Karsten on Free Software

I missed an explosive afternoon. Thanks to Georg Greve, who took very thorough notes of the meetings, I’m nevertheless able to report to you. Man, whish I would’ve been there! Here goes.

While I was guessing on a last-minute compromise, with the US giving in, it seems that their usual lobbying groups (such as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), a well-known copyright bully, and the countless pharma groups) have been restating their whishes to the US delegation; the US representative remains entirely obstinate.

From what has leaked out of the informal meetings held during lunchtime, which lasted two hours longer than expected, was that the US delegate went ballistic. When the regular meeting was finally resumed at 17:30, the US stuck to their fixation to burying the development agenda in the meaningless PCIPD. They even had the chuzpah of calling their suggestion for a report, which just restated said fixation, “the only unbiased” one.

The Chairman, after the horse-trading sessions, reported that there were only very few delegations opposed to more IIMs. Guess who they are. Substracting those, there is broad consensus that the IIMs are the right forum for such an overarching debate.

Needless to say, heated debate ensued. The EU, which previously had agreed to continuing the IIM process because they reckon it won’t make a difference anyway, retracted from that position and lapsed back into PCIPD-mania.

This prompted the Indian statement: “We are being asked to switch from a horse to a mule in mid-stream.” The African Group, represented by Morocco, took it unto itself to once again bring up the demand for more IIMs.

For some reason, the US was not exactly enticed by the Argentinian suggestion of explicitely naming in the report the only two delegations refusing consensus on the IIM continuation: The US and Japan. This name-and-shame strategy would at least make it clear who is responsible for the fact that the past IIMs have mainly been wasted on procedural discussions.

If the US strategy was to draw the process out interminably by provoking endless procedural discussions, they certainly succeeded. They want the idea of a Development Agenda dead, gone and forgotten. No wonder, since the are the ones making the biggest profit from the status quo. (This somewhat reminds me of the Microsoft strategy in the EU antitrust case. Small wonder. Microsoft is probably footing the bill for the US delegation’s drinks after the meeting.

Now there will be only a factual report, containing what delegations said. Since the General Assembly will not only take place in the same room at the end of September, but will also be made up of the same people, the embittered fighting is sure to go on there. So that is where the question if there are to be more IIMs will be discussed.

Even though I have very few illusions about international policymaking left, I am disappointed by this outcome. The fact that one country – and always the same one, at that – is able to keep profiting from the status quo while people are dying as a consequence of their position – think medicines that are too expensive, think of people starving because they suffer from lack of education to such a degree that they cannot improve their economic situation – really angers me.

But then, this is not the last time these issues are discussed. This will not go away, we will not go away.