Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-02-10-Speech-1-080"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030210.8.1-080"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, in this debate it is perhaps worth citing once again what the Doha Declaration actually says. I quote: 'The TRIPS agreement does not and should not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public health', and it: 'can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO members' rights, to protect human health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all'. It is worth bearing in mind those words and repeating them for the record, particularly for the consumption of US observers. I doubt they are listening right now, but perhaps we can send them a copy of the Minutes of this stimulating discussion later on.
The US position is not just contrary to the spirit of the Doha Declaration: it directly contravenes the letter of the Doha Declaration. As such, it is a slap in the face for all developing countries which invested so much hope in the Doha Declaration and in the objectives of the Doha development round. It represents a spectacular assertion of narrow and misguided commercial interests over the greater prize of a development round itself. It is worth making that clear because if you then consider the commercial interests at stake, it becomes even more incomprehensible why the US is single-handedly blocking agreement in this area.
I would now like to quote a press release from the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations. It states that: 'over 95% of all medicines on the WHO drugs essential list are off-patent, and studies show that there are relatively few patents on AIDS drugs in Africa'. In other words, that statistic alone suggests there is very little commercial risk for either the European pharmaceuticals industry, or the US industry itself. It is all the more frustrating to watch these deadlines being missed – even applying the logic of their own commercial self-interest – as a particular sector in the US blocks progress in this field.
My group strongly supports the initiatives taken by Commissioner Lamy and the European Commission. We sympathise with his position and ask why it is that the US pharmaceuticals industry seems to have been able to marshal US government support in backing its irrational reaction to the EU proposal. Unilateralism with a reason is just about comprehensible. Unilateralism without any logic whatsoever is unforgivable."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples