RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/33
10 February 1999
(99-0501)
General Council
12, 20, 26 and 27 January 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 12, 20, 26 and 27 January 1999
Chairman :  Mr. John M. Weekes (Canada)
1. Appointment of the next Director-General∗
The Chairman recalled that following the December 1998 General Council meeting, Members
had received a fax dated 23 December 1998 concerning the next round of consultations on the
appointment of the next Director-General planned for the week of 11 January 1999.  On 4 January
they had received a fax informing them of certain developments requiring the present reconvening of
the General Council.  This involved the fact that  Mr. Lafer had been appointed Minister in the new
Brazilian government and would be unable to continue in his role of facilitator.  The Chairman haddiscussed the situation with the Heads of Delegation of the four Members with candidates and
proposed the following:  that Mr. Rossier proceed alone with the consultations in the week of 11
January and report to the General Council on 20 January;  that Mr. Rossier proceed in the manner set
out in the communication of 23 December 1998 which Mr. Rossier and Mr. Lafer had jointly agreed.
He was proposing this as he knew delegations wanted to move the appointment process forwardexpeditiously, and that they had full confidence in Mr. Rossier to carry out this task.  At the General
Council meeting the follow ing week, Members would have an opportunity to consider the situation
and any further action.  He was convening the present meeting because the manner of proceeding he
was proposing was different from what the General Council had earlier decided.
The representative of Brazil said that Mr. Lafer had asked him to convey his appreciation for
the trust placed in him and in Mr. Rossier as facilitators in the process of the appointment of the next
Director-General, his regret at being unable to continue in that role, and his confidence in
Mr. Rossier's ability to fulfil with success the important and delicate task of continuing consultations
with Members with a view to helping achieve consensus on this matter.
The representative of Pakistan said that it was important to maintain the momentum of this
process, and confirmed his delegation's full trust in Mr. Rossier to carry the process forward.
The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to adjourn and to reconvene on
20 January.
At the reconvened meeting on 20 January, the Chairman recalled that at its meeting on 18
December 1998, the General Council had agreed to invite Messrs. Lafer and Rossier to hold a new
round of consultations on the appointment of the next Director-General in the week of 11 January
                                                     
∗The single item considered at this meeting was carried over into 1999 from the December 1998
meeting of the General Council (WT/GC/M/32).WT/GC/M/33
Page 2
1999.  The General Council also invited those Members which had not yet taken a position and which
intended to do so to inform Messrs. Lafer and Rossier of their positions during the week of 11
January.  In this regard, the General Council had noted the views expressed by certain delegations that
the question, or questions, to be addressed by the facilitators in their next round of consultations
should be put in a very clear way so as to elicit clear answers, and that one formulation might be thefollowing:  "Who do you support as the consensus candidate for the next Director-General to be
reported to the General Council?"  The General Council had also agreed to adjourn its meeting of 18
December and to resume not later than during the week of 18 January to hear a report on the
consultations.
Mr. Rossier made his report
1 on the consultations held during the week of 11 January.  He
outlined the three questions delegations had been asked, the purpose of which had been to enable
Mr. Lafer and himself to obtain the necessary information in order to provide Members with three
criteria for forming a judgment:  (1) the arithme tical support obtained by each candidate, (2) the
extent of the support for each in terms of geographical distribution, and (3) the degree of
"acceptability" of each.  Unfortunately, certain delegations were still not in a position to give a clear
reply.  Others had stated their position but had reserved their right to change it should certaindevelopments occur.  A large number of delegations had participated in the consultations.  The nature
of the replies was as follows:  a larger number of Members had taken part in the latest consultations
than in the earlier ones;  the majority of Members taking part had given clear replies, but a large
number had confined themselves to replying to the first of the three questions asked, and a certain -
not negligible - number had stated that they could not join automatically in a consensus if it formed
around a candidate other than the one they had indicated as their first or second preference;  there
were changes in the positions expressed.  He then provided the numbers corresponding to each of the
questions and said that it was up to the Members to decide how to assess the numbers and which
elements to take into consideration in that assessment.
The representative of Mexico, speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing
Countries, said that when these countries had met on 15 January they had not reacted to disquieting
rumours regarding the process underway and had instead  awaited the facilitator's report.  He asked the
Chairman to suspend the meeting without any propos al being made or decision being taken on how to
proceed, in order to allow these countries to meet further.
The representative of Jamaica said that the process had gone more smoothly than it might
otherwise have, thanks to the facilitators.  He noted that Mr. Rossier had said that he was prepared to
continue in his role as facilitator.
The representative of Egypt said that the report was clear and transparent and responded to
requests for figures on the degree of support enjoyed by the four candidates.  However, his delegation
would have wished to have a further question asked.  The results reported confirmed Egypt's earlier
statement that it would have preferred a straw ballot.  Consultations could not continue indefinitely.
A clear time-frame was needed if consensus was to be reached, and if this was not possible, one had
to resort to a vote, as the rules provided.  Once the Informal Group of Developing Countries had met,
they would be in a better position to come up with a collective position on how to proceed.
The representative of the European Communities said that the figures reported by Mr. Rossier
indicated that elements necessary for any assessme nt were missing.  The Community internally had
the difficult task of finding a common position, and not just consensus.  He agreed that it might be
best to suspend the meeting for a short time and to reflect.  The situation was constantly changing andone had to address the changes and move forward.
                                                     
1 The text of the report was circulated immediately after the meeting in Job No. 258.WT/GC/M/33
Page 3
The representative of Zimbabwe, speaking on behalf of the African Group , supported
Mexico's proposal for a suspension of the meeting and expressed confidence in Mr. Rossier's ability to
continue his work.  His delegation would have pr eferred only one question and not three, and was
concerned that the process was taking unnecessarily long.  Members had an obligation to complete
this process quickly.  If consensus was not possible, other methods should be pursued.
The representative of Pakistan said it was obvious that the answers provided were not
sufficiently precise to lead to a final decision.  It was perhaps inherent in the questions that the
answers would not have the requisite precision.  Mr. Rossier's report gave an indication of the
dimensions of support for the various candidates;  the facilitators' mandate had therefore largely been
discharged.  Further work should be on the basis of the situation described by Mr. Rossier at the
present meeting.  Any consensus would have to be as close as possible to the results described by him.Momentum should be maintained and whatever consultations were necessary should be held as
quickly as possible.  The objective should be to promote the trend and not to reverse it.
The Chairman said that one was clearly entering a new phase of the process, which would
have to be faster and more pro-active.  He sensed  that there was a further role for the facilitator in
assisting in this process.  He suggested that the General Council adjourn and reconvene on 26 January
in the afternoon.  The Intersessional meeting of the General Council scheduled for that afternoon
would be rescheduled for 2 February.
The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to the Chairman's suggestion.
At the reconvened General Council meeting on 26 January 1999, the Chairman read out the
following two paragraphs of Mr. Rossier's 20 January 1999 report to the General Council:
"I believe it would be useful if Heads of Delegations could reflect on the information
that I have just given them on the basis of my latest consultations.  I also believe that the
candidates will have to do likewise.  This exercise might possibly lead certain Members to re-
evaluate their position.  Similarly, certain candidates may possibly wish to re-evaluate their
position.  Furthermore, it should be recalled that certain Members have requested to be
consulted again, at any moment, should a consensus begin to emerge on a candidate who does
not correspond to their first or second choice.
"I therefore believe that a new round of c onsultations would enable us to carry the
process forward.  However, these consultations would have to be different from the previous
ones:  they should be aimed at producing a new situation, as close as possible to the final
result, and should be conducted at a very rapid pace."
He asked if delegations had anything to say following the period of reflection.
The representative of Mexico, speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing
Countries, said that given the state of the selection process, these countries reiterated the need to carry
it out rapidly.  It was worrisome that the General Council's decision of 15 July 1998 had not been
fulfilled.  Despite the efforts of the facilitator, certain Members had still not stated their position on
the candidates.  The decision on the next Director -General could not depend on the lack of definition
of some Members.  With the aim of respecting the new time-frame, it should be remembered that
consensus meant that no Member would oppose a decision to be adopted.  Failure to express a
preference indicated indifference as to the outcome.  The time-frame should not be extended againbecause some Members had not pronounced themselves, as this would imply that not all Members
had the same rights.  The fact that more than tw o-thirds of the Members who had stated their views
supported a candidate from a developing country corresponded to expectations expressed at the time
of the appointment of the current Director-General .  If one or several Members refused to join aWT/GC/M/33
Page 4
consensus, the sine qua non  condition for consensus would have been broken and Members should
proceed to take a decision on some other basis.  The continuation of the selection process should:
reflect that a new stage had been entered in which momentum had to be maintained in a more
dynamic and intensive way;  create the means for Members to have a more active, continuous and
direct participation;  foresee that the General Council met more frequently to maintain momentum andincrease participation;  reiterate that consensus meant that no Member opposed a decision to be
adopted;  continue advancing with the available in formation and not be held back by some Members'
lack of definition;  leave open the possibility that a successor to Mr. Lafer be appointed;  renew the
mandate of Mr. Rossier;  and foresee that it might be necessary to reduce the scope of the content of
the consultations so as to advance the process.
The representative of Egypt associated his delegation with the statement by Mexico.  He
asked if Mr. Rossier had got any additional information since 15 January that should be taken into
consideration at the present meeting before taking any further action on consultations.  He asked for a
definition of the term "at a very rapid pace", as even the extended time-frame agreed by the General
Council had not been met.  Consensus could not be sought indefinitely, and if it was not achieved
within the time-frame set, one had to resort to the rules of Article IX which provided for a vote.
Members had the right to not state their position, but this could not be allowed to paralyse the process;
there should be equal respect for the rights of those who had stated their position.
The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that the
report of 20 January provided important information and could form a basis for building a consensus
around a certain candidate.  ASEAN agreed with  Mr. Rossier's statement that Members and
candidates should re-evaluate their positions and that a new round of consultations should be aimed at
producing a new situation and should be conducted at a very rapid pace.  The selection had to proceed
without any further delay within the time-frame agreed, which was 16 February.  The process had to
remain transparent and equitable.  It was hoped th at all Members could join in the consensus-building
process for the dignity and integrity of the organization.
The representative of the United States said that if this process was to work properly, all
Members had to provided Mr. Rossier with the information lacking.  The decision on the next
Director-General could not be based on first preferences alone as this amounted to a vote, not
decision-making by consensus.  The questions pose d by Mr. Rossier were designed in particular to
facilitate a consensus.  Without the necessary info rmation, and particularly answers to the second and
third questions posed, it was hard for Mr. Rossier to do his job.  It was up to all Members to ensure
that the information was provided which would allow a consensus to be reached.
The representative of Pakistan said that Mexico's statement deserved to be carefully
considered and acted upon because it reflected the views of a large group of countries.  Members had
before them the basic raw materials upon which they could try to build a consensus.  Consensus did
not imply a right of veto, nor did it imply the righ t of a minority to frustrate the will of a large
majority.  Over 60 percent of those who had responded to Mr. Rossier's first and most important
question had supported either Dr. Supachai or Mi nister Abouyoub.  This result reflected what had
been an unwritten understanding at the time of the appointment of Mr. Ruggiero that the nextDirector-General would be from a developing countr y.  Further action had to conform to what was
clearly the desire and wish of the vast majority of WTO Members.  The question to be put was
whether the remaining 30 percent could support either of these two candidates.  It would be perverse
to ask whether the vast majority could support one of the other two candidates.  Members had to act
rationally, logically and fairly to the results reported.  Mr. Rossier should now be entrusted with thetask of eliciting from the entire membership whether it could support by consensus the selection of
Dr. Supachai or Minister Abouyoub.  Once that question had been answered, Members could then
decide whether a consensus was possible.  If it was not possible, Members could consider the manner
in which to proceed, which included a vote or another modality.  There had to be an early decision onWT/GC/M/33
Page 5
the next Director-General and a rapid movement towards that.  The time-frame should be the next
seven to ten days.
The representative of the European Communities said that among the membership as a whole
it was clear there was not yet a consensus.  In that membership, as among the EC Member states, it
was very difficult to find out exactly who was the first choice and who would be acceptable if the first
choice were not possible.  Statistics could be used  to any end and were not conclusive.  For example,
one could deduct that less than one-third of the Members were in favour of Dr. Supachai who got the
most votes;  two-thirds of the membership did not support him on the first choice, and only slightly
more than one-sixth of the membership had supported Minister Abouyoub.  It was an incorrect
interpretation that failure to take a position indicated indifference.  The situation was very fluid, and
all were working in good faith towards a common solution.  The Community had a clear orientationwhich was well known.  It had been faced with an evolution which had forced it to re-think, and was
trying to reconcile its divergent positions in the interests of the organization as a whole.
The representative of Japan said that the report of 20 January was more satisfactory and
transparent than past reports.  He fully agreed that the process had to be accelerated.  It was
unfortunate that certain Members had not stated their positions, but the General Council could not
wait forever and target dates had to be respected.  He asked to hear from countries with candidates
regarding the outcome of their reflection.  Figures regarding the second choice were useful, but it had
to be recognized that there was often a big difference between the level of support for first and second
choices.  This should be taken into account when assessing the results.
The representative of Hong Kong, China supported Mexico's statement.  Mr. Rossier's report
of 20 January provided Members with a foundation from which they could go forward to find a
solution.  Mr. Rossier had painted a more complete, detailed and subtle picture than a more
mechanical approach would have yielded.  The report was based on three elements:  Members' firstpreference, second preference and geographical distribution.  These elements were useful in enabling
a deeper understanding, but they were not to be given equal weight.  The first preference of Members
had to stand out, in terms of common sense and logic, as being the most important criterion, and the
results should be seen in that light.  The third crit erion was relevant in that the Director-General had to
command widespread support.  The second criterion was of secondary importance.  Both delegations
and candidates had to accept their responsibilities and ensure that the process could move forward
quickly.  Members had to be prepared to work flexibly and intensively;  each one had to lookobjectively at Mr. Rossier's report and take some tough decisions.  Those who had not yet made up
their minds had to do so urgently.  Those who had already taken positions should re-examine them in
the light of results to date.  The candidates should re-examine critically whether their continued
candidacy would be to the benefit of the system.  A deadlock had to be avoided at all costs, as this
would damage the prospects for success at the next Ministerial Conference, would provide anunwelcome distraction for months to come and would undermine the credibility of the WTO.
The representative of Colombia supported the statement by Mexico.  The points made at the
end of that statement demonstrated the importance and urgency of this process.  Mr. Rossier's report
contained certain guidelines which should allow the candidates and the countries to draw clearconclusions.  Members had a commitment which was to decide on the next Director-General before
the end of January.  Mr. Rossier's mandate should be renewed and he should be given a free hand to
proceed as he saw fit.  There was a feeling of impasse and deadlock, and Members had to show the
political will to take the decisions before them.
The representative of Slovakia said it was clear that further consultations and efforts by all
Members were needed to reach a consensus.  She stressed that in the long history of the multilateral
trading system, consensus had been the main principle guiding decision-making.  Members shouldWT/GC/M/33
Page 6
continue in this practice.  Her delegation was committed to continuing the process of consultations
with a view to taking a decision on the next Director-General by consensus.
The representative of India associated his delegation with Mexico's statement.  India's views
were very similar to those expressed by Indonesia and Hong Kong, China.  The most important
consideration was that the process be brought to a successful conclusion as early as possible, and in
any case not later than 16 February.  This objective should govern all deliberations and actions.  India
was concerned by remarks that there was a flaw in the results projected from the consultations thus far
because not all delegations had expressed their second preference.  Some delegations had not even
given their first preference within a reasonable time.  The failure of some delegations to take a
position could not be allowed to paralyse the process, and one could not wait forever.  A more critical
problem was that those Members who had not taken a position were not even able to say when theywould.  It was not possible for the developing countries to indefinitely wait for some Members to
come forward with their preferences.  Members should decide quickly, and major delegations had a
major responsibility.  The facilitator should move the process forward in whatever manner he felt
appropriate to bring the matter to a successful completion.
The representative of Australia said it was clear that all wanted to move the process forward
quickly.  Mr. Rossier's report of 20 January contained much of the information needed to intensify the
process and move forward.  The various elements in that report were not equally weighted, but broad
geographic support was important.  Both candidates and delegations had to consider the interests of
the organization.  Mexico's statement provided some important principles to guide the process ahead.It would help to intensify the process if Mr. Rossier could help Members to determine the updraft of
support that existed around one or two candidates and to give a sense of whether consensus might be
built around one or two of them.
The representative of Korea reiterated his delegation's firm belief that the next Director-
General should be appointed by consensus.  He ur ged those delegations who had not taken a position
to do so before the end of January.  The target date was nearing and there was a clear need to expedite
the process.  One way to do so would be to narr ow the field of candidates on the basis of the two
rounds of consultations.
The representative of Bangladesh associated his delegation with the statement by Mexico.
Bangladesh and others looked to the WTO as an institution that could facilitate their integration into
the global economy.  This matter was therefore of critical importance.  Mr. Rossier's work had to be
carried forward with enhanced momentum.  Members ha d to arrive at a consensual solution within the
stipulated time-frame through  intensive consultations.
The representative of the United States said that the process was flawed if Members were
obligated to take this decision by consensus, and then the consensus development was frustrated by
treating the exercise like a vote.  All Members had an obligation to express more than just their first
preference to Mr. Rossier.  There were four excellent candidates, and it was the US position to work
to find consensus on one of them.  The United States was committed to making sure that when
consensus was considered, Members gave all of the information necessary to reach it.  It had beenvery difficult for the Community, the United States and others to get to the point where they could
provide the necessary information.
Mr. Rossier, in response to Egypt's question, sa id that there were five new elements since his
report of 20 January:  there had been one reply to the third question, two delegations had repeated the
consultation process with him, one new position had been taken and one telephone call had been
received for which he had been absent.  He clarified that he had said that a further, not new, round of
consultations was necessary.  At the present stage it would not be appropriate to begin a general round
of consultations.  An extremely important element of making progress was interaction among theWT/GC/M/33
Page 7
delegations themselves, who had to assume their own responsibilities.  As a facilitator, he could only
be a catalyst.  The role of delegations was much more important at present than in the past.
The representative of Egypt asked if Mr. Rossier thought he could continue the task alone or
whether a second facilitator should be nominated.  He asked for clarification of what was meant by "a
very rapid pace", and if the five elements to which Mr. Rossier had referred would change the results
reported on 20 January.  The candidates also had to draw conclusions from the results reported.  It
was hoped that a stage had been reached where no Member could hold the process hostage.
The representative of Mexico asked Mr. Rossier to add Mexico to the list of Members would
like to be consulted again should a consensus be emerging on one of the candidates.
The Chairman said it was clear that all delegations attached importance and urgency to
moving this matter forward, and that they generally supported Mr. Rossier's continuing to assist in
this process.  He would like to reflect on what had been said at the present meeting.  The question of
how to proceed was a matter for the Members, and the Members alone, to decide.  He proposed that
the meeting adjourn and resume the following day at 12:00 noon at which time he would make asuggestion on how to proceed.
The General Council took note of the statements and so agreed.
At the resumed meeting on 27 January 1999, the Chairman said that he believed that
Members would like to ask Mr. Rossier to continue to act as a facilitator and to help create the means
necessary for Members to have a more active, continuous and direct participation in the process.  He
proposed the following:
First, it was essential that Members interact with each other to move the process
ahead, and he urged them to do that;
Second, Ambassador Rossier’s role would be that of a facilitator.  Members should
communicate to him information relevant to the appointment process, particularly that
relating to any new developments in their positions;
Third, taking account of the information at  his disposal, Ambassador Rossier should,
on his own initiative, make contact with Members, and representatives of the candidates, to
clarify the situation and to try to promote consensus;
Fourth, Ambassador Rossier should keep the General Council as completely informed
as possible on the evolution of the situation, and of any new developments of significance.  Inany event he should report to the General Council on Wednesday February 3.
Fifth, the General Council takes note of the statements made on 26 January and at the
present meeting, which will provide useful guidance to Mr. Rossier and are a vital part of the
interaction needed among Members at this stage.
The representative of Egypt said that his delegation could go along with the proposal on the
understanding that the time-frame was 3 February.  He asked if the report could be made on 2
February in order to avoid conflict with arrangements for the G-15 meeting in Jamaica.  If consensus
was not reached by then, the rules should be enforced.  As long as there were four candidates it wouldbe impossible to reach a consensus.  The countries representing candidates, as well as all Members,
had to draw conclusions from the facilitator's reports on 20 and 26 January.WT/GC/M/33
Page 8
The Chairman said that the G-15 meeting and the World Economic Forum in Davos might
provide fora for important contacts on this matter.  He asked delegations to assist Mr. Rossier in every
way possible with the task being given him.  In light of Egypt's statement, he suggested that Mr.
Rossier might make his report in the afternoon of 2 February.
The representative of Morocco said that the conclusions the Chairman had reached did not
correspond to his instructions.  He asked for an adjournment of the meeting so that he could obtain
instructions from his capital.  He did not see what would be done in the following four days in order
to try to make progress on this matter.
The meeting adjourned and when it resumed at 4:30 p.m., the Chairman again asked if the
manner of proceeding he had proposed was acceptable.
The representative of Egypt asked for clarification of what was being requested of
Mr. Rossier, what was meant by the term "significant elements", and whether Mr. Rossier would first
concentrate on Members who had not yet taken a posi tion.  The missing element was the views of the
latter, and whether previously stated positions ha d changed.  With this information Members would
be in a position to know if there was a consensus.  If there was no consensus, one had to resort to the
rules and vote.
The Chairman said that in his fourth point he was proposing that Mr. Rossier inform the
General Council of any new developments of significance even before 3 February if the situation so
warranted.
The representative of Mexico, speaking on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing
Countries, said that his statement was without prejudice to what any Member of the Informal Group
might wish to say.  One was moving into a de facto situation in which the new time-frame for
reaching consensus was being altered, as the next General Council meeting would be after the end of
January.  The Chairman's proposal took into cons ideration a number of points Mexico had made.  He
asked for clarification, and provided his understanding, of the following points:  the second point
referred to information from any Member and not just  those who had not stated their position;  in the
third point, "information at his disposal" meant in formation from all Members;  in the fourth point,
"as completely informed as possible" meant fully informed except regarding confidential information,
and the fact that Mr. Rossier would make a report to the General Council on 2 or 3 February did notpreclude Members from reviewing the situation at any time and deciding on any additional action they
considered desirable;  in the fourth point, the text should read "not later than Wednesday February 3",
so that the General Council could be informed of any important development as soon as possible.  The
last point was particularly important;  Members' statements the previous day had sent important
signals which one had to be mindful of, as they were forewarnings of concerns regarding the form andupshot of the consultations.
The representative of Morocco confirmed that his authorities felt that the proposed text was
ambiguous and required clarification.  Did the text suggest a new phase in the process or a
continuation of the phase begun on13 January?  Were the views of those who had not stated a positionbeing disregarded?  What did it mean that Members should communicate to Mr. Rossier information
relating to any new developments in their positions?  There was nothing in the proposed text that
referred to the points left open in the 20 January report.  He did not see how in three or four days there
would be anything new to say, especially since the major delegations did not appear ready to take a
position within that time.  It had to be clear how one intended to reach a consensus.
The representative of Uruguay said that the facilitators' efforts had helped to move the process
forward.  Mr. Rossier was being given a fresh remit to complete the work he had not been able to
complete within the time-frame set.  Members had to give the process a sense of urgency, andWT/GC/M/33
Page 9
Mr. Rossier had to be given freedom in pursuing his task.  Thus, one should not require interpretations
or clarification of the proposed text.  Regarding deadlines, it was important to complete the process as
soon as possible, but it was equally important that Mr. Rossier undertake this new phase as
comprehensively and efficiently as possible, and time should be allowed for this.  The key date was
16 February, by which time a decision had to be reached.  He agreed that if between now and 3February there were important developments, the General Council should be informed of them as
soon as possible.  In this final phase of consultations, there should be clear messages from both
Members and candidates, which would enable a consensus decision to be reached on the next
Director-General by 16 February.
The representative of Turkey said that the responsibility for this process was with the
Members, and not with the Chairman or the facilitator.  If Members felt frustration with the pace of
the process, it was up to them to take initiatives to accelerate it.  Egypt had done this by suggesting
that if consensus could not be reached by a certain time the rules should be applied.  An important
part of the Chairman's proposal was the fifth point, which stated that the statements made at the
present meeting and the previous day would provide gu idance to Mr. Rossier.  It would be difficult to
go beyond that precision.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the Chairman had found a skilful
formulation which responded to the strong desire to move forward quickly.  It was clear that efforts
had to be intensified.  The proposal provided Mr. Rossier with adequate room for manoeuvre and
made it clear that he was fully accountable and would report all developments of significance asquickly as possible.  The process outlined included those who had already expressed their views as
well as those who had not yet done so.  He agreed that more discretion might be given Mr. Rossier
regarding the date by which he would report to the General Council, but his delegation could accept
the proposal as it stood.
The representative of Pakistan asked for clarification, and provided his understanding, of the
following points:  in the second point, he took it th at Mr. Rossier would continue to elicit answers to
the questions already put, thus the word "new" might be deleted;  in the third point, he assumed that
"information at his disposal" related also to the responses to the questions which Mr. Rossier had
received or would be receiving;  in the fourth point, he understood that "any new developments of
significance" meant "any developments".  If these understandings were correct, Pakistan could accept
the proposal.
The representative of Mexico said that his earlier statement should not be interpreted as
criticism and that he was merely trying to clarify some aspects of the proposal.  Any delay in the
process was clearly the fault of the Members, and his remarks were directed to them.
The representatives of Malaysia on behalf of the ASEAN Members, Japan , Australia  and
Korea said that the field of candidates should be narrowed.
The representatives of Zimbabwe on behalf of the African Group, Mexico on behalf of the
Informal Group of Developing Countries, Ma laysia on behalf of the ASEAN Members , and Pakistan
said that the next Director-General had to be chosen from among the four candidates.
The Chairman said that the discussion had been helpful.  The statements by Pakistan and
Hong Kong, China explaining their understanding of parts of the text were very close to the words he
would have used in explaining the text.  Turkey had rightly pointed out that the text reiterated thatMembers viewed this task as their own and that Mr. Rossier was only a facilitator.  The first point,
relating to the interaction between Members, was very important, as Members themselves had to be
active in trying to move the process forward.  Regarding the second point, he confirmed that this
meant information from delegations who had not yet conveyed information, or information fromWT/GC/M/33
Page 10
delegations which had conveyed information but which wished to convey additional information or
wished to convey a change in some aspect of thei r position.  In the fourth point, the word "new" could
be deleted, as Pakistan had suggested;  also in that point, the intention was that when Mr. Rossier
made his report the General Council, Members could consider the matter and take any decision they
wished, including appointing the next Director-General or any other action related to that.  On thethird point, Mr. Rossier would have more informat ion about the position of delegations than anyone
and thus would be in a position to know what he might do on his own initiative to try to clarify the
situation and to promote consensus.  His proposal  was intended to provide a framework in which
delegations could continue to respond to the three questions asked by Mr. Rossier, but was not limited
to that.  Regarding the time when Mr. Rossier w ould report to the General Council, he proposed "not
later than Wednesday, 3 February".
The representative of Morocco said that the methodology proposed was not precise and was
not one his delegation could understand.  Morocco could therefore not accept the proposal even as
amended.  He asked what would be done on 2 or 3 February, which was just a few days away.  He
suggested that Mr. Rossier be asked to get a maximum of replies to the three questions from those
who had not replied, and this within a time limit after which it would be too late.  One needed to bereasonable, practical and realistic.  As had been said, this was the Members' responsibility, and they
had to assume it and to clarify matters.
The Chairman said that as he understood it Morocco had said it would prefer not to proceed
with the proposal and that it would be more appr opriate for the General Council to assume its own
responsibilities in the matter.  He suggested that he hold consultations with delegations as quickly as
possible to see whether he could find a basis for how to do that.  He urged delegations to consider the
situation with a view to trying to ensure that co nsultations would be conducive to producing a result.
A meeting of the General Council would be convened at a date to be communicated, possibly on very
short notice.
The General Council took note of the statements.
__________