WTO has strayed away from the 1994 Marrakesh script of ‘trade for development’ and removal of poverty | Photo Credit: DENIS BALIBOUSE

The recently concluded WTO Ministerial at Cameroon throws up two distinct sets of questions. The proverbial elephant in the room, of course, concerns the organisation’s relevance at a time when the rules of the game in global trade have been entirely upended. On this, the meet offers little succour. The second deals with the implications of what actually happened at the latest meet.

On the latter, there were two interesting developments, where India laudably stood its ground. Along with Brazil and Turkey, India opposed the extension of the 28-year moratorium on tariffs on e-commerce goods. Not surprisingly, the US is incensed. India needs to reserve the sovereign right to tax digital transactions, even as it offers concessions from time to time. The digital economy accounted for about 11 per cent of India’s GDP for FY23, with artificial intelligence set to raise this share. Such a stand aligns with past policy. The government removed tax-free benefits for IT industry in 2009 when it was seen capable of thriving without support. Today, when Big Tech wants to prise open India’s market, it must be willing to pay for it. It is heartening that India has not mixed up its position with its trade talks with the US.

India also rightly resisted the China-backed Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD) proposal, arguing that plurilateral deals have no place in a multilateral body. Here, a select group of nations agree on a proposal and try to get the WTO’s approval. However, what has not been satisfactorily resolved is the moratorium on certain TRIPS-related complaints. Thanks to this moratorium, India has been able to implement the Patents Act by disregarding minor innovations or ‘evergreening’, assuring access to affordable medicines and other products for its people. It is also to be noted here that investment facilitation pacts have always been controversial. The Western demand for transparency in such deals could clash with a developing country’s policy space. In fact, it is possible that the erstwhile PN3 would have perhaps run foul of such an investment pact. It is, however, another matter that IFD was opposed on grounds of process.

Finally, WTO has strayed away from the 1994 Marrakesh script of ‘trade for development’ and removal of poverty. The principle of consensus between big and small, the Global North and South, has been jettisoned. The US has run it down. What really showed up the toothlessness of the WTO was its inability to resist the Liberation Day tariffs — which tear apart the very basis of fair trade, by doing way with uniform tariffs for a single product. There are few indications so far of China playing the game fairly either, as it seeks to push its own interests. There is also the problem of FTA agreements running foul of WTO principles; India too has allowed such inconsistencies to creep in. With the emergence of new alliances and supply chains, WTO truly needs a ‘third force’ to stay alive.

Published on March 31, 2026