Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it’ is a timely reminder for key actors who are bent on pushing failed agendas. As governments and multilateral institutions struggle to recover from a pervasive crisis of confidence stemming from the current political and economic climate, it is important to not make the same mistakes all over again. But the tendency is to cock a snook at such warnings.
Of late, the so-called knowledge-based companies and pharmaceutical giants in the western world — who faced public criticism when the HIV/AIDS epidemic began in the 1990s — are staging a comeback. They are using the economic crisis to strengthen the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and are busy waging a battle against compulsory licensing.
It is against this backdrop, that the Geneva-based World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) convened a high-profile meeting to drive home the message on innovation, creativity and transfer of technology. “We have to acknowledge that intellectual property is not an end in itself, but an instrument to promote innovation, creativity and the dissemination of knowledge,” said Maximiliano Santa Cruz, Chairman of WIPO’s Standing Committee on Patents (SCP) that convened the conference.
The developing countries, however, remain sceptical about this new public relations campaign of linking intellectual property (IP) with development. The recent seizures of generic drugs on the high seas by the Netherlands customs department and the sudden shortage of anti-retroviral drugs in the five most-affected countries in Africa indicate that IP-holders and their drivers at the multilateral institutions do not genuinely mean what they preach.
Over the years, the WIPO’s overarching agenda has been somewhat dented following the World Trade Organisation’s TRIPS agreement which became a benchmark for nations. It is also gripped by a perennial crisis stemming ‘from opaque decision making, a pro-intellectual property (IP) outlook, and an imperial management style (among others),’ says Carolyn Deere, the director of the Global Trade Governance Project at Oxford.
So, when Francis Gurry, an Australian, took office on October 1, 2008 after a series of crisis, expectations got raised and there was a hope that things would change. Though Gurry won the final race just by one vote against a Brazilian candidate — which, in a way, was a source of some mystery — members, particularly from the developing world, decided to leave all the controversies behind and get on with the job of addressing the policy and institutional challenges.
Sadly, the new director general seems determined to embark on a TRIPS II agenda, says a developing country envoy, suggesting that Gurry is now adamant on upgrading the IP norm-setting activities to help the big pharma and technological companies. Apparently, he wants to re-orient the organisation to focus primarily on norm-setting tasks — more efficient provision of IP-registration services and higher respect for IP through enforcement. All these renewed activities are what the IP-holders want seek on a war footing. Effectively, they want to kill the developmental agenda — balancing IP-protection with broader and ameliorative public policy goals — that the world needs in this hour of crisis.
Though IP and the patronage system do not go hand in hand, there are allegations that plum jobs are being offered to developing country officials at WIPO to silence opposition from them on developmental issues. Over the last nine months, there has been little or no progress in addressing major policy challenges. For example, the Inter-governmental Committee on Traditional Knowledge, Genetic Resources and Folklore (the IGC) recently ended with no decision on the renewal of the mandate of the IGC after five days of acrimonious exchanges between developed and developing countries — with the director general conspicuously absent from the scene when there was an impasse, says a developing country official.
Internally, the abrupt removal of Ram Kishan Singh, a junior official, who worked for nine years in the organisation with an outstanding record and the proposed reforms in the staffing pattern raise serious questions whether developing country officials are specific targets in the onward march of a renewed western IP agenda at WIPO!
bravo --ravikanth for calling a spade a spade.u have hit at the bottom of politics in international organisation.further u have highlighted how plum postings play a role in silencing nations.india should wake up and not get caught in such traps of developed worlds.ARISE,AWAKE AND STOP NOT TILL YOUR GOAL IS REACHED
Dear Ravi Kanth, I personally found that the Internal justice system in WIPO is a banana system. Decisions are taken in a biased and arbitrary manner. The ombudsman, the rebuttal panel, the HRMD are all manned by biased or incompetent individuals who form part of a system which dispenses seigniorial injustice. The international organisation is in fact a fiefdom. Those who have been found to have been involved in acts of serious misconduct (such as making racist campaigns) get promotions. Those who raise questions of ill treatment of short term staff get their performance evaluation messed up by compliant supervisors and then dismissed.
Is it normal that an international organisation keeps on its rolls hundreds of persons on temporary contracts for ten to twelve years? Isn't that gross discrimination and breach of international labor laws?
Mr.Gopal, We assume you are not one of the WIPO officials occupying the so- called plum posts mentioned by Ravi Kanth. Because sadly the comments appear to be too partisan. As it is common knowledge that while developed countries benefit from the patents regime, it is the people from developing countries,mostly poor, who are the consumers of these products and they are bled paying for these products through their noses. Hence the interests of countries like Brazil, India,China etc vis-a-vis a fairer PCT.
Posted by: Gopal
July 29 , 2009, 16:27 IST
Mr. Prasad, I wonder what led you to draw the conclusions that you drew from my arithmetic but don't you think that it is but natural (and highly undesirable) that WIPO would seek to protect the interests of those who fill its coffers. You (and I) would be living in a fool's paradise if we believed in the existence of neutrality and honest brokers in International Polity. Indeed you assume right about my status as a non-WIPO Plum post holder.
More than 70% of WIPO's revenues are generated from PCT applications. 80% of these applications come from the developed world. Ordinary arithmetic would put at least 56% (0.70x0.80=0.56) of the revenues coming from those countries.
It should not be difficult draw conclusions on that.
Posted by: Prasad
July 30 , 2009, 20:28 IST
Mr.Gopal, Thank you for clarifying the points and please rest assured no offence was intended. We should no longer accept ground realities on account of money power.WIPO should not be treated as another Joint Stock Company where majority stockholder decides everything. Look at people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mandela who had the courage to challenge the Establishment in spite of the ground realities of the unfairness of the System then in place.Ultimately they won the day. Let us hope the develping countries do get heard and Mr. Ravi Kanth has done great service pointing out the difficult days ahead for the poor in these countries.
Ravi Kanth has exposed the goings on in WIPO under the new leadership of the Australian national Francis Gurry. The appalling situation in Human Resources Department is evident in the reported removal of Ram Kishan Singh as pointed out. It is all the more scandalous and deplorable that Francis Gurry is aided and abetted by senior ex-Indian Government Officials who now occupy the plum posts referred to in this article. This calls for urgent action by the new Minister of Commerce and Industry Anand Sharma. It is important for India to maintain the partnership with Brazil, which should not be spoiled by these officials.
Bravo! I salute you for your bold and courageous writings. I wish that the Indian government will pay serious attention to the issues concerning to IP and WTO policies, their long term effects in the developing countries, raised by you in recent articles.
Content Guide
