PHM-Exch> Did Some Developed Countries Oust Africa Group’s Key Negotiator, a Forceful Voice on Equity Provisions in INB-IHR Negotiations?

[Claudio Schuftan]

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: <yokeling at twnetwork.org>
Date: Fri, Dec 1, 2023 at 4:14 PM
Subject: Did Some Developed Countries Oust Africa Group’s Key Negotiator, a
Forceful Voice on Equity Provisions in INB-IHR Negotiations?


Did Some Developed Countries Oust Africa Group’s Key Negotiator, a Forceful
Voice on Equity Provisions in INB-IHR Negotiations?
https://genevahealthfiles.substack.com/p/us-eu-namibia-africa-pandemic-treaty-ihr-geneva

Delegations of a group of developing countries were taken by utter surprise
this week, when it became known that one of their top negotiators from the
influential Africa Group, has been abruptly asked to pack up and head home
in the midst of crucial negotiations in global health.

This development is striking given the decisive role played by a prominent
Namibian diplomat who has been known for taking strong positions on equity
related provisions in on-going global health negotiations to reform the
governance of health emergencies.

This transpired just as Geneva is gearing up for a crucial week-long
meeting where the Intergovernmental Negotiating Body on the Pandemic
Agreement will meet at WHO during 4-6 December
<https://apps.who.int/gb/inb/e/e_inb-7.html>, immediately followed by the
Working Group set up to amend the IHR during 7-8 December
<https://apps.who.int/gb/wgihr/e/e_wgihr-6.html>.

The ostensible reason was the conclusion of the term of the diplomat from
Namibia, but according to several sources knowledgeable about the
developments, there has been allegedly intense pressure from the U.S. and
the E.U. to “replace the negotiator”. The U.S. responded to our queries and
said that this was “categorically false.” (See comments from the U.S.
below). The EU said that “We have no knowledge of such incidents.” (See
comments from the EU below). No response was received from Namibian
authorities by the time this story went to print.

It is learned that the diplomat has been given just days to pack up and
leave. It is also understood that despite his deep involvement in the
sensitive stages of these negotiations, he has been reportedly “taken off”
the negotiating team with immediate effect. (The diplomat is scheduled to
leave *ahead* of next week’s meeting in Geneva, according to sources).

The alacrity of such a response from Namibian authorities seemed odd and
has raised eyebrows and much concern among health diplomats immersed in
on-going informal consultations on the pandemic agreement, and the
amendments to the IHR.

We are given to understand that although the term of the said diplomat
concluded in August this year, the Namibian health ministry had tried
ensured his engagement till the conclusion of the negotiations in May 2024.
It appears the efforts made by the health ministry have failed and the
foreign ministry has prevailed, according to sources in the Africa Group.

“This is a very serious matter that needs to be analysed if indeed a few
countries put pressure on Namibia,” a senior diplomat from a large
developing country told us this week.

For this story, we spoke with a cross-section of countries to get as much
understanding of back-door diplomacy as is possible under the circumstances.
*PRESSURE AS A TACTIC IN MULTILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS*

To be sure, this isn’t just about one country, or even just the Africa
Group. The allegation that some rich countries could pressure a developing
country to replace a negotiator especially one who is seen as building
coalitions, taking tough positions and crafting strategies for
negotiations, is serious and not merely coincidental, many diplomatic
sources told Geneva Health Files this week.

Negotiators of some countries indicated that diplomatic correspondence from
these developed countries communicated the displeasure with the positions
taken by developing countries. So, while these kinds of communications are
not out of ordinary, the easing out a negotiator will never be discussed in
writing, a senior diplomat clarified.

(Sources point out that senior American diplomats met
<https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0dPRQ8ekdYUWUDXyJnzs9CgVoTRCPxFgoPxFodvqAPkc8VrkhTbHMiByMqrgRxP6Ll&id=100064442331526>
Namibian
authorities recently.)

Observers who have tracked multilateral negotiations globally, say that
this is a classic, desperate move that some countries apply, if they find
some negotiators as “simply too good at their job.”

One expert told us, that unlike in developed countries, developing
countries have limited capacity. Successful negotiations for developing
countries sometimes hinge on individuals. “There is no institutional
capacity in many small countries. So, if you attack a key negotiator, then
you just exclude a country and everything that a negotiator can represent –
simply because there are not too many of them who could be as skillful,”
one legal expert fluent in global health negotiations told us.

During the contentious TRIPS Waiver negotiations
<https://www.amazon.com/TRIPS-Waiver-Negotiations-Organization-October/dp/2970162709>
at
WTO, a key negotiator from a developing country was replaced, again at the
insistence of some developed countries that opposed the waiver proposal,
sources in trade circles pointed out.

Even in the current context of on-going negotiations at WHO, at least one
Latin American country and an Asian country, have allegedly been pressured
by the U.S. in the recent past. But these diplomats were backed by their
capitals, sources in Geneva told us.

Sources also pointed to the role of the foreign ministry relative to the
limited power of the health ministry, during these complex, multi-faceted
discussions at WHO. This points to a hierarchy in the decision-making even
within countries despite the fact that what is being negotiated are health
matters within the scope and competence of health ministries.

(Undoubtedly these are very complex considerations, where such decisions
are shaped also by outcomes in other disciplines beyond health.)

In recent months, countries have had mixed experiences in Geneva in the
context of these negotiations. In some countries, health ministries were
able to persuade their respective foreign ministries to extend the terms of
diplomats with specialized knowledge of both health and law. In others,
changes were made because diplomats could not stay beyond their terms
despite the critical role they were playing in these negotiations for the
last few years (in one case, a change of government was cited as a reason).
But it is extremely rare, that a diplomat was given barely days to pack up
and leave at the insistence of the capital - as the Namibian example shows.

The case illustrates the many challenges in the evolution of global health
diplomacy, where politics and technical considerations come together in
often messy ways.

For many developing country diplomats, the replacement of the Namibian
diplomat is being seen as “a severe blow” at this stage of the
negotiations, when countries are headed to a careful consideration of
trade-offs and compromises within and across these parallel tracks of
negotiations of the INB and the IHR.

“Not every one has the same capacity, courage and knowledge”, a fellow
health negotiator in Geneva pointed out.

“By breaking the dynamic between countries with such a sudden, allegedly
politically motivated replacement, negotiating capacities of blocs of
countries are affected. It is nearly impossible to recreate the same
dynamic between groups of negotiators in terms of planning and strategy,” a
developing country diplomat explained to us this week.
*THE AFRICA GROUP POSITION ON “TRICKY” ISSUES IN THE PANDEMIC AGREEMENT
DISCUSSIONS*

>From demanding for “a package”
<https://genevahealthfiles.substack.com/p/-prevention-over-response-ihr-who-negotiations>
to
tie both the processes of a pandemic agreement and meaningful amendments to
the IHR, to obligations on financing; from pushing for provisions on access
and benefits sharing to making statements on the current conflict in the
Middle East
<https://genevahealthfiles.substack.com/p/palestine-inb-equity-statements-ip-financing>,
the Africa Group, among other developing countries, has taken several
strong positions over the last few years.

And Namibia, has also played a role in articulating some of these positions
and for pushing back on several proposals by developed countries including
on surveillance measures, One Health and other areas of divergence.

In public statements made at WHO meetings, Namibia has raised questions on
procedure, process, involvement of experts, among a range of other
modalities-related questions in the course of these negotiations – like
many other developing countries. The country also has also taken a strong
public stance against involving the pharmaceutical industry in the drafting
group processes in these negotiations.

While it is within the sovereign right of every state to require that their
diplomats vacate their post after a certain period of time, some delegates
and NGOs who are involved in the negotiations are perplexed by the decision
of the Namibian Government as the negotiations which are set to conclude by
May 2024, have entered a rigid schedule of intersessional meetings
<https://apps.who.int/gb/gov/en/intergovernmental-meeting_en.html>.

That Namibia has been a strong advocate for provisions that push for
operationalisation of equity is lost on no one. As a part of Africa Group,
Namibia has been pushing for legally binding provisions on technology
transfer to diversify production in all regions of the world and the
inclusion of the common but differentiated responsibilities into
international health law.

Together with Brazil, Indonesia, and Thailand, on behalf of 72 Developing
Countries, Namibia had also taken on the role of leading a gigantic effort
at the WHO which is aimed at ensuring that manufacturers share benefits,
including annual monetary contributions, for using genetic resources from
developing countries to develop vaccines, therapeutics, and other health
products.

This proposal for a multilateral mechanism of access and benefits sharing
which is being fiercely contested is the fulcrum on which the whole
pandemic treaty rest as we reported earlier in the year (See: *Pathogen
Access And Benefits Sharing: The Fulcrum On Which Equity Objectives Rest?
<https://genevahealthfiles.substack.com/p/pathogen-access-and-benefits-sharing>)
*

Given the influence that Namibia has exerted, some delegates and
representatives of NGOs in Geneva, are questioning whether the decision of
the Namibian Government to abruptly move out the said diplomat, was
directly influenced by some developed countries.

Sources suggest that developed countries have been frustrated with these
provisions and have tried to reason with delegates of developing countries
to relinquish some of their positions on equity. After all, the sheer
divergence of countries on the question of ABS and other aspects is well
known.

As far as the curious case of the Namibia negotiator is concerned, many
questions remain unanswered.

The diplomat in question had in practice became one of the leading voices
within the African Group tasked with defending and finding appropriate
compromises on one of the biggest proposals that is being currently
considered by negotiators at the WHO.  Why remove one of the most effective
negotiators for the African Group from the battlefield, in what is one of
the most important multilateral treaty negotiations in global health, a
source familiar with the developments asked.
*RESPONSE FROM THE U.S. AND THE EU*

We sought to know from the U.S. and the EU, whether and to what extent
pressure was exerted on Namibian authorities.

It is learned that allegedly US government and the EU have been unhappy
with the positions taken by the Namibian government in the on-going global
health negotiations particularly on matters related to access and benefits
sharing among others. *(See verbatim public statements made by the US and
EU at WHO meetings, at the bottom of this story)*

In a statement responding to our queries, a U.S. official said, “Global
health security and pandemic accord negotiations are top national security
priorities for the United States. Of course, Member States often hold
differing positions, though we believe all are negotiating in good faith to
achieve a common goal. We urge all Member States to work through these
disagreements to arrive at consensus solutions.”

We asked if the US government put pressure and if it indicated a preference
that the foreign ministry of Namibia must replace a key Namibian negotiator
closely involved with the Pandemic Agreement negotiations in Geneva. The
official said, “This allegation is categorically false. Member States
decide for themselves how they will be represented in intergovernmental
negotiations.”

Specifically, on the said Namibian diplomat, the U.S. official said, “The
Namibian pandemic accord negotiator is a skilled diplomat who has helped
all Member States have a clearer understanding of developing country needs
and views of important issues in pandemic prevention, preparedness, and
response.”

Responding to our queries, a European diplomat said, “We have no knowledge
of such incidents. The EU has always pursued a constructive and inclusive
engagement with all partners and stakeholders in our negotiations on a
Pandemic Agreement.”

Queries sent to Ministry of International Relations and Cooperation, and
the Ministry of Health and Social Services in Namibia were unanswered by
the time we published this story.
*TAILPIECE*

Unless the Namibian authorities reverse this decision, or at a minimum
restore the access of the diplomat to on-going negotiations, this will be
seen as a blow to developing countries at this stage of the negotiations,
several southern diplomats told us.

“This has the potential to set off the negotiations in a certain direction.
And who knows if we will recover adequately,” one developing country
diplomat told us.

We have reported in these pages earlier on how crucial the role of the
Africa Group has been in these discussions. A number of countries,
including large emerging economies have often looked to the Africa Group to
push on equity-related provisions in these negotiations.

With one of the most effective interlocutors in these negotiations out of
the picture, the opposition to the most critical and trickiest issues in
these negotiations might now lose their sting.

With effectively six months left for the official deadline to conclude
these negotiations, the gloves are now off.

Incidentally, a few months ago, a senior Namibian minister also articulated
the need for decolonising negotiations at the multilateral level.

---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20231201/11bb1e45/attachment-0001.htm>