|
||
|
TWN Info
Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jan22/04) Geneva, 11 Jan (D. Ravi Kanth) — In the face of the exploding COVID-19 cases due to the new Omicron variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and a groundswell of international support for the TRIPS waiver, the European Union and the United States along with other developed countries have blocked India’s request for convening an urgent virtual ministerial conference at the WTO on the issue of the TRIPS waiver, said people familiar with the development. The chair of the WTO’s General Council (GC), Ambassador Dacio Castillo from Honduras, convened a special GC meeting on 10 January to elicit members’ views on the Indian request for a virtual ministerial meeting to consider only the issue of the TRIPS waiver for combating the COVID-19 pandemic. INDIA’S REQUEST FOR A VIRTUAL MINISTERIAL MEETING In its letter to the GC chair dated 23 December 2021, India said that it is of “paramount importance to organize a virtual ministerial conference on the urgent issue of the TRIPS waiver.” India said that “the world is looking at the WTO for a collective action” that would help save lives and livelihoods and alleviate the suffering caused by the pandemic as well as a path to global economic recovery. India called for “cooperation” from other members for convening “a virtual Ministerial Conference on the issue of the WTO’s response to the pandemic, including the TRIPS waiver, and would appreciate an early positive response.” It called for the GC chair’s support “to enable us (members) to address this critical issue, and assure you that India would [work] constructively in finding an outcome on this issue of utmost global importance.” The GC chair shared India’s letter with members before the special GC meeting. The meeting was held in hybrid format of in-person presence as well as in the virtual mode. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SUPPORT INDIA’S REQUEST The TRIPS waiver calls for the suspension of certain provisions in the TRIPS Agreement relating to copyrights, industrial designs, patents, and protection of undisclosed information for ramping-up the production of diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Several developing countries, who spoke at the GC meeting, strongly supported the Indian initiative for convening the virtual ministerial meeting because of the heightened urgency in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. South Africa, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Indonesia, Venezuela, and several others strongly supported the urgent need to agree to India’s request to convene the virtual meeting on a priority basis. China appears to have strongly supported the need for convening a virtual ministerial meeting to resolve the issue, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Argentina, Nigeria, and the other co-sponsors of the TRIPS waiver supported India’s request but with varying caveats, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Mauritius, which coordinates the African Group, apparently supported the need for a virtual meeting of trade ministers, but simultaneously raised other issues as well, SUNS was told about the proceedings of the GC meeting. Even Singapore and Korea appear to have supported India’s request for convening the ministerial conference, emphasizing that it should be an avenue for politicizing the issue, said people, preferring anonymity. DG SIDES WITH MAJOR INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES Initially, India wrote a letter to the WTO Director-General Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala on convening the virtual ministerial meeting. However, the DG apparently cited bureaucratic reasons and asked India to approach the GC chair with the issue, said people familiar with the development. At the GC meeting on 10 January, the DG did not even mention/refer to the Indian letter even though the meeting was specifically convened to consider India’s request to decide on the TRIPS waiver, said people familiar with the development. According to a statement put out on the WTO’s website on 10 January, the DG said that while the pandemic response remained the most urgent endeavour, not least given the spectre of even newer coronavirus variants, many members have reached out to her to emphasize the importance of other items on the WTO agenda, including fisheries subsidies, agriculture and WTO reform. By suggesting these issues, the DG seems to have let “the cat out of the bag” about the linkage with the TRIPS waiver and other issues, said people who asked not to be quoted. Ever since India made its request to the DG early last month on convening the virtual ministerial meeting, a concerted campaign was carried out by the EU and Brazil against a meeting solely to decide on the TRIPS waiver. Privately, the EU along with several other countries demanded that all other issues as suggested by the DG must also be simultaneously discussed, as reported in SUNS #9489 dated 11 January 2022. In short, the DG appears to have sided with the EU and other industrialized countries, who have blocked the Indian proposal, said several people, who asked not to be quoted. The DG, however, touted her initiative, together with her deputy Ms Anabel Gonzalez from Costa Rica “to support an informal group of members to converge around a meaningful acceptable outcome that can be built upon by the wider membership to bring a successful conclusion to the IP issue.” Without mentioning the meetings between the US, the EU, India, and South Africa that she and her deputy have convened over the last one month, the DG acknowledged that progress was steady but slow, expressing her hopes that “this approach can help us together to find the direction we need,” according to the statement put out by the WTO on its website. OPPOSITION TO VIRTUAL MINISTERIAL MEETING Several industrialized countries opposed the Indian request on one ground or the other. Apparently, the US adopted a somewhat ambivalent stance, saying that it would agree to finding a solution, but there are several procedural concerns that would not warrant convening the meeting at this juncture, said people, who asked not to be quoted. The US sought a distinction between a ministerial meeting and a ministerial conference, said a person, who asked not to be quoted. Russia raised concerns about the Indian request, suggesting that it is not proper to raise the issue at the General Council, and that India should have first taken up the issue at the TRIPS Council. The opponents to the TRIPS waiver such as the EU, the United Kingdom, Canada, which coordinates the Ottawa Group of countries at the WTO, Japan, Norway, and Brazil, continued with their rather obdurate positions on the need to convene the virtual meeting. The EU apparently said that it is not appropriate to convene the meeting, while Brazil suggested that a virtual ministerial meeting must include all other issues such as fisheries subsidies and agriculture. The EU and its allies including the United Kingdom said the TRIPS Agreement is sacrosanct for them. The EU and a few other countries touted the EU’s proposal relating to the use of the compulsory licensing provisions in Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement. Australia also supported the idea of a ministerial meeting with all other issues being included, said people familiar with the development. Several also said a virtual ministerial meeting will not be able to take a decision on the TRIPS waiver, suggesting that in-person meetings may be needed to decide on the issue. They also indicated their support for the Ottawa Group’s proposal on trade and health that seeks further trade liberalization and elimination of tariffs on health-related items. GC CHAIR’S CONCLUSION The GC chair said that the meeting on 10 January was “useful”, suggesting that he would continue with his consultations on the Indian proposal. He underscored the “urgency and importance of reaching a meaningful outcome”, arguing that a common WTO response to COVID-19 “remains an urgent priority for the membership.” In response to procedural concerns raised by Russia and other countries, India said that it would consult with members who have concerns so as to convince them of the need to convene the virtual ministerial meeting. It remains to be seen whether a handful of developed countries can continue to block the TRIPS waiver even in the face of an escalating global health crisis. +
|
||
