Let's work to put the world back in the World Trade Organization

The benefits of a fair rules-based multilateral trade regime are evident. So are the perils of protectionism and unilateralism

- PASCAL LAMY, SHASHI THAROOR & PRADEEP MEHTA

The setback to prospects of reform of the World Trade Organization (WTO) at its 14th Ministerial Conference (MC-14) in Yaoundé, Cameroon, needs to be seen in a particular context.

WTO members were not able to agree on a structured negotiating agenda for reform. Any multilateral agreement is a mutual exchange of policy space. If we want to trade, we cannot achieve a lot without conceding nothing. Growing geopolitical fragmentation, declining trust among nations and a shift from consensual to flexible plurilateral approaches are some factors that explain the stasis. Members could not even agree to a ministerial declaration with an anodyne paragraph on the imperative of the WTO. While this is disappointing, it is not unprecedented, and it certainly does not mark the end of the WTO.

Till recently, there was divergence among WTO members on the contours of reform. This was particularly the case for systemic issues such as consensus-based decision making, its two-tier dispute settlement mechanism and the extent of special and differential treatment of WTO members based on their development status.

The WTO is now being tugged in different directions. Existing impasses remain and new fronts are being opened. Now there is divergence not only on the contours of reform, but also on what the fundamental architecture of the WTO system should be. Underlying these normative considerations are systemic concerns of overcapacity and oversupply, and a shift from protectionism (protecting producers from foreign competition) to ‘precautionism’ (protecting citizens and consumers from a range of risks) in international trade.