There is an urgent requirement to consider actively the agreements reached at the WTO Ministerial Conferences held in Bali and Nairobi, the importance of implementing those deals, as well as the future work of the organisation. It is also heartening to note that at a very recent meeting of APEC trade ministers in Arequipa (Peru), Director-General Roberto Azevêdo welcomed ministers’ engagement and their determination that the WTO should keep delivering negotiated outcomes. During their session on ‘supporting the multilateral trading system’, APEC ministers recognised the significant outcomes agreed at the WTO’s 2015 Ministerial Conference in Nairobi and expressed their desire to deliver further results in the years to come – including at the WTO’s next Ministerial Conference (MC11), which will be held in 2017. Undoubtedly, any multilateral trade deal is likely to bolster confidence in the world economy. On this score it is pertinent to note that the risk of any delaying progress in the WTO is twofold: (a) countries will increasingly look to bilateral and regional free trade arrangements to more quickly reap the benefits of lower trade barriers, and (b) the pressure to implement protectionist measures in response to the current economic downturn will be immense. As is known the two biggest problems impeding progress in the Doha Round referred to continued disagreement over the special safeguard mechanism used to protect domestic farmers in developing countries from agricultural import surges, and voluntary sector-specific agreements to make deep cuts in manufacturing tariffs. The developing economies are rightly asking for a greater say in global trade governance. Actually speaking, a global-friendly-environment encompassing bold leadership, good governance and disciplined multi-lateral trade framework is yet to emerge. The entire arena deserves to be scanned in order to make meaningful negotiations on GATS (General Agreement on Trade Related Services), TRIPS (Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights), AOA (Agreement on Agriculture), and especially on areas like anti-dumping and countervailing measures, trade in goods (textile, clothing), technical barriers, sanitary and phyto sanitary measures TRIMS etc. The questions which are being raised now are: whether it is a dictatorial tool of the rich and powerful – does it destroy jobs – does it ignore the concerns of health, environment and development? Though the normal standard replies that is given is ‘no’, yet it is to be seen to what extent the same is there de facto. Considering the fast changing international business scenario and the tremendous importance that WTO carries, especially considering its task of harmonizing inherently militating interests of the poor as well as the rich economies, time is ripe for turning WTO as the impartial global trade monitor. Whether it is China or India, judgement should be there in an impartial manner. The merit of every case is to be adjudged neutrally on the basis of which reasonable decision should be taken. Side by side, for petty matters one is expected not to move to the WTO rather the same could be tried to be settled through mutual discussions. Actually, the recent financial crisis stemmed from the growing disruptions to the global economic order established after the Second World War, and the WTO Director-General has rightly been calling for a reform in the entire global economic governance system. After 60 years of erosion of coherence and governance, a number of major deficiencies occurred both within the international system and between national systems and the global system. “Drawing a parallel between the recent financial crisis and the crisis of the 1930s and 40s, we owe it to ourselves to review the entire system of global economic governance,” he rightly observed. The WTO chief underlay full employment of human resources, development, social progress, a stable monetary system, open trade and environmental sustainability to be the shared objectives for the new order while simultaneously stressing on the need for “a greater degree of explicit renunciation of national sovereignty” to establishing the minimum level of collective restraint and governance. Instruments designed to ensure transparency, legitimacy, coherence and efficiency are also of vital importance to the new global governance. Let vital matters go forward in a smooth manner and the very purpose of establishment and subsequent existence of WTO is not held back. Especially, the benefits of WTO must not lose sight of helping promote peace and prosperity across the globe, settling disputes amicably, rules bringing about greater discipline in trade negotiations and thereby reducing inequalities to a large extent. It is better to mention here simultaneously that free trade agreements can help reduce trade restrictions globally by demonstrating solutions to difficult trade problems, whereas they can also discriminate against countries not party to the agreements and their differing rules can add to the cost of trade. It is the time to see that countries should address social concerns with non-trade-distorting income support mechanisms that better target recipients without harming other segments of the populace. Multilateral trade and investment liberalisation is crucial to not only help the global economy recover but also to reduce poverty and increase grow. Professor Jean-Pierre Lehmann, (IMD, Lausanne, Switzerland), opined ‘the two most critical priorities on the global agenda are trade and climate change…Of the two, trade is the most immediately critical. There is a grave risk that the world economy will collapse into a protectionist spiral. The best means to ensure that this does not happen is to conclude the Doha Round”.
