|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Mar24/08) Abu Dhabi, 4 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — The 13th ministerial conference (MC13) of the World Trade Organization is unlikely to be remembered for having failed to deliver credible development-oriented outcomes for developing countries and ended as a chaotic meeting amidst several hair-raising developments in the final hours of the closing ceremony, said several trade ministers familiar with the development. In contrast, another ministerial meeting held in West Asia, namely, the WTO’s fourth ministerial conference in Doha, Qatar, in 2001, came to be regarded as a “landmark” in the WTO’s ministerial conferences for having produced the Doha Development Agenda that continues to be referred/mentioned by participating members at MC13. It is now commonplace knowledge that the Doha work program has been successfully stymied by the industrialized countries since the WTO’s tenth ministerial conference in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015, after the conclusion of the Trade Facilitation Agreement, a “jewel in the crown” for the United States and other industrialized countries, said trade ministers, who asked not to be quoted. CHAOTIC DEVELOPMENTS MC13 witnessed several hair-raising moments at the closing ceremony between the WTO Director-General Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and the Indian Commerce Minister Mr Piyush Goyal over alleged attempts to cast India in a bad light over its refusal to agree to the fisheries subsidies agreement, said ministers familiar with the development. Minutes before the final closing session, the Indian minister learned from Fiji’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Trade, Manoa Kamikamica, that he is making a statement on fisheries subsidies after India opposed the fisheries subsidies agreement, said trade ministers who asked not to be quoted. The Fijian minister is understood to have told India that the DG had asked him to issue the statement on fisheries subsidies, following which Mr Goyal rushed to the podium to tell the DG about what he had heard from his Fijian counterpart. Seemingly enraged at the development, the Indian minister appears to have told the DG that India would withdraw its approval on extending the E-commerce moratorium on alleged grounds that she advised the Fijian deputy prime minister to make the statement on fisheries subsidies after it was agreed that there will be no statement on fisheries subsidies, said trade ministers familiar with the development. That created a panic and a visibly shaken DG tried to convince Mr Goyal that she did not ask the Fijian minister. Ms Okonjo-Iweala appears to have challenged the Fijian minister over whether she had told him to deliver the statement on fisheries subsidies. The DG appears to have said, “Piyush you know me, why would I do that,” according to ministers who heard the conversation. When asked whether the DG had asked Fiji to make the statement on fisheries subsidies in an attempt to single out India at the meeting on fisheries subsidies, the WTO spokesperson referred this reporter to check with the Fijian deputy prime minister. “As the spokesperson for the WTO, I highly recommend reaching out to the Fijian delegation for exact information concerning any statements made or not made. It is our customary practice to refrain from addressing or commenting on unfounded rumours or hearsay,” said Ismail Dieng, the WTO’s spokesperson. Nevertheless, the tense exchange between the DG and the Indian minister seems to have vitiated the overall climate during MC13, said ministers familiar with the differences between an international civil servant and a trade minister of a sovereign country. INVESTMENT FACILITATION & PSH There have been growing doubts and concerns over the alleged promotion of the controversial plurilateral agreement on Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) by the DG and her alleged indifference to the permanent solution for public stockholding (PSH) programs for food security, said trade ministers who asked not to be quoted. During the meeting of eight trade ministers comprising the US, the European Union, China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, and South Africa among others, the Indian minister seems to have told the DG, “You could have helped us on the PSH.” In response, the DG said, “I have no role to intervene and negotiate, it is for you to negotiate with members,” according to trade ministers who asked not to be quoted. MC13 marks a turning point in the conduct of the Director-General under paragraph 4 of Article VI of the Marrakesh Agreement, who as an international civil servant, appears to have breached her mandate by openly aligning with controversial initiatives like Investment Facilitation for Development, and trade and climate change, among others. Paragraph 4 of Article VI of the Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO states, “the responsibilities of the Director-General and of the staff of the Secretariat shall be exclusively international in character. In the discharge of their duties, the Director-General and the staff of the Secretariat shall not seek or accept instructions from any government or any other authority external to the WTO. They shall refrain from any action which might adversely reflect on their position as international officials. The Members of the WTO shall respect the international character of the responsibilities of the Director-General and of the staff of the Secretariat and shall not seek to influence them in the discharge of their duties.” +
|
||
