‘Saving the WTO’: middle power insiders and joint statement initiatives at the World Trade Organisation

Figures & data

Figure 1. Share in world trade for selected countries, 2018. Source: Eurostat

Table 1. Main Free trade agreements of the large economic powers.

	Signed	Agreements with deep provisions
The United States	Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Colombia, Canada, Israel, Jordan, South Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Oman, Panama, Singapore, Peru, CAFTA-DR (Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras)	South Korea, Australia, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Singapore, Canada, Mexico
The European Union	Australia, Canada, Chile, Vietnam, Singapore, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, UK, Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama),	Canada, Vietnam, South Korea, Singapore, Japan, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, UK, Central America (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama)
China	ASEAN, Singapore, Pakistan, New Zealand, Chile, Peru, Costa Rica, Iceland, Switzerland, Maldives, Mauritius, Georgia, South Korea, Australia, Cambodia	South Korea, Australia

Source: WTO RTA database.

Table 2. Joint Statement Initiatives in the WTO.²⁰

JSI	Participants^21	Co-conveners
Joint Initiative on E-Commerce	89	Japan, Australia, Singapore
Joint Statement on Investment Facilitation for Development	112	Chile, South Korea
Informal Working Group on Micro, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (MSMEs)	97	Uruguay
Joint Initiative on Services Domestic Regulation	70	Costa Rica
Informal Working Group on Trade and Gender	120	Botswana, Iceland, El Salvador
Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions (TESSD)	74	Canada, Costa Rica
Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform Initiative (FFSR)	48	New Zealand
Informal dialogue on plastics pollution and environmentally sustainable plastics trade	76	Australia, Barbados, China, Ecuador, Fiji and Morocco

Table 3. Statements of support to the JSI in the WTO General Council.²²

Country	Statement
Australia	We are a participant in all the current JSI negotiations under way and strongly supported that important work at the WTO. Plurilateral initiatives were neither novel nor revolutionary in the multilateral trading system. They had always been a part of the WTO architecture had constituted the predominant form of rulemaking in the multilateral trading system for decades. WTO-consistent plurilateral trade agreements with wide participation played an important role in complementing global liberalization efforts. The current JSIs had the potential to deliver vital outcomes that strengthened the WTO’s rulemaking function and its health more generally. More than 110 Members were participating in one or more of the current JSI negotiations – demonstrating the wide acknowledgement from across the Membership that that was a legitimate and useful form of rulemaking. They had and continued to be inclusive, open and transparent
Japan	The representative of country C appreciated the Joint Statement Initiatives as an essential framework to allow the WTO to address in a flexible and realistic manner the changing global economic needs of the twenty-first century. The JSIs responded to calls from a broad range of stakeholders by discussing key economic issues and would contribute to updating the WTO rulebook and to ensuring the relevance of the WTO in today’s world. Without the JSIs, the WTO risked becoming less relevant and even losing its raison d’e^tre as a cornerstone of the multilateral trading system
South Korea	As a staunch supporter of the multilateral trading system, we are disappointed to see the WTO in limbo in particular its failure to function as a forum for multilateral trade negotiations in response to the diverse needs and interests of Members. Upon such impasse and trade liberalization shifting weight to regional agreements outside the WTO, plurilateral negotiations could be a meaningful stepping-stone for multilateral agreement. It also served as a test pad for pioneering new trade rules as demonstrated by the GPA and the ITA. The JSIs which were held parallel with multilateral negotiations were essential to maintain the WTO’s relevance in the changing trade environment. Those negotiations were responsive to the demands of diverse stakeholders which would help rebuild trust in the multilateral trading system.
Singapore	JSIs are in line and in sync with the workings of the WTO … The JSI outcomes were critical to maintaining the WTO’s relevance. There was significant interest in the JSIs from key stakeholders which was evident from the considerable support that the business community extended to them … In times of crisis, JSIs represented bright spots that had brought together a vast majority of Members determined to work towards meaningful and relevant outcomes that addressed new and emerging issues. That was a tangible demonstration that the WTO remained relevant, useful and meaningful to their stakeholders and could deliver results. The WTO stood at a crossroad that day. Dr. Ngozi’s appointment had injected renewed optimism and her support for the JSIs had been encouraging. Members were well placed to deliver outcomes at MC12. As responsible Members, they had to decide if they wanted to have aetiological and historical debates that divided them or if they genuinely wanted to bridge their differences and work together to strengthen the WTO.
Chile	We emphasise that JSIs had contributed to strengthening the multilateral trading system. They covered areas that were fundamental for trade in the twenty-first century and for sustainable development. Discussions under JSIs took place in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. JSIs had opened up a pragmatic, respectful and necessary path to overcome the challenges in negotiations at the WTO, which had been reflected in the crosscutting nature of the issues being addressed in each JSI and in the involvement of two-thirds of the Membership participating in those initiatives.