WTO AND THE GREEN ROOM POLITICS

Previously Discussed: (Pgs 1-10)

The inception of GATT and WTO
Division of the World in terms of Bargaining Power (Developed
Countries i.e. the US and EU - The Developing Countries The
LDCs)
Factors influencing bargaining power.
Stages of Multilateral Negotiations
Advantages of Participation in the Multilateral System for Smaller
Players.

Section I
GATT:
Limited membership
Negotiations primarily cantered around issues of Tariff, naturally
the US and the EU were the largest players as they controlled the
majority of global trade in terms of volume.
No system of veto under the GATT regime, a symbiotic relationship
prevailed.
The consensus rule was not abused. Developed countries, particularly the
United States and the European Community, drove the GATT agenda and
negotiations but did not insist on full participation by all countries. In
turn, developing countries did not block progress in trade talks-both
because the accords posed few demands on them and because they made
huge gains from the commitments of the developed countries extended to
them on a most-favored nation basis. Moreover, as the weaker partners in
the GATT, they benefited significantly from the well-functioning of the
multilateral rules-based system.
An A-La Carte system of obligations prevailed, which means
countries could pick and choose their commitments under an
already negotiated agreement.
This changed under the WTO regime.

WTO:
Membership increased phenomenally. (Btw, WTO has the highest
membership among all international organisations).
The scope of negotiations broadened, as tariffs barriers were no
longer the only bone of contention. Intellectual Property,
Investment claims and Agricultural subsidies were raging topics
where the developing countries had a direct stake.
Transition from A-La Carte to Single Undertaking.
WTO members can no longer "free ride" on negotiated agreements.
Starting with the Uruguay Round accords, countries have had to
participate in all of the negotiated agreements as part of a "single
undertaking." This requirement means that developing countries have to
commit to substantially greater reforms of their trade barriers and trade
practices than they did in the past. Consequently, they need to be better
informed about issues under negotiation.
Section II
1. What is the traditional Green Room Process?
The traditional "Green Room" process, is a system of semi-formal
negotiations, in which a relatively small number of self-selected
developed and developing countries get together to decide on divisive
issues, it traditionally excluded too many newly active players in WTO
negotiations and thus had problems building consensus.

Diversity in the Green Room:

At present, participation in the Green Room varies by issue and has
increased over time. For instance, in the Tokyo Round, these talks
normally involved less than 8 delegations while today it is not uncommon
to have up to 25-30 participants in a "full" Green Room. There is no
objective basis for participation in these meetings but generally only the
most active countries in the negotiations participate. As it has evolved
over time, Green Room consultations typically include the Quad (i.e.
United States, European Union,Canada, and Japan), Australia, New
Zealand,Switzerland, Norway, possibly one or two transition economy
countries, and a number of developing countries. Developing countries
that often participate in the Green Room include Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
Colombia, Egypt, Hong Kong, China, India, Korea, Mexico, Pakistan,
South Africa and at least one ASEAN country; most smaller developing
countries stay out for lack of adequate resources or capabilities. For
instance, 18 of the WTO members from Africa have no representation in
Geneva.
Decisions taken in the Green Room are conveyed to the larger
membership for final decision. Prior to Seattle, the larger membership
rarely differed with proposals developed by the small group. But the
system broke down in preparations for and deliberations in Seattle.
In summary, the current system provides input into the decision-making
process by a number of large developing countries but excludes
representation of the interests of the majority of WTO members.
 Section III
Pg 10 onwards:
What is a Green room?
Who the recurrent players are and why?
There has been traditional EU dominance, because of the volume of
trade controlled. However, post Brexit, there might be a substantial
opposition within. (unlikely, if you personally ask me though).
The Green Room is too narrow to accommodate diversity, therefore
its significance has narrowed substantially. As developing countries
have a rather hostile attitude to it now.
The GATT WTO transition has changed things. (discussed in detail
in Section 1.)
Countries can no longer ignore a decision against them, because
that will have consequences on them.
Special and Differential treatment under GATT. Developing
countries were allowed to play a much more passive role. Now such
exemptions only apply to LDCs. No special privileges to developing
countries.
Developing countries in the WTO have increased, but Green
Rooms capacity to include them hasnt.
NGOs provoke developing countries to speak up against the so
called forged green room consensus.
 Section IV
Breakdown of Green Room Based Consensus Model:
- Singapore Ministerial Conference. Developing countries spoke
up.
- Accommodative approach vs Power based approach
- Cancun : Classic example of where the EU used the Green Room
to subvert attention to issues that were higher on their agenda
from the sensitive ones that they didnt want much light on.
- Formation of G21 and the African Block.