|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Mar26/16) Geneva, 16 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — With ten days left for the World Trade Organization’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) in Yaounde, Cameroon, several members appeared concerned about the way in which the WTO Director-General, in her role as chair of the Doha Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC), was exercising functions normally associated with the General Council (GC) chair following the marathon GC meeting last week, said people familiar with the development. At the concluding session of the three-day GC meeting on 12 March, there were acrimonious exchanges over whether members’ proposals on WTO reform would be included in the facilitator’s proposed reform package, which failed to garner consensus. Even though the GC chair, Ambassador Saqer Abdullah Almoqbel of Saudi Arabia, adopted an inclusive approach by suggesting that all members’ proposals on WTO reform would be sent to the trade ministers at MC14, there was a subsequent change in his position after the TNC chair, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, intervened to say that only the Norwegian facilitator’s proposed package of reforms would be forwarded, and that members were free to send their proposals to the ministerial conference by allocating it a WT/MIN reference number, said several trade envoys, preferring not to be quoted. They viewed the DG’s actions as amounting to a serious usurpation of powers accorded to the GC chair under the key GC decision (TN/C/1) issued on 4 February 2002, adding that the DG continues to operate as TNC chair under the mandate of the Doha Work Programme. Under the sub-heading of “Principles and Practices” underpinning “General Council Authority”, it is explicitly stated in the 2002 decision: “In line with the Doha Ministerial Declaration, the TNC has been established by Ministers under the authority of the General Council with the mandate of supervising the overall conduct of the negotiations. The TNC and its negotiating bodies do not constitute a parallel or competing machinery to the existing WTO bodies. “The General Council is in charge of the WTO’s work programme as a whole, including that set out in the Doha Declaration. The TNC should report to each regular meeting of the General Council. The General Council retains the overall responsibility for the preparations for Ministerial Conferences.” But the DG has seemingly turned a blind eye to these rules, even though she was reminded of the need to abide by them immediately after she took the reins in 2021. In the past, the DG was told about her alleged “overreach” by one member when she wanted to start regular discussions on the Joint Statement Initiatives immediately after she took the reins in 2021, and she now appears to have turned a blind eye to the rules set out in the GC decision of 2002, said trade envoys, who asked not to be quoted. One Caribbean ambassador recounted that “the DG took the floor a number of times during the GC meeting on items that were not relevant to the negotiating issues under the TNC and it was increasingly seeming like it is the DG driving the MC14 preparations and not the GC chair.” PUSH FOR REFORMS The DG’s perceived “overreach” into the arena of reforms and also her reported backing for the Norwegian facilitator have apparently cast doubts about the impartial role of the DG, said trade envoys, who asked not to be quoted. In her report (Job/GC/499) to members issued last week, the DG, in her capacity as the TNC chair, said that “the WTO has long spoken of unfinished negotiations and long overdue reform, yet our promises have outpaced our results”, adding that “this is an opportunity for the Conference to demonstrate that this time is different.” Commenting on “WTO reform” specifically, the DG said, “let me start by saying that it is fine that the WTO cannot and should not solve all the problems in world trade.” Citing the proposals of the United States and the United Kingdom on WTO reform, the DG said, “both the USA and UK submissions on reform make this point.” She said the WTO “can solve some problems, and we need to begin somewhere.” She praised the Norwegian facilitator, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, and members, saying that over the past nine months members have worked tirelessly, commending their persistence and seriousness under the facilitator’s leadership and that of the GC chair. According to several trade envoys in attendance at the GC meeting, they were never quite sure in what capacity the DG kept intervening at the meeting. One Asian Ambassador quipped that “the DG’s only standing is that of a TNC chair; all other business rests with the GC chair, including reforms.” Another Latin American Ambassador said that “the DG has a view about everything and it is no longer clear what use the GC chair has if he is being overruled by the TNC chair on matters that only concern the GC.” In June 2025, GC chair Ambassador Almoqbel appointed his predecessor, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, as “facilitator for WTO reform.” In his email to members, he described WTO reform as “fundamental to the future of our organization” and stressed that “to succeed, the process on WTO Reform must be Member-driven and respond to the concerns of all Members,” with the GC chair providing “overall guidance” and ensuring that work proceeds in an “open, transparent and inclusive manner.” According to one African Ambassador, “the WTO reform consultations were not member-driven. They were always organised in small groups and when there were meetings with all members, we were not allowed to engage.” The concerns about the process are not new, as many members raised them during the General Council meeting in December 2025 and India raised concerns about the facilitator’s conduct at this March GC meeting. Despite these concerns, not much in the process and conduct of the facilitator has changed and the WTO Secretariat appears determined to send only Ambassador Olberg’s non-consensus WTO reform package to ministers at MC14. Although the WTO reform issue is not part of her mandate, the DG said, “reform is existential for this institution, and finding a balance among all Members was never going to be easy. We will see after the report where we come out, but I want to thank you all again and see how we can accommodate all the diverse views as we move forward.” +
|
||
