|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Dec24/04) New Delhi, 10 Dec (D. Ravi Kanth) — A draft decision tabled by 125 countries on the incorporation of the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement is expected to be discussed at the World Trade Organization’s General Council (GC) meeting on 16 December. Despite the WTO Director-General’s call to “find a way forward to handle the concerns of the few members who continue to voice reservations on this matter,” it is not clear why the proponents have inscribed their draft decision on the GC agenda knowing full well that three countries – India, South Africa, and Namibia – opposing the agreement are unlikely to change their positions, said people familiar with the development. In her statement (Job/GC/418) at the special GC meeting on 28 November, the DG, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, referred to the IFDA twice. In paragraph 20 of her statement, she said, “inserting the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) into Annex 4 is still an ongoing request by the 125 signatories to the agreement whilst the very important e-commerce plurilateral negotiations have reached conclusion on a stabilized text.” The DG continued in paragraph 21 of her statement: “Over the short to medium term, I would like to work with you to deliver on Investment Facilitation for Development. We have to find a way forward to handle the concerns of the few Members who continue to voice reservations on this matter. I believe that with some trust we can also manage to close on this in the near future.” IFDA PROPONENTS PRESS AHEAD Against this backdrop, it appears rather puzzling as to why the 125 proponents continue to press the issue when the DG herself recognizes that an agreement is only possible in the short to medium term and that too only “with some trust”. In their revised proposal (WT/GC/W/927/Rev.2) circulated on 14 October 2024, the proponents requested the General Council to adopt the draft decision, pursuant to paragraph 9 of Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization. The proponents include: Afghanistan; Albania; Angola; Antigua and Barbuda; Argentina; Armenia; Australia; Bahrain, Kingdom of; Barbados; Belize; Benin; Bolivia, Plurinational State of; Brazil; Burkina Faso; Burundi; Cabo Verde; Cambodia; Cameroon; Canada; Central African Republic; Chad; Chile; China; Congo; Costa Rica; Cote d’Ivoire; Democratic Republic of the Congo; Djibouti; Dominica; Dominican Republic; Ecuador; El Salvador; European Union; Gabon; Gambia; Georgia; Grenada; Guatemala; Guinea; Guinea Bissau; Honduras; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Indonesia; Japan; Kazakhstan; Korea, Republic of; Kuwait, the State of; Kyrgyz Republic; Lao People’s Democratic Republic; Liberia; Macao, China; Malawi; Malaysia; Maldives; Mali; Mauritania; Mauritius; Mexico; Moldova, Republic of; Mongolia; Montenegro; Morocco; Mozambique; Myanmar; New Zealand; Nicaragua; Niger; Nigeria; North Macedonia; Norway; Oman; Pakistan; Panama; Papua New Guinea; Paraguay; Peru; Philippines; Qatar; Russian Federation; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; Singapore; Solomon Islands; Suriname; Switzerland; Tajikistan; Thailand; Togo; Uganda; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; Uruguay; Vanuatu; Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of; Yemen; Zambia; and Zimbabwe. The first paragraph of the draft GC decision states: “Having regard to paragraph 9 of Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”)”. Paragraph 9 of Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization states: “The Ministerial Conference, upon the request of the Members parties to a trade agreement, may decide exclusively by consensus to add that agreement to Annex 4. The Ministerial Conference, upon the request of the Members parties to a Plurilateral Trade Agreement, may decide to delete that Agreement from Annex 4.” However, what appears to be left unsaid in the proposal by the 125 members is that there has been no prior consensus on any of the Joint Statement Initiatives such as on digital trade, investment facilitation for development, disciplines for micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and trade and gender, as per the provisions in Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement since the WTO’s 11th ministerial conference (MC11) in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in December 2017, said several trade envoys familiar with the IFDA. Yet, the IFDA proponents seemingly embarked on reaching an agreement rather “illegitimately”, a process that has been supported by the current DG, trade envoys said. Another argument raised against the IFDA appears to be that though the issue of investment figures in the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), it is not part of the Marrakesh Agreement, said a person who asked not to be quoted. However, the DG seems to be prepared to brush aside the procedural and systemic concerns to conclude the plurilateral agreement at any cost, said people familiar with the negotiations. At a time when the United States President-elect, Donald Trump, is threatening to wage a trade and currency war unilaterally without respecting any of the WTO’s rules, it may not augur well for a rules-based organization to violate its own rules, and create impunity at the WTO, said a legal analyst who asked not to be quoted. +
|
||
