>Patents granted to Asians, Africans, and indigenous Americans for prior-art would bankrupt Europe.

>Patents last 20 years. So no.

That's a domestic choice that most countries had no say in, there is no global consensus on how long patents should last.

In the US, congress has the right to grant and extend patents for however long it wishes (and has done so many times in the past).

So yes, to my original point.

>there is no global consensus on how long patents should last.

Yes there is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement

Also, you're confusing patents and copyrights. Patents have not been extended for very long lengths.

A few countries had an outsized role in deciding these terms like much of the other WTOs rules...through the use of pressure, coercion, and other carrot/stick approaches.

If it's not voluntary, I don't consider it global consensus.

Joseph Stiglitz makes a similar point...

"TRIPs imposed on the entire world the dominant intellectual property regime in the United States and Europe, as it is today. I believe that the way that intellectual property regime has evolved is not good for the United States and the EU; but even more, I believe it is not in the interest of the developing countries."

You're being deceitful here. Stigler does oppose TRIPS because of its effect on developing countries--because intellectual property protection keeps developing countries from using patented things. In other words, he wants patents to be less restrictive, not, as you're falsely implying, more restrictive.