|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Sept21/10) Washington DC, 13 Sep (D. Ravi Kanth) – Many developing and least-developed countries seem concerned about the possibility of “rigged” ministerial decisions at the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference (MC12) to be held in Geneva in end-November, amidst mounting logistical hurdles as well as difficulties in convening in-person meetings due to the worsening COVID-19 pandemic, said people familiar with the development. Concerns about logistical roadblocks were apparently raised by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) Ambassador Katherine Tai during a virtual meeting held with the WTO director-general Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala on 8 September, according to a report in the Washington Trade Daily (WTD) on 9 September. According to the WTD report, the USTR raised concerns over the “difficult logistical challenges” of MC12. Apparently, the USTR spoke with Ms Okonjo-Iweala about preparations for MC12, the WTD reported. Despite these logistical challenges, the USTR and the WTO DG emphasized their shared commitment to ensuring that MC12 is a success. “Ambassador Tai and Director-General Ngozi agreed that the WTO must remain a relevant force for good and demonstrate its ability to advance a global trade agenda that increases shared prosperity,” according to the WTD report. Ms. Tai and many other trade officials have said that the WTO must produce “deliverables” at the ministerial meeting in order to show that it is still a relevant organization. NO CLARITY YET ON MC12 FORMAT It is still not clear yet in what format MC12 will be held, or about the possible “deliverables”. Given the imposition of escalating visa-related restrictions including in Switzerland due to the worsening COVID- 19 pandemic and the denial of vaccines to many countries in Africa and South America, there is considerable uncertainty over hosting an in-person ministerial meeting where “bread-and-butter” decisions have to be negotiated, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. In his report to the General Council (GC) on 27 July, the GC chair, Ambassador Dacio Castillo from Honduras, acknowledged that “given that the pandemic was evolving rapidly in different regions and that the pace of the vaccine roll-out and other containment measures differed widely, delegations said that a definitive response about the format is premature at this point.” “Irrespective of the format, delegations stressed the importance of an inclusive, open and transparent Conference, ensuring full participation,” the GC chair said, as per his restricted document Job/GC/259 that was issued on 28 May. Ambassador Castillo said that “the preference was for an in-person conference, depending on the evolution of the pandemic, with small-sized delegations (e.g., Minister+1), counting on the support of the Geneva-based missions and the existing infrastructure.” “Given the current state of the pandemic, several delegations considered a fully in-person Conference as being increasingly unlikely,” the GC chair said. Even though “some delegations mentioned having a hybrid conference, suggesting that Ministers be physically [present] at the Conference and their delegation participating virtually,” the hybrid approach could pose serious problems about arriving at decisions with integrity and credibility, said several people, who asked not to be quoted. PAST “RIGGED” MEETINGS The controversial “green room” meetings of trade ministers in limited configurations will erode the multilateral credibility of the ministerial meeting, as it had happened at the WTO’s tenth ministerial conference in Nairobi in December 2015. At that meeting, while trade ministers from the US, the European Union, India, Brazil, and China finalized the decisions with serious consequences, the rest of the trade ministers were kept waiting on the ground floor, according to a report about the conduct of the meeting in the Economic and Political Weekly in March 2018. The possibility of finalizing decisions under a “pressure-cooker” atmosphere could result in “rigged” decisions that will be inimical to the interests of a large majority of developing and least-developed countries, said people familiar with the discussions. The GC chair also admitted that “questions related to equity were raised, i.e., if some delegations are able to be present while others are not due to travel restrictions or other measures, thereby affecting inclusivity.” Many countries said unequivocally that “if MC12 was not in-person, it could not be a negotiating conference.” The GC chair also said “some group coordinators also pointed to additional challenges in terms of coordinating group positions and decision-making.” Some members, according to the GC chair, maintained that “given the level of uncertainty due to the pandemic, affecting regions differently and at different times, the Conference would have to be fully virtual.” In fact, many countries found “an in-person meeting too burdensome, and a hybrid one discriminatory.” Many members noted that a virtual MC12 would also not be a negotiating conference. With little possibility of concluding negotiating texts before MC12, as being repeatedly called for by the WTO DG in her statements, there is hardly any possibility of ministers endorsing clean texts. Ms. Tai and many other trade officials have said that the WTO must produce “deliverables” at the ministerial conference in order to show that it is still a relevant organization. However, differences in areas like agriculture, elimination of fisheries subsidies and a proposed waiver of key provisions in the WTO’s TRIPS Agreement in order to boost COVID-19 vaccine production in developing countries are holding up potential key deliverables for the ministerial meeting. In 2009, the former WTO director-general Pascal Lamy decided that the ministerial meeting was to focus only on confidence-building measures. That was also the period when the US did not have a trade envoy in Geneva. It was only in March 2010 that the deputy USTR Michael Punke took over as the trade envoy to the WTO. As countries are finding themselves in a pandemic-struck quagmire with more than 4.5 million lives lost so far due to COVID-19 and a rising wave of new cases and deaths in the US, as well as escalating restrictions on the movement of people, including in Switzerland, there are grim doubts as to whether the ministerial meeting can be held at all, said several trade envoys, who asked not to be quoted. Further, there is no clarity yet on what would be the “deliverables” at MC12 other than an agreement on fisheries subsidies, whose negotiations are currently mired in unbridgeable differences because of the special carve-outs ostensibly being granted to the big subsidizers who are responsible for the global depletion of fish stocks and issues concerning special and differential treatment for developing and least-developed countries, particularly in the overcapacity and overfishing pillar, said trade envoys. Also, Germany, which is the main driving force of the European Union, the United Kingdom and Switzerland appear to be determined to stymie a decision on the TRIPS waiver before the ministerial meeting. On 9 September, Australia announced its intention to support the TRIPS waiver for scaling up production of diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines in combating the COVID-19 pandemic. Canberra may have based its decision knowing full well that the EU, the UK, and Switzerland would block the proposed waiver, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. Further, it is also possible that given the vehement opposition by a large majority of developing countries to the allegedly biased and flawed draft agriculture text that was strongly supported by Australia, Canberra may be trying to make overtures to developing countries, said another trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. According to several people, the USTR Ambassador Tai was right to raise concerns about the “difficult logistical challenges” of the upcoming MC12, as reported in the WTD. During her virtual discussion with the WTO chief Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala on Wednesday, it is not clear whether issues concerning fisheries subsidies, the controversial draft agriculture text, the TRIPS waiver, on starting a working group to address the proposed WTO reforms, and the WTO’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic came up for discussion. In the fisheries subsidies negotiations, the US also raised the issue of forced labour which appears to be a “red-line” for a large majority of developing countries. Right now, it appears almost impossible to make significant progress on fisheries subsidies in just two-and-a-half months, said people involved in the fisheries subsidies negotiations. Recently, the Indian trade minister Mr Piyush Goyal wrote to the WTO DG saying that the fisheries subsidies agreement must be based on the “polluter-pays” principle and on common but differentiated responsibilities, and enhanced special and differential treatment provisions in the proposed fisheries subsidies disciplines. For the WTO to remain relevant, it cannot be a one-way street, said people, suggesting that the 164-member body cannot simply serve the core interests of the US, the EU, the Ottawa Group of countries led by Canada, and the Cairns Group of farm exporting countries. If MC12 continues to ignore the “bread-and-butter” issues of the developing countries, as is the case from the WTO’s 10th ministerial conference, held in Nairobi in December 2015, to now, and deny them from securing their developmental space, the organization could lose its credibility and integrity once and for all, said people, who asked not to be quoted. In short, the developing and least-developed countries must oppose a hybrid ministerial meeting which could result in “rigged” decisions to their detriment, said people, who asked not to be quoted.
|
||
