The objections were conveyed in a letter dated 17 September 2023 to the President of the UN General Assembly, H.E. Dennis Francis, signed by the permanent representatives of the following countries:
Belarus
Bolivia
Cuba
Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
Eritrea
Islamic Republic of Iran
Nicaragua
Russian Federation
Syrian Arab Republic
Venezuela
Zimbabwe
“Our delegations are convinced that this is no way to handle multilateral and intergovernmental negotiations on issues of great relevance for the international community, particularly for developing countries.”
The letter sets out deep concerns that, “…the legitimate concerns of a large number of developing countries have been ignored,” and with the lack of willingness from a small group of developed countries to engage in meaningful negotiations.
The signatory delegations…
“…oppose any attempt to pretend to formally adopt any of the draft outcome documents in question during the meetings scheduled for 18, 20, 21 and 22 September 2023, respectively.”
The letter points out the four important flaws in the process of negotiation of the political declarations.
“The legitimate concerns of a large number of developing countries have been ignored. Hence, it is our duty to express our strong concerns on the unacceptable way in which this situation unfolded, running in clear contradiction with the spirit of multilateralism and the overall goal of leaving no one behind.
“First, there has been no real willingness from a small group of developed countries to engage in meaningful negotiations to find compromises, forcing unfair practices which pretend to impose a kind of ‘veto’ on certain issues, and pretending to even prevent their discussion within the framework of intergovernmental negotiations.
“Second, in some cases, negotiations were not conducted in a truly inclusive, fair and balanced way. Our delegations had to witness how, in some cases, even single delegations were accommodated a great deal in their concerns, while others’ priorities, including ours, were bluntly neglected. For example, the draft outcome of the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development under the auspices of the General Assembly – SDGs Summit, was reopened with the purpose of exclusively accommodating the priorities of a few delegations from developed countries, while, in this very same process, and in the three (03) health-related negotiations, nothing was done to reflect and accommodate the legitimate concerns of delegations from developing countries that, in addition had broken silence repeatedly, including the Group of 77 and China.
“Third, the attempt to ignore formal communications of delegations from developing countries, including from the Group of 77 and China, on behalf of its 134 Member States, indicating strong reservations and objections.
“Fourth, the attempt to force consensus by your predecessor’s team and now by your Office, when it is evident that no consensus has been reached on any of these processes; as well as the lack of transparency, inclusiveness and efficient use of the limited time available then to find compromises.”
Third World Network reported…
TWN learned that the draft Political Declaration was finalised in disregard of objections raised by a few developing countries. In fact, the whole process since June 2023 had frustrated many developing countries as the co-facilitators (the Permanent Representatives of Israel and Morocco to the UN) apparently were so outcome-oriented that Member States were not able to really negotiate the proposals that were submitted. Furthermore, in the last few weeks the positions of a small number of developed countries held more sway with the facilitators.
According to a delegation involved in the negotiations, silence was broken over the “final” text, but the former President of the General Assembly (PGA) Csaba Kőrösi of Hungary decided anyway to send the unagreed text to the Secretariat to be processed for formal adoption at the HLM. This was done shortly before he finished his term. On 5 September the UNGA presidency was taken over by Dennis Francis of Trinidad and Tobago.
The most important barrier is the bilateral political pressure from developed countries against the use of TRIPS flexibilities.
Recognising the existence of political pressure UN High Level Panel on Access to Medicine in its Report in 2016 stated: “Governments and corporations sometimes threaten political or economic retaliation as a means of illegitimately pressuring others into forgoing their TRIPS flexibilities. Such actions are against the letter and spirit of the TRIPS Agreement and the Doha Declaration.”
Apart from freedom of operation under compulsory license for production of vaccines, antibodies and diagnostics, access to details of production processes to fast-track regulatory approval is also required. The regulatory assumption for these products is that the production process is itself the product i.e. any deviation from the originator’s product requires proof of safety and quality through clinical trials. The production process details are often submitted to the regulatory authorities of developed countries and can be shared in the public interest. However, there is silence in this regard in the Declaration.
Sanctioning states and regional organisations shall review measures taken without or beyond authorization of the UN Security Council, and to lift those, which do not fit criteria of retortions or counter-measures in full conformity with standards and limitations of the law of international responsibility, as constituting unilateral coercive measures. Humanitarian concerns shall always be taken into account by States when deciding on the imposition of any unilateral measures, including countermeasures (humanitarian precaution), as well as in the course of their application.
Unilateral sanctions shall never affect functioning of critical infrastructure relevant to healthcare, food, agriculture, electricity, water supply, irrigation, sanitation, seeds and fertilizers, all of which are necessary for the survival and well-being of populations.”
United Nations Sanctions Letter – download the full text here
1.01MB ∙ PDF file