|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jul24/03) Geneva, 2 Jul (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the World Trade Organization’s General Council, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, has posed five questions for trade envoys to explore new ways on “WTO Decision Making & Way Forward” at the one-day retreat to be held at the Hilton Geneva Hotel on 8 July. In what appears to be an attempt to bypass Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement, which stipulates that all decisions at the WTO shall be made based on the consensus principle, a group of countries, including Norway, had earlier proposed the notion of “responsible” consensus, while some other countries spoke of the need for “constructive” consensus. The General Council (GC) chair issued a restricted document (Job/GC/399) on 28 June, titled “Offsite Retreat on WTO Decision Making & Way Forward.” The four-page document, seen by the SUNS, says that “the objective of the retreat is to provide Members with an opportunity to deepen this discussion initiated in the formal setting, and 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 continued: “As mentioned in my 24 June communication, our discussion at the retreat will also need to focus on consensus-based decision-making, managing disagreements, as well as on addressing the issue of trust. In this context, lessons learned from MC13 shall be reflected upon in a forward-looking manner.” The practice of decision-making by consensus has acted as a multilateral bulwark against repeated attempts to allegedly steam-roll decisions based on the notion of “Might is Right”, said a person who asked not to be quoted. It is well known that at several WTO ministerial conferences in the past, different countries had blocked consensus based on their respective national positions and considerations. For example, at the WTO’s 11th ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017, the US had blocked consensus on the proposed agriculture outcome document. At the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi on 1 March this year, India had blocked consensus on the non-mandated Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement, an issue that New Delhi had all along opposed on both systemic and procedural grounds. Aside from investment facilitation, the Abu Dhabi meeting failed to resolve other major issues in agriculture and fisheries subsidies due to entrenched positions and differences among members. During the General Council meeting in May this year, many developing and least-developed countries opposed attempts to change the practice of consensus-based decision-making as enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO in 1995. Consequently, to hold a retreat in a roundabout way on the new ways of decision-making seems somewhat perplexing, said a former trade envoy who asked not to be quoted. FIVE GUIDING QUESTIONS The GC chair has framed five “guiding questions” in a manner to encapsulate the main points of interest and concerns raised during his recent consultations, “aiming to guide meaningful and candid discussions focusing on ways to improve the WTO’s decision-making processes.” In his restricted document, Ambassador Olberg put forward “some guiding questions in the interactive, plenary discussion” at the retreat next week. For Session 1, the GC chair posed “Guiding Question 1” namely that “in your view, how can the WTO improve its decision-making processes to ensure inclusive and transparent outcomes? What specific actions can we take to build necessary trust and unlock Members’ concerns prior to proposing and taking decisions?” The first question on changing the decision-making processes appears to be a subtle attempt to bring in the notion of “responsible” consensus through the backdoor, said people familiar with the questions. But to change the decision-making processes as set out in the Marrakesh Agreement, members would need a mandate from trade ministers or a new round of trade negotiations to change the rules, said people familiar with the discussion. “Guiding Question 2” is: “How can the WTO and its Members balance the need for consensus with the urgency to achieve timely and effective results? How can we balance the desire to protect national interests with the need to deliver for the common good? What tools and actions do we have when we are unable to agree?” This is a rather complex rubric of questions addressing the balance between the need for consensus and urgency to achieve results; balancing the desire to protect national interests with the need to deliver for the common good, particularly what would constitute the “common good” and who would decide it; and finally, the issue of finding tools and actions in the event of lack of consensus, among others. “Guiding Question 3” states, “given the experiences from past Ministerial Conferences, and the most recent experience in Abu Dhabi, what needs to be improved in Geneva in the run-up to the next Ministerial Conference? What should be the objectives of Ministerial Conferences?” The objectives of the ministerial conferences are well known. That decisions are taken based on previous ministerial mandates are also well known. Further, current issues can be agreed or rejected at the ministerial conferences. Therefore, deciding the objectives of ministerial conferences appears to be rather misleading. “Guiding Question 4” asks: “How can the outcomes of past Ministerial Conferences be effectively implemented to ensure continuous progress and accountability within the WTO? Are existing monitoring mechanisms sufficient?” It has been a constant refrain that outcomes from past ministerial conferences seem to be implemented based on “pick-and-choose” considerations and not based on the full outcome, said people familiar with the development. “Guiding Question 5” says: “How do we assess past commitments in light of changing circumstances?” Finally, the GC chair posed a question to be addressed at the final plenary session: “How can we translate these suggestions into actionable ideas for change? Are these realistic expectations?” The guiding questions seem to be aimed at confounding the overall discussion to allegedly push and gain legitimacy for controversial notions like “responsible consensus” that appear to be inconsistent with the WTO’s Marrakesh Agreement, said people familiar with the development. More importantly, it appears to be an alleged attempt to push for outcomes on the non-mandated plurilateral Joint Statement Initiatives (JSIs), which could pose a systemic and procedural threat to the rules-based, member-driven multilateral trade body, said people familiar with the discussions. GROUND RULES It appears rather curious that the retreat is going to be organized wherein each trade envoy has to use his name and not his nameplate with title. “Each group will be facilitated by an Ambassador-facilitator who will be assisted by two Secretariat staff members,” the GC chair said in his communication. Further, “each group will have the same set of guiding questions (see further below).” “The objective is that Members engage in frank, off-the-record conversations – without wearing their “Member hats”.” The GC chair said: “To foster this kind of environment, I have requested the Secretariat to prepare nameplates that carry the participants’ names with no titles rather than Member nameplates. Our collective motivation in these exchanges should be our shared responsibility to ensure that this Organization – a global public good – remains operational and fit for purpose.” Ambassador Olberg has appointed the following facilitators: * Group 1: H. E. Mr. Matthew Wilson (Barbados) * Group 2: H. E. Dr. Athaliah Lesiba Molokomme (Botswana) * Group 3: H. E. Ms. Mazlizah PG Mahalee (Brunei Darussalam) * Group 4: H. E. Dr. Sofia Boza Martinez (Chile) * Group 5: H. E. Mr. Muhammadou Kah (The Gambia) * Group 6: H. E. Mr. Simon Manley (United Kingdom) In short, the retreat seems to be setting a new normal for changing the fundamental rules of the Marrakesh Agreement. It remains to be seen whether it increases trust among members or further reinforces the general perception that the WTO does not work for the public good, as witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic, said people familiar with the development. +
|
||
