TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Jul26/19)
27 July 2026
Third World Network

WTO: Powerful bloc targets consensus rule sparking push-back from South
Published in SUNS #10489 dated 24 July 2026

Geneva, 23 Jul (D. Ravi Kanth) -- Sharp differences over the "decision-making" aspect of the discussions on "World Trade Organization reform" apparently came to the forefront on 22 July, said people familiar with the development.

During a day-long meeting on "decision-making" conducted by the facilitator from Japan, Ambassador Katsuro Nagai, a small group of powerful like-minded proponents appeared determined on upending the principle of decision-making by consensus, as enshrined in Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO in 1995.

Incidentally, Japan is one of the key proponents seeking a change in the current practice of decision-making by consensus. Though it could raise a conflict of interest, members seemed prepared to work with the facilitator, said people familiar with the discussions.

In contrast, a large majority of developing and least-developed countries seemingly insisted that they will not agree to any change to the cardinal principle and treaty right enshrined in Article IX that they had all paid for during the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations to preserve their right to adopt independent and sovereign decisions on WTO issues, said people familiar with the discussions.

The discussions on "decision-making" apparently began with some sharp reservations raised by India and several other developing countries over the chair's decision to allow a revised proposal submitted by Korea, which was not on the schedule of issues to be discussed, said people familiar with the development.

India seemingly protested against the proposal submitted by Korea, as the initial convening notice did not list the Korean proposal, but a revised notice was issued that included it.

India started off by saying that there needs to be discipline and a cut-off date, which they generally follow for other committees and future meetings.

This was apparently supported by Brazil and several other countries, who agreed that there had to be some sort of discipline instituted for future meetings, said people familiar with the development.

In its response, Korea appears to have said that the meeting was supposed to be informal, adding that Seoul thought that members could discuss their proposal. Consequently, they requested its inclusion, saying that they could present it.

But if members hadn't gone through it, they understood that it was sent very late and weren't expecting responses that day, it added.

India clarified that it was fine and that they just wanted to make a request for the future so that the work is more structured. Everybody agreed to start with the proposals.

TWELVE PROPOSALS

The facilitator highlighted 12 proposals on "decision-making" and urged the respective members to present their proposal and later opened it for discussions on that proposal, said people familiar with the development.

In a restricted email (ICN/GC/Reform/2) reviewed by the SUNS, the facilitator outlined the order for taking up the proposals on "decision-making":

1. Fundamentals for WTO reform - Communication on behalf of the ACP Group (WT/GC/W/975);

2. European Union submission on WTO reform - Communication from the European Union (WT/GC/W/986) and WTO reform: Further reflections on the WTO's governance - Communication from the European Union (WT/GC/Reform/W/7);

3. WTO reform considerations - Communication from Paraguay (WT/GC/W/987);

4. China's position paper on WTO reform under the current circumstances - Communication from China (WT/GC/W/989);

5. WTO reform: Development-centred priorities for a balanced WTO - Communication from the African Group (WT/GC/W/992);

6. More relevant, more flexible, more accessible - Communication from the United Kingdom on WTO reform (WT/GC/W/993);

7. LDC submission on WTO reform - Communication from The Gambia on behalf of the LDC Group (WT/MIN(26)/17-WT/GC/W/991/Rev.1);

8. Further perspectives on WTO reform - Communication from the United States (WT/GC/W/998) and On WTO reform - Communication from the United States (WT/GC/W/984);

9. Perspectives on WTO reform - Communication from Argentina (WT/GC/W/1001) and further reflections on Argentina's proposal (WT/GC/W/1001) regarding a procedural mechanism for the incorporation of plurilateral agreements into Annex 4 of the Marrakesh Agreement - Communication from Argentina (WT/GC/Reform/W/9);

10. Improving WTO decision-making - Communication from Australia (WT/GC/Reform/W/1) and WTO reform - Improving WTO rulemaking - Communication from Australia (WT/GC/Reform/W/2);

11. WTO reform - Non-paper - Delivering through flexible multilateralism - A contribution to the WTO reform - Communication from Switzerland (WT/GC/Reform/W/3); and

12. Designing together a fairer and more dynamic system - Communication from Japan (WT/GC/Reform/W/8).

At the outset, the above list of proposals suggests a sharp division over the proponents' proposals focusing on changing the practice of decision-making by consensus by adopting different methods to reach their goal of forcing plurilateral agreements without adhering to paragraph 9 of Article X of the Marrakesh Agreement.

However, the majority of developing and least-developed countries opposed any change in the current practice based on paragraph 1 of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement.

That paragraph explicitly states: "The WTO shall continue the practice of decision-making by consensus followed under GATT 1947. Except as otherwise provided, where a decision cannot be arrived at by consensus, the matter at issue shall be decided by voting. At meetings of the Ministerial Conference and the General Council, each Member of the WTO shall have one vote."

Ironically, at a time when a major industrialized country is threatening to impose a 50% tariff on a neighbour based on an archaic 1930 provision, it seems somewhat inexplicable to see that same country calling for a change in the non-discrimination principle of global trade conducted under GATT and now the WTO, observed a former chair of the General Council, who preferred not to be quoted.

There were 12 proposals introduced one by one, and broadly, the discussion reflected the divisive positions on this crucial issue, which has been taking place for the past few years, said people familiar with the development.

For the past few years, the discussions were seemingly "hijacked" by this group of like-minded countries displaying the same narrative that the practice of decision-making by consensus is allegedly the root cause of the paralysis in the multilateral trading system.

It is an open secret that the proponents of WTO reform have consistently appeared to be "tone deaf" to the unresolved mandated issues since the WTO's fifth ministerial conference in Cancun, Mexico, in September 2003, when the US blocked the issue of farm subsidies as well as the issues raised by the Cotton-4 countries (Benin, Burkina Faso, Mali, and Chad), an African trade envoy said, preferring not to be quoted.

STRUCTURAL ASYMMETRIES

The divide was clear at the meeting on "decision-making" in that one group of members comprising the LDC Group, the African Group, ACP (African, Caribbean and Pacific) Group, India, Brazil, Pakistan, and Turkiye apparently argued that the root cause of the problem is not the decision-making process as provided for in the Marrakesh Agreement, but the unfulfilled mandates, structural asymmetries of the existing agreements, and ineffective special and differential treatment (S&DT), which has not allowed smaller members to integrate into the global trading system, said people familiar with the development.

The large swathe of developing countries consistently maintained the same position since the WTO's 12th ministerial conference (MC12) in Geneva in June 2022, said an Asian trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted.

After hearing all the proposals, the US apparently posed questions to the developing countries, who opposed any change to the principle of decision-making by consensus, that if erosion of trust is the central issue arising from the unfulfilled mandates, then there can be a discussion on whether the mandates have actually been fulfilled.

The US apparently insisted that all the mandates have been fulfilled, while Brazil seemingly suggested that there is room for conversation on the unfulfilled mandates, said an African participant, who asked not to be quoted.

This point apparently led to a back-and-forth discussion, with the South American country suggesting that the unfulfilled mandates have to be fulfilled based on a recent document prepared by the WTO Secretariat.

In a restricted 100-page report (Job/GC/Reform/5) issued on 10 July, seen by the SUNS, the WTO Secretariat compiled a long list of mandates since the WTO's first ministerial conference in Singapore in December 1996 to the WTO's 14th ministerial conference (MC14) in Yaounde, Cameroon, in early April this year.

In the introduction to the report, the WTO Secretariat said: "the present note, prepared at the request of a number of delegations, is a compilation of WTO Ministerial Instructions and references relevant Decisions, Declarations and Members' Discussions, as appropriate. The compilation is for information purposes only, and it is without prejudice to Members' positions, or their rights and obligations. This compilation may be revised and updated, as appropriate." 

It appears that several members seemingly alluded to this report at the meeting, with the facilitator suggesting that the Secretariat must make a presentation of the report, said people familiar with the development.

Before the facilitator's suggestion, the US said the Secretariat's report must be presented by the facilitators, which was later dropped, said people familiar with the development.

Pakistan and India also echoed that, in order to remove mistrust among members stemming from the unfulfilled mandates, said people familiar with the development.

The two countries suggested that ministers have been recalling the same directions over and over again with no movement on issues of interest to developing countries, which is the root cause of the current stalemate, said people familiar with the development.

New Zealand apparently presented an idea that going forward, a metric could be presented for the next meeting, organizing the proposals into three, four, or five thematic areas since some share the same ideas. This would bring more clarity.

The US agreed with New Zealand but Brazil seemingly cautioned that this metric does not make a value judgment on where convergence lies and where it doesn't, arguing that at this point, it should be factual in nature, just showing the different decision-making proposals and emerging themes, said people familiar with the development.

The US agreed with Brazil's suggestion, but specified that they expect the metric to be prepared by the facilitator, and not by the Secretariat.

However, while summing up, the facilitator apparently missed that point and said the factual compilation should be done by the Secretariat. The US did not take the floor to correct this.

During the meeting, Australia noted that there is a clear divergence on what members consider the root cause - some feel that it is the past mandates and lack of trust, while others feel that it is the process itself.

Australia stated that even with this disagreement on the diagnostic side, they can still move ahead and address the problem.

In short, with repetitive and unending efforts, the small group of like-minded proponents is seemingly coordinating to force progress on an agenda on "decision-making" focused on facilitating plurilateral agreements, by creating some kind of interpretation of what consensus means, or by qualifying consensus ("responsible" consensus) or by imposing some heavier penalty on minority positions, that would have to justify their objections to consensus, said people familiar with the discussions.

For others, a subset of members should be able to make agreements among themselves and not have to undergo consensual approval by the membership. These agreements can be "closed", non-MFN, or "open", said an African trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted.

In contrast, groups of developing countries have generally firmly stood their ground that the consensus rule and practice of the WTO is a key element for the equitable exercise of their one-country-one-vote right. Without it, they would not have equivalence with others, said an Asian trade envoy who asked not to be quoted.

Even ominously, the "big boys" in the room apparently dropped the ideas of "critical mass" or trade-weighted majorities and things like that, the Asian envoy noted.

At the meeting, the EU appeared to be toying with the idea of creating a higher-level small steering group, as mentioned in their submission.

Some members also suggested that the facilitators should not mention where the convergence lies, as the previous facilitator, Ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, attempted to do, said people familiar with the discussions. +