|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (May24/15) Trade:
“Responsible consensus” proposal rejected at WTO Geneva, 24 May (D. Ravi Kanth) — Many developing countries, including the African Group and the ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific) Group on 23 May rejected the proposal on “responsible consensus” floated by Singapore along with several other countries at the World Trade Organization, said people familiar with the development. The United States seemingly adopted an ambivalent position on consensus-based decision-making, saying that “consensus” is essential, adding that members have the option to block decisions that conflict with vital national interests, said people who took part in the meeting. China supported both consensus-based decision-making as well as “responsible consensus”, suggesting the possibility of voting when decisions on “low-hanging fruits” are blocked due to consensus-based decision- making. At the two-day General Council meeting that continued on 23 May, its chair, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, clubbed two proposals to be taken up together – one by the ACP Group on preserving consensus-based decision-making and the other on “responsible consensus” by Singapore and seven other countries, said people familiar with the discussions. Elaborating on its stand, the US said that those blocking a decision must be willing to engage in discussion, explain their position, and provide justification for their decision, said people, who asked not to be identified. Apparently, the US said that members should focus on how to build consensus, while recalling that during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations between 1986 to end-1993, the US Congress instructed their negotiators to preserve consensus, said people who asked not to be quoted. The US position on consensus at the General Council meeting on 23 May seemingly differed from its earlier stance prior to the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi when it said that members could adopt decisions based on “responsible consensus”, said people familiar with the discussions. China said that both the ACP Group’s proposal to preserve consensus-based decision-making and Singapore’s proposal on “responsible consensus”, “are complementary rather than contradictory.” According to China, “reflections on the practice of “decision-making by consensus” is very timely, in light of the results of MC13.” Without mentioning the setback suffered by the proponents of the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement at MC13, China said “the inability for decision-making on even the low-hanging fruits harms every member, in particular small members, and undermines the institution itself.” China also drew attention to the possibility of voting as mentioned in the Marrakesh Agreement, suggesting that “when WTO no longer can deliver, due to abuse of consensus, another situation could also happen, i.e. “vote with the feet”.” China said while it values the consensus-based practice the most, it supports “the idea of responsible consensus, in order to preserve the consensus-based practice, and in the end, to preserve the multilateral trading system, and to benefit all members, especially small ones.” To preserve consensus-based practices, China said that three things are needed. They include “good faith”, “responsibility” and “trust.” Canada is understood to have said that it is not seeking any amendment to the Marrakesh Agreement to advance “responsible consensus”, said people familiar with the discussion. In contrast to the rather ambivalent positions, Indonesia said that “the principle of consensus has long been the primary foundation of decision-making at the WTO” especially for developing countries. “Indeed, with this mechanism, a member, regardless of its size and world trade share, will be equivalent and have equal say,” Indonesia said. “This will also ensure the balance and equity of WTO decisions.” Indonesia expressed doubts “whether it is necessary to have a separate GC [General Council] decision – that will most likely re-interpret and even transform the existing consensus principle into the so-called “responsible consensus”.” Further, it said the draft decision on “responsible consensus”, “may trigger systemic implication to the existing decision-making mechanism as well as its impacts to the legitimacy of WTO decisions.” Indonesia said that it would “encourage members to show that they are being responsible – in terms of realizing their commitment – including through rebuilding trust among members and take concrete measures that will enable for more progress on key issues based on previous Ministerial mandates.” ACP PROPOSAL In a communication (WT/GC/W/932) circulated on 7 May, titled “Preserving the Current Practice of Consensus- based Decision-making in the WTO,” the ACP Group argued against any departure from the existing practice of consensus-based decision-making at the WTO that provides “equity” to all Members. In its statement at the meeting, the ACP Group underscored the need for WTO members to deliver more across a wide range of areas, some of them long-standing, as is the case with agriculture and even fisheries subsidies. However, it noted that the WTO is being weighed down by geopolitical fissures, lack of trust amongst and between Members, and frankly, different visions about what kind of WTO Members want, said people familiar with the discussions. It emphatically said that its members do not share the view that introducing qualifiers to the consensus principle is the way in which to improve outcomes in the WTO, said people familiar with the development. The ACP Group reaffirmed Article IX, paragraph 1 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO, which states that “The WTO shall continue the practice of decision-making by consensus …” It noted that the Marrakesh Agreement is void of qualifiers for this consensus principle. It said that attempts to introduce qualifiers such as “responsible”, “flexible” and “constructive”, could lead to unintended consequences, including the disenfranchisement of some Members from their treaty-embedded right to contribute to decision-making in an inclusive and equitable manner. Further, attempts to bring qualifiers now or in the future carry grave systemic risks, chiefly for developing Members, the ACP Group argued. The ACP Group suggested that there would be the risk of collateral damage should certain qualifiers be introduced to further clarify the meaning of consensus. It gave an example that while the concept of “responsible consensus” seems innocuous enough, there is a possibility that there are some Members who may want to go much further than this and therefore open the door to change fundamentally the WTO’s decision-making arrangements. It emphasized that among multilateral organizations, the WTO is unique in terms of how it makes decisions, as compared to the United Nations where the P5 Members (of the UN Security Council) are able to exercise their veto power which represents the perpetuation of a system which emerged after the Second World War. More importantly, the consensus-based decision-making at the WTO acts as a buffer against inequity and power, the ACP Group said. It emphasized the need to preserve the current practice of decision-making by consensus. Several developing countries, including South Africa, strongly supported the ACP Group proposal. On behalf of the African Group, which is a co-sponsor of the ACP Group proposal, Chad said that the utility of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO lies in large part in its core foundational principle of decision- making by consensus and an equal voice for all Members regardless of might or size. According to Chad, the principle and practice of decision-making by consensus does not only ensure equal rights, but also ensures that all Members, big and small, have an equal chance at agenda-setting, including outcomes that are inclusive of their issues of priority, said people familiar with the discussions. The African Group, said Chad, is not in a position to support any qualifiers to the foundational principle of the WTO, as contained in the proposed draft decision on “Responsible Consensus”. It raised several questions such as: 1. What is the added value of a General Council decision on “responsible consensus” and how will it work in practice? 2. How will the General Council Decision enable members to concretely adopt a win-win approach in WTO negotiations? 3. How exactly will the qualifiers introduced in the document, such as “responsible” consensus, “flexibility”, address power dynamics, imbalances in approaches and the prioritization of issues before Members, in particular those of particular interest to developing Members? 4. What is the document trying to address since Article IX of the Marrakech Accord also provides an alternative in the absence of consensus? “RESPONSIBLE CONSENSUS” The proposal (WT/GC/W/933) on “responsible consensus” was co-sponsored by Costa Rica, The Gambia, Korea, Norway, Peru, Singapore, Switzerland, and Chinese Taipei. The co-sponsors made a strong case for “responsible consensus”, urging members “to uphold the practice of consensus in a responsible manner in order to ensure that the WTO remains as the cornerstone of the rules-based multilateral trading system, and maintains its relevance by delivering shared prosperity for all its Members.” Several industrialized countries supported the proposal on “responsible consensus”, but it failed to attract support and traction, said people who asked not to be quoted. “Significantly, the rejection of the demand for responsible consensus at the General Council meeting almost made the proposed retreat on 8-9 July redundant”, said a person who asked not to be identified. +
|
||
