandemic agreement talks, on Wednesday, 1 May 2024, Switzerland offered a surprise amendment in a different forum, thousands of miles away, at the UN General Assembly in New York.
The New York votes concerned certain paragraphs within draft resolution A/78/L.62, entitled, “Global health and foreign policy: addressing global health challenges in the foreign policy space” that had been originally tabled on April 19, 2024, by Brazil, France, Indonesia, Norway, Senegal, South Africa, and Thailand.
Switzerland offered an amendment that would insert “on voluntary and mutually agreed terms” after “transfer of technology and know-how” in the twenty-ninth preambular paragraph.
Swiss-Amendment.n2412117-1May2024
The proposed amendment to paragraph 29 reads as follows:
PP29: Noting the discussions on innovative options to enhance the global effort towards the production and equitable distribution of medicines and other health technologies through local and regional production, welcoming the establishment of technology transfer hubs for mRNA vaccines to develop and strengthen local and regional production chains in developing countries, and emphasizing the need to enhance the manufacturing and research capacity of countries through innovation and transfer of technology and know-how [add: on voluntary and mutually agreed terms] with the support of developed countries and advance industries;
Member States then voted, and the amendment was rejected, with 103 UN members voting against the amendment, 49 voting in favor, and three abstentions (India, Mauritius, and Togo).
On 2 May, 2024, the United States called for a recorded vote on preambular paragraph 29, the same paragraph that had previously been voted on in relation to the Swiss amendment. The result of this vote reflected the diverging stances of member states, with 103 voting in favor, 48 voting against, and one abstention (India), nearly the mirror opposite of the vote on the Swiss amendment.
Vote.03L.62as.amended.PP29-2May2024
KEI compiled the voting records of countries on preambular paragraph 29 along with each country’s population and income, which is accessible here.
Member States with higher incomes tended to oppose preambular paragraph 29, with a few exceptions such as Norway, Singapore, and several Middle Eastern oil-rich states, who voted in favor of the paragraph.
Conversely, Member States with some of the lowest reported per-capita-incomes were more inclined to vote in favor of preambular paragraph 29. Among the 96 countries voting with the lowest per-capita incomes, only eight voted against the preambular paragraph. Notably, most of the lower-income Member States that opposed the preambular paragraph were either European candidate countries or countries aspiring to join the EU. The sole exception to this trend was Mozambique, which also voted against the preambular paragraph.
Overall, the voting patterns on preambular paragraph 29 closely aligned with the economic status of the countries, with those having higher incomes generally opposing the preambular paragraph, while lower-income countries were more likely to support it. According to our calculation, when using 2021 per-capita incomes, the countries who voted in favor of the preambular paragraph had a per-capita income of $6,763, whereas the countries who voted against had a per-capita income of $46,938.
The designation “neither yes nor no” (see table below) encompasses countries that either abstained from voting or did not cast a vote, including India’s abstention.
India’s population is enormous, 17.8 percent of the global population in 2021, and in the same year, the per capita income was $2,145. The remaining countries not voting had a population of 488,426,847 in 2021, and a per-capita income of $13,233.
The post UN rejects amendment to limit technology transfer to “voluntary and mutually agreed terms” in resolution on global health appeared first on Knowledge Ecology International.
Trade lunacy is back
It’s election season in the U.S., marred only by the minor complication of a criminal trial involving one of the candidates. Trump is on the campaign trail, and he is going big on trade policy. Or rather, trade lunacy.
Here’s Gavin Bade at Politico attempting to explain Trump’s trade policy:
Trump is considering a 10 percent universal import tariff, the former administration officials said, and one result of that policy could be to make the dollar weaker relative to other currencies.
This is economic illiteracy of a kind I haven't seen since the heady days of Brexit. Or - more accurately - since the last time one Robert Lightizer was the United States trade representative. He is, once again, setting Trump’s trade agenda. And he appears to be no better informed than he was last time.
Why do I say this policy is economically illiterate? Because universal import tariffs don’t weaken the currency relative to the currencies of trade partners and competitors. They are much more likely to strengthen it. Indeed they did, the last time Trump tried this. Why would they work differently now?
Read on here to find out how this works and what alternatives there might be.
The WHO Pandemic agreement, language on mutually agreed terms for technology transfer, and claims under investor-state dispute resolution (ISDS)
This is an annex to the document: KEI comments on six references to “mutually agreed terms” in the WHO pandemic agreement negotiating text: A/INB/9/3 Rev.1, 22 April 2024, which is available as a PDF here:
KEI.MutuallyAgreedTerms.A_INB_9_3Rev1.22April2024draft
Annex on Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)
Depending upon how ultimately stated, restrictions on state actions to force the transfer of technology may lead to actions by private investors through an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) arbitration or an investment court system (ICS).
If a country has agreed to limit measures on technology transfer to mutually agreed terms in a World Health Organization (WHO) treaty or agreement, and then implements compulsory measures that contradict these terms, the situation could potentially lead to an ISDS claim under a different agreement, such as a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) or a free trade agreement (FTA) that includes ISDS provisions.
The key issue is whether there is a contradiction between the country’s obligations under the proposed WHO agreement and its obligations under another treaty which includes ISDS provisions. Investors might argue that the compulsory measures violate the agreed terms of technology transfer, and are contrary to the investor’s reasonable expectations of the protection of its technology.
The investor would need to demonstrate that the host country’s actions constitute a breach of the treaty’s exclusive reliance on mutually agreed terms, and that as a consequence, more compulsory measures represent a direct or indirect expropriation, on the grounds that the compulsory measures directly impacted the value of its investments.
An example of such a claim occurred when Australia introduced plain packaging for tobacco products in 2011. Philip Morris filed claims under the Australia-Hong Kong Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) asking for 4.1 billion USD in damages, a case decided on procedural grounds.
“The Philip Morris v. Australia case was not examined on the merits. The tribunal found that the claims by Philip Morris were inadmissible because the initiation of the arbitration constituted an abuse of rights, as the corporate restructuring by which Philip Morris acquired its investment in Australia occurred when there was already a reasonable prospect that the dispute would materialize. Therefore, according to the tribunal, the restructuring was carried out for the sole purpose of gaining treaty protection.” Stefanie Schacherer, International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from the 2010s, IISD, October 2018. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment-law-sustainable-development-ten-cases-2010s.pdf. referencing Philip Morris v. Australia, PCA Case No. 2012-12, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, December 17, 2015, https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7303_0.pdf
Philip Morris also brought a similar case against Uruguay on the grounds that the regulation of the packaging of tobacco products breached the investment standard because of the company’s legitimate expectation that the regulatory environment would not drastically change. In a split decision, Uruguay eventually prevailed in the dispute, benefiting from the obligations to regulate in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. According to commentary by IISD, “At the same time, it is not clear whether the same approach would be taken with respect to other areas of public health or environmental protection, where the scientific evidence and consensus are not as clear and where no international legal frameworks like the World Health Organization’s (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) exist.” Stefanie Schacherer, International Investment Law and Sustainable Development: Key cases from the 2010s, IISD, October 2018. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/publications/investment-law-sustainable-development-ten-cases-2010s.pdf. Philip Morris Brands Sàrl, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermanos S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No. ARB/10/7, http://www.italaw.com/cases/460
It is important to note that in the Philip Morris/Uruguay case, the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control obligations was helpful for Uruguay to defend its regulatory policy. But if the Pandemic Accord has pro-industry restrictions on mandates to transfer technology, the opposite will be the case.
An example of where a state lost an ISDS case over the reasonable expectations involved a claim by a waste management firm against Mexico over a non-renewal of a permit to operate a landfill for hazardous industrial waste. Tecnicas Medioambientales Tecmed S.A. v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF)/00/2
Following the Philip Morris litigation against Australia and Uruguay, negotiators for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) included in Article 29.5 an exception to investor claims for tobacco control measures:
Article 29.5: Tobacco Control Measures/11/
A Party may elect to deny the benefits of Section B of Chapter 9 (Investment) with respect to claims challenging a tobacco control measure/12/ of the Party. Such a claim shall not be submitted to arbitration under Section B of Chapter 9 (Investment) if a Party has made such an election. If a Party has not elected to deny benefits with respect to such claims by the time of the submission of such a claim to arbitration under Section B of Chapter 9 (Investment), a Party may elect to deny benefits during the proceedings. For greater certainty, if a Party elects to deny benefits with respect to such claims, any such claim shall be dismissed.
/11/ For greater certainty, this Article does not prejudice: (i) the operation of Article 9.15 (Denial of Benefits); or (ii) a Party’s rights under Chapter 28 (Dispute Settlement) in relation to a tobacco control measure.
/12/ A tobacco control measure means a measure of a Party related to the production or consumption of manufactured tobacco products (including products made or derived from tobacco), their distribution, labelling, packaging, advertising, marketing, promotion, sale, purchase, or use, as well as enforcement measures, such as inspection, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. For greater certainty, a measure with respect to tobacco leaf that is not in the possession of a manufacturer of tobacco products or that is not part of a manufactured tobacco product is not a tobacco control measure
Negotiators should include language in the Pandemic Agreement that provides assurances that nothing in the agreement creates an obligation on parties that can be construed to create a claim in an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism.
The post The WHO Pandemic agreement, language on mutually agreed terms for technology transfer, and claims under investor-state dispute resolution (ISDS) appeared first on Knowledge Ecology International.
From Sylhet to Spitalfields: Bengali Squatters in 1970s East London – review
In From Sylhet to Spitalfields, Shabna Begum examines the Bengali community’s struggle for housing and belonging in the face of systemic racism in 1970s East London. According to Md Naibur Rahman and Ruhun Wasata, Begum’s rich combination of ethnographic work and historical analysis reveals how, through squatting, activism and community organising, Bangladeshi migrants successfully demanded their right to housing.
Someone with a rumbling stomach taking a stroll around Tower Hamlets in London, famous for its Bangladeshi community and cuisine, might be focused on finding a place to eat. Once satiated, attention can be focused on questions of how this diasporic community who were once colonised made it to the land of the coloniser and eventually called it home. In From Sylhet to Spitalfields, Shabna Begum undertakes an academic journey to examine the experiences of the Bangladeshi community as they faced systemic and targeted racism in their struggle to find literal and figurative homes in East London.
The book examines the Bangladeshi Squatter movement in the 1970s [. . .] to ensure the minimum basic rights of finding tenancy agreements in places that could keep them safe from targeted and street racism.
The book examines the Bangladeshi Squatter movement in the 1970s, a united effort against institutionalised racism of the Greater London Council (GLC) and Tower Hamlets Council (TLC) to ensure the minimum basic rights of finding tenancy agreements in places that could keep them safe from targeted and street racism. Begam’s robust ethnographic research both documents the suffering and struggles of the Bangladeshi community in London and records their resilience and resistance in the face of adversity.
The book begins with a historical account of the migration pattern of people from Sylhet, the North Eastern region of Bangladesh, to East London. Dating back to the boat building and sailing traditions of Sylheti people found in Ibn Battuta’s record in 1346 and Robert Lindsay’s observation in 1777, Sylheti men were initially employed as ship workers by the East India Company under British rule. Lindsay, the revenue collector deployed in Sylhet, extracted all trading opportunities for limestone, elephant trading (at least 6000), tea plantation and ship building. This typical practice of colonial-era property acquisition and exploitation of natural resources led him to purchase Balcarres House in Fife, Scotland from his older brother, Earl Alexander. This is a glaring example of how Sylhet and Sylheti seafarers contributed to the growth of the economic and political power of British colonisers in the 18th century.
The book observes this migratory pattern as part of the legacy of imperialism, epitomised in Sivanandan’s phrase, ‘We are here because you were there’.
The exploitation continued with an administrative strategy of annexing Sylhet to Assam, the neighbouring district, whose tea plantations became a cash cow. This layout and arrangement made Sylheti people owners of their land, unlike in other districts, which were governed by a few elite landlords and the majority of tenants. With the growing population, Sylheti people gravitated towards the merchant shipping industry to ease the pressure on the land-based economy. As part of an invitation to new commonwealth citizens in the post-war period Sylheti people started migrating from Bangladesh to East London in the 1960s and 1970s in search of opportunity, finding work in the garment, catering and hospitality sectors. The book observes this migratory pattern as part of the legacy of imperialism, epitomised in Sivanandan’s phrase, “We are here because you were there.”
The book stands out for highlighting the significance of the role of women in the squatter movement. In the mid-1970s, Sylheti men were concerned that, due to the racialist restriction on Commonwealth migration, they wouldn’t be able to bring their wives and children to the UK in the future as family reunification migrants, who would then morph into economic migrants. Their families were eventually allowed to join them, and their temporary, unstructured and compromised accommodation setups were no longer adequate. The lack of suitable accommodation led to Sylhetis wrangling with the GLC and THC powered with residency qualification and fifty-two weeks continuous residency policy for endorsing their discriminatory allocation. Eventually, the only option left was squatting. In these squats, women became the frontline defenders against discriminatory attacks since men were largely away at work outside the home. From protecting the home to protesting on the streets, Sylheti women played a key role in the movement, requiring resilience and defiance.
With no facilities for private bathing, broken windows and doors and interrupted utility supplies, the squatters adjusted to squalid living conditions.
Through the heart-wrenching lived experiences of its interviewees, the book evidences the poor conditions of the squats: dilapidated, leftover houses where no one else would agree to live. With no facilities for private bathing, broken windows and doors and interrupted utility supplies, the squatters adjusted to squalid living conditions. Beyond the this, squatters experienced smashed doors and windows, targeted racist harassment and elected politicians’ committing to expel the Bengali people from the area. In one rare instance where a Bengali family was allocated a council tenancy, the targeted violence they were subject to from the local community meant prevented them from moving in.
The formation of the Bengali Housing Action Group (BHAG) in the spring of 1976 paved a new way to coordinate the efforts and demands of squatters that were conveyed to the councils. The book highlights how this organisation not only established a game-changing platform but also emerged as a united force to resist violence. The formalised voice and force of the organisation proved crucial in gaining support, respect and acceptance from different groups.
The book presents a thorough account of BHAG activities which led to broader amnesty for squatters, enabling them to register and receive GLC tenancy in June 1978. From desperate attempts of squatting to 3000-strong demonstrations of Bangladeshis to finally being able to meet with GLC Councillors, the BHAG representation gave momentum and organisational force to the movements. In 1977, it was agreed by the GLC that their request to be housed in the E1 area would be honoured. BHAG activists made it clear that white or mixed-race people were also welcome as long as the majority of Bangladeshi people are housed in the same area.
The friendship, love and sacrifice of non-Bangladeshi BHAG activists like Terry Fitzpatrick, Mala Sen and Farrukh Dhondy demonstrated the power of multiculturalism and solidarity that London enables.
The Squatter movement and formulation of BHAG fomented lifelong friendships and connections that went beyond shared trauma and suffering. The friendship, love and sacrifice of non-Bangladeshi BHAG activists like Terry Fitzpatrick, Mala Sen and Farrukh Dhondy demonstrated the power of multiculturalism and solidarity that London enables. While some tried to protect Bangladeshis through their vigilante patrolling in Ford Zafire every night for a year, others voiced their frustrations, sufferings and demands on behalf of the Bangladeshi women. In addition, the support from the Socialist Worker Party, the Anti-Nazi League, and Race Today brought more attention and visibility. This movement worked as a foundation stone for many subsequent achievements in the housing cooperation, direct representations in councils and recognition of Bangladeshi culture. From forming housing cooperatives such as Shahjalal and Mitali Housing Co-Op to having representation with a Labour Councillor in 1985, the community established their presence in East London and beyond. British Bangladeshis’ continued political awareness and engagement led to the election of their first Member of Parliament (MP) in 2010, followed by three others in 2010, 2015 and 2019, respectively. The overall emergence of Bangladeshi community in almost every sector has often been credited to their commitment to education, which resonated through many interviewees’ responses – “because we put a graduate in every family”.
The book takes the reader on both an academic and an emotional journey, balancing robust historical research with human stories of resilience in the face of adversity.
Begum’s book does a commendable job of weaving the impacts of political events in Bangladesh with the nature of protests in East London. Bangladesh’s war of independence in 1971, the famine of 1974, and the assassination of the Founding Fathers of the Nation sedimented the resilience, resistance and courage, demonstrated by Bangladeshis who stood for their rights in Spitalfields, East London. Although many Sylheti people moved to Britain with the full intention of returning to Bangladesh, the struggles and achievements in East London gave them a sense of double belonging. The book effectively employs an oral ethnographic approach, making it a significant historical record of the Bangladeshi community in East London. The book takes the reader on both an academic and an emotional journey, balancing robust historical research with human stories of resilience in the face of adversity. From historians and geographers to anthropologists, sociologists to gender studies specialists, this book will appeal to many as a means to better understand the experiences of immigrants in Britain.
Note: This review gives the views of the author, and not the position of the LSE Review of Books blog, or of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Olivier Guiberteau on Shutterstock.
Colombia’s birthday present to the World Trade Organization: a proposal to review the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement: Article 71.1
On 15 April 2024, the World Trade Organization (WTO) published a document, IP/C/W/712, entitled, Review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement: Article 71.1; this date marks 30 years after the establishment of the WTO. Colombia’s proposal can be found here: W712
As Health Policy Watch (HPW) reported in November 2023, at the 7th round of negotiations of the WHO pandemic accord, Simon Manley, Ambassador and Permanent Representative, UK Mission to the WTO, UN and Other International Organisations (Geneva), stated:
“Speaking as one of those Geneva ambassadors who has the good fortune to cover both the United Nations and the World Trade Organisation, I do need to reaffirm our conviction that the WTO is the appropriate forum to discuss our obligations on intellectual property.”
Perhaps mindful of the United Kingdom’s exhortation, Colombia submitted a proposal for a comprehensive Article 71 review of the WTO TRIPS Agreement.
ARTICLE 71 AS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIALOGUE
1. A comprehensive review of the implementation of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) is both an unfulfilled commitment and a necessity. Carrying out the review mandated in Article 711, along with the 30th anniversary of the TRIPS Agreement, will provide an opportunity to: i) increase dialogue and transparency on the impact of international rules on Intellectual Property (IP) issues; ii) start overcoming the existing impasse of the TRIPS discussions and negotiations at the TRIPS Council; iii) support political and technical discussions that are taking place in other forums and settings; iv) identify/produce relevant metrics to inform better implementation in the future.
2. Colombia considers that after 30 years of the TRIPS Agreement implementation, a Member driven policy discussion, supported by metrics and data, should provide the basis for a review on best practices, identification of obstacles, potential implementation improvements, among other elements. The discussions will provide added clarity and transparency, offer learning experiences for every Member to enhance their strategies within the general balance among the policy goals underlying the TRIPS agreement.
3. The World Trade Organization is a relevant forum for these discussions, as the host of the strictest framework that binds intellectual property laws worldwide. The valuable experience accumulated by other International Organizations, primarily WIPO, WHO and UNCTAD should inform the WTO discussion.
Colombia provided this policy rationale for its proposal:
8. In summary, the TRIPS Agreement norms provide a significantly stricter framework than what existed under the WIPO substantive agreements, despite its important menu of options. Moreover, TRIPS exhibits important differences or peculiarities when compared with other WTO Agreements. The Agreement entailed a new institutional framework, both at the international and domestic levels, which has been described as a “watershed event”.
9. These provisions entailed a change of paradigm: A different version of the balance of the triangle of policy goals associated with intellectual property protection was achieved: i.e., the promotion of innovation on one side; the broad access to technologies on another, and the promotion of national competitiveness-industrial policy on the third. It must be underscored that the TRIPS Agreement’s balance is a set of normative choices that reflects the ideas, experiences, and conditions prevalent in the early 1990s. The whole notion of including a review clause hints at the negotiators acknowledgement that contexts might change in time and that the permanent and periodic review of the implementation of the agreement should remain an integral part of the Members actions at the WTO. However, the review mechanism has not been carried out since the TRIPS adoption. Now, after 30 years of implementation, it is just the right time to do so.
Paragraph 12 of Colombia’s submission delineates its approach:
12. Regarding the substantive content, Colombia aims to engage in collaborative discussions at the WTO to identify (or produce) relevant analytical metrics and data, which are currently non-existent, incomplete, or not appropriately used, to better assess the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement over the years, and better guide the discussions and domestic policymaking process of Members. These new metrics could become part of a permanent source of information at the TRIPS Council, at Trade Policy Reviews of individual Members, or at the Trade Monitoring exercise by the Secretariat, among others. For the attainment of these objectives, Colombia proposes to address discussions on the following implementation aspects:
a. To analyse both domestic and international concentration of production in knowledge intensive sectors over the years, based on relevant metrics.
b. A global stocktake on royalties paid in and out by country for the use of Intellectual Property Rights, as expressed in the Balance of Payments of countries.
c. A global stocktake on the use of Compulsory Licences since 1996, with a focus on the problem of export limitations faced by ´sandwich´ countries (not too small, not too large).
d. A global stocktake on the residency/nationality of innovators across Members, coupled with an examination of Patenting activity by Office of Subsequent Filing -OSF- (to better understand who is patenting internationally and domestically, and the incentive mechanisms that exist for innovators to go abroad).
e. A related discussion on the exploitation of ´disclosures´ after IPRs finish their terms of protection. As an implementation matter, are these innovations/creations publicly available? Are they used by Members (especially developing ones)? Are they available for training of artificial intelligence models? (optional trigger questions).
f. The utilization of Article 44(2) of TRIPS by WTO Members.
It is notable that as part of the proposal for an Article 71 review of the TRIPS Agreement, Colombia calls for scrutiny into the “utilization of Article 44(2) of TRIPS by WTO Members”.
The post Colombia’s birthday present to the World Trade Organization: a proposal to review the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement: Article 71.1 appeared first on Knowledge Ecology International.
Yemen ‘promises Iran 400,000 troops’ in event of regional war
Fighters “ready to completely blockade the Red Sea and target US bases in Africa and the Middle East”, says Iran Observer
Image: Iran Observer
Yemen has promised Iran the support of 400,000 troops if regional war breaks out after Israel’s bombing of the Iranian embassy in Syria to murder a top Iranian military officer, Iran Observer Twitter/X account has said this afternoon. The account, which has 233,000 followers and appears to have access to a stream of information from within the region, notes that Yemen has recruited 200,000 additional fighters since Israel began its genocidal assault on the Palestinians in Gaza and says that the fighters are:
ready to completely blockade the Red Sea and target US bases in Africa and the Middle East.
The news came as Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon appeared to warn that the group’s relative restraint so far in the face of Israel’s attacks on homes and bases in Lebanon had run out and that ‘all scenarios’ are possible. Yemen’s Houthis have been attacking – in response to the International Court of Justice’s findings against Israel – Israel-bound and -owned shipping off its coast, undeterred by attacks by the UK and US, whose governments continue to collude in Israel’s genocide in Gaza, which has killed and maimed well over 100,000 people so far, mostly women and children, and has put more than two million into famine.
SKWAWKBOX needs your help. The site is provided free of charge but depends on the support of its readers to be viable. If you’d like to help it keep revealing the news as it is and not what the Establishment wants you to hear – and can afford to without hardship – please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal or here to set up a monthly donation via GoCardless (SKWAWKBOX will contact you to confirm the GoCardless amount). Thanks for your solidarity so SKWAWKBOX can keep doing its job.
If you wish to republish this post for non-commercial use, you are welcome to do so – see here for more.
Monetary Sovereignty and Mark Blyth’s critique of MMT
Professor Mark Blyth’s critique of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) is, even in one and a half minutes, in my view, basically correct: Below, I have paraphrased and expanded the suggested objections a little so as to apply to the UK, rather than just Scotland.. He suggests that Britain has a substantial capacity as a sovereign... Read more
KEI’s post hearing response to three questions regarding USTR’s Special 301 list
These are KEI’s post hearing responses to three questions regarding USTR’s Special 301 list.
One question was a follow up to KEI’s testimony that USTR should develop a policy on the trade related aspects of biomedical R&D that does not rely solely on higher drug prices, particularly given the dramatic changes in the proportion of the US and world population that is 65 or older.
The second question asked which trading partners are undermining the mandatory exceptions in the Berne Convention on Copyright for news of the day and quotations.
The third question asked if countries that allowed copyright holders to opt-out of AI training data should be placed on the Special 301 list.
The post KEI’s post hearing response to three questions regarding USTR’s Special 301 list appeared first on Knowledge Ecology International.
KEI’s comments to USTR on its 2024 Special 301 list
KEI filed these comments today with USTR on its 2024 Special 301 list.
KEI-Special301comments-30jan2024
The post KEI’s comments to USTR on its 2024 Special 301 list appeared first on Knowledge Ecology International.