|
||
|
TWN
Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Mar26/41) Yaounde, 29 Mar (D. Ravi Kanth) — India on 28 March appears to have single-handedly blocked the incorporation of the proposed Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) into Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement at the World Trade Organization’s 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14), while around 130 members supported its integration, said people familiar with the development. Indian Minister of Commerce and Industry Piyush Goyal, in an X post (formerly Twitter) issued on 28 March, stated that “India showed the courage to stand alone on the contentious issue of the Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) Agreement and did not agree to its incorporation into the WTO framework as an Annex 4 Agreement.” Mr. Goyal said, “Incorporation of the IFD Agreement risks eroding the functional limits of the WTO and undermining its foundational principles.” Elaborating on India’s stand, Mr. Goyal stated that “as part of WTO reform discussions, Members are discussing guardrails and legal safeguards for plurilaterals before the integration of any specific plurilateral outcome.” Further, the Indian commerce minister contended that “in view of the systemic issue at hand, India showed openness to have good faith, comprehensive discussions and constructive engagement under the WTO Reform Agenda.” Paragraph 9 of Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement unambiguously 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.” Apparently, Mozambique, on behalf of the African Group, and the host country Cameroon pleaded with India not to block the IFDA because of its potential for more investments in the continent, said people familiar with the development. Even before the beginning of MC14, the Minister-Facilitator “on incorporation of the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA)” issued an information note on how the controversial agreement would be discussed and adopted on 28 March in Yaounde, Cameroon. It is well-known that the IFDA is led by China, which first brought the issue to the WTO’s General Council in 2016. Later, China appears to have built a large majority from both industrialized nations and many developing and least-developed countries, said participants who asked not to be quoted. In a one-page restricted document (WT/MIN(26)/INF/20), issued on 24 March, the Minister-Facilitator, Dwight Fitzgerald Bramble of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, informed ministerial participants that he would convene a full-day meeting on 28 March to “add the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA) to Annex 4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”).” The Minister-Facilitator appears to be assuming that the IFDA will be added even though it has never secured consensus since 2016, when India blocked the issue at a General Council meeting. New Delhi has consistently opposed it each time it came up for discussion, whether at General Council meetings or ministerial conferences such as MC12 and MC13, said people familiar with the development. For the Minister-Facilitator, who appears oblivious to the IFDA’s stalled progression on procedural and systemic grounds, it is rather unusual to decide that it will be added to the Annex 4 list of plurilateral agreements, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted. According to the document, “the session will provide Ministers/Heads of Delegation with the opportunity to consider the request submitted by the 128 Member parties to the IFDA, pursuant to paragraph 9 of Article X of the WTO Agreement (Draft Ministerial Decision on Adding the IFDA to Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement), as set out in document WT/MIN(26)/W/5. Any updates to the documentation may be consulted on the WTO website under the MC14 documents page: WTO/Documents-14th WTO Ministerial Conference.” According to document WT/MIN(26)/W/5, issued on 5 March, the parties to the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement include the following members: “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; Egypt; 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; Liechtenstein; 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.” It states, “The above-mentioned Members hereby request the WTO Ministerial Conference to adopt the draft decision below, pursuant to paragraph 9 of Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.” The central issue is that agreements at the WTO are not arrived at by brute majority, said a legal analyst. “If anything, the most important issue is whether such agreements adhere to the rules, or if they are driven merely by the number of countries proposing them, even if they are inconsistent with the rules,” the analyst said. So far, on both procedural and systemic grounds, the IFDA has seemingly failed to comply with the rules – something India has consistently maintained. In fact, the attempt to ram through the IFDA regardless of the rules has now been endorsed in the WTO reform discussions through what are called “responsible consensus” and an open gateway for plurilateral agreements without adhering to the WTO’s multilateral charter. The United States, in its proposal (WT/GC/W/998), has sought a free hand for open plurilateral trade agreements by discarding Articles IX and X of the GATT, said people who asked not to be quoted. Conduct of IFDA session Under the subheading “Conduct of the Session,” the Minister-Facilitator said categorically that “the session is intended to provide a focused ministerial-level exchange on the above-mentioned Draft Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(26)/W/5).” He said “it will proceed in a structured manner,” adding that “the Minister-Facilitator will open the session with brief introductory remarks and a short report of his consultations conducted on this matter in the margins of MC14. The floor will then be opened for short interventions by Ministers and Heads of Delegation, limited to three minutes each.” The Minister-Facilitator said he “will then seek to ascertain whether Ministers and Heads of Delegation are in a position to join the consensus on the Draft Ministerial Decision on Adding the IFDA to Annex 4 of the WTO Agreement.” Finally, “the ensuing discussion will be aimed at determining whether any differences can be addressed in a manner that would permit action by consensus under Article X:9 of the WTO Agreement.” It is, however, uncertain whether these differences can be resolved, given that investment has never been part of the trade rule-book. If not, it could cause a small earthquake at MC14, said people familiar with the development.
|
||
