|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Dec25/18) Geneva, 15 Dec (D. Ravi Kanth) — The chair of the World Trade Organization’s General Council (GC) on 12 December said that he “wholeheartedly” endorses the work done by the facilitator overseeing the discussions on WTO reform, while casting doubt on negotiating an “outcome document” for the WTO’s 14th ministerial conference (MC14), to be held in Yaounde, Cameroon, on 26-29 March 2026. Although the GC meeting is scheduled for 16-17 December, the GC chair, Ambassador Saqer Abdullah AlMoqbel of Saudi Arabia, somewhat puzzlingly circulated his document along with those from the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC) chair and the facilitator overseeing the WTO reform discussions, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway. All three simultaneously issued their reports on 12 December. Significantly, the three reports reveal a high degree of convergence as well as complementarity, which is rarely witnessed in preparations for a ministerial meeting, according to people who studied the documents. Even as members remain sharply divided on several issues, including those handled by the TNC and the WTO reform work, the three heads spelled out in detail which issues should be forwarded to trade ministers at MC14 to ensure the meeting’s success, said people familiar with the development. In a restricted report (Job/GC/482) issued on 12 December, seen by the SUNS, the GC chair said he endorses “Ambassador Olberg’s assessment and suggested approach, and will lend my continued support to him as Facilitator.” Such seemingly unabashed support was never heard in previous preparatory meetings for ministerial conferences, as the GC chair is supposed to reflect members’ divergent views and not his personal biases, said a trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted. Referring to the facilitator’s remarks, the GC chair said: “As he mentions in his [facilitator’s] report, Ministers should be in a position to endorse a balanced plan for post-MC14 work, including clearly identified stop-points, and clear modalities on how to carry out that work.” According to Ambassador AlMoqbel, “this will require preparing a smooth Ministerial discussion at MC14 and language that Ministers can endorse.” The GC chair revealed that he “will be carefully reflecting with Ambassador Olberg during the winter break on how to structure the work ahead, including by considering the need for him to start working, under my guidance, on a draft WTO reform document that could be discussed among all Members, and ultimately endorsed by Ministers in Yaounde.” The GC chair continued: “More specifically, as indicated in the report by the Facilitator on WTO Reform, H. E. Mr Petter Olberg (Norway), it would be essential for the future of the WTO to obtain clear instructions from Ministers on the scope and timeline of WTO reform work post-MC14.” Praising the statement of the facilitator, the GC chair said that members “have heard the statement of the Facilitator on WTO Reform, referencing his report to the General Council, outlining the way in which he believes work could continue to secure these clear instructions from Ministers.” To achieve this, the revised “Road to Yaounde” reflects the shared conviction that only issues with genuine convergence should be forwarded to MC14, and it proposes December 2025 as the deadline for determining these issues. Reflecting on the reform of the dispute settlement system, the GC chair said, “we have heard the report by H. E. Ms Clare Kelly (New Zealand), the Chairperson of the DSB, about her engagements on DS [dispute settlement] reform earlier this year and the joint consultations we have held recently.” From day one of his tenure, the GC chair seemingly “hived off” the reform of the dispute settlement system, which is the most important area for restoring the two-tier system. He has now claimed that “while positions on DS reform have not substantially changed, I hear Members loud and clear that a reformed WTO is a WTO with a reformed dispute settlement system.” Without seemingly doing any substantive work on the dispute settlement system throughout the year – by producing draft texts or circulating texts that were discussed since the WTO’s 12th ministerial conference – the GC chair appears to be passing the buck to ministers for their “endorsement for this general message and for continued work in this area after MC14 – without, of course, asking them to dwell on technicalities or describe this process or its possible outcome in detail.” “Accordingly,” the GC chair said, “I would like to invite Ambassador [Clare] Kelly [of New Zealand] to start working, under my guidance and in coordination with the Facilitator on WTO Reform, on brief and straightforward language, for Members’ consideration, that could find its way into a text on WTO reform to be ultimately endorsed by Ministers at MC14.” Instead of members deciding what communication should be sent to the trade ministers for MC14, it seems somewhat odd that the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) chair and the facilitator on WTO reform will decide on the language, said people familiar with the development. “OUTCOME DOCUMENT” On the crucial “outcome document” for MC14, the GC chair offered his assessment, saying that his “consultations in this area last month have clearly indicated that there is no readiness to repeat the outcome document exercises in the lead-up to recent Ministerial Conferences.” Casting doubt on a consensual outcome document, the GC chair said that “in fact, several Members perceive any effort towards a consensual text to be ultimately endorsed by Ministers in Yaounde as a potential distraction and a drain on limited resources over the coming months.” Ambassador AlMoqbel contended that “some even argue that an unsuccessful attempt at developing consensual text could potentially jeopardise the already fragile atmosphere as we prepare for MC14.” The GC chair, however, did not explain why he considers the current atmosphere to be “fragile”, said a person, who asked not to be quoted. “That said,” the GC chair maintained that he “also heard a large number of Members who believe that trying to have a consensual document, for instance a Ministerial Declaration, endorsed at MC14, would send an important signal about our shared commitment to the WTO.” “I personally believe that it would be important for the membership to make an honest effort in this regard, and the host of MC14 and the continent also merits a genuine attempt in this regard,” the GC chair observed. He said, “However, if we want to succeed, we need to proceed with caution and do things differently from the past.” Interestingly, the GC chair did not explain what would constitute doing “things differently from the past”, the person said. The GC chair said that “taking into consideration the viewpoints of Members, we need to avoid, by all means, a prolonged, potentially acrimonious exercise that could further divide the membership at this important juncture.” It remains unclear why there should not be an outcome document that captures the current state of the global trading system, the damage caused by unilateral reciprocal tariffs imposed by the US, and an explicit statement on restoring the two-tier dispute settlement system, said people familiar with the development. The GC chair said, “To be successful, as I heard from many of you, we should focus on areas of convergence.” If the outcome document cannot reflect the realities on the ground, then what purpose is it going to serve, asked people familiar with the development. “Hence,” the GC chair said, “as shared during my consultations last month, I plan to circulate a brief, minimalist zero draft, focusing on basic points of convergence.” He said, “Members will then have a period to vet this minimalist draft language, and to suggest improvements to it in a constructive spirit, as part of an open, transparent, and inclusive exercise.” While seeking maximalist outcomes in certain areas like WTO reform and the continuation of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions, it is somewhat puzzling that the GC chair wants a minimalist statement only on areas of convergence, said people familiar with the development. He seems to have decided somewhat unilaterally that “being a minimalist text, with a focus on points of convergence, it will not reflect specific substantive topics, and I do not intend to engage in a process negotiating language on such topics.” In the same tone, the GC chair argued that he is “not foreclosing the possibility of such topics being covered – provided, importantly, that relevant proponents can bring language on which they themselves have secured consensus.” He stressed that “the onus to secure consensus for including topics additional to those to be covered in my zero draft will be exclusively on the proponents.” Ambassador AlMoqbel also made it clear that he does not “intend to engage myself or the entire membership in such exercises, and it will be up to any proponents this time around. I am convinced that this is the only way to avoid a repetition of past experiences.” Having delayed negotiations on preparing the outcome document all these months, the GC chair appears to have made his position very clear, saying that “when circulating my zero draft, I am planning to set a deadline by which to conclude the exercise here in Geneva.” “As mentioned in my consultations,” the GC chair said, “if the conclusion at that stage should be that even a minimalist consensual text eludes us here in Geneva by the deadline, I am ready to draw the conclusion that the only possibility for me to report to Ministers is to have a statement by the Chairperson of the Fourteenth Ministerial Conference under his own responsibility. Like this, we can limit further protracting the process here in Geneva.” MAIN TAKEAWAYS The GC chair said: “Excellencies, the following main takeaways emerged from my engagements with you in these processes: 1. There is a shared conviction that we should work together to make MC14 a success; 2. There is a shared perception that times have changed, and we need to respond to this reality at MC14 if we want it to be successful; 3. There is a shared view that MC14 should not repeat old approaches, but rather focus on the major challenges facing the WTO, if we are to retain the relevance of this Organization, cherished by so many among us; and 4. Areas that may not be deemed ready at this stage for Ministerial action will remain part of an ongoing and credible process for engagement after MC14. Following prior practice, I will report to MC14, and will refer to these areas, so that no issues are left behind.” In short, the GC chair declared that “with today’s General Council [beginning 16 December], we have reached this important milestone on the road to Yaounde.” He said members “are here today, in the presence of Senior Officials and the newly elected MC14 Chairperson, to collectively identify issues with genuine potential for convergence that could be forwarded to Ministers, so that we make MC14 a success for the entire membership and the WTO as a whole.” +
|
||
