One is the loneliest number...
The United States took another step towards the margins of international diplomacy in Buenos Aires at the 11th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization this week. Once the proud champion of the multilateral trade system and aggressive in its push for deeper commitments to liberalization from its partners, the U.S. has largely refused to engage this week.
President Barack Obama's United States Trade Representative Michael Froman tried to sidestep the WTO by pushing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). The talk was all of 21st century trade issues with an arrogant dismissal of the basic protections and market opening requested by poorer countries. For example, four of the poorest countries in the world (Mali, Chad, Burkina Faso and Ivory Coast) have been demanding an end to the use of public money to facilitate the dumping of U.S. cotton in international markets at less than cost of production prices. The U.S. has refused for decades to end this market-distorting behavior.
If USTR Froman seemed to dismiss the WTO, one now has to ask how long it will take other countries to dismiss the USTR. President Donald Trump's Administration has blown up its role in both the TPP and TTIP. For now, the U.S. will be part of neither. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has an uncertain future as well, after a shocking performance by current USTR Robert Lighthizer at a press conference in October. There, he suggested the only way forward on NAFTA negotiations would be unilateral surrender to U.S. demands for change.
Now in Buenos Aires, Lighthizer avoided even a reaffirmation of U.S. commitment to multilateralism. In his opening speech, he suggested the WTO had a problem when so many of its members did not want the rules to apply to themselves. He is right, starting with the United States.
Why is the U.S. unwilling to enforce?
Under a different administration, once can imagine the United States going to Buenos Aires determined to rebuild confidence in multilateralism as a way for countries to resolve the challenges they cannot answer themselves. Many opportunities presented themselves. One had a ministerial mandate already: All WTO members committed to a permanent solution to the question of how to treat public procurement for public stocks. Members negotiated; some liked the compromise while others did not. But only the United States refused to even discuss the draft, reportedly saying it was not prepared to discuss any language with the word permanent.
The U.S. could also have helped regain trust by taking steps to bring its domestic support into conformity with the direction outlined in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture, i.e. by cutting the subsidies that allow agribusiness to dump U.S. commodities on international markets. Instead, it listened to agribusiness.
Update following final press conference
In the last hours of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires, it seems likely there will not be even the blandest of joint declarations. It is rumored a simple five-paragraph version that reaffirms only existing agreements and decisions is not strong enough for India, while allegedly, anything stronger is ruled out by the United States delegation.
Signs of life in the multilateral system
At the conference, Indian officials moved forward with their plan to host emerging countries in New Delhi in February to discuss a development agenda for trade. Who knows what will come from it. But waiting for something to change in Geneva is pointless.
The United States is opting out, lost (temporarily, one hopes) in a land devoid of diplomacy and shaky on basic trade principles. If other countries back their refrain about the importance of the multilateral trade system, they must start working toward breaking the impasse. They can build confidence by showing new flexibility and listening to the concerns broached by civil society and some governments regarding new issues, such as e-commerce. "Giving" without always demanding a "get" in return will create opportunities for experimentation and new ways forward.
