After the failure of this ministerial conference, questions are being asked if WTO’s existence is in danger
Recently, the 13th Ministerial Conference (MC13) of the WTO concluded in Abu Dhabi, UAE. The participating nations could not reach to a conclusion on the main issues till the very end. Views were so divergent that it seems that it will be difficult to form consensus on the subjects even in the future ministerial conferences.
Those who want to see the WTO as a powerful organisation, were highly disappointed, and they started questioning WTO’s decision making mechanisms; and some have even started demanding changes. It is worth noting that with the birth of the World Trade Organization on January 1, 1995 binding rules to organise international trade between different countries were made. With the establishment of the WTO, import duties started decreasing and various types of non-tariff barriers also started dismantling. It fostered international trade optimism in the world and it increased rapidly.
What happened at the WTO Ministerial Conference?
At the Ministerial Conference, many issues including the China-supported ‘Plurilateral Agreement’ named Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement (IFDA), fisheries subsidy, subsidy for public food stockholdings, WTO reforms etc. which were to be discussed.In the matter of fisheries subsidy, India’s argument prevailed that fishing by large ships of companies of developed countries in distant and deep waters was the reason behind the decline of fish and other marine resources in the world. Many countries argued that developed countries will have to end all the subsidies given for distant water fishing. On the other hand, developed countries wanted to limit the subsidy being given by developing countries for public stockholding for food security, as they argue that this is affecting their food exports. India made it clear that we cannot compromise on food security. As far as fisheries subsidies are concerned, there is no doubt that developed countries are misusing the arguments of environment and sustainable fisheries resources to further their commercial interests.Story continues below AdvertisementRemove AdnullThe only subject on which they reached consensus, after UAE trade minister’s appeal, was the extension of e-moratorium for the next two years. It is worth noting that in every ministerial conference since 1998, the e-moratorium had been extended for the next ministerial conference. The specialty of this year’s decision is that this time the e-moratorium has been extended for the ‘last time’ and this moratorium will automatically end before next ministerial conference or March 31, 2026, whichever is earlier.
In the past, developed countries were successful in getting most of their demands accepted in the name of consensus. India and other developing countries, which did not agree with their proposals, also bowed down to the arbitrariness of developed countries for fear of being considered as deal blockers. But this time the ministerial conference was somewhat different, because India outright rejected their arbitrary stance.
When an attempt was made to portray India as a country blocking the deal in the 13th ministerial conference, the Indian delegation made it clear that food security or protecting the livelihood of our small fishermen is more important for us. Also, the plurilateral agreement of investment facilitation for development supported by China is not only against India, but is against the sovereign rights of the countries of the world. Therefore, not only that India wouldn’t join it, this agreement can’t be part of WTO, because this is against the rules and procedures of WTO.
What is the future of the WTO?
After the failure of this ministerial conference, questions are being asked if WTO’s existence is in danger. Some people have started questioning its process that decisions should be taken on the basis of majority and not consensus.
The wide differences between the various parties on new issues indicate that now developed countries can neither bring new issues in WTO by exerting pressure nor can they get their point accepted on the old agenda. The China-backed development investment agreement collapsed like a house of cards — after India and South Africa objected; despite signature from 126 countries, that it did not even find a mention in the final declaration. Events at MC13 proves that it will not be possible to bring new agreements against the rules of WTO.
Today, when the arbitrary actions of developed countries are not able to have their way in the WTO, it does not mean that the world trade body will cease to exist. The need of the hour is that all countries should remove the obstacles coming in the way of free trade under the rules of the World Trade Organization. At the same time, appropriate action should be taken against those countries which go against the rules. For some time now, the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO has been in doldrums due to USA’s non-cooperation. There has been extensive discussion on this subject and it is hoped that dispute settlement will be brought on track in the future. The developed countries will have to understand that it will be a tough task to get their unreasonable demands accepted, whether it is fisheries subsidy, food security or gender, MSME, gender and environment etc.
What is the future of the WTO?
After the failure of this ministerial conference, questions are being asked if WTO’s existence is in danger. Some people have started questioning its process that decisions should be taken on the basis of majority and not consensus.
The wide differences between the various parties on new issues indicate that now developed countries can neither bring new issues in WTO by exerting pressure nor can they get their point accepted on the old agenda. The China-backed development investment agreement collapsed like a house of cards — after India and South Africa objected; despite signature from 126 countries, that it did not even find a mention in the final declaration. Events at MC13 proves that it will not be possible to bring new agreements against the rules of WTO.
Today, when the arbitrary actions of developed countries are not able to have their way in the WTO, it does not mean that the world trade body will cease to exist. The need of the hour is that all countries should remove the obstacles coming in the way of free trade under the rules of the World Trade Organization. At the same time, appropriate action should be taken against those countries which go against the rules. For some time now, the dispute settlement mechanism of the WTO has been in doldrums due to USA’s non-cooperation. There has been extensive discussion on this subject and it is hoped that dispute settlement will be brought on track in the future. The developed countries will have to understand that it will be a tough task to get their unreasonable demands accepted, whether it is fisheries subsidy, food security or gender, MSME, gender and environment etc.
It seems that the developed countries want to cripple the rule-based system established by the World Trade Organization by bringing in new issues. It is necessary for a developing country like India to force the developed countries to follow rule-based international trade by rejecting the new issues. It has to be understood that in the light of protectionist policies by developed countries, today WTO has become more important than ever before.
Ashwani Mahajan 