|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct24/17) Geneva, 21 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) — After remaining silent on the appointment process for the next Director- General of the World Trade Organization (WTO) at the General Council (GC) meeting last week, the GC chair, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, said on 18 October that “the process for the selection of the Director- General is proceeding in full compliance with WTO rules”, in response to several questions posed by the SUNS. Apparently striking a blow to the concerns expressed by the United States that the process lacked transparency and had not been commenced based on “consensus”, Ambassador Olberg not only seemingly stood his ground in light of Washington’s criticism, but also showed no intention of abandoning the allegedly illegitimate process, said people familiar with the development. He stated that the DG appointment process will be finalized by 8 November. Ambassador Olberg’s allegedly inflexible move to press ahead with the selection process of the next DG appears to have lowered the credibility of the US in the eyes of the WTO’s membership, said people familiar with the development. GC CHAIR’S RESPONSES Responding to several questions posed by the SUNS, the GC chair said in his email on 18 October that “the assertions contained within your inquiry, particularly [that the] current process does not align with WTO rules are entirely unfounded.” “These allegations are without foundation”, he said, adding that “the assumptions upon which your questions are based are factually inaccurate and lack any substantive merit”. He went on to assert that “the current selection process for the Director-General was initiated earlier than usual at the direct request of a group of WTO members (the African Group). This decision was made with the clear support of an overwhelming majority of [the] membership, following comprehensive consultations.” “This process,” the chair claimed, “is fully open and transparent, conducted in strict accordance with the WTO procedures.” Insisting that “the rules governing the selection of the Director-General are clear and well established”, the chair said “the legitimacy of the current process is beyond question.” However, he did not directly answer any of the nine questions posed by the SUNS. The questions were as follows: “1. In the absence of a formal GC Decision, on what legal grounds are you relying for the selection process regarding the reappointment of the WTO Director-General? 2. As Chairperson of the WTO’s highest decision-making body when the Ministerial Conference is not in session, do you believe proceeding without a formal decision to launch the selection process for the Director-General is an act violating the rules and procedures contained in the Marrakesh Agreement? 3. Why are you expediting the process to hold a special General Council meeting in December to reappoint the current DG, especially given the dissatisfaction from key members such as the US? Shouldn’t there be a full consensus among the membership even if no alternative candidates come forward? 4. Could you clarify why the decision was made to hold a special General Council meeting instead of conducting a more open, transparent, and consultative process with all WTO members? Have you ensured that all members have been fully consulted and that any objections have been addressed? 5. By intending to fast-track the DG’s reappointment in the event of no other competitors, are you not concerned that you are setting a problematic precedent for future WTO leadership appointments? How can you guarantee that this approach does not erode the established practice of full member consultations for critical decisions? 6. With the USTR expressing dissatisfaction, how do you address concerns that key members are being sidelined in the DG reappointment process? What steps are you taking to prevent potential political fallout if the US or other members object to your process at the December meeting? 7. Given that the WTO is a consensus-based organization, how do you justify moving forward with the reappointment process when some members are not fully onboard? Are you prepared to proceed even if formal objections are raised during the December meeting? 8. How do you plan to ensure that the reappointment of the DG under the current circumstances will be seen as legitimate by all WTO members, especially given the perceived departure from the consensus rule? 9. Some members may view the current process as a manipulation of the WTO rules to secure the DG’s reappointment without full member consultation. How do you respond to concerns that this could be a politically motivated move to preempt future opposition from key members like the US?” US REMAINS SILENT A spokesperson for the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) told this writer on 8 October that “the United States is concerned that this action was taken based on the Chair’s assumption of convergence, rather than consensus.” The spokesperson said that Washington “will remain engaged in this process, as it will with all other aspects of governance and oversight of the World Trade Organization secretariat.” At a closed-door meeting of trade envoys on 9 October, the US trade envoy to the WTO, Ambassador Maria Pagan, seemingly criticized the GC chair, asking why he started the process without a consensus decision, said people familiar with the development. She acknowledged at that meeting that the US was forced to take the issue to the media, after one trade envoy showed the story to all other participants, said several people familiar with the meeting. The US trade envoy appears to have taken the GC chair to task for his allegedly illegal action, said people familiar with the discussion. “Ambassador Olberg was apparently trembling at the questions posed by the US trade envoy, and could not offer any reasonable explanation,” said people familiar with the discussions. Privately, several people said they had expected the US to reiterate its objections forcefully at the GC meeting that took place on 15-16 October. However, the US belied the expectations of members by remaining silent at the GC meeting, casting doubt on how seriously it viewed the allegedly illegal actions of the GC Chair, said people who asked not to be quoted. “The controversy surrounding the haste with which the GC Chair wants to assist the incumbent DG Ngozi [Okonjo-Iweala] to secure a second term regardless of whoever emerges as the winner of the US Presidential election continues, with several Members questioning the authority of the GC Chair to initiate the process without formal authorization from the General Council,” said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. By failing to answer directly the questions posed by the writer, “the GC chair has chosen to remain defiant, while insisting that the selection process is being conducted consistently with the relevant WTO rules and procedures. This either shows that he has not read the rules and procedures himself, or he knows perfectly well that he has circumvented them but is determined to tough it out”, said people who reviewed the nine questions. “The rules are patently clear”, said several people, suggesting that “the selection process has to commence 9 months before the term of the incumbent runs out as per paragraph 7 of the GC document (WT/L/509)”. The term of the DG expires on 31 August 2025. The appointment process should legally commence on 1 December 2024, as per paragraph 7 of the GC Decision contained in the document WT/L/509. The GC chair’s argument that “he acted upon the request of a group of members which was overwhelmingly supported by many members is without any (legal) merit,” said a trade envoy who reviewed the GC chair’s answers to the SUNS. “There is nothing in the rules which gives the GC Chair authority to commence the selection process without a formal decision of the General Council. He is behaving as if he is the General Council and the General Council is him,” the trade envoy said. Moreover, “the determination to avoid the basically laid down rules and procedures just buttresses the view that he is doing this as a precaution against the possible return of President Trump to the White House,” said another trade envoy. “What the GC Chair and his European and African backers are not thinking about is how would President Trump relate to DG Ngozi and the WTO when every effort was made to deny him the chance to share his view on who should lead the organization,” the envoy asked. +
|
||
