US Willing to Join E-Commerce, Investment Facilitation Plurilateral through Shortcut Deposition with WTO ED Instead of Annex 4, China Supports

[ABS News Service/07.10.2026]

Geneva – The United States signaled that it is willing to join consensus on the plurilateral Electronic Commerce Agreement and the Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement at a meeting of the World Trade Organization’s General Council.

Washington did raise concern about WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s decision to act as depositary for the ECA, said people familiar with the developments.

The United States questioned the Director-General taking on the depositary role even though members had not reached consensus on incorporating the ECA into Annex 4 of the Marrakesh Agreement, which lists the plurilateral trade agreements, said people who asked not to be quoted.

China defended for accepting the request to act as depositary of the ECA, in light of the WTO Agreement and other relevant international law, saying “There is no change or ambiguity of the legal status of ECA.”

said China's trade envoy to the WTO, Ambassador LI Yongjie.

At the second day of the General Council meeting, India challenged the legal status of the ECA, while Australia, Japan and Singapore offered a robust defense, said people familiar with the discussions. At the heart of the debate was the authority of the Director-General and Secretariat to support an agreement not incorporated into Annex 4, said a trade envoy who asked not to be quoted.

US Trade Envoy Ambassador Joseph Barloon stated that Washington is willing to join consensus on both the IFDA and ECA, despite not being a participant in either. However, the US envoy maintained that a strong interest in opening a pathway for plurilaterals “does not mean we will support any pathway that facilitates plurilaterals.”

The United States noted that consensus was not reached to make the JSI a shortcut to avoid (Joint statement initiative, a full consensus) a WTO plurilateral. By acting as a depositary, creating a document series, and opening the possibility for an ECA committee, Washington said, the DG took actions that had the effect of conveying the authority of a WTO agreement onto the ECA, which is not a WTO agreement.

“This, in our view, was wrong,” Washington said.

The United States rejected the argument that the ECA's launch, negotiation and conclusion at the WTO granted it special privileges, calling the line of argument unconvincing. “Consensus iswhat will make or break a plurilateral,” Washington said, arguing it does not matter if the text was negotiated in capitals or in Geneva.

“Ironically,” the United States warned, this justification “could push members to be more hostile to future attempts to initiate new plurilaterals if their lack of early dissent is used against them at the end of the process.”

Regarding technical assistance, Washington expressed sharp concern that the Secretariat would conduct activities despite there being no unified member position on e-commerce. “Whose position are they advocating? How are members to monitor this?”