Dear Editor,

“The Eighth Report to the US Congress on the operation of the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act prepared by the Office of the United States Trade Representative has, briefly, but rather pointedly, drawn attention to the protracted delinquency of the Government of Guyana in the matter of creating an adequate legal framework for the protection of intellectual property.” (SN, January 15)

Guyana was rebuked over its indifference and weak archaic legislation governing intellectual property. This was claimed to be a studied disinclination to effectively enforce the weak existing laws. The US Trade Representative further referred to “Guyana’s deficiencies” in  inadequately protecting the intellectual property of foreign companies which will not seek to invest due to the “pirate industry.” However, the representative is conveniently overlooking the real dilemma facing Guyana.

The country is left to the whims of the multinationals, who have been exploiting Guyana’s natural resources with little or no transparency and accountability for countless decades. These powerful conglomerates are able to influence the government in pursuit of their narrow interests in mining, logging and other sectors. Illegal miners from outside are enjoying unprecedented freedom of trade in Guyana while doing little for the national economy.

The far-reaching environmental damage from mineral exploitation and the impact on the local communities does not seem to raise any eyebrow with the US Trade Representative. Then there is the growing illegal trade in drug-trafficking, which seemed to escape the attention of the US Trade Representative.

Global piracy on the high seas is also on the increase, with violent attacks mounted by pirates along the Somali Coast and other countries. The multinationals have accepted piracy as a new, emerging risk. In coming to terms with it, the multinationals are prepared to pay out vast fortunes to pirates for the release of hijacked ocean-going vessels with their cargo and occupants.

Against this dangerous and violent backdrop, Guyana with its relatively few inhabitants is being singled out for special attention by the influential US Trade Representative of the region on intellectual property. Literacy in poor and vulnerable countries like Guyana could end up in further decline as books, reading and other knowledge-based material comes into the focus of US Congress in their own backyard. The suffering and dire consequences in Haiti at this time, might not have been so overwhelming, had improvements in education and knowledge-based stock been encouraged, including on buildings that could have stood up far better to an earthquake.

On the issue, India has been using the indigenous neem tree over thousands of years as a pesticide, spermicide and for toothbrushes. The neem tree is a prominent feature of their traditional cultural heritage and widely used in medicinal, culinary, and religious ceremonies by the Indians. But the US company, WR Grace, the owner of a US patent on the insecticide process, promptly sued Indian firms against using their ancient processes with neem under their newly acquired intellectual property rights.

This is the nature of the harsh challenges facing the survival of poor nations against the thrust of the multinationals, that are far too eager to exploit and deprive indigenous communities of their natural resources. The weaker the governments of the poor nations, the more likely they will be open to exploitation by the multinationals.

In protecting these conglomerates, the EU has committed itself to enforcing intellectual property rights, including combating counterfeiting and piracy. This is seen as causing alarm to the EU over the implications for innovation, growth, employment and consumer health and safety. Intellectual property rights are mostly protected by each member’s national laws rather than the EU laws. In defending each individual EU member, the EU is looking at further harmonisation in the costly complications to defend intellectual property. A 2004 directive requires that all member states must apply effective, dissuasive and proportionate remedies and penalties against those engaged in counterfeiting and piracy and so creates a level playing field for rights holders in the EU. It means that all member states will have a similar set of measures, procedures and remedies available for rights holders to defend their intellectual property rights (be they copyright or related rights, trademarks, patents, designs, etc) if they are infringed.

Counterfeiters make expert use of current technology and trade and succeed in producing every imaginable type of fake. Where previously only luxury goods, fashion and music and film products fell victim, nowadays, counterfeiting affects foodstuffs, cosmetics, hygiene products, medicine and spare parts of cars, toys and various types of technical and electronic equipment.

This is regarded as posing an increasing danger to health and safety according to the EU, with consumers  often not aware that “when they buy a fake product there is a good chance that at least part of the money will go to organised crime or child labour.”

On September 2008 the council adopted a resolution on a comprehensive EU anti-counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan. This resolution endorsed the need to step up the fight against fake goods and called for the creation of a European Observatory on Counterfeiting and Piracy.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has also witnessed a general rise in internet scams including fake offers of employment at WIPO, training courses and e-mail prize awards. Many of these scams request detailed information and/or money, in connection with supposed registration fees, hotel reservations, employment opportunities, prizes or awards. They sometimes carry the WIPO logo, a photograph of the WIPO Director General and originate from, or refer to, e-mail addresses that resemble those of WIPO or the United Nations. (WIPO, December 21, 09, Geneva).

It seems that even these powerful esoteric bodies are unable to safeguard themselves against internet scams and the violation of their intellectual property rights. The EU has also recognized the enormous complications of policing IPR.  But the poor and vulnerable countries are being pressured into enforcing IPR as if it is just another simple circus act.

Even the powerful conglomerate Google, seems to have a human conscience when it comes to its worldwide internet community. Unable to meet its obligations to protect the personal details of its internet community in China, Google seems ready to pull the plug in protest. Serious concerns over human rights and the violation of their IPR in cyber space, has pushed Google to threaten swift action.

Yours faithfully,
Mac Mahase