99-5394 MOREPRESS RELEASE
PRESS/160
7 December 1999
“It is vital to maintain and consolidate what has already been
achieved.”
Statement by WTO Director-General Mike Moore:
“We all left Seattle last Friday disappointed but not dismayed that it was not possible to finish
the job we went there to do. A great deal was achieved in the short time Ministers had for serious
negotiation. Gaps were narrowed considerably in a number of important areas. Ambassador Charlene
Barshefsky, Chairperson of the Ministerial Conference, stated that the meeting has been suspended
and that we shall continue and complete our work.
“The suspension of talks is not unprecedented in the history of the multilateral trading
system1. But what is vital is that we maintain and consolidate what has already been achieved. The
progress made must not be lost.
“I feel particular disappointment because the postponement of our deliberations means the
benefits that would have accrued to developing and least-developed countries will now be delayed,
while the problems facing these countries will not be allayed. A package of results is within reach.
“The Chairperson of the Seattle Ministerial Conference has directed me to ‘consult with
delegations and discuss creative ways in which we might bridge the remaining areas in whichconsensus does not yet exist, develop an improved process which is both efficient and fully inclusive,
and prepare the way for successful conclusion.’ That is what I shall do.
“I am determined to fulfil my duties expeditiousl y to ensure the greatest possible participation
by all Members in the forthcoming process, and to be in a position as soon as possible to advise
Ministers that we are ready to reconvene the Ministerial Conference and to conclude it successfully.
                                                     
1 See notes to editors, at end of text.PRESS/160
Page 2/3
END“Several developing countries have congratulated us on our efforts to ensure the maximum
participation by Members in the preparatory phase and in Seattle. Before the Ministerial, weorganized special seminars for nations not represented in Geneva. Our technical assistance
programmes ensured that developing countries were better prepared than ever. Learning from
previous Ministerial Meetings, we established working groups
2 open to all Members on specific
issues. In more restricted meetings, which proved necessary to move the negotiations along, we
ensured that all interests were adequately repres ented. However, we knew this would not be good
enough. That is why, in the structure established for the Ministerial, we set up a special working
group to discuss the organizational challenges the WTO faces in carrying out its work.
“Despite the temporary setback in Seattle, our objectives remain unchanged:
• To continue to negotiate the progressive liberalization of international trade.
• To put trade to work more effectively for economic development and poverty
alleviation.
• To confirm the central rôle that the rules-based trading system plays for our
Member governments in managing their economic affairs cooperatively.
• To organize the WTO on lines that more truly represent the needs of all
Members.
“There is no less of a sense of urgency about these objectives now than there was ten days
ago. Far too much is at stake. It is not only the benefits of new trade negotiations that lie in the
balance. Within the next few months we have difficult and sensitive issues to confront in the WTO.
The longer we delay launching the negotiations, the more the poorest amongst us lose.”
______________________
NOTES TO EDITORS
1. Previous examples of ministerial talks which were suspended:
The Uruguay Round Mid-Term Review, Montreal, December 1988 : The formal closing
session on 9 December decided that the Trade Negotiations Committee should meet again in
the first week of April 1989 at the senior officials level. The results achieved in Montreal —the agenda for the second half of the round — should be put “on hold” until then.
Breakthrough was indeed achieved in Geneva in April 1989.
The Brussels Ministerial Meeting, December 1990 : This was intended to end the
negotiations, but on 7 December the meeting’s chairman said the Uruguay Round would haveto be prolonged. Substantial progress had been made, but participants needed “more time to
reconsider and reconcile their positions in some key areas of the negotiations”. The GATT
Director-General was asked to conduct consultations on how to narrow the gaps in the
negotiating progamme. The Uruguay Round was eventually signed in April 1994.
2. In Seattle the negotiations came under a “Committee of the Whole”, with specific subjects
handled by Working Groups on: agriculture; implementation and rules; market access; Singaporeagenda and other issues; and systemic issues.
                                                     
2 See notes to editors, at end of text.