|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct26/28) WTO:
Overlapping issues, unbridgeable differences stall reform talks Geneva, 26 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) -- The United States and several other members on 23 October called for a serious rethink of the discussions on the World Trade Organization reform tracks - foundational issues, decision- making, development and "level playing field" (LPF) issues - amid overlapping subjects and unbridgeable differences, according to people familiar with the discussions. The reports issued by the four facilitators overseeing the reform discussions revealed little or no progress across the four tracks. Against this backdrop, members from across the board called for a rethink, arguing that the discussions were going nowhere, said people familiar with the development. During a sparsely attended, brief "transparency" meeting on 23 October, the chair of the WTO's General Council, Ambassador Clare Kelly of New Zealand, is understood to have said that she did not expect members to comment on the substance. She reportedly added that since members had already made substantive comments, it was time to focus on the process, said people familiar with the discussions. The facilitators' reports were issued late on 22 October, leaving many members unable to fully examine them, said a person who asked not to be quoted. The General Council chair also indicated that Ambassador Elmer Jose German Gonzalo Schialer Salcedo of Peru, who is overseeing the discussions on the LPF issues and is leaving his current assignment, would be replaced by Ambassador Kairat Torebayev of Kazakhstan. Ambassador Kelly apparently invited members to express their views on the state of play in the process-related discussions. This brought several overlapping issues across the four tracks into the open, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted. OVERLAPPING ISSUES The US appeared to highlight overlaps across all four tracks, particularly foundational issues and development, where the same subjects are being discussed repeatedly. One example is policy space for development, an area in which the major trading powers are seeking fundamental changes, including to special and differential treatment (S&DT), as well as policy space under the LPF track, said people familiar with the discussions. The US reportedly issued a clear warning that the reform discussions were going nowhere. It said members needed to move beyond the four tracks and identify the topics to be taken forward for further discussion, according to people familiar with the development. Interestingly, the US appeared uninterested in discussing specific issues concerning reform of the WTO's dispute settlement system or the restoration of the Appellate Body through the expeditious filling of its seven vacancies, as demanded by 130 countries, said people familiar with the discussions. China, one of the key proponents of WTO reform, also appears to have raised concerns about overlapping issues, according to people familiar with the discussions. China reportedly observed that the nature of the problem was clear in some areas, particularly plurilaterals, but remained uncertain in others, including on foundational issues and the most-favoured-nation (MFN) principle, said an Asian trade official who asked not to be quoted. Australia and Norway, both major proponents of WTO reform, reportedly highlighted the same recurring issues across all four tracks. Norway apparently said that members needed to move towards more concrete issues before embarking on negotiations. Pakistan reportedly called for retaining issues that have roots in different tracks for further discussion, arguing that they could not be considered separately simply because some were mature while others were not. In essence, Pakistan appears to have argued that the process must maintain a balance so that there is something for everyone; otherwise, it would not succeed. It suggested that members could seek a balanced negotiating mandate at the WTO's 15th Ministerial Conference. Without such a mandate, members would continue going in circles, said people familiar with the discussions. India is understood to have raised four points. First, it reiterated its call for stocktaking and mapping exercises, a position shared by several other members. Second, it stressed that substantial differences persisted despite new proposals being floated by members, making it premature to draw conclusions from any single track or close any issue before all members had engaged fully. Third, India argued that development was central to reform and must remain at the heart of all four tracks. Fourth, New Delhi proposed a common sequence for examining any proposal, said people familiar with the discussions. India reportedly elaborated on three key requirements: (i) establishing the problem through evidence, drawing on the requested mapping exercise; (ii) assessing whether existing rules could address it or whether rules needed to be clarified, amended or developed; and (iii) determining whether the proposed change served members' mutual interests, reflected development concerns, and preserved the balance of rights and obligations and other foundational principles, according to people present during the discussions. Several members also suggested that the facilitators had failed to identify the next steps clearly in their reports, said an African trade diplomat. While the reports tended to capture the discussions, the next steps appeared to have been avoided because they were controversial, the diplomat argued. There were concerns that identifying the next steps could result in some members' ideas being advanced while others are ignored, potentially steering the discussions in a particular direction. The facilitators had apparently avoided this, the African trade diplomat said, requesting anonymity. Unsurprisingly, the facilitators' reports avoided posing any guiding questions. However, many members, including Pakistan, reportedly said that regardless of the agenda already announced for the November meetings, the General Council chair should circulate it in advance to allow members to prepare, according to people familiar with the discussions. Brazil reportedly argued that members must identify problems before developing solutions; otherwise, they would be unable to resolve the issues because they had not correctly identified them. Brazil maintained that detailed diagnostic work had to be completed before members moved towards solutions, said a trade diplomat who asked not to be quoted. More importantly, members of the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) Group and the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) members - Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines - are understood to have warned against moving towards solutions before members had established what the problem was, said a person from the African region who asked not to be quoted. Many members appeared to underscore the need to identify and locate the problem before proceeding further, the Asian official said. DSS REFORM Meanwhile, the chair overseeing the dispute settlement system (DSS) reform process, Ambassador Guilherme de Aguiar Patriota of Brazil, has invited "delegations to an informal open-ended plenary meeting on DS Reform, which will consist of an information session on: "Alternative Dispute Resolution" followed by exchanges among delegations." In an email to members (ICN/DSR/4) dated 16 October, the chair informed heads of delegation that "the informal meeting will be held immediately after the regular DSB meeting scheduled for 27 October 2026." A large majority of developing countries, along with some industrialised countries, want the chair to accelerate the DSS reform discussions to ensure a robust and binding enforcement mechanism, but the US opposes restoring a two-tier binding dispute settlement system, said several trade envoys who asked not to be quoted. The chair also provided a summary of the informal open-ended plenary meeting on DS reform held on 25 September. The summary is as follows: An informal open-ended plenary was convened (ICN/DSR/3) immediately after the regular DSB meeting held on 25 September 2026. The meeting consisted of the first information session on DS Reform. Mr. Jorge Castro (Director of the Legal Affairs Division) made a presentation on the "History of the Dispute Settlement System". The Co-Convenors of the DS Reform Process in 2024 - Ms. Claudia Diaz (Mexico), Mr. Stacy-Paul Healy (Canada) and Mr. David Stranger-Jones (United Kingdom) - provided an "Overview of DS reform processes following MC12 and MC13". After the presentations, the floor was opened for Members to ask questions and make comments. In concluding, the DSB Chair proposed that the informal plenary on DS Reform in October would consist of an information session on: "Alternative Dispute Resolution". Programme of the Second Information Session on DS Reform The series of information sessions on DS reform is not intended to initiate technical discussions. Rather, they are designed to maintain engagement, improve understanding of perspectives, preserve the knowledge and work accumulated in previous DS reform processes, and help prepare the ground for future discussions. These sessions are intended to support a common understanding among Geneva-based and capital-based officials, particularly in light of significant turnover among delegations and the importance of preserving institutional knowledge. The second information session will provide Members with an opportunity to exchange views and share experiences regarding alternative dispute resolution. Alternative Dispute Resolution Speakers Ms. Xiaoyan (Connie) Yang, Legal Counsellor, Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of China to the World Trade Organization. Mr. Russell Wild, Legal Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Australia to the World Trade Organization. Description of Session This session will be devoted to alternative dispute resolution available under the DSU, including information on arbitration, the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), and making a panel report final. The presentation will be followed by an exchange among Members, who will have the opportunity to pose questions and engage in an interactive dialogue with the speakers, including those who participated in the information session held on 25 September. +
|
||
