The United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) convened its 35th session from 6 June 2017 to 23 June 2017. During HRC35 (which took place in Room XX of the UN Palais des Nations in Geneva), a group of 21 countries tabled a resolution on the right to health. The group of sponsors for the right to health resolution include: Argentina, Belgium, Brazil, Bulgaria, Colombia, Ecuador, Egypt, Haiti, Honduras, Luxembourg, Malta, Mozambique, Paraguay, Peru, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Timor-Leste, Qatar, Thailand, and Turkey. On Friday morning, 23 June 2017, the HRC passed resolution A/HRC/35/L.18/Rev.1 on the right to health.

However, the United States of America disassociated from operative paragraph 9 of the resolution. Sources close to the negotiations have informed KEI that for the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the resolution's operative language on technology transfer breached the United States' red lines (Note: USTR did not attend the deliberations of the Human Rights Council but sent instructions from Washington, DC).

OP9 reads:

9. Calls upon the international community to continue to assist developing countries in promoting the full realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including through access to medicines, in particular essential medicines, vaccines, diagnostics and medical devices that are affordable, safe, efficacious and of quality; financial and technical support and training of personnel, while recognizing that the primary responsibility for promoting and protecting all human rights rests with States; and recognizes the fundamental relevant importance of the transfer of environmentally sound technologies on favourable terms, including on concessional and preferential terms, as mutually agreed;

In the United States' explanation of its position, the representative of the United States (Jason Ross Mack) noted,

However, the United States disassociates from the reference to technology transfer in operational paragraph 9. For the United States, this language will have no standing in future negotiations. The United States continues to oppose language that we believe undermines intellectual property rights.

Clearly, for the Trump administration, language on technology transfer (contained in a right to health resolution) was a bridge too far, so much so that the delegation characterized it as undermining intellectual property rights.

The United States also "expressed disappointment" with operative paragraph 13 with its focus on “contributions of the right to health framework to the effective implementation and achievement of the health-related Sustainable Development Goals.” The US felt it was inappropriate for the High Commissioner on Human Rights (Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein) to endeavor to frame the SDGs in a “right to health framework” asserting that there was no right to health framework language in the SDGs themselves.

Furthermore, the United States took another salvo at the UN Secretary-General's High Level Panel on Access to Medicines (not referenced in the resolution):

Furthermore, we note that certain recent UN reports have put forward a flawed understanding on issues of healthcare access, particularly with respect to access to medicines, and have generated divisiveness among Member States and the UN.

We strongly urge the UN to consider a new approach to analyzing healthcare that seeks to unite all of the parties responsible for delivering critical healthcare solutions to patients around the world.

To this end, the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines should not be used as a model for this new work.

Source: PHM