This is from a communication by the United States entitled "An undifferentiated WTO: self-declared development status risks institutional irrelevance":
1.8. There has been much discussion lately about staying committed to the "rules-based multilateral trading system." However, if you look behind the curtains, that system is hardly monolithic. All the rules apply to a few (the developed countries), and just some of the rules apply to most, the self-declared developing countries. The perpetuation of this construct has severely damaged the negotiating arm of the WTO by making every negotiation a negotiation about setting high standards for a few, and allowing vast flexibilities or exemptions for the many. These are not "reciprocal and mutually advantageous arrangements directed to the substantial reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and to the elimination of discriminatory treatment in international trade relations."
...5.1. Defenders of the status quo approach by some WTO Members for determining development status — self-declaration — may argue that Members effectively agreed to it by consensus in 1995. They may even claim their authorities would never have sought WTO membership if they could not self-declare as developing. Unfortunately, clinging to this approach leads to a system that prevents true liberalization while anchoring all Members to a world that no longer exists. This contradicts the goals stated by Members in the preamble to the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO.
5.2. Self-declaration and its first-order consequence — an inability to differentiate among Members — puts the WTO on a path to failed negotiations. It is also a path to institutional irrelevance, whereby the WTO remains anchored to the past and unable to negotiate disciplines to address the challenges of today or tomorrow, while other international institutions move forward.
I think the U.S. makes some reasonable points here, but I have a couple questions.
First, what is the alternative the U.S. has in mind? The U.S. communication refers to the practices of other organizations, and discusses various criteria, but what exactly is the vision for how this should work at the WTO?
Second, what impact would any changes have on WTO negotiations? I can see how references to development status look like they are causing problems in negotiations, but I suspect that governments of the self-declared developing country governments will find ways to resist liberalization even without referring to this status, just as the wealthy countries have.