|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jun25/17) Geneva, 23 Jun (D. Ravi Kanth) — India on 18 June seemingly opposed the inclusion of the proposed Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) on the agenda of the World Trade Organization’s Doha negotiating body on trade and development, leading to the removal of the item for discussion from the agenda, said people familiar with the development. At a meeting on 18 June of the Doha negotiating body on trade and development, also referred to as the WTO’s Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session (CTD-SS), India appears to have said that it will not allow the agenda of the meeting to be approved unless item 12 on the agenda, titled “Development oriented actions in the context of the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA): Information on progress made on the needs assessments (NAs) – Statement on behalf of the Members parties to the IFDA” is removed, said people familiar with the development. It appears that the proponents of IFDA sought to inscribe the item on the proposed agreement (INF/IFD/W/56) on the last day of finalizing the agenda for the meeting on 18 June, said people familiar with the development. The WTO Secretariat apparently included the item on the agenda, as any one member can seek to include their items on the agenda before the closing day, said people who asked not to be quoted. However, when it came to the issue of adoption of the agenda at the CTD-SS meeting, which is normally the first procedure that WTO members follow, India appears to have said that it will definitely oppose the inclusion of the item on IFDA on the agenda, leading to some procedural chaos, said people familiar with the development. Following India’s opposition, Korea, one of the principal drivers of the IFDA along with Chile, sought the CTD-SS chair’s intervention, suggesting that it would leave it to the good office of the chair. The Korean delegate seemingly said that the proponents of IFDA would not want to block the proceedings of the CTD-SS, said people familiar with the development. After hearing a few interventions, the chair of the CTD-SS apparently said if the item is left to the chair, then, it would not be settled right away, according to people who took part in the meeting. In the past, there was an incident of the Committee’s meeting being suspended, but that did not happen on 18 June. Instead, the meeting took place without any discussion on the IFDA, said people familiar with the development. Senegal cautioned that when there is no clarity on an item, it should be put on the agenda, suggesting modalities to be framed for the inclusion of controversial issues, said people who asked not to be quoted. This is not the first time that this has happened, as the proponents of IFDA, led by Chile and Korea among others, seemingly attempted to inscribe the above item in the facilitator-led discussions on trade and development at the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi, in March 2024, said people familiar with the development. As reported in the SUNS, at MC13, India and South Africa blocked the inclusion of IFDA on procedural and systemic grounds, said people familiar with the development. So far, India, South Africa, and Turkiye have opposed the incorporation of IFDA into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement dealing with plurilateral agreements on grounds that it was never agreed to, either procedurally or systemically, said people familiar with the development. Though the IFDA is supported by around 130 countries, as well as by the WTO’s Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, it has been consistently blocked on grounds of alleged procedural and systemic violations of the WTO rules, said several people familiar with the development. In a statement (Job/GC/440) issued after the General Council (GC) meeting on 22 May, the DG included IFDA in the possible list of “deliverables” for the WTO’s upcoming 14th ministerial conference (MC14), to be held in Yaounde, Cameroon, on 26-29 March 2026. In her GC statement, the DG said: “I am glad that following the TNC, work is also continuing on the deliverables that we might want to produce for MC14 – work on the ratification of Fish 1, Fish 2, agriculture, IFDA, e-commerce moratorium and the e-commerce JSI. On LDC issues, we have tried to reflect their concerns in the matrix.” “On a development package,” she said, “we must not lose sight of these deliverables which we will have a chance to assess at the July TNC but also, as we agreed, at a date to decide which packages are ready for us to take forward to MC14.” The DG did something similar in the run-up to MC13 when she suggested that 123 countries (who are members of the plurilateral agreement on investment facilitation for development) need to create the right investment environment to attract investments in their countries, as reported in SUNS #9947 dated 16 February 2024. “To deny them that opportunity to do this,” she had said, “if we are really talking about development, I think we should reflect very carefully on this.” “You talk about systemic issues and procedural issues, we also need to think how we can make this organization with new ways of doing things,” the DG had argued. She said, “The multilateral instrument remains a premium, we all treasure it and I totally agree with India on that.” But, she said, “When we see such a thing of benefit when three-quarters of the organization” support an agreement on IFD, “I would urge India and South Africa to please reflect on it and please talk to the opponents.” “And please give poor countries a chance to get something good going,” the DG said, adding that “if you see the agreement, you know what people are looking for that would enable them to get something done that countries would not normally do.” “And so, I want to add my voice because I am completely baffled, if we say we want to help developing countries, an instrument comes out to help that, I am baffled.” The DG directed her comment at South Africa, saying, “I am looking at South Africa, [as] there are many African countries on this list and many of them are least-developed countries.” “I am looking really at you South Africa, please reflect because I owe an explanation to these countries to attract the investments that they can’t due to some procedural issue.” “So, I want to put that out, I am known for speaking bluntly, and trying to do this would be extremely sad if we were to block this particular investment,” the DG had concluded. In a rules-based organization, the DG’s statement on IFD could constitute a violation of her role as the head of the WTO under paragraph four of Article VI of the Marrakesh Agreement, said a legal expert, who asked not to be identified.
|
||
