India must steer WTO 2.0 forward

For much of the past three decades, WTO has been the institutional anchor of globalisation. Yet, today, few international organisations face persistent questioning of their relevance, authority and future direction. Dispute settlement remains paralysed, negotiations struggle to advance, and major powers increasingly pursue unilateral or club-based approaches to trade.

This is not merely a technocratic crisis. It is a political and strategic one. Choices made over the next few years - particularly in the run-up to WTO's 14th Ministerial Conference (MC14) in Cameroon - will determine whether the organisation adapts to 21st-c. realities or drifts into managed irrelevance.

The diagnosis emerging from recent reform debates is sobering. Businesses complain of eroding predictability and rising fragmentation as rules are ignored or circumvented. The balance of rights and obligations struck in 1995, when WTO was born, no longer reflects today's trade patterns, the digital economy or the weight of emerging powers.


Yet, there is deep disagreement about the cure. Some advocate pragmatic reform - new negotiating approaches, greater flexibility and plurilateral agreements among willing members - to prevent paralysis. Others warn that poorly designed reform could hollow out the institution, downgrade its rule-making authority or legitimise discriminatory clubs dominated by major powers. What unites both camps is recognition that the status quo is unsustainable.

Among the most frequently cited priorities are restoring dispute settlement, making progress on stalled negotiations, improving transparency and monitoring, and rethinking how special and differential treatment (SDT) applies in a world where developing countries now span different levels of competitiveness.

The direction of travel appears to be toward a more variable-geometry system: partial agreements among coalitions of the willing, coupled with pressure to preserve core principles such as non-discrimination and transparency. Whether this evolution strengthens or weakens multilateralism depends on how inclusive such arrangements are, how benefits are multilateralised, and whether large economies continue to respect common rules even when they are inconvenient.

India has long been a pivotal - if sometimes controversial - actor in WTO politics, presenting itself as a champion of developing country interests. Yet, it is also one of the world's largest trading nations. This dual identity brings both leverage and responsibility. In a moment when the system's institutional foundations are under strain, a defensive posture is inadequate. But alignment with major powers would also undermine India's strategic autonomy and development priorities.

India is also well-placed to act as a bridge between camps. As reform debates intensify, New Delhi's voice will matter on the fundamental question confronting all members: do they still want a rules-based multilateral trading system, and what compromises are they prepared to make to sustain it?

Institutional reform is not driven only from negotiating rooms in Geneva. Ideas, narratives and coalitions formed outside WTO increasingly shape what is politically possible inside. In that context, Trade Not Just Aid: Winners and Losers in the WTO (TRaNJA) initiative launched by CUTS International is noteworthy. It has an ambitious task: repositioning WTO in an era of geopolitical rivalry, emerging powers and digital transformation.

Three strands of work for TRaNJA stand out.

• Rebuilding a positive narrative around WTO.
• Fostering coalitions among major players and middle powers to pursue reform.
• Generating research on what has worked in WTO, where the system is failing, and what credible reform options look like.

Most importantly, India must decide whether it wants to be seen primarily as a blocker of (in)convenient outcomes or as a co-architect of WTO's next phase. The two are not mutually exclusive - but in a period of institutional flux, leadership is often exercised by those who propose workable alternatives rather than merely resist flawed ones.

Writing off the multilateral trading system would be a strategic error with long-lasting consequences. The real question is whether governments are prepared to invest the political capital needed to fix it - and whether India is willing to be among those shaping what comes next.