Said WHO, “[it] is not involved in financial negotiations, either in selling viruses or buying vaccine.”

Dr. Heymann, WHO assistant director-general for communicable diseases, adds: “Countries will negotiate bilaterally with vaccine manufacturers. We will certainly facilitate if countries are asking for support…”

So, how strong is this reassurance, given that vaccine manufacturers would consider profit its major reason for being? How humanitarian can we expect them to become?

In the end, with few bargaining chips, Indonesia had no other alternative than to give in to the constant vexation from other self-serving entities. Indonesia has been in a no-win situation from the very onset of these preposterous negotiations. If not WHO, some other super power would have pushed and prodded until the third world country gave in.

At the bottom line, the issue is moot and academic; fairly wanting “proper consideration and timing.” I can only regret: Equity of benefits for both developed and developing nations is but only a figment of some philanthropist's imagination.

Pity. Had Indonesia stood firmer, it could have made sure of priority access to vaccines and even free vaccines from manufacturers. It could have gone farther by stipulating that vaccines be made available for all third world countries at very affordable prices.

Had it demanded more, maybe when all hell breaks lose, the unexpected may not come at too steep a price for all.

After three months of negotiations with the World Health Organization (WHO), Indonesia finally surrenders to the global health body its precious H5N1 samples for vaccine development and production. Earlier, this Southeast Asian country from where 74 people have died of bird flu, had dug in its heels and refused to release samples, citing the fear that large pharmaceutical companies would use the virus to make vaccines that would be unaffordable to developing countries.

But Indonesia changed its mind. Whatever happened to Indonesia’s brave attempt to stand up for its fellow-third world countries until WHO addresses this pressing concern?

After all, WHO did not give any concrete assurance of how it would ensure that cash-strapped countries would benefit equally with cash-rich nations when time for handing out the fruits of sample-sharing.

Muted for reasons unclear, Indonesia held out, gave in: Did its cry for fairness register? Unless WHO presents clearly how the H5N1 study results will be shared, Indonesia’s efforts may very well all go to waste. And sad but true—even if the power struggle between super power and third world had ended in stalemate, Indonesia, with its impoverished majority, may likely be incapable of taking advantage of the vaccines once effective ones are developed.

“Previously, WHO used a mechanism that was not fair for developing countries,” Siti Fadilah Supari, the health minister, said at a March 27 press conference in Jakarta. “This mechanism was not fair and transparent in terms of the expectations of developing countries. We think that mechanism was more dangerous than the threat of pandemic H5N1 itself.” See full story on FluRadar

Not fair? Not transparent? Has this mechanism, this system been changed that Indonesia finally gave in? Is the “danger” no longer present? The danger is still there, and the glaring disparity still gnaws on the inadequate resources of developing countries. This imbalance will persist if the international community continues to feed it.

Consider WHO’s statement:

“H5N1 vaccines are a different issue,” said Dr. David Heymann, WHO assistant director-general for communicable diseases. “We will now modify our best practices to ensure that they are transparent to the developing countries which are providing samples and which have requested to share in the benefits resulting from those viruses.”

Can an assurance to modify an age-old system grant Indonesia the medical stockpile it needs when the next pandemic comes?

Heymann’s assurance of transparency comes out only as convenient, a pat on the back, a mere consolation, a feeble effort for WHO at best. From WHO, we need concrete action plans on how third world countries will gain more of the fruits of their sample-sharing and other bird-flu related endeavors.