India Proposal Sidelined in WTO Reform Debate

[ABS News Service/12.10.2026]

As the facilitator tasked with overseeing the World Trade Organization reform track on “foundational” issues holds discussion today, members appear to be increasingly divided. So far, discussions over the past several months have seemingly brought these divisions among members to the fore,

It remains to be seen how members will respond to the “foundational” issues today. In her email to members (ICN/GC/REFORM/10) on October 7, the facilitator,

Ambassador Sumathi Balakrishnan of Malaysia, informed members that discussions would resume with the apparently unfinished consideration of the proposal tabled by the United States.

The US proposal calls for changes to decision-making, most-favored-nation status for conducting global trade and the development architecture embodying the treaty-based special and differential treatment.

The facilitator noted that “the aim will be to provide the United States with an opportunity to present the remaining elements of its papers and respond to questions raised by Members, including during the September plenary, followed by an interactive exchange.”

Also on the agenda are papers submitted by China, the African Group, the United Kingdom, the LDC Group, Japan and the Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group.

The facilitator appears to have omitted India’s proposal on the “guiding principles for plurilateral initiatives and agreements at the WTO”, which delves into several foundational issues while suggesting the need to develop guardrails for plurilateral initiatives, said people familiar with the developments.

Interventions

Ambassador Balakrishnan informed members that “as in the previous session, each proponent will be given a maximum of ten minutes to present its submission, followed by an interactive exchange with Members.”

The facilitator has limited “interventions during the interactive exchange, including to seek clarification, explore the proposal further or better understand its underlying rationale” to three minutes.

She asked “all proponents to be prepared to present, as I intend to make as much progress as time permits.”

“Completing our consideration of the papers would allow us to start reflecting on the next steps, including how best to use the Reform Month in November for focused discussions on specific issues, she said.

In her oral report on the informal plenary session held on foundational issues on September 18, the facilitator noted “constructive engagement” among members, while underscoring the need to “maintain momentum, particularly as discussions under this track remain at an earlier stage than under the other tracks.”

MFN Issues

According to the facilitator, “members underlined that MFN and non-discrimination remain important principles of the system, providing stability and predictability for all Members, particularly for developing and LDC Members.”

Ambassador Balakrishnan noted that “several Members stressed that reform should begin with a clear diagnosis, including a distinction between issues inherent in the principles and those relating to their implementation.”

According to her note, “questions were raised about any conditional approach to MFN, including the criteria that might apply, who would apply them, and how unilateral measures could be avoided.”

Many members raised “concerns” “regarding a self-judging interpretation of essential security.” Ambassador Balakrishnan observed that, as regards the role of the Secretariat in the US proposal, she “heard Members recall that the WTO is Member-driven and stress(ed) the importance of neutrality and appropriate oversight, while noting the value of Secretariat contributions, particularly for smaller delegations.”

However, some unnamed members apparently “questioned whether this issue (concerning role of Secretariat) should be considered foundational,” the facilitator noted.

This question assumes importance as the United States severely criticized the role played by WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala in creating a depository for placing instruments of ratification of a plurilateral agreement on electronic commerce that was not formally adopted by members as per Article X:9 of the Marrakesh Agreement, said people familiar with the discussions.

Reviewing the discussion on special and differential treatment stemming from the US proposal, the facilitator noted that “Members also sought greater clarity on S&DT criteria and LDC preferences.”

“More broadly, some Members called for reaffirmation of existing principles, while others encouraged reflection on what is truly foundational and on the purpose of a reformed WTO,” according to Ambassador Balakrishnan.

The facilitator noted that the European Union presented its proposal, “clarifying that its objective was not to abandon MFN or national treatment, but to examine whether the system provides sufficient flexibility in light of developments since 1995, including changes in trade shares, state intervention, level-playing-field concerns and economic security.”

Many members apparently questioned the EU to spell out “the objective basis of any rebalancin of rights and obligations, the preservation of development considerations, and safeguards to ensure that flexibility on economic security grounds does not legitimize unilateral measures.”

The facilitator noted that “some Members saw a role for them (plurilaterals), while stressed that they should be transparent, open and anchored in the WTO, with pathways for developing and LDC Member participation, and should not substitute for multilateralism.”

Without quantifying or naming members, the facilitator says “others expressed reservations about the ability of closed plurilaterals to address foundational issues.”

She observed that “members also highlighted links with the level-playing-field and decision-making tracks, as well as the importance of a fully functioning dispute settlement system.”