Peter Mandelson has repeatedly objected to Bangkok’s decision to issue compulsory licenses for a growing number of meds over concerns its citizens can not afford them. Last year, he came out against the policy because it “would be detrimental to the patent system, and to innovation and the development of new medicines.” And he wrote a similarly worded letter to Thailand earlier this year.

So the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament requested that he clarify his position, since it contradicts the EU commitment to a World Health Organization agreement and a European Parliament resolution that passed last July. In a brief speech, Mandelson walked a fine line by saying there is no objection to compulsory licensing, per se, only Thailand’s approach to the issue.

“We do not question the right of any country to issue compulsory licenses…The reason why I wrote to the Thai government is that we are concerned about the possible consequences of a systematic recourse to compulsory licenses. Providing affordable health care requires a mix of various policies.

“For developing countries, compulsory licensing can be part of that mix - especially in cases where price agreements can not be reached with pharmaceutical companies. However, from a policy point of view, systematic recourse to compulsory licensing is not a sustainable approach.

“First, it may become an easy excuse for governments not to take their responsibilities in setting up efficient reimbursement mechanisms for health expenses, or not to negotiate lower prices with the manufacturers. Secondly, it would eventually be detrimental to the innovation and the development of new medicines.

“This is why we have encouraged the Thai authorities to engage in direct discussions with the manufacturers. I believe the latter also have to show some flexibility - with a view to establishing a long term and effective partnership to the benefit of the populations in need.”