|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Aug23/08) Jaipur, 24 Aug (D. Ravi Kanth) — Under the Indian Presidency, the G20 trade ministerial summit of major industrialized and several developing countries is expected to conclude on 25 August in Jaipur, amidst some sharp exchanges on unilateral trade measures, alleged abuse of the multilateral trading system by some countries, trade protectionism, and a rising wave of “green” subsidies being provided by the industrialized countries, said people familiar with the discussions. Apparently, India cautioned the participants that if they do not give up their intransigent positions, the World Trade Organization’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13), to be held in Abu Dhabi in February next year, could prove to be an unmitigated disaster, said participants, who asked not to be quoted. Despite the assertions made by the Indian trade minister, Mr Piyush Goyal, in the run-up to the Jaipur meeting that it would address some fundamental issues like the restoration of the two-stage dispute settlement system as well as the development concerns of the Global South, the “Outcome Document and Chair’s Summary”, to be issued on 25 August, contains some rather anaemic language on all major issues, said participants familiar with the document. In a closed-door meeting on 23 August, the Indian trade minister quoted what Prime Minister Narendra Modi had said about the need to address the concerns of the poorest sections of society. Yet, strangely, the unprecedented pomp and splendour witnessed at the meeting seemed somewhat surreal, said one participant, who asked not to be quoted. At the meeting on 24 August, trade ministers discussed “Trade for Growth & Prosperity” as well as “WTO Reform” during which some sharp exchanges marked the proceedings, particularly China’s severe criticism apparently levelled against the US. Without naming the US, China’s deputy trade minister, Wang Shouwen, apparently charged some countries for allegedly abusing the multilateral trading system, including the World Trade Organization, by adopting outright unilateral measures that are avowedly inconsistent with the WTO rules. The US Trade Representative (USTR), Ambassador Katherine Tai, said that some countries are apparently not following the rules, in what appears to be directed against China, said a participant, who asked not to be identified. The USTR appears to have said at the meeting that Washington has serious concerns over the manner in which the dispute settlement system has functioned over the years. Ambassador Tai appears to have underscored the need for changes. However, she did not spell out the specific issues for improving the functioning of the Appellate Body. The USTR said that Washington is ready to discuss with members and even urged them to come up with fresh proposals for reforming the dispute settlement system. The US also acknowledged the importance of addressing issues concerning “Development”, though Washington has repeatedly “stonewalled” the ten Agreement-specific proposals submitted by the Group of 90 (G90) developing countries for improving the special and differential treatment provisions, said a developing country participant, who asked not to be identified. Amidst the hundreds of billions of dollars of industrial and “green” subsidies being provided by the US, the European Union’s trade commissioner Mr Valdis Dombrovskis raised the issue of tackling industrial subsidies at the meeting. Although Brussels has embarked on a massive scale of providing state relief and subsidies, raising an issue on industrial subsidies is not proper without tackling the farm subsidies, said another participant, who preferred not to be quoted. It is against this backdrop that the two-day G20 Trade and Investment Ministers’ Meeting that concludes on 25 August has produced a seemingly anaemic and somewhat inane document, said two participants, who preferred not to be quoted. In contrast to the Jaipur “Outcome Document and Chair’s Summary,” the Bali outcome document issued last year seemed much stronger in bringing developmental issues to the center stage, said participants who attended both the meetings. OUTCOME DOCUMENT AND CHAIR’S SUMMARY The Outcome Document and Chair’s Summary acknowledges at the outset that it “was unanimously agreed to by all G20 members, except for paragraph 32 which pertains to the Chair’s Summary.” Paragraph 32, which deals with “geopolitical issues”, states: “This year, we have also witnessed the war in Ukraine further adversely impact the global economy. There was a discussion on the issue. We reiterated our national positions as expressed in other fora, including the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly, which, in Resolution No. ES-11/1 dated 2 March 2022, as adopted by majority vote (141 votes for, 5 against, 35 abstentions, 12 absent) deplores in the strongest terms the aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine and demands its complete and unconditional withdrawal from the territory of Ukraine. Most members strongly condemned the war in Ukraine and stressed it is causing immense human suffering and exacerbating existing fragilities in the global economy – constraining growth, increasing inflation, disrupting supply chains, heightening energy and food insecurity, and elevating financial stability risks. There were other views and different assessments of the situation and sanctions. Recognizing that the G20 is not the forum to resolve security issues, we acknowledge that security issues can have significant consequences for the global economy.” In a footnote attached to the document, obtained by the SUNS, Russia “rejected the inclusion of geopolitical Para 32. On the basis that it does not conform to the G20 mandate and recognizes the status of the Para 32 as Chair’s summary.” Russia said it agrees with the rest of the text. China also stated that “the G20 TIMM (Trade and Investment Ministerial Meeting) is not the right forum to discuss geopolitical issues and did not support the inclusion of the geo-political related content.” TRADE FOR GROWTH & PROSPERITY Two important but rather ambiguous highlights of this section of some seven-odd paragraphs in the Outcome Document is the recognition given to the importance of trade and environmental policies on the ground that they are “mutually supportive, consistent with WTO and multilateral environment agreements”, as well as the “adherence to the rules and foundational principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and reaffirm our commitment to fulfilling its objectives.” Surprisingly, the EU, which is on the verge of implementing its controversial carbon border adjustment measures, appears to be openly undermining the letter and verse of the Paris Climate Change Agreement of 2015, said participants, who preferred not to be quoted. WTO REFORM As reported in the SUNS, the Jaipur outcome document does not mention either the two-stage dispute settlement system that was established after the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, or the Appellate Body. In paragraph 12, the Jaipur document says: “… We note the ongoing discussions on Dispute Settlement reform and remain committed to conducting discussions with a view to having a fully and well-functioning Dispute Settlement System, accessible to all members, by 2024.” Effectively, it implies that the binding dispute settlement system as negotiated in the Uruguay Round for undergirding the enforcement function/pillar of the WTO is unlikely to be restored, said participants, who preferred not to be quoted. JSIs Without mentioning the Joint Statement Initiatives (JSIs) on digital trade, investment facilitation, disciplines for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and trade and gender, the Jaipur document and chair’s summary seems to have leaned in favour of the JSI proponents. In paragraph 14, it says, “We remain committed to strengthening the rule-making arm of WTO by facilitating trade negotiations and fostering the update of global trade rulebook, and underscore the importance of the ongoing negotiations [on JSIs] in WTO.” Surprisingly, under the Indian Presidency, the Jaipur document did not even mention the core mandated issues, including the permanent solution for public stockholding programs for food security and other “bread-and-butter” issues of the Global South, said a participant, who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
