CubaMinrex. Sitio del Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Cuba

Statement by Rodolfo Reyes Rodriguez, ambassador of the permanent mission of Cuba, on section 211 of the wto’s dispute settlement body (DSB)
September 21st, 2010.

Mr. Chairman:

Next month it will be twelve years of the enactment of the so-called Section 211, a legislation that is not in accordance with the principles of the national treatment and the most favoured nation treatment, according to a 2002 report of the Appellate Body.

It is extremely alarming that the U.S. authorities, most responsible for complying with the national rulings, maintain doing absolutely nothing regarding this case.

It is necessary to reiterate the defendant that each member shall ensure the conformity of their laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the imposed obligations, as provided in paragraph four of article XVI of the Marrakech Agreement.

The U.S. delegation has said many times in these meetings that the concerns expressed on the prolonged non-compliance situation are unfounded.

How is it possible to tell the members not to worry about an unresolved case, whose Appellate Body’s decision has more than eight years?

This is a case of concern to many members. In addition to the fact that its indefinite irresolution affects mainly a single developing country, the defaulter permanently demands the others to establish and enforce high standards on intellectual property rights, including, of course, criminal penalties.

Mr. Chairman,

When a member, as in this dispute, ignores the Appellate Body’s ruling, lacerates the multilateral system of dispute settlement. If rulings issued here are not going to be respected, what sense does it have to turn to the system to find a solution?

By virtue of Article 23 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding, in order to correct the violations of obligations under the covered agreements, Members will turn to the rules and procedures of the Understanding, thus avoiding the adverse consequences that unilateral actions cause to the multilateral trading system. However, if the defendant decides not to respect the ruling, he opts for the unilateral action, which in turn could lead to other actions in response, then the rules would be disrespected, rules that all, all members without exception, undertook to meet.

Mr. Chairman, it is not about complying with the recommendations and resolutions in most cases, it is about fulfilling with the Body’s rulings in all cases.

The defendant constantly reminds its trading partners that it is essential to comply with intellectual property rules. The spokesman of the Trade Representative said recently that the Special 301 is an essential tool that allows the U.S. government to protect the intellectual property rights beyond their borders.

The question to the Office of the Trade Representative is: who is ensuring respect for the intellectual property rights of third parties in the territory of the United States? It is very serious that it is precisely in the United States where the theft of recognized trademarks is enabled and facilitated, as in the case of HAVANA CLUB trademark.

Once again, we urge the parties in this dispute to act urgently to fully repeal Section 211, the only option that would put an end to this dispute.

Thank you very much.

(Cubaminrex-Embacuba Ginebra)