|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jun24/16) Geneva, 27 Jun (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the World Trade Organization’s General Council (GC) has informed members that the much-targeted “retreat” is being reduced to a one-day event to focus on “WTO/ Geneva decision-making processes” while deferring the discussion on “development” issues raised by the developing countries to October this year, said people familiar with the development. In an email sent to the Heads of Delegation on 24 June, seen by the SUNS, the GC chair, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, said “the retreat aims to provide a “safe space” for an in-depth discussion and exchange among members.” “There appeared to be broad convergence on the continued necessity of such discussions outside the formal General Council meetings,” the GC chair said. Ambassador Olberg said he “heard clearly that this would provide the necessary space to deepen some of the discussions initiated in the formal setting, with an opportunity to raise and address the more challenging issues candidly and brainstorm actionable ideas for change – outside the confines of the formal setting of a regular General Council meeting.” Yet, alleged attempts to push new modes of decision-making processes based on concepts such as “responsible consensus”, and “constructive consensus” in informal settings, as opposed to formal settings like the General Council meetings, the highest decision-making forum in between biennial WTO ministerial meetings, seem to be a cause for critical concern, said people familiar with the development. In a member-driven, rules-based, multilateral trade body that seems to be currently facing systemic crises and an entrenched “trust deficit”, any attempt to brainstorm ideas in informal settings and bringing them to the formal processes could further erode its credibility, said people familiar with the development. GC CHAIR’S EMAIL In the email sent to members, the GC chair wrote: “As announced at the May General Council meeting, a forward-looking General Council retreat is planned for early July.” However, the GC chair did not explain what would constitute a “forward-looking” retreat and from which/whose perspective it would be “forward-looking”, said people who asked not to be quoted. Ambassador Olberg said that, “As mentioned in the (last General Council) meeting, I initiated a series of consultations immediately after the General Council meeting to prepare for this retreat.” He said, “these preparatory consultations were organized in group format to ensure inclusivity and transparency, providing an opportunity for all Members to participate.” According to the email, the GC chair’s consultations “yielded over 70 interventions, offering constructive suggestions and ideas.” “Additionally,” the chair said, “several delegations requested bilateral meetings, which further enriched my consultations.” “WHY, WHAT AND HOW” The GC chair wrote that “the consultations focused on the “why, what and how”. As for the “why”, he said the retreat aims to provide a “safe space” for an in-depth discussion and exchange among Members. He said there is “broad convergence on the continued necessity of such discussions outside the formal General Council meetings.” “From your feedback, I heard clearly that this would provide the necessary space to deepen some of the discussions initiated in the formal setting, with an opportunity to raise and address the more challenging issues candidly and brainstorm actionable ideas for change – outside the confines of the formal setting of a regular General Council meeting,” the GC chair maintained. Elaborating further, the GC chair said, “concerning the “what”, there appeared to be broad agreement to deepen the discussion on WTO/Geneva decision-making processes.” Further, he said “this topic sparked a constructive and extensive exchange at the May General Council meeting, following the proposals contained in WT/GC/W/932 and WT/GC/W/933.” In document WT/GC/W/932, Samoa, on behalf of the ACP (African, Caribbean, and Pacific) group and the African Group, argued persuasively that “Article IX, paragraph 1 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization (WTO) states that “The WTO shall continue the practice of decision-making by consensus followed under GATT 1947″.” Further, the two groups of developing and least-developed countries argued, “except as otherwise provided, where a decision cannot be arrived at by consensus, the matter at issue shall be decided by voting. At meetings of the Ministerial Conference and the General Council, each Member of the WTO shall have one vote.” Moreover, according to the two groups, “the principle of consensus-based decision-making represents a tradition that goes back three-quarters of a century in the multilateral trading system and thus can be seen as part of not only treaty law, but also customary international law as verified by constant practice.” In comparison to other international organizations, they said “the WTO stands out as one of the few that allows each of its Members, irrespective of its size or level of development, the wherewithal to secure certain outcomes in its interests through consensus-based decision-making.” The need for preserving the consensus-based decision-making process is never greater and more urgent than now, particularly in the face of rising unilateral measures and subsidies wars, said people who asked not to be quoted. “The current consensus system is a representation of equity in the WTO,” the ACP group and the African Group argued, because “essentially, the consensus system sends an important message that all Members are equal and as such, each Member must have a stake in securing outcomes which are favourable”. For “the smallest, poorest and most vulnerable Members of the WTO, consensus-based decision-making protects them from the vagaries of power dynamics.” As reported in the SUNS, the ACP and African Group voiced “systemic concerns regarding any attempt to alter the status-quo with respect to the consensus system in WTO decision-making.” Therefore, “the Groups strongly object to the introduction of any qualification or modification which departs from existing treaty rights under the Marrakesh Agreement.” Lastly, “the consensus principle goes to the heart of the WTO system and it provides a fundamental guarantee which is a non-negotiable for the ACP and African Groups.” The two groups said unequivocally that “the current and long-standing practice of decision-making by consensus gives all Members an equal say in the WTO which is not based on political power or level of development.” The two groups said the need of the hour is to “focus on trust-building activities.” “Where trust exists and is reciprocated – where there is confidence in institutions and systems – all Members will achieve more. To alter the status quo would be to undermine trust and ultimately achieve less,” the two groups concluded. “FRIENDS OF THE SYSTEM” In sharp contrast to the systemic concerns raised by the ACP and African Group, the so-called “Friends of the System” that includes among others Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, and Korea along with Brunei, Costa Rica, the Gambia, and Chinese Taipei argued that “on its 30th Anniversary, it is opportune for the WTO to redouble efforts to adapt to its growing Membership and their evolving needs, reinforce its relevance, and uphold the principles of inclusivity and cooperation.” The main message from the “Friends of the System” is that WTO members “must re-commit 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.” From the outside, the United States, which was the first country that demanded a departure from the practice of consensus-based decision-making several years ago, the European Union, and China seem to support the proposal from the “Friends of the System”, said people familiar with the development. In the draft decision attached to their proposal, Singapore and others argued to “uphold the practice of decision- making by consensus in a responsible manner by: a. Pursuing national interests while supporting the systemic interests of the WTO; b. Adopting a win-win approach in negotiations by exercising flexibility and making compromises in order to reach agreement; and c. Engaging in negotiations based on facts and evidence.” To recall, there has been a sustained attempt for more than two years to bring into the WTO the “deliberative” function as advanced by the EU and supported by other major industrialized countries. However, the Abu Dhabi Ministerial Declaration at MC13 did not include any language on strengthening the “deliberative” function as demanded by the EU and other allies, said people who asked not to be quoted. In an apparent attempt to assuage the fears expressed by the ACP and African Group, the GC chair said in his email, “from the feedback I received, it is apparent that such discussion would also need to focus on consensus- based decision-making, managing disagreements, as well as on addressing the issue of trust.” Ambassador Olberg emphasized that “as suggested by many, we should draw in this discussion on the lessons learned from MC13, albeit in a forward-looking manner.” “DEVELOPMENT” DEFERRED While acknowledging the “importance of development” throughout the consultations, the GC chair said, “many Members recommended scheduling this discussion in September or October, following the release of the 2024 edition of the WTO’s World Trade Report.” The postponement of the discussion on development showed that despite the rather “glib” claims made on the importance of the issue of development, some major industrialized countries seem averse to this issue, said several developing countries privately. Commenting on the “how”, the GC chair said that his “consultations indicated that there appeared to be broad agreement on using smaller break-out groups led by Ambassador-facilitators, coupled with a plenary session, all involving Heads of Delegation only.” Ambassador Olberg said his “consultations also indicated broad agreement on the need for a clear statement of purpose, key takeaways, and neutral guiding questions in the lead-up to the retreat”. The GC chair said it appears that in some of the interventions during the consultations, he “heard the preference of holding the retreat outside the WTO premises and the proposal to engage in discussions without wearing “national hats”.” It appears rather naive to accept that in global trade, WTO members would depart from their stated national goals based on what benefits them most, to advancing universal goals, in the face of unilateral protectionist measures and the fragmentation of the multilateral trading system, said an analyst, who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
