RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/29
30 September 1998
(98-3769)
General Council
15, 16 and 22 July 1998
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 15, 16 and 22 July 1998
Chairman:  Mr. J. Weekes (Canada)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Accession of Samoa........................................................................................................... ....2
(a) Communication from Samoa ..................................................................................................2
2. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration .........................................................4
(a) Report of the Comm ittee..................................................................................................... ....4
3. Committee on Regional Trade Agreements........................................................................6
(a) Statement by the Chai rman of the Committee........................................................................6
4. Harmonization work programme on non-preferential ru les of origin ..........................13
(a) Recommendations on c ontinuation of work .........................................................................13
5. Appointment of the next Director-General ......................................................................16
6. Transparency in WTO work..............................................................................................22
7. Global Electronic Commerce.............................................................................................40
8. Conditions of Service of WTO Staff..................................................................................51
(a) Statement by the Chairm an of the Working Group ..............................................................51
9. Accession of Latvia .......................................................................................................... ...54
10. Organization of Work for the September Special Session of the General Council.......5811. Review of issues raised by Members at the working sessions of the second session
of the Minister ial Conf erence ............................................................................................58
12. WTO Secretariat and Senior Management Structure.....................................................73
13. Appellate Body Report on "European Communities – Customs Classification of
Certain Computer Equipment".........................................................................................79
(a) Statement by the United States .............................................................................................7 9
14. India's tariff increases .................................................................................................... ....81
(a) Statement by the Eu ropean Comm unities.............................................................................81
15. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Algeria .................................83
Prior to adoption of the agenda, representatives rose and observed a minute of silence in
memory of Mr. Gardner Patterson, former Deputy  Director-General of the GATT, who had passed
away on 26 June.WT/GC/M/29
Page 2
1. Accession of Samoa
(a) Communication from Samoa (WT/ACC/WSM/1)
The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Samoa requesting accession to the
WTO Agreement (WT(ACC/WSM/1).
The representative of Samoa, speaking as an observer, said that his country had become
independent 36 years ago and was politically stable.  Its economy was small and fragile and had a
number of structural weaknesses that adversely affected its growth prospects.  Samoa was a least-
developed country and such a status had been perpetuated by factors beyond its control such as its
small size, its isolation from the major markets of the world and, in particular, its vulnerability to
natural calamities.  Despite these setbacks, its economy had been viewed as stable and continued to
rely on agricultural products as the backbone of its export earnings.  Its resource base was fairly
narrow and Samoa had continued to rely on remittances and tourism earnings, as important sources offoreign exchange to reduce the deficit of its current account.
Samoa had however made progress over recent years in consolidating its economic recovery
with its reconstruction and rehabilitation work substantially completed.  Its economic performance
trend had been positive in recent years and contin ued to grow steadily, with an estimated growth of
around 3 per cent for 1997, paving Samoa's path to sustainable long term growth.  Its exports, which
largely consisted of agricultural-based products such as copra, coconut oil, coconut cream, kava and
fish, continued to improve with an increase of  51 per cent between 1996 and 1997 and its imports had
marginally increased, improving thus Samoa's trade deficit.
In moving towards liberalization, Samoa had recently undertaken major tariff and revenue
reforms with tariff cuts of more than 50 per cent on most imports.  In addition, corporate income tax
rates had been reduced from 39 per cent to 35 per cent; personal income taxes had also been reduced.
These tariff reforms had been achieved through Samoa's VAGST which had been put in place since
1993.  Its monetary sector had also been liberalized with the release of the government's control overbank credit ceilings and interest rates; its exchange rate levy had been abolished.  Liberalization,
deregulation and globalization in international economy impinged on Samoa's future trade
relationships.  By ignoring these changes Samoa would risk to become more isolated and
marginalized.  As a least-developed country, Samoa stood to benefit in all aspects of international
trade, to contribute to the continuing success of the WTO, and hoped that the benefits accruing fromthe WTO Agreement would be extended to Samoa in the event its accession.  Samoa was requesting
Members' support and assistance in its accession process.
The representatives of New Zealand, Japan
, Jamaica  and Mauritius  welcomed Samoa's
application to accede to the WTO Agreement.  The representatives of New Zealand and Japan  looked
forward to assisting and to working with Samoa towards its accession.
The representative of New Zealand said that given the especially close historical, social and
family ties that existed between Samoa and New Zealand, as expressed in their Treaty of Friendship,
it was a special pleasure to welcome Samoa's request for accession to the WTO Agreement.  The
benefits of WTO membership were obvious for Samoa.  And a commitment to meet the obligations of
membership would indeed be highly consistent with Samoa's continuing economic reform efforts.  Hewished Samoa success in its accession negotiations and looked forward to the eventual addition of
another South Pacific neighbour to the WTO.
The representative of Japan said that Samoa's membership as well as its accession process to
the WTO Agreement would be beneficial to the development of its economy and to the improvement
of its living standards.  Japan hoped that Samo a would make every effort to fulfill the basic
requirements necessary for becoming a WTO Member.WT/GC/M/29
Page 3
The representative of Australia said that his country recognized that accession was
challenging for small-island states and for other least-developed countries.  However, membership
brought substantial benefits for such economies as well as serving to strengthen this Organization.
Small  and medium size economies depended critically on the framework of multilateral rules and
disciplines, and without these, trade relations would be conducted solely on the basis of power.  As amember of the Pacific region and a country with which Australia had a very close relations, including
through technical cooperation activities, Australia looked forward to working closely with Samoa in
its accession negotiations.
The representative of Jamaica said that the presence of the Deputy Prime-Minister of Samoa
indicated the high importance this country attached to become a WTO Member.  In acceding the
WTO Agreement Samoa, as a small island and developing country, should believe that the benefits ofthe WTO and the world trading system would automatically make its citizens better off and richer.
Jamaica hoped that the working party for the accession of Samoa would proceed in a way that
recognized its fragility or vulnerability, and that Samoa would not face the same difficulties some
other developing countries were presently facing.  Jamaica shared Australia's view that its accession
was a challenging opportunity for Samoa.
The representative of Mauritius said that Samoa like other small island states such as
Mauritius and Jamaica had many common features in particular economic constraints and small
economy of scale but with nevertheless a certain degree of openness as far as trade regime was
concerned.  In this respect, Mauritius supported Samoa's accession  to the WTO as soon as possible.He recalled that at the second Ministerial Conference, Ministers had expressed concern over the
marginalization of least-developed countries and certain small economies and had recognized the
urgent need to address these concerns and hoped that these would be taken into consideration.
The representatives of Argentina, Barbados
, Bolivia , Brazil , Canada , Chile , Colombia , Costa
Rica, Côte d'Ivoire , Cuba , Ecuador , Iceland , India , Indonesia , Israel , Korea , Liechtenstein , Malaysia ,
Mexico, Netherlands , Nigeria , Norway , Pakistan , Peru , Philippines , Poland , Slovenia , Tanzania ,
Thailand, Trinidad  and Tobago , Turkey , Uganda , United Kingdom , United States , Uruguay  and
Venezuela, among others, wished to be placed on record as also supporting and welcoming Samoa's
request.
The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note of the statements and of the
expressions of support and agree to establish a working party with the following terms of reference
and composition:
Terms of reference:
"To examine the application of the Government of Samoa to accede to the WTO Agreement
under Article XII, and to submit to the General Council recommendations which may include a draftProtocol of Accession."
Membership:
Membership would be open to all WTO Members indicating their wish to serve on the
Working Party.
Chairmanship:
The General Council would authorize its Chairman to designate the Chairman of the Working
Party in consultation with representatives of Members and with the representative of Samoa.WT/GC/M/29
Page 4
The General Council so agreed.
The Chairman invited the representative of Samoa to consult with the Secretariat as to further
procedures, in particular regarding the basic documentation to be considered by the Working Party.
He also invited Samoa, on behalf of the General Council, to attend meetings of the General Counciland, as appropriate, meetings of other WTO bodies as an observer during the period when the
Working Party was carrying out its work.
2. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration
(a) Report of the Committee (WT/BFA/36)
Mr. Meier (Switzerland), Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance and
Administration, introducing the Committee's report on its meeting of 15 June, said that the Committee
had examined the report on the final position of the 1997 budget of the WTO (WT/BFA/W/25).  The
combined WTO Secretariat and the Appellate Body budgets had shown overall savings which hadamounted to SwF 2.8 million.  In spite of the budgetary savings, as well as an excess of miscellaneous
income over estimates, the Surplus Account had s hown an accumulated deficit of SwF 12.9 million at
the end of 1997 which had been only partially covered by a transfer of the entire Working Capital
Fund.  The uncovered balance of the accumulated deficit had amounted to some SwF 5.9 million.
This had been primarily the result of the need to increase the provision for contributions in arrears bySwF 16.4 million.  The Committee recommended to the General Council to approve the transfers
between WTO budgetary sections, and transfer s between Appellate Body budgetary sections
(paragraph 13 of the report).
With regard the Working Group on Assessments, he recalled that the Committee had
established the Working Group at its meeting on 18 March to undertake the review of the functioning
of the system of assessments of contributions in accordance with the decision of the General Council
in 1995
1.  The Working Group had met and had carried out that review.  There had been a general
sense of agreement that the present system was satisfactory, functioning well, and there was therefore
no need either for practical or legal reasons to modify or change it.  A draft decision was formulated
(paragraph 18 of the report).   One delegation, however, had indicated that it was not in a position to
join the consensus of other members of the Wo rking Group.  As a result, the Chairman of the
Working Party would continue his consultations.
As to the utilization of the 1996 surplus, the Committee had endorsed recommendations
which had been discussed at a previous meeting and which concerned a further partial utilization of
the 1996 surplus.  The use of the balance of th e 1996 surplus of SwF 5.9 million would be examined
at a later date, but at the latest when making the recommendations with regard to the financing of the
1999 WTO budget.  The Committee recommended to the General Council to approve the
recommendations in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the report.
With respect to the International Trade Centre UNCTAD/WTO, the Committee had heard an
up-date of the information regarding United Nations and WTO cooperation with regard to ITC
budgetary arrangements.  It had been noted that informal contacts with the Advisory Committee on
Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) ha d been held in Geneva in the second week of
June.  Along with representatives of the WTO and ITC Secretariats, he had discussed the matter and
had been assured by the Chairman of the ACABQ that there would be consultations beforefinalization of the ACABQ report.  He was guardedly optimistic that a solution might be finally found
o this long-running question.
                                                     
1 G/C/M/5, item 9.WT/GC/M/29
Page 5
Finally, the Committee had also examined administrative up-dates and progress reports as
well as two questions which the Committee would further discuss at its next meeting, i.e. the
minimum contribution to the WTO budget as well as overheads on trust funds.  In addition, the report
also contained preliminary information regarding the proposed 1999 budget of the ITC.
The representative of Jamaica said that he believed that in adopting an understanding or
decision regarding the unique conditions of service for the secretariat, there had been  the
understanding that budgetary questions would be se ttled by consensus and that there would be no
nominal increase in the budget in future years.  If that was Members' intention for the coming then
close attention should be paid on the management of  the WTO budget.  He had the highest regard and
knew the officers who were dealin g with the budget since he had served as the Chairman of that
Committee under the GATT for several years.  However, with regard to the final position of the 1997budget, on the one hand there was an indication that the WTO had made savings, and on the other
hand there was an indication of an accumulated deficit of SwF 12.9 million and that was even after
the accession of new members and their contributions.  With regard to the presentation of the budget
he recalled that Members had taken the decision to finance the budget of the Appellate Body and its
secretariat in accounting terms off budget.  However he was not sure that that was the right  approach.If the WTO was a single undertaking then the Appellate Body and its secretariat should be fully
integrated and financed from the budget.  Fa iling that, the WTO budget would run away from
Members which would believe that the budget would have no increase in nominal terms while at the
same there would be increases in the budget on the appellate body and its secretariat which was
separate from the regular budget.  Although he believed that Members should look at that issue, hejoined the consensus on the recommendation in paragraph 13.
As to the oral report of the Chairman on the Working Group on Assessments, he considered
the present situation puzzling because the draft decision to maintain the status quo of the present
system until such a time WTO Members make relevant changes had not been agreed upon since onedelegation was not in a position to join the consensus on the status quo.  Moreover, some members of
the Committee did not have any instructions on the question.  He believed that decisions on
housekeeping matters should be taken far more expeditiously.
With respect to the partial utilization of the 1996 surplus, he noted that the question of
transparency of the recommendations had been raised.  Time had come to define criterias as to what
transparency meant, to set them clearly and then to abide by them.  Those criterias would enable
Members to know whether they were being observed.  With regard to the cost of Ministerial
Conference and the 50
th Anniversary Commemoration, he was pu zzled by what appeared to be a
significant over-expenditure.  It was his understandi ng that when hosting a conference in headquarters
there would be no substantial increase of expenditures and it was only when a conference was hosted
overseas that there would be increased expenditures.  Moreover the Committee had indicated that itwould be in a position to provide more complete in formation with regard to the expenditures for the
Ministerial Conference and the 50
th Anniversary at its next meeting.  The Committee should provide
Members with a clear picture as to where over-expe nditure had occurred in order to understand where
this would be now picked up in the 1998 budget.  This over-expenditure should not be a charge on the
so-called Surplus Account so that any savings in the 1999 budget would not be used to write offaccumulated deficit from 1998, because then the budget would not be managed in a tight manner.
Mr. W. Lavorel, Deputy Director-General said th at with regard to the cost of the Ministerial
Conference and the 50th Anniversary, the reason for not indicating its total cost was because the UN
was not yet in a position to bill for the use of the conference room and the use of their facilities priorto September.   It was expected that the cost would overrun by approximately half a million Swiss
Francs.  This over-expenditure consisted of additional costs related to security, overtime, shuttle
service and a higher level of activities.  With respect to the budget of the Appellate Body and its
secretariat, he believed that the cost of the Appellate Body was purely determined by the demands putWT/GC/M/29
Page 6
upon it by Members and by the number of cases that were brought.  Since the number of cases were
ever-increasing, the cost would continue to rise and whether to have a separate line or not for the
budget of the Appellate Body and its secretariat would not have a bearing on how those costs would
rise or not.
The representative of Egypt said that in the Committee's work, the question of financing the
participation of the least-developed countries to the second Ministerial Conference had been raised.
With the support of other delegations Egypt was of the view that this participation should be financed
from the amount of the balance of the 1996 surplus of SwF 5.9 million.  At that time, the Secretariat
had informed that this would be used to cover the 1997 budget deficit.  It was therefore Egypt's
understanding that the balance of the 1996 surplus would only be used for that purpose.
The General Council took note of the statements, approved  the Budget Committee's specific
recommendations in paragraphs 13, 28 and 29 of its report in WT/BFA/36, and adopted the report.
3. Committee on Regional Trade Agreements
(a) Statement by the Chairman of the Committee
Mr. Noirfalisse (Belgium), Chairman of the Committee on the Regional Trade Agreements
said that his statement was made in his capacity as Chairman of that Committee and in full
consultation with  the three Vice-Chairmen.  He wished to draw the attention of delegations at senior
level to his concern that the Committee's work was not progressing as favourably as necessary for it to
be able to fulfil satisfactorily two key elements of its mandate, i.e. the examination of individualregional trade agreements (RTAs), and consideration of the systemic implications of RTAs for the
multilateral trading system.
The Committee had advanced to the stage where the factual examination of over 30
individual RTAs had been completed or was nearing completion.  In that regard, it had achieved the
valuable result of increasing the multilateral transparency of the operation of those RTAs.  It needed
now to conclude drafting its final reports on them, taking account of other provisions of each RTA
measured up against WTO disciplines, in particular GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V.  Given
the differing views held by delegations on the proper  interpretation that was to be given to these WTO
disciplines, it had been proving difficult in the final reports on RTAs to arrive at clear-cutconclusions.  Unless Members found compromise solutions to this problem, the whole process would
become unduly delayed.  It would be difficult to accept to arrive at the third WTO Ministerial
Conference without having concluded a single RTA examination, and this would damage the
Committee's credibility as well as the WTO's role in monitoring such agreements.  Where there were
differences of view of this kind, they should be  acknowledged explicitly in  the final reports on
individual RTAs.  The Committee would then be in a position to collect together similar instances
from among the many RTAs under examination and address the problem areas generically through itsconsideration of the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system.
In order to accelerate the Committee's work in coming months along the lines just described,
he had announced at the end of the CRTA meeting in July his intention to table shortly draft reports
on all of those RTAs for which the factual examination in the CRTA had been completed.  The draftswould be modelled on the format and structure of the final report on the NAFTA, on which relatively
good progress had been made and which he was determined to bring to a conclusion as soon as
possible in the autumn.  He and the Committee Vice-Chairmen would pursue consultations
intensively in the autumn on the other draft reports and conclusions, with the aim of having the CRTA
adopt them before the end of the year.  As Members would proceed with that exercise, he believedthat it was important for the CRTA to deepen its work on systemic issues.  He had therefore requested
the Secretariat to update and annotate the existing list of issues that were linked to the interpretation ofWT/GC/M/29
Page 7
WTO disciplines on RTAs, taking account of new issues which arose in the course of the completion
of final reports on individual RTAs.  He intended to use this evolving list, in conjunction with other
documentation already before the CRTA, as the basis for the Committee's work on systemic issues in
the autumn.  A number of delegations were already contributing to the exercise by submitting their
own thoughts and ideas in documents or non-papers, in order to enrich the discussions.  He urged
others to follow suit.  It was his intention th at in its annual report to the General Council on its
activities, the CRTA would present a substantive report on the progress it was making in fulfilling its
mandate to consider the systemic implications of RTAs and initiatives for the multilateral trading
system and the relationship between them.
This approach would enable the CRTA to make decisive progress on its mandate during the
remainder of this year.  However, it would need the support of Members at a senior level, in Geneva
and in capitals, if it was to move forward.  He was therefore making an appeal now, in the GeneralCouncil, to Members to re-evaluate and, where necessary, to strengthen their contribution to the work
of the CRTA.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the CRTA had been established nearly 30
months ago, with terms of reference covering, inter alia , both examination of RTAs and consideration
of systemic issues.  This had been endorsed in  the Singapore Ministerial Declaration which had
reaffirmed the primacy of the multilateral trading system.  The second Ministerial Conference held
recently in Geneva had underlined the crucial importance of the multilateral rule-based system.
Against this background, it was timely to reflect on the progress, or lack of it, being made in the
CRTA toward fulfilling its terms of reference.  The Chairman of the CRTA had referred to the 30
individual RTAs whose examination was relatively advanced and had expressed the hope that further
progress could be made.  This was endorsed by many Members and Hong Kong, China sympathized
and shared Members' frustration.  But it was also true that real progress had to be made with systemic
issues.  Not only were both elements given equal weight in the CRTA' s terms of reference, but it was
the case that the successful conclusion of examination reports actually hinged on consensus beingreached on long-outstanding systemic issues.  The CRTA was a far from being in a position to make
recommendations on systemic issues to the General Council as mandated under its terms of reference.
Thus, Hong Kong, China's main reflection was that there had been a lack of progress in the CRTA, at
least in some important areas.  The principal cause of this lack of progress was that, for reasons that
had been well aired in the Committee, the assessment of conformity of RTAs with the multilateraltrading system was characterized by uncertainty.  This was an unsatisfactory situation which
undermined the multilateral rule-based system.  The presence of 30 RTA reports before the CRTA
underscored the expansion and extent of RTAs, which made it, as stated in the Singapore Ministerial
Declaration, "important to analyse whether the system of WTO rights and obligations as it related to
RTAs needed to be further clarified", a task that had yet to be fulfilled.
The representative of the European Communities expressed appreciation to the Committee
Chairman for drawing attention of Members to these questions.  The RTAs were an important area, as
central to the GATT 1994 as Article I MFN treatment principle, and of particular interest to the
European Communities.  In making public speeches, Members liked to state that RTAs were under
control and that the WTO had a system for monitoring  agreements to ensure that they respected the
WTO rules and disciplines.   However this was an empty statement since the Committee had not yetbeen able to draw conclusions on any single specific agreement which it had examined.  As correctly
reminded by the Committee Chairman the credibility of the WTO in this area would be questioned if
the present situation remained unchanged at the time of the next Ministerial Conference.  The
European Communities supported the Committee Chairman's appeal to Members to give this matter
even higher level attention than presently in order to make progress.  Not to be able to reachconclusions on NAFTA for example which had been in force since the beginning of 1995 and which
was not one of the most difficult agreements was rather extraordinary.   He shared the views
expressed by Hong Kong, China and by the Committee Chairman that there was a strong parallelism
between the objectives to move forward the specific agreements by the end of the year and to make aWT/GC/M/29
Page 8
substantive report on systemic issues.  This parallelism was absolutely necessary.  Some of the
problems in the specific agreements were systemic in nature and had to be brought into the other
discussions.  But the fact was that the systemic problems in the end came down to a question of rights
and obligations; if the general understanding of GATT Article XXIV and of the Understanding on the
Interpretation of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994 were changed or clarified, then the rights and
obligations would change.  That clearly was an issue for the next negotiations.  With respect to thespecific agreements under examination, he suggested that if Members did not want to create
precedence, they could reach interim conclusions, leaving a possibility to resume the examination of
an agreement.  There should be ways through to avoid reaching the end of the year without any single
agreement concluded by the Committee.
The representative of Japan supported the Committee Chairman's statement that efforts should
be made to advance both on the systemic issues and the examination of existing RTAs.  There had
been a proliferation of RTAs and in light of such a spread, it was important for the credibility of the
WTO to ensure that the basic principle of MFN was maintained.  By ensuring the primacy of the
multilateral trading system, this would in the end contribute to raising standards of living, as provided
for in the preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO.  Therefore, RTAs should
contribute to the sound development of the multilateral trading system.  As mandated by theSingapore Ministerial Declaration, Members had to "analyze whether the system of WTO rights and
obligations, as it related to regional trade agreements, needed to be further clarified".  To Japan's
view, the systemic issues of the WTO rules on RTAs should be further clarified.  Japan was also of
the view that a progress report should be submitted by the end of this year.  As appealed by the
Committee Chairman, Japan also recognized the need to further proceed in the examination of eachregional trade agreement.  The examination of each regional trade agreement was important in that it
enhanced the transparency of RTAs and monitored whether RTAs were meeting the basic provisions
of the WTO Agreement.  Japan would therefore work closely with the Committee Chairman in his
effort to pursue his initiative.  With respect to the comments made by the European Communities on
the importance to make progress both in systemic issues and examination of individual RTAs and onthe fact that clarification of systemic issues could have effect on rights and obligations therefore
would be an issue for the next round of negotiation, he believed that this should not be use as an
excuse to not making progress on clarification.
The representative of Australia also shared the Committee Chairman's frustration on the lack
of progress in the Committee's work.  The CRTA was an important Committee as it dealt with issues
at the heart of the multilateral trading system.  The CRTA had been established in February 1996 and
its terms of reference included making appropriate recommendations on systemic implications of
regionalism as well as to carry out examination of RTAs.  The Committee had made almost no
progress in the two and a half years of work on these important issues.  The Committee's mandate was
confirmed by the Singapore Ministerial Declaration including that it should analyse whether the WTO
rights and obligations needed to be further clarified as it related to the development of RTAs.Australia has participated actively in the Committee, tabling four papers to assist discussions on
systemic issues and had played an active roles in examinations of all RTAs including making
proposals for the examinations to assist the conformity of RTAs with WTO disciplines.  Australia also
was disappointed that no positive assessment of could be reached.  It hoped that other Members would
also begin to play an active and constructive role in the Committee.  Thus it strongly supported theChairman's proposal, and for the credibility of WTO, progress should be made on both examinations
and systemic issues.  Progress in one area would assist progress in the other areas.  Members should
recognize that there were many unresolved issues in the WTO rules on regionalism which needed to
be clarified.  He shared Japan's view that the clarification of the issues could not be used as an excuse
for paralysis in the Committee's work.
The representative of Korea appreciation for the Committee Chairman's willingness to make
efforts to achieve progress both in the examination of individual RTAs and in the consideration of the
systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral trading system.  These two areas were linkedWT/GC/M/29
Page 9
closely to each other.  Therefore progress in the deliberations on the systemic issues was important for
meaningful examination of individual RTAs and conclusion of their reports.  It was particularly
encouraging in this regard that the Committee Chai rman intended to present a substantive report on
the progress in fulfilling its mandates on systemic  issues in the Committee's annual report to the
General Council.  Korea would continue to fully cooperate with the Committee Chairman and other
delegations to achieve meaningful progress in the Committee's work.
The representative of India welcomed the statement by the Committee Chairman and fully
shared his concern that the Committee's work was not progressing in order to fulfil its basic mandate.
His delegation had been closely following both th e review of the notified RTAs and the systemic
debate.  One of the main reasons of the unsatisfactory progress in the review of the RTAs was the lack
of clarity in the provisions of Article XXIV of the GATT.  This was the reason why a number of
issues, particularly those relating to "substantially all trade" and "other regulations of commerce", hadbeen put on to the systemic debate.  India was concerned at the lack of progress in this regard because
there seemed to be a lack of willingness to engage in this exercise.
India was also concerned by one delegation's comments that addressing systemic issues
would necessarily impinge on Members' rights and obligations.  This amounted to questioning thevery mandate of the CRTA.  India endorsed the concept of parallelism suggested by the Committee
Chairman.  Addressing the systemic issues was not only critical for the future work of the CRTA, but
also for the credibility of the multilateral trading system.  The proliferation of regional agreements
and their impact on the multilateral trading system n eeded to be viewed in the context of the issues
that were sought to be addressed through the systemic debate.  Therefore the CRTA would have tomake progress on the systemic front as the only way to operationally and realistically move forward.
It would be important to generically address the various problem areas which had been identified so
far, through a consideration of the systemic implication of the RTAs on the multilateral trading
system.  India was also of the view that the Committee's annual report to the General Council should
include a substantive report on the systemic issues.  India would support and assist the CommitteeChairman in this regard.
The representative of Canada welcomed the Committee Chairman's statement and supported
his efforts to make progress on all aspects of the CRTA mandate.  The Committee had a very
important work programme on systemic issues, which should continue and should give Members abetter understanding of the relationship between regional agreements and the multilateral trading
system, to ensure that regional agreements and initiatives contributed to further multilateral
liberalization and rule-making.  The Committee had also carried out considerable work in connection
with the examinations of RTAs.  Like the Committee Chairman, Canada was also extremely
concerned with the difficulty it had had in concluding these examinations.  While clearly examination
of RTAs and systemic issues were closely linked, Canada believed that conclusions of RTAs should
not be made contingent on conclusions on systemic is sues.  Systemic issues were of a different nature
than conclusions on RTAs and likely on a longer time-frame.  Canada wished to stress the importance
for the integrity of the Committee and its review process of the necessity to complete the most
advanced examinations, notably the NAFTA, in the very near future.
The representative of Hungary expressed gratitude to the Committee Chairman for calling
Members' attention to an important shortcoming of the WTO.  A common understanding on the most
important systemic issues was still outstanding, and a critical backlog had emerged in the CRTA's
work, which hindered the review of the notified agreements.  It was a very serious impasse and
threatened the credibility of the WTO.  It was ve ry difficult to explain to Hungary's public opinion
that the examination by the WTO of a given free-trade agreement,  the negotiations of which hadtaken nine months for Hungary, was still going on after two years and its finalization was not within
reach.  Hungary fully supported the Committee Chairman's to speed up the work.  Like Canada, he
believed that efforts should be made to complete the review process for some notified agreements
which were in the pipeline, some of which had been concluded before the entry into force ofWT/GC/M/29
Page 10
Marrakesh Agreements.  The systemic issues should be solved since they involved members' rights
but they should be dealt with on a separate track.
The representative of Argentina, also on behalf of other Mercosur Members (Argentina,
Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) said that before making the statement, he would first like to make a
brief comment on a remark made in some of the earlier interventions, namely the reference which was
made to the primacy of the multilateral system and to the Singapore Ministerial Declaration.  I would
like to recall that the same paragraph which referred to the primacy of the multilateral system also
contains a reference to the possible position impact of regional trade agreements on liberalisation and
integration of least-developed, developing and transition economies into the international trading
system.  He believed that it was important that in a body such as the General Council, quotes or
reference to agreements that had been concluded in this organization encompasses all elements of
such agreements and not just a part of them.
On behalf of Mercosur, he wished first to extend warm congratulations to the Chairman of the
CRTA and to his Vice-chairmen for the efforts and the progress that had been made in this very
complex and difficult task of the Committee.  Therefore he found it difficult to fully share the concern
expressed by the Committee Chairman as well as the views expressed by some representatives whohad taken the floor earlier regarding the limited progress that has been made in the Committee.  He
believed that the Committee was doing important work, in a very delicate area where a large number
of cases - more than 30 at present - were being dealt with, some of which were particularly complex.
As to a definition of certain aspects, particularly GATT Article XXIV and GATS Article V,
he noted that these issues were still under review and debated in the Committee.  He also noted that
the Committee was in the midst of a process of identification and definition of any possible systemic
issues, which would require a further study.  This was an area where he would like to be able to
continue working without this sense of urgency, and with the same constructive spirit that had
prevailed up to the present.  With this aim in view, he shared the Committee Chairman's proposalsthat the Secretariat prepare two documents.
The first, which referred to an extension of information of WT/RGA/W26 regarding those
regional agreements which had been notified or were close to conclusion and which were not included
in that document..  This document contained provisions, which referred to more than 40 regionalagreements which were selected by the Secretariat for this systemic study.  He felt that a simple
reference to the number of regional agreements selected clearly pointed to the extent of work that was
being done and still remained to be done.
The second document would refer to an annotated and updated listing of all the  pending
systemic issues which were being reviewed in CRTA.  The Chairman's initiative, requesting
delegations to contribute to these discussions by written proposals would be very useful in helping tocontinue identifying and enriching the content of this systemic discussion.
Furthermore, it was interesting the proposal to  use the NAFTA case as a model both in terms
of format as well as structure of the final reports for regional agreements whose review had been
completed or was close to completion.  However, there were several cases of regional groups oragreements of developing countries which were under review under the Enabling Clause provisions
and in these cases a certain degree of flexibility would be necessary to adapt the format to the
requirements of that Clause.
The representative of the United States expressed appreciation to the Committee Chairman
and shared his frustration at the pace of completing the reviews of examinations in the Committee.
The factual review of NAFTA had been completed more that a year ago and the report was still not
completed.  The CRTA had in fact completed or nearly completed the factual portions of reviews of
more than twenty agreements, but had yet to actually finalize a single report on a review.  TheWT/GC/M/29
Page 11
Committee would have to complete the reports of those agreements for which the factual reviews had
been concluded.  It made no sense to hold these agreements hostage to those agreements where the
reviews were not yet complete.  Each review de pended heavily on the documentation provided by the
parties to the agreement under review.  Unfortunately, the Committee had not been able to use its time
efficiently because delegations had not been supplying these documentations or they had not
submitted them in a timely manner.  The United States hoped that in his summing-up the Chairmanwould note that this was an area where delegations could contribute to the efficient functioning of the
Committee.
The United States expressed appreciation for the enthusiasm some delegations had for
reaching conclusions on the broad systemic issues identified to date, but remained concerned that in
the short and medium term such efforts would serve only to delay progress in the Committee's ability
to complete its work with respect to the obligations contained in GATT Article XXIV and GATSArticle V.  The review of the regional integration agreements remained fundamentally important, and
was at the center of the Committee's work.  The United States took note of the suggestion of the
European Communities to reach interim conclusions and appreciated the spirit of the suggestion, but
that should be considered on a case-by-case basis.  In the case of NAFTA, as the European
Communities had stated, it was not a particularly difficult agreement.  Therefore an interim approachmight not be required.
The representative of New Zealand said he also welcomed the Committee Chairman's
commitment to pursue progress on the CRTA's work programme.  New Zealand also shared the
Committee Chairman's concern at the state of the Committee's work.  At Singapore, Members hadundertaken to analyse the WTO rights and obligations as they applied to regional trade agreements so
as to determine whether further clarification had to be required in some areas.  However, since the
Singapore Ministerial Conference, the Committee had made only extremely limited progress in
pursuing its important mandates.  The Committee should achieve substantive progress by the end of
this year, both in terms of examinations and in its discussions on the systemic issues.  The lack of anyconsensus on systemic issues made it difficult to arrive at any form of comprehensive conclusions in
individual examinations.  Members should move forward with realistic goals.  They should work to
identify cases where it could be agreed that obligations were being met and at the same time
determine those areas where the lack of common agreement on the way in which the rules applied
made it difficult to arrive at conclusions.  This approach should apply to examinations of RTAs anddiscussions on systemic issues.  It would not be easy to reach any quick agreement on some of the
underlying issues.  However, with a view to making at least a modest attempt to fulfil the mandate
agreed at Singapore and for the sake of the credibility of the RTA Committee and the WTO generally,
the annual report of the Committee this year would need to include a substantive stocktake of where
things stood on the systemic discussions.  New Zealand welcomed the indication given by the
Committee Chairman as to his intentions in this regard.  His delegation pledged to work with the
Chairman and other members of the Committee in moving the work of the Committee forwardespecially on the handling of the key systemic issues.  This work was of direct significance to the vital
and prime task of maintaining a sound and actively trade liberalizing multilateral system.
The representative of Jamaica said it was clear that Members had not really come to terms
with this important issue.  In paragraph 12 of its report to the Second Session of the Ministerial
Conference (WT/REG/3), the Committee had indicated that it had made progress in carrying out its
mandate and that, in its work on systemic issues, it had laid a solid foundation on which it would
continue to build.  Notwithstanding this, there was no real substantial discussion at the Ministerial
Conference.  However, the matter of trade liberalization or market access under the WTO Agreements
was important and, as his delegation had often repeated, regional trade agreements had to beconsistent with WTO rules and disciplines.  A recent document of the UN Economic and Social
Council had stated that important gains in market access for developing countries' exports had been
achieved through regional agreements that had built upon increased disciplines resulting from the
Uruguay Round.  Bearing in mind the primacy of th e multilateral trading system and the importanceWT/GC/M/29
Page 12
of open regional economic integration, regional trade agreements should be outward oriented and
supportive of the multilateral trading system.  The document also referred to liberalization measures
by developing countries which had removed barriers to their trade.  Jamaica, like many other
developing countries, was heavily dependent on agricultural exports to the European Community, and
had a legal regional trade agreement with the Community which had been challenged by an
industrialized country on the grounds that there were systemic implications and that the lattertherefore had a right to challenge what it considered to be violations of multilateral rules.  Because of
this challenge, a panel and the Appellate Body had found that the benefits derived by these developing
countries were now to be withdrawn.  Regulations had to be redrafted, so that the benefits which were
secured under those trade agreements were no longer to be there.  There were rights and obligations in
any examination of regional trade agreements.  In the past, in the GATT, working parties used to look
at violations.  Under the WTO, one dealt with them  only in panels, dealing with systemic issues.  If
the issues were systemic they should be looked at not in panels alone but among the broader WTOmembership.  Simply to go after certain trade agreements because some allegation of violation can be
proven on fine technicalities which disrupted the trade of small trading countries seemed to introduce
an element of inequity in the WTO.  The Genera l Council should examine what the systemic issues
were and take the appropriate action.  In doing so, it should safeguard the interests of the small trading
partners who themselves had legitimate trading interests.
The representative of Pakistan said that, like the Committee Chairman, his delegation was
somewhat disappointed with the pace of work in the Committee.  Small countries depended on the
framework of multilateral rules and benefited from the objective of progressive multilateral
liberalization.  Pakistan considered it a matter of prio rity to bring the rules of the multilateral trading
system dealing with RTAs up-to-date.  These rules should be made precise and clear and should
ensure that genuine free trade among the parties results from the agreements.  The price that countries
had to pay for their derogation from the basic principl e of m.f.n. treatment should be raised.  It would
be in the interest of the world trading system if the Committee focused on systemic issues.  The
Committee could perhaps consider two basic questions in its future work:  first, what were theexisting rules which were obsolete, considering the realities surrounding the RTAs and, second, what
needed to be done to prevent RTA parties from imposing the cost of regional integration upon third
countries.
The representative of Mexico shared the concerns voiced by the Committee Chairman.  While
systemic implications were important, they should not be seen as purely a legal issue and, above all,
should not be regarded as a sine qua non  condition for the adoption of reports on the examination of
regional trade agreements.  The non-adoption of reports would have a negative impact for all,
including those which have a considerable interest in systemic implications.  When a report was not
adopted, for reasons that had nothing do with the merits of the report, the credibility of the
examination was lost, which certainly would not be to the benefit of anyone individually or to the
WTO as a whole.  If Members did not manage to reach agreement on conclusions of a legal nature,then the solution open to all to respect the rights and obligations of each and everyone was contained
in the Dispute Settlement Understanding.  But there must at least be a report.  Furthermore, any
interpretation or additional clarification of Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS
should be made within the context of the negotiations which Members hoped to launch after the third
session of the Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Norway said that one was not up against the inability or ill will on the
part of the members of the Committee.  Members should have the courage to recognize that they had
undertaken a task that was politically more complex than they had initially expected.   Article XXIV
of the GATT and Article V of the GATS were indeed complex matters.  This was more a politicalthan administrative task, and Members should address the issue accordingly so that at the end of the
year they had something substantive to report in the Committee's annual report.WT/GC/M/29
Page 13
 The representative of Romania said that, like others, his delegation had the feeling that the
discussion had brought to light the essential reason for the delay in the Committee's work.  His
delegation believed that the conclusions of the consideration of regional agreements could not be
made dependent on the results of the debate on systemic issues.  It was equally clear that the
conclusion of the systemic debate and possible recommendations for clarification which the
Committee would identify and which it would set out  in its annual report would introduce new
disciplines and possibly even new rights and obligations, which the Community, Mexico and Jamaica
had referred to.  Members should continue the two processes to conclude the examination of regional
trade agreements and at the same time make progress in the analysis of the systemic issues, being
aware at all times of the clear distinction to be made and the fact that the two processes were totally
separate.
The representative of Hong Kong, China noted the suggestions that had been made that
examinations of at least some regional trade agreements could be concluded while further work was
pursued in the Committee on systemic issues, so that the two processes would be on separate tracks.
However, this would amount to a semblance of progress but without any substance, because
examinations of RTAs could not properly be concluded without an assessment of conformity.  This
was very clearly spelt out in WTO provisions:  unde r GATT Article XXIV, findings in the light of the
relevant provisions are required, and GATS Article V called for a report on the consistency of an
RTA with its provisions.  However, if the provisions  were unclear, as was abundantly evident from all
of the experience of RTAs, any such findings or reports were bound to be inconclusive, which would
serve only to undermine the rule-based multilateral system.  Therefore, the way to make progress on
concluding examinations of RTAs was to clarify the system with WTO rights and obligations as itrelated to RTAs as soon as possible.  A start could be made by the Committee developing appropriate
recommendations to the General Council on the systemic implications of RTAs for the multilateral
trading system in accordance with its terms of reference.  His delegation hoped that the Committee
Chairman would include this aim in his work pr ogramme for the Committee, and looked forward to
working with him in order to achieve that.  He wished to make clear that through its emphasis onsystemic issues, Hong Kong, China was not seeking to inhibit the formation of RTAs.  Indeed, RTAs
were formed and implemented without the Committee's or the WTO's endorsement.
The Director-General said that he fully supported the considerations and the appeal of the
Chairman of the Committee.  The work of the Committee was fundamental to both tasks -- the
examination of individual agreements and of systemic implications.  He hoped that the essential task
outlined by the Committee Chairman would be fulfilled in the time-frame that the latter had proposed,
and said that the Secretariat would give its full cooperation.
The Chairman urged Members to make a further effort this year so that progress could be
registered in the work of the Committee in the two areas identified by its Chairman, and that when the
Committee reported to the General Council at the end of the year Members might be able to have amore satisfactory feeling about the state of work in the Committee.
The General Council took note of the statements.
4. Harmonization work programme on non-preferential rules of origin
(a) Recommendations on continuation of work (G/RO/25)
Mr. Saborio Soto (Costa Rica), Chairman of th e Council for Trade in Goods, said that at its
meeting on 8 July, the Council had considered the report of the Committee on Rules of Origin on the
continuation of the harmonization work programme.  The Council had taken note that at its meetingon 29 May, the Committee on Rules of Origin had come to the conclusion that the harmonization
work programme on non-preferential rules of origin could not be completed by the deadline of 20 JulyWT/GC/M/29
Page 14
1998 foreseen in the Agreement on Rules of Origin.  The Committee had decided to make a report to
the Council on this issue providing an overview of the status of work on the harmonization work
programme and making recommendations on the continuation of the work (G/RO/25).  In the report,
Members committed themselves to make their best endeavours to complete the harmonization work
programme at the latest by November 1999.  The Committee also recommended the following:  (i) a
deadline for completion of the work of the Technical Committee (May 1999);  (ii) a review of thestatus of work in June 1999 by the Committee with a view to recommending a deadline for the
completion of the harmonization work programme as a whole;  and (iii) indicative work programmes
for both the Committee and the Technical Committee for the period September 1998-October 1999.
The Council for Trade in Goods had approved the recommendations and proposals of the Committee
as contained in paragraphs 4-6 of G/RO/25, and had forwarded them to the General Council  for
adoption.
The representative of India welcomed the statement by the Goods Council and supported the
communication sent to the Council regarding the extension of the harmonization work programme.
His delegation had already expressed some concerns in this regard at the Goods Council meeting on
8 July, and wished to draw the General Council's at tention to the following points:  It was unfortunate
that the Committee had not been able to complete its work within the time-period stipulated in the
Agreement on Rules of Origin.  This was particularly so since the non-compliance of the mandated
deadline came so soon after the Second Session of the Ministerial Conference, where Ministers had
specifically reaffirmed the commitment to adhere  to mandated guidelines.  India's concern was
accentuated by the fact that certain rules of origin regimes adopted during the transition period had
unfortunately been used as instruments to pursue trade objectives and had resulted in the distortionand disruption of trade, particularly from developi ng countries, in contravention of Article 2 of the
Agreement.  In this context, his delegation, as well as many others, had preferred a specific short and
firm extension of the mandated deadline.  While his delegation had shown flexibility and agreed to an
extension of the harmonization work programme based on a best endeavour clause, it believed that the
remaining work of the Committee and the recommendations thereof did not have such a degree ofunpredictability that one could not have fixed a firm time-frame for completing the remaining work.
His delegation wished to reiterate that the flexibility it had shown was in the hope and understanding
that the work would indeed be completed by November 1999, and that a further extension of this
mandated deadline would not have to be sought.  He also wished to place on record the request to the
Secretariat regarding the preparation of an analysis paper on the impact of the main proposals of rulesof origin in the textile and clothing sector to help the Committee's deliberations.  Such an analysis
paper would help in bringing out the implications  of the harmonization proposals and would also be
helpful in ensuring that the proposed rules of origin were neutral as far as the trade effects were
concerned.
The representative of Brazil said that his Government attached special importance to the fixed
deadline for the completion of the work of the Technical Committee.  It valued the work that had been
done in Brussels, but believed that having all the issues in Geneva would facilitate consensus and also
help those delegations that had constraints in terms of human and material resources.  Brazil believed
also that all Members involved in the negotiations had to come to terms with the policy dimensions of
the discussions.  Looking at the proposed rules of origins from different technical angles or having
general discussions on interpretation would not make these policy considerations go away.  Brazilremained committed to working within the parame ters established in the Agreement on Rules of
Origin, and supported the future work programme.
The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation was among those disappointed at
the lack of progress in the negotiations on rules of origin and the lack of agreement on a hard deadline
for future work.  New Zealand believed that reaching agreement on harmonized rules of origin was
one of the most important areas of the WTO's current work.  It was clear that a successful rules of
origin negotiation could make a concrete contribution to the objective of a more liberal trading
environment.  New Zealand would work hard with others to ensure the harmonization workWT/GC/M/29
Page 15
programme produced clear and consistent rules which did not allow rules of origin be used as other
means of trade protection.  Referring to recent discussions regarding trade facilitation, he asked how
one could take such issues seriously if one did not address the more pressing concerns that the rules of
origin negotiations represented.  His delegation hoped that the "best endeavours" could indeed be the
very best endeavours to ensure completion of the Committee's work by November 1999.
The representative of Pakistan welcomed the statement by the Goods Council Chairman.
While Pakistan appreciated the work done in Geneva and in Brussels, it was disappointed that the
deadline to complete the harmonization work programme had not been met.  Pakistan recognized the
complexity and time-consuming nature of this work, but believed that had there been a greater effort
and cooperation, one would perhaps have been in a position to meet the deadline set out in the
Agreement on Rules of Origin.  Not to respect the mandated deadline was not a healthy precedent.
Pakistan's basic concern emanated from the fact that one Member had changed its rules of originduring the transition period in a way that was trade distortive.  This was despite the fact that the
Agreement provided that until the harmonization work programme was completed, Members would
ensure, among other things, that their rules of origin were not used as instruments to pursue trade
objectives directly and indirectly, and that rules of origin would not create restrictive, distorting or
disruptive effects on international trade.  It was against this background that his delegation, togetherwith some others, had tried to seek consensus on a definite deadline for completion of the
harmonization work programme.  However, despite their best efforts, a consensus on such a deadline
had not proved possible.  Notwithstanding an absolute need for having a fixed deadline, Pakistan
agreed to an extension of the deadline based on a best endeavour clause to ensure that the work would
be completed by November 1999.  His delegation wished to stress that its agreement was based on theunderstanding that the Committee would positively complete its work by November 1999.  Members
should strictly abide by the disciplines of Article 2 of the Agreement on Rules of Origin.
The representative of Canada supported the report by the Goods Council Chairman, and
reiterated Canada's commitment to achieving non-preferential rules of origin that were transparent,
predictable and neutral, did not impose undue burdens on traders, were applied in a consistent,
uniform, impartial and reasonable manner, and facilitated trade.  It was Canada that had first raised
the question of whether or not the original deadline could be reached without seriously compromising
the high quality result that was desired.  It had done so because it felt this was the responsible step to
take given the importance of the non-preferential rules of origin for all products and services andsectors.  In the discussions on a new time-frame, Canada had not supported setting a hard deadline for
the Committee.  It  did not believe it would be practical, realistic, responsible or prudent to try to do
so until Members saw the final result of the work of the Technical Committee in June 1999.  Only
then could one make an informed recommendation on a realistic deadline for the WTO to complete
the harmonization programme.  Nevertheless, Canada fully supported the consensus reached on the
revised harmonized work programme including the best endeavours commitment to complete the
harmonization by November 1999.  It remained fully committed to working with others on the basisof the work agenda, and shared fully the view that the two Committees should work in partnership.  It
was also clear that all Members would need to show flexibility.  For its part, Canada would continue
to contribute directly to the overall process for developing the harmonized non-preferential rules of
origin.  It had offered to host in September a second inter-sessional meeting of the Technical
Committee in Ottawa on the important issue of architecture.  The success of the harmonized workprogramme would also require other Members to step back from their direct interests and priorities
and in line with their capacity to contribute direc tly to the overall process.  In conducting its work,
Canada would continue to give each sector and each product equal attention.  While each sector could
be argued to have its special or unique features, one should not lose sight of the fact that the non-
preferential rules would apply to all goods for a ra nge of commercial policy instruments.  All sectors
were important and all would have to live with the results for all products.WT/GC/M/29
Page 16
The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation had already made clear its position
on this matter at the Goods Council meeting on 8 July, and would refer delegations to the minutes of
that meeting.
The representative of the United States said  that implementation of the Agreement on Rules
of Origin was very important to the United States .  With regard to the harmonization negotiations,
Members had relied heavily on the work of the two committees as well as the technical work
mandated to the Worlds Customs Organization.  Unfortunately, more time was needed.  Under the
terms of the Agreement on Rules of Origin, the technical aspects of the harmonization work were to
have been completed last fall.  However, a substantial amount of this very important and often
complex technical work still remained to be done.  It was apparent from the experience of the past
year that completion of the technical work was important to ensuring that effective policy level
deliberations could take place.  The United States supported the programme developed by theCommittee for its future work, because it specifically recognized the numerous elements that should
be addressed in order to achieve the completion of this work.  The deadlines that the Committee had
placed upon itself for periodically reporting to th e Council would serve to keep the momentum going,
while at the same time recognizing the complex challenges and issues that needed to be addressed.
The United States would join with others in working hard to complete this task.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation attached great importance to
the completion of the harmonization work programme.  It supported the proposed work programme
put forward by the Committee which, it believed, repr esented a fine balance between the need for a
more definite time-frame and the need for a quality product.  His delegation hoped that the workprogramme would sustain the momentum, and believed that a practical and positive way forward was
to resume work as soon as possible and to comple te the task within the authorized time-frame.  He
urge all Members to accord priority and devote resources for this important work.
The representative of El Salvador joined other delegations in supporting the proposed work
programme.  Like India, El Salvador reiterated the need for the Secretariat to draw up an analysis
paper on the relationship between rules of origin and the WTO Agreements, which would help
delegations to move forward in future work.
The representative of the European Communities welcomed the statement by the United
States recognizing that this was important work which needed to be tackled seriously.   It was equally
important not to jump the gun by making changes in origin rules before this work was completed.  As
Members were aware, the Community had a WTO dispute in this area.  It had been under suspension
because the Community had made a bilateral agreement which was predicated on changes in origin
rules.  The Community of course expected that to be respected and, if that were not the case, it would
be back into a dispute settlement mode which would be a pity.  However the fact that there was no
agreement yet on harmonization meant that one had to work in another way in order to ensure thattrade could flow freely.
The General Council took note of the statements and of the report of the Committee on Rules
of Origin in document G/RO/25, and adopted the recommendations of the Committee as referred to
by the Chairman of the Goods Council.
5. Appointment of the next Director-General
The Chairman recalled that he had held consultations on this subject through informal
meetings of the General Council on 5 June and 8 July, and also that the text of his statement at the
5 June consultation had been circulated to all Members.  Prior to the 5 June consultations, he had
circulated to all Members the Director-General's letter of 25 May in which the latter had made clear
his intention to leave office not later than 30 April 1999.  It was with regret and trepidation that heWT/GC/M/29
Page 17
proposed initiating a process to find a successor to someone who had served, and continued to serve,
the WTO so well.  But the Director-General's lett er was unmistakably clear, and the latter deserved
Members' gratitude for putting the issue so clearly before them.  The task of selecting a successor was
now with the Members, and they had to act expeditiously.
The procedures for the appointment of the Director-General were contained in a report by the
Chairman of the CONTRACTING PARTIES to the GATT and approved by the CONTRACTING
PARTIES on 26 November 1986.  They were of a general and somewhat flexible nature.  In keeping
with the terms of these procedures, he was formally announcing at the present meeting, in line with
what he had proposed on 5 June, that he had initiated a process of consultation regarding the
appointment of a new Director-General.  The Dire ctor-General had recommended in his letter that
Members agree on his successor "as soon as possible and certainly before the end of this year".
Accordingly, he suggested that Members aim to  have identified the new Director-General by
consensus by the end of November.  One could then use the December meeting of the General
Council to confirm the appointment.  He further suggested that Members that wished to nominate
candidates for the position of the Director-General should do so by communicating such names to
him, in his capacity as Chairman of the General Council, by 1 October at the latest.  The Secretariat
would ensure that nominations were circulated imme diately to all Members.  He wished to emphasize
that Members would appoint the new Director-General  on the basis of consensus.  He urged Members
to bear this important reality in mind over the coming months.  One was not planning an election
campaign, and there would be no vote.  One needed to operate in a way that would facilitate
consensus, rather than make it more difficult.  He also wished to make the obvious, but important
point, that the new Director-General would be th e Director-General of all the Members.  From
discussions he had had with a number of representatives, he believed that there was a widely held
view that one should try to avoid the sort of the regional candidacies which arose during the last
selection process.  What should be of primary importance were the qualities the various candidates
would bring to the position of Director-General.  In this regard, Mr. Ruggiero had set the standard
very high.  As the Director-General had noted in his letter, the WTO now occupied an important placein international life.  This success was in no small part due to Mr. Ruggiero's own tireless efforts.  He
was sure Members would know how to act in the be st interests of the institution, and urged them to
give this matter careful and prompt attention.
He also wished to note that he had found in his consultations broad support for the idea,
raised at the 5 June meeting, regarding the possibility of organizing an opportunity for candidates to
meet with permanent representatives in Geneva.  One could, for instance, envisage inviting candidates
to make a presentation to an informal meeting of the General Council and then allowing an
opportunity for the candidate to respond to questions from permanent representatives, which could be
either submitted in written form or made orally.  The purpose of such meetings would be to allow
permanent representatives of all Members to have an opportunity to meet the candidates.  The
meetings would not arrive at any conclusions but would be designed to assist Members in their owndeliberations.  Clearly, the detailed organization of such events would need to be worked out.  Even
their feasibility might depend on the number of candidates nominated.  He suggest that Members
return to this idea at the end of the nomination period.  Finally, he wished to raise an issue concerning
the conduct of the consultations.  Taken together, Article XVI:1 of the Marrakesh Agreement
Establishing the World Trade Organization and the November 1986 decision of the CONTRACTINGPARTIES regarding the procedures for the future appointment of the Director-General, had
established that the process of consultation leading to a decision to appoint a new Director-General be
conducted by the Chairman of the General Council.  He was aware that there was a view that there
might be an appearance of a conflict of interest arising from the fact that he was the Chairman of the
General Council, and that a Canadian, Canada's former Minister of International Trade Mr. RoyMacLaren, was a candidate.  He wished to inform Members that he had discussed the situation with
his authorities in Canada and had agreed with them that because he was chairing the process of
consultation, he should take no part in support of the candidacy of Mr. MacLaren.  This task would
fall to the Deputy Permanent Representative of Canada to the WTO.  He had also discussed the matterWT/GC/M/29
Page 18
with his two predecessors as General Council Chairmen.  In order to ensure that this important
process was conducted in an atmosphere free of any question about its integrity, he intended to ask
Mr. Rossier  (Switzerland) to consult with Members to consider how one might best proceed in the
circumstances and to make any recommendations whic h the latter might consider appropriate in the
light of those consultations.  One idea might be to consider identifying a small group of representative
individuals who could work closely with the Chairman in managing the process.  The process ofconsultations would obviously intensify after the nomination period.  He would therefore hope that
Mr. Rossier could report on his consultations before the end of September to allow Members to take
any necessary decisions in good time.  He wished to emphasize that the selection of the next Director-
General was the responsibility of the Members.  It was not a task which could be delegated to a Chair
or a group of persons.  It was important that Members not confuse the management of the process
with the responsibility to select and appoint the ne xt Director-General.  He suggested that Members
meet informally to take stock of the various aspects of this matter immediately after the 1 Octoberdeadline.
The representative of Brazil said he was personally persuaded, and was sure all Members
were, that Mr. Rossier had the credentials to conduct the consultations requested of him, not only
because of his experience and knowledge of the Organization but as a person coming from a Memberwho will have on this matter a substantial systemic issue and will therefore deal with the systemic
issue.  In this matter, one would be dealing not only with those already acquainted with the workings
of the Organization, namely those that were the family of the Members that operated within the
Organization, but also with themes of public opin ion.  There were many delegations present who had
a special concern with the theme of transparency, with public opinion, with enlarging the knowledge
of how the WTO works.  So this was an issue, of how Members proceeded in the appointment of the
next Director-General, that must be seen not only as being as appropriate, as it should be, but it must
also be perceived as so.  In this sense, he welcomed the suggestion that that Mr. Rossier conduct
ample consultations with all Members on this matter.  Concerning the nomination period, he believed
that 1 October was a very reasonable target date, and shared the Chairman's views about theimportance of the work that had been done by the present Director-General and that to substitute him
would be a difficult and complex task.
The representative of Egypt expressed his delegation's full support for the Chairman's
statement, and gratitude to those that had expresse d their support for Egypt's idea to have a meeting
with the candidates.
The representative of Norway said he trusted that all delegations were now aware that they
had assumed responsibilities to operate inside the indicative time-frame.  His delegation wished to
avoid a repetition of the events at the end of 1994 beginning of 1995 when Members repeatedly had to
request the then outgoing Director-General to continue in his service, which he believed was
undignified, both in relation to Organization and to the persons involved.
The representative of Tanzania said his delegation agreed with the Chairman on the proposals
regarding the time-frame work, the deadlines and also the consultations to be conducted by
Mr. Rossier.  He also agreed that the principal and overriding criteria for the appointment of the next
Director-General should be qualification, efficiency and overall suitability and acceptability.However, within that broad criterion, many Memb ers felt that it would be healthy if it could be
effectively demonstrated that this important position was not the monopoly of some category of
Member countries and that merit and efficiency were not necessarily mutual exclusive to the need to
allow rotation and geographical balance in filling this position.  He believed it was this logic that led
to a reported informal understanding earlier on that the next Director-General should be a non-European.  By extension, and by the same logic, it would also be healthy if the next Director-General
would be from a developing country, if the right person could be identified.  This step would break
the monopoly of the leadership of this body  among the developed countries since the founding of the
GATT, the predecessor of WTO.  That being said, he hoped that the next Director-General wouldWT/GC/M/29
Page 19
build on the good foundation built by the outgoing Director-General, Mr. Ruggiero, who went out of
his way to recruit into the Secretariat staff members from Africa.  However, African leaders through
their Ministerial meeting in Harare before the Second Session of the Ministerial Conference, and
recently at the OAU Summit in Ouagadougou, had pointed out that there was now a need to increase
the participation of Africans in the Secretariat at the senior level, in line with the size of the African
membership of the WTO.  The new Director-General would, soon after his appointment, have theimmediate task of establishing his team of senior colleagues in the Secretariat.  The Director-General
would influence the appointment of his deputies and would also certainly influence the appointment
of other senior staff.  His delegation wished to ask the General Council to put on notice to the new
Director-General to bear in mind this legitimate expectation of African Members of this Organization.
He would also request that the outgoing Director-Gener al put it boldly in his handing over notes to his
successor that this was a matter to which African Members attached tremendous importance.
The representative of Jamaica asked if the Secretariat could make available to delegations the
documentation and the decisions to which the Chairman had referred so that they could address the
question more fully thereafter.
The Chairman said that the documentation to which Jamaica had just referred had been
referred to specifically in the earlier consultations that he had held, to which all Members had been
invited, and were not new references.
The representative of Hong Kong, China agre ed that under the present unusual circumstances,
Mr. Rossier should be asked to consult to see how best one could proceed.  However, his delegation
did not presently find attractive the idea that a small group might be formed to work with the
Chairman in managing the selection process, and would communicate its thoughts on this matter to
Mr. Rossier.  As to the precise effect on the present exercise of Article XVI:1 of the WTO Agreement
and the 1986 decision of the GATT CONTRACTING PARTIES, his delegation reserved its position
at present.
The representative of Hungary supported the Chairman's statement and indicated his
agreement with the proposal that Mr. Rossier be invited to conduct consultations about the
management of the process, although he had some reservations about the formation of a small group.
His delegation also agreed on the importance of the personal and professional qualities of the futureDirector-General.  The WTO was an organizati on fully independent from the UN family, and his
delegation hoped that only the personal and professional qualities of prospective candidates would be
the major consideration, and that Members would be able to avoid a repetition of the past experience
and of attempts at regional balancing which might have a negative effect on the quality of the next
Director-General.
The representative of Mexico expressed his delegation's full agreement with all the elements
of the Chairman's statement, and its full conf idence in the Chairman in the process for the
appointment of a successor to the Director-General.  His delegation attached importance to fully
respecting the deadline of 1 October for submitting names of candidates, in order to meet the
objective of having a clear idea of the next Director-General towards the end of November and of
taking a formal decision in December.  He also agreed that the decision on the next Director-Generalwould have to be taken by consensus and that it would be a decision by the Members and by no one
else, such as a group of eminent persons, which was an idea that Mexico could not go along with.
With regard to the Chairman's reference to Ar ticle XVI:1 of the WTO Agreement and to the 1996
procedures,  Mexico believed that there were other understandings that were equally valid and which
should also be kept in mind.  Such understandings could be found in the minutes of the meeting atwhich the present Director-General had been decided on.WT/GC/M/29
Page 20
The representative of Mauritius said that his delegation agreed fully with the choice of
Mr. Rossier to conduct consultations concerning the process, although, like Hong Kong, China, it
believed that the idea of setting a small group was not attractive.
The representative of Indonesia expressed the hope that the next Director-General would be
from a developing country, and that the qualifications of the candidates would be one of the main
considerations in the recruitment process.  His delegation saw merit in the idea of having candidates
interact with Members at an informal gather ing of the General Council, which would enhance
transparency and allow Members to have an idea of the person that would head the WTO Secretariat
into the next millennium.
The representative of Japan said he believed that Mr. Rossier should consult with Members
on all aspects of the consultation process, including on how the consultation process would be
chaired.
The Chairman said that he had chosen the words in his statement very carefully, and believed
that the paragraph in which he had described what he had asked Mr. Rossier to do was quite broad.
The representative of Jamaica said that, as he understood the Chairman's statement, no
decision had yet been taken on whether or not the prospective candidates would be invited to meet
with the permanent representatives to the WTO, and that that remained to be decided.  Furthermore,
the Chairman's statement did not make specific reference to the minutes of the General Council
meeting held on 24 March (WT/GC/M/2), which had recorded a number of understandings.  Hebelieved that unless there was a decision to vary these understandings, they still bound the
membership of the WTO, and should be seen on equal footing with any other understandings.  It
would be useful if the Chairman's statement could be revised to include the understandings reflected
in the minutes of the meeting to which he had referred.  He hoped that Members would pay careful
attention to procedures and to the way in which business was conducted and decisions in the WTO.His delegation had the fullest confidence in the Chairman of the General Council to conduct the
consultations, and saw little reason for the latter to step aside in the carrying out the functions that all
knew might fall on him in the conduct of your office.  Until the selection process was concluded, the
Chairman was the person to whom institutionally all would, and should, look to and hold accountable
because Members had elected him by consensus.  It was therefore open to question that there shouldbe a necessity for the Chairman to delegate a part of his authority to any representative to consult with
delegations on how best to proceed in the present matter.  He did not believe that anybody was needed
in between the Chairman and Members.  His delegation had confidence in the Chairman, and was
nervous at making ad hoc arrangements when building traditions in a new institution.  His delegation
therefore had doubts as to whether the Chairman should pass on and diminish any of the latter's
authority to conduct consultations.  Like Mauritius and Hong Kong, China, his delegation did not see
a need to identify a small group of representative individuals.  One did not need to go beyond thechairpersons of WTO bodies and search for a group of representative individuals.  The proposed
procedure in the present situation was not at all clear.  The Chairman was correct in saying that the
appointment of the Director-General was the responsib ility of Members;  it was not a task that could
be delegated to a chair or a group of persons.  He did not believe, furthermore, that the first meeting to
take stock should be informal.  He was concerned about taking stock informally and then havinganother convenient way of dealing with the matter.  In conclusion, he said that the Chairman should
conduct the necessary consultations and remain solely in charge.  Furthermore, while the present
Director-General would be hard to replace, this was not the moment to discuss the characteristics of
who would be the best Director-General.  At pres ent, Members were looking at the procedures that
would lead to that, and they should concentrate on the task before them keeping in mind the need for
consistency and full respect for all decisions, which should stand on an equal footing.
The representative of Australia said his delegation believed that the Chairman had proposed a
fairly reasonable and straightforward way of managing the process, and did not see it as an attempt byWT/GC/M/29
Page 21
the latter to abrogate or delegate his responsibilities to other bodies.  The proposal for a small group
seemed a reasonable way of trying to manage the process and come up with some ideas and sensible
approaches.  The key point that the Chairman had raised was that it was up to the Members to make
the decision, and it was clear from the Chairman's statement that one should not confuse the
management of the process with the selection of the Director-General, which was something quite
different.  His delegation was therefore surprise d at the concerns that had been expressed, and
believed that the proposed approach was reasonable, and looked forward to Mr. Rossier's
consultations.
The representative of Turkey expressed full support for the process outlined by the Chairman,
and asked whether, in the event that Switzerland put forward a candidate for Director-General,
Mr. Rossier would withdraw from the consultations he had been invited to conduct.
The representative of Argentina said that the consultations to be carried out by Mr. Rossier
would not only enable Members to identify the best  process to follow, but would also enable them to
face the situation that the Chairman found himself in.   For this reason, his delegation respected the
Chairman's initiative, and placed full trust in the Chairman in the results of the consultations to be
carried out by Mr. Rossier.
The representative of the United States expressed surprise at the nature of the discussion
under the present Agenda item, which she believed was really just as an information item.  Under the
established procedures, the Chairman had the recognized authority to conduct the necessary
consultations, essentially as the latter deemed fit.  Since there was a great deal of flexibility in the
procedures, her delegation urged the Chairman to proceed with the consultations.  Her delegation
would work with the Chairman and with other delegations to reach a consensus on the appointment of
the next Director-General.
The representative of Morocco thanked the Chairman for the latter's statement which he
believed was carefully calibrated and that all understood what it meant.  He urged all those who saw it
in black and white to look at it rather in shades and different colours and in a balanced way, and not to
begin a debate that would perhaps not be welcome at the present stage.  He believed that the
Chairman would conduct the process with a good bala nce to get Members to what they wanted, which
was to designate and elect a new Director-General in due time.  He urged the Chairman to continue inthe spirit in which the latter was working and not in the one that some delegations wished to steer
him.
The Chairman said he believed that there had been a useful series of comments and markers
put down in the present discussion, and that one woul d clearly have further opportunities to talk about
these matters, including of course at the formal meeting of the General Council tentatively scheduled
for 14 October.  There would therefore be an opportu nity to return to this matter formally soon after
the closing of the nomination period.  He proposed that the General Council take note of the
statements and agree to the procedure he had outlin ed for the selection of the next Director-General.
The representative of Jamaica recalled that there had been informal discussions on the
Chairman's text and that that text had since been altered significantly, and that his delegation was
therefore raising questions which it wished to have answered by the Chairman.  It was only through
an open, transparent debate on the record that one would build an organization with consistent
procedures.  The Chairman had just proposed a course of action which would imply that
representatives agreed with everything the latter had said.  A number of representatives had stated in
different ways that if someone were invited to car ry out a process, why should one prejudge what that
person would do?  Why should one single out the way in which that person might come up with a
suggestion vis-à-vis  a small group of representative individuals?  He himself had pointed to the
practice of using holders of institutional offices to carry out consultations.  While he believed that
people essentially tended to do the right thing, sometimes they could miss the way because theWT/GC/M/29
Page 22
procedures were not clear.  He wished to know why the Chairman's statement did not make reference
to the significance of some understandings that had been reached in the past.  One could not continue
to do things informally and say that one understood what the Chairman was trying to do.  While he
did not wish to hold up the meeting or fail to join in the consensus, he wished to know clearly what
the Chairman's understanding was in the light of the latter's statement at the present meeting
concerning the proposed procedure and the results.
The Chairman said that he found the present discussion a little awkward to deal with.  While
he was often willing to attempt to clarify matters from the Chair, he would, in the present situation,
prefer to stay with what he had said.  He did not believe that it changed anything that had been
established in the past.  Furthermore, taking note of something did not mean that delegations agreed
with everything in it.  He had proposed simply that the General Council take note of all the statements
that had been made during the present discussion, including his own statement, and also that theGeneral Council agree to the procedure that he had outlined.  He believed that that procedure was
quite straightforward.  While his statement also dealt with matters that went beyond procedure, he was
not proposing that the General Council agree to that, but rather that it take note of those aspects.
The representative of Mexico said he wished to place on record that his delegation had asked
whether anyone was not aware of the agreements that had been reached when the present Director-
General had been appointed.  He wished to place this on record, and if anyone was not aware of those
agreements, that also would be placed on record.
The representative of Jamaica said that what the General Council would take note of was not
the creation of a new procedure but rather the next steps in a process which would assist the
Chairman.  With regard to the use of the word pro cedure by the Chairman in his last intervention, his
delegation wished it to be clear that the Chairman wished some assistance in conducting the process
on a purely ad hoc basis.  In his own wisdom, the Chairman had felt that this was what he wished to
do.  In that spirit, and in light of what the Chairman had stated,  his delegation could go along with theproposed action.  This was not to say, however, that there was any procedure involved here, but rather
the next steps in a process that would be purely ad hoc.  He hoped, however, that one would try to
guard against too many ad hoc arrangements.
The General Council took note of the statements and agreed
 to the procedure outlined by the
Chairman.
6. Transparency in WTO work
The Chairman recalled that in paragraph 4 of the 1998 Ministerial Declaration
(WT/MIN(98)/DEC), Ministers had recognized the importance of enhancing public understanding of
the benefits of the multilateral trading system and, in this context, had indicated that it was their
intention to consider how to improve the transparency of WTO operations.  He recalled also that the
Director-General had addressed this matter, at previous meetings of the General Council, stressing the
importance of improving the transparency of WTO operations.  Related to the question of
transparency was the question of the circulation and derestriction of documents.  In this connection,
he recalled that under the procedures for the circulation and derestriction of documents adopted by theGeneral Council in July 1996 (WT/L/160/Rev.1), the General Council was to review and, if
necessary, modify the procedures two years after their adoption.  At informal consultations held on
3 July, delegations had had the opportunity to have a first exchange of views on the issues relating to
transparency.  Also at that meeting, delegations had had a first look at a proposal by the United States
that certain types of documents be circulated as unrestricted documents sooner than currentlyprovided for.  Following the consultations, the United States had recently submitted a modified
proposal (WT/GC/W/88).  He also drew attention to another recently submitted communication on
transparency from the European Communities (WT/GC/W/92).WT/GC/M/29
Page 23
It had appeared from the initial discussion on 3 July that delegations viewed the question of
transparency in WTO work as having several different elements, one of which was the derestriction of
documents.  The view had also been expressed during the consultations that an important issue that
needed to be addressed was how to strengthen pu blic confidence in the multilateral trading system.
As the Director-General had indicated at the consultations, while much had already been done interms of keeping the public informed about the work of the WTO through regular press briefings and
the organization of symposia on topical issues, delegations would want to reflect further on what
might be done.
The Director-General said that there were four  main issues raised by delegations which, in
one way or another, belonged to the discussion on the subject of transparency.  First was information
policy.  There was a strong need to improve the exchange of information about the nature and thegoals of the institution, and one was certainly far from achieving results that could be considered
satisfactory.  However, with the limited resources that were available, he believed that impressive
progress had been made, and he would send to all Heads of delegations a summary of the Secretariat's
activities in this important area.  However, one would not make real progress unless there was a
strong commitment from national governments.  This  effort involved highly political issues and
clearly called for more work from Members and certainly the Secretariat to improve public
understanding of the WTO's mission.  The second issue was derestriction.  The WTO was not a
secretive organization, as was sometimes claimed;  the extensive and growing media coverage of the
WTO's activities showed this, and this should be welcomed.  The Secretariat, for its part, had made a
concerted effort to brief the press on each and every issue.  And because it had adopted an openpolicy, it had built a strong and constructive relationship with the press.  There would indeed be a
problem if the WTO were not as open as it was.  He recalled that practically all of the WTO's
documents were distributed to the public.  The principle was not restriction but rather an open policy.
For the exceptions, there was a list which was a public document.  However, even in this limited area,
he believed that the General Council could do more to promote transparency, in order to dispel themisleading impression of secrecy.  Third, there was the issue of dispute settlement.  One of the main
problems here was not just the disclosure of panel findings, serious though it was, but rather the
partisan and inaccurate way in which this was done.  This problem was compounded by the fact that
one was prevented from responding to and correcting these inaccuracies by the rules of the
Organization.  All this made it very difficult to provide the balanced and full information that was inthe interests of all the governments concerned.  For this reason, it was important that Member
governments should help to find a solution to this problem.  His fourth general observation was that
transparency also meant the participation of all de legations in the formal and informal exchange of
view inside the WTO.  This required that formal and informal meetings were open-ended, so that
delegations were fully informed and actively involved.  As all were aware, this had always been a
fundamental principle for him.  He believed that this consensus-based organization, founded on non-
discrimination, could not work well without it.
Emphasizing some of the steps that had already been taken regarding the WTO's relations
with civil society, and recalling that this relationship was based on a very clear and detailed mandate
given by the General Council, he said that because of this mandate it had been possible to open the
doors of the Ministerial Conference to NGOs.  More than 300 NGO representatives from all over theworld had made the journey to Singapore, to attend the first Ministerial Conference, and this success
had been repeated at the May 1998 Ministerial Conference in Geneva.  The Secretariat had organized
four very useful symposia on issues ranging from trade facilitation, the marginalization of LDCs, to
trade and environment.  It was now organizing seven regional symposia on trade and environment,
with the participation of developing countries.  Building on this experience, it was planned to holdmore.  Much of the success of these meetings could be attributed to the active participation of
Member countries themselves -- mainly those Members, regrettably few in number -- who had
generously assisted with financing.  Because of them, these initiatives had been, and would continue
to be, made possible.  Furthermore, a WTO website had been established on the Internet, which wasWT/GC/M/29
Page 24
widely regarded as one of the best websites among the international organizations.  All derestricted
documents were now instantly available to NGOs, academics and other interested members of the
public -- all in down-loadable format.  By the Secretariat's estimates, upwards of a million people
from 134 countries viewed the WTO website each year.  These accomplishments -- all in just the past
three years -- were a significant step forward.  However, one could do better and do more.  For this
reason, in accordance with the General Council's 1996 guidelines, the Secretariat was now planning,first, to undertake regular briefings for NGOs along the lines of the briefings already offered to the
media, but  tailored to the NGO community's particular interests and perspectives.  Second, the
External Relations Division would now compile a monthly list of NGO documents received by the
Secretariat which would be made available to all Members that were interested.  Interested
delegations would now be able to access all of this material easily and systematically.  Third, a
separate "NGO forum" would soon appear on the existing WTO website.  This section, easily
accessible to all visitors to the we bsite, would contain information of particular interest to NGOs, such
as the announcement of future symposia, publications, and contact people within the Secretariat.
Fourth, he would be meeting the following day with a number of representatives of NGOs.  This
would be the first in a series of informal meetings between himself and different NGO representatives
-- all with the goal of improving and enhancing the present mutual understanding.  All of these
initiatives would fully complement the efforts that had already been made, and he had everyconfidence that immediate progress could be made in implementing them.  He would keep Members
fully informed, in the coming months, of the Secretariat's continued efforts in fulfilling the mandate
given by the General Council.  He hoped that all Members would likewise intensify their efforts to
improve public understanding of the value of the multilateral trading system, so that all could share in
these efforts and experience.
The representative of the United States said that her delegation was very encouraged by the
serious efforts that the Secretariat was undertaking on this issue.  It seemed only right that since the
WTO was created to lift the lives of ordinary citizen s that all work together to ensure that their work
took into account their views and interests.  The Un ited States shared the view that this could be done
while preserving the essential government-to-government character of the WTO.  Indeed, such efforts
would be essential to build the necessary public support for the global economy.  She recalled that at
the General Council meeting in February, her delegation had drawn Members' attention to the fact that
the 1996 Decision on the circulation and derestriction of WTO documents was up for review this year.
The United States had proposed informal consultations to consider how the 1996 Decision might bemodified so as to improve circulation and derestri ction procedures.  The proposal by the United States
that Members had before them outlined the principal areas where it believed the existing Decision
could be improved.  Her delegation hoped that after reflecting on the points covered in this proposal,
Members could decide already at the present meeting to amend the 1996 Decision in the ways that
had been suggested.  The most significant change th at was proposed concerned the circulation and the
derestriction of panel reports.  All were aware of the serious problem now posed by the fact that
parties to a dispute received final panel reports months ahead of other Members.  The delay waslargely due, as all knew, to translation and it had the effect of depriving Members of important
information which could bear on their rights and obligations in the system.  In its original proposal,
the United States had proposed that panel reports should be issued as unrestricted documents and
made available to all Members as soon as the report was finalized in a single WTO official language.
However, in talking with different delegations furt her, this proposal had proved to be difficult for
many.  The proposal was therefore now changed to provide that no Member, including the parties to
the dispute, would receive a panel report until the operative portion of the report -- the findings and
conclusions section – was available in all three WTO languages.  The panel report then would be
given at the same time to all the parties of the dispute and all other Members in unrestricted form.  All
Members would then know the result at the same time, and none would be disadvantaged by thecurrent lack of transparency.  Moreover, this proposal would enable the parties to the dispute to
consult immediately with their domestic stakeholders.  Under the current system, reports were
frequently leaked but were technically still restricted documents.  This had sometimes resulted in
misinformation, misunderstanding and miscommunication about panel reports.  The proposed changeWT/GC/M/29
Page 25
was not one that should be discussed in the DSU review.  It in no way affected the operation of the
DSU or changed DSU rules.  To be very clear, the proposal related only to the final report of the panel
and not to the interim report.  She noted that nothin g in the DSU required panel reports to be issued as
restricted documents.  It was just a customary practice of the GATT, independent of the DSU, and
current practice was based on the 1996 derestriction decision.  The proper venue for the decision was
therefore the General Council, and not the DSB.  Panel reports would still be considered as"circulated" for the purposes of the DSU only when th e entire panel report had been translated into all
three WTO languages.  The United States was not asking any Member to agree to a report's adoption
until it had read the whole report in the official language that it chose to use.
With regard to other suggested changes, the United States believed that issuing proposed
agendas as unrestricted documents would facilitate Member governments' preparation for WTO
meetings by allowing them to use the proposed agendas in prior consultations with their privatesectors.  Working papers now being produced by Members in a variety of fora were similarly of great
interest to private sector operators and, in most cases, were not of a sensitivity that justified their
being issued as restricted documents.  Finally, with regard to minutes of meetings,  under the existing
rules they were first circulated in restricted form about a month after a meeting.  Five months later,
they were then derestricted.  She asked what purpose was served by keeping the documents restrictedfor five additional months, and why minutes should not be circulated as unrestricted documents when
they were first finalized.  A number of delegations had indicated in consultations that they were in
favour of continuing restrictions on minutes of negotiating sessions.  Her delegation did not believe
that all minutes of meetings related to negotiating sessions.  She hoped that other delegations would
reflect on the points she had made and give their support to the proposal by the United States.
The representative of the European Communitie s said the Community considered that the
WTO needed to take further decisive steps in order to enhance transparency of its operations.
Following the political mandate given by Ministers, this should be acted on as a matter of urgency.
Enhanced transparency would reinforce the WTO as  an institution and strengthen support for the
multilateral trading system.  Transparency should, however, been seen as part of a wider
communication strategy to convey the benefits of an open multilateral trading system, explaining the
functioning and the role of the WTO as well as the interaction between trade policy and broader
concerns in the global economy.  The Community further considered that organizations of civil
society were key stakeholders in the domestic process of trade policy formulation.  WTO Membershad a primary responsibility to develop at the domestic level procedures for consultations and
cooperation with organizations of civil society, a nd he noted the Director-General's observations on
that very point.  At the same time, the WTO as an organization should itself contribute to greater
openness through a comprehensive policy of access to information and greater and more systematic
use of opportunities for consultation and cooperation with organizations of civil society.
The Community considered that improvements in transparency in the WTO were required on
three broad fronts.  First, a broader policy for the immediate derestriction of most WTO documents,
on which the Community had presented specific proposals.  Second, the Community also believed
strongly in the need for improved transparency in the area of dispute settlement.  However, while it
shared a lot with the United States on this issue, the Community believed that this matter should more
properly be reviewed within the context of the re view of the DSU.  Third, the Community believed
there should be further work to promote greater and more systematic use of the existing avenues for
interaction with organizations of civil society.  It therefore proposed that the General Council fully
support the ongoing efforts being made by the Dire ctor-General and his colleagues, and that the
adequacy of the current means of interaction be reviewed in the WTO in order to enhance
consultation and cooperation with organizations of civil society.  The Community intended to presentfurther ideas on this matter in a future submission.  It was willing to work and to cooperate with the
United States and other delegations in pursuing this issue and seeking consensus on it.WT/GC/M/29
Page 26
The representative of Canada said that her delegation had been particularly pleased to hear of
the Director-General's plans for further outreach with civil society.  As Canada's Minister for
International Trade had made clear in his statement at the May Ministerial Conference, greater
transparency in WTO activities was central to building and reinforcing public support for the
multilateral trading system.  As part of the preparatory process for the third Ministerial Conference,
all governments had the responsibility to develop national positions in close consultation with theirnational stakeholders.  They therefore needed to have the necessary tools at their disposal to facilitate
the task of developing national positions.  Greater transparency, while preserving the contractual
intergovernmental nature of the WTO, was one means of doing so.  Public concern in many Member
countries could reflect a lack of understanding of the nature of the WTO.  As a way of rebuilding
confidence in the objectives of the preamble of the WTO Agreement, Members needed to demonstrate
that they as Members working within the context of the WTO had no secrets to hide.  As
governments, Members increasingly needed to engage in open and well-informed public debate at thenational level as a means of rebuilding such confidence.  Her delegation believed it was useful to
distinguish among three separate elements of transparency as a way to taking immediate and practical
steps towards the shared goal of greater public support for trade liberalization in general and the WTO
in particular.  The three elements were document derestriction, outreach to civil society, and
transparency issues related to the DSU.  Canada believed that Members should move quickly on bothdocument derestriction and outreach.  Certain issues related to the DSU were different and should be
considered in the context of the DSU review.
With respect to document derestriction, Canada had some specific, practical suggestions.
First, that proposed agendas be issued as unrestricted documents.  Second, given the concerns of somedelegations about the derestriction of minutes of meetings, that minutes be derestricted one month
after circulation, rather than after six months.  Canada was also open to the suggestions from the
United States and the European Communities regarding circulation of working documents by the
Secretariat and delegations as unrestricted documents.  It was also open to the suggestion by the
United States that the findings and conclusions of panel reports should be released as soon as theywere translated into all three official WTO languages and the body of the report was available in one
language.
With respect to Secretariat outreach to civil society, her would welcome further Secretariat
efforts.  One took for granted that outreach should be aimed at the full range of public interests, ratherthan only those groups which had expressed particular concerns.  Canada would support more regular
outreach, in the form of symposia and workshops, as a means to improve understanding regarding the
WTO and trade liberalization.  However, these cost money.  While some funds in this regard had been
able to be provided in the past, and there might we ll be a role for grant funding for special activities
by the Secretariat, her delegation would rather that the Secretariat concentrate its efforts on the
substance rather than be tasked with fund raising.  Regular budget funded outreach would ensure best
use of Secretariat resources and, more importantly, would preclude undue influence by donors interms of the specific activity or event funded.  Regular budget funding would provide the confidence
among all Members that the Secretariat's outreach programme reflected the views of the full spectrum
of Members.  Such an outreach programme should not, of course, be developed at the extent of
ongoing work, but should be funded either from within the current WTO budget surplus or through an
increase in the WTO's budget.  In the medium term, one would need to consider building the fundingof outreach into the regular WTO budget.  In closing, she stressed that it was the very success of the
GATT and the WTO over the past 50 years that had led to public awareness of the linkages between
trade policy and domestic interests.  As Members prepared for the third Ministerial Conference and
further negotiations, informed debate was crucial.  Enhanced transparency, through more liberal
document derestriction and outreach, were key elements in informed debate and were essential to thedevelopment of public policy.
The representative of Egypt said that his delegation looked upon transparency as one of the
most important cornerstones of the WTO, enabling Members to better participate in its work.  TheWT/GC/M/29
Page 27
principle of transparency was reflected in almost all WTO Agreements.  In this context, his delegation
welcomed the remarks by the Director-General.  The 1998 Ministerial Declaration had recognized the
importance of enhancing public understanding of the benefits of the multilateral trading system with a
view to building support for that system, and emphasized the consideration of improving the
transparency of the WTO Agreements and operations.  His delegation was ready to consider with an
open mind and flexibility any proposal aiming at enhancing transparency, taking into considerationthe following elements:  preservation of the rights and obligations of Members under WTO
Agreements;  achieving a balance of rights and obligations, as well as interests, of all Members
without adding new conditionalities, additional obligations or burdens, in particular as regards the
developing countries;  any decision in this connection should be reached by consensus.  His
delegation had noted the proposals by the United States and the European Community and, as a
preliminary reaction, sympathized with most of the proposals on the table, in particular the issues
relating to working documents and minutes of meetings.  Regarding reports of panels, Egypt waswilling to consider this issue in a constructive and positive manner, in the framework of the
consultations taking place within the review of the DSU.
The representative of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, expressed
appreciation for the statement by the Director-General, and indicated their support for efforts to
improve transparency and to enhance public understanding of the WTO.  By transparency, they
understood access to information without violating confidentiality obligations and the contractual
integrity of the WTO.  The issue of transparency was therefore not simply an issue of derestriction of
documents.  The timing of derestriction of the documents was perhaps only symptomatic of the more
fundamental issues before all.  Regarding derestriction, although the ASEAN Members recognizedthat the current rules provided for a review and modification if necessary of such rules, they believed
that the present procedures should be maintained, since they still served their purpose.  However, their
position was flexible with regard to minutes and agendas of meetings.  If Members deemed that there
were important documents that the public should be aware of, then a decision to derestrict the
documents on case-by-case basis would have to be taken without having to change the rules.Regarding the proposal by the United States on panel reports, he asked what was really meant by
panel reports being made publicly available and who were the targeted recipients, and, second,
whether it would it be conceivable to be in a situation where the public, at least in the territories of the
parties to the dispute, would have access to panel reports even before other WTO Members.  One
problem that had to be addressed in this context was the question of violation of confidentialityobligations, in other words, how to balance the effo rts to improve transparency and to preserve and
respect the confidentiality obligations agreed upon by parties to the dispute.  The rules on the
derestriction of panel reports were quite clear, and footnote 10 to document WT/L/160/Rev.1 also
made it clear as to the forum in which this matter could be taken up.
The ASEAN Members also wished to reiterate their view that the WTO was a contractual
institution, and that it was the responsibility of individual governments to involve various sectors intheir society before entering into agreements in the WTO.  It was also the responsibility of
governments to increase public understanding and awareness of the various agreements that they had
entered into.  The ASEAN Members had serious doubts about the advisability of establishing rules
that would allow the participation of non-Members in the WTO, which was an organization of
governments.  While governments could, and should, extend to civil society the respect it deserved,Members were not solely accountable to special interest groups, no matter how legitimate their
concerns.  To promote transparency, it would be sufficient for each Member to take into account the
views and positions of its civil society and, if it so decided,  to promote and defend such positions in
the WTO on its own responsibility as a Member.  The ASEAN Members also attached importance to
the improvement of transparency in the consultations and negotiations conducted within the WTOitself, and noted that a number of WTO Members had complained that they were being excluded from
some important processes of consultations that led to substantive decisions.  In order to enhance
transparency in WTO operations, all consultations within the WTO process should be open-ended and
Members should be made aware of such consultations in advance.WT/GC/M/29
Page 28
The representative of Norway said that the notion of transparency as used in the WTO seemed
to have in it certain inherent conflicts.  Those working in and with the organization seemed to think
that the organization was run basically in a transparent way.  However, quite a number of those who
observed the WTO from the outside did not necessarily share this view.  This conflict should be taken
seriously by the organization.  Norway saw four aspects in connection with the transparency issue.
These were: information and communication as one un it, the derestriction of documents, all questions
related to panel reports, and the notion of always open-ended participation in the process.  His
delegation was willing to participate in any work on these issues.    Either through normal, what you
might call WTO consultations or through special procedures that might be establish for this very
purpose.  The present politically sensitive situation needed to be improved if the WTO was to get into
a good working relation with the outside world, and in particular the media on which it depended in
its future work.  To bring about such an improvement, a combined effort by the Organization and theMember States was necessary, both in the WTO and in the respective countries.  The ideas and the
proposals put forward both by the United States and the European Communities were very valid
contributions in this direction.
The representative of Turkey expressed support for improving transparency within the WTO.
However, in order to do this, one had to agree on the understanding of what was meant by
transparency.  In the 1998 Ministerial Declaration, two different concepts had been referred to.  The
first was the importance of explaining to public opinion the benefits of the multilateral trading system,
and in this regard Turkey welcomed the efforts undertaken by the Director-General, in particular as
regards the information policy vis-à-vis  NGOs.  It was also important for governments to understand
their responsibility in explaining to their public what the WTO meant and what its goals were.  The
Ministerial Declaration had also referred to the transparency of WTO operations.  In this area, the
proposals by the United States and the European Communities constituted good bases for further
reflection and discussion.  His delegation had no problem in giving its support to the suggestions
relating to derestriction of documents circulated by Members and minutes of meetings.  However, itwished to look at the question of panel repo rts more closely during the review of the DSU.
Nevertheless, if a consensus emerged with regard to the derestriction of the conclusions of the panels,
his delegation would join therein.
The representative of Peru shared the concern of achieving greater transparency within the
WTO.  However, it was essential to distinguish three aspects.  First, the work of the WTO should be
made better known to ensure that the public better understood the benefits of the multilateral trading
system.  The Secretariat had carried out a tremendous effort in this area, and his delegation urged it to
continue in its endeavours.  However, it was also for Members themselves to ensure that their public
opinion was aware of how their government partic ipated in the WTO and how their interests were
defended in the system.  Each Member was therefore responsible for the information, consultation and
coordination with its private sector which led to the adoption of national positions.  In the course ofthis process, the intergovernmental nature of the WTO should be respected.  Second, with regard to
the proposals made concerning the circulation and derestriction of documents, his delegation wished
to note that the circulation of temporarily restricted documents within the WTO did not mean absence
of transparency.  His delegation was ready to consider changes to the existing rules in order to give a
greater openness to WTO work while respecting the interests of Members.  However, any possibleamendments should not have a direct or indirect impact on the principle of equality of all Members.
In this context, his delegation welcomed the proposal by the United States and could go along with
some of the elements therein.  However, a clarification had to be made as to how the procedure would
be adopted in lifting the restrictive character of a document, depending on the type of document
involved.  Any amendment to procedures for panel reports should be considered within the revision ofthe DSU.  In the case of the agendas of meeting's, his delegation did not have any difficulty in
accepting the proposals.  Regarding working documents that were national submissions for a
negotiation or discussion under way, these could be circulated unrestricted unless a Member did not
request restricted circulation.  Regarding minutes of meetings, his delegation believed they could beWT/GC/M/29
Page 29
circulated as unrestricted documents as soon as the final official version translated into the three
official languages was available.  Finally, Peru believed it essential to stress the importance of the
greatest possible transparency in the course of the negotiations and decision-making within the WTO,
since this was an Organization in which all Members had the same rights and obligations.  In this
regard, Peru reiterated the importance of the equality of participation of all Members.
The representative of the United States said it appeared that the US proposal regarding panel
reports was still unclear to some Members.  She wished to clarify that in talking about panel reports,
the United States was talking about their circulati on.  The United States was not proposing that panel
reports should be derestricted earlier than the cu rrent practice, but rather that the final reports be
issued as unrestricted documents.  All it was proposing was a change in the circulation procedures,
and that Members agree to an accelerated approach to circulation.  It was not proposing that
something that was presently confidential or restricted should henceforth be unrestricted.   The UnitedStates wished to ensure that all parties in the WTO received the report at the same time, including the
parties to the dispute.  They would receive the report once the findings and conclusions section was
available in all three WTO languages, and then the Panel report would be circulated at the same time
to all parties.
The representative of New Zealand said there was no question about the need to enhance
public understanding of the WTO and its work.  There was clearly a role for the Secretariat to play
and, bearing in mind the Director-General's opening remarks, his delegation believed the latter and his
team were already doing a good job in enlarging the outreach of the WTO as an institution.  At the
same time, all accepted that national governments had a crucial role to play in establishing goodpublic understanding of the objectives they pursue in the WTO, and they could continue usefully to
share their experiences in this respect.  But th e efforts of individual Members in explaining the
benefits of the WTO and its work at home could not be divorced from what they did within this
Organization.  There was definitely scope for enhancing transparency in the work of the WTO
without impeding or prejudicing its effectiveness as first and foremost an inter-governmentalnegotiating body.  Members did not need to be opaque when they did not need to be, and where being
transparent would not detract in any way from their effective discharge of the WTO's mandate.
Against this background, New Zealand fully agreed that review of the 1996 Decision on circulation
and derestriction of documents was timely and necessary.  It was also a way for Members to take
prompt action to demonstrate to the world outside that the WTO was responsive to legitimateconcerns.
His delegation fully supported the practical sugges tions put forward by the United States and
the European Communities.  First, it supported removal of the six-month delay of the derestriction of
agendas and minutes.  Second, it believed there would be great utility in reversing the current rule
whereby delegations were required to indicate th at any document submitted by them for circulation
should be unrestricted.  The strong presumption should be that all documents submitted by Members
were unrestricted unless a Member intentionally expressed at the time that they be restricted.  Third, it
looked favourably at the Community's suggestion that all working documents be issued unrestricted
documents other than in exceptional cases.  The ex ceptions approach provided the mechanism needed
to take into account the concerns of some delegations about the possibility of revealing sensitive
negotiating positions.  New Zealand would take a similar approach on Secretariat background notes.Some had expressed concern that these moves might undermine the contractual nature of the WTO
and the relationship between Members.  With the exception of perhaps negotiating positions, for
which one would need to make continuing provisions, New Zealand did not see how the nature of the
WTO would in any way be compromised by these well-defined moves.  After all, many of the
documents concerned were derestricted after six months in any case.  Fourth, and most importantly,was are the possibility of circulating final dispute settlement panel reports widely as early as possible,
and New Zealand strongly supported the WTO actively considering this move.  Such a practice would
enhance the panel process and be an important contribution to fulfilment of the 1988 Ministerial
Declaration.  The ideas advanced by the United States on panel reports presented viable and practicalWT/GC/M/29
Page 30
means of delivering quick results without, as some  had suggested, needing to be folded into the
review of the DSU.  He did not believe that wh at was proposed would affect other aspects of the
DSU's operation or encroach in any way on the rules or on the rights of Members.  As the United
States stressed earlier, the proposed action was very much within the competence of the General
Council in the context of its review of the 1996 Decision on circulation and derestriction of
documents.  Early circulation of panel reports with the conclusions in all three WTO languages was asensible way of ensuring that WTO languages were respected, and it would help ensure all Members
were conversant with the outcomes of panels much sooner.  Members would then be placed in a far
better position than at present.  His delegation wished to see a decision taken in all these areas as soon
as possible so that new arrangements could be put in place with a minimum of delay.
The representative of Brazil said that Brazil was perfectly aware of the 1998 Ministerial
Declaration and of the importance that Ministers at tached to enhancing public understanding of the
benefits of the multilateral trading system.  Brazil recognized too that the General Council had a
mandate before it.  However, as a first step in fulfilling this mandate, one needed to have a common
understanding of what was meant by improved transparency.  One should also be ready to anticipate
the consequences of any actions or decisions that might be taken.  The issue of derestriction of
documents, for example, could have important implications for the work of the WTO.  The EuropeanCommunities' paper rightly recognized that th e WTO was a negotiating forum of an inter-
governmental nature.  Members negotiated tariffs and market access and, more importantly, what was
included and not included in the multilateral trade agenda.  This second task was extremely complex
and delicate.  Agenda setting was a very critical issue and what went into the agenda or what didn't
was a critical event.  If, by means of an automatic and immediate derestriction of certain documents,Members made available to the general public the records of the WTO's day-to-day negotiations, they
would find themselves in a new WTO with results that might not lead to the aim of improved
transparency.  For example, while Brazil could accept that minutes of meeting be made immediately
available to the general public, it believed that as a result it would be forced to speak for the record at
every meeting on every subject of interest to Brazil.  His delegation would be addressing not onlythose in the present audience, but also a completely different kind of audience.  The nature of its
statements would of course also change because it would not only be negotiating but also addressing
Brazilian public opinion.  Members would not want an unexpected negative consequence resulting
from a valid search for increased transparency.  Brazil did not want the WTO to become a rigid and
static Organization in which form replaced substance.  It did not believe that the negotiatingobjectives of this Organization as enshrined in the WTO Agreement would benefit from a process that
increased the rigidity of the positions Members had to take.  He was aware that many other
delegations shared these concerns.  He wished to stress that Brazil would approach this issue with a
commitment to comply with what was mandated by Ministers in its consideration of the proposals that
had been made in this regard.  However, it would also stress consideration of the results of a process
in which transparency, instead of helping the work of the Organization, might make it more rigid and
more complicated.
The representative of Australia thanked the Director-General for his report and for the
important efforts that the Secretariat was making to improve public understanding of the WTO.  His
delegation was concerned that the concept of transparency seemed to mean different things to
different Members.  There were also big differences over what was meant by "civil society".  It wasimportant to ensure that Members' understanding of it was in the widest possible sense and not just
limited to some particularly active environmental or developmental NGOs.  Australia, for example,
would regard its National Farmers Federation or Minerals Council as being important groups
interested in the internal workings of the WTO.  He wished to highlight, as others, that it was
ultimately the responsibility of national governments to develop national positions to take into theWTO.  Others had also stressed that the WTO was an intergovernmental organization and that,
whatever measures were taken on this particular subject, one needed to be careful that the
fundamental nature of the Organization was not weakened or undermined.  His delegation supported
wholeheartedly the general thrust of the United States and the European Community proposals withWT/GC/M/29
Page 31
regard to document circulation and derestriction, although it had noted the comments just made by
Brazil.  Beyond the issue of how one managed the circulation and derestriction of documents, his
delegation urged caution about the way one approached other proposals.  The European Community
had raised some other issues in its communication, and while his delegation welcome proposals on the
WTO's future activities as one means of building support for the Organization, it noted Canada's
comments on this point with respect to resources.  However, in terms of changes to the practices and
operations of the Organization, it would be necessary to think hard and long about some of the other
issues or proposals including those in the Community's communication.   In concluding, he noted that
paragraph 4 of the 1998 Ministerial Declaration talked about explaining to Members' publics the
benefits of the multilateral system, and believed that was an important.  Australia had embarked on an
exercise of active public diplomacy within Australia to explain the benefits of the multilateral trading
system, and its activities in this regard had been commented on favourably at the recent trade policy
review of Australia.  For Australia, this domestic activity of explaining the benefits of the multilateralsystem was a major political priority, and urged others to look at what it was doing and to similarly
take up the issue with their domestic publics.
The representative of Mexico said that one had never denied that pursuant to paragraph 7 of
procedures for the circulation and derestriction of documents , the procedures had to be reviewed in
the light of experience and modified if necessary.  While Mexico was willing to begin this exercise as
soon as possible, this was not a simple matter where hasty decisions could be taken lightly.  Mexico
had a number of concerns in this respect, one of which was that in circulating unrestricted the agendas
for upcoming meetings the WTO would not be addressing itself to the man in the street, but rather to
the lobbyists, pressure groups and others that had an interest in trying to influence its work.  Asregards the proposals concerning minutes of meetings, Mexico believed, like Brazil, that instead of
discussing substance in WTO meetings, delegations would be concerned about how the record would
be read in their countries and would want to see fully reflected in the record everything that had been
stated.  They would perhaps also wish to have fe wer informal meetings, so that everything could be
on the record for public opinion.  If that were indeed the wish of delegations, one could work towardsit.  In any case, when the procedures were reviewed in the context of paragraph 7 thereof, Mexico
would refer to universal transparency, i.e., that documents should not be derestricted until they had
been made available in all the three official WTO languages.  When this matter was addressed
subsequently, he would ask the Secretariat to inform delegations in what language - English, French
or Spanish - most of the documents were issued originally, and what percentage were issued initiallyin English, French and Spanish.
Turning to panel reports, he said that the propo sal by the United States appeared to refer to
panel reports at the time they were issued to the parties to the dispute and not when they were
circulated to all Members, thereby implying that one was referring to interim reports since only final
reports were circulated to all Members.  This appeared to be a drafting problem more than one of
emphasis, and the proposal would in any case have to be looked at within the broader review of theDSU.  In looking into these issues Members would have to strengthen the procedures so that they
were complied with.  Turning to the first sentence of paragraph 4 of the 1998 Ministerial Declaration,
he said that the WTO was losing the public opinion battle and had to do something about it.  The
Secretariat could perhaps be asked to provide a detailed report on what had been done, what was
being done and what it was seeking to do in the future to increase the communication with the public.The report on what had been done should be immedi ately derestricted so that the public could be
aware of it.  On the basis of this report, Member s would have to design a public information policy
directed towards civil society at large, and not lobbyists or NGOs.  He believed that broadcast media
such as the television should be taken advantage of, with specialized WTO staff being able to explain
to the man in the street the costs of protectionism and the benefits of the multilateral trading system.There was a need for an ongoing proactive campaign of communication with the public.  That being
said, his delegation believed, like Canada, that if activities in this area were to be increased, one
would have to look into the costs, and whether the costs corresponded with the Organization'sWT/GC/M/29
Page 32
priorities.  The WTO had to avoid having to de pend economically on voluntary contributions to fund
certain activities, which should be funded from the overall budget.
The representative of Uruguay said that the one point all seemed to agree on was the need for
greater transparency in the WTO.  The problem arose when one began to define the scope and content
of this concept.  For some transparency meant en hancing the WTO's image;  for others it meant giving
greater public access to its activities;  for yet others it meant greater publicity or further marketing
work which would enhance the Organization's credibi lity;  some also confused transparency with the
word dissemination.  Until Members agreed on what they were talking about, there would be a big
gap to fill.  Some were also giving dramatic overtones to this issue by saying that the lack of
transparency was undermining the WTO's credibility, and saying that the WTO was a secretive
organization that was marginalizing civil society.  The Director-General's statement had brought
clarity to the subject and had provided certain indications as to the efforts being made in variousdirections.  With regard to information policy, it was clear that it was the responsibility of the
Secretariat as well of governments themselves to strengthen public opinion regarding the activities of
this Organization.  While the Director-General had given an illustration of what the Secretariat was
doing in the area of dissemination, he believed these functions had little to do with what one had been
talking about regarding transparency.  On the derestriction of documents, his delegation had noobjection to entering into an exercise along the lines proposed by the United States and the European
Communities, although the caution mentioned by some previous speakers would need to kept in mind.
In the area of dispute settlement, there was some mix-up between the need to derestrict certain
documents and other concepts which went much further and which would imply a change in WTO
rules, where one needed to be extremely cautious.  He wished to stress here the inter-governmental
nature of the WTO.  Finally, with regard to transparency in the negotiation process, all knew that
there was both a formal process as well as an informal process in the WTO, and one would have to
work to open these areas to the majority or even all of the WTO Members in order to improve
transparency in this regard.
The representative of Jamaica said his delegation was very strongly in favour of the direction
of the proposal by the United States.  However, Brazil had made a valid point regarding agendas of
meetings which should be kept in mind.  As regards the proposal concerning working documents
submitted by Members, he would propose that the document be circulated unrestricted unless there
was a consensus to restrict rather than have the delegation making the submission explicitly requestthat the document be restricted.  
Turning to the paper by the European Communitie s, he believed its main thrust concerned
essentially public relations, or a communications strategy.  This point had to be addressed with
caution and one should not go overboard in believing that by a lot of public relations one might
overcome the sensitivities as to the consequences of certain agreements as they affect certain
Members.  While his delegation was strongly in favour of more explanation of what the WTO wasabout, it was not in favour of some proposals that had been received from some NGOs that would
wish to participate almost on equal footing with governments.  The Secretariat should exercise caution
along the lines and for the reasons given by Canada and Mexico.  On the Director-General's
statement, his delegation could agree with mostly everything that had been stated, in particular as
regards openness and full participation of the full Me mbership in the work of the WTO.  and I think
the Director-General pointed in that direction.  The steps taken by both the Director-General and the
Chairman had taken all to new levels of transparency and participation of all Members, and his
delegation would encourage movement in that direction.  In considering the notion of transparency
both as a principle and as a practice, one should concentrate not only on the derestriction of
documents or interaction with civil society, but look also at the consultation process and thenegotiating process to make that open, and to comply  with basic, credible rules of procedure and
practices.WT/GC/M/29
Page 33
The representative of Chile said that the results of debates conducted in the WTO, which in
the final analysis did have an impact on society in general, should be communicated to civil society in
a way that was actually perceived by civil society in its proper dimension, thus avoiding or
minimizing any interpretations by lobbyists regarding the effects of the results or benefits of WTO's
work.  Such communication with civil society involved not only the dissemination of the results of
WTO's work, but also the responsibilities that governments themselves had in ensuring that thebenefits of the liberalization process were perceived by their publics.  New initiatives were required to
achieve greater results within the resources available to the Organization.  Chile would be willing to
consider in this respect the proposal announced by the European Communities.  In this area, the
cooperation of Members was indispensable.  The WTO should also strengthen its efforts towards
transparency and the dissemination of relevant information.  Her delegation welcomed the initiatives
from the United States and the European Community aimed at the speedier circulation of certain kinds
of documents to the public.  Nevertheless, Chile believed that transparency had its limits, and in theWTO's case this was due to the contractual nature of the Organization and the special nature of its
Members which were customs territories or sovereign States. In this respect, transparency in the
Dispute Settlement Understanding should be consider ed in the framework of the review of that text.
At the same time, when transparency concerns d ecision-making in the various WTO bodies, it should
solely and exclusively concern its Members.  She believed that the Chairman should continue hisconsultations and deal with the various elements making up transparency so as to enable Members to
take the necessary decisions, perhaps beginning with a review of the procedures for derestriction of
documents where there were already two proposals.
The representative of Cuba said that the transparency issue should be analyzed carefully.  All
were in favour of transparency, but clearly not all had the same things in mind when referring to the
term.  One should first therefore define what exactly transparency was, and then see how such a
concept could have an impact on the rules and procedures of the WTO.  One had to keep in mind that
the WTO was an inter-governmental Organization in which Members engaged in contractual
negotiations.  Cuba would not agree without prior serious study to establish new procedures becauseof its concern that following a decision regarding derestriction of reports and documents, Members
might next move ahead with other more dangerous ideas such as allowing access as observers to
others interested in the process such as multinationals, large legal firms, and lobby groups.  Having
heard Brazil's statement, he believed that a mishandling of the transparency issue could end up having
the opposite results.  One of the WTO's achievements, as compared to GATT, was that developingcountries were more actively participating in the dispute settlement procedures, which should be
maintained and encouraged.  However, there were proposals and ideas which in practice would make
procedures more expensive and would benefit developed countries that had greater resources and
means to exert their influence in such circumstances .  When one referred to transparency and wished
to achieve it by means of derestricting documents, the result was, in his view, confusion between the
concept of transparency and information.  Similarl y, the improvement of internal administrative work
in the Secretariat such as translation or document distribution on a timely basis had another type ofimpact.  Cuba agreed with those delegations that believed that if Members were seeking to keep their
public opinion informed, then each government could do its own work in improving information on
what was happening at the WTO.  While there was no doubt that steps could be taken to improve
information and contacts with civil society, this was something that needed to be worked on very
carefully, without hasty decisions.  Cuba believed that the presence of elements other thangovernments in panel proceedings could have a harmful effect on the dispute settlement procedures,
and these aspects should be considered in the context of the consultations held in the Dispute
Settlement Body.  His delegation was willing to work openly in order to achieve these improvements
while safeguarding procedures
The representative of Japan said he hoped that further intensive informal consultations would
be held on this urgent issue so that the next time it was considered at a formal General Council
meeting Members would be able to reach some agreement.  While his delegation attached great
importance to the improvement of transparency as stated in paragraph 4 of the 1998 MinisterialWT/GC/M/29
Page 34
Declaration, it was very important to keep in mind that the WTO was a forum for negotiation among
Member governments.  There were clearly different interpretations of transparency.  While some
referred to more transparency and full participa tion of Members in the decision-making process, the
transparency that his delegation was referring to under the present item was something different,
namely, how to improve the public's understanding of the WTO in Member.  At the same time, the
basic function of the WTO should not be damaged in the interests of too much transparency and,therefore, in examining what needed to be improved one had to proceed on a case-by-case basis.    On
the derestriction of panel reports, his delegation fully supported in substance the proposal by the
United States, although it believed that the latter part of paragraph 4 of the US proposal was not
necessary.  In the light of the 1996 Decision on derestriction that this matter should be subject to
review as part of the review of the DSU, his delegation believed this matter could be looked at as part
of the ongoing review of the DSU.  However, on substance, his delegation had no objections.
Regarding the more general derestriction of documents, his delegation could go along with
the proposals by the United States and the European Community.  At the same time, in defining which
documents were to be derestricted, attention had to be given to the sensitivity of such documents
particularly when they dealt with the dispute settlement process or ongoing negotiations.  In such
cases, the scope of such exceptions from derestriction or the criteria and timing of derestriction had tobe carefully examined.  Regarding the question of dialogue with civil society, he said that in using the
term civil society one should not be thinking only of environmentalists, NGOs and trade unions;
while these might be part of civil society, there were also other interested groups without whom one
could never make progress in negotiations in the fields of interest to them.  Furthermore, while it was
very useful to strengthen dialogue with NGOs a nd other interested groups, one had also to keep in
mind the objectives and functions of the WTO.  With the limited amount of financial resources
available, some of the important WTO activities shou ld not be sacrificed in order to maintain this
dialogue.  Canada had stated that instead of depe nding on voluntary contributions for the organization
of this dialogue, such activity might be funded from the regular budget.  However, while it might be
possible to do so if the budget were increasing in real terms, one had to be careful about the kind ofresources devoted to this objective when the budget was limited.
The representative of Pakistan reiterated that Pakistan attached utmost importance to the
notion of transparency in the WTO.  However, it believed in following a cautious approach.  The
WTO dealt with relations among Member governments and not the relationship between Membergovernments and so-called civil society.  To provide information to the public was the task of
individual governments and not of the WTO.  That being said, his delegation agreed to look into the
proposals regarding derestriction of documents on a ca se-by-case basis, and to some of the proposals
advanced by the United States and the European Communities.  However, it did have reservations
regarding some other proposals which it believed needed to be considered in greater depth.
The representative of Uganda said he wished  to commend both the Director-General and the
Chairman for the efforts they had been making to ensure that all Members were being consulted and
were participating in the decision-making process and in the discussions on proposals for action.  His
delegation attached particular importance to this aspect of transparency, which tended to be lost sight
in the discussion.  As Canada had stated, as one approached the third Ministerial Conference, all
governments had to consult with the stakeholders, which included civil society and the businesscommunity.  This was the responsibility of governments, and they should not run away from it.  As
regards derestriction, his delegation welcomed the proposals by the United States and the European
Communities.  They were constructive, and his delegation could go along with a number of them.
However, his delegation agreed with the caution sounded by Brazil that if the issue of derestriction,
particularly of minutes, were not carefully managed, one could end up with Members addressing thegallery in meetings.   This note of caution should be taken seriously, considering what had happened
in other organizations.  His delegation agreed that the remit given by Ministers in May was to
improve the public perception of the Organization.  In this case, one was dealing with the question of
a communications strategy.  The Director-General had already outlined what he had done, andWT/GC/M/29
Page 35
governments needed to assist him in reaching out to the general public.  However, the information
function was very costly, so that as one addressed it one needed also to address the budgetary aspects.
that one should be looking at.  Uganda agreed on the need to interact with civil society, and believed
that the symposia held thus far had been useful and should be continued, and that the participation of
developing countries represented thereat encouraged.
The representative of Mauritius said he believed that the proposal by the United States
constituted a useful input for discussions on this issue, and believed that an exercise be undertaken to
enhance transparency beyond the information already available to all stakeholders.  His delegation
had also noted the very positive statement by the Director-General, and appreciation for the manner in
which the Director-General and the Secretariat had promoted the WTO's outreach.  There were
tremendous hopes in the outside world about the be nefits to be derived from the WTO, whether
among peoples from the developed or developing countries, from LDCs or small countries.  However,at a time when communication was so fast in the average citizen's home a little information might not
be ideal information, although too much might not be optimal either.  He urged a balanced approach,
arrived at by consensus, that could take care of the concerns, interests and sensibilities of all
stakeholders.  His delegation would work in any mode initiated by the Chairman towards achieving
consensus on this issue.
The representative of Korea said that his delegation shared the Community's observation that
very few WTO documents could be considered to contain genuinely confidential information that
would justify a restriction.  It also noted that the Community, in offering detailed suggestions for
document derestriction, did not fail to consider the need  for special treatment of certain categories ofdocuments for which due care would be necessary.  His delegation believed that the Community's
proposal, together with that by the United States, would provide a valuable basis for discussions with
a view to achieving greater openness and transparency in WTO activities.  His delegation also looked
forward to seeing the specific proposals that  the Community planned to present regarding
consultations and cooperation with NGOs.  Korea agreed that extended interaction with NGOs hadcertain merits in terms of public relations.  However, as some previous speakers had noted, the
financial implications of extended interaction with  NGOs needed to be taken into consideration.  One
also needed to keep in mind the need to ensure the efficiency of the WTO as an inter-governmental
body.  In this regard, it was reassuring that the Community had emphasized that Members had a
primary responsibility to develop, at the domestic level, procedures for consultation and cooperationwith organization of civil society.
The representative of Hong Kong, China, addressing the points referred to by the Director-
General, said that information policy and outreach was very important for his delegation, and it was
pleased that the Secretariat was doing more in this area.  However, there was a limit to how much the
Secretariat could be expected to do, for two reasons.  The first was, of course, budgetary.  Given the
emphasis that Members would continue to put on maintaining a lean Organization, it would beunrealistic to expect that the Secretariat would be able to do everything on their behalf.  Second, one
had to keep in mind the nature of the WTO as a network of inter-governmental rights and obligations,
which meant that the Organization was never conceived of as a public relations Organization, and
might not be particularly well-equipped in that connection.  Therefore, while one would welcome the
Secretariat doing as much as it could, the main burd en would certainly fall on Members in this regard.
With regard to derestriction of documents, his delegation wholeheartedly supported the ideas of the
United States, the Community and Canada in principle.  As regards the US proposal relating to
minutes of meetings where there was a reference to circulating, as unrestricted documents, final
Member-approved versions of minutes, he asked if Members did in fact approve minutes because he
was not aware that in this Organization this was s o.  This query was not, however, intended in any
way to detract from the proposal, which his delegation supported.  It was not even suggesting that the
proposal needed to be changed as long as there was some clarification in this respect.WT/GC/M/29
Page 36
On dispute settlement procedures, he noted that there was an overlap both with derestriction
of documents and also with the question of general participation and openness which the
Director-General had already talked about.  His delegation did not have a problem with moving early
on some elements under dispute settlement such as derestriction of panel reports where these changes
did not upset the balance of rights and obligations, and did not have a problem with the US proposal
in this regard.  However, where any change in the balance of rights and obligations might be involved,he agreed that any proposals should be considered in the context of the DSU review, and wished to
underline, like others, the need not to undermine the inter-governmental nature of the WTO.  Finally,
on the question of participation, inclusiveness and openness, he hoped that greater transparency to the
general public would not ultimately be the cause of more closed-door plurilateral meetings because
these would be an unexpected negative consequence, and this was something all should be aware of as
a possible danger.  In treating the subject of transparency generally, one should therefore not neglect
an effort to think constructively about making some of the WTO's working procedures moreinclusive.  He agreed with the ASEAN Members in this regard, and would give further thought to this
area and welcome ideas from other delegations.
The representative of India said that his delegation shared most of the points made by the
ASEAN Members, Brazil, Mexico, Pakistan, Uganda and Hong Kong, China.  The transparency issue
had two broad themes.  One broad theme related to the transparency of the WTO decision-making
process and the consultation process vis-à-vis the WTO Membership.  While this was an important
aspect, he would not refer to it at the present mee ting since the proposals by the United States and the
Community before the General Council dealt with the second aspect which he would describe as
transparency of the WTO vis-à-vis the outside world.  In this regard, there were three areas that hadbeen touched upon by delegations, namely, (a) improvement of the transparency of the dispute
settlement process in the WTO;  (b) prompt derestriction of documents;  and (c) interaction with civil
society.
With regard to improvement in the transparency of the dispute settlement system, he noted the
suggestion of many delegations to address it as part of the DSU review.  The US proposal addressed
one element, namely the derestriction of panel reports.  The fundamental point being implied through
this proposal, that it should be possible for all Members to get their reports in a derestricted form at
the same point in time, perhaps had merit.  However, his concern about this proposal was that it
picked out one element of improving the transparency in the dispute settlement system, at thisparticular stage, without taking into account that Members were going to undertake a major review of
the DSU itself in the months to come.  He believ ed that there were a lot of operational conveniences
and benefits in taking all decisions relating to the functioning of the DSU as part of the overall review.
There were two related elements that one might be able to think of as part of the overall DSU review.
First, in the case of Appellate Body  reports too there was a slight difference between the time the
Appellate Body report was made available to the parties and the time it was made available to other
Members.  One was proposing to take a decision with regard to panel reports without thinking abouthow to handle the Appellate Body reports.  Second,  some delegations were likely to suggest during
the DSU review that panel reports should basically consist of the findings of the panel to which the
submissions of the parties to the dispute could be annexed.  The US proposal therefore had some
linkages with other elements that one would be looking into as part of the DSU review.  His
delegation believed therefore that all the elements should be taken together as part of the DSU review.It was not his intention to delay a decision on the derestriction proposals.  After all, all were
committed to completing the DSU review within the next six months.
As for the other elements in the proposals regarding derestriction of documents, his
delegation had some concerns about certain aspects, such as unrestricted circulation of workingdocuments.  Working documents were often submitted in order to elicit comments from other
Members, and were often revised before becoming final documents.  His delegation would prefer that
working documents be annexed to the minutes of the meetings to be put in proper context.  While his
delegation was not yet able to go along with the proposal to derestrict working documents, otherWT/GC/M/29
Page 37
Members were free to derestrict their own documents.  In fact, those delegations that wished their
working documents to be derestricted straight away could give standing instructions to the Secretariat
that all their working documents could be straight away derestricted.  His delegation found it difficult,
however, to go along with the proposal that there should be a consensus if a working document is not
to be treated as restricted document.  Regarding minutes of meetings,  his delegation had a concern
regarding the format of such minutes.  It was apparent that different parts of the Secretariat had beenusing different formats to record minutes of meetings.  Before proceeding further on this issue, one
would need to ensure that there was sufficient transparency in the recording of minutes across the
board in the Secretariat.
With regard to interaction with civil society, the Director-General had promised a detailed
report, which his delegation looked to receiving.  India believed that it was for national governments
to deal with this interaction, since NGOs could not represent governments.  The WTO could not be apublic relations agency, since vital national interests were being debated and decided upon within this
Organization.  He would endorse the view expressed earlier that the terms "stakeholders" or "civil
society" meant different things to different Members.   With regard to the United States' comment that
there was no proposal to derestrict any negotiating history, one could not escape from the fact that the
WTO was a permanent forum for negotiations and that all documents reflected the nuances involvedin negotiations.  A balance was therefore needed between the flow of information and the protection
of the integrity of the negotiating process.  If one was to err, he believed one should do so on the side
of the Member delegations, who represented the governments in the WTO.
The representative of Switzerland commended the Director-General and the Secretariat for
their efforts to further the relationship with the civil society as well as to further public understanding
of the WTO's work.  A lot remained to be done in the relationship with civil society to gain or even
maintain support for the multilateral trading system and, too often, the work of the WTO was not well
understood at all.  Regarding the proposal by the United States, his delegation could agree with most
of the aspects contained therein.  However, the procedures for working documents and minutes ofmeetings needed more refinement since they we re relevant for the smooth functioning of this
Organization.
The representative of Panama said that Panama was open to considering all the proposals that
had been submitted, and to participating in the preparation of a consensus-based decision.  There
appeared to be a concern among delegations that one had not yet come up with a precise definition of
what one considered transparency to be.  Panama suggested that one try to put a little more structure
and stricter methodology into the discussion and ask the Secretariat whether it could come up with a
brief list of the most important aspects of the issue of transparency.  This would be sort of check-list,
and have subheadings under the four basic headings already mentioned by the Director-General.  This
would not in any way pre-empt how Members wished to continue to consider the issue.  One could
make progress step by step on each section, and not necessarily on all the issues at the same time.  Asregards the expeditious derestriction of certain documents, Panama believed it important that this
issue be duly considered.  Members perhaps needed a certain period, even though that might be
relatively short,  to enable them to examine the documents before they were actually made public.
That would avoid complications in some of the public relations aspects of the WTO's work that the
Director-General had referred to.  If any mistakes were made, for example, within the texts of thedocuments, it could be awkward and embarrassing if those documents were made public without the
mistakes being corrected.  Panama wished to underline what had been stated by Brazil and Hong
Kong, China.  In discussing this issue, consideration should be given to the real possibility that
Members' efforts at improving transparency, particularly with regard to the derestriction of
documents, might result in the WTO seeming to be an even more secretive Organization than it wasalready considered to be if, for example, the result was more informal meetings for which no minutes
were kept, or if less working documents were submitted because of fear at the way in which the public
might react to and evaluate these documents.  Regarding the US proposal on the derestriction of panel
reports, it was important that one not try and solve a problem of shortage of translation resources byWT/GC/M/29
Page 38
this means.  Although the proposal itself was very useful, Panama would not wish it to be used to
avoid dealing with one of the other important problems with regard to documentation, namely
translation.  Finally, her delegation wished to have a clarification from the United States as to when
the panel reports would actually become publicly available under its proposal.
The representative of Burundi endorsed the concerns of some delegations regarding
transparency vis-à-vis  the civil society regarding issues under negotiation.  Transparency should be
confined to governments and the consensus between each government and its civil society should be
managed within the confines of each State.  As regards time-periods for the public availability of final
reports, Burundi recognized that six months was extr emely long, but believed that less than that would
probably be a little short. The period should be open, from between one to three months, according to
the length of the report to be produced.  As regards panel reports subject to the obligation of
circulation in all three languages, the period should vary according to the timetable of each panel inquestion or of any urgent deadlines that had to be met.
The representative of Argentina said that the report by the Director-General was helpful in
providing information about the efforts by the Secretariat to keep public opinion well informed about
the targets and activities of the WTO.  His delegation believed that the proposals by the Communityand the United States deserved careful analysis and greater discussion in due course.  Argentina also
shared the concerns of Australia and Japan regarding the confusion on the terms being used in this
debate.  He believed that NGOs were only one part of civil society, and that only government
representatives could speak with authority on behalf of their respective civil societies.  NGOs were
important organizations, and Argentina fully supported the Director-General's efforts to increase theexchange of information with such NGOs.  However, it was important not to lose sight of the fact that
the WTO was essentially a Member-driven Organization.  With regard to the proposal for the
derestriction of minutes, his delegation feared it would have three consequences.  First, Members
would be obliged to state their positions for the record regarding the matters to be discussed;  second,
there would be an increasing rigidity in the positions adopted in debates;  and, third, in order to avoidthese consequences there would be much more frequent recourse to informal meetings and to the
circulation of papers, with an end result that would be totally contrary to what Members were trying
to achieve with derestriction.  Regarding derestriction of working documents, he wished to recall that
this was an Organization where Members worked for the liberalization of trade in goods and services
and for the observance of multilateral rules governing trade and trade-related matters.  To this end, hisGovernment had constantly to balance divergent, and often contradictory, domestic interests, and its
negotiating positions in the WTO were the result of th is process.  These positions were then taken up
with other Members' own negotiating positions, and were often changed as part and parcel of the
negotiating processes and as a result of the agreements and consensus reached.  To publish this
development of positions would mean that they would be constantly subject to the pressure of groups
representing specific interests, which would make  the task of balancing out interests much more
difficult.  The final result of all this would once again be to make the positions of delegations muchmore rigid, and therefore make it much more difficult to negotiate towards a consensus on any matter.
In addition, he did not believe one could set any fixed time-limit for the derestriction of documents
related to the negotiating process.  It was impossi ble to decide in advance how long a negotiating
process would last and, consequently, how long a document stating a negotiating position should
continue to remain confidential.  He encouraged th e Chairman to continue to discuss this matter at
meetings at the level of heads of delegations.
The representative of the United States said that the discussion had been very productive, and
that further informal consultations on this subject were needed.  Many delegations had stressed the
inter-governmental nature of the WTO, and she underlined that the United States had no argumentwith that.  However, the continued credibility and viability of the institution depended upon the
general public's confidence in the WTO as an organization that was working to the benefit of those
that one called stakeholders.  As she had stated earlier, the United States had made a proposal that itWT/GC/M/29
Page 39
believed was simple, and involved steps that Members could take now without impinging on rights
and obligations and not requiring anything to be changed in the DSU at the present time.
The Chairman said that the discussion had been very useful and productive.  He wished to
join the many delegations that had thanked the Director-General for his initial presentation, and noted
that there had been a wide measure of support for the activities being undertaken by the Secretariat totry and make the WTO better known in the outside world.  There had been many different themes in
the discussion, and many delegations had commented on that, namely, the different faces of
transparency.  With regard to the question of transparency among Members, i.e. trying to make sure
that all Members were included in the discussions and processes of this Organization, it seemed that
everyone was in favour.  There appeared also to be a lot of agreement on the question of looking at
further derestriction of documents.  Some delegations had said they were open to the idea in principle,
but that they needed to be a bit more precise about what exactly was being proposed.  The proposal bythe United States concerning the circulation of final reports of panels also had a wide measure of
support, although some delegations believed it should be done in the context of the DSU review.
This was an idea that one could certainly look at further and on which one seemed to be close to an
agreement, provided delegations properly understood what the proposal was, and that it did not
involve changing any of the rights and obligations in the DSU.  On the question of outreach to civilsociety, there was the very important commitment th at Ministers had recognized in their Declaration
in May on the importance of enhancing public understanding of the benefits of the multilateral trading
system, and it was clear that delegations felt that in the first instance that was a responsibility for
Members.  There was a lot of appreciation and support for the efforts which the Secretariat and the
Director-General were undertaking in this field as well, and recognition that while that was valuablethere were obvious limits to how much the Director-General and the Secretariat could do in this
regard.  On the question of the outreach that Members collectively in the WTO might consider, there
was a somewhat greater diversity of views in te rms of exactly how much was desirable and how one
might go about it.  There was also clearly a consensus on the point that the WTO was an inter-
governmental body in which negotiations were conducted, and none of the proposals that he hadheard had suggested that one should be undermining the nature of this Organization.  He sensed from
this discussion a strong sense of purpose on the part of Members to continue to address these issues,
and to look at how specific progress could be made.  He believed that one should aim to see whether
or not there were some decisions that might take in this area at the October General Council meeting.
In order to assist Members in moving in that direction, the Secretariat would be prepared to make areport on what had been done in the area of information policy on the part of the Secretariat.  In the
light of the interest expressed in the Director-General's presentation, such a report, which he
understood was nearing completion, would be very useful to delegations both for their own
information and perhaps also in terms of thinking of  some of the activities which they might wish to
conduct domestically in making the benefits of the system better known.
With respect to the issue of derestriction of documents, one might benefit, in terms of trying
to come to a decision in October on what might be done in this area, by having a description of
exactly what the situation was now with respect to the documents in the Organization.  The Director-
General had indicated that the Secretariat would be prepared to provide, by early September at the
latest, a report on what the situation was now with respect to restriction and derestriction of different
categories of WTO documents, and this could help delegations as a tool for trying to come to specificdecisions about what might be done with regard to future policy on derestriction.  Finally, he had
sensed that Members wished him to continue with consultations on these matters with a view to
seeing whether these could be brought to the stage where one could have an agreement.  He was
prepared to do that in as effective a manner as possible.
The representative of Mexico asked if it could be understood that Members were now
embarking upon the review as provided for in paragraph 7 of the procedures for the circulation and
derestriction of WTO documents.WT/GC/M/29
Page 40
The Chairman noted that in his introduction he had specifically referred to the provision for
review in paragraph 7 of the 1996 Decision, and that one could therefore say that the review of the
derestriction procedures was now beginning formally.  What he had proposed could be seen as the
means to carry forward that review.
The General Council took note of the statements, agreed  to proceed in the manner proposed
by the Chairman, and further agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular meeting.
7. Global Electronic Commerce
The Chairman recalled that the Ministerial Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce
required the General Council to establish a comprehensive work programme to examine all trade-
related issues relating to global electronic commerce including those issues identified by Members.This was to be done by the time of the General Council's next special session, which was
provisionally scheduled for 24 September.  The General Council was also required to report on the
progress of this work with any recommendations for action to the Third Session of the Ministerial
Conference.  The Declaration also stipulated that the work programme would involve the relevant
WTO bodies taking into account the economic, financial and development needs of developingcountries and recognize that work is also being undertaken in other international fora.  At informal
consultations held on 3 July, he had invited views on how this work should be organized and also on
what its contents might be.  As he had indicated at that meeting, the question of organization seemed
to be the more urgent of the two issues given that the work programme had to be in place before the
end of September.  He thought that the initial exchange of views on 3 July had been extremely usefuland a number of useful suggestions had been put forward for consideration by delegations on both the
issues that had been raised.  He believed that the views that had been expressed indicated that
delegations were not that far apart, and that with a period of reflection and some further informal
consultations one would be able to put the different thoughts together into a text which could be
adopted in September.
In this connection, he wished to draw attention to the background note that had been
circulated by the Secretariat in document WT/G C/W/90, which described the way in which existing
WTO Agreements related to electronic commerce.  He believed this note would be useful for
delegations in their further reflection on this matter.  He also drew attention to the fact that the daybefore, Egypt had circulated a paper entitled "WTO Work Programme on Electronic Commerce –
Contribution by the Delegation of Egypt", which would also aid in the deliberations on this question.
At the end of the discussion on 3 July, he had proposed that the Chairman or the Secretariat
be invited to draw up a draft text of a work programme on the basis of the views expressed by the
delegations both at the informal consultations and at the present meting, and that further consultations
be held on this matter later in July.  He wished to hear delegations' views on this matter, andsuggested that delegations concentrate on reactions to what other delegations had said on that
occasion or provide additional views that they might have.
He was proposing to hold consultations on a draft work programme later in July because there
was very little time realistically speaking before the Special Session on 24 September.  It wasunrealistic to think that it would be possible to do very much collectively until after the Jeune
Genevois holiday in September, which led into the week before the Special Session, with less than 10
days before the Special Session.  Delegations would need to work together to develop a possible work
programme in the present month so that Governments would have an opportunity to reflect on that in
capitals before the Special Session in September.  For this reason, he intended to proceed in whatmight seem like an ambitious fashion, although he believed it was a realistic way of trying to manage
the work.WT/GC/M/29
Page 41
The representative of Egypt said that in addition to the paper which his delegation had
submitted to the Committee on Trade and Development earlier in the year, the new contribution
outlined an approach to deal with electronic commerce in the future having in mind the Declaration
adopted at the 1998 Ministerial Conference Electronic commerce was a multi-dimensional and
complicated area with far-reaching implications and consequences, and work in the WTO should
therefore be done in stages. The General Council should initially request that work be undertaken infour subsidiary bodies,  namely in the Goods Co uncil, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council and
the Committee on Trade and Development.  The objective was to have a comprehensive approach as
well as to ensure that the issue was dealt with coherently.  These subsidiary bodies should report to
the General Council  on a specific date to be decided by the General Council in September.  If
necessary, additional work could be undertaken by other subsidiary bodies at a later stage.  His
delegation suggested the following elements for the work programme.  The General Council should
request the three Councils to examine the definition, scope and legal treatment of electronictransactions in relation to the provisions of the instruments that fell within their sphere of competence.
The issues identified that would benefit from a more general consideration rather than in a specific
Council should be reported to the General Council, with possible recommendations on how they
might be addressed subsequently.  The General Council should request the CTD to examine the
development implications of electronic commerce taking into account the economic, financial anddevelopment needs of developing countries, including the benefits that electronic commerce could
bring to developing countries through enhancing their trade including by the SMEs.  A mechanism
should be found to facilitate receiving contributions fr om other international fora in the most effective
manner, so as to avoid having the same contribution presented to various WTO bodies.  Contributions
might be considered by the General Council before the issues were addressed by subsidiary bodies.This did not preclude receiving more detailed contributions on specific issues in the respective
subsidiary bodies.  As for the participation of the private sector, Egypt believed that this contribution
should be channelled in a similar manner to the prac tice followed in the seminars that had been held
by the WTO or jointly with UNCTAD in the areas of trade facilitation, trade and competition policy
and trade and investment, bearing in mind the statement made by the Director-General under Item 7on transparency.  Egypt would study the Secretariat paper carefully, and address it a later stage.  He
hoped that other requests would be forthcoming in due course, particularly the paper on the
development dimension of electronic commerce and the convening of a seminar on various aspects
related to that issue.
The representative of the European Communities said that the Chairman had been right to
advise delegations that they reflect carefully on all of the proposals on the table with a view to
reaching decisions in September.  His delegation continued to urge all Members to identify those
aspects of electronic commerce that they believed should be covered by the work programme on
electronic commerce.  The background paper from the Secretariat, had only recently been received by
most delegations, and they would reflect on this.  The Community agreed with the resumé presented
by the Chairman that delegations reflect and that further consultations be held, and that delegationsreturn to this in September with a vi ew to establishing the work programme.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that, like others, his delegation would need to
study the Secretariat's paper further.  However, it seemed noteworthy that the bulk of the electronic
interface with the WTO seemed to be in the services and the TRIPS areas.  The papers from theCommunity, the United States and Egypt were extremely welcome, and his delegation supported their
approaches in general terms.  However, one of the general concerns his delegation had expressed
previously was with regard to the danger of proliferation of unnecessary or duplicative work if the
subsidiary bodies were not given proper direction by the General Council.  Egypt's paper went a long
way towards meeting those concerns, and he believed that perhaps early reporting back to the GeneralCouncil by subsidiary bodies on grey areas or overlapping issues would be desirable to provide
ongoing direction.  Egypt's paper also covered the development implications of electronic commerce
well, and this was a very important element to be included in future deliberations.  Egypt's proposal
provided a very sound basis for carrying forward the work on electronic commerce, and his delegationWT/GC/M/29
Page 42
fully supported it.  He also looked forward to taking part in the informal consultations with a view to
establishing the comprehensive work programme in good time.
The representative of India emphasized that this was a very important subject for India.  His
delegation particularly welcomed the statement just made by Egypt, and wholeheartedly endorsed it.
He wished to emphasize that Members should ensure that there was a common understandingamongst them as to the scope of the work to be undertaken on electronic commerce.  He recalled that
one delegation had stated during informal consultations that it would be impossible to arrive at a
definition of electronic commerce.  However, he noted that the first report of the Secretariat on
electronic commerce defined electronic commerce as follows:  "electronic commerce may be simply
defined as the production, advertising, sale and distribution of products via telecommunications
networks".  His delegation was not necessarily wedded to this definition.  However, it was clear that
Members should devote the first meeting of the General Council on this subject to arrive at a
definition of electronic commerce.  If this were not possible, they should at least try to arrive at an
understanding about the scope of the work that they would be undertaking in this area.  If they did not
do this, he believed it would not be possible to act meaningfully on Egypt's suggestion that the
General Council should initially request that work be undertaken in sectoral councils.  Unless the
General Council gave clear guidance about the scope of the subject, the subordinate bodies might notbe able to give meaningful input or feedback to the General Council.  Many delegations had pointed
out that this organization should concern itself only with trade-related aspects of electronic commerce,
and India endorsed this approach.  He recalled that during informal consultations on this subject, his
delegation had emphasized the importance of ensuring that developmental issues relating to electronic
commerce were not lost sight of, a point that had been highlighted also by Egypt.  The most importantproblem facing developing countries was the non-availability of the necessary infrastructure for
electronic commerce, and this was likely to advers ely affect their ability to benefit from such
commerce.  Members had to deal with this issue.  There were other issues from the perspective of
developing countries which also had to be studied at appropriate stages as part of the comprehensive
work programme.  One question related to transfer of technology on equitable terms to developingcountries to enable them to take advantage of electronic commerce.  The second question was the
issue relating to movement of natural persons in the form of professionals involved in software
development relating to electronic commerce.  The third was the question of access to the net.  This
would cover the management of the internet, includ ing issues of control and transparency in the
management of the internet.  He requested the Secretariat to ensure that all these issues wereappropriately included in the work programme.
The Chairman said that there had been an effort by the Secretariat, at least as far as services
were concerned, to try to define what was involved in electronic commerce, and drew attention to
paragraph 2 of the Secretariat's background note.  In thinking about the definitional aspect of the
matter, delegations might wish to look at what the Secretariat had put down.
The representative of the United States said that the work programme on electronic commerce
should not only be practicable but also set up in a way that allowed one to draw on the expertise and
knowledge of individuals in the field.  The United States had circulated suggestions outlined for the
General Council and some suggestions about how the work might be organized.  The paper circulated
by Egypt was an excellent one, and had already brought out some points that many had missed in theoverall discussion.  As regards the recent Note by the Secretariat, her delegation would examine it
very carefully, and noted also that the Secretariat had indicated that the document did not prejudge the
range of issues.  She believed that the General Council should serve as the coordinator of this effort
with periodical reviews of the progress, and that  it should put together any recommendations for
consideration for the next Ministerial Conference.  She noted also that the report of the ResearchDivision of March 1996 offered a starting-point for the work in terms of the generic issues to be
considered, perhaps under the General Council itself.  Noting the suggestions made by Egypt and
Brazil in informal sessions, that the Secretariat examine the effect of electronic commerce on
developing countries, she said the United States would be very interested in learning more aboutWT/GC/M/29
Page 43
electronic commerce and how it could be used to enhance participation in the world trading system
and how it could streamline the way technical assistance was provided.  Her delegation welcomed an
early opportunity for such an examination and also  supported Egypt's view that the International
Trade Center (ITC) might provide useful assistance in this effort.  In the context of investigating work
done in other organizations, her delegation would also welcome the chance to find out about the role
UNCTAD had been playing.  She also wished to put forward a suggestion that the General Councilexplore options from Members to invite experts from the private sector, since they were deeply
involved in electronic commerce, to informally help  provide information to Members.  There were a
variety of ways in which this could be done.  One could, for example, hold symposiums,
consultations, or plurilateral contacts.  She made clear that she was not suggesting a formal procedure
for including the private sector, but rather that since the private sector led in the development of
electronic commerce it ought to be included in so me fashion in the WTO's work.  Regarding the
specific list of issues to be discussed, her delegation had noted some of the suggestions by delegationsin papers they had presented, including by the Community, and was reviewing all of these papers.
She reiterated that the appropriate bodies of the WT O should be tasked with deciding what issues they
would discuss and on how electronic commerce affected the agreements they administered.  The
United States agreed with other delegations that whatever work programme was decided, the General
Council would have to keep very close watch on the activities so as to ensure that the full range of
issues was being considered by all the various WTO bodies.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation also believed that before giving tasks to
the different WTO bodies, one needed to have a clearer idea of the issues that were to be covered
under the comprehensive work programme.  As his de legation had said in informal meetings, the list
of issues should be of an evolving nature since one did not have a complete picture at this stage.
However, at the same time, these issues should be trade-related.  In this regard, his delegation agreed
with India that Members should agree, if not on the definition, then on the broader theme of what they
were to be working on.  One would also have to pay close attention at the same time to what other
international organizations, such as UNCTAD and WIPO, were doing in this field, in order to avoidunnecessary duplication of work and to ensure that WTO's work was relevant to what it had been
asked to do.
The representative of Norway said that electronic commerce was part of the current national
and international trade pattern, and would increasingly become so in the years ahead.  This was a fact
that one should relate to in a realistic way.  With the attention that all had already given to electronic
commerce, they had contributed in bringing it into a dedramatized setting.  This was positive, because
electronic commerce should not be allowed to live a separate life outside the WTO system, but rather
be integrated into the rights, obligations and the habits of the WTO, and find its place and position in
the WTO administrative structure.  Electronic co mmerce was indeed a new way of doing business, but
one should not mystify it.  The proposals and texts Members now had in front of them were valid
contributions in bringing about a dedramatization of the way future trade would take place, and thatwould be the background for his delegation's participation in the forthcoming consultations.
The representative of Canada said that, like a number of others, Canada was still reflecting on
what the exact content of the work programme should be.  In addition to the content suggested by
Egypt, there was much in the papers by the Unite d States and the Community as well as in points
made orally by others at informal consultations  that Canada agreed with.  On methodology, she
agreed with a number of delegations who had said  that the General Council needed to give guidance
to subsidiary bodies, and that the General Council ne eded to keep an overview of what the subsidiary
bodies would be asked to do.  The work programm e that would be agreed would probably be an
evolving work programme, and there might be issues arising during the course of future discussionsthat would require attention.  Her delegation also agreed that Members would need to take account of
ongoing work in other relevant international organizations.WT/GC/M/29
Page 44
The representative of Brazil said his Government believed that electronic commerce was an
important reality that should be faced and understood.  The WTO was the appropriate forum to
examine its trade-related aspects, and he supported the establishment of the work programme as called
for in the Ministerial Declaration.  Brazil believed that all Members should be able to play an active
part in the upcoming special session of the General Council, and that developing countries should not
find themselves confined to a merely reactive participation in that meeting.  The CTD had animportant role to play in this regard, and his delegation appreciated the comments made by others
regarding the importance they gave to the developmental aspects of electronic commerce.  Brazil's
position regarding the work programme was based on a few central parameters.  It was Brazil's
understanding that the decision creating the work programme should be flexible and simple, and avoid
comments or phrases that might prejudge the outcomes of the debates either in substance or in form.
The programme should be as comprehensive as possible, encompassing only trade-related matters and
aspects contained in the Ministerial Declaration.  Nevertheless, it would be difficult to determineprecisely from the outset whether certain elements were trade-related or not.  One should therefore
start with caution, and allow for broad preliminary interpretation of what was trade-related, in a way
that would not prejudge the result of future discussions on each particular issue.  Most likely one
would not be able to come up with an exhaustive list of all trade-related issues to be examined by the
relevant bodies.  However, one could agree on an initial list of areas that the respective WTO bodieswould examine.  The General Council would coordinate the process through constant feedback from
these bodies.  During this process, the list of areas and bodies could be complemented or reduced.  His
delegation had noted the comments and suggestions made by others, and would examine them all with
attention.  Brazil stood ready to engage constructively in the consultations that would take place prior
to the Special Session.
The representative of Turkey said that, from a practical point of view, it would be better to
begin by giving a delimitation of the whole purview of electronic commerce and then deciding which
bodies should deal with the work.  As far as the content of electronic commerce was concerned, the
Community's paper served as a basis.  Amongst th e ten subjects outlined in that paper, Turkey
attached particular importance to the issue of customs duties on electronic transmissions, the
facilitation of trade, and information technology.  Turkey also attached importance to the examination
of the development aspect of electronic commerce by all the WTO bodies that would be dealing with
this subject.  Regarding the way in which the work should be taken up, it would be desirable that the
General Council constitute the general framework fo r this work and supervise the work of the other
Councils.  Electronic commerce should be dealt with according to the mandate given to these different
bodies by the General Council.  Turkey would also welcome cooperation and an exchange of views
with other international bodies, and wished to see included in the list given in the US paper, the
International Chamber of Commerce and the International Telecommunications Union.  As regards
the participation of the private sector in WTO's work on electronic commerce, Turkey could agree to
this in principle although the way in which this contribution should be made must be decided upon by
the General Council.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking also on behalf of Hungary, Poland,
Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, and Bulgaria, said that they had already welcomed and
commented positively on the US proposal, and believed that the paper by the Community was
complementary to the US paper.  Their delegations could accept the trade issues identified in theCommunity's paper with the clear understanding that th e list was not final and that there was room for
adding other topics.  It was also very important that the General Council meeting in September decide
which WTO bodies would be involved in the discussion of the different topics.  Like others, their
delegations believed that the proposal for the work programme prepared by Egypt was a useful and
valuable contribution.
The representative of Switzerland said that, with regard to organization of work, his
delegation continued to believe that given the horizontal dimension of electronic commerce the
General Council should either establish an ad hoc working group or organize a series of meetings ofWT/GC/M/29
Page 45
the General Council in special sessions.  He was aware, however, that this view was not shared by the
majority of delegations.  If it was finally decided that the work would be allocated to different WTO
bodies, it would be important that the following elements be taken into consideration:  (i) the General
Council should submit to subsidiary bodies a clear mandate with regard to the work expected from
them; (ii) the General Council should remain free to make use of the reports submitted by subsidiary
bodies since it was the General Council's responsibility to make a summary thereof; (iii) the GeneralCouncil should ensure that all the bodies requested to work on electronic commerce had the same
understanding. Regarding the bodies involved in the work, he believed that the Goods Council, the
Services Council, the TRIPS Council, the CTD and the Committee on Government Procurement had a
role to play.  With regard to the participation of the private sector, his delegation did not see why one
should establish special rules for electronic commerce.  However, it would not object if in a
preliminary stage for identifying the issues a technical and informal contribution from the private
sector would contribute to a better understanding of the realities of electronic commerce.  Hisdelegation did not think it necessary to specify a particular role for the Secretariat in the work on
electronic commerce which would go beyond its usual tasks.  It was for the Secretariat itself to
manage its own organization in the fulfilment of it s task in relation to the Councils and Committees.
With respect to the scope of the work programme, his delegation believed that the work programme
should not constitute an interpretation of the mandate of the General council but rather offer anapproach to follow.  To this effect, the programm e should aim at providing answers to the following
questions:  (i) What is electronic commerce?  (ii) What were the aspects of electronic commerce, i.e.
of its regulation which had an impact on the trade of goods and services (trade-relevance)?  (iii)  Were
the provisions of various WTO Agreements applicable to these aspects?  (iv) In this case, was it
necessary to clarify or to specify the existing legal situation?  (v) If that were not the case, did theWTO system offer the possibility to develop new solutions?  The first question, ie., what is electronic
commerce, should be under the purview of the General Council, while the other questions should
serve as a basis for the mandates given to the subsidiary bodies.  In this context, Switzerland believed
that the list of questions submitted by the Community was appropriate and should be incorporated in
the work programme, for example, as an illustrative list.
The representative of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, said that the
General Council should play a leading role in the organizational aspects of this work, and the issue of
electronic commerce should be under the purview of the General Council.  By being a General
Council-driven process, small delegations would be able to participate actively in the discussions andexperts from capitals would not have to attend meetings of numerous WTO bodies that had electronic
commerce as an item on their agendas.  Designating meetings of the General Council to specifically
discuss electronic commerce did not mean that subsidiary bodies would not be able to provide
contributions.  The General Council might draw on inputs from subsidiary bodies as necessary and
appropriate.  In doing so, the outcome of the process would be integrated and have an overall balance.
In trying to identify issues that should be included in the work programme and in order to have a clear
mind on what was being discussed, the ASEAN Members also believed that it was important todiscuss the definition of electronic commerce and what aspects of electronic commerce were
considered trade-related.  With regard to the work programme, the ASEAN Members wished to
underline that the Ministerial Declaration on electronic commerce clearly stipulated that the work
programme should take into account the economic, financial and development needs of developing
countries.  In this regard, he reiterated their view that a work programme on electronic commercecould include the following:  (i) legal aspects, e.g. provisions in existing WTO Agreements and the
international regulatory environment;  (ii) trade faci litation;  (iii) development aspects, e.g. technical
assistance and cooperation;  and (iv) access to infrastructure, e.g. access to electronic commerce.  This
list was by no means exhaustive, and their delegations would supplement it as the process moved
along.  The ASEAN Members were also of the opinion that interaction with other internationalorganizations might be beneficial in order to understand better the work undertaken in other
international fora and to avoid duplication of work on electronic commerce.WT/GC/M/29
Page 46
The representative of Venezuela said that in reviewing the different points that had been
raised in recent discussions, one would see that there were many points of convergence regarding the
approach to electronic commerce in this body.  Essen tially, at this stage, one was interested in the
methodology to be adopted.  With this mind, he believed that one should recall the points that were
sought to be achieved through this work.  It should be recalled that one wanted to know the exact
implications of electronic commerce, the strong points and the weak points, and to know the exactimplications of maintaining in the future the stat us quo that had been agreed in the Ministerial
Declaration.  Furthermore, the development dimens ion was of paramount importance.  His delegation
believed that the effort to ensure that the Genera l Council  would guide the process overall was also of
fundamental importance.  If these discussions were launched simply with the aim of ensuring that
subsidiary bodies started discussing this matter without giving them a menu of options and themes
that would serve as guidelines for the discussion, he feared Members would come to the situation they
found themselves in with regard to regional trade agreements.  It was important therefore to have asimple structure for the discussions.  The Secretariat note already reflected the main bodies that would
be involved.  However, an effort should also be made to establish a link with work being done by
other organizations outside the WTO, and this should be part of the overall coherence of the WTO's
work.  He reiterated that certain guidance should therefore be given by the General Council, and that
this guidance would keep Members in the right direction and enable them to review the decision onthe status quo which had been taken in May.
The representative of Jamaica said that the minutes of the General Council meeting should be
comprehensive and allow all Members to know where they were at any given point in time.  He
wished to put on record that in considering this  matter in the General Council, Members took note of
the submissions made in the General Council on this subject as also in the Committee on Trade and
Development.  While his delegation did not always have the opportunity to participate in informal
meetings, and there were no notes kept of those meetings, it was his understanding that at the informal
consultation on 8 July at which he was unable to be present, Switzerland had proposed two options:  a
working group of experts or a series of informal meetings.  He believed that Members were now moreor less agreed that the process should be via the General Council giving direction to the various bodies
of the WTO.  That was, more or less, the frame within which a structured discussion of these issues
could best be done and followed, certainly by small delegations like his own.  Turning to some of the
issues, he said that the exchange of goods and services by electronic means would be essentially
private-sector-driven, but that there was also a large government involvement including therelationship in the WTO of the Government Procurement Agreement.  He did not recall whether an
answer had been given as to whether the documentation of the plurilateral agreements were made
public or were always readily available.  He did recall, however, that there were important advances
using electronic means for government procurement, and he believed that the advances made in that
plurilateral agreement should be under the purview of the General Council, and he hoped that the
Secretariat would make the appropriate arrangements  to do so.  This had been referred to in the US
paper under point 2 of the first paragraph.  Government involvement might also be important withregard to the networks.  The network issues we re actively being discussed in the International
Telecommunications Union in respect of hardware as well as standards, and the agreements
negotiated there ultimately involved the movement of goods and services through satellite services.
He wished the Secretariat to also take note of that and perhaps in consultation with the ITU to ensure
that those were not attempted to be duplicated in the WTO.  The networks were also an important partof what the WIPO did in respect of the internet a nd the domain names.  If that was not transparent,
and not equitably shared across borders, then there could be no so-called global electronic commerce
because it would be skewed in terms of its access and the proprietary knowledge acquired by some
countries that were first in the queue.  He believed these issues were equally important.  Jamaica
believed that work on this subject should proceed via the General Council.  His delegation supportedEgypt's paper wholeheartedly.  However, with regard to the issue in paragraph 4(b) of taking account
of developing countries' needs, he believed one needed to be more specific.  When electronic
commerce was discussed among the industrialized countries, there was no talk of electronic
commerce and industrialized countries.  Instead, these countries formulated policy frameworks.  InWT/GC/M/29
Page 47
this regard, it would be useful if the Secretar iat could make available the following documentation:
the policy framework of the United States;  the European framework policy and their Ministerial
Declarations;  the work being organized in the OECD that would culminate in one part with a major
meeting in Canada sometime in the fall.  There was also a very useful paper by the US Department of
Commerce called the emerging digital economy.  A number of these papers were setting benchmarks
or giving policy directions that were important for developing countries to be plugged into.Developing countries must understand the policy framework that would influence the exchange of
goods and services including through electronic means.  With regard to paragraph 6 of Egypt's paper,
he said that Jamaica valued the contribution that might be provided by the private sector in this area.
It would be useful if the WTO Secretariat, which participated in many private sector seminars and
meetings, were to circulate not only its presentations made on those occasions, but also a note on the
outcome.  He believed that Members should have the benefit of these presentations, and that this was
particularly helpful in the educational process.
Turning to other substantive issues, he noted that the Community's paper dealt with customs
duties, and suggested that consideration be given also to like charges.  The second substantive point
was the definition.  His delegation was concerned that the one not to try to look for a short-cut and
refer to "trade-related" aspects of electronic commerce.  It was important that Members understoodthe issues related to the exchange of goods and services via electronic means.  The third area was
notifications for transparency purposes.  If Members agreed to have a standstill on customs duties or
like charges, he wondered whether the Secretariat could put together what it could on what constituted
the standstill, and whether Members should not notify what they actually did so that one could verify
that there was indeed a standstill.  The fourth point related to dispute settlement.  Whatever one dealtwith in the WTO had an inter-relationship with dispute settlement, and one could not escape it.  Once
Members undertook commitments in the WTO, they were automatically obliged to face dispute
settlement.  He believed this was a central area for the WTO in its documentation, and he was not sure
that the Secretariat had dealt with it in its paper.  Jamaica was prepared to work with the Chairman in
the informal consultations of the General Council and hoped that they could be used in a very focusedway.  He asked if the Chairman could circulate a draft text of the whole range of issues which seemed
to coalesce around some basic and fundamental principles.  It would be particularly useful if the
Secretariat could issue this text, so that when de legations came to the informal meetings, they knew
what they were making their comments on.  Once they were finished with that, that would come to the
formal General Council meeting and would be in the records.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation would reflect on all the papers that had
been circulated, and come back with its position in due course.  However, as an initial response,
Pakistan believed that the paper presented by Egypt embodied certain elements which Pakistan would
wish to see in the process, and to that extent it had Pakistan's support.  Pakistan fully endorsed the
idea that the CTD should examine the developmental aspects of electronic commerce.  In particular,
Pakistan wished to see that the CTD examine how electronic commerce could affect economicefficiency and in turn act as an engine of economic growth.
The representative of Chile said that her delegation agreed that this topic be guided by the
General Council, and that the latter would be the body that could resolve any discrepancy which
might arise in this area in the discussions in subsidiary bodies.  Chile also supported the idea that thesubsidiary bodies should conduct the analysis of the proposals for the work programme from their
various perspectives, that is goods, services intellectual property and so on.  Absolute flexibility
needed to be maintained in the content of the wo rk programme so as to be able to incorporate or
eliminate topics at any time in the light of the discussions.  Regarding organization of work, her
delegation felt that Egypt's paper provided a very g ood basis for work.  With regard to topics for the
work programme, her delegation wished to emphasize that the work programme on electronic
commerce should specifically include an analysis deriving from commerce in the so-called similar
products and which could be delivered either electronically or physically.  Such transactions of goods
by electronic means could generate distortions and discriminations which could be counter to theWT/GC/M/29
Page 48
provisions contained in the WTO Agreements.  This  was an aspect not discussed in the period running
up to the Declaration on electronic commerce, and should be given emphasis in a work programme.
On intellectual property and electronic commerce, the analysis should be conducted in the light of
existing commitments under the TRIPS Agreement, determining not only the applicability of TRIPS
Agreement provisions in compliance, but also dete cting any discrepancies in the Agreement.  Chile
would also agree to incorporate the analysis of fraudulent practices in trade in services which could beconducted through electronic commerce, the fair collection of taxes for services, and compliance with
competition laws, all of which were topics that fell under Article XIV of the GATS.  The subject of
safeguarding information transmitted electronically was also one which should be relevant and
included in the work programme.
The representative of Australia said that the General Council could usefully give focused
instructions to subsidiary bodies on the work that they might undertake.  It seemed very important that
the parameters for discussion should be set clearly.  One would not want to begin work with the
presumption that bodies should be seeking wherever possible to develop new disciplines and
regulations.  Australia's attitude towards electronic commerce was that the regulatory burden should
be kept as light as possible.  With this in mind, his delegation suggested that, in the first instance, the
General Council instruct subsidiary bodies to examine electronic commerce transactions against theexisting WTO provisions for which they were responsible.  He agreed with others that the General
Council would have an important coordinating role to play, particularly if one was looking to develop
recommendations for the third Ministerial Conference, and suggested that the General Council could
usefully keep watch over the possibilities of any overlap in the work that might be conducted by
subsidiary bodies.  He agreed with those that had mentioned the specific issue of governmentprocurement, given the plurilateral nature of that Agreement.  Bearing in mind also the relevance of
some of the discussion on electronic commerce in gove rnment procurement, it would be useful for the
wider membership to be kept informed of this discussion.  Like others, Australia believed that one
should be flexible about the range of topics that would be discussed.  He hoped that the General
Council could keep under review possible additions  to the work programme.  Finally, his delegation
believed that the General Council would probably need to conduct some initial analysis of the issues
in deciding which issues would be taken up by which bodies.  However, there was a need to be
pragmatic about this.  It would be counterprodu ctive for the General Council to engage in an
exhaustive debate on the definition of electronic commerce.  He suggested that Members try and
focus on electronic commerce transactions and how they were relevant to existing disciplines.Presumably, Members did not want to begin work on the assumption that electronic commerce was an
entirely separate domain of trade.  While electronic commerce transactions did have some distinctive
characteristics, particularly in determining often where they took place, this was not a new or
unprecedented problem for this Organization.  Members had had to deal with some of these
ambiguities, for instance, in the services sector, particularly in financial services, where it had never
been quite clear whether certain transactions would be governed by certain modes.  Australia would
also be concerned that spending too much time trying  to arrive at an elaborate definition of electronic
commerce might in fact prejudge some of the outcomes that could emerge from the work programme
that Members hoped to establish.  With that in mind, his delegation suggested that Members be
guided, wherever possible, by the need for pragmatism.
The representative of Uruguay said that the papers that had been circulated were a good basis
for work in an informal context.  As to the additional issues that had been mentioned by various
delegations, they were all useful, in particular, the matters raised by India and Brazil.  With regard to
the question of a definition, Uruguay believed that if Members could not have a precise definition,
they should at least work to establish the limits of the playing field.  He believed that aspects of a
definition and a framework for the discussion should be the first topics to be discussed in the workprogramme.  As to the procedure, all seemed to  have indicated their agreement that the General
Council guide this work and give indications to subsidiary bodies, and his delegation agreed with this
approach.WT/GC/M/29
Page 49
The representative of New Zealand said that the papers by Egypt, the Community and the
United States were all valuable aids to making progress on content and structure leading up to the
decisions in September, and thanked the Secretariat for its latest paper.  His delegation was pleased to
hear the approach that the Chairman envisaged fo r further work, and supported the maintenance of a
strong coordinating role by the General Council on electronic commerce.  New Zealand wished the
WTO to draw heavily on relevant work undertaken on electronic commerce by other internationalorganizations, and would be ready to submit specific  ideas on content in the course of the informal
consultations envisaged.
The representative of Morocco said that the recently submitted papers formed a good basis for
discussion and for drawing up a comprehensive work programme.  Regarding organizational matters,
Morocco had a preference for informal meetings under the auspices of the General Council so that
smaller delegations would be able to participate fully.  However, his delegation was flexible and theGeneral Council could give instructions to the rele vant bodies to review these issues such as the
TRIPS Council, the Goods Council, the Services Council, and the CTD.  Regarding substantive
issues, his delegation believed that there should be a prior agreement on what exactly global
electronic commerce was and that a simple and open list should be drawn up containing all the issues
relating to electronic commerce.  Special attention should be given to the development dimension, andto an examination of the economic impact on developing countries.  One could, for example, examine
how the decrease in telecommunications costs could favour and promote the participation of
developing countries and LDCs on world networks.  One could also examine the tax or fiscal policy
advantages that could be drawn from electronic commerce bearing in mind what customs duties
represented as public income in developing countries.  Morocco also attached importance to technicalassistance, which should be included in the work programme to strengthen developing countries'
capacity, particularly institutional capacity.  Such assistance could, for example, focus on how
existing legislation on competition might be modified to take account of new policies on global
electronic commerce.  Morocco, like a large number of developing countries, did not yet have
legislation concerning competition policy.  All this needed to be worked on in cooperation with otherinternational institutions that were specialized in this area, such as WIPO, UNCTAD and the ITC.  He
hoped that a decision could be taken on the work programme at the forthcoming special session .
The representative of Korea said that his delegation considered it important to conduct
analytical work in the relevant councils and committees, including a full examination of which and
how existing WTO provisions applied to electronic commerce, before determining the actual work
programme.  In this respect, Korea welcomed and supported Egypt's proposal, and wished to thank
the Secretariat for its paper, which would be a useful basis for further discussion on this issue.  With
regard to the modality of how to proceed with th e future discussion, his delegation shared the views
expressed by previous speakers that most of the related issues would be more effectively addressed at
the subsidiary body level, where relevant expertise could be found in the process.  The General
Council should play a guiding and coordinating role.
The representative of  Peru said that, as to ge neral aspects, Peru believed that flexibility and
transparency were two fundamental principles which should be present in this work.  The work
programme should not be rigid, but rather allow for the possibility of modifications in order to
provide scope for proposals that came up as work progressed.  Transparency was also required toguarantee the participation of all the Members of the Organization on an equal footing.  Furthermore,
his delegation believed that the first task should be to provide an initial operational definition of
electronic commerce which would make it possible to determine the scope of the work at the outset.
Regarding organization of work, he considered that this work should be done at two separate levels:
on the one hand, in the General Council and, on the other, in the relevant subsidiary bodies.  TheGeneral Council could have four tasks:  to assume principal responsibility for the review of this topic
from a broader point of view;  to consolidate in due course the results of specific work conducted in
the subsidiary bodies;  to provide space for contributions to be submitted by international
organizations regarding work and studies done in this area, such as UNCTAD, ITU , ITC, WIPO andWT/GC/M/29
Page 50
others;  and to supervise the work of the subsidiary bodies by, for example, taking on the task of
setting parameters for agendas and adding any new topics to such agendas or programmes whenever
necessary.  Once a consensus had been reached on an operational definition, the relevant subsidiary
bodies could then tackle the topic of electronic commerce from a sectoral point of view.  In order to
give a degree of discipline and predictability to the work a tentative calendar should be set, and the
relevant subsidiary bodies asked to submit relevant reports to the General Council.  In the MinisterialDeclaration on electronic commerce, there were two clear references.  One was to take into account
the economic, financial and development needs of developing countries.  Here, inter alia , Members
could consider issues such as access to computer infrastructures, equal opportunities, and the need for
human resources training in developing countries.  The general objective in this area of work would
be to find ways to create an international environment which would promote an increasing
participation by developing countries in global electronic commerce.  The second reference was to the
identification both of existing provisions in WTO agreements that were relevant to electroniccommerce as well as any legislative gaps.  This work would be conducted within each of the relevant
subsidiary bodies such as the Goods Council, the Services Council, the TRIPS Council, the Customs
Valuation Committee, the Market Access Committee and the CTD among others.  In addition, it
would be appropriate that the work on trade facilitation be linked to the discussions on electronic
commerce.  The general objective in this area of work would be to find ways and means to ensure thatelectronic commerce effectively contributed to the equitable growth of the world economy.
The representative of Uganda said that his delegation particularly wished to support the
proposals by Egypt in its recent paper .  Uganda believed that the work on this matter should be under
the auspices of the General Council, which would help delegations with not enough manpower toattend meetings of the various committees, the opportunity to be able to follow, monitor and
contribute to the discussion.  He wished to stress the need to examine the developmental aspect, and
was particularly supportive of paragraph 4(b) of Egypt's paper.  In this regard he agreed with the
observation made in paragraph 12 of the Note by the Secretariat that telecommunications services
were an essential part of the infrastructure for electronic commerce, and this could not be morenecessary for developing countries.  Uganda also agreed with the observation by Jamaica on the need
to have inputs from relevant organizations, such as the ITU, which should be able to provide
Members with the various agreements that had been arrived at or were being negotiated.  In particular,
the recent World Radio Conference had made some progress towards allocation of frequencies and
satellites and on matters pertaining to access thereto, which clearly would have an effect on the abilityto take advantage of the new medium of electronic commerce.  Members needed to be advised by
these organizations, and to see that they were consistent and also that they were supportive of
development.
The representative of Panama expressed appreciation for the papers that had recently been
submitted, both by Members and the Secretariat.  The Secretariat paper, in its various sections
concerning the relationship between electronic commerce and the various WTO agreements, promisedto bring in a considerable amount of new material to the discussion, material which would require
Members' attention.  In a quick read-through of the paper, Panama noted that it seemed to concentrate
on the relationship between the GATS and aspects of in tellectual property, with lesser attention on the
relevance of the GATT 1994 and electronic commerce as a means of supplying goods.  The
classification of electronic commerce as a means for supplying services, above all, was far fromapparent, at least in Panama's view.  The possibility of classifying or qualifying it so broadly would
stress the importance of determining, as soon as possible, what was actually meant when one referred
to electronic commerce.  Panama emphasized this point because the supply of goods by electronic
means would become an area where developing countries would have new and promising sources of
earnings.  This aspect of electronic commerce required further analysis as well.  As an additionalpoint, perhaps in a future revision or addendum to the Secretariat's paper, it would be useful to see a
discussion of the relationship or the relevance to the deliberations of provisions on development in
WTO agreements.  The appendix to the Secretariat's paper, concerning on-line communications andWT/GC/M/29
Page 51
new WIPO treaties on copyright matters, pointed to possible future work, and Panama requested that
the Secretariat look into work being conducted in other relevant fora.
The representative of India said he wished to comment on the Chairman's reaction to his
earlier statement and also to correct a wrong impression that his earlier statement might have
inadvertently created.  The Chairman had pointed out that paragraph 2 of the Secretariat's paper inWT/GC/W/90 contained a definition of electronic commerce.  In this connection, he wished to point
out that this definition was related to "realms of Services trade".  In his first intervention, he had
quoted a definition that was more comprehensive, broad and based on the first paper of the Secretariat
on electronic commerce.  He noticed that Uruguay had mentioned that even if Members were not able
to arrive at a definition of electronic commerce initially, they should have a "framework" for their
work.  His delegation found this to be a very attractive suggestion.  Members could have a framework
or could adopt the approach successfully adopted by the first TRIPS Council meeting, which was tohave a working hypothesis to start with and then go on refining it if necessary as the work proceeded.
On another matter, he realized that while referring to Egypt's paper, he had mentioned that India
agreed with the approach of Egypt to entrust the work relating to electronic commerce to the three
sectoral councils (Goods Council, Services Coun cil and TRIPS Council) under the supervision and
guidance of the General Council.  Actually, Egypt's proposal was to entrust the task to the threesectoral councils and the Committee on Trade and Development.  Like Egypt, India felt that the CTD
had an important role to play in dealing with this subject.  He had referred to a number of issues and
concerns of interest to developing countries in his earlier intervention, and obviously the CTD was the
appropriate forum to deal with these developmental issues and concerns.
The Chairman said that the discussion had been very useful and would assist him and the
Secretariat in trying to develop a draft work programme which, as he had indicated at the outset, he
intended to put before Members for consultations before the end of the month, which would be open-
ended consultations in the context of the General Council.  A number of comments had been made
about the documentation as well as requests for additional documents.  He wished to note that theSecretariat's earlier study on electronic commerce was not a Secretariat document as such, but rather a
paper  put out by the Secretariat which actually named its authors, and therefore the Secretariat, as
such, did not take responsibility for it.  While that did not mean that it was not a useful document, he
felt that given the number of times it had been refereed to, it was important to make that clarification.
There had also been several requests for new documentation, and he would ask the Secretariat toconsider in what manner it might best address these requests.  In a number of instances it might be
that the Secretariat could indicate to delegations where the material could be found rather than engage
the Secretariat in the production of new papers.  The comments made by a number of delegations,
including the last statement by India, would suggest that Members might need to think of
documentation that was relevant to the work th at the WTO would decide to undertake, because
electronic commerce was a very broad subject and clearly one was not going to deal with all aspects
of it in the WTO.
The General Council took note of the statements, agreed
 to revert to this matter at the Special
Session of the General Council in September, and al so agreed that, in the meantime, further informal
consultations be held by the Chairman.
8. Conditions of Service of WTO Staff
(a) Statement by the Chairman of the Working Group
Mr. Farrell (New Zealand), Chairman of th e Working Group on Conditions of Service of
WTO staff, recalled that on 24 April, the General Council and the ICITO had set the objective, subject
to certain important conditions, of establishing by 1 January 1999 a WTO Secretariat with its own
regulations and rules governing the management of the staff and their compensation arrangements.  AtWT/GC/M/29
Page 52
that time, he had been invited to chair the Workin g Group on conditions of service applicable to the
staff of the WTO Secretariat, which had been ch arged with producing draft proposals complying with
the conditions set out by the General Council.  The first step had been to establish an approximate
time-track for the task.  If it was decided that an independent WTO Secretariat was to come into being
on 1 January 1999, the Director-General would need to inform the United Nations Joint Staff Pension
Board by late October 1998, so that money held in the UN Pension Fund could be released insufficient time to the WTO Pension Fund.  This implied a final decision on the question of separate
WTO conditions of service by the General Council in October.
Before this decision could be made, it was necessary, among other things, to have actuarial
work completed on the draft conditions of service.  As the actuarial work would also need to feed into
final consideration of the package by the Working Group, it should be completed by early September
by the latest.  It was clear from this timetable that the Working Group would have to maintain anintensive schedule of meetings.  The Working Group had accordingly had two sessions per week
since the 1998 Ministerial Conference.  It had thus far met a total of 16 times since the 24 April
General Council Decision.  He appreciated the dedicated way in which delegations were participating
in this work.  The process that had been followed had allowed the Working Group to give maximum
attention to those provisions in the draft staff regulations, staff rules, pension regulations andaccompanying administrative rules requiring the cl osest scrutiny in terms of the 24 April Decision.
The General Council Decision had itself greatly facilitated the task, as had the considerable amount of
work devoted to it by earlier sessions of the Working Group under the guidance of earlier chairs of the
process.  The Group had adopted the approach of sequential readings of the main texts so as to
identify key issues of concern and work up consensus-based solutions.  He believed that considerableprogress had been made, and that as a result of rigorous examination and a focus on underlying issues
there had already been a significant enhancement of the quality of the draft texts.  Clearly all the
regulations and rules should be individually soundly based.  They should also represent a sound
overall package complying with the requirements ar ticulated by the General Council.  This meant that
while excellent progress had been made, a final proposal from the Working Group would need toawait further intensive deliberations in September and early October including in the light of cost,
viability and other information emerging from the actuarial work to be undertaken before early
September.
He had the Working Group's endorsement of terms of reference for the actuarial studies.
These terms of reference reflected the General Council's stated requirements.  The panel of
independent actuaries would analyse the compensation and personnel scheme in a form proposed by
him as Chair of the Working Group.  This was on the understanding that the scheme put forward by
the Chair was, of course, subject to adjustment in the light of the actuarial studies and further
consideration by delegations in the Working Group.  In accordance with paragraph 3 of WT/L/269, he
now sought the approval of the General Council to appoint a panel of independent actuaries to provide
an actuarial assessment of the Chair's current draft compensation and personnel scheme.  The specificactuarial panel proposed for approval comprised ac tuaries from the following two companies who had
been interviewed by himself and the Secretariat and also cleared with Members of the Working
Group:  William M. Mercer S.A., Brussels and Towers  Peren, Paris.  He added that in view of the
obvious importance of the conditions of service work to the staff of the Secretariat, he had kept the
Staff Council informed periodically of the state of affairs.  He would report again to the GeneralCouncil in October with the aim of presenting a final proposal on WTO conditions of service.
The representative of Jamaica said it would be useful if the terms of reference drafted by the
Working Group Chairman for the actuarial work could be provided for the General Council's
information, bearing in mind that many delegations that had a keen interest and had been followingthis work very carefully might not have been doing so recently.  He wished to see the terms of
reference before giving carte blanche  approval to it.  It would also be useful to know how much more
actuarial work was required.  In all these matters, it would be useful where statements of such length
and such importance were made, and where terms of reference were drafted and draft texts wereWT/GC/M/29
Page 53
readied, that they be made available to Members of the General Council so that they could inform
themselves when they were unable to participate fu lly.  After this meeting, and perhaps before a
decision was taken on this matter, he would wish to see a copy of the terms of reference.
The United Kingdom said that his delegation had made a constructive contribution to the
Working Group, and was pleased that good progress ha d been made.  However, it still had several
outstanding concerns of a serious nature.  His delegation therefore welcomed the assurance given by
the Chairman of the Working Group that he saw th e actuarial study he was commissioning on his own
authority as only the start of a process.  The United Kingdom was firmly of the view that there were
still too many aspects of the proposed package that were in suspense for the actuaries to be able to
deliver by early September the early certification called for in paragraph 3 of the General Council's
Decision of 24 April.  Instead, that certification should await the achievement of a consensus in the
Working Group on all aspects of the package.  He understood that the Working Group Chairmanwould flag for the actuaries the issues on which there were still differing views within the
membership so that all options could be costed.  This would facilitate discussion in the Working
Group when it resumed.  He also understood that the Working Group would have an opportunity to
meet the actuaries in September to explore with them all appropriate aspects of their preliminary
findings.
The representative of Japan said that securing adequate working conditions for staff members
of the Secretariat was essential for the good functioning and efficiency of the Organization.  His
delegation hoped that the Working Group would be successful in proposing an improved system of
salaries and pensions while abiding by the conditions of cost neutrality as provided for by the GeneralCouncil Decision of 24 April.  His delegation would continue its efforts to contribute to the work of
the Working Group so that the WTO Secretariat would be established by 1 January 1999, as
contemplated in the General Council's Decision.  Japan was in a position to support the appointment
of the actuaries.
The representative of Germany said that his delegation had contributed constructively to the
deliberations of the Group since the very beginning.  While the Group had made good progress in its
work, his delegation did not yet see agreed solutions for all problems.  In this phase, an estimation of
the costs of the proposals was urgently needed and, in this regard, Germany looked forward to the
results of the examination by the independent actuaries.  His delegation believed this could be onlythe necessary first step in arriving at detailed discussions of costs, costs neutrality and long-term
viability of the proposed pension fund in September.  Further steps would have to follow.  In the light
of this, his delegation associated itself with the United Kingdom's statement.
The representative of Brazil said he was convinced of the importance of keeping up with the
deadlines regarding the setting up of an independent Secretariat.  His delegation had been following
this work closely through the documentation that had been circulated.  However, like others,  hisdelegation also experienced difficulties in keeping up with developments in this area due to the
complexity and highly technical nature of the matters being discussed, as well as the frequency of
meetings of the Working Group.  He wished to stress that it would be important to have all Members
informed on a regular basis about the discussions in the Working Group in order to be able to take the
necessary decisions subsequently in the General Council.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation was somewhat disappointed
at the lack of progress or consensus on key areas of the pension and staff regulations, although he
wished to emphasize that this was in no way due to the lack of ability or effort on the part of the
Chairman of the Working Group.  His delegation was pleased that the Chair had been able to submitto the actuaries draft texts on his own authority.  Hong Kong, China supported this and the
appointment of the actuaries proposed.  This subject would of course require further discussion and he
looked forward to taking part in that in a spirit of compromise.  Members had to continue to work
hard and meet the 1 January 1999 deadline for establishment of the WTO Secretariat.WT/GC/M/29
Page 54
The representative of Turkey said that his delegation had tried to make a constructive
contribution to the work of the Working Group.  While the Working Group had made substantial
progress, there was still much to be done.  His delegation considered that between now and 1 January
1999 the Working Group would be able to reach a consensus.
The representative of Tunisia said that his delegation was very aware of the importance of the
time factor that had been underscored by the Working Group's Chairman, and supported the latter's
proposal to appoint actuaries as quickly as possible so as to make the necessary studies within the
time-frame involved.
The Chairman of the Working Group said that he would be happy to circulate to all Members,
as quickly as possible, the terms of reference that had been endorsed within the Working Group for
the actuarial work that was to be commissioned.  The further actuarial work was of course required
under the 24 April General Council Decision in paragraph 3, and he could assure delegations that this
work would be able to build upon earlier actuarial studies.  All of that material and a good deal of
other material that had emerged in the course of the Working Group's preparations would be made
available to the members of the actuarial panel in order to ensure that work already undertaken wasnot unnecessarily duplicated.   He could confirm th at his understanding of the approach now being
taken through the actuaries and in the future work of the Working Group conformed with the
approach that had been outlined by the United Kingdom and Germany.   Their observations were
entirely consistent with the approach of the Chair to this task.  Certainly, once delegations had the
benefit of the actuarial studies by early September, he would need to turn his attention to helping to
communicate the stage reached at various key point s leading up to a request for a decision by the
General Council in October.   He assured all Members that, knowing the difficulty many delegations
faced in participating in the Working Group, he would be giving careful thought to a good mechanism
for communication with the wider membership well in  advance of seeking decisions of a final nature
from the General Council.
The Chairman  proposed that the General Council  take note of the statements and approve
the appointment of the two actuaries proposed by the Chairman of the Working Group.
The representative of Jamaica said he believed that the task was to select one actuary and not
two.
The Chairman of the Working Group said that the wording of the General Council Decision
of  24 April stated that a panel of independent actuaries would be appointed to do this work.   This
had been understood to mean at least two independent actuaries drawn from independent actuarial
firms.  The Working Group had been keen to maintain that interpretation, though it had been
restrained from the idea that a panel would necessarily mean more than two firms of actuaries.   It was
envisaged that the two independent firms of actuaries would conduct their studies independently.
Once they had completed the studies, they would wo rk jointly to prepare some combined conclusions
so that the Working Group and the Membership was presented with the greatest possible clarity on the
actuarial assessments.
The General Council took note of the statements and approved  the appointment of the two
actuaries proposed by the Chairman of the Working Group.
9. Accession of Latvia
The Chairman said that this item was on the Agenda at the request of the European
Communities.WT/GC/M/29
Page 55
The representative of the European Communities said that Members were facing a very
difficult situation regarding the discussions on the accession of Latvia.  Although the specific work
and the specific negotiations had been well advanced for some considerable time, there had been a
blockage that Members had not been able to resolve and which had stalled the whole operation.
Given the passage of time, his delegation felt that it was the moment to draw the General Council's
attention to this problem.  A complete accession package for Latvia had, in fact, been on the table forsome months.  The package remained only to be tidied up and put into final form, but had been
subject to blockage by one Member and basically on one single issue.  At an informal meeting of the
Working Party on 5 May, the draft Working Party report had appeared to be acceptable to every
Member except one who seemed to have some rese rvations about some of the commitments in the
revised text.  The majority of the bilateral market access negotiations had been concluded early in the
year and, as far as the Community was aware, only one Member had yet to agree with Latvia on
market-access commitments.  Others in the Working Party had expressed their full satisfaction withthe quality of the market access offered by Latvia, and consolidated market access schedules had been
circulated and agreed by all Members except one.  The Community believed that Latvia's accession
should no longer be delayed.  The package that was on the table should be accepted as it stood;
indeed, it was unreasonable to ask for more.  The process had been stalled by the insistence of one
Member for commitments in the audiovisual sector.  It should be made crystal clear that commitmentsin this sector, or indeed any other single service sector, could not be an absolute requirement for
accession to the WTO since 90 per cent of WTO Members did not have commitments in this sector in
their service schedules.  MFN exemptions had been accepted from more than 40 Members, including
the Community, and it therefore could not be an absolute requirement.  The Community was more
and more concerned about this situation against the background that the WTO had not been able toagree on any new accession package since the Singapore Ministerial Conference, and that one was
also beginning to hear criticism that the commitments expected of acceding countries were sometimes
excessive when compared with commitments undertaken by current Members.  In the present case, he
had to say that some of those voices would be fully justified.  The Community therefore considered it
timely that the General Council have the opportunity  to hear the quality of the commitment that
Latvia had been offering.  The previous day, a proposal had been received from another Member
which appeared to be a promising idea, and his delegation would look at it with an open mind and
hoped that it might lead Members out of the present impasse.  The Community would insist that
Members return to this matter in September and look for a decision thereon without further delay.
The representative of the United States said that her delegation took seriously the points
raised by the Community, and regretted that rather in engaging in the necessary discussion to find a
resolution to this issue, particularly since it had been raised at the very highest levels both in the
United States and the Community, the Community had chosen to make this an issue in the General
Council.  The United States supported Latvia's accession to the WTO on commercial terms.  It had
negotiated with Latvia in good faith and would continue to do so recognizing that it had an
independent trade regime.  The United States fully expected that Latvia's partners would play by therules of the WTO when they became WTO Members,  including with respect to the provisions of
Article XXIV of the GATT and Article V of the GATS when they acceded to the European
Community.  The United States found it totally unacceptable, as any Member would, for one Member
to object to another Member protecting its rights under the WTO.  A number of governments had
made commitments in the audiovisual sector in the Uruguay Round.  A number of applicants weredoing so as well.  Given the United States' commercial interests in this sector, it did not accept the
suggestion that these commitments were not a subject that should be included in the GATS now or in
the future.  The United States had made numerous proposals to address this issue, and continue to do
so because it believe that it was essential to find a solution.  Her delegation would continue its efforts
so that consensus in the Working Party might be achieved and the General Council might exercise itsresponsibilities in full respect of the procedures.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking also on behalf of Hungary, Poland,
Romania, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Bulgaria, said that although they were pleased to hearWT/GC/M/29
Page 56
that there was a new proposal and hopefully new prospects for a possible compromise solution among
interested parties, it was because of the broader implications of these problems that they wished to
reiterate their statement made at the Working Party Meeting on 5 May.  Thanks to the great amount of
work carried out by Latvia as well as by the Members, the key issues had already been resolved and
participants had entered the final stage of the accession process when the negotiations had to be
brought to a conclusion.  In the light of the overall readiness of Latvia, as well as of other Balticcountries, to take meaningful commitments in accedin g to the WTO, he believed that due to the spirit
of cooperation and transparency manifested by these countries, no further delay in the adoption of the
respective reports should be reported.   He underlined that the shaping of the terms of accession
should not in  any way be influenced adversely by the inclusion of issues that were not related directly
to the rights and obligations under the WTO, especially if such issues had been negotiated without a
tangible success.  It was also in that context that he wished to express strong concern with the
approach based on excessive demands for commitments in such sensitive areas as audiovisualservices.
The representative of Mexico said that on the basis of what had been heard thus far one might
get the impression that only one delegation -- the United States -- still had some points outstanding in
the process of negotiating the accession of Latvia.  However, while Mexico fully supported Latvia'saccession, he wished to note that its bilateral negotiations with Latvia had not yet been concluded, and
that it was awaiting a response from Latvia on one matter still outstanding.  It believed its request in
the bilateral negotiations corresponded to the expectations one might have from a purely commercial
point of view.  Therefore, while he emphasized Me xico's support for the rapid accession of Latvia, he
wished to make it extremely clear that Mexico had not yet fully concluded its bilateral negotiationswith Latvia.
The representative of Japan supported the statement by the Community as a matter of
principle which should be applied to accession in general.  He understood that Latvia's accession
negotiations and of other States were at their final stage, and said that WTO Members should not seekunduly the so-called WTO plus.  If certain areas or sectors were not committed to by many existing
Members then, as a matter of principle, those sectors or areas should not be made a precondition for
acceding to the WTO.  Japan of course agreed with the importance of liberalization in general.
However, there were areas where multilateral negotiations were necessary rather than seeking
liberalization in the context of accession negotiations.  Japan considered that the Baltic countries hadmade the necessary preparations to enable them to become Members, and supported their early
accession which would be beneficial both for the development of the Baltic countries and for the
multilateral trading system.  Japan also considered that accessions were not just concerned with
bilateral issues, but also other issues that concerned all WTO Members.  In this regard, Japan urged
that the accession process for the Baltic countries proceed as rapidly as possible.
The representative of Australia said he understood that Latvia had made a determined effort
to meet the requirements for WTO accession, and believed that, if possible, this effort should now be
rewarded.  Australia was concerned that not to do so could possibly send an undesirable message to
other countries seeking to accede:  that the entire effort was too hard.  His delegation encouraged the
parties concerned to find a quick solution to the issue, and had been interested to hear that a proposal
was being made.  Australia was a little uneasy that accession seemed to be held up on the one issuewhere a number of existing WTO Members had taken out exemptions.
The representative of Latvia, speaking as an obser ver, said that Latvia had striven to join the
WTO since 1995.  Five formal meetings of the Working Party, as well as several informal meetings,
had been held since then.  Latvia had also been engaged in bilateral negotiations on its market-accesscommitments with interested WTO Members and had concluded most of them by the beginning of
this year.  On the multilateral side, a mutually -acceptable agreement had been reached regarding the
formulation of Latvia's commitments, which were reflected in the draft working party report.  The
draft report and preliminary lists of concessions for goods and services had been circulated by theWT/GC/M/29
Page 57
Secretariat at the end of June and, in his opinion, formed an excellent package of accession.  He noted
that since regaining independence in 1991, his Government had launched a profound and
comprehensive reform package to establish an economic system based on the principles of market
economy.  Latvia's trade policy objectives were based on a liberal trade regime for trade in goods and
services, and the high quality of Latvia's market-access commitments in its accession package had
been recognized by most Members.  At an info rmal working party meeting held on 5 May, overall
support for an accelerated conclusion to Latvia's accession process had been expressed by Members.
In its accession negotiations, Latvia had committed itself to the implementation of all WTO
obligations upon accession without recourse to any transitional period.  Moreover, it had undertaken
certain significant WTO-plus commitments, such as implementing the TRIPS Agreement upon
accession, launching of negotiations, upon accession, to the Agreement on Government Procurement,
as well as concessions under the Information Technology Agreement. Although not a WTO Member
yet, Latvia highly respected WTO rules and regulations, a majority of which already constitute anintegral part of Latvia's legislation.  The accession process, and Latvia's potential WTO membership,
had influenced very positively and even accelerated the reform process in his country.  As regards
market access for trade in goods, Latvia had met all the requests on all tariff lines that were of interest
to Members.  As regards commitments for trade in  services, the sectoral coverage and quality of
Latvia's commitments had been recognized by all Members, although negotiations had not yet beencompleted in the audiovisual service sector, recognized as sensitive for most Members at the end of
the Uruguay Round.  Latvia was convinced that its WTO accession and its integration into the
European Communities, both of which were foreign policy priorities, were processes that were closely
interrelated and could not be separated.  That had also been understood by a number of WTO
Members.  His Government shared the view of many WTO Members that liberalization of the globalaudiovisual services market was an issue to be discussed in a multilateral framework, and remained
convinced that the current results of its bilateral market access negotiations for both goods and
services represented a generally open market-access situation.  It therefore did not believe that one
specific market access request by one Member in one specific field, which had already substantially
delayed conclusion of its accession process, should become the only obstacle for acquiringmembership in the WTO when mutually-acceptable and viable market-access commitments and full
adherence to the WTO rules had been declared as a basis for accession of any candidate country.  That
being said, he acknowledged that a revised proposal had been received the day before from the United
States, and that an initial analysis indicated that the new proposal formed a good basis for resolving
the long standstill in Latvia's accession process.  In conclusion, he appealed to the General Councilthat, taking due account of the aim of global membership in the WTO, it call for a decision for the
well-deserved conclusion of Latvia's accession process as a recognition of Latvia's ability to be one of
those engaged in the global trading system.
The representative of Jamaica said that this matter was of interest to Jamaica because it
believed that if one was a party to a commitment, such as to the 1998 Ministerial Declaration, one
should be consistent.  In paragraph 7 of that Declaration, Ministers had recalled that accession to theWTO required full respect of WTO rules and disciplines as well as meaningful market-access
commitments on the part of acceding candidates, and that a proposal to say commercially viable
commitments had not been accepted.  While one had not agreed that Members could intervene in
bilateral negotiations between Members and acceding countries, the procedures for negotiations
(WT/ACC/1) clearly underscored that where schedules, including under the GATS, were concerned,negotiations would proceed bilaterally and that, at the same time, they should be reviewed
multilaterally.  If this matter had been brought before the General Council, it was because Members
had an obligation to act multilaterally.  He believed that it was right and proper that when there was a
matter of overriding interest to any Member and an acceding country, it should be brought to the
General Council.  The audiovisual sector had been, and remained, an outstanding irritant inmultilateral negotiations.  His delegation also recognized that the longer that countries took to accede
the more difficult it was for them to meet obligations that were multilaterally agreed and which
brought all to higher levels of disciplines.  He  believed that this matter was therefore of general and
systemic importance, and that Members had a commitment in the General Council to consider it.  HeWT/GC/M/29
Page 58
therefore proposed in this regard that Members agree to place on the agenda a general review of the
accession of the 31 or 32 current applicants seeking membership, and that the Secretariat be asked to
circulate documentation which provided Members with the state of play and which would allow the
General Council and all the Members to have an appreciation regarding the status and the pace at
which the accessions were moving.
The representative of Norway said that his Government fully supported Latvia's accession.  It
was therefore a matter of concern for Norway that Latvia's accession was held up on the basis that it
had not taken market-access commitments in the audiovisual sector -- a sector in which most WTO
Members had not committed themselves to during the Uruguay Round and for which most of the
other Members had MFN exceptions.  Furthermore, it was unfortunate that it seemed to be becoming
an increasingly arduous task to become a WTO Member.  Norway therefore urged Members to
expeditiously find a solution to the remaining problems pertaining to Latvia's accession, and to seekformal approval of this by the next meeting of the General Council.  His delegation welcomed the
revised US proposals as a means towards coming to a satisfactory solution to this problem.
The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note of the statements, including of the
proposal by Jamaica for an agenda item on the next regular General Council meeting to deal with the
progress in the accession process of the various acceding countries.  He invited Jamaica to put a bit
more precision, in writing, as to exactly how it would envisage that discussion to be conducted.
The General Council so agreed.
10. Organization of Work for the September Special Session of the General Council
and
11. Review of issues raised by Members at the working sessions of the second session of the
Ministerial Conference
The Chairman said it seemed to him that it would be useful to have delegations address both
these items together in their interventions, since a review of the issues raised at the working sessions
of the Ministerial Conference would be useful in the way delegations addressed the work programme
that was to be launched under the direction of the General Council.  He proposed therefore, that the
two items be taken up together.
He recalled that in the 1998 Ministerial Declaration, Ministers had decided that a process
would be established under the direction of the General Council to ensure full and faithful
implementation of existing agreements, and to prepare for the Third Session of the Ministerial
Conference.  The Ministerial Declaration also provided that, in this regard, the General Council would
meet in special session in September 1998 and periodically thereafter to ensure full and timely
completion of its work.  At informal consultations held on 3 July, delegations had had a wide-ranginginitial exchange of views on issues relating to the organization of work for the September special
session.  The issues raised related to the respective roles of the General Council and of subsidiary
bodies in the process, the use of the existing WTO structure and the need to ensure that ongoing work
was not disrupted, as well as the question of time-frames for the staging of the process so as to lead
Members to its timely conclusion.  Also at the informal meeting, the United States had suggested thatthe General Council set in motion a review of the adequacy of technical information for the future
work.  A modified proposal by the United States had recently been submitted and circulated as
document WT/GC/W/89.  He recalled also that there were a number of documents that were now
available as a backdrop to this discussion:  the summary records of the Ministerial Conference, the
minutes of the two working sessions of the Ministerial Conference, and a check-list of issues raised atthe working sessions on implementation and on future activities, which had been circulated the day
before.  The latter was not yet a formal document, and might be subject to some fine tuning before itWT/GC/M/29
Page 59
was circulated as a formal document.  He indicated that since time was short, it would be his intention
to finalize an agenda for the September meeting before the end of July, so that delegations would have
the agenda to assist with the preparations in capitals.
The representative of Australia said that, as decided by Ministers in May, the purpose of the
General Council in Special Session was to begin the policy preparations for the third Ministerial
Conference.  In Australia's view, paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the Ministerial Declaration represented
the basis of the Agenda for the Special Session of the General Council.  Australia believed that it was
of utmost importance that at this meeting Members begin to identify the issues that were to be put
before them to develop recommendations for the th ird Ministerial Conference, in other words, the
likely menu of issues that Members would need to address in the run-up to the third Ministerial
Conference.  Australia therefore believed that in September it would be very important that issues
were raised and put on the table, albeit in a preliminary way.  This would be greatly helped by theSecretariat checklist that had recently been circulated, and his delegation would certainly welcome the
opportunity to discuss this checklist as well in September.  The process beyond the September
meeting would also need to be addressed in Septembe r.  This was the process that would lead to the
third Ministerial Conference.  Time was in fact very short for the preparations for the Third
Ministerial, and for all intents and  purposes a great deal of the work would need to be very welladvanced by July 1999.  A process was needed that would enable Members to identify the full menu
of issues and to be able to discuss these issues.  Initially, this was not a technical exercise, but one of
building up, over time, an understanding of the interests of all Members in the issues that might be
raised.  It would therefore seem appropriate that this process be conducted at the head of delegation
level.  Australia did not have a fixed view on how this might be organized:  it could be the GeneralCouncil, special sessions of the General Council, in formal meetings of the General Council, or some
other permutation.  As a practical matter, Australia envisaged that these meetings would be held very
frequently after September, and that they would be open to all Members.  An informal heads of
delegation meeting chaired by either the Chairman or the Director-General suggested itself as a
sensible way to proceed after September.  Those discussions could then be brought to less frequentGeneral Council meetings in special session.  To conclude this part of his remarks, he said that the
Agenda for September should include items on paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the 1998 Ministerial
Declaration with the item on paragraph 9 being the place for Members to raise issues and to discuss
the Secretariat's checklist of issues.  On the process, Members (i) should request, if it was at all
possible, that the United States set the date for the third Ministerial Conference;  (ii) set the dates for
all special sessions of the General Council leading to  the third Ministerial Conference; (iii)  start a
process of frequent informal meetings of Heads of Delegations, open to all Members;  and (iv) set as a
target the discussion of the full menu of issues at a meeting of the General Council in special session
in, say, January 1999.  This would not be a final cut-off date for Members to bring forward issues, but
would represent a best-endeavours target for Member s to work towards in order to bring forward
much of the menu of issues that would need to be addressed in preparation for the third Ministerial
Conference.  Members could then begin discussion on further additions to deletions from that menu.He hoped that serious consideration could be given to these suggestions.  The last part of his remarks
concerned the US proposal that the General Council request the Secretariat to prepare by the second
Special Session of the General Council an analysis of the state of consolidated schedules of tariffs and
services commitments and other technical information.  His delegation wholeheartedly supported this
proposal.
The representative of Uruguay said that, as regards the organization of work at the special
session, Members would need to address two specific  issues.  The first concerned the implementation
of agreements and he believed this would serve as a good opportunity particularly insofar as it would
complement the debates on the different papers prepared by the Secretariat and help to clarify veryspecifically the issues that arose in the area of implementation.  The second issue concerned future
work, and he believed the main task of the special session should be to determine a very clear-cut
process which would lead to the third Ministerial Conference.  As to the format, his delegation fully
agreed that the General Council should monitor and supervise the whole process until the thirdWT/GC/M/29
Page 60
Ministerial Conference.  Members should therefore draw up a timetable which would enable the
General Council to meet, say, every six weeks.  This format should be supplemented by informal
General Council meetings.  These informal meetings would in fact be taking place on a permanent
basis with the main purpose of drawing up the plans and methodology for the negotiations on those
issues which after the third Ministerial Conference would then enter the negotiating phase as such.
The consultations which the Chairman was going to hold between now and the special session shouldbe held within this overall clear-cut definition of formal and informal fora and the main task to be
given to each.  It was only logical that the first issues to be taken up in the informal meetings would
deal with the preparation of plans and mandates in the areas of agriculture and services.  Other issues,
as they developed, would be supervised by the General Council and sent to those working groups or
informal sessions that would draw up negotiating plans for those new issues.  In this way, Members
would arrive at the third Ministerial Conference with a substantive agenda of issues to negotiate.
The representative of New Zealand said he was pleased that the present discussion would be
followed closely by informal sessions at which Members could jointly work through ways of most
effectively following up in September on the May Ministerial directives.  The September session
would need to launch the preparatory process in an effective way.  This would clearly involve making
some specific decisions in September on the process and its management.  At the same time,Members would need to provide for a process that was able to evolve as the scope and the logical
framework and time scale for preparations unfolded.  The substance should dictate the format, though
there would of course be interaction between the two.  It was therefore important to lay out in
September a way of bringing forward a preliminary menu of issues for potential inclusion in future
negotiations.  This menu should be assembled at as early a phase of the preparatory process aspossible based on the specific input of Members.  The Secretariat's checklist would be a helpful initial
prompt for all Members, though it would not of course be exhaustive.  Members needed to develop
working methods to sift and clarify the menu of issues before decisions could be taken on their
inclusion or not in the WTO's future work programme.  It also seemed clear the General Council must
provide active strategic direction to the preparatory process.  It would be the General Council'sresponsibility to keep in mind at all times all aspects of the Ministerial Declaration.  It would also be
the General Council's task to give shape and clarity to the issues menu, as well as to play a direct role
in deciding on a case-by-case basis how the preparatory work should be handled on specific issues.
To the extent that Members decided to task other bod ies to do work, they should be precise in their
definition of tasks, and exercise a tight and consistent monitoring role.  New Zealand believed theSeptember meeting should map out, at least in an indicative way, the appropriate frequency and
timing of future special sessions as required un der the Ministerial Declaration.  Accompanying this
calendar of formal meetings, Members needed an open and agreed intersessional process so that the
special sessions leading up to the third Ministerial Conference were able to deliver as Ministers had
directed, and do so on target and on time.  His delegation supported the revised United States proposal
that the General Council take a decision on assessment of the state of certain key information
databases directly relevant to implementation and to future negotiations.  This would be an element ofthe infrastructure required to advance the preparatory process.
The representative of Mexico said that the main purpose of the September special session
would be to set a timetable for the steps to be followed between that meeting and the third Ministerial
Conference.  His delegation shared Australia's view regarding the need to set a date for Members tosubmit proposals on issues to be negotiated.  Mexico believed that new bodies should not be
established, and that the entire preparatory process for the third Ministerial Conference should be
supervised and controlled by the General Counc il following an interactive top-down approach.
The representative of Jamaica reiterated his view that the minutes of the formal meetings of
the General Council constituted the only basis on which Members should work, in other words, that
they constituted the record of the undertakings Members made.  His delegation was working on the
following documentation:  the minutes of the prev ious Council meetings, the summary records of the
Ministerial Conference, the minutes of the Working Sessions of the Ministerial Conference, theWT/GC/M/29
Page 61
Ministerial Declaration on Electronic Commerce, as well as the decision proposed for adoption at the
present meeting in document WT/GC/W/89.  He also wished to put on record Jamaica's letter of
8 June which requested that the General Council meet  in the month of June to review the two topics
that were on the Agenda of the present meeting and which had been discussed at an informal meeting.
He also wished to put on record the Chairman's re ply of 25 June, which had been circulated to all
Members.  His delegation believed that in September the General Council should adopt a programmeof work which would take Members through into ea rly 1999.  He believed it would be useful if the
Chairman in his informal consultations could indicate what items would be on the agenda of the
regular General Council meetings scheduled for October and December.  That would allow Members
to see how the ongoing work of the Organization was being addressed.  Also at the September
meeting, Members should take a decision not to convene additional special sessions.  The rules of
procedure did not call for special sessions of the General Council.  He believed that Members should,
however, be prepared to adjourn the session in September and resume it at set intervals in a formalway so that the discussions could be continued.  On the basis of the session in September, and
resumed sessions at defined periods, Members would know precisely where they were going.  In
doing so, his delegation saw not only paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration as relevant, but rather
paragraphs 9, 10 and 11.  If this reading was correct, then the proposal put forward by the United
States might not be necessary because his delegation saw the work on paragraphs 10 and 11 as beingpart of the frame, while the proposal by the United States was limited only to paragraph 9.  The
September meeting would not be distinct and separate from any meeting to take up electronic
commerce.  Electronic commerce and its work programme was fully reflected in paragraph 9(d),
which referred to recommendations arising from consideration of other matters proposed and agreed
to by Members concerning their multilateral trade rela tions.  As regards the analysis of the technical
information database by the Secretariat, he didn't think a formal decision was necessary.  Notifications
of schedules for both goods and services existed, and whatever problems there were with the
integrated database and other technical information should easily be collated merely on the request or
a summary by the Chairman, and did not require negotiations in the General Council.  If a formal
decision were required for simple, straightforward requests of the Secretariat, he feared Memberswould hamstring themselves and the Secretariat.  He referred to a report recently submitted jointly by
the UNCTAD and the WTO to the ECOSOC high-level meeting (document E/1998/55 of 7 July),
which made a number of specific points and references to tariff peaks, major agricultural food and
commodities and so on, and provided an analysis of all the data relating to market access.  It surprised
him that the WTO Secretariat would not need a General Council decision to prepare this with theUNCTAD Secretariat, and to submit it as a document for consideration at the United Nations and for
a Ministerial declaration or a Ministerial communiqué even before WTO Members themselves had
had a chance to take this work forward.  In light of this why would Members wish to hamstring
themselves in getting the Secretariat to provide them with this data?  It should be there, and did not
really require a negotiated decision.  He hoped therefore that if this decision were necessary, it would
not give rise to any real debate.  Finally, with regard to outcome, he believed that the agenda
determined the outcome.  For the September meeting it would be particularly useful if the Chairmanwere to circulate his view of what were the organizational as well as the substantive issues so that
Members might consult on that.  His own view was that the Ministerial Declaration already set up the
substantive issues, but it might be necessary for them to be annotated in a clear way.  The outcome
would lead Members to an appreciation of whether they were on a sound footing to take a decision in
the General Council as to the date of the next Ministerial Conference.  Formally and properly, theGeneral Council had been mandated by Ministers in May to set the date for the next Ministerial
Conference.  Jamaica's Minister had stated at the working session that in light of all the various
elements before Members the year 2000 appeared to be the most convenient time to aim for.
The representative of Switzerland said that Members should, at the present stage, avoid
freezing any positions and leave open the possibility of evolving in the light of the positions
expressed.  Switzerland believed that no topic could be excluded at present because it was imperative
that the work programme that would be drawn up guarantee a balance of interests of all Members,
pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Ministerial Declaration.  The work programme of the General CouncilWT/GC/M/29
Page 62
was structured according to the terms of paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration and should make it
possible to identify topics for discussion as well as to draw up recommendations on the basis of
proposals submitted by Members.  In view of the political nature of this work, which would be
brought to the attention of Ministers at the thir d Ministerial Conference, it could only be conducted by
the General Council.  The nature of the subjects identified would partly determine the structure that
would have to be set up, but whatever the form chosen on would have to make sure that the work ofthe subsidiary bodies would not be disturbed so that these bodies would continue to be able to comply
with their priority task of overseeing the implementation and proper functioning of the WTO
Agreements.  That being said, Members should avoi d any duplication of efforts with work already
underway in certain committees and which was based on the built-in agenda.  The best possible use of
the available time should be made in order to be able to give Ministers, at the end of 1999, appropriate
recommendations and subjects for a work programme so that they would be able to take decisions that
might result from such proposals.  As of the special session in September, the General Council shouldbe able to launch a preparatory process towards this end and determine a calendar of work up to the
beginning of the following year to begin with.  This calendar of work should set indicative deadlines
for Members' submissions as well as indicate the date of the next special session of the General
Council.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said it was important that Members developed a
common understanding as soon as possible as to the desired outcome of the September special
session.  This would enable Members to focus their preparations.  His delegation suggested that at the
special session in September, Members should reach agreement on a number of points:  (i) a work
programme for 1999 which set out the milestones Members had to reach along the way in order todeliver a timely and high-quality product to Ministers at the third Conference.  For this purpose, it
would, of course, be necessary to know the date of  that Conference;  (ii) Members should also fix in
September a date for the second special session and develop an understanding of what would need to
be achieved at that session;  (iii) assuming that there was a gap between the first and the second
special sessions, Members should agree on an inclusive informal process at the head of delegationlevel to take place regularly within the interval in order to ensure that they did not lose momentum;
(iv) Members should agree that the preparatory pr ocess for the third Ministerial Conference should be
what Mexico accurately characterized as an interactive top-down process.  In other words, ongoing
direction must be clearly provided by the Genera l Council and momentum must not be lost through
dissipating efforts in subsidiary bodies.  This was not to say that subsidiary bodies did not have a role.Indeed, they had a vital role.  However, they should be carefully directed and be able to refer
problems or questions back to the top level quickly if necessary;  and (v) Members should set a target
date by which they would raise in an initial way issues in those areas of our preparations that were
primarily Member-driven, in particular with reference to paragraphs 9(a)(i) and 9(d) of the Ministerial
Declaration relating to "implementation" and "other  matters".  His delegation made this suggestion
because the general scope of the other areas of paragraph 9 was already known.  For example,
Members knew roughly what was encompassed by the mandated negotiations and the Singapore workprogramme, but nothing about the two elements that  were primarily Member-driven.  It would help to
get some idea of the overall potential scope of the task facing Members if issues under paragraphs
9(a)(i) and 9(d) were raised at a reasonably early stage.  This was not to say that detailed proposals
were required yet, but rather just indications.  Also, Members should of course reserve their right to
raise issues later on if necessary.  It might also be  helpful to allow time in September for some initial
discussion of the other elements of the menu in paragraph 9 so that Members could develop a better
feel for the task facing them.  The Secretariat's checklist was a useful background document in this
connection.  Finally, his delegation also fully supported the revised US proposal in WT/GC/W/89.
Commissioning the Secretariat to do this work would seem to be prudent.  This decision did not need
to wait, and could be taken at the present meeting.  Indeed, a timely decision might help to avoidunnecessary technical delays at a later stage in the preparatory process.
The representative of Hungary said that the present discussion was encouraging because the
differences of views and perceptions had significantly narrowed.  This clearly showed that the processWT/GC/M/29
Page 63
of informal consultations was producing positive results, and should be continued in the future.  His
delegation expected from the September meeting the launch of a preparative process leading up to the
Third Ministerial Conference in an ordinary, structured manner.  Members therefore needed to take
some specific decisions in September.  First, wh en and how often the General Council would meet in
special session.  Second, to launch a regular informal process at the heads of delegation level chaired
by the Chairman or the Director-General, as appropriate.  During this informal process, delegationswould be requested to make proposals, specially in relation to paragraphs 9a(i) and 9(d) of the
Ministerial Declaration.  It was important that this informal process should make it possible to
exchange views  so that at the end of it Members would be in a position to see on which issues
consensus could be reached.  Of course the list of  issues would not be final.  Third, Members would
also have to decide on the exact date and agenda of the next meeting in January.  His delegation
supported the idea of having a fixed target date for the presentation of topics to be included for
negotiations.  These were Hungary's minimum expectations, and it believed that it would beextremely useful to have at least a detailed outline of the work programme for the whole of 1999.
The representative of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, said that they
viewed the September session as primarily having three objectives.  First, as mandated by Ministers in
May, the session should launch a preparatory process for the Third Ministerial Conference.  Second, itshould decide upon the organization, structure and time-frame for this preparatory process.  Third, it
should lead to some preliminary views on the issu es that the preparatory process would have to
address.  Like others, the ASEAN Members believed that the special session should have a central
role in the preparatory process.  The General Counci l should not only have overall responsibility for
the preparatory process and thus exercise a supervisory function, but should also provide strategicguidance to the deliberations.  It should help define, develop and bring forward an appropriate menu
of recommendations in respect of paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Ministerial Declaration for the
consideration of Ministers at the Third Ministerial Conference.  Furthermore, the ASEAN Members
did not see the need for the creation of any special mechanisms operating in parallel to the special
sessions of the General Council to complement the latter's work, as suggested by some.  However,they believed that task forces might be created under the auspices of General Council to address
specific trade-related issues raised in the course of the preparations and those trade-related issues not
currently under the purview of WTO bodies. In addition, there should not be any overlap between the
work carried out in the special sessions of the General Council and the various WTO Committees and
Councils.  The General Council might call upon subsidiary bodies for inputs into its work, and thesebodies might prepare recommendations, including in compliance with their mandates, on the issues
under their purview for the General Council's consideration.  With regard to the issues raised by
Members at the working sessions of the Second Ministerial Conference, the ASEAN Members
welcomed the Secretariat's checklist of issues. Howeve r, they wished to emphasize that they did not
see it as being exhaustive.  Members should be free to add to it as discussions proceeded, and they
should be encouraged to do so as early as possible, perhaps by the September special session.  Finally,
the special session should be held with predictable regularity so as to facilitate the participation ofcapital-based officials and to ensure that the preparatory process was kept on track.  With regard to
the US proposal, they needed some additional time to discuss it and were therefore not in a position to
endorse it at the present meeting.  To help in their discussions, they requested the following
clarifications from the United States:.  First, what was meant by "second special session" in term of
timing?  Second, what was the scope of the analysis  being proposed?  Was it WTO-wide or confined
to mandated negotiations?  Third, how did one guarantee against duplication of work already done in
the committees with regard to compliance with notification obligations?  And fourth, what was meant
by "purpose of conducting Negotiations" in the revised draft decision?
The representative of Egypt said that various delegations had referred to the Ministerial
Declaration as if it started from paragraph 9.  However, his delegation wished to refer also to the
previous paragraphs which were of extreme importance to it, and on which paragraphs 9, 10 and 11
were built.  Egypt's first priority would be implementation, including the various issues raised at the
first working session of the Ministerial Conference, and paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Declaration.WT/GC/M/29
Page 64
The wording of paragraph 8 was very meaningful for Egypt, and it would be on that basis that
Ministers, when they met at the third session, would further pursue the evaluation of the
implementation of individual agreements and the re alization of their objectives.  For Egypt, this
would be the cornerstone of preparations for the Third Ministerial Conference, without which one
would witness the further marginalization of a considerable number of countries in the trading system.
One had also not to forget paragraph 7 regarding accessions.  If Members were aiming for theuniversality of the system, they had to facilitate the entry of the countries waiting in the queue.  He
believed this was one of the responsibilities of Members in the General Council, since this was the
body tasked with the preparations for the Third Ministerial Conference. The General Council should
look at the broader issue of accessions to see where the problems lay, and he believed that this was the
sense of paragraph 7.  Linked to that was paragraph 9 and 9(a)(i), which he believed was the most
important sub-item in the Declaration.  Egypt had difficulties in implementation in various areas,
including agriculture and the Decision on net food-importing developing countries, textiles andclothing, special and differential treatment, the SPS Agreement, anti-dumping, and tariff peaks,
among others.  He emphasized his delegation's view that unless there was full satisfaction in regard to
implementation, the Third Ministerial Conference  would not be a success. Finally, with regard
to the draft decision in WT/GC/W/89, his delegation had some questions regarding the role the
Secretariat was being asked to play. He was concerned that a request to the Secretariat to analyse thetechnical information with a view to identifying in adequacies that could bear directly on either the
implementation of existing agreements or Members' ability to rely on existing schedules, notifications
and technical information for the purpose of conducting negotiations seemed to be calling for value
judgements on the part of the Secretariat, and not for factual information.  His delegation was also
unclear as to what was meant by "negotiations", which could include a number of things.  Did that, forexample, refer to the built-in agenda or some other negotiation?   These questions needed some
clarification.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation saw the special session of the General
Council as a process to discuss, in addition to the electronic commerce work programme, the
methodology, process and organization of work in order for delegations to be able to submit
recommendations for the WTO work programme to the Third Ministerial Conference.  His delegation
did not at present have specific ideas regarding the organizational aspects, and would be able to
indicate its views at the September meeting.  It was important for Japan that whatever form the
process would take, it should not undermine the ongoing work in the existing WTO bodies, whichwas very important, particularly regarding the built-in agenda.  At the same time, in the first phase of
the preparatory process, it would be important to identify the components of the work programme.
With regard to the US proposal, he believed it was important to have a sound basis for technical
information, but that the proposal be subject to discussion in September as part of the overall
organization of work.  Finally, like the ASEAN Memb ers, Japan believed that while the Secretariat's
checklist would be very useful, it should not be regarded as exhaustive and that Members should be
able to add elements to it.
The representative of Mauritius said that his delegation subscribed to the view that the
General Council at its special session in September should agree to adopt a work programme to take
Members through 1999, and agreed with Jamaica that  the subsequent meetings of the General Council
should be regular meetings.  He supported Hong Kong, China on the need to know as early aspossible the date of the Third Ministerial Conference, and wished also to know where in the United
States the meeting would be held.  He hoped that the United States would be able to provide this
information at the September meeting, if not earlier.  His delegation also agreed that the General
Council should establish a calendar for its regular mee ting.  With regard to th e need to identify a full
menu of issues, the checklist prepared by the Secretariat would serve as a useful basis.  His delegationalso agreed with Egypt that Members should not  look only at paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the
Ministerial Declaration but also at paragraph 7 relating to accession.  Mauritius recognized the deep
concern expressed by Ministers on the issues of liberalization, globalization, integration and the
consequent marginalization of a number of developing countries, LDCs and certain small economies.WT/GC/M/29
Page 65
Working in the direction of addressing these concerns would not only help the marginalized countries
but would also have beneficial impacts on the total welfare and prosperity of all Members.  In a
globalizing world, all Members of the WTO rule-based system were intricately linked in an
interdependent relationship.  If the links of this chain were severed in one area the ripple effects
would hardly take long to manifest themselves.  Since the Committee on Trade and Development
would next meet in September, before the special session of the General Council, and was scheduledto take up the issue of small economies in line with paragraph 6 of the Ministerial Declaration, his
delegation would appreciate the General Council giving clear guidelines to the CTD and any other
appropriate body on the urgent need to address this issue in a comprehensive and coherent manner,
and to subsequently report to the General Council with appropriate recommendations for submission
to the Third Ministerial Conference.  He noted that other international organizations such as
UNCTAD, the Commonwealth, IMF and World Bank were  also involved in analytical studies on the
problems of small economies.  His delegation trusted that the General Council would find a suitablemechanism to receive contributions from these interna tional fora so as to be able to carry out the work
in a comprehensive way, keeping in mind the need to avoid duplication of work.
The representative of the United States believed that it was important to agree at the
September Special Session to a working method to guide Members' activities in the period leading to
the Third Session, which the United States expected  to host in November or December 1999.  In view
of the short time available until the Third Session, her delegation believed Members should have the
following concrete objectives for the September meeting.  First, Members should agree on the
electronic commerce work programme.  Second, they should agree on a working method for the
General Council through November 1999.  As a first point of this working method, Members shouldset a calendar of meetings for the General Council.  This objective seems shared by a large number of
delegates.  As a second point, Members should agree on what should be the focus of the phases to be
set for the General Council work.  For example, one could agree that there should be a first phase of
the work lasting through the first quarter of 1999 during which time the General Council should
review issues in order of their appearance in the 1998 Ministerial Declaration:  implementation,agriculture, services, intellectual property, and review items for the built-in agenda.  A second phase
of work in the second quarter of 1999 should be dedicated to the presentation by delegations of
proposals for negotiations.  In a third phase of work lasting from July through November 1999, the
General Council would dedicate its work to the sett ing up of work plans for the negotiations.  Finally,
in light of the experience of the 1998 Ministerial Conference, it would be extremely important for theWTO to take advantage of the agreed guidelines for relations with NGOs to organize an active
dialogue with the business community and other private sector representatives to ensure that outside
stakeholders had an opportunity to make their view s known and benefit from an informed view of the
nature of the WTO's work in the lead-up to the next negotiations.  In this connection, her delegation
welcomed the remarks by the Director-General under Item 7.
Turning to the proposed decision in document WT/GC/W/89, her delegation believed it had a
great deal of support.  While Jamaica had questioned the form of the proposal, she did not believe it
had opposed the objective.  The proposal was motivated by the fact that in a number of cases
informed recommendations and decisions relating to  the work programme would need to take into
account the state of the schedules of concessions and commitments, existing databases, whether
notifications were up to date, and what really was happening in Members' trade regimes as opposed towhat was scheduled in the Uruguay Round or known to be the case several years earlier. It was not
too early for the General Council to decide at its present meeting that the Secretariat should be tasked
with preparing an analysis of the state of the information base and report back to the General Council
at the time of the second Special Session of the General Council.  She went on to describe the main
changes that had been made to the text of the draft decision since the previous week.  She hopedMembers could support taking action on this proposal  at the present meeting today.  If Members did
not feel that they needed to take a formal decision to ask for this work from the Secretariat, her
delegation would be agreeable to this.  What was important was that the work get done.  She
suggested that the Chairman in his summing-up on this agenda item could express the sense of theWT/GC/M/29
Page 66
Members that the Secretariat should prepare the technical analysis that was the subject of the US
proposal, and that the General Council could dispense with the formal decision.  In closing, she
responded to some of the questions that had been raised by other delegations regarding the proposal.
The first concerned the timeframe for the Second Special Session, and her delegation believed that
such a meeting might logically fall in December 1998 or January 1999.  The second concerned the
scope of the analysis, and her delegation's view of the scope was broader than the built-in agenda andwould include, for example, an analysis of the state of the information relating to industrial tariffs.
This would not prejudge, in her view, whether ther e would be negotiations in other areas than the
built-in agenda. The third question concerned whether the US had attempted to guarantee that the
proposal would not duplicate existing work by switching analysis to the Secretariat and not assigning
it to Members of the Committees and Councils.  The US reference to the purpose of conducting
negotiations reflected the fact that in many ways where negotiations were either already agreed to or
might be agreed to, Members would need to have at the beginning of these negotiations a goodunderstanding of their partners' trade regimes.  With regard to Egypt's question as to whether the
decision was not asking the Secretariat to make a judgement concerning the information, she recalled
that her delegation had consistently stated that it was asking only for the state of the information.
Members could make their own judgements.  Finally, in response to Egypt's second question, she
said that the aim was to have all of the informatio n provided so that Members could note the state of
where the information was for the negotiations.
The representative of Chile said that paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration clearly
provided the mandate to establish a process under the guidance of the General Council both to ensure
the full implementation of existing agreements as well as to lead, in the appropriate way, to the
drawing up of recommendations regarding the WTO work programme for the Third Ministerial
Conference.  It was therefore the General Counc il's duty to carry this forward and monitor the
process, and it was in this body where a work plan should be drawn up for the preparations for the
Third Ministerial Conference.  It was also in the General Council that a general balance would be
achieved amongst the interests of all Members, as referred to in paragraph 11, and whererecommendations should be drawn up as those refe rred to in paragraph 10, which would be drawn
from consideration of the issues proposed under paragraph 9.  This process should be begun at the
September Special.  Members should first establish a timetable with periodic meetings of the General
Council in an informal or formal mode which would make it possible to take stock of progress in
work.  Members should also in September set the date for the following special session of the GeneralCouncil.  Second, the process should have substance behind it:  i.e. the issues referred to in paragraphs
9 (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Ministerial Declaration.  In September, one could already begin a
preliminary discussion of the issues which each Member wished to see discussed in the General
Council process with a view to drawing up a menu wh ich could later be defined in greater detail.  In
view of the high political content of the recomm endations which the General Council should prepare,
her delegation believed that the General Council should be the body that received proposals from
Members either in written or oral form, and that the General Council should decide whether it wishedto entrust a specific issue to a subsidiary body, if necessary.  She believed that for the time being the
process should remain flexible, and if a deadline, say January, were set for proposals, this should not
make it impossible for other issues to be raised late r.  Members should also be willing to hold more
meetings than those initially planned if necessary.  Where there could not be flexibility, however, was
regarding the conclusion of the work, because the recommendations would have to be submitted tothe Third Ministerial Conference, which would have a set date of the end of November or December
1999.  Finally, her delegation wished to support the modified US proposal, with the clarification that
the information to be provided by the Secretariat should be in a document of a purely factual nature
without any judgements.  Members could analyse any shortcomings in the information and see how
important this might be for the negotiating process.
The representative of the European Communities said he shared the view expressed by a
number of delegations that the September Special Session should aim to agree the general approach
and the process of preparing for the next Ministerial Conference as well as the timetable for carryingWT/GC/M/29
Page 67
out that work.  As foreseen in the Ministerial De claration, the process of preparation should obviously
be designed to enable the General Council to consider  the full range of issues raised by Members in a
balanced and comprehensive manner.  As his delegation had previously stated, the role of the General
Council should be one of oversight -- perhaps sligh tly more than that in terms of implementation –
and that the specific work would seem best done in  subsidiary bodies.  His delegation wished to leave
open the question of whether further General Council meetings would be special sessions or justordinary sessions.  His delegation agreed with the idea behind the US proposal of ensuring that all the
information necessary to enable informed recommendations to be made on the work programme was
available in good time.  He underlined that all the information had to be brought under review if the
full range of issues raised by Members were to be considered.  His delegation could go along with the
suggestion that the Chair could note this request for information and indicate that the Secretariat
would be ready to provide it, although it would equally be willing to leave it open.  It was actually an
important part of the General Council's duty in establishing the preparatory process to consider thisquestion of information.  His delegation would therefore be willing to leave this open since it did not
necessarily have to be decided in advance.  He believed that despite the explanations there was still a
slight difficulty in understanding what was meant by "the state of information", and that
"inadequacies" might suggest that one was not simp ly seeking factual information but rather some
qualitative aspects, although he didn't believe that was the intention.  With regard to the expected dateof the next Ministerial Conference, he believed the expectation had been that the Conference would
be held towards the end of 1999.
The representative of Canada said that almost  everyone had spoken of the September Special
Session as launching a preparatory process that would lead to the Third Ministerial Conference.  In
Canada's view, the agenda had already been set by Ministers at their Second Ministerial Conference,
and was to be found in the Ministerial Declaration, and in particular in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11.  Over
the course of the following year, Members would need  to provide some precision with regard to the
general headings contained in the agenda.  In this regard, the checklist prepared by the Secretariat
would be helpful, although in looking at providing precision to the agenda her delegation would notconsider the checklist to be an exhaustive document.  While Canada agreed that Members would need
to adopt a programme of work and a calendar, it did not have fixed views yet on what the time-frame
or the scope of the work during that time might be.  She thanked the United States for having
provided some precision about the likely dates for the Third Ministerial Conference, and believed it
would be important to work backwards from those da tes in order to determine just what needed to be
done and when.  Canada did not have any particular views at this point as to whether one would need
to have regular General Council meetings or special sessions, although it did see the need for
extensive informal consultations over the course of this process.
The representative of Turkey said that the Ministerial Declaration provided that a programme
of work and a process be established in preparation for the Third Session of the Ministerial
Conference.  The Declaration already provided a good many elements that would greatly facilitateMembers' work. The content of future negotiations was to be found in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 and the
role of the General Council had also been set out clearly in those paragraphs.  The General Council, as
the political body, should establish the framework fo r the work while drawing up a very precise list of
tasks for the subsidiary bodies always in the light of  the content of the Ministerial Declaration in its
different paragraphs. The General Council should supervise this work and that of the subsidiarybodies, and carry the process through to the end under its guidance.  If required, new ad hoc bodies
should be created.  Contributions from delegations would also be very useful in preparing for the
Third Ministerial Conference.  At the Special Session in September it would also be useful from a
pragmatic point of view to have a calendar for the subsequent work to be carried out in order to
implement the contents of the Declaration.
The representative of India said that his delegation had not yet been able to study the checklist
recently circulated by the Secretariat in order to  be able to offer meaningful comments, and would
prefer some time to be able to do so.  Since some delegations had stated that the checklist should notWT/GC/M/29
Page 68
be considered exhaustive, he believed it would be appropriate to include the present Agenda item 12
as an item on the Agenda of the Special Session scheduled for September to enable delegations to
make their contributions on various issues and for detailed discussion.  Indeed, the checklist had a
bearing on paragraph 9(a)(i) of the Ministerial Declaration.  He requested therefore that the Chairman
consider this suggestion in drawing up the proposed Agenda and finalizing it in the consultations he
was going to hold.  He noted that Item 11 of the Agenda related to "organization of work for theSeptember Special Session of the General Council".  As many delegations had stated, the Special
Session would launch the preparatory process for the next Ministerial Conference.  Many delegations
had therefore understandably, while speaking under this item, also offered comments on the
preparatory process that would follow the Septembe r session, since they were inter-related.  His
delegation would also follow the same approach.
At the outset, he wished to state that Members had negotiated the text of the Ministerial
Declaration on the basis that it did not in any manner prejudice anybody's position.  His delegation
considered it important that in the preparatory process to be decided on in September there would be
no attempt to prejudice anyone's position nor prejudge any issue.  On the role of the General Council,
he recalled that in informal consultations on this issue, he had stated that, as per the Ministerial
Declaration, the General Council  should be in charge  of the preparatory process.  He had pointed out
that his delegation was not against certain aspects of work being delegated to the relevant subsidiary
bodies with a clear time-limit for the latter's input to the General Council.  He had also pointed out
that as the preparatory process evolved, Members co uld decide on what aspects should be dealt with
by the General Council itself and what aspects could be delegated to relevant subsidiary bodies with
appropriate guidance.  He had also pointed out that implementation issues and concerns requiredhandling with political sensitivity and perspective, and should be directly under the charge of the
General Council.  The Community had in a way acknowledged this concern by stating that the
General Council's oversight function of the Genera l Council could be slightly more in the case of
implementation.
His delegation had no serious problem with the approach that the September meeting should
decide on the dates of the various informal and formal meetings of the General Council  and try to
decide on a work programme.  The United States had made some suggestions to split the work
programme into different phases which his delegation had not been completely able to follow, and
wished to reflect on it further.  Hong Kong, China had rightly pointed out that while delegations hadsome idea about the "menu" relating to paragraphs 9(a)(ii), 9(a)(iii), 9(b) and 9(c) of the Ministerial
Declaration, there was no clarity as yet about the menu relating to paragraphs 9(a)(i) and 9(d).  He
noted that the United States had referred to mandated negotiations in services, agriculture, and
intellectual property, and wished to note that there were no mandated negotiations in the TRIPS
Agreement, but rather reviews. For India, para graph 9(a)(i) dealing with implementation was very
important, and he recalled that in the run up to the 1998 Ministerial Conference, his delegation had
been persistent in its request that the preparatory process for the next Conference should take on boardissues and concerns arising out of implementation.  However, while Hong Kong, China had suggested
that delegations should try to indicate in September the list of issues they might propose for
consideration under paragraph 9(a)(i) this could not be treated as a deadline.  While his delegation
could indicate some of the issues of concern to India at the September meeting, it would not be
possible to provide an exhaustive list of issues at that time.  Delegations like his would requireconsiderable amount of time to table specific proposals in this regard.  From the wording of
paragraph 9(a)(i), it was clear that Members could also take on board issues listed in the checklist
circulated by the Secretariat.  It was therefore necessary to ensure that Agenda item 12 of the present
meeting was included as an item for the September special session so that Members could take a view
about the manner of dealing with paragraph 9(a)(i).  Turning to the US proposal, he had noted theexplanation offered by the United States that it was not its intention to prejudice anyone's position.
However, the draft text raised some concerns for his delegation by suggesting an analysis by the
Secretariat of the state of consolidated tariffs "for the purpose of conducting negotiations".  The draft
definitely implied that information was being sought, inter alia , on industrial tariffs for the purpose ofWT/GC/M/29
Page 69
conducting negotiations.  His delegation had not thus far agreed to further negotiations on industrial
tariffs, and the US proposal therefore prejudiced this position.  Furthermore, the proposal referred to
commitments undertaken in the services sector.  The first problem in this regard was that it was
unclear as to how the draft decision was related to Article XIX:3 of the GATS.  Moreover, services
schedules were public documents, and by requesting the Secretariat to do an analysis on commitments
undertaken in the services sector, one might be asking for value judgements by the Secretariat whichmany delegations had pointed out was not desirable.  In the light of this, his delegation was
uncomfortable with the US proposal and wished to reflect on it further.
The representative of Bolivia said that her delegation attached importance to the initiation as
soon as possible of the consideration of the problems which the small economies came up against in
their endeavours within the WTO.  This was in order to find jointly the most appropriate measures
which would enable developing countries to minimize and remove the obstacles which at the momentprevented them from fully participating in the system .  This improved participation will ensure that
international trade became the true motor for growth which all wished to achieve.  These measures
would enable developing countries to obviate the danger of marginalization and also add further
credibility and legitimacy to the WTO.  Her delegation supported the point made by Mauritius in this
regard.  She also wished to echo the points made by Mexico, Indonesia and Hong Kong, China thatthe preparatory process be carried out within the framework of the General Council, and that
Members avoid creating extra bodies which would make the participation of small delegations even
more difficult.
The representative of Pakistan said that wi th regard to the preparations for the Third
Ministerial Conference, his delegation believed that this should be conducted in regular dedicated
meetings of the General Council.  Such meetings might take place on a monthly basis and later on
more frequently when so required.  The General Council might also entrust subsidiary bodies with
specific tasks and should also consider reports from these bodies.  Therefore, there should be both a
top-down and bottom-up approach.  With regard to the content of the discussions and the modalitiesof facilitating these discussions, Pakistan believed that the implementation issues raised by Members
in the course of the Second Ministerial Conference might be discussed first in the sequence of matters
to be taken up by the General Council from September 1998.  In this regard, besides the Secretariat's
checklist of issues regarding implementation issues, it would be useful if the Secretariat could provide
brief analytical papers on the status of implementation of key agreements such as textiles, agricultureand anti-dumping.  The focus of such analytical papers would be to assess whether the anticipated
benefits of various Agreements were being realized, to identify the problems in implementation, and
to suggest measures for their redress.  The General Council might also consider inviting inputs on the
subject of implementation from other relevant organizations including UNCTAD.  The General
Council should encourage Member countries to table non-papers on their experiences with respect to
the implementation of various agreements.  The papers should be brief, and their main objective
would be to provide the necessary evidence on the implementation of various agreements, particularlyin relation to the difficulties many developing countries were facing in the implementation of specific
agreements.  As for the built-in agenda, the mandated reviews in areas such as dispute settlement,
TRIPS, TRIMs were of utmost importance, as they  would provide an opportunity to identify and
correct some of the structural shortcomings characterizing these agreements.  In carrying out the
reviews, the Committees might draw on inputs provided both by Members as well as inputs fromother relevant bodies.  Finally, Pakistan believed that in the final set of recommendations which
Members would arrive at later on in the process, it was imperative that they kept in mind the principle
of balance that was embodied in paragraph 11 of the Ministerial Declaration.
The representative of Argentina said that the upcoming Special Session of the General
Council was an opportunity to adopt a calendar and a work programme setting out one or more special
meetings of the General Council, in the sense that these meetings would be exclusively devoted to the
monitoring of the process initiated at the Ministerial Conference.  Some of these meetings would have
to be essentially devoted to a stock-taking exercise.  As part of this calendar and work programme,WT/GC/M/29
Page 70
Members should also hold a meeting to agree on proposals to be submitted in 1999 to the Third
Ministerial Conference.  As indicated by the United States, the Third Ministerial Conference might be
held towards the end of the third quarter of the foll owing year.  His delegation could go along with the
United States views regarding the splitting of the process into three clearly defined phases.  In
addition to these meetings of the General Council,  Argentina believed that between such meetings
there would be a need to hold informal meetings probably at the heads of delegation level to take upthe various subparagraphs of paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration.  The process would have to
define the scope, structure and calendar related to each of the elements included in subparagraph 9 of
the Declaration.  In the course of this exercise, Members should also determ ine how to move forward
in this process in conjunction with the standing bodies, i.e. the Councils and Committees that reported
to the General Council.  In this respect, his delegation believed that there might be subsidiary bodies
that would be in a position to move forward either  in the mandated negotiations or in reviews which
were agreed to in the Uruguay Round.  There were other subsidiary bodies, on the other hand, forwhich either due to the essentially technical nature of their work or due to the burden of the work
programme inherent in the follow-up of implem entation of the Uruguay Round Agreements, it would
be difficult to be in a position to undertake any political negotiations which this process required.
There was therefore the need to leave to the General Council the decision of determining which was
the best institutional path to follow in handling each  specific issue as regards the various aspects
referred to in paragraph 9 and 10 of the Ministerial Declaration.  He stressed that this exercise should
not affect the regular work programme of the General Council or its subsidiary bodies.  Argentina had
no difficulty in going along with those delegations that felt that at the present time the General
Council should adopt the draft decision proposed by the United States.  Finally, his delegation was at
the Chairman's disposal to continue with informal consultations.
The representative of Uganda associated his delegation with Egypt's statement with regard to
the need to also look at other paragraphs of the Ministerial Declaration in addition to paragraph 9.
Uganda saw the next meeting of the General Council as setting in motion the process which Members
had been directed to undertake.  Members should ag ree to work out a calendar of meetings although
that should be flexible.  He agreed with India that the primary responsibility for the preparation for the
Third Ministerial Conference lay with the Gene ral Council, and that Members should indeed not
overburden the subsidiary bodies to the detriment of the work they already were doing.  The General
Council could of course give them directives.  Uganda believed that the problem of implementation
was very important, and that that should be one of the issues to be discussed earlier on in theprogramme of work.  The programme should be aimed at achieving overall balance of interests of all
Members, and that directive should not be lost sight of.  His delegation could go along with India's
proposal about including the present agenda item on the agenda of the September meeting, at which
Members would be able to comment on the Secretariat's checklist.  His delegation was also willing to
look constructively at the proposal by the United States,  although India's comments regarding the
importance of not prejudicing anyone's position should be taken into account.
The representative of Korea said that since the Special Session in September was the first
such meeting of the General Council to discuss th e follow-up to the Ministerial Conference, Members
should focus on the organization of the overall broad process elaborated in paragraph 9 of the
Declaration.  This meant that priority should be given to the establishment of the timetable of the
process leading up to the Third Ministerial Conference in November or December 1999 as suggestedby the United States.  Regarding the scope of negotiations, the Secretariat's checklist would be useful
in providing an overview of the issues raised as well as a review of the discussions of the working
sessions.  On the draft decision proposed by the United States, Korea agreed on the need to analyse
the state of consolidated schedules of tariffs, among other things, for the identification of inadequacies
in such information.  Furthermore, Korea appreciated the clarifications provided by the United Stateson some of the questions that had been raised by delegations.  However, like others, his delegation
wished to have further elaboration from the United States on the meaning of "analysis of the state of
consolidated schedules… and technical information".WT/GC/M/29
Page 71
The representative of Tunisia said that the idea expressed by Uruguay that Members hold
regular meetings counting back from the date for the Third Ministerial Conference was one that
should be retained, and that in this regard it would be appreciated if the United States could indicate
some prospective dates.  His delegation was in favour of the US proposal that the Secretariat be asked
to draw up an analysis of the state of technical in formation, which would be useful as a tool in the
further process to be identified by Members, keeping in mind the interests of all Members while at thesame time not disrupting work under way in other WTO bodies.  The paper should contain the
maximum amount of elements and not exclude anything.  His delegation believed that the General
Council's role in the process should be central, and that the General Council be able to hold both
formal and informal meetings as well as special sessions in a flexible programme which could be
adjusted in the light of the evolution of the work  and also in light of whether or not other bodies
should be tasked with certain functions.  The calendar proposed by the United States could be
considered as a simple means to tackle all of the issues which were contained in the MinisterialDeclaration.  It would take into account the need for Members to move ahead on all fronts.  However,
Members would need to take into account the aspect of  flexibility so as to see the interaction between
issues and to have a broad picture of all the issues bearing in mind the essential element of consensus
that would enable Members to reach agreement on the elements to be submitted to Ministers at the
Third Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Morocco said that Members should have a clear view of the process
from the present until the Third Ministerial Conference.  However, it would be premature to
rationalize the process at this stage.  He hoped that the General Council would be in a position in
September to decide on the date for the next Ministerial Conference so that Members could workbackward therefrom in order to arrive at the set of recommendations that were needed.  As provided
in the Ministerial Declaration, one needed to have an  overall balance in the issues in a way that would
take into account the interests of all.  It was clear that some flexibility would be required in the
process.  Once Members had the substance of the issues, they would have to choose whether
particular issues would be taken up in the General Council or whether they would need to be sent to asubsidiary body.  Both a top-down and a bottom-up approach would need to be used depending on the
issues concerned.  Clearly, the process would need to be an orderly one and Members should have
some general idea about the timetable, and a target date of meetings, both formal and informal.
However, one would not need to be too descriptive about it in September, but rather just indicative.
He supported the idea expressed by many that between the September meeting and the next specialsession delegations should provide some indication as to the issues of concern to them regarding
implementation, as also some idea from Members about issues they wished to raise with regard to
paragraph 9(d) without, of course, prejudging or prejudicing anyone's interests.  Regarding the US
proposal, he believed that one needed to be more pr ecise on the different areas of information that was
being requested of the Secretariat.  There was no reason why the Chairman in his conclusions make
the Secretariat aware that this type of information would be requested so that the Secretariat could try
and prepare it.  His delegation believed that the Secretariat's checklist was only indicative of what hadbeen raised at the Ministerial Conference, and that  it was up to each delegation to enrich it and add to
it.
The representative of Cuba said that, like others, his delegation believed that it was desirable
for the special session in September to adopt a work programme with regular intervals as suggested
by Uruguay.  Regarding organizational aspects, the General Council should be the overall monitoring
body and should assign specific tasks to the subsidiary bodies.  Cuba would not be in favour of the
proliferation of ad hoc bodies, which would it very difficult for smaller delegations to follow the
work.  His delegation agreed with Mexico on the need to have a top-down structure.  On the content
and the substance of the future programme, his dele gation fully agreed with Egypt to the effect that
special attention should be given to the issue of implementation, particularly with regard to special
and differential treatment for developing countries, as well as other key points of crucial importance
to countries with vulnerable economies.  It was also necessary to pay particular attention to theWT/GC/M/29
Page 72
difficulties of smaller economies and to help them better integrate into the multilateral trading system.
His delegation wished to give further thought to the US proposal, which contained good ideas.
The representative of Brazil said that Brazil was flexible in terms of methodology, and felt
that the General Council had a key role to play in the supervision of the future process.  The
Secretariat's checklist of issues was very useful as a good starting-point, although other issues mightbe added to it.  Regarding the US proposal, his delegation believed that the updating of the
information referred to in the draft decision was routinely undertaken in the relevant committees and
councils.  He agreed with previous speakers that all aspects and sources of information that would be
used in the preparatory process must be adequate and accurate, and recognized that the issue of the
competence of the Secretariat to establish the adequacy of the information was a delicate one.
The Chairman noted that the date of the special session had been set for 24 September, with
the following day also set aside for the meeting in case it was needed.  He believed that this had been
a particularly valuable discussion in helping him to work with the Secretariat to try and develop an
agenda for the special session.  Members had devoted attention also to the programme of work that
they envisaged in the General Council and in the WTO following the special session.  He would
consult with delegations before the end of the month concerning ideas about how to structure theagenda for that special session.  With regard to the US proposal, he believed that the point raised by
Jamaica about whether Members really needed a decision by the General Council each time they
wished to request the Secretariat to prepare information was a good one and worth reflecting on.  He
would therefore not suggest anything in this regard  at the present time.  Personally, he would think
that there should be, as a general proposition, a presumption that if Members wished the Secretariat toproduce documents relevant to a particular discussion, the Secretariat should do that provided that it
was within the general resource capacity of the Secretariat to do so.  As the point had been clearly
made in the present discussion, such documents had to be factual, not contain value judgements, and
certainly needed to be without prejudice to any decisions Members might wish to take, for example,
about what might or might not be negotiated.  It seemed fairly clear from the discussion that Memberswere going to need information of this type whether or not they subsequently decided to use it for the
purposes of negotiation.  He therefore proposed, at the present time, to ask the Secretariat to begin its
internal work and prepare to be able to deliver this information when Members needed it.  He was
therefore not asking the Secretariat to produce the information, but rather to prepare to do so.
The representative of India said he had serious concerns about the points just made by the
Chairman.  He would request the Chairman to hold informal consultations to allow delegations to
indicate their views.  Even assuming that all that the Chairman had stated was correct, there should be
provision to ensure its horizontal application.  In  other words, such an understanding could not be
selectively applied.  His delegation therefore had great difficulty in going along with what the
Chairman had stated, and reiterated its request for consultations.
The representative of Jamaica said that one could not always say that informal consultations
should be held each time one faced difficulties.  That was a means of evading taking a decision when
Members were supposed to, and it was in the General Council that Members should take decisions.
He could not accept that the Secretariat could produce any number of documents, whether they were
for the UN ECOSOC high-level meeting, or on electronic commerce, or in regard to presentationsmade by WTO officials, without formal requests or authority from the General Council, and then for
Members to have difficulties when an apparently very simple thing was requested.  His delegation
was indeed concerned by the idea of holding inform al consultations which seemed only to help large
delegations.  He could not believe it had taken so long for a request to be made of the Secretariat to
prepare an analysis of the status of the consolid ated schedules of tariffs and services commitments.
With regard to the view that the Secretariat should not be asked to make value judgements and that its
information should be simply factual, he said that no Secretariat document worth its ink could fail to
have a value judgement in it.  It was for Members to say that they did not agree with the Secretariat's
information.  In order to identify inadequacies in the technical information available to the Secretariat,WT/GC/M/29
Page 73
Members had simply to look at document E/1998/ 55 which provided such information.  It was
confusing to note that when it suited Members the WTO was seen as a Member-driven Organization
with a Secretariat to be seen and not heard.  However, the Secretariat was seen and heard when it
wanted to be seen and heard.  He therefore asked if the Secretariat could put on record what the
problem was in providing the kind of factual information that Members were requesting.  He also
wished to know what objections Members had to getting the necessary factual information from the
Secretariat so that work on the work programme could begin in September.
The representative of Japan said that in his delegation's view it was part of the Secretariat's
task to always maintain updated technical data such as that requested in the draft decision proposed by
the United States.  The Secretariat was indeed supposed to be equipped with all this information, and
he didn't believe it needed any new mandate from the General Council.
The representative of India said that he had never suggested that informal consultations be
held behind anyone's back.  He had indicated clearly that the US proposal prejudiced India's position
and also that there was a confusion created about the services commitments.  His concern was that the
Secretariat was being asked to comment upon the services commitment although that might not be the
intention of the United States.  His delegation was therefore not willing to be a party to a decision
which, in its view, prejudiced its position.  His delegation was prepared to explain its position in
greater detail in open-ended informal consultations.
The Chairman said that the first part of what he had stated had been by way of personal
reflection, and he believed it would be useful for delegations to also reflect on.  The last part of what
he had stated was that in his personal capacity he was going to suggest to the Secretariat that it might
be useful for it to begin to consider how it could prepare this documentation.
The Director-General said that the problem was not with the Secretariat, but rather with
Members and on what  they decided to do.
The representative of Egypt suggested that when informal consultations were held Members
have an outline of the available information that the Secretariat might include in the compilation that
was requested by the United States so that, when Members had their discussions, some of the
sensitivities could be taken into account such as the ones previously mentioned by Egypt, India andthe ASEAN member countries.
The General Council took note of the statements and agreed
 that further informal
consultations be held by the Chairman on the question of preparations for the September special
session.
12. WTO Secretariat and Senior Management Structure
The Chairman recalled that in April 1997 the General Council had decided as follows on the
question of the WTO Secretariat and senior management structure:  (a) to request the Director-
General to submit a report with his recommendations, not later than October 1997, on how the
functioning and operation of efficiency of the Secretariat might be enhanced to meet challenges facingthe Organization including through a rationalization of the senior management structure, in the light
of Members' intention, to reduce significantly the number of Deputy-Directors-General;  and (b) the
consideration of the matters referred to in the previous paragraph would be initiated before the end of
1997 so that decisions might be taken before the appointment of the next Director-General and
reflected in the 1999 budget of the WTO.  As Member s were aware, the Director-General's report had
been circulated to delegations in October 1997 as document WT/GC/W/74 and this matter had been
discussed at several informal consultations since then.  There appeared to be a broadly shared view in
those consultations that Members should aim to take a decision as soon as possible on one key aspectWT/GC/M/29
Page 74
of the question of the senior management structur e, i.e. the number of posts of Deputy-Directors-
General in the WTO Secretariat.  Although delegations had expressed various preferences in the
consultations on the number of the Deputy-Directors-General all had indicated their readiness to show
a certain flexibility.  It had also appeared, on the basis of the views expressed, that a balanced solution
for the senior management structure could be the one-plus-two option: i.e. one Director-General and
two Deputy-Directors-General.  Members had not yet had an opportunity for a full discussion of theother aspects of the report, but it was clear that Members viewed these as being important.
  In the light of the informal consultations recently held, he wished to propose that the General
Council agree that: (1)  The WTO senior management structure would be composed of one Director-
General and two Deputy-Directors-General;  (2) The question of appointing an Assistant
Director-General or a Senior Director to deal with  administrative questions would be left within the
purview of the Director-General's authority to determine the structure of the Secretariat.  Of course,any appointment would need to be consistent with  the resource allocations determined by the Budget
Committee;  (3) In October the General Council would revert to other broader issues in the
Director-General's report contained in Section B of the report on how to respond to the major
challenges ahead of the WTO:  namely the composition of this new Organization;  the accession
within the next few years of a significant number of candidates;  and the evolution of the system itself,
as well as on the issues contained in Section D of the report concerning "Functioning and Operational
Efficiency of the Secretariat".
Additionally, in order to facilitate progress in responding to the challenges identified by the
Director-General, he proposed that the General Council invite the Director-General to report to itbefore the end of the year on action taken under Article VI, paragraph 3 of the WTO Agreement in
response to these challenges.  He also proposed that the General Council further invite the Director-
General to submit to the General Council, before the end of the year, suggestions or recommendations
he might have in light of the discussions at the October General Council meeting.  Such a submission
would be designed to facilitate appropriate action by Members early in 1999.  Finally, he wished todraw to Members' attention that an essential prerequisite to improve the functioning and operational
efficiency of the Secretariat was to establish the WTO Secretariat as agreed by the General Council on
24 April 1998.  It was therefore also necessary to take into account the conclusions to be reached by
the Working Group on the conditions of service of WTO staff under the chairmanship of Mr. Farrell.
The representative of Egypt said it was with deep concern that his delegation had seen the
new version of the Chairman's statement.  It was unfortunate that his delegation had to indicate that it
was unable to join in a consensus in relation to this  statement.  One of the changes made in the new
draft was the deletion of a sentence that Egypt considered of vital importance, which referred to the
composition of the new Organization including the need to help developing countries and economies
in transition to implement their undertakings, make use of the rights and obligations and participate
fully in the evolution of the system.  His delegation had suggested a minor change in this sentencewhich the Chairman had indicated informally that he would be able accommodate.  However, this
sentence had been deleted in the new version.  With regard to the participation of developing
countries in the senior management structure of the WTO Secretariat, he noted that this point had
been mentioned by several delegations, including Tanzania who had mentioned the issue of having
even a Director-General from a developing country.  Furthermore, at the time of the appointment ofthe present Director-General, as recorded in WT/GC/M/2, there was an understanding that the
interests and concerns of some regions, particularly the African region, should be taken into account
in future appointments.  His delegation believed that in changing the structure of the senior
management of the WTO reference to the issue of the participation of developing countries in the
management structure should go without saying.  Egypt wished to have it explicitly mentioned.Several delegations had indicated that they did not want this to affect the choice of the candidates in
terms of effectiveness, efficiency and capabilities, and his delegation had indicated that these issues
would clearly have to be taken into consideration and should be indicated in the language that might
be added in this respect.  Since these two elem ents were not in the Chairman's statement, hisWT/GC/M/29
Page 75
delegation would not be able to join the concensus, and would request that informal consultations be
continued.
The Chairman said that, with regard to the first point made by Egypt, the new version of his
statement simply referred to the composition of the new Organization, and noted that what was being
referred to here was not something that had been adopted by the General Council, but rather, referredto the contents of a report submitted by the Director-General almost a year ago and on which
Members had not yet had a discussion in the General Council, at least on the aspects of the report that
were referred to in this point.  He had taken out the language to which Egypt had referred because he
had thought it would make it easier for some delegations.  He would be quite happy to put that
language back so that one would have in the first tiret of paragraph 3 the language that was in the
earlier version, namely "the composition of this new Organization, including the need to help
developing countries and economies in transition to implement their undertakings, make use of theirrights and obligations and participate fully in the evolution of the system".  He believed that this
aspect of the problem was not one which should prove a stumbling-block with regard to this text.  On
the other matter raised by Egypt, he believed Members had had a discussion of this also in the
informal consultations, and he did not propose to offer any additional comment on that now, but
rather to give the floor to other delegations wishing to speak.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation could go along with the Chairman's
statement.  Noting the reference in the Chairman's statement that the question of appointing an
Assistant Director-General or Senior Director would be left within the purview of the Director-
General's authority to determine the structure of the S ecretariat, he said that this merely confirmed the
authority that the Director-General had, and therefore that this paragraph was not necessary.  The
Chairman's statement could not of course change th e authority of the Director-General as was clearly
defined in Article VI:3 of the WTO Agreement.  He  was certain that by including this sentence the
Chairman did not have any intention to change what was clearly stated in the WTO Agreement.
Furthermore, while he recognized that it was the au thority of the Director-General to appoint the staff
of the Organization, including the DDGs, he believed it would be useful for the Director-General to
keep in mind that some delegations have expressed interest that the DDG posts be divided among
nationals of developed and developing countries.  With regard to point 2 of the Chairman's statement,
he wished to ask the Secretariat that if at the present moment, for example, there were 10 senior posts
of Directors at the D-1 and D-2 level, and the necessary budget was provided for that, then under theformulation of paragraph 2, could the Director-Gener al eliminate one post at the D-1 level and create
another in accordance with the new demands of work?  He asked whether the formulation of
Article VI:3 of the WTO Agreement provided the authority to the Director-General to, for example,
increase the number of the current senior posts from 10 to, say, 15 as long as the total budget for the
personnel remained the same.  In his understanding that might perhaps be going too far.  He asked
also if it was within the Director-General's authority to change the job descriptions of the posts at
senior management level and create a new post by eliminating some unnecessary posts if the budgetprovided for it.
Mr. Lavorel, Deputy Director-General, said that the Director-General worked within an
overall personnel budget that was based on standard costs.  Within the envelope set by the Budget
Committee, the Director-General did have the authority to move staff into different posts at differentlevels.  The Director-General had this latitude as long as he stayed within the overall budgetary
envelope.
The representative of Uganda said he wished to put on record his view that as the WTO
become more universal the Secretariat should also move towards having a more universal character.
While his delegation noted the need to maintain standards, there could be no presumption that a
candidate from a developing country would not be competent.  He believed it would be possible to
find competent staff from developing countries for the senior management of this Organization.  He
hoped that as the General Council adopted the one-plus-two decision, it would be feasible forWT/GC/M/29
Page 76
developing countries to be adequately represented in the senior management of the Secretariat.  For
quite some time Africa had been not well represented at that level.  While his delegation welcomed
the moves made by the Director-General to try to recruit African nationals for posts within the
Organization, he hoped it would be feasible in the near future to have an African in the senior
management.
The representative of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that the
ASEAN Members would not have any difficulty in agreeing to the emerging consensus that the senior
management structure should comprise of one Dire ctor-General assisted by two Deputy Directors-
General.  They hoped that this arrangement would further increase the efficiency and effectiveness of
the WTO in facing the challenges ahead.  On the question of an Assistant Director-General to deal
with the administrative aspects, they believed that since this would have budgetary and other related
consequences, it should be discussed and decided upon by Members.  Nevertheless, the Director-General would be given the flexibility to appoint the most suitable candidate to this post.  Regarding
the proposal on how to further enhance the functioning and operational efficiency of the Secretariat to
address the current and future challenges confronting the Organization, the ASEAN Members
believed that as long as it did not cause any systemic problems it deserved merit.  They saw the
desirability of having a development-friendly Secretariat, and the idea should therefore be pursued ina coherent manner.  Their delegations were also mindful of the fact that there were certain decisions
that needed to be taken expeditiously in order for the Secretariat to continue functioning, and hoped
that Members could come to a conclusion on this question.
The representative of Jamaica said that since the Chairman's statement was made available
only the day before, his delegation did not have instructions to join in any consensus at the present
meeting.  He said that in 1996, by a rough count, the Secretariat had 485 general and professional
staff, and that by 1997 that number had gone up to 530.  He did not know whether within the "zero
growth" policy for the budget, that figure would remain or increase.  Among the general and
professional staff, there were seven nationals from countries in transition, 45 nationals from Australia,Norway, New Zealand and Switzerland, and 342 nationals from the European Community, the
United States, Japan and Canada.  Nationals from developing countries in the Americas, Africa and
Asia totalled 87, and there were two nationals from Turkey.  It was clear that further work needed to
be done if there was to be a balanced representation within the Secretariat of nationals of Member
countries.  He then made the following comments  on the text of the Chairman's statement.  In
paragraph 1, he proposed that the text read that the WTO senior management structure "shall be
composed of" rather than "will".  Regarding paragraph 2, his delegation noted the point made by
Japan that this paragraph was perhaps superfluous in the light of Article VI of the WTO Agreement
and should not enter into any formal decision of the General Council.  Paragraph 3 should retain the
statement that appeared in the earlier version with re gard to developing countries.  In the penultimate
paragraph of the text, where the Director-General was invited to report to the General Council "on
action taken under Article VI:3" he suggested that the reference to paragraph 3 be deleted since itdealt with the appointment of members of staff and the determination of their duties and conditions of
service.  He believed there was no point in asking the Director-General to say anything about the
conditions of staff.  The Director-General should be asked to report on action taken under Article VI
in its entirety.  Finally, the last paragraph of the Chairman's statement draws to Members' attention
that an essential prerequisite to improve the functioning and operational efficiency of the Secretariatwas to establish the WTO Secretariat.  He believed it was perhaps an overstatement to say that the
functioning and operational efficiency could essentially be improved only by establishing the
Secretariat with its own terms of reference or rules and conditions of service.  He believed it might
give the wrong impression that if this were not done one would not be able to improve the functioning
and operational efficiency of the Secretariat.  In conclusion, his delegation could agree to paragraph 1of the proposed action to be taken by the General Council, and wished to have it separated from the
rest of the text of the Chairman's statement.WT/GC/M/29
Page 77
The Director-General said that to say that the establishment of the WTO Secretariat did not
have any consequences was unfair towards the personnel of the Secretariat.  It was now more than
three years that the staff of the Secretariat had been waiting to know under what conditions they
would be working and retiring.  The General Council had not yet decided and clarified the issues, and
he reiterated that it was very unfair to say that this did not have any relation to the functioning of the
Secretariat.  It had not until now had any relation because of the spirit of the serving staff members inthe Secretariat who had never reacted to this impossible situation.
The representative of Australia said that his delegation could support the Chairman's
statement.  Australia was one of a growing number of WTO Members that were getting increasingly
concerned at the growing regionalization of this Organization.  The great strength of the GATT for all
its time had been based on ability, in which staff earned their positions through their effort and
contribution.  The discussion of regionalization was extremely unfortunate and bode ill for the WTOin the future.  That being said, he believed that Japan had made a useful suggestion that there be a
broad understanding that one of the DDGs be a national from a developed country - however defined -
and one from a developing country.  This suggestion had some merit and should be given due
consideration.
The representative of Cuba expressed support for Egypt's statement.  His delegation would
have wished to see the report of the Director-General discussed in its entirety, and in particular Part B
on the present and future prospects of the WTO where it was emphasized that the best possible way of
helping developing countries to meet their commitments must be found, and that they should be
helped in making use of their rights and obligations and to make good use of the system.  He wishedto give his support to the accession process for those countries that had made such a request.  He
agreed with other delegations that it was necessary to ensure the adequate representation of the
developing countries in the senior management structure given that 80 per cent of staff were presently
from developed countries.  Without a better dist ribution, the senior management structure would not
be reflective of the new membership.
The representative of Turkey said he did not know why Jamaica had had to refer specifically
to the number of nationals from his country among the WTO staff, and recalled that Turkey was a
member of the developing countries in the WTO.
The representative of the United States said that her delegation supported the Chairman's
statement.  She did not believe that the statements that had been made about the Chairman's statement
were fair.  Consultations on this matter had been begun in April, and at least two or three open-ended
had been held in the past two weeks alone, in addition to the bilateral and plurilateral consultations
that the Chairman had held.  Some delegations seemed to be raising issues that she thought had been
addressed over and over again.  She believed it was a responsibility of every delegation to make sure
that they attended the informal consultations and that there should be a very clear understanding whenMembers came to the formal meetings that all of these issues had been discussed and and questions
answered.
The representative of Venezuela said that the question of the senior management structure had
been dealt with abundantly in the consultations, and that despite the differences of views, there was a
consensus that the formula submitted by the Director -General was the appropriate formula.  This had
already been discussed amply.  Clearly, countrie s had their preferences and their own views as to
what the make-up of the senior management should be.  Of course, Venezuela would wish to see a
national from its own country as Director-General, and if not Venezuelan then Latin American and if
not Latin American then one from the Americas, and if this too were not possible then one from adeveloping country, and so on and so forth.  However, thinking along regional lines such as this
would set a dangerous precedent which would not be in the best interest of this institution, particularly
in the future dimensions Members were attempting to establish for the WTO.WT/GC/M/29
Page 78
The Chairman said that he wished to make one final effort to see if there was a basis for
concluding this matter at the present meeting.  It went without saying that all of the statements that
delegations had made would be taken note of by the General Council and recorded in the minutes.  He
noted that a number of delegations had made reference to the proceedings of the General Council
meeting of 24 March 1995 which, of course, was part of the formal records of this Organization.  He
asked if it would help if one were to include in his statement a reference recalling the proceedings ofthe 24 March 1995 General Council meeting.  If this were to be done, he would suggest that it be
included at the bottom of page 1 of his statement where, before stating "In the light of informal
consultations recently held I wish to propose that the General Council agree that", he would begin that
introductory phrase instead with the words "Recallin g the proceedings of the General Council meeting
of 24 March 1995 and" and then continue on with the present text as it stood.  It seemed to him that
that would pick up, in a very fair way, all of th e points made at that meeting about the need for
appropriate regional representation, and might be an agreeable way of amending the statement to takeaccount of the sensitivities on this front. He also believed it very important to establish that the senior
management was responsible to all Members and that it was not to be seen as representing the
interests of any particular Member.  It was therefore unfortunate that Members were getting into
looking at the regional dimension of the senior management structure although, given that this was an
Organization made up of Members from different regions, one could not entirely get away from this.With regard to Jamaica's comment that in the first operative paragraph "will" be changed to "shall", he
didn't believe anyone would object to that.  There had also been a question as to whether one needed
the second operative paragraph.  He believed it was clear that the Director-General had the authority
referred to in this paragraph, and had already indicated in his report that he thought it would be a good
idea to exercise it.  He believed therefore that this did not necessarily have to be part of the decisionand that it did not really add  to or detract from what the Director-General might decide to do.  With
regard to the third paragraph, he had already indicated that there seemed to have been a
misunderstanding.  In the first point after "namely", he thought he was being helpful to some
delegations by deleting language.  However, that was clearly not the case and he proposed therefore
that that language be put back in.  From discussions he had had with delegations, he did not believethat delegations would object to this.  Another point made by Jamaica was with regard to the second-
last paragraph, and as to whether or not one needed the reference to Article VI:3.  He suggested that
that suggestion be taken into account and that the refe rence be to Article VI in its entirety.  He asked
whether with these changes the text might meet with consensus, and of course also in the light of the
discussion.
The representative of Egypt said that his delegation could not agree to any decision on this
issue at the present meeting without getting further instructions on the proposals that had been made.
He suggested that the meeting be suspended to a llow for informal consultations at which agreement
could be sought.
The Chairman said that, given that Members seemed to be close to a conclusion on this
matter, and that it was certainly one on which they had put a lot of effort in view of the agreement
reached earlier in the General Council that Members should decide on this matter in advance of the
appointment of the next Director-General and in time for the 1999 budget process which began
formally in September, he would propose that the meeting be suspended after the discussion on the
items under "Other Business".  He would see if the final text that he would propose met with aconsensus.  The text that he would propose in the lig ht of the present discussion would vary from his
original text in the following ways:  at the bott om of page 1, in the introduction to the operative
paragraphs, it would begin with the words "Recalling the proceedings of the General Council meeting
of 24 March 1995 and" and then would continue with "in the light of informal consultations" and so
on as it stood in the present text.  The second change would be in operative paragraph 1, where "will"would be replaced by "shall".  The third change would be to delete operative paragraph 2.  Operative
paragraph 3 would then become paragraph 2, and in that paragraph, after "the composition of this new
organization" the following words that were in the earlier text would be added "including the need to
help developing countries and economies in transition to implement their undertakings, make use ofWT/GC/M/29
Page 79
their rights and obligations and participate fully in the evolution of the system".  The final change was
to the second-last paragraph of his statement where, in the third line, after Article VI, the comma and
the words "paragraph 3" would be deleted so that the text would read "under Article VI of the WTO
Agreement".  He asked delegations to consider whether this suggested revised text could meet with
consensus in the light of the statements that had been put on the record at the present meeting.
The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  that the meeting be suspended
after the discussion on the items under "Other Business" to allow for further consultations to be held
on the present Agenda item.
13. Appellate Body Report on "European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain
Computer Equipment"
(a) Statement by the United States
The representative of the United States, speaking under "Other Business" said that her country
wished that the General Council consider two issues raised in the Appellate Body Report on
"European Communities – Customs Classification of Certain Computer Equipment"
(WT/DS62/AB/R-WT/DS67/AB/R-WT/DS68/AB/R).  The United States was concerned that the
Appellate Body Report might be interpreted in a manner that would ignore the basic practicalities of
tariff negotiations or  would undermine Members' reliance on tariff nomenclature as a basis for
determining future tariff bindings. Therefore, th e United States believed that the General Council
should consider how best to reaffirm certain principles that should be part of tariff negotiations.
Negotiated tariff bindings had played a central role in the liberalization of international trade andshould continue to do so in future.
The first issue related to the role of tariff trea tment in tariff negotiations.  It was appropriate
and essential that prior treatment be given substantial weight.   This would effectuate the
understanding of all parties to tariff negotiations.  Parties negotiating market access commitments hadgenerally placed great reliance on the actual treatment that national authorities of the importing
Member had accorded to a product.  No matter how detailed the Harmonized System Nomenclature
might be in its description of a particular product, it could not cover all possible variations.
Therefore, negotiators had expected that the tariff treatment being accorded would be a basis for the
negotiations and would be maintained.  An inability to consider prior treatment in establishing thenature of the binding would substantially change the manner in which negotiations would be
conducted.  For example, the inability to rely on prior treatment would render difficult or impossible
some tariff negotiation techniques such as formula tariff cuts.  Formula tariff cuts had proved very
helpful to some Members both in preparing for and in conducting negotiations.   Moreover, such a
departure from tradition could well place an untenable burden on each Member to identify, as part of
the negotiating process, every product within a line item in order to establish certainty with respect to
the tariff treatment.  Such an exercise could resu lt in the development of a "shadow" tariff schedule
listing products not otherwise specifically listed in the Harmonized System.
The second issue related to the fact that the Appellate Body  had questioned the extent to
which Members could relay on the tariff treatment practices of individual member States of the
European Communities.  In the view of the United States, this raised concerns about the stability ofcommitments provided to individual WTO Members th at were part of a customs union.  In the view
of the importance of the issues raised by the Report relating to existing bindings, future negotiations,
and customs unions, the United States believed that the General Council should take up these issues
for consideration in the near future or should request the Council for Trade in Goods to do so.
The representative of the European Communities said that it was not appropriate to revert to
the Appellate Body Report which had been adopted unconditionally by the DSB.    Since this issueWT/GC/M/29
Page 80
had been raised under "Other Business", he only wish ed to make two comments.  In its statement, the
United States had raised two concerns and he believed that this statement could be misleading to other
Members.  With regard to the first issue, the United States was creating deliberate confusion as it had
done so since the beginning of this dispute.  The United States had referred to the role of tariff
treatment and had underlined the need for this to be stable as a solid basis for tariff negotiations
knowing that this phrase was ambiguous.  It coul d mean how a product was classified, under which
heading it was placed for duty purposes or it could mean the actual rate of duty applied to the product.
The Community was under the impression that when the United States had stated that  past practice or
prior treatment or actual treatment should be given weight in future tariff negotiations this ambiguity
was not entirely accidental.  With regard to tariff classification, past practice was important and  most
Members followed the rules contained in the Harmonized System.  With regard to the applied duty
rate, past practice was not a reliable guide to what had been bound by an offer in the past nor did it
per se  create any new rights and it was not the basis for future concessions.  The US statement might
be a slightly exaggerated generalization on the basis of  one very specific case in which tariff
classification difficulties had occurred which was clear in the Appellate Body Report.  Some of the
difficulties referred to by the United States could only arise in relation to a sectoral approach to tariff
negotiations.  No such a problem would arise in the case of formula cut across the board.   However,
difficulties that would usually arise in certain specific cases in which classification was technicallycomplex and the Harmonized System rules not clear.  This particular problem which was involved in
this case would occur in a very small number of cases.
With regard to the other issue,  the United St ates had sought to relate these matters to the
situation of a customs union, in particular  to the European Communities and stated that "theAppellate Body report questioned the extent to which WTO Members could relay on the tariff
treatment of individual member states of the European Communities and that in their view this raises
concern about the stability of commitments provided by individual WTO members that are part of a
customs union. "  The Appellate Body had not questioned this but  had confirmed that a customs
union was a single tariff area in which the classification practice of one Member could not beregarded as a WTO commitment or access rights for the area as a whole which had been clearly stated
in the Report.
With regard to the second issue he said that since the formation of the European Communities
of six members with a common external tariff in the 1960s, and through each and every enlargementprocess,  the Community had always stated that the bound tariff commitments of the individual
members had been withdrawn and had been replaced by the EC Schedule.  There were commitments
provided by the individual members of a customs union other than those provided by the
Communities which each of its members recognized and was bound to respect.  He did not wish to
comment on the proposal of procedure that this issue should be discussed but he did not consider that
any big question of principle was involved in this case.
The representative of India said that his country which had been a third party in this dispute
was concerned about some observations contained in  the Appellate Body Report.  He did not wish to
enter into details since he was not in a position at the present meeting to understand all the
implications raised by the Europ ean Communities.  In his view, the US request was reasonable.  The
fact that the Appellate Body Report had been adopted did not prevent the General Council or theGoods Council from discussing any concerns of an issue.  In accordance with the DSU procedures the
reports of panels and the Appellate Body had to be adopted unconditionally and interested delegations
were entitled to make statements.   He recalled that at the DSB meeting on 22 June 1998, the United
States had made a statement regarding this issue.  At that meeting his delegation was not in a position
to make a statement.  The United States had proposed that the General Council or the Goods Councilconsider this problem.  He believed that it would be appropriate to discuss this matter in the Goods
Council on the basis of a paper outlining the US concerns.  The European Communities could also
provide its comments in advance so that Members could discuss this important issue and take a
decision.WT/GC/M/29
Page 81
The representative of the United States said that she was glad that the representative of India
recalled that the United States had made a statement at the DSB meeting on 22 June.  During the
adoption of the Report the United States had indicated that it would raise the issue of implementation
of tariff negotiations in a broader context of the WTO.  The European Communities had stated that
the commitment of individual member states was inconsistent with the requirement of Article X1:1 ofthe WTO Agreement.  She was not in a position to agree to this point and that only a small number of
cases would be involved.    Potentially this was a significant problem for many product categories
including agricultural products.  It was the US view that the actual tariff practices of individual
member States within a custom union were important as well as the US main subject in tariff
negotiations and the interpretation of the meaning of the tariff bindings of the customs union.
Therefore, prior treatment should be given a substantial weight in tariff negotiations not only with
individual WTO Members but also with  negotiations with customs unions.
The representative of Jamaica said that the United States had raised an important issue.  He
asked the United States to clarify whether in his view the Appellate Body had erred and to identify
this issue for consideration in order to change either  negotiating procedures of a tariff nature or the
Uruguay Round rules.  If this was the case all Members should be concerned about these issues.  Thefact that this matter had been raised under "Other Business" should not undermine its importance.  If
the General Council would only take note of the statements made at the present meeting,  his
delegation wished that this matter be clearly set out in the light of what had been stated at the present
meeting and asked whether  Members would be ready to pursue it in an appropriate manner.
The Chairman said that this item had been raised under "Other Business".  Although,
Members had the right to raise any matter under "Other Business" it was not expected that there
would be a substantive discussion because delegations had not been allowed adequate time to prepare
for  discussion.  Some important points had been raised at the present meeting and  delegations, if
they so wished, could further pursue this matter.  Any delegation could place this matter on theagenda of the General Council or the Goods Counc il for discussion.  He proposed that the General
Council proceed on the basis of this understanding and take note of the statements made at the present
meeting.
The General Council took note of the statements.
14. India's tariff increases
(a) Statement by the European Communities
The representative of the European Communities, speaking under "Other Business", said that
although its analysis might involve some inadequacies, his delegation wished to raise its concerns
about the recent tariff increases by India in the form of the Special Additional Customs Duty
introduced in the 1998/99 budget.  These tariff increases of 8 per cent which had subsequently beenreduced to 4 per cent had a greater impact than it would appear since they had been levied on the
aggregate of existing duties and charges.  This included the aggregate of the basic Customs Duty,
Special Customs Duty and Additional Customs Duty.  The initial WTO analysis of the tariff increases
vis-à-vis  India' binding rates had showed that these increases had lead to infringement of India's
obligations since they had resulted in duties above its bound tariff rates on a significant number ofproducts in approximately 100 cases.  The Community urged India to bring its tariffs and charges into
conformity with its obligations and sought clarification with regard to India's intentions.
The representative of Canada said that it was her understanding that India might have
exceeded its tariff bindings on a large number of items.  Her Government looked forward to a fullWT/GC/M/29
Page 82
factual report from India as soon as possible.  After having received details, Canada might wish to
enter into consultations on this matter.
The representative of Japan said that his Government was also concerned about the recent
tariff increase by India since it had received complaints from its companies regarding this measure.
Japan was currently examining whether India's tariff increases violated the WTO Agreement and wasconcerned that this measure would have a negative impact on the investment situation in India.  If
India's measure was not compatible with its bound tariff rates it would be necessary to redress this.
The representative of the United States wished her delegation to be associated with the
previous speakers and expressed concern about India's recent tariff increases which had resulted in
violation of a large number of tariff bindings.  Sh e looked forward to India's explanation which would
enable Members to have a better understanding of this issue.  This was a serious matter and the UnitedStates believed that India should take an immediate action to redress this problem.
The representative of Switzerland said that his country was also concerned about the recent
tariff increases by India.  His delegation looked fo rward to India's explanation and to any information
in writing to be able  to assess the situation.
The representative of Turkey said that his delegation was also concerned with India's  tariff
increases.
The representative of India said that his delegation appreciated that the European
Communities had informed India in advance that it wo uld raise this issue under "Other Business".   At
the present meeting, he wished to provide a preliminary report since  he was not in a position to obtain
all the necessary information from the capital.  It appeared prima facie that the statements made by
the Community and other delegations were based on  a wrong appreciation of the nature of the Special
Additional Duty introduced in the latest budget.  He  drew attention to the statement of the Finance
Minister made on 1 June 1998 in the Parliament which read as follows:  " I have given my earnest
consideration to these concerns and the competing claims -- reference to the demands of the Indian
industries that they were at a disadvantage as compared to foreign producers-- I am persuaded about a
clear disability that our commodity taxation inflicts on the indigenous goods vis-à-vis  the imported
goods.  While the former are subject to sales tax and other local taxes and levies, the import sectorescapes them by their very nature.  In order to pr ovide a level playing field to the domestic industry, I
propose to impose an additional non-modvatable levy of 8 percent on imports which is approximately
equal to the burden of local taxes on domestic producers.  This duty should not be viewed as a
protectionist measure but only as a response to a legitimate demand for a level playing field".  As
stated by the Community, this duty had been reduced from 8 to 4 per cent.
He then drew attention to Sec tion 3A introduced in the Customs Tariff Act of 1975 through
finance bill of 1998 which read as follows: " Any article which is imported into India shall in addition
to be liable to a duty (hereinafter referred to in th is section as the special additional duty), which shall
be levied at a rate to be specified by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette,
having regard to the maximum sales tax, local tax or any other charges for the time being in force,
which shall be leviable on a like article, if sold or purchased in India, or if a like article is not sold orpurchased which shall be leviable on the class or description of articles to which the imported article
belongs".  It was clear that the Special Addition al Customs Duty was not levied for the purpose of
affording protection to the domestic industry.  He hoped that this explanation would enable all
Members to appreciate that the Special Additional Duty was in the nature of a charge equivalent to an
internal tax in conformity with  the provisions of Article III:2 of GATT 1994.  He added that this dutyhad been levied in such a manner that it could be more than justified under the provisions of Article
II:2 of GATT 1994.  Therefore, there was no breach of bound rates as a result of the Special
Additional Duty.  He hoped that this response would satisfy those delegations that had expressed
some concerns  It was not the inadequacy of anal ysis of tariff increases as referred to by theWT/GC/M/29
Page 83
Community but the lack of appreciation of the nature of the duty.  He said that he  would be prepared
to hold bilateral informal meetings with those dele gations that still wished to have more explanation.
The representative of the European Communities said that India had indicated that it would be
prepared to hold bilateral consultations on this matter.  He believed that this matter could also be
discussed in the context of  Article XXII consultations.  He said that if he was not in a position toanalyze this issue fully it was because the way it had been described was complicated.  He hoped that
bilateral discussions would enable interested delegations to fully appreciate this situation.  It was his
understanding that sales taxes were applied to both domestic and imported products at the point of
sales, and therefore it was difficult to appreciate that the level playing filed had become tilted.
The representative of Jamaica said that although substantive issues should not be discussed
under "Other Business" two substantive issues had be en raised under "Other Business" at the present
meeting.  He sought clarification whether it was necessary for this issue, which fell under the
jurisdiction of  the Goods Council, to be raised in the General Council.
The Chairman said that in his view no substantive discussion had taken place at the present
meeting.  Certain delegations had expressed some concerns and India had made a factual statement.
He suggested that Jamaica could ask the Communities why it had wished to raise this matter in the
General Council under "Other Business".
The representative of Jamaica said that the General Council was guided by certain precedence
and small delegations should be kept informed thereo f.  Since this matter fell under the jurisdiction of
the Goods Council he questioned why it had been rais ed in the General Council.  In his view, the
debate at the present meeting amounted to a panel dispute or the beginning of consultations.  He had
no objections to hear a discussion on this matter but wished to establish whether this debate should
take place at the present meeting.
 The Chairman said that any delegation was entailed to place any matter under "Other
Business" and in the General Council there was no problem of confidence vis-à-vis  other WTO
bodies.
The representative of India drew attention to one sentence contained in its previews statement
which read as follows: "the levy of this duty had been done in such a manner that it could  be more
than adequately justified under the provisions of Article II:2 of GATT 1994. "  In order to ensure that
this was really a level playing field this levy was not charged on traders.  He did not wish to enter into
these details at the present meeting but he was ready to discuss this matter in bilateral meetings.  With
regard to the reference made by the Community,  it was clear that Article XXII consultations could
not be initiated under "Other Business", and he did not seek an invitation to enter into such
consultations at the present meeting.
The representative of Mauritius sought confirmation as to whether the exchange of views on
this subject would be recorded in the minutes of this meeting.
The Chairman confirmed that this discussion would be recorded in the minutes of this
meeting.
The General Council took note of the statements.
15. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Algeria
The Chairman, speaking under "Other Business", said that on the basis of the consultations,
he wished to inform the General Council that Amb. Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay) had agreed to chairWT/GC/M/29
Page 84
the Working Party on the Accession of Algeria, foll owing the  departure from Geneva of the former
Chairman, Amb. Arnau (Argentina)
The General Council took note of this information.
__________