Latest news with #WTO
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
2 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
Best of BS Opinion: The quiet undercurrents changing the world today
You know that moment at the lakeside when everything looks still, no wind, no ripples. And then suddenly, your feet feel something shift below? A swirl. A stirring. A current quietly turning things over beneath the calm surface. That's how change often arrives, not like a bolt of lightning, but like a whisper under the surface. That's what our world today feels like as well. On the surface, institutions still stand, celebrities still smile, the city still runs. But beneath it all, subtle forces are rearranging the landscape. Let's dive in. Shang-Jin Wei notices one such tectonic ripple: the growing financial and ecological anxiety that's unravelling the global order we've long taken for granted. With Trump's fiscal recklessness threatening the dollar's credibility and climate cooperation fraying post-Paris exit, Asia and Europe are being nudged toward deeper, alternative alliances. From stablecoin diplomacy to carbon tariffs and WTO rewiring, a new architecture is quietly forming, not in resistance, but in response. In the shadows of this global churn, R Gopalakrishnan spotlights India's own deep-sea innovators — Suhas Patil and Anjan Bose — whose life-long work in chips and grid technology never grabbed headlines but shaped industries. They're the hidden champions, steadying the foundation even as waves crash up top. They built not for the quarter but for the quarter-century and India's future may well depend on unearthing and honouring many more like them. Then comes the political tremor from New York. Devangshu Datta writes about Zohran Mamdani, the unlikely mayoral frontrunner whose democratic socialist platform has stirred the status quo. His agenda, rent freezes, public transit, tax-the-rich, may sound radical, but it's tapping into real pain. And if implemented well, it might just recalibrate NYC's urban engine. The current he rides on? Economic justice wrapped in a rejection of capitalist excess. But as Shekhar Gupta reminds us, Mamdani's rise is no quiet ripple in India. It has unleashed a storm of identity debates, religion, origin, ideology, triggering unease within India's right-wing circles. Ironically, Mamdani's agenda resembles India's own socialist past, even as it tries to distance itself from that very memory. What we buried, others now revive and perhaps better dressed, perhaps better timed. And Vishal Menon watches another tide turn: Aamir Khan's shifting cinematic presence. Once the harbinger of meaningful cinema, his recent roles falter even as his vision behind the camera still gleams. Maybe it's time he lets the current carry him back to where his true strength lies. Stay tuned, and remember, sometimes, the storm isn't loud. But the undercurrent? That's what pulls the future in!
Japan Today
6 hours ago
- Business
- Japan Today
EU's Pacific alliance would not replace WTO, EU officials say
FILE PHOTO: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen attends a press conference on the day of the European Union leaders summit in Brussels, Belgium June 26, 2025. REUTERS/Yves Herman/File Photo By Philip Blenkinsop The European Union's plan to cooperate with Pacific Rim countries would aim to overcome some of the difficulties of the World Trade Organization, but would not seek to replace it, EU officials said on Friday. The WTO is struggling for relevance as geopolitical tensions rise and the United States imposes unilateral tariffs, flouting its WTO commitments. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen told reporters late on Thursday that "structured cooperation" with the 12-nation Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership , or CPTPP, could be thought about "as a beginning of redesigning the WTO". German Chancellor Friedrich Merz went further, saying the new trade grouping could gradually replace the WTO. On Friday, however, EU officials said the plan did not entail setting up a rival to the WTO. Instead, the Commission said cooperation with the CPTPP was a way to advance a modern, rules-based trading system when the WTO urgently needs reform. "We are working closely with like-minded partners, including CPTPP countries, to advance meaningful, rules-based reform that upholds fair and open global trade," it said in a statement. One area of work could be setting up a system to settle disputes, required because the United States has blocked appointments to the WTO's Appellate Body, the ultimate arbiter on global trade. The EU-CPTPP cooperation would also be designed to send a political signal that a large number of countries support open and rules-based global trade. The CPTPP is a 12-nation free trade agreement between Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam, which Britain joined late last year. "We are strong supporters of the WTO, which plays a vital role," a spokesperson for Britain's trade ministry said, highlighting a trade strategy launched on Thursday which said CPTPP could be a platform "to encourage deeper trading relationships between countries and groupings committed to liberal rules-based trade." "We are working with other CPTPP members to help set up discussions with other major trading blocs, including the EU, on ways to further promote free and fair global trade," the spokesperson added. © Thomson Reuters 2025.
Daily Maverick
8 hours ago
- Business
- Daily Maverick
WTO fisheries agreement gains momentum, but will Africa's coastal states rise to the challenge?
Despite the high cost of illegal fishing, only a third of African countries have signed the landmark agreement that will soon take effect. The World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies is on track to be adopted this year, with Ghana the latest African country to ratify. Nine more ratifications are needed to reach the total of 111, which activates the treaty. The landmark deal will come into force in what looks like a ' super year ' for ocean governance. Yet only about a third of African states have ratified it, raising questions about whether the agreement risks faltering where the benefits are most needed. The Food and Agriculture Organization's most recent State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture report says Africa's fisheries are among the most vulnerable and highly affected by overfishing and illicit, unreported and unregulated fishing. Little of Africa's marine fish stocks are caught sustainably. This presents the continent with a unique trifecta of challenges: subsidised foreign fleets, weak ocean governance, and climate change combine to undermine the sustainability of marine resources. Small pelagic stocks in West Africa have collapsed, East African coral reef fisheries run below sustainable yields, and coastal livelihoods and food security are under threat. Current estimations suggest that at least $11.2-billion in African revenue is lost annually due to illegal exploitation. In this context, the fisheries deal should be a major step in addressing unlawful fishing and harmful subsidies that contribute to overfishing. Globally, 102 countries are officially recorded as having ratified the agreement. Several others, including Ghana, have completed domestic ratification, but aren't yet reflected in the official count because they still need to conclude the formal procedure. The agreement targets three areas contributing to the depletion of marine resources, with two implementation phases. First, it bans subsidies linked to exploiting overfished stocks, aiming to bolster conservation and awareness about weak regulatory oversight. Second, it prohibits fishing subsidies in high seas areas beyond the purview of regional fisheries bodies, where enforcement gaps are common and migratory fish stocks are vulnerable. Finally, it bans subsidies to vessels involved in illegal fishing. These measures respond to longstanding concerns about the role of subsidies in enabling overfishing and illegal fishing, especially by distant-water fleets. Although the benefits for Africa are clear, the reception seems lukewarm, with just 20 African countries having officially ratified the agreement. Most support has come from West Africa, where the Economic Community of West African States has urged its members to support the initiative. In East and southern Africa, only four coastal states have ratified: Comoros, Mauritius, Seychelles and South Africa. One probable reason is limited awareness and technical capacity since the agreement is essentially a trade instrument, not a conventional fisheries or environmental treaty. So understanding the deal's implications requires coordination between national agencies responsible for fishing, environment, trade and foreign affairs. The agreement is nevertheless on track to enter into force before year-end, underscoring the importance of Africa's readiness to successfully implement it. For one thing, implementation will likely come with financial and resource implications. The agreement requires all WTO members to create a national subsidy inventory documenting the nature, recipients and purpose of fisheries subsidies. This will require inter-agency coordination, political commitment, and new digital reporting systems, potentially adding costs for African states. At the same time, a lack of capacity or political will to implement may see countries become targets for illegal fleets, since the agreement is only as strong as states' ability to enforce it. This is especially likely since the prohibition is not triggered automatically, but only once a relevant party determines a transgression has occurred. That party could be the coastal state against which a transgression has been committed, one whose flag is used by the vessel involved in illegal fishing, or a relevant regional fisheries management organisation/arrangement. However, the arrangements are not always well equipped to deal with illegal fishing, and their ability to respond depends on member states' commitment and capacity. And flag states, especially those providing flags of convenience, are seldom willing to enforce rules that undermine their profits. This means the successful use of the agreement will depend on countries' ability to detect illegal activity and collect evidence. That doesn't diminish the initiative's utility, but highlights the challenges African countries could face as they prepare for implementation. To maximise the agreement's benefits, governments should prioritise three actions. Self-assessment tool First, they must use the WTO's self-assessment tool to systematically align national policies with the agreement's requirements. Identifying legislative, regulatory and institutional gaps may require technical assistance or capacity-building support. Second, states should strengthen coordination among fisheries, trade and finance ministries to ensure coherent policy implementation and transparent reporting on subsidies and conservation measures, as mandated by the agreement. Third, African countries are well positioned to leverage the WTO Fisheries Funding Mechanism, which provides resources for developing nations to upgrade fisheries management, enhance compliance and help small-scale fishers achieve sustainable practices. This support becomes available to member states on ratifying the agreement. However, the deal alone is not a panacea. It is a useful addition to countries' toolkit in their fight against illegal and unsustainable fishing — but its effectiveness will depend on the actions of African coastal and flag states. Countries should use existing maritime mechanisms, such as the Djibouti and Yaoundé codes of conduct, as well as their regional maritime security strategies. The African Union (AU) and the AU Development Agency could provide technical support and capacity building, and raise awareness among member states as they have done before. The absence of a robust WTO enforcement mechanism means African countries must simultaneously invest in strengthening their maritime security and implementing international accords like the Agreement on Port State Measures. Enhanced surveillance, port inspections and regional collaboration are vital for intercepting illegal catches and deterring illicit operators. Without these complementary measures, the risks to Africa's food security, economic stability and regional security will persist. DM
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
9 hours ago
- Business
- Business Standard
As US credibility falters, Asia and Europe must lead global stability
Given that everyone will suffer from these shocks, cooperation to ameliorate them should be a priority, especially for Asia and Europe Shang-Jin Wei Countries around the world are confronting the same confluence of shocks. The continued breakdown of the global trading system, owing to a volatile US tariff policy, is now accompanied by the risk of disruptions to trade routes and oil production from military conflicts in West Asia. Moreover, concerns about the safety of dollar-denominated assets are growing, because United States President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' spending Bill is expected to erode America's already-weak fiscal position. At the same time, the broad, geopolitically induced reshuffling of global supply chains continues, and the risk of climate and environmental breakdown has increased, especially now that the United States has withdrawn from the Paris climate agreement again. Given that everyone will suffer from these shocks, cooperation to ameliorate them should be a priority, especially for Asia and Europe. Both regions are heavily integrated into the global trading system, and both could be affected by the loss of US fiscal credibility. Many Asian countries' foreign-exchange reserves are heavily weighted towards dollar assets, and most of their external trade is invoiced in dollars. Similarly, climate change poses a major threat to all countries, but Europe, especially, has staked its future on the clean-energy transition. Simply put, the recent shocks threaten the foundation on which Asian and European countries have built their economic models: Open trade, which itself is based on a rules-based system. The US has gone from being a rule-setter to becoming a rule-breaker. For example, Mr Trump's misleadingly labelled 'reciprocal tariffs' explicitly violate the most-favoured-nation (MFN) principle, which prohibits any World Trade Organization member from maintaining different trade barriers for different countries except under a formal free-trade agreement. Mr Trump has also violated the US commitment not to raise its tariff rates beyond WTO 'bound rates' — another cornerstone of the global system. Similarly, the US is undermining the dollar-centric system that Asian and European countries have long relied on for liquidity, trade financing, and financial risk management. The expected erosion of the US fiscal position, combined with Mr Trump's capricious tariff policy, has cast doubt on the dollar's reliability. According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, the budget Bill that Mr Trump wants Congress to pass will add an estimated $2.4 trillion to the $36 trillion of existing US debt (some 100 per cent of US gross domestic product in 2024). And with congressional Republicans poised to raise the debt limit by another $5 trillion, US federal government debt could reach 134 per cent of GDP by the time Mr Trump leaves office. Ernest Hemingway famously wrote that bankruptcy happens 'gradually and then suddenly.' Because the US has never technically defaulted, the recent rise in risk premia on government bonds can be said to fall within the 'gradually' phase. But investors must now consider the possibility of 'suddenly' coming sooner than previously thought. Rather than looking for separate hedging strategies, Asia and Europe would benefit more from collaboration. On the trade front, an enhanced framework between the European Union and the two big Asian trading blocs, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership and the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, would establish trading rules for almost the whole world — regardless of what the US does. The key to a successful framework would be to keep all the WTO rules that have proven effective in driving trade and prosperity for the past seven decades, including the MFN principle. But Asian and European leaders should also seek to improve upon the WTO rules that are deficient, including those governing subsidies and the conduct of state-owned firms. They also would need to resuscitate the WTO dispute-settlement mechanism, perhaps tripling the number of Appellate Body judges. On the climate front, the danger now is that other countries (such as Argentina) may follow the US in exiting the Paris agreement. To head off that possibility, Asia and Europe should pursue a common carbon-tariff framework. If the world's two largest trading regions impose the same penalties on carbon-intensive imports, they will create a powerful incentive to stay the course on decarbonisation. On international finance, the two regions can work towards a system that is more resilient to irresponsible behaviour on the part of any single country. The goal is not to displace the US dollar as the dominant global currency, but to offer more instruments for risk management. For example, a new stablecoin could be pegged to the euro or one of the major Asian currencies. Central banks could form a network of currency-swap agreements that are independent of the US dollar. And countries could work towards a more robust multilateral debt-relief framework for low-income countries, building on cooperation among the European Investment Bank, the Asian Development Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the African Development Bank, and the Paris Club of sovereign creditors. None of these solutions will be easy to achieve, of course, given the tensions between countries within each regional bloc regarding a variety of issues. Cooperation would require compartmentalisation, with governments focusing squarely on providing global public goods. As challenging as this might seem, the alternative will be far costlier to Asia and Europe — and to the rest of the world. The author is professor of finance and economics at Columbia Business School and Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs ©Project Syndicate, 2025
Hindustan Times
11 hours ago
- Business
- Hindustan Times
Case for reviving multilaterialism, a WTO-led order
The G20 New Delhi Leaders Declaration of September 2023 reaffirmed the indispensability of 'a rules-based, non-discriminatory, fair, open, inclusive, equitable, sustainable and transparent multilateral trading system, with WTO at its core'. This was reiterated in 2024 during Brazil's G20 presidency. India's negotiating focus has shifted to bilateral agremeents. While equally important, these are no substitute for multilateral rules. (AFP) The 14th World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference is scheduled for March 2026 at Yaounde, Cameroon. As a precursor, the WTO director-general met with ministers and high-level officials from nearly 30 WTO members, including India, the US, Australia, China, the EU and Brazil, earlier this month in Paris. The inconclusive end to this meeting foretells further undermining of a beleaguered WTO. The US's disregard for multilateral rules is one of the key reasons for the deadlock, but that does not let the 165 other member-countries of the WTO off the hook. They too shoulder a significant share of the responsibility for the WTO's fate as well. A key question for India and other countries is whether the rules of WTO are worth preserving despite the unpredictability of the US's actions. There are several reasons why they are. It is true that WTO rules are far from perfect and need reforms. Yet, however imperfect, a multilateral system of rules is the only logical safeguard against arbitrary action by any one country. The emergence of WTO in 1995 complemented India's liberalisation and economic growth. Domestic reform and liberalisation could thrive because of the global stability, certainty, and predictability that WTO rules provided. WTO's state of disarray can be attributed to several reasons, primary among which is the dysfunctional state of its dispute settlement mechanism since 2019, resulting from the US blocking appointment of members to the appellate body. Underpinning this is the US's desire to wrench back political control over a judicial process. Efforts to get the US to agree to a more streamlined appellate process have failed. India has highlighted the importance of a two-tier system; but to break the deadlock, we need to consider possible alternatives, including a two-tier system for all willing WTO members and a single-tier system only for disputes where the US is a party. The second set of challenges at the WTO is a series of long-pending issues. A key pending issue is reform in the agricultural rules. This includes constraints India has faced with domestic support for agricultural products. Limited to 10% of the value of production of an agricultural product under the WTO's Agreement on Agriculture (AoA), India's domestic support entitlement is in stark contrast to the much higher AoA entitlements that is available for developed countries including the US, the EU, Japan, and Canada. India successfully negotiated the Bali Peace Clause in 2013, aimed at partially addressing this historical asymmetry. However, this was only a temporary reprieve that is yet to be translated into a firm commitment. Reform is also pending on other related issues, including removal of an absurd external reference price which has remained frozen at 1986-88 prices — completely devoid of current economic realities. Prioritising reform of these rules is important. Development of new rules across a range of emerging areas is another key challenge. Such areas include digital trade and e-commerce and trade & environmental sustainability (TES) — both of which are critical for India, given our national priorities. These are currently part of splinter-group discussions within the WTO, called joint initiatives (JIs). The e-commerce JI has 90 WTO members, the TES has 78, and both groups include the US, the EU, China, Australia, Canada, and Japan, among others. The e-commerce JI deals with elements that will have relevance for India's evolving strength in digital trade. With countries, including the US, threatening various unilateral measures, disciplines in this area need deeper engagement. The TES discussions will have significant relevance for rules on interface of trade and the climate crisis, an area where there is a rapid rise of unilateral measures, especially those adopted by the EU, and the threat of similar measures by others including the US and Canada. JIs emerged as a response to challenges in driving consensus among 166 members. The first JI to conclude was on services domestic regulation (SDR), between 72 members. India had been an active participant of SDR given its centrality to India's burgeoning services trade. However, when discussions moved from the multilateral forum to the JI, India stayed out of SDR as well as all other JIs, the concern being that such fragmented rulemaking would undermine WTO's multilateral architecture. The reality since 2017, however, is that WTO's negotiating function has predominantly rested on JIs, with some, such as the JI on investment facilitation for development (IFD), having support of as many as 126 members. It is ironic that the reason that JIs have remained JIs is because of the choice of some members not to engage. And it is only the ones that have stayed out, including India, that stand to lose any possibility to influence the shape and content of new rules. India's negotiating focus has shifted to bilateral agreements. While equally important, these are no substitute for multilateral rules, and, in fact, would even be severely undermined by lack of multilateral rules. It is time to reinvigorate our vision for the WTO. Any aspiration to be a true vishwaguru hinges on our ability to have a proactive and forward-looking agenda as a global player while doing all that it takes to strengthen from within. RV Anuradha is partner, Clarus Law Associates, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal.
