|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct25/17) Geneva, 27 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — Cameroon is apparently pressuring South Africa to support the incorporation of the controversial Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) into Annex 4 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement, as the likely deliverables for the WTO’s 14th ministerial conference (MC14) are seemingly “evaporating by the day”, said people familiar with the development. MC14 is scheduled to be held in Yaounde, Cameroon, on 26-29 March next year, though there is still no clarity on whether it will be a two-day or a four-day meeting, said people familiar with the development. In a letter to South African Trade Minister Parks Tau on 23 October, seen by the SUNS, Cameroon said that “if South Africa is not ready to join IFDA at this stage, we ask that South Africa does not prevent its incorporation into the WTO legal architecture.” The letter is also copied to the WTO’s Director-General, Ms. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, along with a draft WTO General Council decision on incorporating the IFDA into Annex 4 of the Marrakesh Agreement, which established the WTO in 1995. Even as the core principles of the Marrakesh Agreement appear to be procedurally and systemically violated by the incorporation of IFDA into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement, which deals with plurialetral agreements, the DG has consistently pushed for a decision on this issue. At a General Council meeting some time ago, she expressed her frustration by stating that “there are those against plurilaterals but they are not allowing multilaterals to move,” in an oblique reference to India. Significantly, the letter was sent by Cameroon to the South African trade minister a day after the DG called on the Indian trade minister, Piyush Goyal, at his hotel in Geneva on 22 October, apparently to seek New Delhi’s support for incorporating IFDA into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement – a move India has fiercely opposed, said people familiar with the development. With India unlikely to change its stance, a position that was seemingly conveyed to the DG, a fresh attempt is being made to isolate India if it sticks to its consistent position, said a person familiar with the development. So far, three countries – India, South Africa, and Turkiye – have raised sharp concerns with varying levels of emphasis in General Council meetings over the incorporation of IFDA into the WTO Agreement. While the European Union is understood to be pressuring Turkiye to relax its concerns, the proponents are now focusing on South Africa, said people familiar with the development. CAMEROON’S LETTER In its two-page letter, Cameroon praised South African Trade Minister Parks Tau’s leadership at the G20 trade ministers’ meeting, saying that it is confident that “the G20 will continue to make concrete progress in advancing collective solutions that promote inclusive growth and sustainable development.” “In this spirit,” Cameroon said, “on behalf of over 125 WTO Members, we respectfully draw your attention to the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA),” calling for its “support for this initiative.” Cameroon conveyed to the South African trade minister that “the IFDA was initiated and driven by a broad coalition of developing and least-developed country (LDC) Members, including those on the African continent.” It maintained that the IFDA “aims to enhance global investment in our countries, while promoting sustainable economic growth and development,” suggesting that the IFDA “was concluded by over 125 WTO Members from all regions around the globe.” “Our aim is now to incorporate it into the WTO framework to fully unlock its benefits,” Cameroon wrote, saying that “we all share an understanding that investment is vital for developing countries and LDCs to enhance infrastructure, integrate into global supply chains, diversify exports, promote technology transfer, and generate employment.” Cameroon touted that such an agreement would result in “raising living standards,” and that “particularly for these developing countries and LDCs, the IFDA represents a critical pathway to integrate more meaningfully into the global economy and to advance their broader development goals.” In this context, it argued that the IFDA “will create an enabling environment that supports the attraction of not just more, but higher-quality, investment. Crucially, it will also help participants diversify their sources of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in these difficult times.” Noting that the “financing gap for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals in developing countries has widened from USD 2.5 trillion to USD 4 trillion since 2023,” Cameroon suggested that “as traditional forms of development aid decline, it is more imperative than ever for these Members to foster conditions conducive to attracting FDI.” Without explaining how the financing gap will be closed by incorporating the IFDA into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement, Cameroon said, “It would serve as a catalyst for international support towards national and regional investment facilitation efforts, unleashing significant benefits for African countries as well as developing and LDC Members.” While the incorporation of the IFDA into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement had no prior multilateral approval at any previous ministerial conferences and is allegedly contrary to Articles IX and X of the Marrakesh Agreement, Cameroon argued, “It will also reinforce the integrity of the global trading system and demonstrate the WTO’s ability to achieve tangible development outcomes for all Members.” Cameroon pointed out that “31 out of the 45 African Union members are also IFDA WTO Members,” illustrating “the enormous potential they see in this Agreement for advancing their broader development objectives and building positive synergies with the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).” Without mentioning that the IFDA is largely propelled by China with the support of all major industrialized countries except the United States, Cameroon maintained that with “90 developing Members – including 27 LDCs – advocating for its incorporation, we believe the IFDA deserves to be part of the WTO.” It said that the signatories to the IFDA want “to achieve our shared aspiration before the 14th WTO Ministerial Conference to be held in Cameroon in March 2026.” Inviting South Africa to join the IFDA’s “incorporation into the WTO rulebook,” it said that “if South Africa is not ready to join the IFDA at this stage, we ask that South Africa does not prevent its incorporation into the WTO legal architecture.” “MISLEADING” CLAIMS A former trade negotiator, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “Efforts to instrumentalise the African Group to legitimise a predetermined outcome on the incorporation of the IFDA reveal more about the anxiety of its co-sponsors than any genuine confidence in the Agreement’s developmental value.” “This same African Group was also used to fast-track the reappointment of the WTO Director-General’s second term in anticipation of a Trump blockage,” the trade official said, adding that “the correspondence reflects the same pattern of performative diplomacy recently seen in the WTO Director-General’s public comments at the WTO Public Forum criticizing India, South Africa and Turkiye.” Questioning the basis for the letter, a former Indian trade envoy said, “these attempts to single out countries that have raised legitimate process and mandate concerns have only deepened mistrust among Members.” The envoy said, “circulating a letter through Cameroon in this way shows a growing sense of unease among the proponents of the IFDA, as negotiations drift and prospects for MC14 continue to fade.” Moreover, Cameroon’s letter “ignores the actual negotiating context and repeats claims about development benefits that are not grounded in the text of the Agreement.” At a time when the WTO is unable to enforce its previous agreements, “there is no evidence that any of its provisions can generate the investment flows or development outcomes the letter attributes to it,” the envoy said, adding that “what is being advanced is not a negotiated outcome but a public relations effort dressed up as consensus.” According to a South American trade official, “the tone and structure of the correspondence make clear that the European Union is the principal author and driver of this initiative.” The trade official said, “Cameroon’s role appears limited to that of courier, lending an African signature to what is essentially a European lobbying exercise,” and that “the fact that the letter was “prepared by the delegation of the European Union”, yet transmitted under Cameroon’s letterhead to all African WTO missions, is a transparent attempt to create the impression of continental endorsement and to isolate South Africa diplomatically.” Another trade official, who asked not to be quoted, said if the EU was genuinely confident that the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement would “help participants diversify their sources of FDI”, “unleash significant benefits for African countries,” and “reinforce the integrity of the global trading system,” it would rely on the Agreement’s substantive merits rather than on “orchestrated persuasion campaigns”. The trade official said, “South Africa would be well within its rights to invite Cameroon to explain, in detail, how the IFDA will “enhance global investment in our countries”, “help participants diversify their sources of FDI”, and “serve as a catalyst for international support towards national and regional investment facilitation efforts”.” The trade official added that such a discussion would quickly expose how speculative these claims are and how little empirical evidence exists that the proposed Agreement will deliver the development outcomes asserted in the correspondence. Ironically, at a time when Cameroon is embroiled in a major political crisis over the election of its president, “this correspondence originates from a government currently facing serious questions regarding its own domestic legitimacy and political stability,” said a former African chair of the WTO’s General Council, who asked not to be quoted. “Against this backdrop, the attempt to influence another sovereign Member’s position within a multilateral negotiation appears especially incongruous,” the trade envoy said. The trade envoy added that “at a minimum, it reflects a lapse in judgment for a host of the forthcoming Ministerial Conference to lend its name to a communication that may be perceived as politically motivated. A country entrusted with such a responsibility is expected to uphold impartiality and respect for due process, not to act as a conduit for external lobbying efforts.” +
|
||
