Why the World Trade Organization remains so important

The 14^th Ministerial Conference in March 2026 in Cameroon confirmed that the World Trade Organization (WTO) is in dire straits. Nevertheless, the WTO is still a unique and indispensable tool for international trade, so Belgium and the EU hope to make the WTO a functioning institution again.

Trade between countries creates jobs and wealth. But imagine each country imposed its own import duties and restrictions, and had more advantageous rules for one country than another. That would be like every neighbourhood setting its own traffic rules. In one neighbourhood, you could drive on at a red light, while in another you would have to stop.

"When trade is based on common rules, everyone has a chance."

In short, without common rules, there would be chaos. Trade would become unpredictable and expensive, and small economies would find it difficult to survive. This is why the World Trade Organization (WTO) plays such an important role, as it guarantees international trade that is predictable, transparent, and free of discrimination. It also provides a system for settling trade disputes.

At present, the WTO has 166 members, accounting for 98% of global trade. Belgium is also a member and pays its dues, but has delegated its right to speak (at ministerial conferences, for example) to the European Union (EU).

That is logical, as the EU is a customs union with a uniform import and export tariff in respect of other countries. This does not prevent Belgium from actually participating in the conferences via our FPS. These conferences provide for instance an ideal framework for various bilateral meetings.
 

Most favoured nation

It is certainly not the case that the WTO obstructs free trade agreements between countries and regional blocs. For example, the EU has separate trade agreements with the majority of its trading partners such as Canada, Vietnam and Japan, or soon with Mercosur, India and Indonesia, and so on. The WTO does, however, fill a gap by setting trade rules between countries that do not have a preferential agreement.

In particular, the non-discrimination principle of “most favoured nation” (MFN) is crucial. This means that every country is entitled to the same trade advantages as the most favoured nation. In other words, all countries face the same customs duties unless a separate comprehensive free trade agreement has been concluded.

In principle, there is only one other exception to this rule. The EU, along with a number of other countries, (unilaterally) grants free access to its market for products originating from vulnerable developing countries (i.e. the GSP or Generalised Scheme of Preferences). The aim is to promote the development of these vulnerable countries. However, this cannot be considered as discrimination.

Diverging interests

On the face of it, then, the WTO is a unique and indispensable institution. Nevertheless, the organisation is in crisis. For instance, there are a number of countries or groups of countries with very divergent interests.

Developing countries want free access to all markets for their agricultural products. They oppose the subsidies that the EU grants to its farmers and also resist EU regulations requiring imports to be deforestation-free or emission-free. In their view, this constitutes a form of protectionism and arbitrariness.

In addition, the least developed countries and developing countries are calling for more flexibility in regulation, the so-called 'special and differential treatment' or SDT. Because that can sustain their development process and help them integrate better into world trade.

Western countries – as well as developing countries – believe that China must put an end to its questionable trade practices. The Asian giant provides rather generous subsidies to its state-owned enterprises, which leads to unfair competition.

The United States, for its part, sets aside the principle of non-discrimination entirely. It seeks a trade surplus with all countries; failing that, it imposes tariffs intended to correct the alleged imbalance. That is an explicit violation of the MFN principle. Poorer countries can hardly resist that.

India is taking a strong position: it believes that certain commitments have still not been met. In particular, the country wants to be recognized for its public food storage program to feed the population. Other countries believe however that this conceals a speculation program that could destabilize the markets.
 

Two-tier system

Another major stumbling block is the consensus rule. Because every decision requires consensus, each member effectively has a veto. As soon as one member – large or small – disagrees, the WTO cannot take a decision. As a result, almost no new rules have been adopted over the past 10 to 15 years, only a number of technical matters have progressed.

The EU wants to relax this consensus requirement, and in doing so, introduce a two-tier system. The basic tier would include rules applicable to all members, while the upper tier would apply only to those countries willing to go further than the baseline. In jargon: “plurilateral” rather than “multilateral”.

The EU itself already applies two-tier systems in matters such as the Schengen Area and the Eurozone, in which not all Member States participate. Nevertheless, they are always welcome to join later when they are ready.
 

Alternative arbitration system

In fact, something similar already exists within the WTO, namely for the settlement of trade disputes. The “first instance” level still functions, but the system is blocked at the appellate stage. Since 2019, the United States has been blocking the appointment of new judges by making use of the consensus rule.

The EU circumvents this through the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement (MPIA), an interim appeal arbitration mechanism involving multiple parties. This arrangement is supported by 61 members, including China, together representing 60% of global trade. The United States and India are not members.

In any case, dispute settlement procedures need to be accelerated. At present, the industries concerned often suffer too much damage before a final ruling is delivered.

Be that as it may, the EU is firmly determined to proceed with the two-tier reform, as are a number of like-minded countries, such as South Korea, Japan, Canada, and Australia, and several South American countries. Preferably within the WTO, but, if absolutely necessary, outside it.
 

Bilateral meetings

All these issues were therefore on the table during the 14^th Ministerial Conference, held from 26 to 29 March 2026 in Yaoundé (Cameroon). The WTO consciously chose an African country because it wished to make clear that Africa plays an important role and is being heard. In any case, Cameroon proved to be an excellent host country.

Two officials from the Central Administration of our FPS represented Belgium there. They were joined by a colleague from our permanent representation in Geneva, a representative of the FPS Economy and 2 colleagues from the regions.

They held numerous bilateral meetings with countries such as the United States, Australia, Canada, and Thailand. There was a particularly interesting meeting with The Gambia, which acts as coordinator of the least developed countries.

Although the EU speaks on behalf of the Member States within the WTO, individual countries can still convey general messages during bilateral meetings. In our talks with The Gambia, we emphasised that the EU’s reform proposals are certainly not directed against developing countries – quite the contrary.

On many issues, the 14^th Ministerial Conference made little progress. These matters were referred to the headquarters in Geneva (Switzerland). However, the conference did take decisions on fisheries subsidies, small and vulnerable economies, sanitary and phytosanitary matters, and more. The MPIA (the alternative appeal system mentioned above) also welcomed a number of new members.
 

Useful and necessary

Even though the WTO is currently in difficulty, we would like to emphasise that it remains an extremely useful and necessary forum. After all, the WTO makes trade between all countries possible. Imagine Chile and Bangladesh wish to trade with each other without having a preferential trade agreement. The WTO provides a clear framework for this, thanks in part to the most-favoured-nation principle.

WTO rules also form a basis for the EU’s trade relations. Even its free trade agreements build on and are consistent with WTO rules. As much as 55% of EU trade takes place under WTO conditions. Belgium (through our FPS) and the EU will therefore continue their efforts to make the WTO a well-functioning institution.

Finally, a word of thanks to our embassy in Cameroon for its excellent support, given its thorough knowledge of the local context. Few EU countries were able to benefit from such an advantage.