|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct24/14) Geneva, 16 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — The United States on 15 October said that it is not “comfortable” with the “new notion of convergence”, in what appears to be a reference to the World Trade Organization’s General Council (GC) chair’s decision to start the selection process for the appointment of a new Director-General based solely on “convergence”, said people familiar with the discussions. Intervening in a discussion on item 6 of the GC agenda at the GC meeting on 15 October on “Follow-up to the 8 July Retreat – Request from Argentina; Australia; Cambodia; Canada; Chile; China; European Union; Hong Kong, China; Malaysia; New Zealand; Singapore; Switzerland and the United Kingdom”, the US trade envoy, Ambassador Maria Pagan, brought the issue of “convergence” to the center stage, reflecting what the spokesperson of the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) had told this writer earlier. On 8 October, the USTR spokesperson said that Washington “believes that a transparent and predictable selection process for Director-General is in the best interest of the World Trade Organization. The Chair of the General Council took this action based on what he believed to be within his discretion under the Procedures for the Appointment of Directors-General, which was adopted by the General Council in 2002. The United States is concerned that this action was taken based on the Chair’s assumption of convergence, rather than consensus.” Echoing the same concern, Ambassador Pagan told the GC meeting that “while you know we are comfortable with the notion of responsible consensus which we think is consistent with being consensus-based,” however, responsible consensus “is very different than the newer notion of convergence-based organisation which many seem to be comfortable with, not us.” The US trade envoy said, “the United States is open to continue discussion on the important issue of reform,” said people familiar with the discussions. “However, since lately, we take a very cavalier attitude to decision-making,” said Ambassador Pagan, adding: “I want to be very clear.” “We are in no way endorsing or agreeing to the proposals set out in the takeaway document (issued at the end of the retreat on 8 July),” said Ambassador Pagan. The US trade envoy said, “finally, we agree with those who remind us that we are a consensus-based organisation.” This appeared to be a clear message to the GC chair, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, in that his decision to start the selection process for the appointment of the next DG is seemingly flawed and inconsistent with the rules as set out in document WT/L/509, particularly paragraph 7, which states that the DG selection process must commence nine months before the incumbent DG concludes her term, said people, who asked not to be quoted. It remains to be seen what the GC chair will say when the GC meeting resumes on 16 October, said people familiar with the development. The current DG, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, concludes her first term on 31 August 2025. Accordingly, the DG selection process ought to commence in the first week of December 2024 based on consensus within the GC, said people familiar with the development. INDIA ON CONSENSUS Meanwhile, India delivered a rather hard-hitting statement during the discussion on item 6, stating that decisions at the WTO must be concluded based on consensus. In an apparent indirect reference to the controversial DG selection process started by the GC chair, India reiterated that “consensus-based decision-making and the member-driven processes are the hallmarks and foundational principles of the WTO treaty, which can neither be undermined nor compromised.” “Attempts of any kind to deviate from consensus decision-making would further widen the trust deficit,” India warned, suggesting that “in this context, the process is no less important than the substance and cannot be overlooked.” “The emphasis on transparency and inclusive principles in the WTO process is not new,” India pointed out. +
|
||
