Just one week in hand to start the four-day long multilateral trade talks. Member countries of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are well aware that they are going to sit together with a lot of differences. And it is hardly possible to eliminate all the differences in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya, on December 15-18 when the 10th ministerial conference of the WTO will take place. Nevertheless, efforts are now at the final stage to minimise the rifts. The director-general of the global trade body Roberto Azevedo emphatically said that a deal is possible in Nairobi only if members are flexible. Differences or rifts among members of the WTO are not new. Since the inception of Doha Round in 2001, developed and developing countries are at loggerheads on, among other issues, reduction of subsidises in agricultural trade, opening of markets for merchandise goods and services, intellectual property rights, trade facilitation and dispute settlement mechanism. Thus for the last 14 years, WTO had to move ahead with all these rifts while setting multilateral trade rules. During the period, many things have changed and global political economy has become more complex. At the same time, some developing and poor countries have made significant economic advancements in various fields. Some big developing countries’ success in economic growth and development turned them more powerful in the geo-political arena. For instance, in 2000, China was the second largest economy (GDP based on PPP valuation), India fifth, Brazil eighth and Russia ninth. In 2015, China has become the top largest economy followed by the United States. India is the third, Russia sixth and Brazil seventh. In a similar vein, Bangladesh has emerged as a lower middle-income country from the category of low-income country. Nevertheless, large developing countries, also termed as advanced developing or emerging economies, have a long way to go to be upgraded as developed ones. In the run-up to the Nairobi ministerial, a new dimension of rift has emerged due to the labelling of ’emerging economies.’ Developed countries are now terming countries like India, China and Indonesia as ’emerging market economies’ and asking them to undertake greater market commitments as they are no more merely ‘developing countries’ like Pakistan or Sri Lanka. Developing countries have vehemently protested the attempt to redefine or reclassify them. They argued that they have a lot of gap to cover when it comes to ensuring a respectable living standard for all their citizens and they are still struggling to provide basic infrastructure to all their people. Developed countries have also been propagating the so-called 21st century issues which include labour and environmental standards, e-commerce, global value chains and promotion of supply chains, environmental and sustainable goods produced from clean and green energy, transparency in government procurement, state-owned enterprises and designated monopolies, besides competition and investment provisions. Though developing countries strongly differ on introducing these new issues, it appears that the new issues will keep the members busy in Nairobi to some extent. Indian trade minister Nirmala Sitharaman has said that the country is open to ‘non-binding’ discussions on new issues. In return, she wants commitments for protecting the interests of poor farmers and food security which India is vigorously pushing since the WTO Bali Ministerial. Rift on the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) is also likely to figure prominently in Nairobi. After 14 years, achievement under the Doha framework is limited to Agreement on Trade Facilitation (ATF) only . Developed countries are arguing that the Doha Round has not delivered for so long, so it would be hardly worth continuing with it. Cecilia Malmström, the European Union Commissioner for Trade, categorically said: “We must also begin to move beyond the Doha Round. At Nairobi we should agree to begin conversations, and at some point negotiations, on issues that are not covered by the Doha mandate but pose real challenges for today’s global trade. We must also look at more flexible ways to negotiate in the WTO.” Move to conclude Doha Round and introduce new issues under the WTO are interlinked. The proposed draft text of the Nairobi Declaration prepared by three WTO ambassadors appointed by the director general as facilitators, acknowledged the link but skipped those ‘most contentious issues identified by members.’ A counter proposal for the draft jointly prepared and submitted by India, China, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, South Africa, and Venezuela stressed on continuation of the Doha Round. LDCs, including Bangladesh, did not submit any specific ‘textual proposal’ on duty-free quota-free (DFQF) market access, their most critical area of trade interest. This indicates that poor countries are yet to reach a common position on DFQF. A review report prepared by the WTO secretariat said: “Nearly all developed Members provide either full or significant DFQF market access to LDC products. The exceptions to duty-free treatment relate to a few sectors, and to a limited number of developed Members.” In fact, United States is the only developed country which is yet to provide 100 per cent or ‘commercially meaningful’ DFQF to Bangladesh, Cambodia and Nepal. On average, the US import tariff for Bangladeshi and Cambodian products are 15.7 per cent and 16.2 per cent respectively. Against this backdrop, it appears that the Nairobi conference is going to start with a lot of uncertainty. En-route to Nairobi, all the delegations thus have to keep their fingers crossed so that a reasonable minimum deal could be sealed as Nairobi Package.
