TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Oct26/23)
26 October 2026
Third World Network

WTO: South fears two-tier system as reform facilitators face scrutiny
Published in SUNS #10540 dated 23 October 2026

Geneva, 22 Oct (D. Ravi Kanth) -- Many countries are seemingly concerned that attempts to reform the World Trade Organization (WTO) could turn it into a two-tier body dominated by major sovereign nations, while relegating most developing and least-developed members to semi-sovereign status in pushing through the controversial reforms, according to people familiar with the development.

Despite growing opposition to the proposed WTO reforms across all four tracks - foundational issues, decision- making, development, and "level playing field" (LPF) issues - members are deeply concerned over both the process and the substance of the issues being framed by the four facilitators, whom some suspect of pursuing a questionable agenda, said a developing-country trade envoy who asked not to be quoted.

Many members appear to believe that the facilitators are working from a prepared script, framing questions to suit the proposals advanced by the reform proponents.

After the meetings, the facilitators allegedly draft reports in rather convoluted and obfuscatory language that deliberately obscures the extent of opposition to the one-sided reform agenda, the envoy added.

Ahead of a transparency meeting scheduled for 23 October by the General Council (GC) chair, Ambassador Clare Kelly of New Zealand, members fear that the facilitators' reports will be biased and confusing, said another trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted.

In an email (ICN/GC/39) to members dated 14 October, the GC chair stated: "In line with the revised indicative and evolving calendar of WTO Reform, I would like to invite you to an informal transparency Heads of Delegation meeting on Friday, 23 October 2026 at 10 a.m."

She added: "Following [the] Facilitators' reports on their engagement with Members in the four areas since the October General Council meeting, I will briefly address the process concerns raised at recent meetings as well as next steps, before opening the floor for Members to make brief comments."

CONCERNS

The concerns stem from the methods adopted by the four facilitators during their meetings, the envoy said.

The facilitators are Ambassador Sumathi Balakrishnan of Malaysia (on foundational issues); Ambassador Katsuro Nagai of Japan (decision-making); Ambassador Nthisana Motsete-Phillips of Botswana (development); and Ambassador Elmer Jose German Gonzalo Schialer Salcedo of Peru (level playing field issues).

First, a large majority of developing and least-developed countries (LDCs) have openly voiced concerns about reducing the WTO to a plurilateral negotiating body that advances the specific interests of the major players while sidelining the multilateral rules, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted.

At the 19 October meeting convened by the facilitator on LPF issues, Brazil reportedly raised concerns about turning the WTO into a two-tier body that divides members into major and minor categories, undermining multilateral progress, said people familiar with the discussions.

Excluding members from the plurilateral rule-making negotiations - unlike multilateral negotiations, in which every member has a say - is a longstanding concern, said another trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted.

The multilateral spirit and structure are explicitly set out in the first three paragraphs of Article II of the Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO in 1995:

* Article II.1: The WTO shall provide the common institutional framework for the conduct of trade relations among its Members in matters related to the agreements and associated legal instruments included in the Annexes to this Agreement.

* Article II.2: The agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annexes 1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter referred to as "Multilateral Trade Agreements") are integral parts of this Agreement, binding on all Members.

* Article II.3: The agreements and associated legal instruments included in Annex 4 (hereinafter referred to as "Plurilateral Trade Agreements") are also part of this Agreement for those Members that have accepted them, and are binding on those Members. The Plurilateral Trade Agreements do not create either obligations or rights for Members that have not accepted them.

Furthermore, Article X:9 clearly requires prior multilateral consensus to launch a plurilateral initiative, such as the Joint Statement Initiatives (JSIs), which were conspicuously announced on the margins of the WTO's 11th Ministerial Conference (MC11 )in Buenos Aires, Argentina in December 2017.

Against this backdrop, Brazil urged members to stop treating the discussions as an exercise in which major members are consulted first and minor members afterwards, as though the WTO had a two-tier membership.

Brazil reportedly challenged the LPF facilitator over questions framed ostensibly to steer the discussions in a direction favourable to the reform proponents.

The approach apparently frustrated the facilitator, as advance framing made the discussions resemble proceedings of the Trade Policy Review Body, which was not their purpose.

By framing questions before meetings - as occurred in the decision-making, development, and LPF tracks - the facilitators knowingly or unwittingly stifled informal conversations intended to foster spontaneous and dynamic exchanges.

"SILOS" & LISTENING ROOMS

The African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) Group also reportedly questioned the intentions of the facilitator overseeing the development track, who convened meetings in small groups and "silos" during the 15 October session.

During a meeting between a small group of countries and the development facilitator, participants reportedly challenged Ambassador Motsete-Phillips over questions framed within what they considered a biased and one- sided framework.

They argued that the approach advanced the proponents' narrative while undermining the development architecture, including the self-designation framework for availing of special and differential treatment by developing countries, said a person who asked not to be quoted.

"The question apparently angered the facilitator, who apparently was unable to defend her action," the person said.

During the meeting, the 90-odd-member ACP Group sought to understand why Ambassador Motsete-Phillips, who oversees the development track, had sent an invitation stating that she "wanted to engage in smaller configurations rather than in plenary mode."

The ACP Group asked the facilitator whether the session was "intended to be an exchange between you and the ACP Group as a whole, with all ACP Members contributing? Or is it intended to be consultation involving other WTO Members listening in?"

The ACP coordinator stated that "it would be helpful to distinguish a meeting with the Group from a discussion among Members across groups."

The ACP Group added, "The ACP Group, as well as the African Group and LDC Group, coordinates its collective positions internally," noting that "we do not normally formulate or negotiate those positions in a setting where other delegations are listening to the Group's discussion with a facilitator."

Consequently, the ACP Group stressed that "this consultation should therefore not be treated as an internal ACP Group coordination meeting or as a substitute for the Group's own deliberations."

The coordinator clarified that members of the Group "can present our collective position, and individual ACP Members can explain their concerns if they wish."

The ACP Group also raised specific concerns over the "listening rooms" for the group consultations, asking the facilitator: "Does that arrangement also apply to this ACP Group meeting? Who would be able to listen, and would those delegations have any opportunity to ask questions or respond? What is the purpose of allowing others to listen to an ACP exchange with you, rather than providing a forum in which Members can engage directly with one another?"

While the ACP Group said it supports "transparency," it questioned "how this format advances an interactive, Member-driven process."

FACILITATORS' REPORTS

Given the sharp divisions and substantial opposition to the changes sought by the reform proponents - including the United States, the European Union, Japan, Korea, Australia, Singapore, and New Zealand - during informal meetings on decision-making, development, and LPF issues, it remains to be seen whether dissenting views will be accurately reflected in the facilitators' reports.

Members fear that the reports will obscure the issues through seemingly dubious terms such as "some," "small," and "many" members, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted.

The envoy noted that members had already raised serious questions about the credibility and integrity of previous reports presented by the facilitators.

PROCESS

Meanwhile, the November meeting schedule is being reduced to one meeting per track.

The change follows an objection by The Gambia, speaking on behalf of the LDCs, to the intensity of the reform sessions, citing LDCs' capacity and negotiating constraints.

The objection was raised during the General Council meeting earlier this month.

During the session, The Gambia highlighted the severe challenges that small delegations had faced because of overlapping meetings since the summer break.

WTO Director-General Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala reportedly responded rather brusquely, pushing back against the objection.

"We can't cancel meetings if facilitators and committee chairs and so on decide to have meetings. We don't have the authority. We are being challenged even on making simple decisions," she said.

"You cannot make the Secretariat the butt of whatever is not working for you. We will do our best, but I have to defend my staff."

According to several ambassadors present during the final minutes of the two-day GC meeting, the DG added, "This is not Secretariat-bashing day."

She continued: "I've never been in an organization where members are frustrated, they just turn on the administration. I've never been. This is [my] first experience and I have 40 years working."

The GC chair, however, said she understood the LDCs' concerns: "I've heard clearly your concerns voiced about the pace and scheduling of the reform effort. I find these reasonable and persuasive."

She also undertook to look "across the entire schedule of our work in the House."

Ultimately, the upcoming transparency meeting on 23 October appears to be a litmus test of the credibility and integrity of the facilitators' reports.

The key question is whether the documents will accurately reflect the concerns raised by a large majority of developing and least-developed countries or instead toe the line of the reform proponents, according to people familiar with the discussions. +