|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Dec25/04) Geneva, 28 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the World Trade Organization’s General Council (GC) and the WTO Director-General are convening a meeting of capital-based senior officials at the WTO on 16 December. According to a joint letter that they issued on 26 November, the meeting is ostensibly to ensure “focused and meaningful ministerial engagement at MC14.” However, several trade negotiators, who asked not to be quoted, said many developing countries are fiercely pushing back against alleged attempts to foist a “top-down” reform agenda on them. They argue that this reform agenda fails to address their key concerns while advancing the interests of major industrialized countries, who are attempting to change the rules of the Marrakesh Agreement. In the joint letter sent to members on 26 November, the GC chair, Ambassador Saqer Abdullah Almoqbel of Saudi Arabia and the DG, Ms. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, said, “in just under four months, Ministers and Heads of Delegation will convene in Yaounde, Cameroon for the WTO’s 14th Ministerial Conference.” “Given the current turbulence in global trade and its implications for the multilateral trading system, this conference will be pivotal,” they added. Trade envoys, who asked not to be quoted, noted that the letter did not explain the nature of the “current turbulence” or how the proposed reforms would help overcome it. Trade envoys, who asked not to be quoted, said it is common knowledge that the unilateral reciprocal tariffs imposed by the Trump administration have seriously hollowed out the raison d’etre of the global trade body. They noted that Washington has seemingly become a “parallel epicenter” to resolve concerns stemming from those same tariffs. The GC chair and the DG, however, claimed that “delegations in Geneva have been striving to lay the groundwork for a productive and substantive meeting in Yaounde, with the Roadmap to Yaounde (Job/ TNC/127/Rev.2), serving as a reference.” According to the letter, “this evolving document reflects the diversity of views expressed by Members,” and “while there are differing perspectives regarding the timing and convening of Senior Officials, the value of keeping them apprised of preparations for MC14 has been clear.” A trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted, said that given the sharp divisions among members on three key reform areas – changing the consensus principle, differentiating among developing countries for availing of special and differential treatment, and “leveling the playing field” – the GC chair and the DG did not explain how the senior officials’ meeting would help create a conducive framework. The same envoy added that calls for reforming the WTO’s “broken” dispute settlement system are being brushed aside, while the focus remains on the three controversial reform areas. Another trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted, said the so-called “reform ministerial” and calls for a post- MC14 reform agenda would be tantamount to launching a new round of trade negotiations. People familiar with the development said that if the reform-driven agenda is intended to write off the unresolved mandated issues of the Doha work programme, then the GC chair and the DG should make this public to inform trade ministers of the underlying agenda. Nevertheless, the GC chair and the DG stated in their joint letter that updating “Senior Officials at this stage will provide the clarity and guidance necessary to sharpen efforts in the lead-up to MC14”. In a restricted document (Job/TNC/127/Rev.2) issued by the DG in her capacity as chair of the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) and seen by the SUNS, titled “The Revised Roadmap to Yaounde MC14 – Possible Modalities, Substance, and Way Forward – MC14 Structure and Procedural and Organizational Matters”, the following points were made: 1. Key Parameters for MC14 * Duration: There is broad support for a short, focused, and flexible Ministerial Conference, with no extension beyond the official dates of 26-29 March 2026. * “Geneva First” Principle: Substantive work should be completed in Geneva, with Ministers only approving outcomes. * Cut-off Date: Only issues with genuine convergence should be forwarded to MC14. The proposed deadline for determining these issues is December 2025. * Transparency and Inclusivity: All processes should be transparent, inclusive, open, Member-driven, and broadly representative of the Membership. * Senior Officials Meeting (SOM): Views remain divergent on the need for a SOM: 1. Not to convene a SOM. 2. Convene a SOM after the December cut-off date, once the substantive agenda is clearer, to help finalize Geneva preparations and better prepare Ministers for Yaounde. 3. Hold a virtual SOM for information-sharing only – to provide an update on the state of play of MC14 preparations and assist Senior Officials in preparing their Ministers. 4. Encourage delegations to have their Senior Officials participate in the December GC meeting which will include the December cut-off discussions. * Mini-Ministerials: Some Members are of the view that Member-convened mini-Ministerial meetings with broad participation could play a useful role in the lead-up to MC14. In this regard, many have highlighted the Davos meeting in January and other similar gatherings as valuable opportunities for political engagement ahead of the Ministerial. Others, however, have expressed caution, noting that such meetings do not include all Members and therefore may raise concerns regarding inclusivity and transparency. * MC14 Format: While awaiting the December cut-off date to determine the substantive issues to be taken up at MC14, Members consider WTO Reform to be a central pillar of the Conference. In this regard, there is interest in designing a format that allows for focused, interactive, and Minister-led discussions on reform-related issues, ensuring broad participation and meaningful outcomes. * There is also broad agreement on the importance of transparency and inclusivity, and on the need to design a structure that enables effective and meaningful ministerial engagement – one that fosters genuine dialogue among Ministers rather than the reading of prepared statements. In this context, there is wide support for the following approach: * Pre-recorded national statements: Ministers would pre-record their statements, as was done for MC12 and MC13. These would be broadcast throughout the Conference and made available online. * Interactive ministerial dialogues: Discussions would take place in small breakout groups to encourage more candid exchanges. Each group would be led by a Minister-facilitator, who would report key takeaways in a transparency plenary following the session. * Common thematic focus: All Ministers would consider the same topic during each session, followed by a plenary report-out before moving on to the next theme. This would ensure that all Ministers engage on the same issues, avoiding parallel discussions on different topics. * Time for bilaterals: Dedicated time would be included in the agenda for ministerial bilateral meetings. 2. Political Messaging of MC14 (GC chair currently consulting): Views expressed under the theme of “Main Messages”: * Reaffirm the relevance and resilience of the WTO amidst uncertainty; * Underscore the need for repositioning and reform of the WTO; and * Opportunity to highlight issues and interests of concern to Africa and the larger WTO Membership (agriculture, development and policy space for industrial development). 3. Under substantive areas, nothing is being mentioned. 4. Suggested Criteria to Facilitate Decision-Making in Light of December Cut-Off Date as Proposed by Some Members: Issues that fall into the following four categories could warrant referral to Ministers for decision. “They are all things that would be directed at positioning Ministers to have political level exchanges rather than technical ones and would also give effect to the “Geneva first” idea.” * The first category would be that a possible outcome be referred to the Ministerial Conference if it had been agreed by the responsible WTO body. * The second category would be that a possible outcome be referred to Ministers if it would renew or extend an existing WTO mandate or outcome that would otherwise expire. * The third category would be that a possible outcome be referred to Ministers if it were submitted as a report to Ministers by the General Council Chair. * The fourth would be that a possible outcome be referred to Ministers if only political decisions remained – that is, if negotiations on technical issues had concluded. The Ministers’ agenda may be structured on the basis of the following refined criteria: * First, Geneva agreed outcome. This section could include matters that require only a formal ministerial adoption. * Second, issues requiring ministerial guidance. This section could include matters that are rather technically exhausted and require a renewed mandate or other form of a ministerial directive. * Third, issues requiring critical political choice. This section could include issues which are technically mature but cannot advance without a political compromise. * Fourth, high-impact reform priorities. This section could include matters which Members would agree are central to restoring this organization’s functionality or reform package. NOTE: In the second article in SUNS issue #10342, the first sentence in paragraph 14 should read as: According to a paper published by Rashmi Banga in 2022, developing countries could have raised US$25 billion by imposing customs duties on just 49 digital products traded via electronic transmissions. +
|
||
