|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jul24/24) Geneva, 25 Jul (D. Ravi Kanth) — Brazil has seemingly suffered a serious setback at the World Trade Organization on its much-publicized proposal on “Moving Agriculture Negotiations Forward”, said people familiar with the development. It appears to have pulled out all the stops to secure support from such diverse countries as the United States, the European Union, China, and the farm-offensive as well as farm-defensive countries, to ensure the passage of its controversial proposal (WT/GC/W/939/Rev.2) at the WTO’s General Council (GC) meeting on 22 July. Even the WTO’s Director-General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, seemingly “crossed all the lines”, in alleged violation of paragraph 4 of Article VI of the Marrakesh Agreement, to campaign for Brazil’s proposal, sometimes overtly and at other times behind the scenes, said several trade envoys, who asked not to be quoted. Brazil had formed the G20 group of developing countries along with India, China, South Africa, and several other countries in Geneva in August 2003, days before the WTO’s fifth ministerial conference in Cancun, Mexico, in September 2003, in opposition to a joint agreement reached between the US and the EU that attempted to reconcile the positions of the two trans-Atlantic powers on the issue of agriculture. In contrast, after two decades, Brazil has seemingly cobbled together a new alliance with farm-offensive and farm-defensive countries against its erstwhile partners in the Doha agriculture negotiations, said people familiar with the development. At the GC meeting on 22 July, the DG appears to have made a long statement for almost ten minutes on the Brazilian proposal and how it intends to take the farm trade negotiations forward, said people familiar with the discussions. Before the meeting, she apparently tried to broker a compromise between Brazil and the African Group members in “green room” meetings, several trade envoys told the SUNS on the condition of anonymity. Before the GC meeting, the DG thanked members for finding a way through, “including the Brazil-led process, the African Group contribution, Brazil’s discussions with the African Group, the technical work that the Cairns Group and African Group are undertaking.” “I consider these as contributions towards making a breakthrough,” she said, according to the restricted document Job/TNC/123. Following the rather positive statement made by the DG in favour of the Brazilian proposal at the GC meeting, several countries intervened to extend support to the proposal. The countries that seem to have openly supported the Brazilian proposal at the GC meeting included Ukraine, Guyana, Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, El Salvador, the United Kingdom, the United States, Guatemala, Switzerland, Japan, Ecuador, Paraguay, Argentina, China, Uruguay, Chile, the European Union, Israel, Cameroon, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam and Korea, among others, said people who asked not to be identified. For the first time, it looked as if Brazil had built a new alliance of countries that comprised the farm-defensive countries like Switzerland and Japan on the one side, and farm-offensive countries like Paraguay and Australia, on the other, said people familiar with the discussions. Incidentally, China, which was a founding member of the G20 coalition of developing countries as well as a current member of the G33 coalition of developing countries, vigorously supported the Brazilian proposal at the GC meeting. According to the statement made by the Chinese trade envoy, Ambassador Li Chenggang, at the GC meeting, Beijing said that it “appreciates the tremendous efforts Brazil has made in the past 2 months, trying to facilitate a common guideline for the agricultural negotiations.” The Chinese trade envoy said that “it is not an easy task,” adding that “the efforts by Brazil, and the kind of responsibility and leadership it has demonstrated, are to be applauded.” China said that it “is ready to join the consensus.” “However, I have to say, what we have undergone together during the past 6 months, unfortunately, reflects that members lack trust in the agricultural negotiations,” the Chinese trade envoy said. “So, all of us should seriously think about how we should go forward on this important issue,” he added. OPPOSITION In varying levels of emphasis, several developing countries, as well as the Russian Federation, said “No” to the Brazilian proposal, said people familiar with the discussions. The countries that rejected the Brazilian proposal included: Russia, India, Indonesia, Djibouti, Samoa, Nigeria, Chad (the African Group coordinator), South Africa, Mauritius, Mozambique, Malaysia, Cambodia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Kenya, and Namibia among others. Indonesia’s trade envoy, Ambassador Dandy Iswara, issued a strong statement at the meeting, saying that while Indonesia “respects Brazil’s right to convene informal consultations to deliberate on its proposal, the discussion should eventually be brought to the CoASS (Committee on Agriculture in Special Session) where members have more equal standing in the negotiations.” Ambassador Iswara said, “unfortunately, our concern has been dismissed as irrelevant or even mis-characterised as an excuse to prevent the negotiations from advancing.” The outgoing Indonesian trade envoy reminded Brazil of the importance of keeping “our demand(s) reasonable.” He outlined the following demands for advancing the farm trade negotiations:
Indonesia also objected to the “restructuring of negotiating mandates at the expense of longstanding Ministerial mandates that would deepen the trust-deficit among members”. Ambassador Iswara said rather forcefully that Indonesia will not join the consensus on the Brazilian proposal. India said it opposes the Brazilian proposal both on procedural and substantive as well as systemic grounds, said people familiar with the Indian statement. In the run-up to the GC meeting, the Brazilian proposal reportedly faced opposition during the informal discussions when several countries like India, Indonesia on behalf of the G33, and many African countries, including South Africa, among others criticized the Brazilian proposal, including for embarking on informal negotiations outside the established Doha agriculture negotiating body, said people familiar with the discussions. The Brazilian proposal sought substantial changes in the draft ministerial text on agriculture, which provided a hierarchy of options in which a decision on the permanent solution on PSH was supposed to be concluded at the WTO’s 13th ministerial conference (MC13) in Abu Dhabi. MC13, however, failed to deliver on agriculture due to disagreement on the much-delayed permanent solution on PSH since the WTO’s 10th ministerial conference (MC10) in Nairobi, Kenya, in December 2015. While the Brazilian proposal said that “members instruct the CoA SS Chairperson to conduct negotiations on PSH, SSM and cotton in line with the mandates of the Nairobi Ministerial Decision and in dedicated sessions of the CoA SS,” it proposed that “the General Council and the TNC [Trade Negotiations Committee] shall regularly review progress in the negotiation.” In the end, Brazil’s policy of switching/making alliances during the Doha agriculture negotiations may make it difficult for Brasilia to be considered as a leader among developing countries in the farm trade negotiations at the WTO, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
