It is impossible not to smile darkly when the results of a G2 summit are discrepant readouts: It seems that presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping cannot agree on what was agreed on during their recent talks. The good news: They seem not to be colluding to divide up the world into new spheres of influence. But global instability is not about to diminish. For the rest of the world, multilateral institutions matter more than ever. So it is fair to ask: What does the latest ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) — MC 14 — held in Yaoundé, Cameroon, mean for development?
For some time, development talks in the WTO have focused on streamlining Special and Differential Treatment. But four other aspects demand urgent attention.
First, the “needs and interests” of developing countries should be placed “at the heart of the WTO.” Unfortunately, the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) of 2001, the unprecedented trade round according centrality to development concerns, died a slow death.
The second challenge derives ironically from a WTO success: China became a full member in 2001, swiftly learning how to use/play the rules. Add to this its political system, state-led investment and industrial policy, and overcapacity in Chinese manufacturing and cheap exports followed. Despite some advantages that accrue to developing countries, their manufacturing base in key areas gets undercut by China, while depressed prices globally deliver a double whammy. If the US and China strike a bilateral deal on this, developing countries will be even worse hit.
Third, economic interdependence can now be weaponised. How does a developing country manage access to food and energy, when strategic chokepoints are affected by war? Or, protect its citizens and national defence systems against cybersecurity threats, surveillance and data misuse? These dangers hit developing countries more because of the difficult choices they face. To address them, national security needs to be factored into trade equations more systematically.
Fourth, “development” can no longer be restricted to humans. Recognition is slowly growing that anthropocentric perspectives on development have caused immense damage to the environment. Pandemics caused by keeping innocent animals in brutal conditions in wet markets, or transporting them as “live exports” on journeys that maim and kill, are deadly examples. We need models of growth and trade that honour the deeply intertwined existence of all beings.
On all four levels, MC 14 has not delivered. The old DDA-related concerns remain unaddressed. Chinese overcapacity cannot be solved by trade measures alone. National security barely features in WTO discussions. Planetary rights are scarcely present in trade debates. Ideally, one organisation should be mandated to handle these interlinked trade problems. But such a mandate far exceeds that of the WTO’s. What can it do to address these existential concerns?
First, the sooner the WTO and its members recognise that “politics” is here to stay, the greater the chance that they will be able to acknowledge differences and develop innovative solutions. These could include taking a tiered approach to MFN and plurilaterals.
Second, just how disengaged the global public is from trade debates is clear from the perfunctory media coverage
MC 14 received. A big mistake at MC 14 was to kick the can back to Geneva — a sure-shot recipe to take trade matters even further away from the public eye. Without political support from the organisation and member countries, and buy-in from a global citizenry, technically sound solutions to development problems will not fly.
Third, for the WTO to catch up with altered empirical realities, it must become intellectually inclusive. A disciplinary dominance of Economics and Law in its secretariat no longer suffices. Prioritisation of efficiency and compliance, at the expense of fundamental questions of power and ethics, is one of the reasons for the mess it is in today. Interdisciplinary research, which also includes historians, political scientists, philosophers, and natural scientists, will enable the needed paradigm shift.
The writer is distinguished fellow, ORF, and honorary fellow of Darwin College, University of Cambridge
For some time, development talks in the WTO have focused on streamlining Special and Differential Treatment. (Reuters/File) 
Share
