|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jul25/27) Geneva, 23 Jul (D. Ravi Kanth) — The World Trade Organization’s General Council (GC) meeting on 22 July appears to have produced deep divisions on how to reform the organization, with developing countries pushing back against attempts by the European Union and the “Friends of the System” group to bring about changes in the consensus-based decision-making process and the special and differential treatment (S&DT) architecture, said people familiar with the discussions. The United States seemingly adopted some rather ambiguous positions on WTO reform, mainly by expressing skepticism over any deep reforms to the organization at this juncture, while simultaneously expressing its support for disciplines to curb the alleged non-market practices of some countries, said people familiar with the development. While underscoring the need for institutional and organizational reform, the US said that it acknowledges the clear divergences that exist over the common purpose of the WTO and over the relative weighting of the array of objectives that members are pursuing, said people familiar with the discussions. According to Washington, the continued differences over the purpose of WTO reform seem to have persisted as long as the WTO has been in existence, suggesting that these issues were discussed even at the WTO’s fifth ministerial conference in Cancun, Mexico, in September 2003, said people familiar with the development. The US appears to have said that it would prefer a process that allowed members to articulate their objectives through concrete proposals so as to avoid abstract debates and binary choices and allow members to focus on practical outcomes, said people familiar with the development. The US seemingly indicated that it remains sceptical that in a matter of weeks, members can identify, articulate and agree upon a package of WTO reforms for the upcoming WTO’s 14th ministerial conference (MC14), to be held in Yaounde, Cameroon in March 2026, said people familiar with the development. Meanwhile, China is understood to have suggested that the reform discussions should try to identify all kinds of tools, including the process, principles, mechanisms and instruments that could facilitate and improve decision- making, in particular when it is of interest to a large number of members, without harming anyone, said people familiar with the development. WTO REFORM In a marathon discussion on WTO reform, the facilitator, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, appears to have made a long statement on the structure of the discussions in the three tracks (“governance”, “fairness” and “future”) and on continued differences on several controversial issues, including consensus-based decision- making and “differentiation” among developing countries for availing of S&DT among others, said people familiar with the discussions. The statement made by the facilitator at the GC meeting touched upon several issues but seemingly failed to make a coherent argument on what he meant by “reform or even deep reform.” Ambassador Olberg is understood to have responded by suggesting that “it’s not only about topics, it’s about how we work with each other.” The facilitator appears to have argued that “reform starts with how we engage, how we listen, how we take each other’s concerns seriously, not just our own concerns, not tactical(s) and concerns, but the real ones.” He went on to say, “the question we must keep asking is how can we respond to those concerns in ways that benefit everyone? That’s how we build trust, and trust is the foundation for any lasting reform”, said people familiar with the discussions. However, the facilitator seemingly failed to provide a clear reply on whether WTO reform must break the rules in a rules-based, member-driven organization, said several participants, who asked not to be quoted. The discussions on reforms in the post-lunch session seemingly witnessed 60 interventions with clear divisions on the issues listed by the facilitator in the three tracks, said people familiar with the development. The developing countries, including their coalitions, seem to have broadly converged, though with varying levels of emphasis, on preserving the current practice of consensus-based decision-making, the continuation of S&DT, and the restoration of the two-tier dispute settlement system among others, said people familiar with the discussions. Barbados, on behalf of the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) group of countries, said that “development, including S&DT, must be core to any reform agenda,” while conveying in no unmistakable terms that the “current practice of decision-making by consensus remains sacrosanct, even as we recognize that we must find ways to improve the decision-making process”. The ACP group emphasized that the “principles of transparency and proportionality must guide any negotiating process and scheduling of meetings, given the small size of our delegations.” Antigua and Barbuda, on behalf of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), said the “principles of inclusivity, transparency and a consensus-based approach must be respected.” WTO reform should also create appropriate structures for members to address trade tensions in a manner that minimizes their impact on the multilateral trading system, the group said. Vanuatu, on behalf of the Pacific Group, appears to have underscored “the importance of ensuring that development remains central to WTO reform.” On behalf of the African Group, Mozambique appears to have called for “a predictable legal framework to reduce uncertainty and enable all countries, especially the vulnerable and smaller ones, to participate in global trade in fairer terms.” More importantly, the African Group emphasized that “the WTO reform process must deliver both relevance, equity and fairness for the WTO to rebuild trust and deliver negotiated outcomes for all, especially for developing countries.” The African Group said that WTO reform must prioritise and not displace longstanding concerns, especially for developing and least developed countries, such as strengthening special and differential treatment, trade, policy space for industrial development, and addressing food security and the aspirations of resource poor farmers in developing and least developed countries. Jamaica, on behalf of CARICOM (the Caribbean Community), cautioned that as MC14 approaches, the opportunities for establishing a coherent, inclusive and development-oriented reform agenda appear to be narrowing. The CARICOM group stressed on the urgent need to overhaul the dispute settlement system from top to bottom, to enforce the transparency of rules and procedures, to ensure that members scrupulously respect their commitments, and to ensure predictability and adaptability of the multilateral trading system to the challenges and issues of today’s world. Gambia, on behalf of the least-developed countries (LDCs), is understood to have said that WTO reform must be flexible and pragmatic, while also recognising the diverse realities and capacities of the LDC membership, and honouring the cardinal principles of the Marrakesh Agreement, said people familiar with the development. India called for accomplishing the development-oriented objectives of the Doha Development Agenda program, while suggesting that an overwhelming number of countries appear to be emphasizing that the basic tenets of the Marrakesh Agreement, namely, the principle of decision-making by consensus and the continuation of the self- designated S&DT framework, are non-negotiable, said people familiar with the Indian statement. Brazil is understood to have said that for Brasilia, “the most important outcome at MC14 should be a clear and solid mandate from ministers on deep WTO reform to update the rules-based multilateral trading system, making it fit for the current realities, taking into consideration complex events that are unfolding.” Brazil, which recently hosted the XVII BRICS Summit in Rio de Janeiro, appears to have argued that members’ priority must be to work toward reform that safeguards the relevance of the WTO and restores the credibility of the multilateral trading system. Brazil also cautioned that reform must not serve the interests of only a few, suggesting that any reform process should not be a pretext for advancing through alternative avenues proposals that have failed to gain consensus. DIVISIONS ON IFDA The GC meeting also highlighted the continued division among members on incorporating the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement dealing with plurilateral agreements, which had no prior consensus at any of the previous ministerial conferences, as required under Articles IX and X of the Marrakesh Agreement, said people familiar with the development. The first day of the GC meeting on 22 July (which is expected to conclude on 23 July), apparently witnessed some euphoria and sustained applause when Argentina deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies (“Fish 1” Agreement) containing disciplines prohibiting subsidies contributing to illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing and overfished stocks, said people familiar with the discussions. Brazil seems to have indicated that it will soon submit its instrument of ratification for the “Fish 1” Agreement, amidst plans to de-link the “Fish 1” Agreement, after it is ratified by 111 countries, from the “second wave” of the Agreement (“Fish 2”), which at this point in time lacks consensus, said people familiar with the development. So far, 106 members have submitted their instruments of acceptance, and the WTO Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, appears to be pressuring countries to submit their instruments of ratification in order to cross the threshold of 111 members before MC14, failing which the “Fish 1” Agreement will be terminated as per Article 12 of the agreement, said people familiar with the development. Article 12 of the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies states: “If comprehensive disciplines are not adopted within four years of the entry into force of this Agreement, and unless otherwise decided by the General Council, this Agreement shall stand immediately terminated.” To avoid that eventuality, the DG and countries like Brazil appear to be floating ideas to de-link the “Fish 1” Agreement from the “Fish 2” Agreement, which deals with subsidies contributing to overcapacity and overfishing, said people familiar with the development. +
|
||
