Modern Diplomacy, April 09, 2026
The 14th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (MC14) was held in Yaounde, the capital city of Cameroon, from March 26-29. The landmark conference discussed diverse aspects of significant issues relating to the WTO today. The structural and functional reforms also dominated the discussions. While there was no expectation of a substantial outcome, there were, at least, some hopes for ministers agreeing to a broad way forward for the WTO.
In this interview, Pradeep S. Mehta, Secretary General, CUTS International; Professor of Practice, JECRC University; and NGO Adviser to the DG, World Trade Organization, discusses and reviews further a number of questions that emerged during the four-day conference in Cameroon. Here are the interview excerpts:
What’s the concept of trade multilateralism, and what’s its significance, particularly for the Global South? And its basic principles in global trading?
Pradeep S. Mehta: Rules-based multilateral trade is a global public good. It is the plumbing system of global trade. It ensures stability and predictability in trading relations, which gives businesses the certainty to manufacture and trade goods and services that can reach markets around the world. The World Trade Organization (WTO) lies at the core of trade multilateralism, with its basic principles of non-discrimination in international trade, transparency, and fair competition.
Trade multilateralism is particularly significant for the Global South, as it places disciplines on the trade actions of both major and smaller powers alike. It gives smaller trading powers a voice in shaping the trading system. In the absence of trade multilateralism, there is a much greater chance of major powers unilaterally dictating the rules of trade.
To what extent has this trade multilateralism been affected by U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff policy since his ascension to the White House?
Mehta: The US has shown blatant disregard for the rules-based multilateral trading system. Through its tariff policy since early 2025, it has violated its tariff commitments, among other legal obligations owed to its trading partners under the WTO system. Trade multilateralism has, certainly, been eroded by US actions since last year. When a major power rides roughshod over the system like this, it is a troubling sign.
Do you think Global South countries, still, remain aligned with WTO principles and committed to a rules-based multilateral trading system?
Mehta: Although there is no unified Global South in the context of discussions at the WTO, many of the coalitions and groupings at the WTO representing a large number of developing and least-developed countries continue to repose faith in the multilateral trading system. This includes, for example, the G-90 (comprising the African, Caribbean, and Pacific (ACP) States, the African Group, and the LDC Group together), who are strong supporters of the rules-based multilateral trading system with the WTO at its core.
While a large number of developing and least-developed countries remain committed to the WTO and continue to support it, there is no denying that there is also increasing frustration among them at the lack of meaningful progress regarding the most important negotiating areas of interest for the Global South. These include aspects such as the restoration of the two-tier dispute settlement system, progress in agricultural negotiations, meaningful market access for merchandise and service exports, and some plurilateral agreements like investment facilitation, e-commerce, etc.
What are the positions of China and India, for instance, on most of the issues discussed at the landmark WTO’s conference in Yaounde, Cameroon, from March 26-29?
Mehta: On some systemic issues, such as the need for a well-functioning WTO dispute settlement, India and China have broadly similar positions. However, on many other issues, India and China find themselves adopting different stances on foundational aspects of the WTO system. For example, China decided last year to voluntarily forgo benefits under the special and differential treatment (S&DT) regime of the WTO in future negotiations. S&DT enables flexibility and transition periods for less developed countries in complying with their legal obligations under trade rules. India, on the other hand, not only defends the S&DT principle but has also strongly resisted any suggestions of doing away with the concept of self-declaration of development status and any calls for India to give up its status as a developing country WTO member.
So, the larger point is that there are no coordinated positions of the Global South, or of its major constituent countries, on WTO aspects. While they all regularly invoke the need for strengthening the rules-based multilateral trading system in general, there are significant differences in their positions on specific systemic issues, be it S&DT, consensus-based decision-making, etc. Apart from these, there are naturally differences in their positions on substantive issues, be it agriculture, industrial subsidies, fisheries subsidies, etc., since these positions are driven by respective national interests.
How would you assess, finally, the results of the 14th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (MC14) in Yaounde?
Mehta: In many ways, the outcome of MC14 was uneventful. The ministerial was marked by indecision on several counts, particularly on the pathway for a meaningful WTO reform program. While there was no expectation of a substantial outcome, there were at least some hopes for ministers agreeing to a broad way forward. No movement on a structured negotiating agenda for WTO reform, and not even a declaration with an anodyne paragraph on the imperative of the WTO, is certainly very disappointing.
At the same time, a few less-publicized outcomes deserve greater attention. For example, the renewal of the third phase of the Enhanced Integrated Framework (EIF) till 2031, which is a WTO institutional framework to support trade-driven development in least-developed countries, is a positive and welcome development.
Activities of the EIF include diagnostic trade integration studies, capacity building on standards in agriculture, and others. These and similar interventions through related frameworks such as the Standards and Trade Development Facility (STDF) serve to remind the world that trade is not an end in itself but a vital means for promoting equitable economic development and employment opportunities around the world.
What are the future perspectives if the WTO operates without the United States? And how would that affect or influence trade developments of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs), particularly from Africa?
Mehta: The US has shown increasing disregard towards the system. In a press release issued after MC14, the USTR noted that they have been “skeptical of the value of the WTO.” For a long time, the jury was out on whether the US wanted to just ignore the WTO or work to actively weaken it. In the past few months, there have been mixed signals—the US paid their outstanding dues from 2024, an ambassador took charge in Geneva, and a new American deputy director general has begun her stint.
However, in the recent past, through the US submissions on WTO reform, there is a signal that the US now seeks to erode the non-discrimination-based WTO system and actively weaken it. Let us be clear—the US benefits a lot from its continued WTO membership, particularly in terms of its intellectual property regime, which generates an annual income of around $170 billion for US firms. Therefore, US businesses have strong interests in these areas along with services. At the same time, the question must be asked—if the architects of the system become its bulldozers, should they still be the ones drawing up the construction plans? Should they not become not-so-innocent bystanders?
In terms of the influence of a system without the US on trade developments of African LDCs, this is speculative for now. Even with the retrospective extension granted by the US Congress to AGOA till the end of this year, African exports have already been adversely affected by the US’ unilateral tariff imposition. In deals with the US outside the system, African trading partners will be subject to even greater asymmetrical bargaining. The WTO system, despite its shortcomings, still provides developing and least-developed countries with a measure of certainty and predictability in their trading relations that cannot be easily substituted.
Please read this Interview at: