"The United States shall not seek, through negotiation or otherwise, the revocation or revision of any intellectual property law or policy ... that regulates HIV/AIDS pharmaceuticals or medical technologies," the White House directive says.

"(It) recognizes the truly great public health crisis that exists now in sub-Saharan Africa," White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said at a press conference.

About 11.5 million people have died of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, which accounts for 83 percent of the world's total HIV/AIDS-related deaths.

For the past three years, the Clinton administration has been threatening sanctions against countries such as South Africa for plans to import cheaper versions of AIDS drugs. The U.S. Trade Representative's Office claimed that any such effort violated the intellectual property laws of the World Trade Organization.

But the policy turned into a public relations disaster when activists in the United States jumped into the fray last summer. The administration has been under fire from various quarters, including Ralph Nader, the AIDS organization Act-Up, and fellow Democrats such as Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.).

In fact, the Clinton directive was issued only after Feinstein and Feingold threatened last month to filibuster an African trade bill.

The two senators had attached an amendment to the bill that would allow access to generic drugs. But the amendment was dropped from the final version of the bill. In a May 3 letter to the president, Feinstein asked the White House to confirm his support for her position by issuing an Executive Order.

While the senator may be pleased with the new policy, some White House critics say it doesn't go far enough. "It's definitely a step in the right direction," said James Love, director of the Consumer Technology Project. "But it's a little less than meets the eye."

Love says the order does not cover the many Asian and Latin American countries facing an AIDS epidemic, such as Thailand and the Dominican Republic. "From a public relations point of view, it was becoming difficult to justify the policy in South Africa. But maybe people aren't focusing as much at other countries," he said.

And some of the wording is ambiguous, he said. The order uses phrases such as "adequate and effective protection," which Love says allows the government a lot of latitude.

"But it's definitely a big improvement," he said.