Geneva: Rigging elections and manipulating selection processes is not merely a prerogative of the authoritarian rulers. The virus has seemingly spread to the so-called member-driven and rules-based multilateral organisations like the World Trade Organization (WTO).
This week could be pivotal in deciding who will be the next director-general of the WTO. It could be the incumbent, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, a dual citizen of Nigeria and the United States, or another person should ex-President Donald Trump capture the White House and signal to the current administration that their views on who should be the next director-general should be taken into account.
Paragraph 7 of the WTO procedures for the appointment of directors-general adopted by the General Council in 2002 makes it clear the process should commence 9 months before the expiry of the incumbent’s term of office. Since Okonjo-Iweala’s term ends on August 31, 2025, the process should legally commence on December 1.
In ignoring the explicit language of paragraph 7 of the relevant WTO procedures, the chair of the General Council, ambassador Petter Olberg of Norway, bypassed the General Council and initiated the selection process on October 8 giving countries up until November 8 to nominate candidates on the basis of the detection of a “convergence”, instead of consensus among the WTO members as mandated by WTO rules and practice. The consensus principle is at the core of decision-making of Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement that established the WTO in 1995, following eight years of Uruguay Round of trade negotiations.
Normally, envoys of the Nordic countries are respected for adhering to international rules of law. However, the current Norwegian, unlike his illustrious predecessors, appears to have blatantly disregarded the rules to ensure that the incumbent director-general can clear the selection process clear the decks without a contest.
When asked whether the United States gave the green signal to the allegedly inconsistent practice, a spokesperson of the office of the United States told this writer that “this action was taken based on the chair’s assumption of convergence, rather than consensus.”
Later, the WTO members had expected that the US would speak its mind to stop the allegedly illegitimate process. Instead, at the crucial WTO’s General Council meeting, the decision-making body during the biennial ministerial conferences, the US remained silent and gave an impression that Washington is not pressing ahead with its stand as conveyed.
Why circumvent the WTO rules and procedures?
It is obvious that the WTO director-general and the General Council chair want to circumvent the rules because of the fear that President Trump may block the reappointment of director-general Ngozi, as they had blocked her original appointment.
It was the Biden administration which lifted the block and allowed her appointment. It is ironic that the director-general wants to circumvent the very process which enabled her to be appointed. Had the Biden administration not been given the option, she would not have become the director-general.
Also read: WTO’s E-commerce Moratorium: Will India Betray the Interests of the Global South Again?
The General Council chair and the director-general have denied that the decision to bring forward the selection process is because of the possible return of Trump to the White House. They both allege that it was started at the request of the African Group. What is interesting that there was no formal decision by the African Group to make the request.
It was made by the Ambassador of Chad who was obviously coerced into making the request. It is noteworthy that the Africa Group recently rejected attempts by the director-general and the chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture to appoint facilitators on the basis of a “possible convergence”. The Group insisted that the process should only be launched only when there is consensus among the membership. It may be asked, what has changed?
The whole process is illegimate and should be discarded. The General Council chair exceeded his authority and the process should be relaunched on December 1. It is being speculated that the intention of the General Council chair is to convene a special General Council meeting and request for the formal reappointment of the director-general should no one step forward to compete with her by November 8.
A formal decision of the WTO’s General Council would be required but the director-general and the General Council chair are hoping that the US would not block her reappointment at the specially convened meeting of the General Council. Ambassador Olberg is understood to have told some members that while the US expressed its concerns about the illegitimate process, it did not request him to stop it. They are therefore hoping that the US will feel constrained to veto the reappointment of the director-general should no candidate step forward.
Obviously, the calculations would change should Trump win the election on November 5 and request the outgoing Biden administration to let his administration decide on who should become the next director-general.
Trump administration’s trade priorities
Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s likely trade policy czar ambassador Robert Lighthizer, who always plays the victim card of getting a raw deal from its trading partners and the multilateral trading system, particularly the WTO, has already signaled what is in the offing for Beijing, Brussels, and New Delhi.
The backdrop of Trump’s calls for jacking up tariffs on all countries, including India, and clamping reciprocal tariff regime to ensure countries import US goods at rates similar to what they export to the US market, portends chaos.
“There are essentially three ways to bring about fairness and balance, and so help (US) businesses and workers,” writes Lighthizer. “First, the US could impose a system of import/export certificates (known as export quotas which the Reagan administration had imposed on Japan in the 1980s). Second, it could legislate a capital access fee on inbound investment, meaning that buying up our assets would be more expansive. Or, finally, the US could use tariffs to offset the unfair industrial policies of the predators.”
On trade policy, there is always continuity between the two parties in the US with varying levels of emphasis on some of the key determinants. Despite repeated pronouncements of respecting international rule of law, the Biden-Harris administration opted for more than a trillion dollars of subsidies programs on advanced chips/semiconductor sector to maintain its hegemonic position, and create new supply-side chains in critical raw materials and green goods.
Perhaps, the main difference between the two sides – Republicans and Democrats – is the degree of unilateral cowboy ruthlessness that harks back to early 20th century when tariffs were used as a policy tool to ensure Uncle Sam perpetuates its hegemony across the world.
Ravi Kanth Devarakonda is a financial journalist based in Switzerland.