|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on UN Sustainable Development (Sept23/01) New Delhi, 30 Aug (D. Ravi Kanth) — The Johannesburg II Declaration issued by the expanded BRICS coalition of developing countries on 24 August seems to have “shown the mirror” to the Northern countries, particularly the Group of Seven (G7) industrialized nations, who have allegedly ignored the specific concerns of the Global South in the Multilateral Trading System (MTS), including the World Trade Organization, said people familiar with the discussions. The BRICS coalition – Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, with six newly admitted members Argentina, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates – also showed how the G20 Trade and Investment Ministerial Meeting (TIMM) that concluded in Jaipur, India on 25 August “missed the bus” in articulating the specific concerns of the developing and least-developed countries in the MTS and at the WTO, according to people familiar with the two documents issued at the end of their respective meetings. At a time when the MTS is being fractured into separate pieces and the World Trade Organization appears to be irreversibly “atrophied”, it was apparently expected of India to stand firm in negotiating the final document along with other developing countries present at the TIMM, said a developing country participant who took part in the series of meetings held in Jaipur on 21-25 August. The Johannesburg II Declaration was preceded by a meeting of the BRICS trade ministers in early August. The BRICS trade ministers issued a declaration under the theme of “BRICS and Africa: Partnership for Mutually Accelerated Growth, Sustainable Development and Inclusive Multilateralism”, reflecting the core priorities of each one of the BRICS members towards “the global partnerships that will bring prosperity to all humanity and achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals.” According to the declaration, the trade ministers exchanged views on cooperation in key areas of “Multilateral Trading System, Digital Economy, Sustainable Development, Supply Chains Cooperation, Response to Trade Mispricing and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSMEs)” and “reached a broad consensus on ways to further enhance BRICS cooperation in these areas.” The declaration contains specific consensus-based understandings on “Strengthening Multilateral Trading System (MTS) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) Reform”, “Framework for Cooperation on Supply Chains for Resilience and Sustainable Development,” “Cooperation and Digital Economy,” “BRICS Response to [Trade] Mispricing,” and BRICS MSMEs Cooperation Framework. On strengthening “the transparent, rules-based, open, fair, equitable, inclusive, and non-discriminatory MTS with the WTO at its core,” the BRICS trade ministers underscored “the importance of special and differential treatment (S&DT) for developing countries including Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and the key foundational principles of the WTO (as contained in the Marrakesh Agreement).” The trade ministers inveighed against the carbon border tax scheme and carbon pricing on grounds that they constitute “WTO-inconsistent unilateral and protectionist measures” being imposed, including under the guise of “environmental sustainability”. “These measures undermine the MTS, disrupt supply and production chains, and distort competition,” the BRICS trade ministers emphasized. The BRICS members view the latest slew of carbon-based measures as an attempt “to shift the burden of climate change mitigation to third countries that do not carry such historical responsibility for climate change, and also undermine their necessary pursuit of development.” They also expressed sharp concern over the “rise of sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures that are not based on science.” The trade ministers said that they remain committed to “working together to achieve a successful 13th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC13).” They emphasized that they “will engage constructively to pursue the necessary WTO reform that strengthens the MTS and promotes trade and development.” The BRICS trade ministers called for “the restoration of a fully and well-functioning two-tier binding WTO dispute settlement mechanism accessible to all members by 2024, and the selection of new WTO Appellate Body Members without further delay.” Later, the BRICS leaders incorporated the conclusions reached by their trade ministers in their Johannesburg II Declaration. It has brought to the center stage the challenges facing the developing and least-developed countries in the MTS, and reiterates the long-pending concerns of these countries at the WTO. More importantly, it offers a comprehensive agenda for reforming the existing international financial institutions. As the global financial system based on the US dollar gives way to international trading in other BRICS currencies, a paradigmatic shift is certainly underway. G20 TIMM In sharp contrast, while the G20 leaders’ meeting is scheduled to commence on 9 September, the G20 Trade and Investment Ministerial Meeting (TIMM) that concluded under the Indian Presidency in Jaipur on 25 August, seems to have failed to insert strong language on developing-country interests in the MTS and at the WTO. While it is understandable that there was no communique at the end of the meeting due to the proposed language on Russia’s war in Ukraine, the Outcome Document and the Chair’s Summary of the G20 TIMM appear to have elevated the concerns of the dominant Northern countries such as the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Canada among others in the global trading system and also their WTO priorities. The concerns of the Global South appear to have been articulated in some rather anaemic language with limited or no implications, while the chair of the TIMM, Mr Piyush Goyal, India’s commerce minister, claimed success and “groundbreaking” consensus at a concluding press conference. DIFFERING NARRATIVES A cursory glance at the two narratives – one issued in Johannesburg and the other at the Jaipur meeting – reveals why the Johannesburg II Declaration represents a watershed moment for the Global South, as compared to a mere reiteration of the previous outcomes in the G20 TIMM document. The G20 includes 19 industrialized and several developing countries: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the European Union. Since its establishment in Washington in the shadows of the global financial crisis in 2008, successive G20 meetings seemingly merely reinforced the Northern trade and finance agenda at the behest of the dominant international institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization, and the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Paris Climate Change Agreement of 2015 are also routinely cited. The EU appears to be willing to violate the Paris Climate Change Agreement by unilaterally announcing punitive protectionist measures like carbon border taxes. In fact, it appears that each G20 meeting has become an event for record-keeping and further embracing the narratives largely set by the US and other industrialized countries. While it is one thing to make pronouncements about the need to address the concerns of the poor people and communities, as India did in a closed-door meeting on 24 August, it is a different struggle altogether to reflect these concerns in the final language of the G20 TIMM Outcome Document. DIVERGENT CONCERNS FOR SOUTH AT JOHANNESBURG & JAIPUR The language on trade in the Johannesburg II Declaration is robust and it forcefully represents the concerns of the Global South. Paragraph eight of the Declaration reaffirms “support for the open, transparent, fair, predictable, inclusive, equitable, non-discriminatory, and rules-based multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organization (WTO) at its core, with special and differential treatment (S&DT) for developing countries, including Least Developed Countries.” Almost the same language figures in the G20 TIMM Outcome Document except for one vital difference on reinforcing the concerns of the Global South on special and differential treatment. The G20 TIMM Outcome Document reaffirmed that “a rules-based, non-discriminatory, fair, open, inclusive, equitable, sustainable and transparent multilateral trading system, with the WTO at its core, is indispensable to advancing our shared objectives of inclusive growth, innovation, job creation and sustainable development.” Under the Indian Presidency of the G20, one would have expected at least strong language on the continuation of S&DT to reinforce the concerns of the developing and least-developed countries. However, it seems to have been excluded from the TIMM Outcome Document, said people familiar with the development. Aside from strengthening S&DT in the WTO rulebook, as demanded by more than 90 developing countries, the BRICS declaration calls for “concrete deliverables” at the upcoming WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi. “We call for the restoration of a fully and well-functioning two-tier binding WTO dispute settlement system accessible to all members by 2024, and the selection of new Appellate Body Members without further delay,” said the BRICS declaration. India, which has repeatedly called for the restoration of the two-stage dispute settlement system, seemed to be unable to include strong language on this vital issue in the G20 Outcome Document, in the face of opposition from the US. Somewhat disappointingly, the G20 Outcome Document merely said: “We note the ongoing discussions on Dispute Settlement reform and remain committed to conducting discussions with a view to having a fully and well-functioning Dispute Settlement System, accessible to all members, by 2024.” Effectively, the above G20 language does not guarantee the restoration of the two-tier system or the Appellate Body. Without a binding two-tier system undergirding the WTO’s enforcement function, the WTO faces the prospect of being run on the principle of “MIGHT is RIGHT”- which is what the US wants. More importantly, the BRICS declaration, in paragraph nine, called for “the need to make progress towards the achievement of a fair and market-oriented agricultural trading system, ending hunger, achieving food security and improved nutrition, promoting sustainable agriculture and food systems, and implement resilient agricultural practices.” It emphasized the need to “deliver on agriculture reform in accordance with the mandate in Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture, while recognizing the importance of respecting the mandates with regards to a Permanent Solution on Public Stockholding (PSH) for food security purposes and special safeguard mechanism (SSM) for developing countries, including LDCs, in their respective negotiating contexts.” Further, the Johannesburg II Declaration states: “BRICS members are also concerned with trade-restrictive measures which are inconsistent with WTO rules, including unilateral illegal measures such as sanctions, that affect agricultural trade.” At the G20 TIMM meeting of senior officials a day before the actual ministerial meeting, the US opposed any language on “WTO-inconsistent” measures. Therefore, it is not surprising that India seemed to be unable to stop the US from inserting language in the G20 Outcome Document that is inimical to the concerns of the developing countries, said people familiar with the development. TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT Another issue on which the BRICS declaration seemed to be more credible and relevant for the developing countries is on trade and environment. It states in paragraph 63: “We oppose trade barriers including those under the pretext of tackling climate-change imposed by certain developed countries and reiterate our commitment to enhancing coordination on these issues.” It underlined that “measures taken to tackle climate change and biodiversity loss must be WTO-consistent and must not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade and should not create unnecessary obstacles to international trade.” “Any such measure must be guided by the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), in the light of different national circumstances,” the BRICS declaration emphasized. “We express our concern at any WTO inconsistent discriminatory measure that will distort international trade, risk new trade barriers, and shift the burden of addressing climate change and biodiversity loss to BRICS members and developing countries.” In contrast, the G20 Outcome Document, in paragraph nine, merely recalls that “trade and environment policies should be mutually supportive, consistent with WTO and multilateral environmental agreements. We further acknowledge the essential role of multilateral cooperation to effectively address common environmental and sustainable development challenges. We will engage in further discussions on trade and sustainability.” Surely, this seemingly diluted language does not appear to augur well for the South in the coming days and months. Of course, it can be argued that the G20 is a grouping of major industrialized countries with a limited say for the developing countries, unlike the BRICS. +
|
||
