The first quarter of 2026 has begun to look like a stress test for the global trading system. Trade fragmentation continues to deepen as governments increasingly resort to tariffs, subsidies, and industrial policies to protect strategic sectors. In the United States, President Donald Trump has renewed efforts to reposition the country at the center of global economic gravity through more assertive trade measures. At the same time, escalating tensions in the Middle East — particularly the confrontation involving Israel, the United States, and Iran — are already reverberating through global energy markets and could soon ripple across food supply chains as well.

Against this unsettled backdrop, trade ministers will gather later this month (26–29 March) in Cameroon for the 14th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization. Expectations for sweeping breakthroughs are modest. Yet the meeting may prove consequential for a different reason: not because it will dramatically expand trade liberalization, but because it may help prevent further erosion of the multilateral trading system.

In recent years, confidence in the WTO’s ability to uphold trade rules has gradually weakened. Major economies have increasingly resorted to unilateral tariffs, subsidies, and industrial policy measures that stretch, reinterpret or simply bypass existing multilateral commitments. In such circumstances, the upcoming WTO ministerial may serve less as a forum for new liberalization and more as an exercise in damage control — an effort to stabilize the rules-based trading system at a time when geopolitical rivalry and economic securitization are steadily eroding its foundations. 

The challenge confronting the WTO today is not an abrupt collapse but a quieter and more gradual process: the steady erosion of multilateral discipline in global trade. The paralysis of dispute settlement, the proliferation of unilateral tariffs and subsidies, and the growing use of industrial policy in the name of economic security concerns have collectively weakened the predictability that once defined the multilateral trading system. Without credible enforcement and shared discipline, the legitimacy of the rules-based trading system inevitably comes into question. At stake is not merely the effectiveness of one institution, but the credibility of the rules that have governed global trade for decades. The risk is not that the system will disappear overnight, but that it will slowly lose its relevance as countries increasingly turn to regional arrangements and strategic trade blocs. 

This gradual erosion matters because the multilateral trading system has long provided a stabilizing framework for global commerce. For many economies — particularly middle-income and developing countries — the existence of commonly accepted rules reduces uncertainty and prevents global trade from being dictated solely by economic power or geopolitical influence. In today’s fragmented geopolitical environment, however, the responsibility for preserving this system may no longer rest primarily with the major powers. Instead, it may increasingly depend on a broader coalition of countries and regional groupings that continue to see value in stable and predictable trade rules.

Middle powers such as Indonesia, Australia, South Korea, Turkey, and South Africa share a common interest in preventing further fragmentation of global trade. At the regional level, organizations such as ASEAN and MERCOSUR could also play an important role in sustaining support for multilateral trade governance. Anchored by the institutional experience and economic weight of the European Union, such a cross-regional coalition could help sustain momentum for pragmatic cooperation within the framework of the WTO. In an increasingly polarized global economy, cooperation among middle powers could help restore confidence that multilateral trade governance still has a meaningful future. While these actors may not individually reshape the global trading order, collectively they possess sufficient economic weight and diplomatic capacity to help preserve the rules that underpin international commerce.

For Indonesia, the stakes are particularly significant. As Southeast Asia’s largest economy and a key member of ASEAN, Indonesia has a strong interest in maintaining a predictable and rules-based trading environment. The erosion of multilateral trade governance would not only complicate market access but also increase the vulnerability of supply chains that Indonesia and many developing economies rely upon. 

In this context, Indonesia’s most effective contribution may lie in strengthening ASEAN’s collective voice in support of the multilateral trading system. ASEAN has long promoted open regionalism and economic cooperation — principles that align closely with the broader objectives of the WTO. Working in concert with other regional partners and middle powers, ASEAN could help reinforce the coalition of countries seeking to preserve a functioning global trading framework.

The upcoming ministerial conference should therefore not be judged solely by whether it produces major new agreements. In a world increasingly shaped by geopolitical rivalry and economic securitization, its real significance may lie elsewhere: in its ability to slow the quiet erosion of the multilateral trading system.

If the meeting in Cameroon succeeds in reaffirming the relevance of rules-based cooperation — however modest the immediate outcomes — it will have served an important purpose. At a time when global trade is under growing strain, preserving the foundations of the system may prove just as important as expanding it.

---
Iman Pambagyo is the Trade Ministry’s Director General of International Trade Negotiations (2012-2014, 2016-2020) and Indonesia’s Ambassador to the WTO (2014-2015).

The views expressed in this article are those of the author.

Add as a preferred source on Google +