Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 251287 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
AEMR ASEC AMGT AE AS AMED AVIAN AU AF AORC AGENDA AO AR AM APER AFIN ATRN AJ ABUD ARABL AL AG AODE ALOW ADANA AADP AND APECO ACABQ ASEAN AA AFFAIRS AID AGR AY AGS AFSI AGOA AMB ARF ANET ASCH ACOA AFLU AFSN AMEX AFDB ABLD AESC AFGHANISTAN AINF AVIATION ARR ARSO ANDREW ASSEMBLY AIDS APRC ASSK ADCO ASIG AC AZ APEC AFINM ADB AP ACOTA ASEX ACKM ASUP ANTITERRORISM ADPM AINR ARABLEAGUE AGAO AORG AMTC AIN ACCOUNT ASECAFINGMGRIZOREPTU AIDAC AINT ARCH AMGTKSUP ALAMI AMCHAMS ALJAZEERA AVIANFLU AORD AOREC ALIREZA AOMS AMGMT ABDALLAH AORCAE AHMED ACCELERATED AUC ALZUGUREN ANGEL AORL ASECIR AMG AMBASSADOR AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL ADM ASES ABMC AER AMER ASE AMGTHA ARNOLDFREDERICK AOPC ACS AFL AEGR ASED AFPREL AGRI AMCHAM ARNOLD AN ANATO AME APERTH ASECSI AT ACDA ASEDC AIT AMERICA AMLB AMGE ACTION AGMT AFINIZ ASECVE ADRC ABER AGIT APCS AEMED ARABBL ARC ASO AIAG ACEC ASR ASECM ARG AEC ABT ADIP ADCP ANARCHISTS AORCUN AOWC ASJA AALC AX AROC ARM AGENCIES ALBE AK AZE AOPR AREP AMIA ASCE ALANAZI ABDULRAHMEN ABDULHADI AINFCY ARMS ASECEFINKCRMKPAOPTERKHLSAEMRNS AGRICULTURE AFPK AOCR ALEXANDER ATRD ATFN ABLG AORCD AFGHAN ARAS AORCYM AVERY ALVAREZ ACBAQ ALOWAR ANTOINE ABLDG ALAB AMERICAS AFAF ASECAFIN ASEK ASCC AMCT AMGTATK AMT APDC AEMRS ASECE AFSA ATRA ARTICLE ARENA AISG AEMRBC AFR AEIR ASECAF AFARI AMPR ASPA ASOC ANTONIO AORCL ASECARP APRM AUSTRALIAGROUP ASEG AFOR AEAID AMEDI ASECTH ASIC AFDIN AGUIRRE AUNR ASFC AOIC ANTXON ASA ASECCASC ALI AORCEUNPREFPRELSMIGBN ASECKHLS ASSSEMBLY ASECVZ AI ASECPGOV ASIR ASCEC ASAC ARAB AIEA ADMIRAL AUSGR AQ AMTG ARRMZY ANC APR AMAT AIHRC AFU ADEL AECL ACAO AMEMR ADEP AV AW AOR ALL ALOUNI AORCUNGA ALNEA ASC AORCO ARMITAGE AGENGA AGRIC AEM ACOAAMGT AGUILAR AFPHUM AMEDCASCKFLO AFZAL AAA ATPDEA ASECPHUM ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
ETRD ETTC EU ECON EFIN EAGR EAID ELAB EINV ENIV ENRG EPET EZ ELTN ELECTIONS ECPS ET ER EG EUN EIND ECONOMICS EMIN ECIN EINT EWWT EAIR EN ENGR ES EI ETMIN EL EPA EARG EFIS ECONOMY EC EK ELAM ECONOMIC EAR ESDP ECCP ELN EUM EUMEM ECA EAP ELEC ECOWAS EFTA EXIM ETTD EDRC ECOSOC ECPSN ENVIRONMENT ECO EMAIL ECTRD EREL EDU ENERG ENERGY ENVR ETRAD EAC EXTERNAL EFIC ECIP ERTD EUC ENRGMO EINZ ESTH ECCT EAGER ECPN ELNT ERD EGEN ETRN EIVN ETDR EXEC EIAD EIAR EVN EPRT ETTF ENGY EAIDCIN EXPORT ETRC ESA EIB EAPC EPIT ESOCI ETRB EINDQTRD ENRC EGOV ECLAC EUR ELF ETEL ENRGUA EVIN EARI ESCAP EID ERIN ELAN ENVT EDEV EWWY EXBS ECOM EV ELNTECON ECE ETRDGK EPETEIND ESCI ETRDAORC EAIDETRD ETTR EMS EAGRECONEINVPGOVBN EBRD EUREM ERGR EAGRBN EAUD EFI ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ETRO ENRGY EGAR ESSO EGAD ENV ENER EAIDXMXAXBXFFR ELA EET EINVETRD EETC EIDN ERGY ETRDPGOV EING EMINCG EINVECON EURM EEC EICN EINO EPSC ELAP ELABPGOVBN EE ESPS ETRA ECONETRDBESPAR ERICKSON EEOC EVENTS EPIN EB ECUN EPWR ENG EX EH EAIDAR EAIS ELBA EPETUN ETRDEIQ EENV ECPC ETRP ECONENRG EUEAID EWT EEB EAIDNI ESENV EADM ECN ENRGKNNP ETAD ETR ECONETRDEAGRJA ETRG ETER EDUC EITC EBUD EAIF EBEXP EAIDS EITI EGOVSY EFQ ECOQKPKO ETRGY ESF EUE EAIC EPGOV ENFR EAGRE ENRD EINTECPS EAVI ETC ETCC EIAID EAIDAF EAGREAIDPGOVPRELBN EAOD ETRDA EURN EASS EINVA EAIDRW EON ECOR EPREL EGPHUM ELTM ECOS EINN ENNP EUPGOV EAGRTR ECONCS ETIO ETRDGR EAIDB EISNAR EIFN ESPINOSA EAIDASEC ELIN EWTR EMED ETFN ETT EADI EPTER ELDIN EINVEFIN ESS ENRGIZ EQRD ESOC ETRDECD ECINECONCS EAIT ECONEAIR ECONEFIN EUNJ ENRGKNNPMNUCPARMPRELNPTIAEAJMXL ELAD EFIM ETIC EFND EFN ETLN ENGRD EWRG ETA EIN EAIRECONRP EXIMOPIC ERA ENRGJM ECONEGE ENVI ECHEVARRIA EMINETRD EAD ECONIZ EENG ELBR EWWC ELTD EAIDMG ETRK EIPR EISNLN ETEX EPTED EFINECONCS EPCS EAG ETRDKIPR ED EAIO ETRDEC ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ERNG EFINU EURFOR EWWI ELTNSNAR ETD EAIRASECCASCID EOXC ESTN EAIDAORC EAGRRP ETRDEMIN ELABPHUMSMIGKCRMBN ETRDEINVTINTCS EGHG EAIDPHUMPRELUG EAGRBTIOBEXPETRDBN EDA EPETPGOV ELAINE EUCOM EMW EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM ELB EINDETRD EMI ETRDECONWTOCS EINR ESTRADA EHUM EFNI ELABV ENR EMN EXO EWWTPRELPGOVMASSMARRBN EATO END EP EINVETC ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID ELTRN EIQ ETTW EAI ENGRG ETRED ENDURING ETTRD EAIDEGZ EOCN EINF EUPREL ENRL ECPO ENLT EEFIN EPPD ECOIN EUEAGR EISL EIDE ENRGSD EINVECONSENVCSJA EAIG ENTG EEPET EUNCH EPECO ETZ EPAT EPTE EAIRGM ETRDPREL EUNGRSISAFPKSYLESO ETTN EINVKSCA ESLCO EBMGT ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EFLU ELND EFINOECD EAIDHO EDUARDO ENEG ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EFINTS ECONQH ENRGPREL EUNPHUM EINDIR EPE EMINECINECONSENVTBIONS EFINM ECRM EQ EWWTSP ECONPGOVBN
KFLO KPKO KDEM KFLU KTEX KMDR KPAO KCRM KIDE KN KNNP KG KMCA KZ KJUS KWBG KU KDMR KAWC KCOR KPAL KOMC KTDB KTIA KISL KHIV KHUM KTER KCFE KTFN KS KIRF KTIP KIRC KSCA KICA KIPR KPWR KWMN KE KGIC KGIT KSTC KACT KSEP KFRD KUNR KHLS KCRS KRVC KUWAIT KVPR KSRE KMPI KMRS KNRV KNEI KCIP KSEO KITA KDRG KV KSUM KCUL KPET KBCT KO KSEC KOLY KNAR KGHG KSAF KWNM KNUC KMNP KVIR KPOL KOCI KPIR KLIG KSAC KSTH KNPT KINL KPRP KRIM KICC KIFR KPRV KAWK KFIN KT KVRC KR KHDP KGOV KPOW KTBT KPMI KPOA KRIF KEDEM KFSC KY KGCC KATRINA KWAC KSPR KTBD KBIO KSCI KRCM KNNB KBNC KIMT KCSY KINR KRAD KMFO KCORR KW KDEMSOCI KNEP KFPC KEMPI KBTR KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNPP KTTB KTFIN KBTS KCOM KFTN KMOC KOR KDP KPOP KGHA KSLG KMCR KJUST KUM KMSG KHPD KREC KIPRTRD KPREL KEN KCSA KCRIM KGLB KAKA KWWT KUNP KCRN KISLPINR KLFU KUNC KEDU KCMA KREF KPAS KRKO KNNC KLHS KWAK KOC KAPO KTDD KOGL KLAP KECF KCRCM KNDP KSEAO KCIS KISM KREL KISR KISC KKPO KWCR KPFO KUS KX KWCI KRFD KWPG KTRD KH KLSO KEVIN KEANE KACW KWRF KNAO KETTC KTAO KWIR KVCORR KDEMGT KPLS KICT KWGB KIDS KSCS KIRP KSTCPL KDEN KLAB KFLOA KIND KMIG KPPAO KPRO KLEG KGKG KCUM KTTP KWPA KIIP KPEO KICR KNNA KMGT KCROM KMCC KLPM KNNPGM KSIA KSI KWWW KOMS KESS KMCAJO KWN KTDM KDCM KCM KVPRKHLS KENV KCCP KGCN KCEM KEMR KWMNKDEM KNNPPARM KDRM KWIM KJRE KAID KWMM KPAONZ KUAE KTFR KIF KNAP KPSC KSOCI KCWI KAUST KPIN KCHG KLBO KIRCOEXC KI KIRCHOFF KSTT KNPR KDRL KCFC KLTN KPAOKMDRKE KPALAOIS KESO KKOR KSMT KFTFN KTFM KDEMK KPKP KOCM KNN KISLSCUL KFRDSOCIRO KINT KRG KWMNSMIG KSTCC KPAOY KFOR KWPR KSEPCVIS KGIV KSEI KIL KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KQ KEMS KHSL KTNF KPDD KANSOU KKIV KFCE KTTC KGH KNNNP KK KSCT KWNN KAWX KOMCSG KEIM KTSD KFIU KDTB KFGM KACP KWWMN KWAWC KSPA KGICKS KNUP KNNO KISLAO KTPN KSTS KPRM KPALPREL KPO KTLA KCRP KNMP KAWCK KCERS KDUM KEDM KTIALG KWUN KPTS KPEM KMEPI KAWL KHMN KCRO KCMR KPTD KCROR KMPT KTRF KSKN KMAC KUK KIRL KEM KSOC KBTC KOM KINP KDEMAF KTNBT KISK KRM KWBW KBWG KNNPMNUC KNOP KSUP KCOG KNET KWBC KESP KMRD KEBG KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KPWG KOMCCO KRGY KNNF KPROG KJAN KFRED KPOKO KM KWMNCS KMPF KJWC KJU KSMIG KALR KRAL KDGOV KPA KCRMJA KCRI KAYLA KPGOV KRD KNNPCH KFEM KPRD KFAM KALM KIPRETRDKCRM KMPP KADM KRFR KMWN KWRG KTIAPARM KTIAEUN KRDP KLIP KDDEM KTIAIC KWKN KPAD KDM KRCS KWBGSY KEAI KIVP KPAOPREL KUNH KTSC KIPT KNP KJUSTH KGOR KEPREL KHSA KGHGHIV KNNR KOMH KRCIM KWPB KWIC KINF KPER KILS KA KNRG KCSI KFRP KLFLO KFE KNPPIS KQM KQRDQ KERG KPAOPHUM KSUMPHUM KVBL KARIM KOSOVO KNSD KUIR KWHG KWBGXF KWMNU KPBT KKNP KERF KCRT KVIS KWRC KVIP KTFS KMARR KDGR KPAI KDE KTCRE KMPIO KUNRAORC KHOURY KAWS KPAK KOEM KCGC KID KVRP KCPS KIVR KBDS KWOMN KIIC KTFNJA KARZAI KMVP KHJUS KPKOUNSC KMAR KIBL KUNA KSA KIS KJUSAF KDEV KPMO KHIB KIRD KOUYATE KIPRZ KBEM KPAM KDET KPPD KOSCE KJUSKUNR KICCPUR KRMS KWMNPREL KWMJN KREISLER KWM KDHS KRV KPOV KWMNCI KMPL KFLD KWWN KCVM KIMMITT KCASC KOMO KNATO KDDG KHGH KRF KSCAECON KWMEN KRIC
PREL PINR PGOV PHUM PTER PE PREF PARM PBTS PINS PHSA PK PL PM PNAT PHAS PO PROP PGOVE PA PU POLITICAL PPTER POL PALESTINIAN PHUN PIN PAMQ PPA PSEC POLM PBIO PSOE PDEM PAK PF PKAO PGOVPRELMARRMOPS PMIL PV POLITICS PRELS POLICY PRELHA PIRN PINT PGOG PERSONS PRC PEACE PROCESS PRELPGOV PROV PFOV PKK PRE PT PIRF PSI PRL PRELAF PROG PARMP PERL PUNE PREFA PP PGOB PUM PROTECTION PARTIES PRIL PEL PAGE PS PGO PCUL PLUM PIF PGOVENRGCVISMASSEAIDOPRCEWWTBN PMUC PCOR PAS PB PKO PY PKST PTR PRM POUS PRELIZ PGIC PHUMS PAL PNUC PLO PMOPS PHM PGOVBL PBK PELOSI PTE PGOVAU PNR PINSO PRO PLAB PREM PNIR PSOCI PBS PD PHUML PERURENA PKPA PVOV PMAR PHUMCF PUHM PHUH PRELPGOVETTCIRAE PRT PROPERTY PEPFAR PREI POLUN PAR PINSF PREFL PH PREC PPD PING PQL PINSCE PGV PREO PRELUN POV PGOVPHUM PINRES PRES PGOC PINO POTUS PTERE PRELKPAO PRGOV PETR PGOVEAGRKMCAKNARBN PPKO PARLIAMENT PEPR PMIG PTBS PACE PETER PMDL PVIP PKPO POLMIL PTEL PJUS PHUMNI PRELKPAOIZ PGOVPREL POGV PEREZ POWELL PMASS PDOV PARN PG PPOL PGIV PAIGH PBOV PETROL PGPV PGOVL POSTS PSO PRELEU PRELECON PHUMPINS PGOVKCMABN PQM PRELSP PRGO PATTY PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PGVO PROTESTS PRELPLS PKFK PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PARAGRAPH PRELGOV POG PTRD PTERM PBTSAG PHUMKPAL PRELPK PTERPGOV PAO PRIVATIZATION PSCE PPAO PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PARALYMPIC PRUM PKPRP PETERS PAHO PARMS PGREL PINV POINS PHUMPREL POREL PRELNL PHUMPGOV PGOVQL PLAN PRELL PARP PROVE PSOC PDD PRELNP PRELBR PKMN PGKV PUAS PRELTBIOBA PBTSEWWT PTERIS PGOVU PRELGG PHUMPRELPGOV PFOR PEPGOV PRELUNSC PRAM PICES PTERIZ PREK PRELEAGR PRELEUN PHUME PHU PHUMKCRS PRESL PRTER PGOF PARK PGOVSOCI PTERPREL PGOVEAID PGOVPHUMKPAO PINSKISL PREZ PGOVAF PARMEUN PECON PINL POGOV PGOVLO PIERRE PRELPHUM PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PBST PKPAO PHUMHUPPS PGOVPOL PASS PPGOV PROGV PAGR PHALANAGE PARTY PRELID PGOVID PHUMR PHSAQ PINRAMGT PSA PRELM PRELMU PIA PINRPE PBTSRU PARMIR PEDRO PNUK PVPR PINOCHET PAARM PRFE PRELEIN PINF PCI PSEPC PGOVSU PRLE PDIP PHEM PRELB PORG PGGOC POLG POPDC PGOVPM PWMN PDRG PHUMK PINB PRELAL PRER PFIN PNRG PRED POLI PHUMBO PHYTRP PROLIFERATION PHARM PUOS PRHUM PUNR PENA PGOVREL PETRAEUS PGOVKDEM PGOVENRG PHUS PRESIDENT PTERKU PRELKSUMXABN PGOVSI PHUMQHA PKISL PIR PGOVZI PHUMIZNL PKNP PRELEVU PMIN PHIM PHUMBA PUBLIC PHAM PRELKPKO PMR PARTM PPREL PN PROL PDA PGOVECON PKBL PKEAID PERM PRELEZ PRELC PER PHJM PGOVPRELPINRBN PRFL PLN PWBG PNG PHUMA PGOR PHUMPTER POLINT PPEF PKPAL PNNL PMARR PAC PTIA PKDEM PAUL PREG PTERR PTERPRELPARMPGOVPBTSETTCEAIRELTNTC PRELJA POLS PI PNS PAREL PENV PTEROREP PGOVM PINER PBGT PHSAUNSC PTERDJ PRELEAID PARMIN PKIR PLEC PCRM PNET PARR PRELETRD PRELBN PINRTH PREJ PEACEKEEPINGFORCES PEMEX PRELZ PFLP PBPTS PTGOV PREVAL PRELSW PAUM PRF PHUMKDEM PATRICK PGOVKMCAPHUMBN PRELA PNUM PGGV PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PBT PIND PTEP PTERKS PGOVJM PGOT PRELMARR PGOVCU PREV PREFF PRWL PET PROB PRELPHUMP PHUMAF PVTS PRELAFDB PSNR PGOVECONPRELBU PGOVZL PREP PHUMPRELBN PHSAPREL PARCA PGREV PGOVDO PGON PCON PODC PRELOV PHSAK PSHA PGOVGM PRELP POSCE PGOVPTER PHUMRU PINRHU PARMR PGOVTI PPEL PMAT PAN PANAM PGOVBO PRELHRC

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 05GENEVA837, WTO TRIPS COUNCIL, MARCH 8-9, 2005

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05GENEVA837.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
05GENEVA837 2005-04-01 13:16 2011-08-30 01:44 UNCLASSIFIED US Mission Geneva
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 GENEVA 000837 
 
SIPDIS 
 
PASS USTR FOR MENDENHALL, ESPINEL, PECK 
STATE FOR WILSON, FELT 
USDA FOR FAS/ITP/SCHWARTZ, TTB/TOBIASSE 
USPTO FOR LASHLEY, SALMON 
USDOC FOR ITA/SCHLEGELMILCH 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: EAGR ETRD WTRO
SUBJECT:  WTO TRIPS COUNCIL, MARCH 8-9, 2005 
 
  1.   SUMMARY:  The TRIPS Council meeting took place on 
     Wednesday and Thursday, March 8-9, 2005.  Mr. Tony Miller of 
     Hong Kong, China chaired the meeting.  There was an informal 
     session held on the morning of March 8, with the formal 
     session beginning on the afternoon of the first and 
     continuing to the next day.  Most discussion took place with 
     regard to two agenda items.  With respect to the Decision on 
     the implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on 
     the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, the African Group 
     tabled a paper clarifying some of their reasons for their 
     proposal from the previous meeting and the United States 
     tabled a paper clarifying views on the amendment process. 
     As to the relationship of TRIPS and the CBD, new documents 
     were tabled by Peru and the delegations of Brazil, India and 
     a number of co-sponsors. END OF SUMMARY 
 
  2.   INFORMAL SESSION 
 
  3.   The TRIPS Council met in informal session on the 
     morning of December 1.  The Chair raised three issues for 
     discussion:  (1) the decision on the implementation of 
     paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement 
     and Public Health, (2) structure of discussions under the 
     agenda items relating to Article 27(3)(b), the relationship 
     of TRIPS and CBD and protection of traditional knowledge 
     (TK) and folklore, and (3) implementation issues. 
 
  4.   The Nigerian delegation made a brief statement under 
     item one that its delegation would make a submission at the 
     formal session.  The Chair then asked whether any delegation 
     had (1) any additional flexibility on the matter in order to 
     meet the deadline, and (2) if meeting the deadline was not 
     possible, any ideas on further work.  No delegation took the 
     floor. 
 
  5.   On the second item, the Chair noted that he had 
     undertaken consultations on this issue and noted widespread 
     view that current discussions were fruitful and allowing all 
     views.  He would present no new proposal on how to pursue 
     work and suggested that we take up the three agenda items 
     together, as in past meetings, based on the contribution of 
     Members.  No delegation commented on this issue. 
 
  6.   On implementation, the Chair noted that a progress 
     report would be prepared and recalled the five options:  (1) 
     resolve issue, (2) no further action, (3) refer issue to a 
     negotiating body, (4) work under subsidiary body under the 
     TNC, (5) undertake further work at the TNC.  The Chair noted 
     that his consultations included a wide variety of responses. 
     For example, some delegations wanted issues to move to a 
     negotiating body, others saw that the Ministerial 
     declaration did not include negotiations on these issues and 
     that a negotiating body or the TNC would not be acceptable. 
     He noted some delegations identified tirets 88 and 95, both 
     relating to the relationship of the TRIPS Agreement and the 
     Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), as priorities. 
 
  7.   India gave a statement noting the importance of issues 
     relating to the relationship of the TRIPS Agreement and the 
     CBD.  The Indian delegation asked the Chair to conduct 
     dedicated consultations on the issue in his role as Friend 
     of the DG.  Brazil quickly supported the suggestion for 
     consultations.  The delegations of Ecuador, Peru, Thailand, 
     Dominican Republic, Turkey, Bolivia all supported the 
     request for consultations.  Japan initially objected to the 
     consultations citing potential duplication of work and 
     noting WIPO as the appropriate forum for discussion of these 
     issues.   The US noted that we were satisfied with the work 
     of TRIPS Council on these issues, but we did not object to 
     consultations. 
 
  8.   In response, the Chair asked whether delegations were 
     ready to hold such consultations at that moment.  India and 
     Brazil took the floor to welcome consultations and noted 
     that the TRIPS Council should focus on finding the contours 
     of a solution in its work, with India in particular stating 
     that a disclosure requirement had overwhelming support and 
     the Council should start work on an amendment of the TRIPS 
     Agreement.  Brazil also requested a work program on the 
     issue.  Ecuador, Uganda, Malaysia, Peru, Zimbabwe, and India 
     all took the floor to support new patent disclosure 
     requirements.  Uganda cited the need for more input from 
     Africa as this region was a subject for "plunder." 
 
  9.   The US noted its previous paper on the issue, that it 
     did not believe there was a conflict between the TRIPS and 
     the CBD and that it does not support new patent disclosure 
     requirements to resolve this issue.  The US noted its 
     proposals for alternative solutions to the widely shared 
     objectives of providing prior informed consent, equitable 
     benefit-sharing from the use of genetic resources and/or 
     traditional knowledge and preventing erroneously granted 
     patents. 
 
  10.  AGENDA 
 
  11.  Many agenda items passed without significant 
     discussion.  These items included:  notifications under 
     provisions of the TRIPS agreement, review of implementation 
     of the TRIPS Agreement under Article 71.1, review of the 
     provisions of the section on geographical indications under 
     Article 24.2, follow-up to the review under paragraph 2 of 
     the decision on the implementation of TRIPS Article 66.2, 
     technical cooperation and capacity-building, special and 
     differential treatment proposals referred to the council, 
     and observer status of intergovernmental organizations.  A 
     read-out of the remaining agenda items follows below. 
 
  12.  REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION 
 
  13.  Upon receipt of outstanding answers, the follow-up to 
     the review of Armenia was deleted from the Council's Agenda. 
 
  14.  review of the provisions of Article 27.3(b), the 
     relationship of the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and the 
     protection of traditional knowledge and folklore 
 
  15.  Peru first made a general statement that TRIPS Council 
     was the proper forum for this topic and that the discussion 
     was sufficiently mature and needed concrete action.  Peru 
     wanted a solution by the end of the development round in 
     order to allow developing countries to solve the problems 
     they have.  Peru then introduced its document IP/C/W/441, 
     noting that various offices in its government are 
     investigating 50 products of Peruvian to determine whether 
     country of origin receives.  They stressed the large number 
     of resources needed to search and analyze patents of major 
     patent offices in the US, Japan and Europe, but they feel 
     the need to do so in order to combat bio-piracy. 
 
  16.  Brazil, on behalf of Brazil, India and a number of co- 
     sponsors, introduced a paper (IP/C/W/442) explaining the 
     proposal for a new patent disclosure requirement to disclose 
     evidence of equitable benefit-sharing under a relevant 
     national regime consistent with an earlier unsuccessful 
     proposal by the co-sponsors to establish a checklist for 
     TRIPS Council work in this area.  Then, only as the 
     delegation of Brazil, they expressed sympathy for Peru and 
     noted a number of examples in which others had attempted to 
     take out patent rights on genetic resources and traditional 
     knowledge from the Amazon regions of Brazil, but also 
     someone "stealing" the name of a fruit and using it as a 
     trademark. 
 
  17.  India then intervened to support the introduction of 
     document IP/C/W/442 by Brazil and to emphasize its view that 
     a mandatory international patent disclosure requirement is 
     necessary to achieve our objectives.  India then introduced, 
     on behalf of India and Brazil, the paper IP/C/W/443, which 
     provides "technical comments," point-by-point, on the 
     previous submission by the United States (IP/C/W/434). 
     Their general comments were that they agreed with the United 
     States that national laws are essential, but that they are 
     not enough as access and benefit-sharing was only effective 
     if requirements were mandatory and enforceable across 
     borders.  While they agreed that patenting, per se, does not 
     constitute misappropriation, they stated that disclosure 
     requirements help identify "opportunity of 
     misappropriation."  They believed that this discussion 
     showed that there is no alternative to mandatory patent 
     disclosure requirements to achieve the shared objectives of 
     the TRIPS Council and that action was needed to address the 
     mandate under paragraphs 12 and 19 of the Doha Ministerial 
     Declaration. 
 
  18.  A large number of developing countries, including 
     China, Cuba, Ecuador, Indonesia, Thailand, Kenya expressed 
     support for document IP/C/W/442 and called for a 
     satisfactory solution for the Doha round on these issues. 
 
  19.  New Zealand stated that it saw value in exploring how 
     IP can assist implementation of the CBD, but had no 
     definitive view, although it noted that disclosure, in 
     particular of source and/or country of origin, might support 
     CBD.  They stated that, nonetheless, national systems were 
     to play a primary role and the answers to non-compliance 
     with prior informed consent and benefit-sharing were not in 
     the patent system, which was not the appropriate means to 
     ensure prior informed consent and benefit-sharing.  New 
     Zealand noted that only a handful of countries have 
     implemented ABS systems, without which patent disclosure 
     cannot even play a supporting role.  New Zealand further 
     stated that Members should be realistic and not overestimate 
     potential "green gold."  They further noted that they 
     supported the Canadian proposal to see how systems would 
     work in practice. 
 
  20.  Australia stated that is saw no conflict between TRIPS 
     and the CBD, and that the role of patent system here is not 
     clear.  Australia noted that the possible effects of 
     invalidating patents, incdlugin that there would be no way 
     to share benefits.  They were also wary of ongoing burdens 
     on patent applications and patent offices. 
  21.  The EC noted their new paper, submitted to the WIPO, 
     which proposes a disclosure requirement for origin, but not 
     for evidence of prior informed consent or benefit-sharing, 
     as these latter two proposals would seriously overburden 
     patent offices.  They also noted that certificates of origin 
     may be a good idea, but not at this stage.  The EC also did 
     not support any sanctions inside the patent system that, for 
     example, would include revocation of a patent. 
 
  22.  The United States stated that it sees no conflict 
     between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.  The US maintained 
     that the most effective means to achieve the objectives of 
     authorized access to genetic resources and the equitable 
     sharing of benefits of such resources is through tailored, 
     national solutions to meet practical concerns and actual 
     needs, while the proposed new patent disclosure requirement 
     will not achieve these important objectives and may have 
     significant negative consequences, such as undermining the 
     economic development incentives that patents provide as well 
     as undermining potential benefit-sharing from patents.  On 
     this point, it was noted that the proposed remedy of some, 
     invalidating a patent based on inadequate disclosure, would 
     destroy the benefit sought, rather than ensuring such a 
     benefit accrues to the appropriate party.  The US noted 
     growing recognition that new patent disclosure requirements, 
     in and of themselves, will not work to ensure the objectives 
     sought and that there is growing recognition of the 
     necessity of contract-based access and benefit-sharing 
     systems.  The US also noted Peru's paper, and noted that the 
     US had reviewed certain patents granted on maca and 
     chancapiedra, mentioned in the paper, that appeared to 
     fulfill patentability criteria and did not represent 
     examples of biopiracy.  The US then rebutted arguments that 
     new patent disclosure requirements may be necessary to 
     enforce ABS regimes, noting that such regimes can be 
     adequately enforced by criminal and civil provisions outside 
     the patent system. 
 
  23.  Turkey noted that this issue was as important as GI 
     extension, they welcomed the EC proposal at WIPO and stated 
     that there is a need for the global problem of bio-piracy. 
     Norway noted that it is reviewing its policy, that it viewed 
     the EC proposal very positively, and continues to consider 
     WIPO very important. 
 
  24.  Canada associated with the statements of Australia and 
     New Zealand, and stated that there is no conflict between 
     TRIPS and CBD.  They remained unconvinced that patent law 
     was the best way to ensure prior informed consent or benefit- 
     sharing.  Canada expressed that it was prepared to work with 
     an "open mind" and they thanked Peru and the United States 
     for an exchange based on real-life situations and would 
     invite others to do so. 
 
  25.  Japan noted that there is no conflict between TRIPS and 
     CBD.  As to proposals on patent disclosure, these needed to 
     be viewed from the perspective of the patent system.  They 
     noted that disclosure of genetic resources should be 
     discussed at the IGC of WIPO and noted that the DG of WIPO 
     has stated that this should be done in an accelerated 
     manner.  Japan stated that it shared the views of the United 
     States to tackle biopiracy in that the US proposal helps to 
     attack biopiracy without burdening the patent system. 
 
  26.  Peru took the floor again to thank Brazil, India and 
     the EC for their submissions and to have some additional 
     comments to the statement of the US.  They noted that the 
     searches they have cited are illustrative of their processes 
     and not evidence of biopiracy, but only where there could be 
     a problem.  Peru stressed that they wanted to show that if a 
     disclosure requirement were to be implemented it would be 
     much simpler for developing countries to monitor bio-piracy. 
     Currently, having to search patent databases was time 
     consuming and expensive and all costs were on provider 
     countries. 
 
  27.  Switzerland supported more discussions with respect to 
     ABS systems currently in force at the national level.  They 
     then addressed questions to other delegations.  To Brazil, 
     India and the co-sponsors of their documents, they asked 
     questions regarding definitions of "misappropriation" and 
     "biopiracy" as well as "country of origin."  To the United 
     States, they asked about the applicability of the contract- 
     based approach to transboundary cases.  They also asked some 
     technical questions to the EC. 
 
  28.  Philippines supported Brazil, India and others and 
     stressed that national benefit-sharing schemes are not seen 
     as proving to be adequate. 
 
  29.  Brazil and India took the floor again at the end of the 
     session to stress points made previously regarding the 
     discussion.  In particular Brazil emphasized that it had 
     never suggested that patent disclosure requirements would 
     solve all the problems that developing countries face, but 
     that it can be a contribution.  While many countries have 
     not set up ABS systems, yet, all CBD Members were expected 
     to implement prior informed consent and equitable benefit- 
     sharing and these principles must be respected even where 
     regimes have not yet been set up in that country.  Brazil 
     then noted other forums, such as WIPO, cited by Members as 
     relevant.  Brazil then noted that not only the IGC, but also 
     the PCT as well as the SPLT, where some were trying to 
     undermine flexibilities under TRIPS.  India then emphasized 
     a number of general points, including their view that patent 
     disclosure requirements are necessary for an eventual 
     solution.  They also rebutted the EC argument that only 
     disclosure of origin is mature, noting that disclosure of 
     evidence of prior informed consent and equitable benefit- 
     sharing is also necessary.  They also looked forward to 
     consultations held by the Chair, as Friend of the DG, on 
     this issue. 
 
 
  30.  Decision on the implementation of paragraph 6 of the 
     Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health 
 
 
  31.  The Chair opened discussion by noting significant 
     differences among Members that were apparent from the 
     consultations that he had held.  Further, he noted new 
     papers from the African Group, the Commonwealth Secretariat, 
     and the United States. 
 
  32.  Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, introduced the 
     African Group proposal (IP/C/W/440) regarding legal 
     arguments supporting its previous proposal for an amendment 
     to the TRIPS Agreement to implement paragraph 11 of the 
     August 30, 2003 solution (IP/C/W/437). They maintained that 
     their proposal is based, as appropriate, on the Decision as 
     instructed by paragraph 11 and that the proposal eliminates 
     a number of provisions that, in their view, are redundant or 
     where the purpose was served in other parts of the TRIPS 
     Agreement, and believed their approach to be a viable basis 
     for undertaking an amendment.  With respect to the 
     Chairman's Statement, Nigeria stated that the purposes of 
     the Statement were already served or are redundant and 
     thereby no longer necessary or that the purposes were 
     already served by other parts of the TRIPS Agreement. 
 
  33.  Nigeria, in lieu of Barbados, also introduced the 
     document regarding the meeting of the Commonwealth 
     Secretariat on implementing the Decision on Paragraph 6 of 
     the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.  They noted 
     the following points in particular:  (1) the quality and 
     safety of medicines produced under compulsory license, (2) 
     concerns regarding Free Trade Agreement provisions regarding 
     undisclosed test data. 
 
  34.  The United States introduced a new paper, IP/C/W/444. 
     The United States noted strong support for the August 20, 
     2003 solution, stated its support for Members' effective and 
     appropriate use of the solution and remained committed to 
     reaching an expeditious consensus on the amendment process. 
     The US maintained that the amendment must preserve the 
     entire agreement reached in August 30, 2003 and must 
     therefore include an express reference to both the General 
     Council decision and the Chairman's Statement.  The US 
     reiterated that it viewed this as a technical exercise that 
     should not reopen substantive issues.  The US also noted 
     several concerns regarding the African Group proposal, 
     including that it does not make any reference to the 
     Chairman's Statement and that it omits key safeguards from 
     the decision.  The US reiterated that it prefers a footnote 
     approach that reference both the General Council decision 
     text and the Chairman's Statement as an optimum solution but 
     that it is willing to consider any other options for an 
     amendment that includes both the General Council decision 
     text and the Chairman's Statement. 
 
  35.  The EC noted that it was committed to the March 2005 
     deadline and that it viewed this process as a purely 
     technical exercise without re-opening substance.  They 
     stated that it was their impression that some delegations 
     were trying to get now what they were unable to achieve in 
     August 2003.  The EC did not share the African Group view 
     that some provisions are redundant or already covered by the 
     TRIPS Agreement.  They then listed changes made in a 
     paragraph-by-paragraph fashion.  They also stated that the 
     interpretation of "where appropriate" in the African Group 
     paper was too broad. 
 
  36.  Korea noted the long, difficult negotiations and stated 
     that substance of the August 30, 2003 solution should not be 
     reopened.  They noted that some provisions, such as the 
     preamble and paragraph 11 may be OK, it did not believe 
     elimination or modification of other provisions was 
     justified.  On the Chairman's Statement, they noted that it 
     was an integral part of the solution and that it contained 
     "key shared understandings" but that the legal status should 
     not be changed including the status of the voluntary opt- 
     outs. 
 
  37.  Canada spoke with reference to the Commonwealth paper 
     and noted that it appeared that the August 30, 2003 decision 
     was already working as evidence confirms that price levels 
     have fall to as low as one-tenth the price prior to the 
     August solution. 
 
  38.  Jamaica intervened first to note its participation in 
     the Commonwealth session and the emphasis on quality, safety 
     and effectiveness welcoming steps by exporters to ensure 
     that drugs produced under compulsory license meet safety 
     standards of exporting countries.  Jamaica then stated that 
     they did not support the footnote approach and did not 
     support including the Chairman's Statement as that had been 
     a confidence building measure that has served its purpose. 
 
  39.  The delegations of Argentina welcomed the African Group 
     Proposal as helping to allow an amendment within the time 
     limits.  Brazil suggested that it was a good basis for work, 
     and noted that it reflected the decision to work "where 
     appropriate."  India also stated that the African Group 
     proposal was a good basis for further contributions. 
 
  40.  Japan stated that the Council should put what was 
     agreed into a TRIPS amendment not to interpret what was 
     agreed.  The footnote is the simplest and surest way.  They 
     then stated that the Council should not re-negotiate what 
     was agreed.  Japan also noted a number of problems with 
     IP/C/W/437, including that it does not include certain 
     provisions and modifies others and further does not refer to 
     the Chairman's Statement. 
 
  41.  Uganda noted that it considers the August 2003 solution 
     as an important step to ensure access.  However, it noted 
     concerns regarding how free trade agreements might prevent a 
     member from taking steps to ensure public health and asked 
     the United States to clarify its statement made at the 
     Commonwealth workshop. 
 
  42.  In response, the United States noted that the 
     provisions of its free trade agreements do not stand in the 
     way of the effective utilization of the August 30, 2003 
     solution.  Indeed, a number of its free trade agreements 
     expressly state that nothing in the intellectual property 
     chapters of those agreement affect the relevant country's 
     ability to take measures necessary to protect public health. 
 
  43.  Israel noted that it accepts the decision and statement 
     together.  However, they stated that there should be no 
     changes in incorporation, including the voluntary opt-outs. 
     Chinese Taipei stated that they will not support any 
     suggestion to alter the legal status of opt-outs.  Korea, 
     Hong Kong, China and Turkey also stated that the voluntary 
     nature of the opt-outs need to be preserved. 
 
  44.  Switzerland stated that the amendment should be a 
     purely technical amendment that fairly translates what was 
     agreed.   They stated the African Group proposal was 
     unacceptable as it would re-open negotiations.  They noted 
     that many countries, including Switzerland, were revising 
     their laws to implement the solution.  They added that a 
     footnote  or an annex could be used without affecting the 
     structure of the TRIPS Agreement, but they are open to other 
     forms of the solution.  Switzerland added that the 
     Chairman's Statement was part of the consensus and that, 
     otherwise, Switzlerand could not have shared the consensus. 
     There would have been no solution without the Chairman's 
     Statement. 
 
  45.  Kenya  began by noting that all Members were committed 
     to the March 2005 deadline.  Kenya stated that the decision 
     was very clear that the amendment was to be based "where 
     appropriate" on the Decision and not the Decision and the 
     Chairman's Statement.  They then went through a number of 
     provisions that they felt are not appropriate in the 
     amendment, including the preamble and certain other 
     paragraphs.  Further, Kenya stated that a footnote was not 
     the most appropriate way to amend.  He also noted that the 
     Chairman's Statement should not be reflected and raised the 
     issue, in the statement, regarding that the solution should 
     not be for commercial purposes.  They asked, if not, how can 
     developing countries build capacity in these are 
 
  46.  The Philippines added that we should go through the 
     African Group proposal paragraph-by-paragraph.  With respect 
     to the Chairman's Statement, the Philippines stated that, at 
     most, this was interpretive context.  They stated that the 
     Chairman's stated could be read out again at time of the 
     adoption of the amendment subject to the condition that any 
     Member be able to read out their own statement of 
     interpretation. 
 
  47.  Switzerland noted that a paragraph-by-paragraph 
     approach would open a "pandora's box" and may lead to re- 
     starting negotiations.  Instead, the Council should focus on 
     possibilities to integrated the decision as a whole into the 
     TRIPS Agreement.  As to the Chairman's Statement, he 
     reiterated that it allowed all Member to join consensus and 
     represented in its own terms "key shared understandings of 
     members."  Switzerland then stated that it was essential to 
     incorporate this. 
 
  48.  Malaysia noted differing views on the decision, but 
     cited the African Group paper that it was based "where 
     appropriate" on the decision.  Malaysia stated that it was 
     unacceptable to upgrade the status of the Chairman's 
     Statement by incorporating it and that it was also 
     unacceptable to re-read the Chairman's Statement as some 
     have suggested. 
 
  49.  The Chair then noted that, due to the fact that he 
     would be stepping down as Chair at the end of the meeting, 
     he proposed that he would suspend the meeting after this 
     session pending further consultations on this issue to see 
     if progress could be made by the end of March deadline. 
     There was no objection. At the time of this report, the 
     Chair has convened one set of further consultations on which 
     progress did not appear to be made. 
 
  50.  REQUEST FROM MALDIVES FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE 
     TRANSITION PERIOD UNDER ARTICLE 66.1 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 
 
  51.  The Chair noted that, in light of the tsunami in the 
     region, the Maldives may withdraw its graduate status under 
     the UN system.  The decision to graduate Maldives, in any 
     event, is not immediately effective and Maldives would 
     retain its least developed country status until December 
     2005.  There would be no TRIPS Council issue until 2006.  In 
     this light, the Chair suggested the TRIPS Council take up 
     the matter later this issue, and that consultations be 
     coordinated between the TRIPS Council Chair and the Chair of 
     the Committee on Trade and Development (CTD). 
 
  52.  NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS 
 
  53.  Korea began by noting that it shares the view of the 
     vast majority that non-violation, nullification and 
     impairment (NVNI) complaints were designed primarily for 
     market access and would introduce uncertainties into the 
     TRIPS Agreement.  Peru restated that it does not believe 
     that NVNI is appropriate in TRIPS and that it thought the 
     issue should be wrapped up in the Hong Kong ministerial at 
     the end of 2005.  For various reasons, Ecuador, the EC, the 
     Philippines, Canada, Brazil, India, Malaysia, and Argentina 
     all spoke to oppose the application of these complaints in 
     TRIPS. 
 
  54.  The United States noted the US continued to consider 
     that NVNI complaints are fully appropriate in the TRIPS 
     context and expect the moratorium to expire at the Sixth 
     Ministerial conference. 
 
  55.  Japan supported continued discussion of the scope and 
     modalities and such complaints in the TRIPS context. 
 
  56.  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE 
     WTO 
 
  57.  The EC raised the issue of lack of compliance by the 
     United States with the WTO panel decision on the Section 
     110(5) dispute under TRIPS Article 68.  They asked three 
     questions:  (1)  Are there any specific legislative 
     initiatives in the US to bring the Copyright Act into 
     compliance with TRIPS?  In other words, during the past 4 
     years, has the US Congress discussed any piece of 
     legislation amending Section 110(5) of the Copyright Act? 
     (2) What specific steps is the US Administration taking to 
     ensure that the US brings its Copyright Act into conformity 
     with the TRIPS Agreement?  Has there been any written 
     communication to Congress that the US could share? (3) When 
     does the US consider that it will finalize its work to 
     comply with the WTO ruling, which was adopted in July 2000? 
 
  58.  The United States took the floor to respond that the 
     The U.S. Administration has been consulting on this matter 
     with the U.S. Congress, and we will continue to work with 
     the Congress and confer with the European Communities in 
     order to reach a mutually satisfactory resolution of this 
     matter, although it noted that the Dispute Settlement Body 
     was, in its view, the more appropriate forum for a 
     discussion of disputes, including compliance issues related 
     to those disputes. 
 
  59.  OTHER BUSINESS 
 
  60.  The EC raised the issue of enforcement and requested 
     that this item be added permanently to the agenda of the 
     TRIPS Council.  They noted global problems of counterfeit 
     goods that threaten legimitate industries. 
 
  61.  Brazil, Argentina, India, and the Philippines noted 
     that they did not have advance notice of this issue and did 
     not wish to agree to a permanent additional agenda item at 
     this time. 
 
  62.  The Chair, noted that as long as Rules 3, 4 and 6 of 
     the General Council Rules of Procedure are followed, any 
     item can appear on the agenda.  The Chair also noted that it 
     was not WTO practice to bar discussion of an item unless it 
     is outside the terms of reference of that body. 
 
  63.  ELECTION OF CHAIRPERSON 
 
  64.  The TRIPS Council unanimously elected Ambassador Choi 
     of the Republic of Korea as the next TRIPS Council Chair. 
  65. 
     DEILY