|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Aug26/07) WTO:
Reform facilitators' reports expose deep divisions among members Geneva, 7 Aug (D. Ravi Kanth) -- The first reports from the four facilitators overseeing the controversial reform of the World Trade Organization - covering foundational issues, decision-making, development, and "level playing field" issues - were released on 4 August. People familiar with the development say that the document shows sharply diverging perspectives among members, though these are reflected within a rather confusing framework. The 8,000-word document (Job/GC/Reform/7) was issued by the chair of the WTO's General Council, Ambassador Clare Kelly of New Zealand, in which she stated that "to ensure transparency and to facilitate continued engagement, the Facilitators' reports on the informal plenary meetings of 20, 22, 27 and 29 July 2026 on Foundational Issues, Decision-Making, Development, and Level Playing Field Issues, respectively, are annexed to this document." She informed members that "the next facilitated informal plenary sessions are scheduled for 18, 22, 24 and 28 September." The Facilitators, she said, are expected to issue invitations for these informal sessions by 4 September, to enable delegations to plan ahead. The Facilitators will be available to meet with delegations, bilaterally or in groups, at their request in advance of these plenary sessions. A cursory glance at the facilitators' reports - written under their own volition, though based on the views expressed by members - suggests the following initial takeaways: A. Process: Discussion, not negotiation The Facilitators' views seemingly and explicitly suggest that this is not a negotiation but an iterative discussion aimed at deepening understanding, clarifying differences, and identifying areas of common interest. The process is Member-driven, inclusive, and designed to accommodate the capacity constraints of smaller delegations. Both written and oral contributions carry equal weight. The Facilitators stressed the need for sustained engagement over time before reaching decision points. "At this stage, we are not engaged in a negotiation, but in a discussion." B. Consensus remains unquestioned - but its implementation is failing According to the Facilitators, no Member questions decision-making by consensus; members claimed it remains the cornerstone of WTO governance. However, a trust deficit continues to appear as the hallmark of the discussions because of implementation gaps, unresolved mandates, historical imbalances, and declining confidence. The challenge is not consensus itself but making it work effectively. "No Member questions decision-making by consensus, which remains an important practice of the WTO." C. Foundational principles: Reaffirm or renegotiate? A fundamental divide seemingly exists on whether the foundational principles (MFN, transparency, binding dispute settlement, S&DT) should be reaffirmed or reassessed for contemporary realities. Here again, a large majority of members seem to argue that the challenges stem from implementation failures, not principle deficiencies. However, a small group of industrialized countries - who are propelling the WTO reform discussions against the views of a majority of members - are insisting on the need for reforms "fully suited to contemporary realities." D. S&DT: The central flashpoint For a large majority of members, "Special and Differential Treatment (S&DT)" is a "non-negotiable treaty right," a legal obligation, and not part of aspirational commitments. Without naming the countries that seemingly foisted the reforms on the majority of members, the Facilitators echoed the views of the United States, the European Union, Japan, and the "Friends of the System" group, that the self-designated S&DT framework is "increasingly unsustainable," enabling major developing countries to access flexibilities indefinitely. The Facilitators' reports on S&DT mildly acknowledged that proposals for objective differentiation criteria (income thresholds, development indices) face strong opposition: "S&DT constitutes a non-negotiable treaty right, grounded in Part IV of the GATT and the Marrakesh Agreement." E. Level playing field: Everything or nothing? According to the Facilitator on level playing field (LFP) issues, "fairness" means different things to different Members. For many developing countries, LFP issues meant addressing historical asymmetries in agriculture, tariffs, and implementation gaps. "Taken together, the issues raised under this track touch on nearly every major subject discussed in the WTO over the past three decades." Without clearer scope definition, this track risks becoming "a new, broad-based negotiating round." F. Past mandates and trust For many countries, confidence in reform depends on implementing previously agreed commitments. Unimplemented mandates contribute directly to the trust deficit - stocktaking exercises were proposed to understand implementation gaps. "Confidence in the WTO cannot be separated from the implementation of previously agreed commitments." G. Dispute settlement For a majority of countries, the immediate restoration of a fully functioning dispute settlement mechanism was identified as essential to the credibility of any reform outcomes. H. Mapping exercises Many developing countries appeared to be calling for mapping exercises: significant interest was expressed across multiple tracks in factual, evidence-based mapping exercises to establish common understanding and provide a basis for focused discussions. +
|
||
