|
||
|
TWN Info Service
on WTO and Trade Issues (Jun23/13) Washington DC, 21 Jun (D. Ravi Kanth) — The European Union and the United States along with other industrialized and some developing countries on 16 June apparently intensified their efforts to push through overarching reforms at the World Trade Organization that could transform WTO committees and the General Council into allegedly taking bold plurilateral decisions, said people familiar with the discussions. At an informal day-long retreat convened by the WTO's General Council chair, Ambassador Athaliah Lesiba Molokomme from Botswana, the Northern countries and some of their developing-country allies apparently pushed hard for comprehensive WTO reforms on a fast track. On the face of it, the WTO Secretariat appears to have supported a gradualist approach, said a participant, who asked not to be quoted. As predicted at the time of the WTO's 12th ministerial conference (MC12) in June last year, the industrialized countries have used paragraph three of the MC12 Outcome Document (WT/MIN(22)/24), especially the footnote attached to it, to bring in their controversial plurilateral agenda. Paragraph three of the MC12 Outcome Document states: "We acknowledge the need to take advantage of available opportunities, address the challenges that the WTO is facing, and ensure the WTO's proper functioning. We commit to work towards the necessary reform of the WTO. While reaffirming the foundational principles of the WTO, we envision reforms to improve all its functions. The work shall be Member-driven, open, transparent, and inclusive, and must address the interests of all Members, including development issues. The General Council and its subsidiary bodies will conduct the work, review progress, and consider decisions, as appropriate, to be submitted to the next Ministerial Conference." Accordingly, proposals to reform the WTO committees and the General Council to consider decisions were circulated by the EU, the US along with several other countries, and Australia with the "Friends of the System", said people, who asked not to be quoted. Once there is agreement on these proposals, the proponents could then use the footnote attached to paragraph three of the MC12 Outcome Document, which states: "For greater certainty, in this context, this does not prevent groupings of WTO Members from meeting to discuss relevant matters or making submissions for consideration by the General Council or its subsidiary bodies." It is against this backdrop that the day-long informal retreat was hosted by the General Council chair on 16 June. In what appeared to be somewhat like a confusing muddle of the WTO reforms, whose discussions were held under Chatham House rules that allow participants to discuss issues freely without being specifically identified/ quoted, it appears that the powerful group of industrialized countries led by the EU and the US and their developing-country allies have apparently sought a radical overhaul of the functioning of the WTO committees and the General Council. SOUTH PUSHES BACK However, many developing countries seem to have pushed back against attempts being made to set aside the mandated ministerial decisions/outcomes while proposing new issues that were not mandated by the previous ministerial conferences, said several people, who asked not to be quoted. Ahead of the informal retreat, the General Council chair circulated on 2 June, a 23-page restricted document, titled "State of Play – In WTO Councils, Committees and Negotiating Bodies – "Reform by Doing". The document, seen by the SUNS, "provides a state of play regarding practices and measures to facilitate the participation of Members in WTO Councils, Committees and Negotiating Groups." According to the chair, the document suggests what respective bodies may decide, and which practices and/or measures are suitable in light of their respective mandates, terms of reference, or functioning. The document is a "work in progress" and indicates the state of play with regard to practices and measures implemented or under consideration in WTO bodies, she suggested. MODALITIES FOR THE RETREAT The retreat, convened in a "Davos-type" of plenary and breakout sessions, sought to address several themes for improving the WTO committees and the General Council. The opening plenary session, for example, focused on the issue of "facilitating Members' participation in WTO Bodies." Subsequently, members held breakout sessions in four different groups to discuss two major issues. They include: 1. Engagement on cross-cutting issues, trade concerns, and other trade-related matters; and 2. Effective oversight and decision-making in the Ministerial Conference and the General Council and ensuring that the Trade Negotiations Committee effectively plays its supervising role in the overall conduct of the negotiations. Significantly, the themes suggested for the plenary session and the breakout sessions seem to have been borrowed from proposals submitted by the EU, the US along with several other countries, Australia along with a group of countries, and Brazil with five South American countries, said people familiar with the proposals. It is not clear yet as to why several other proposals submitted by developing countries such as India and South Africa were not included in the list of issues, said a person who asked not to be quoted. The process decided for the retreat includes a plenary meeting on "Reform by Doing". In her note to members, the General Council chair said: "Members have identified certain challenges with regard to their participation in WTO bodies such as overlap of meetings, better appreciation of meeting agenda, ability to better prepare for meetings, support for follow-up and support to delegations." For the first breakout session, the General Council chair suggested that members discuss "engagement on cross- cutting issues, trade concerns, and other trade-related matters". She said that they should answer the question, "How can the work of WTO bodies be organized to allow productive engagement to support deliberations and better serve Members' objectives?" The second breakout session focused on "effective oversight and decision-making in the Ministerial Conference and the General Council, and ensuring that the Trade Negotiations Committee effectively plays its supervising role of the overall conduct of the negotiations." The General Council chair urged members to answer the question, "How can it be ensured that the deliberations in the MC (ministerial conference), GC (General Council), and TNC harness this potential, [and] in so doing, contribute to the realization of the goals of the WTO?" The chair also appointed four facilitators for the breakout sessions: Ambassador Maimuna Tarishi of Tanzania; Ambassador Clare Kelly of New Zealand; Ambassador Manuel Teehankee of the Philippines; and Ambassador Federico Villegas of Argentina. "HIDDEN" DESIGN While the discussions seem to have touched on several procedural issues raised by the EU, the US, and the "Friends of the System" led by Australia, several developing countries apparently echoed divergent views on some of the questions raised by the General Council chair, said a person, who asked not to be quoted. The EU apparently touted its proposal on how to enhance the deliberative function, particularly its transparency proposal. The EU apparently suggested that its transparency proposal leads to different steps, said people who asked not to be quoted. However, several members expressed concerns about the EU's proposal on enhancing the deliberative function in the WTO committees. It appears that the developing countries also seemed concerned about the dilution of the principle of consensus-based decision-making. Apparently, one South-East Asian country, which exercises considerable power in the WTO meetings regardless of its small size as an island state, is understood to have said that it is important to make progress in the WTO committees by limiting the role of consensus-based decision-making, said another participant, who asked not to be quoted. DIFFICULTIES FACED BY SMALL DELEGATIONS Several developing countries complained about the specific difficulties faced by the small delegations, who are poorly resourced with few officials to participate in all meetings held almost simultaneously. Apparently, a suggestion was made at the meeting that the General Council chair must convene a meeting along with the chairs of the different committees every month to apprise them of what was discussed in each meeting. Another suggestion that was also made at the meeting was that the General Council chair as well as the chairs of the other bodies must circulate the notes of the conclusions and of the proceedings (of meetings) within two or three days, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Significantly, there was a suggestion made to record the meetings in order to share with those members who were unable to attend these meetings. TOO MANY MEETINGS Ironically, on the day that the retreat was held, i.e. on 16 June, there were three other meetings being held, thus making it difficult for small delegations to participate simultaneously in all these meetings, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Several developing countries insisted that the ministerially-mandated issues should be given priority over the new issues. Apparently, several industrialized countries suggested that priority should be given to discussing the new issues. On a suggestion by the EU that international organizations should be called in for discussing non-contentious issues, the developing countries apparently called for caution in addressing this issue, suggesting that only bodies of the United Nations should be given priority, said people familiar with the discussions. Until the General Council chair issues her authoritative note on how different members responded to the issues, it is difficult to make any evidence-based judgment, said several participants, who asked not to be quoted. Apparently, members largely discussed procedural issues, including: (1) Do members need facilitators to address (some) substantive issues? (2) Does external engagement need to be enhanced? (3) Should ministerial conferences occur on a yearly basis as proposed by Brazil? and (4) Do agendas need to be better coordinated? Apparently, sharp differences cropped up on issues concerning focus and speed, as well as on issues such as industrial subsidies or the ambition for WTO reform and so on, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Clearly, there are asymmetries in prioritizing issues concerning WTO reforms, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. While the level of ambition in setting right the institutional practices and issues is high, the same appears not to be the case with the dispute settlement reform where one major member appears bent on "asphyxiating" the Appellate Body in the two-tier dispute settlement system, said people, who asked not to be quoted. Interestingly, the Northern countries, who had earlier called for reforming the WTO's negotiating function to bring in their plurilateral issues, seem to have remained silent on this issue. Perhaps, they may have realized that they can foist their plurilateral issues without reforming the negotiating function. +
|
||
