In the run up to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial in Doha last month, the aftermath of September 11 cast a long shadow over the proceedings to come. There were, however, other burning issues with which this merged, and together these set the tempo for much of what subsequently transpired at Doha, Qatar. This week we begin our exploration of some of these issues.

The patent dispute

One of the most burning issues was the dispute over patents for essential drugs. Patent rights, or as it is also termed, property rights in new technology, have long divided the richer North and the poorer South. In particular, American pharmaceutical companies had long resisted the production of generic drugs, as well as the claim made by the poorer South that public health should take precedence over profits in the distribution and sale of desperately needed drugs. This resistance by the US companies, was strongly supported by the US government, which also felt that any breach of the patent system would lead to its entire collapse. As an economy whose strength rested on its ability to generate patents for new innovations, this means a great deal to the USA.

As events turned out, in its anxiety to cope with the threat of bio-terrorism which followed after September 11, the US administration announced its intention to take direct action to reduce the cost of vaccines produced by the Bayer Corporation. This was supported by the Canadian authorities.

This action was of course driven by simple economic necessity. The cost of vaccinating the entire US population at the price per vaccine announced by Bayer, could not be carried by government, without generating a significant budget deficit. The action, however, brought home to many who had earlier refused to recognise the fact that public health concerns are a legitimate priority over profits and should indeed lead to patent exemption when necessary.

Generic drugs: morality or profit

The step taken by the US government represented a tremendous gain for the poor countries, coming as it did on the eve of the Doha Ministerial Meeting. It was, however, met with a strong US counter-offensive at Doha, directed against countries like Brazil and India, which are the major suppliers of generic drugs. The US delegation argued, and sought to persuade the developing countries and the world at large that, behind the facade of public health concerns, countries like India and Brazil, which are the major suppliers of generic drugs, were only really seeking to enhance the profits of their drug companies, when they called for a public health exemption to patent rules.

From that platform the US went on to counter offer the 48 Least Developed Countries exemption from patent rules for drugs used to combat pandemic diseases, until they were wealthy enough to afford to pay the commercial price for these drugs.

US strategy

Looking back, it seems as if the main strategy behind this US policy was to drive a wedge among the developing countries. Whether the US did succeed or not in this effort, is still open to debate. The approach also sought to establish that, behind the facade of moral arguments, the relatively wealthier countries of the South, like Brazil and India, were in fact practising the same greed they were denouncing the transnationals for practising. It was obviously the hope that the combined effect of those approaches would be to relax the growing solidarity among the countries of the South, which had preceeded the Doha Ministerial Meeting.

Dividing the South is, of course, not sufficient by itself to secure the interests of the North, particularly if the North itself was divided. As is well known, leading up to the Doha Ministerial Meeting, there were many areas of disagreement within the North. Some of these were located in our region. Thus we have the examples of the US embargo on Cuba, the use of GM foods, the Helms-Burton Act, and the banana dispute. There was a real danger that such differences could emerge to pit Europe against the USA, and lead to a debacle similar to that which occurred at Seattle.

By the time of the Doha meeting, however, these disagreements among the countries of the North had been shelved. As the New York Times reported on Saturday, November 10, the two biggest trading powers (the USA and Europe), which did not cooperate much leading up to the Seattle talks, were then in a position where the two chief negotiators, "Mr Zoellich (USA) and Mr Lamy, his European counterpart, act like best friends." With that level of cordiality, the North remained united at Doha, even though real issues of contention persisted in the areas of agricultural trade, investment, and competition.

The strength of unity

This example of the patent issue as it affects pharmaceuticals reflects two broader concerns, which we will pursue over the coming weeks. One is the crucial importance of group solidarity for successful negotiations within the WTO framework. In this area, the South has been severely disadvantaged. This is only in part due to the short-sightedness of its negotiators. It is also, unfortunately, a manifestation of deeper systemic weaknesses and differences, which have emerged among the countries of the South. The South today is far from a homogeneous economic grouping, as it was close to being in the 1960s. At that time, the rallying cry of a struggle for a New International Economic Order, stirred the hearts and minds of the people of Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. Today, competing interests among countries of the South make such solidarity well nigh impossible.