|
||
|
TWN Info Service
on WTO and Trade Issues (Nov26/09) Geneva, 11 Nov (D. Ravi Kanth) -- The World Trade Organization's Director-General has appointed a former European Union trade envoy to the WTO as her "Senior Advisor", amid a worsening funding crunch and growing concerns over alleged patronage, according to trade envoys who asked not to be quoted. For the past two months, rumours had been circulating that the DG, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, was planning to appoint the EU's former trade envoy to the WTO, Ambassador Joao Aguiar Machado, as a senior adviser, despite serious concerns over the non-payment of annual membership contributions by several powerful countries, including a major industrialised country, said people familiar with the development. On 10 November, the former EU trade envoy announced that "today, I am pleased to join the World Trade Organization as Senior Advisor to Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala in her cabinet." "I am grateful to the Director-General for her trust and look forward to supporting her efforts to reform the multilateral trading system for the benefit of all WTO members," he said, adding that "at a time when the multilateral trading system faces significant challenges, the work of the WTO is more important than ever." Interestingly, the announcement came on a day when the DG was leading a team from her Secretariat at COP31 (the 31st United Nations Climate Change Conference), taking place in Antalya, Turkiye, from 9-20 November, said a person familiar with the development. Commenting on Ambassador Machado's appointment as a senior adviser, a developing-country trade envoy, who asked not to be quoted, said: "We all know it is pay-back time for the services rendered by the former EU trade envoy, whose tenure ended sometime ago". "What advice can a former EU ambassador provide for revitalizing the WTO as a multilateral body when the organization is being turned into a plurilateral trade body by the EU and other industrialized countries," asked another trade envoy, who also requested anonymity. CRITICISM OF SECRETARIAT Meanwhile, at a meeting on 9 November on the WTO reform track on "foundational" issues, several members, including the United States and India, criticized the Secretariat for taking positions on issues that fall outside its remit in a member-driven organisation, said a person familiar with the discussions, who asked not to be quoted. Several trade envoys cited concrete examples of how the Secretariat had been taking positions on issues, some of which are still under negotiation, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted. Several members suggested that the Secretariat's role should remain strictly neutral and within the purview of Article VI of the Marrakesh Agreement, cautioning against any overstepping of the mandate enshrined in that provision. Article VI of the Marrakesh Agreement defines the role and responsibilities of the Secretariat as follows: 1. There shall be a Secretariat of the WTO (hereinafter referred to as "the Secretariat") headed by a Director- General. 2. The Ministerial Conference shall appoint the Director-General and adopt regulations setting out the powers, duties, conditions of service and term of office of the Director-General. 3. The Director-General shall appoint the members of the staff of the Secretariat and determine their duties and conditions of service in accordance with regulations adopted by the Ministerial Conference. 4. The responsibilities of the Director-General and of the staff of the Secretariat shall be exclusively international in character. In the discharge of their duties, the Director-General and the staff of the Secretariat shall not seek or accept instructions from any government or any other authority external to the WTO. They shall refrain from any action which might adversely reflect on their position as international officials. The Members of the WTO shall respect the international character of the responsibilities of the Director-General and of the staff of the Secretariat and shall not seek to influence them in the discharge of their duties. Several members stressed that the Secretariat was required to remain "neutral", while clarifying that "neutrality" did not mean it should remain silent or dumb, said a participant who asked not to be quoted. CHINA According to China, "neutrality is an important principle that staff of international organizations should observe in discharging their duties," suggesting that Secretariat "neutrality" should be safeguarded along at least two dimensions. China said that "the Secretariat should be protected from improper external pressure in carrying out its duties," while stressing that "the Secretariat's actions should not compromise the proper discharge of its responsibility, including [that] the Secretariat's actions should not be directed by their preferences." More importantly, "neutrality must be ensured in the discharge of responsibilities," China said, arguing that "the core of "neutrality" should not come at the expense of the Secretariat's ability to fulfil its duties." China pointed out that "the Secretariat's objective and impartial work in trade policy review and monitoring, carried out under existing mandates, is essential to transparency and the effective functioning of the rules-based multilateral trading system." As regards concerns about the Secretariat's work, China argued that "specific concern should be examined on a case-by-case basis, without putting labels." Elaborating on these concerns, China cautioned that "members could identify and discuss specific concerns in relation to the operation of the Secretariat, but these discussions should not indiscriminately be labelled as "lack of neutrality"." Beijing emphasised that "care is needed in the role of the Secretariat in supporting members' deliberation and discussion of WTO reform." On the issue of technical support, China said that while "the Secretariat may provide factual stocktaking and analysis based on primary sources, such as trade data," the "Secretariat should not introduce analysis by external organizations, or present them as factual basis for so-called evidence-based discussion." China said that the Secretariat must "avoid diagnosis of challenge or gap", as it "should be member-driven." Lastly, China warned that "the Secretariat staff should not prejudge or advocate views on the specific direction of Reform." UNITED STATES The US apparently highlighted what it viewed as the Secretariat's overreach beyond its mandate and cited several examples. In a detailed critique, the US reportedly explained what the Secretariat could and could not do, said a trade envoy familiar with the discussions. To recall, the US introduced the issue of Secretariat neutrality in its proposal (WT/GC/W/998). The US stated: "To ensure Secretariat neutrality, Members should consider how to end the practice of the Secretariat drafting reports that make substantive assessments of Members' policies, or that push certain policy preferences, without Members' approval. Regarding the Secretariat's external communications (e.g., press, social media, and the WTO website), Members should consider whether Secretariat staff should be given specific guidance to avoid making substantive judgments or interpreting or pronouncing on Members' obligations. Members should also consider providing formal guidance that Secretariat staff should always establish that any views they express - whether as panelists, drafters, or in social media - do not represent the views of the WTO or WTO Members." The United Kingdom also stressed the importance of the Secretariat remaining neutral, said a person familiar with the discussions, who asked not to be quoted. Mexico, however, apparently argued that individual instances of "too much" should not be treated as evidence of patterns or structural or intentional problems. The Secretariat, Mexico suggested, generally acted properly, and individual issues could simply be corrected without creating the impression that the organisation had a non-neutral Secretariat. +
|
||
