<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""><b class="">U.S. lays low in TRIPS talks as consensus remains elusive<o:p class=""></o:p></b></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">By Hannah Monicken, Inside US Trade</div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class="">7/6/2021<o:p class=""></o:p></div><div style="margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;" class=""> <o:p class=""></o:p></div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">The U.S. continues to lay low in the World Trade Organization discussions over a proposed waiver of certain intellectual property commitments to fight the pandemic, speaking only briefly at meetings -- including one on Tuesday -- and repeating the administration’s willingness to consider all solutions as other members trying to advance their own views remain at odds.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Despite its position as the largest economy in the world and its historical role in progressing WTO negotiations, the U.S. is eschewing the lead role even though it was the ripples from the cannonball of its announcement in May -- that the Biden administration would support a potential waiver -- that reinvigorated the talks and propelled them this far.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">During a meeting of the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights on Tuesday, the U.S. offered only a brief statement, according to a Geneva-based trade official familiar with the meeting. It welcomed the most recent decisions and said members have shown they will keep an open mind to all proposals based on what will be most effective.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">This largely echoes what the U.S. has said before, including at previous <a href="https://insidetrade.com/node/171668" style="color: rgb(5, 99, 193);" class="">TRIPS Council</a> sessions and other meetings. During the heads-of-delegation meeting last month, the <a href="https://geneva.usmission.gov/2021/06/25/us-statement-informal-tnc-and-heads-of-delegation-meeting/" style="color: rgb(5, 99, 193);" class="">U.S. argued</a> WTO members should “focus on proposals that are pragmatic and that can gain consensus from the Council in a timely manner.”<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Small-group discussions ahead of Tuesday’s meeting focused on the duration and implementation of the waiver, according to the official. The U.S. referenced only one element of these issues in its Tuesday remarks, raising a concern about how the proposed waiver would comply with WTO rules if it did not have a concrete termination date. The <a href="https://insidetrade.com/node/171387" style="color: rgb(5, 99, 193);" class="">revised waiver</a> that members are discussing, proposed initially by India and South Africa, would be in place for three years and then subject to termination by the General Council.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">“This waiver shall be in force for at least 3 years from the date of this decision,” it reads. “The General Council shall, thereafter, review the existence of the exceptional circumstances justifying the waiver, and if such circumstances cease to exist, the General Council shall determine the date of termination of the waiver.”<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">South Africa on Tuesday said this meant the waiver would not automatically terminate after three years, according to the Geneva official.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">The Marrakesh Agreement, the founding WTO accord, says that any waiver “shall state … the date on which the waiver shall terminate.”<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">The spectrum of the debate is represented by India and South Africa on one side, pushing for a broad waiver that would give countries significant flexibility in the manufacture of COVID-19 diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines. On the other side is the European Union, which has put forward its own IP proposal aimed at facilitating compulsory licensing.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">Just as the two sides are at odds over the waiver, they also disagree on the status of the talks. The proponents, including India and South Africa, are disappointed by the lack of focus on the text, but South Africa on Tuesday said it was optimistic that talks were progressing and centered on solution-finding, according to the official.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">The EU, however, is not. The bloc argued that the discussions are showing that several members continue to have reservations about the waiver. Its proposal, the EU insisted, is the only tenable option to combat the pandemic quickly, the official said.<o:p class=""></o:p></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 12pt; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif;">TRIPS Council Chair Dagfinn Sørli, Norway’s ambassador, noted that the discussion around waiver implementation would continue in upcoming meetings as members did not manage to finish the talks this week. The Council will next meet on July 14.</p><div class="">
Arthur Stamoulis<br class="">Citizens Trade Campaign<br class="">(202) 494-8826<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br class=""></body></html>