RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/30
14 October 1998
(98-3940)
General Council
Special Session24-25 September 1998
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 24-25 September 1998
Chairman:  Mr. J. Weekes (Canada)
Subjects discussed: Page
1. Discussion of substantive issues arising from the Ministerial Declaration of
May 1998, in particular paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, including proposals by Members ....2
2. Organization of work on these issues, including:...............................................................2
(a) The schedule of meetings of the General Council in pursuance of the process decided by
the Ministerial Declaration; ................................................................................................... .2
(b) Arrangements for work between formal sess ions of the General Council, including for
informal cons ultations......................................................................................................... ....2
3. Date of the Third Session of  the Ministeria l Conference ................................................37
4. Work programme on el ectronic commerce......................................................................37
Prior to the adoption of the Agenda, the Chairman recalled that in paragraph 7 of the May
1998 Ministerial Declaration, Ministers had welcomed the progress that had been made with the 31
applicants currently negotiating their accession to the WTO, and had renewed their resolution to
ensure that the accession processes proceeded as rapidly as possible.  In pursuance of this resolve
expressed by Ministers, he noted with satisfaction that the Working Party on the Accession of the
Kyrgyz Republic had recently completed its work, and that the General Council would be consideringthe Report of the Working Party in three weeks' time, at its meeting scheduled for 14 October, and
that Members would be looking forward to welcoming the Kyrgyz Republic into the WTO.  He also
noted with satisfaction that Members might, in addition, be in a position at that meeting to consider
the report of a working party set up to examine the accession request of another applicant country.
This was an important area of the WTO's work, and it was gratifying to see that Members weremaking real progress on it.WT/GC/M/30
Page 2
1. Discussion of substantive issues arising from the Ministerial Declaration of May 1998, in
particular paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, including proposals by Members
and
2. Organization of work on these issues, including:
(a) The schedule of meetings of the General Council in pursuance of the process decided by the
Ministerial Declaration;
(b) Arrangements for work between formal sess ions of the General Council, including for
informal consultations
The Chairman said that as he had indicated to  delegations in a communication earlier in the
week, he wished to propose that the General Council take up items 1 and 2 of the Agenda together.
He believed this would be helpful in getting so me idea, early on, about delegations' thinking with
regard to the question of organization of work on the issues, and in particular on the arrangements forwork between the formal sessions of the General Council.  He recalled, as a background to the present
meeting in Special Session, 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 wouldmeet in Special Session in September 1998 and periodically thereafter to ensure full and timely
completion of its work.  As Members were aware, a number of formal and informal meetings had
been held in order to prepare for this Special Session.  It should be clear that the work that lay ahead,
following the present meeting, would have to come from Members' initiatives, both through written
contributions as well as through proposals presented orally at meetings.  As delegations would havenoted from the wording of Item 1, it provided for a discussion of proposals made by Members.  Two
contributions had already been received, from Egypt and Jamaica.  A number of other delegations had
also indicated their intention to submit papers soon outlining the issues of interest to them.  In
connection with the discussion on Agenda Item 1, he noted that a revised checklist of issues raised by
Members at the Ministerial Conference, both at the working sessions as well as in written statementscirculated at plenary sessions, had recently been circulated by the Secretariat and might be useful to
delegations in addressing this Item.
With regard to the organization of work on the issues, he recalled that after informal
consultations in July and earlier in the present month, he had made some procedural proposals, andwished to suggest that the following schedule of in formal intersessional meetings might be established
by the General Council at its present meeting to take up the following matters:
26 [and 27] October Discussion on issues and proposals related to paragraph 9(a)
of the Ministerial Declaration;
23 [and 24] November Discussion on issues and proposals related to paragraph 9(b)
– 9(d) of the Ministerial Declaration;
14 [and 16] December Further discussion on issues and proposals under paragraph 9
and the schedule of future work.
As he had also suggested earlier, the next special session of the General Council on the
preparations for the Third Session might be held on 2-3 February 1999.  Delegations had had an initial
exchange of views on this suggested programme at informal consultations held on 18 September, at
which a number of useful suggestions and comments had been made.  It was his intention to hold
further consultations on this suggested programme during the course of the present meeting, on theWT/GC/M/30
Page 3
basis of which he hoped to be in a position to propose a course of action for the approval of the
General Council.
The representative of the European Communities said that when WTO Ministers had met in
May, they had set a number of tasks for the General Council, against the background of, as they had
put it "… a time when the economies of a number of WTO Members are experiencing difficulties as aresult of disturbances in financial markets".  Today, this was close to a euphemism for something
much more serious, and would clearly be an understatement.  The impact of the financial crisis had
spread rapidly, and was taking its toll not only on the financial markets but on international trade and
investment.  As the impact was becoming global, the response should be multilateral.  The danger of
beggar-thy-neighbour policies, always present in such situations, was growing every day.  Hence the
need for a greater sense of urgency in the WTO's work, to ensure that the WTO remained a bulwark
against any protectionist backsliding.  There would always be those that would argue that problemswere imported and that the adoption of restrictive measures in trade or finance would help isolate their
economies from the turmoil.  The world's last major experience with such remedies was in the 1930s,
with disastrous results.  The contagion of protectionism was relatively immediate, and its impact vast
on world trade, output and employment.  Much of the post-war period had been spent in successive,
and thus far successful, attempts to undo the damage done.  While no-one would wish to repeat thatexperience, all would be subject to protectionist pressures and some, perhaps several, would be
tempted to succumb.  During the first half of the present year, the Community's trade with most of the
countries affected by the crisis had shown an extraordinary change, greater than that of any other
major trader.  Imports from these countries had increased by an average of 20% and exports had
dropped by more than 30%, or a cumulative shift of 50%.  These averages concealed even greatershifts in a few sectors which, within the space of a few months, had seen cumulative changes in trade
flows amounting to several billion ECUs.  Some of the burden of the crisis was therefore shifting to
the Community's member states through the trade balance, just as Europe had assumed the lion's share
of commercial bank lending and its member states had provided massive financial support for the
countries in crisis through the IMF.  Yet, the Comm unity remained more convinced than ever that the
way out of the crisis required:  (i) the stimulation and expansion of trade and growth;  (ii) the adoption
of decisive steps to reduce the risk of protectionism;  and (iii) the strengthening of the multilateral
system and its transparency.  Over the past year, the Community had repeatedly set out its case for
engaging in further, comprehensive negotiations at  the millennium.  Today, it wished to go further,
first by explaining what it meant in substance by a comprehensive round and, second, by setting outits thoughts on the process that would best guide Members to the Third Ministerial Conference at the
end of 1999, and which should make such a goal possible.  The present situation strengthened more
than ever the case for further comprehensive libera lization.  International trade, and even less the
WTO system, were not the cause, but part of the solution.  The Community was heartened by the
previous week's informal debate in the General Council which confirmed that this view was widely
shared among Members.  The strengthened rules of the Uruguay Round outlawing unilateralism and
special deals of the "voluntary agreement" kind ha d shown how indispensable this Organization had
become.  The negotiations beginning in the year 2000 offered an opportunity to go beyond the
confines of the built-in agenda, to further expand trade and to strengthen the multilateral system.
Recognising the primacy of the multilateral system, Members should seize that opportunity.
Furthermore, Ministers should envisage, as at Punta del Este, a collective commitment not to take
measures inconsistent with WTO obligations,  not to take restrictive measures beyond the minimumnecessary in the legitimate exercise of WTO rights, and not to take measures designed to improve
negotiating leverage.  The Community, like many others, therefore sought further comprehensive
negotiations, in the sense that they should reflect the interests of all participants.  Experience had
shown time and time again that a narrow, sectoral focus was only rarely able to satisfy the aims of
more than a few Members, and therefore would not work.  The success of the ITA might have ledsome, for the wrong reasons, to conclude that one could continue on this road.  But the ITA had been
a one-off event, whose aims had been supported by all major producers of most IT products.  ITA2,
however, was unfortunately showing the limitation s of the narrower, sectoral approach.  The
Community wished to set out in broad terms some of the issues that could feature in a new round.WT/GC/M/30
Page 4
This range of issues was not intended to be exhaustive or exclusive, nor did it reflect only the interests
of the Community.  The Community knew that further negotiations in the WTO would be acceptable
only if the benefits were widely shared.  Furthermore, the Community was not, at this stage,
suggesting any form of priority as between the issues on the list, which had to be a matter for
negotiation.  (i) Services:  Members had both a commitment and an interest to continue negotiations
on the basis of GATS Article XIX, with a view to achieving a progressively higher level ofliberalization, on a  mutually advantageous basis.  Among other things, Members should consider all
relevant means to reduce obstacles, by improving conditions for establishment and by accepting cross
border commitments, and should examine ways in which the movement of persons necessary to the
supply of services could be enhanced.  (ii) Agricult ure:  Members had agreed that negotiations should
take place in conformity with Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture which struck a delicate
balance between the long term objective of substantial, progressive reductions in support and
protection, resulting in fundamental reform, with ot her concerns, notably the experience and effects of
implementing the reduction commitments agreed in 1994 and non-trade concerns.  (iii) Industrial
tariffs:  The Community was convinced that there should be a common interest among Members to
seek significant market access improvements through the substantial further reduction of industrial
tariffs across all sectors, aiming at greater harmonization of tariff structures among Members, without
exceptions.  Industrialized countries should be prepared to show the way.
Beyond these "traditional" issues, there were many potential negotiating topics of a rule-
making nature.  (i) SPS:  a review was already in progress.  While the SPS Agreement struck a
reasonable balance between the avoidance of disguised trade barriers and the sovereign right of
Members to decide the appropriate level of protection, Members should together consider what otherissues might be addressed.  (ii) Technical Barriers to Trade:  many WTO Members had attached
importance to improving further the operation and im plementation of the Agreement so as to secure
for example:  greater transparency of measures;  greater certainty as to the scope and interpretation of
the Agreement;  the adoption of regulatory approaches which avoided unnecessary obstacles to trade;
measures to facilitate access of developing countries' exports;  and the wider application of theconcept of "tested once, approved everywhere".  (iii) Competition:  the absence of even a minimal
international framework for competition policy c onstituted a major impediment to a transparent
trading environment.  There should be a common interest among Members to develop a framework of
binding competition rules encompassing inter alia  key elements of a competition law structure for
adoption by all Members, including enforcement, common approaches to tackle anti-competitivepractises with an impact on trade and investment;  and provisions on international cooperation.  This
should also reduce the risk of extraterritorial action.  (iv) Investment:  investment needed a
comprehensive framework of international rules consistent with aims of sustainable development.
With international flows of investment falling pr ecipitously between developed and many developing
countries, this was the time to give the right signal by creating a transparent, predictable and secure
investment climate.  This would be an effective way of encouraging the flow of capital.  The WTO
was the place to develop such a framework of rules.  (v)  Trade facilitation:  Members should have acommon interest in developing a framework to modernise, simplify and harmonise trade and customs
procedures.  The other technically competent international organizations were urging the WTO to do
so.  No economy gained from unnecessary bureaucracy, and there were few better ways of opening
new opportunities for small- and medium-sized enterprises from all countries.  Developmental issues
and domestic capacity building should be taken into account in the discussions.  (vi) Trade andEnvironment was another important area.  Public opinion was, rightly, increasingly intent on
reversing the gradual degradation of the environment.   The WTO should be able to satisfy society's
concern that trade liberalization be pursued in a manner compatible with sustainable development.  It
should continue to clarify the interaction between environmental principles and those of trade.  Hence
the usefulness of the High-Level Meeting   that the Community had proposed.  This would be auseful, free-standing exercise aimed at moving the trade and environment policy debate forward at a
political level.  As the world's biggest exporter, the Community had less of a reason than anyone else
to devise new means to restrain trade through the environmental backdoor.  He hoped no-one would
deny, however, the usefulness of clarifying issues such as the relationship between multilateralWT/GC/M/30
Page 5
environment agreements and the rules of the WTO, while other issues (eg labelling) could also
usefully be explored in order to reduce the scope of conflict.  (vii) Government Procurement:  all
Members had an interest in considering what additional measures could be taken in the WTO to make
national procurement practices more transparent and non-discriminatory, so as to make the most cost-
effective use of limited public resources, as well as measures to enhance access to overseas
procurement opportunities.  (viii) TRIPS:  Members should have a common interest in ensuring thatthe TRIPS Agreement kept up with new technological developments and in pursuing negotiations on
matters identified by Members, including several developing countries, in the TRIPS Council.  (ix)
Electronic Commerce:  the comprehensive work programme to be established would help Members to
identify areas in which there might be a common interest to elaborate WTO provisions.  (x) Other
issues:  the set of issues outlined above was non-exhaustive.  Others certainly existed, and he
anticipated that other Members would raise additional issues as the work programme developed.  As
for the Community, nothing was, a priori, excluded from consideration, with one single exception:  itwould not be willing to envisage any unravelling.  Instead, it would be open to looking at other
Members' concerns, so as to find a consensus on the appropriate balance and scope of the future
negotiations.
The Community was convinced of the comprehensive nature of a new round, because the
response needed from the international trading co mmunity had to meet an extremely broad range of
interests among the WTO's Members, and within th eir societies at large.  Hence the Community's
emphasis on the non-exclusive nature of its illustrative list and its deliberate abstention from the
assignation of priorities.  There were also two very important systemic issues that deserved to be
addressed at the present time, and which should be taken fully into account as the work programmedeveloped:  (i) The fuller participation of developing countries in the multilateral system, including
special measures for least-developed countries:  this should be a leitmotif running through all future
work.  Members of the WTO should be willing in  the framework of a new round to consider the
means to preserve the interests of developing countries, and to improve substantially the trading
opportunities and integration of the least-developed countries.  Among other things, this meant furtherimproving market access and implementing the recommendations for action adopted by the 1997
High-Level Meeting   on LDCs.  Some delegations we re developing proposals in some of these areas,
and he looked forward to examining them seriously.  WTO Members should also be ready to address
questions relating to the implementation of WTO Agreements, and especially the concerns of the
least-developed countries.  Where genuine problems existed Members should ensure that adequateassistance was given, and be prepared to be as flexible as possible, with the aim of meeting the
commitment undertaken in May to the full and faithful implementation of the WTO Agreements and
Ministerial Decisions.  (ii) Civil society:  It was clear that the successful launch and conduct of a
future round would depend not simply on Members' identifying the issues around which a consensus
to negotiate could be built.  It would also, in part, depend on how Members ensured that the WTO
remained, and was seen to remain, relevant for society at large, against a background of growing
concerns about the effects of economic globalization.  These were not matters for negotiation, butloomed large in the background.  Issues such as WTO's relations with the NGO community;  the
question of coherence in international economic policy-making;  the relationship between trade and
sustainable development and the need for continued cooperation between WTO and the ILO on
relevant trade and labour issues.  In an atmosphere in which the role of the WTO was increasingly
under scrutiny, Members should ensure that the interests of civil society were adequately reflected inpresent and future work.  This was wholly consistent with ensuring the continued effectiveness of the
WTO as a forum for negotiation.  As to negotiating structure, the Community's key objective for the
Third Ministerial Conference was to obtain the right decisions on the modalities and scope of further
negotiations.  The Community would work to secure Ministerial agreement in 1999 on a broad and
flexible negotiating platform, encompassing all Members' concerns.  As in the Uruguay Round, theCommunity envisaged future negotiations as a single undertaking, with a single time-frame as the best
means to achieve results of interest to all Members.  The Community believed that Members should
seek to conclude within a relatively short period of time, say, for example, within three years.  It
recognised that no consensus existed at present on these concepts, and it wished not to prejudge orWT/GC/M/30
Page 6
pre-empt but to launch common reflection on a concrete basis.  What was important at present, as one
moved into the preparatory work for the 1999 conference, was that Members kept an open mind and
open options.  They should do nothing that would foreclose on any of the approaches or options under
discussion, or which would prevent Ministers in 1999 from taking the right decisions.  As to the
process between now and the Third Ministerial Conference, the Community saw the future work
falling broadly into three phases:  (i) An identification phase, during which different WTO groups andcommittees would continue the work already mandated, carry out additional work and make reports to
the General Council, and, in the General Council,  Members would make their proposals for subjects
to negotiate.  These processes should be mutually supportive.  In any event, the mandate given by
Ministers to the General Council was absolutely clear.  The Chairman had already proposed that this
identification phase begin with a series of informal sessions to discuss, sequentially, matters arising
out of paragraph 9 of the May declaration, and the Community could agree to these arrangements.  (ii)
A stocktaking phase, which the Community envisaged taking place sometime in the summer of 1999,when all groups which were to do so should have made reports and Members should largely have
made their proposals on the scope of future negotiations.  At that point the contributions from below
(if any) would probably merge with those coming from the top i.e. those introduced in the General
Council, by means of a stocktaking by the Council.  (iii) The third and final stage would be for the
General Council to start defining options for negotiation, and to draw up draft general objectives andprinciples for those negotiations for consideration by Members.  Those objectives should, while
giving adequate guidance to negotiators, be set ou t in terms sufficiently broad to cover the various
interests.  Punta del Este type guidelines – in terms of the degree of detail – would strike about the
right balance, and one might seek a Ministerial outcome of a comparable nature, including a standstill
provision.  In terms of preparation, particularly in the first phase, the Community had looked at whatadditional work might need to be done in the various WTO groups and committees.  Its initial
assessment was that they were, in most cases, already carrying out the work needed for informed
decisions to be taken later.  The Community did, however, suggest that work could usefully be
intensified in the Committee on Market Access – in relation to industrial tariffs – in order to provide
all delegations with the necessary analysis.  In concluding, he said that the issues on the agenda of thepresent meeting were of exceptional importance, es pecially in the current circumstances, and that
Members had a collective responsibility to make it succeed.  The Community was convinced, today
more than ever, of both the virtue and the necessity of an ambitious programme of further negotiations
accompanied by a standstill commitment.  That would be Members' collective contribution to the
health of the international trading system, and the Community looked forward to working with all its
partners over the coming months to make this a reality.
The representative of Australia said that since WTO Ministers had met in May, the economic
and trade environment had become more difficult.  One could no longer talk in terms of a financial
crisis in Asia.  The best contribution the WTO could make to the challenges all faced would be to
prepare for the launch, as soon as possible, of a new round of comprehensive trade negotiations.  The
nature of Australia's economy and its global trading interests meant that it was looking for concretegains in industrial tariffs, agriculture and services from the next round of negotiations.  It believed
strongly that the best way to pursue such gains was through balanced, comprehensive negotiations, in
which all Members had an interest, so that all would be able to balance gains with concessions.
Members needed to be able to deliver substantial gains within a realistic timeframe, and certainly
faster than the Uruguay Round.  A balanced and comprehensive round should be in the form of asingle undertaking, so that all could enter the negotiations confident that there could be no conclusion
without their own areas of interest being addressed.  Australia would be open to early harvests within
the framework of a single undertaking that built confidence in the ability of the multilateral system to
produce results.  Industrial tariffs were a major and inadvertent omission from the built-in agenda
resulting from the Uruguay Round, and industrial tariff negotiations were crucial if the interests of allMembers were to be addressed.  The Uruguay Round outcomes for industrial goods were not
complete and left scope for further concessions.  Australia's basic emphasis would be on further
significant tariff reductions including, where possible, to zero bindings.  Australia also saw a real need
for the WTO to look seriously at non-tariff measures, as these remained a major constraint on trade.WT/GC/M/30
Page 7
It also wished to see the WTO make substantial inroads on tariff peaks, tariff escalations and on
making all tariffs ad valorem .  If Ministers were to be in a position to take a decision on whether or
not to launch industrial tariff negotiations, the necessary technical work had to begin soon, including
provision of information for the Integrated Data Base and discussion on the possible modalities for
negotiations.  Australia was preparing a paper on possible industrial tariff negotiations as a
contribution to the WTO's preparatory work over the next few months.  On agriculture, Australia'sobjectives had been set out in the Cairns Group Vision Statement from the Sydney Ministerial
Meeting of April 1998.  The aim was to push the reforms commenced under the Uruguay Round
substantially further.  The Uruguay Round had been a start to the reform of trade in agriculture, not
the finish.  Agriculture should not remain a second-class citizen in the WTO, still subject to
distortions that were not tolerated in trade in other goods.  Australia wanted the early and total
elimination and prohibition of all forms of export subsidy;  deep cuts to all tariffs and removal of
tariff escalation;  removal of all non-tariff barriers (e.g. rice, dairy quotas);  and greater disciplines onsupport measures for agriculture.  In seeking further agricultural reform, Australia was mindful of the
special needs of least-developed countries and small island states.  As Australia was one of the most
service-intensive economies in the world, it had an ambitious agenda on services in mind.  It would be
looking for greater transparency in services commitments and expanded coverage across all services
sectors.  It considered the real priority to be the improvement of market-access commitments.Australia had been disappointed at the outcome of the work in the WTO on professional services, and
this sector would be a priority for it in future mark et access negotiations.  It would also want to focus
on education, construction and transport.
A systemic issue which merited inclusion in the agenda was the role of regional trade
agreements in the larger multilateral trading system .  Australia believed that there was much greater
scope to ensure that regional trade liberalization supported the multilateral trade system.  The best
way to do this was to clarify existing WTO disciplines in a way which ensured that future regional
trade agreements removed substantially all the barriers to trade between regional partners.  Finally, a
vital part of the work of the WTO was the large agenda of accessions.  Australia was willing to makethe greatest possible effort to ensure that applican ts acceded to the WTO as soon as possible, as long
as applications were on commercially viable terms and as long as acceding countries accepted the
spirit and the letter of WTO disciplines.  Members had an enormous amount of work to do to prepare
for the Third Ministerial Conference, particularly if, as many Members desired, Ministers were to be
in a position to take a decision on whether to launch a new round of comprehensive trade negotiationsand what that round should comprise.  Australia could support the Chairman's proposed work
programme of informal meetings.  However, Members needed to intensify the proposed work
programme.  At the very least, a fourth informal meeting should be held in January 1999, before the
next Special Session, to allow them to take stock and reflect on their discussions so that they would be
better prepared for the next Special Session.  Australia was strongly of the view that overall control of
the preparatory process should remain firmly in the hands of the General Council.  The General
Council should request specific and time-bound advice from subsidiary bodies for its deliberationswhenever necessary.  However, it was important that the routine work of subsidiary bodies not be
disrupted, as had been the case with the preparations for the Singapore Ministerial Conference, and
that the participation of smaller delegations be facilitated by not having the preparatory process spread
out among a large number of councils and committees.  At the same time, it would be crucial to
ensure that Members take stock of the adequacy of technical information for any negotiations theywould or might undertake.  As a first step, it would be useful for the Secretariat to report to Members
on the adequacy of existing databases so that Me mbers could then ensure they had the information
they would need for negotiations.
The representative of the Czech Republic, speaking also on behalf of Bulgaria, Hungary,
Poland, Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, said that in approaching the special meeting he
wished to highlight three important objectives of the General Council:  first, to set up an effective
mechanism to shape the agenda for the 1999 Ministerial Conference which would cover all aspectsWT/GC/M/30
Page 8
relevant to the implementation and future WTO work as reflected in the Ministerial Declaration of
May 1998;  second, to increase mutual understanding of the position of each Member on the basisof substantive discussion in order to identify the issues to be negotiated;  and third, to send a strongmessage to the public and business community that preparations for future negotiations in the WTOwere on the right track.  A strong message reaffirming WTO Members' common support to anopen, rules-based multilateral trading system was important as countries were facing a serioussituation resulting from the current economic turmoil.  Members should seize the opportunity tomake clear that resort to protectionism was not the right way to deal with existing problems.Instead, in pursuit of the common objective of enhancing growth and prosperity worldwide,Members should show their ability to maintain open markets and sustain the momentum ofliberalization.  In his view, implementation and future work program of the WTO remained twosides of the same coin.  Full and timely implementation of existing agreements were essential toconsolidate the Uruguay Round results and increa se the willingness of Members to enter new
contractual obligations.  Although predominantly successful, Members were aware that theimplementation was not always easy and straightforward and that there was still some room forfurther improvements.  This was also why the Czech Republic and others stood ready to embarkupon a substantive discussion on all relevant implementation aspects.  It was to be understood,however, that this discussion should not lead to renegotiation of existing commitments.  To managean ever growing interdependence of different areas of economic policy and to ensure increasedresponsiveness of the WTO to emerging new challenges of a rapidly changing globalized worldeconomy, Members should ensure th at the multilatera l trading system had an ambitious, forward
looking perspective.  This perspective was associated with a fully-fledged new round ofcomprehensive multilateral negotiations which would encompass in a balanced and equitable mannerthe elements pertaining to the "built-in agenda", issues arising from decisions made at the SingaporeMinisterial Declaration, in particular those that were gaining in prominence in the world economyand had to do with the relationship between trade, investment and competition, further lowering ofindustrial tariffs and, last but not least, broader integration of the least-developed countries in themultilateral system to allow them to benefit fully from new trade opportunities.  A newcomprehensive round of mu ltilateral trade nego tiations starting in 2000 corresponded better to the
objective of stopping protectionism, strengthening the principle of the single undertaking,maintaining liberalization momentum and keeping a required overall balance of interests.  He wouldtherefore spare no efforts to contribute to preparing the ground for such a round.  In this context hewished to reaffirm his continuing strong commitment to the success of the General Council.
The representative of Japan said that Ministers had agreed in May 1998 to move the WTO
process forward and had instructed Members to prepare the Third Ministerial Conference.  As all
were aware, this would be an important event for the WTO, since it would be held immediately before
the start of the next negotiations.  Paragraphs 9 to 11 laid the important foundation upon which
Members should prepare the mandated recommenda tion to be submitted to the Third Ministerial
Conference.  In this context, he wished to highlig ht points he considered of particular importance as
Members looked at the process leading up to the next Ministerial Conference.  First, it was important
that existing Agreements were fully implemented before embarking on the next negotiations.  This
included the obligations that the developing country Members would have to fulfil at the end of the
transition period, which would come to term, as in the case of the TRIPS and TRIMs Agreements, at
the end of 1999.  Japan was aware of the need expr essed by some developing country Members for
technical assistance and intended to continue its assistance programme.  Japan also expected
constructive assistance from other international organizations such as UNCTAD.  Second, as stated inthe Ministerial Declaration, the future work programme of the WTO should include "… further
liberalization sufficiently broad-based to respond to the range of interests and concerns of all
Members".  On this basis Members would have to seek the understanding of all Members for a
comprehensive negotiation including industrial tariffs, rules on investment and other new areas in
addition to agriculture, trade in services and other areas of the so-called "built-in agenda".  In Japan'sWT/GC/M/30
Page 9
view it was the best approach to advance the multilateral agenda and achieve the overall balance of
interests of all Members as stated in paragraph 11 of the Ministerial Declaration.  Third, one of the
important factors to strengthen the multilateral trading system was to expand the universality of this
Organization.  Based on the principle of full respect of the WTO rules and disciplines as well as
meaningful market access commitments, efforts should be made to conclude as many accession
negotiations as possible before the next negotiations started.  In this regard, Members should refrainfrom making excessive requests to the applicants.  Th e multilateral rule-based trading system was the
best way to further the economic welfare of the world and this Organization should have the
capability to ensure that this fundamental rule was observed properly.  As to the organization of work
including the schedule of the General Council and the arrangements between the formal sessions,
Japan believed that important work was being undertaken in the existing bodies in the Council on
Trade in Services, the Committee on Agriculture and in the working groups initiated by the Singapore
Ministerial Declaration.  For Members to make the best use of this work, the schedule of the GeneralCouncil meetings should be fixed in such a way as not to undermine them.  Thus, Japan agreed to
hold the next formal meeting of the General Council in early February.  As for the intersessional
process, Japan agreed to have informal meetings to discuss paragraph 9.  However, during the last
quarter of 1998, Members should concentrate on the procedural aspects as well as on the
interpretation of paragraph 9, so that when entering into more substantive work at a later stage,Members would have a shared understanding of the parameters of the work.  The timing for tabling
the negotiating proposals was a matter to be consid ered taking into account the time necessary for
domestic discussions.
The representative of Norway said his country was also deeply concerned by the global
economic problems, and their implications.  The situation presented the global trading system with a
challenge that could not , and indeed should not, be underestimated.  The danger lay in countries
ultimately resorting to protectionist trade measures.  Protectionism did not represent the appropriate
response to the current challenge posed by the financial crises.  Fortunately, such development had
thus far not been apparent.  The strongest message Members could convey, given the seriousness ofthe situation, was to reaffirm their commitment to  the multilateral trading system, including the
Declarations issued by the two Ministerial Conferences.  Transparent and non-discriminatory
multilateral rules would constitute a stabilizing element, counteracting the volatility presently
prevailing in financial markets.  Norway had initiated a process of identification of its interests
relating to the scope and character of the future negotiations.  Engaging in any substantive debate onthe issues relating to future negotiations would be premature, and would preempt Members' national
preparations.  The present situation appeared to differ from the preparatory phase prior to the Uruguay
Round, where it had been clear from the outset that a great number of substantial topics would be
emerging which had not been anchored in any part of the GATT framework.  At present, Members
were in a situation where most, if not all, topics that might be put on the table would be anchored in
one or several of the subsidiary bodies of the WTO.  Thus, it seemed logical that the process be
managed by the General Council.  He used the word "managed" to indicate that in his opinion, mostof the basis on which the General Council would elaborate in order to agree on its recommendations
to the next Ministerial Conference would have to be provided by its subsidiary bodies.  Consequently,
it was his delegation's understanding that the General Council should be provided with the broadest
base possible, in order to make such recommendations.  He believed that for many of the subsidiary
bodies, their existing mandates provided sufficient guidelines in this respect.  An important taskwould, however, be to ensure that adequate inputs were provided by all subsidiary bodies, in order to
secure a qualified judgement on the recommendations to be put forward to Ministers.  Those inputs
should, to the largest extent possible, be factual, and at any rate not prescriptive.  However, it should
not be necessary to formulate specific mandates for each individual subsidiary body in order to obtain
such inputs.  Norway supported the idea of a phased approach to the preparatory process.  Distinct andseparate phases would provide Members with the structure necessary in order to avoid a potentially
chaotic process.  To this effect, the so-called "Identification Phase" would be crucial, and would
certainly have to run into 1999.  Norway would caution against setting any strict deadlines with
respect to this crucial phase.  Flexibility would be necessary.  In addition, ample time should beWT/GC/M/30
Page 10
provided for the General Council to take stock of and discuss Members' proposals.  To this effect,
Members' contributions should be submitted by the end of the second quarter of 1999.  Norway also
supported the idea of intersessional meetings of the General Council in which issues set out in
paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 in the Ministerial Declaration of May 1998 would be dealt with sequentially.
The representative of Cyprus associated her delegation with the general content of the
statement by the Czech Republic, and expressed the readiness of Cyprus to fully participate in a new
round of comprehensive negotiations with a view to strengthening further the multilateral trading
system.
The representative of Mexico said that in his country's view, the process contained in
paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the Ministerial Declaration set down the basis for the Third Ministerial
Conference to agree to the launching of a broad multilateral round of negotiations that would gobeyond the built-in agenda, for the benefit of all WTO Members.  Mexico was in favour of the
launching of a round of negotiations that would be as broad as possible because it would bring four
general benefits.  First, such negotiations would make it possible to avoid partial, or sectoral
negotiations that were not necessarily of interest to all Members.  In other words, it would make it
possible to take account of the interests of all WTO Members.  Second, a round would reduce the gapthat existed between the liberalization processes that one had seen at the regional level and the
multilateral trading system.  Third, this approach would also make it possible to give recognition to
autonomous liberalization measures that various countries had undertaken.  Fourth, and finally, it
would make it possible to tackle neo-protectionist tendencies that had been exacerbated by the
financial disturbances being faced in several parts of the world.  Mexico considered implementationan integral part of the process, and that this issue should be dealt with on an equal footing with all
others.  Mexico also believed that the discussion on implementation would be useful to address and
resolve problems that had arisen in complying with certain provisions of the WTO Agreements,
without this implying any general renegotiati on of commitments and obligations agreed to in
Marrakesh.  Regarding the built-in agenda, there was much more to be done in order for Members tocomply in time with the commitments that had alread y been adopted.  If a broad round of negotiations
were to be held, it would mean that results obtaine d would be much better than the results obtained if
one were to negotiate only the built-in agenda in isolation.  Regarding the follow-up to the Singapore
Ministerial Declaration, Mexico was open to negotiations on any of the issues agreed to therein, as
long as balance was maintained.  With regard to trade and competition, his delegation believedMembers should enter into a negotiating phase that would not be devoted exclusively to competition
per se  but rather to the interaction between these two dimensions.  Mexico was particularly concerned
with issues regarding anti-dumping matters, and had from the very outset proposed that Members
examine the circumstances where the application of anti-dumping measures was not justified and,
from an economic point of view, provisions of competition policy should be used.
On trade and investment, Mexico was concerned by the proliferation of incentives such as tax
exemptions to attract investment.  Such incentives created distortions and put countries that had fewer
resources for such incentives at a disadvantage.  It wished to see a solution either through a broad
agreement on investment or by means of the review provided under the TRIMS Agreement.
Regarding transparency in government procurement, Mexico supported moving to a negotiating phase
that would make it possible for Members to move forward at least as regards transparency.  Mexicohad a positive interest in conducting negotiations on market access for industrial goods.  His
delegation had been pleased that others had spoken out in favour of an across-the-board horizontal
approach which Mexico had supported and proposed on previous occasions.  Mexico believed that
limiting negotiations only to sectoral issues would not encourage participation of many Members.
Mexico was open to any negotiations that would promote economic liberalization.  However, Mexicowould not be in favour of taking up issues that were not directly trade-related, and had been
concerned to hear references to issues that Mexico did not consider to be trade-related.  It did not
believe that the disciplines of the WTO should be used for the attainment of other not purely
commercial objectives.  Mexico also shared the concern that measures should be taken to ensure thatWT/GC/M/30
Page 11
the work of the WTO would be supported by civil society.  It wished to see a discussion held on this
matter as soon as possible in order to be able to implement a WTO information policy.  This would
enable public opinion to better understand the benefits of the work being done in the WTO.
Regarding paragraph 10 of the Ministerial Declaration, Mexico considered that in order to ensure an
equitable negotiating process and balanced results, the negotiations to be launched at the Third
Ministerial Conference had to be conducted on the basis of a single undertaking.  Finally, as regardsthe organization of work, his delegation could go along with the Chairman's suggestions.  However, it
believed that some greater flexibility should be allowed as to the issues to be taken up, so as not to
have the discussions become too compartmentalized.  He supported the holding of a further informal
meeting in January 1999 to prepare for the formal General Council meeting planned for February.
Mexico believed that the General Council should maintain control of work from now until the Third
Ministerial Conference, so as not to detract from th e regular work of the WTO, and to facilitate the
participation of delegations with limited resources.  Once the date of the Third Ministerial Conferencehad been established, one would have to count back from then and establish a timetable for the stages
that would have to be covered.  Mexico wished to avoid holding substantive negotiations as to the
package as well as the presentation of new issues very close to the date of the Third Ministerial
Conference, which could give rise to serious problems.  It would prefer that Members go to that
Conference with essentially everything agreed.
The representative of New Zealand said that global economic circumstances were such that
the process of preparing for new negotiations would be more than usually challenging.  It was
essential that all Members, and especially the majors whose trade policies were so vital to all, acted
responsibly.  Members should live up to their WTO obligations and their markets should remain open.This would assist the process of adjustment.  In these circumstances, the importance of maintaining
the process of trade liberalization of reducing barriers to trade was self evident, both as an antidote to
those who might seek to close markets and because it formed part of the rational global response to
the crisis.  What should not be done in present circumstances was to raise barriers, raise prices and so
depress demand.  For these reasons, New Zealand strongly supported the multilateral trading systemand its fundamental role as a means of addressi ng the global economic situation.  New Zealand
therefore attached great importance to the process of preparing for a new round of multilateral trade
negotiations.  This special General Council would se t in train a sensible and focused process which, in
accordance with the direction to all by Ministers in May, would lead to the development of
recommendations for consideration at the Third Ministerial Conference.  There was little over oneyear until that meeting and preparations for it should get underway immediately.  The range of issues
to be dealt with in that time was extensive.   The commencement of negotiations was already
mandated in agriculture and services.  It was essential that these negotiations be well prepared within
a clear time-frame so that further substantial liberalization could occur quickly in these two important
areas.  In agriculture, New Zealand's broad objectives were clear.  All forms of export subsidies as
well as trade-distorting domestic support should be eliminated.  Deep cuts in the high tariff levels
prevalent in agriculture and sustained tariff quota expansion were necessary in order to put marketaccess for agricultural products on the same basis as other goods.  In this context, New Zealand also
supported the comments made by Australia this morning on behalf of the Cairns Group, calling for
WTO Members to show restraint in the use of export subsidies.  In the area of services, new
agreements should result in substantial improvements in market access and marked reductions in the
lists of reservations and limitations in existing schedules.  Priority services sectors for New Zealandincluded professional services, telecommunications , information technology, tourism, transport,
education, construction, postal and distribution services.  He said that with respect to the mandated
negotiations, the present situation was quite different from the situation that prevailed immediately
prior to the Uruguay Round. Members' expectations and responses should therefore be different.
Ministerial decisions should allow a shorter, focused negotiation, in which the key issues could beaddressed much earlier and much more could be achieved.  However, these mandated negotiations
needed the company of industrial tariffs – the necessary third leg of a broad-based market access
negotiation.  New Zealand believed that there was substantial unfinished business in this area, which
covered a wide range of natural resource-based products, including fisheries and forestry products, ofWT/GC/M/30
Page 12
interest to developed and developing countries.  Such sectors were marked by a high incidence of
tariff peaks and tariff escalation which inhibited industrial development in exporting countries.  Other
sectors identified in the APEC early voluntary sectoral liberalization process should also be part of
liberalization in the WTO.
Implementation issues should also have a high profile.  Members should work carefully
through these, develop greater specificity, and identify where further negotiations might help resolve
the situation.  Work on implementation would feed crucially into the market access negotiations,
which provided the only realistic vehicle for dealing with those shortcomings and failings of current
agreements identified by Members, especially developing country Members.  In addition, the
Marrakesh and Singapore work programmes containe d a range of potentially important issues.  New
issues such as electronic commerce might be added to the WTO agenda.  This required a well-
managed, well-organized preparatory process, which would build and gather momentum.  This special
General Council was just the first step in the first phase of identifying the issues for negotiation.  New
Zealand supported the Chairman's proposal of a series of informal HODs over the remainder of the
year to discuss each of the elements of paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration.  This would be an
appropriate next step.  Given the importance of implementation issues, these should be the first to be
addressed with a two-day session in October, followed by a session on the mandated negotiations andreviews in November and other elements in December.  It should be stressed, however, that these
HODs sessions were only the next of many steps.  Thereafter, there would be a need to assess them
and move the process forward.  New Zealand also supported the holding of a special General Council
for early February.  That meeting was the next milestone; at that point, a deeper discussion on the
scope of the negotiations should begin.  In order to prepare properly for that meeting, it would bedesirable to have a further HOD in mid-January.  This would reinvigorate the process after the end of
year break; it would allow some further time for reflection on the HODs meetings up to that point and
could consider the work programme for the next phase.  From February, the preparatory work should
be intensified.  It was perhaps too soon to be prescriptive about exactly what the process from
February would entail, given the need to retain fl exibility and gain a better understanding of all the
issues involved.  But it was certainly not too soon to think about the need to develop momentum in
that period to ensure that the process would be concluded in a satisfactory and timely manner.  In that
context there should be 2 or 3 meetings of the special General Council before the summer break, and
in between, there could be informal HODs meetings which would cover all the elements in paragraph
9 and would seek to advance each element.  This was consistent with the view, which seemed widelyshared, of a top-down preparatory process – a process which would be driven by the General Council.
While existing WTO bodies could, in some circumstances, undertake some elements of the
preparatory work, this should only be for precisel y defined tasks within set time-frames and only at
the direction of the General Council.  In any such delegation of work, it would be important to ensure
that the regular work programmes were not derailed.  The February to July period in short would be
used to refine the list of negotiating issues and develop the elements of respective negotiating
mandates with more detailed work being carried out in those areas where negotiations were alreadymandated.  After the summer break, there would be a period of intense work to fix the details of the
mandates and to strike the right balance between the various parts of a package for Ministers.  Taking
into account the summer holiday, there was less than one working year to achieve all of this.
Members should press ahead.
The representative of Uruguay said that the central objective of Members' work, in pursuance
of the decisions adopted during the 1998 Ministerial Conference, was the preparation of draft
decisions that would be submitted for consideration at the Third Ministerial Conference.  This was not
an easy task, and the time available was very short.  Therefore, the procedures on which Members had
to decide at the present meeting must be such as to enable them, by the end of November 1999, tocome up with negotiating plans or proposals for solu tions to problems that had arisen, in order to
place them before Ministers for consideration.  Regarding the framework, the General Council needed
to bear the responsibility for this process and negoti ations should be carried out in informal meetings
of the General Council.  His delegation agreed with the Chairman's proposal for meetings on aWT/GC/M/30
Page 13
monthly basis until the end of the present year and with the distribution of tasks at each meeting.
However, Uruguay wished to stress that during 1999 it would be essential to have an informal
mechanism in place on a permanent basis to deal with the various issues and proposals of Members, if
the process was to be concluded in time.  In this context, his delegation largely shared the points
expressed by New Zealand regarding the work programme.  As to the work itself, Uruguay had the
following expectations:  (i) on implementation, Uruguay hoped that all Members would be able toraise their concerns as regards specific and concrete problems in order to enable the identification of
alternative solutions, whether these be in the form of new negotiations, action at the level of the
competent bodies, changes in procedures, or greater cooperation, in accordance with the nature of the
problem;  (ii) in the negotiations already mandated, i.e. agriculture and services, as well as in any
other issue on the built-in agenda where it was decided that negotiations were necessary, Uruguay
hoped to be able to put before Ministers clear-cut negotiating plans that would enable negotiations to
be initiated immediately.  In this context, and with regard to the agricultural negotiations, Uruguay'sposition was that at the end of the negotiations agriculture should be subject to the same WTO rules
and disciplines as other goods;  (iii) regarding other issues that would be raised and agreed to by
Members, he hoped that the proposed decisions would be clear as to the procedure to be followed or
the solution proposed.  He hoped that in this manner it would be possible to complete the task that
Members had been given and, at the same time, to ensure the balance of interests that Ministers hadcommitted themselves to in the 1998 Ministerial Declar ation.  With regard to the substantive issues
that had been referred to at the present meeting, Ur uguay shared the view that the multilateral trading
system could make a substantial contribution to finding a solution to the financial difficulties facing
countries at present.  This contribution could be in itiated at the present meeting already by a call for
the avoidance of the use of trade policy measures that went against  that goal, such as the use ofexport subsidies.  Regarding the possibility of launching of a new round of negotiations of a broad-
based and global nature, Uruguay believed that Members would have ample opportunity to discuss
this in the intersessional meetings proposed for October and November, and would reserve its
comments for that occasion.  His delegation wished to  make clear that all agreed issues that entered
this round, in particular agriculture, should be dealt with in as broad a manner as possible and withoutany limitations.
The representative of Hong Kong, China recalled  that Ministers had called for a process to be
started "to ensure full and faithful implementation of existing agreements, and to prepare for the Third
Session of the Ministerial Conference".  Ministers had further directed Members to submitrecommendations regarding the WTO's future work programme, including "further liberalization
sufficiently broad-based to respond to the range of interests and concerns of all Members".
Paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration went on to list more specifically the areas in which
recommendations were required.  Ministers had also underlined that keeping markets open should be
a key element in a durable solution to current economic difficulties.  The General Council was
meeting at present, four months later, at a juncture that made the task even more urgent and necessary.
The WTO had a vital mission to perform, and should not fail in its duty, both to Ministers and theworld at large.  Hong Kong, China was even more convinced than ever that the WTO must keep
moving progressively towards its objective, as laid down in the preamble to the Marrakesh
Agreement, of "raising standards of living, ensuri ng full employment and a large and steadily growing
volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the production of and trade in goods and
services."  His delegation saw paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the Ministerial Declaration in that light.Accordingly, it was pleased that the Chairman ha d set out a balanced programme of work for the
coming months, logically concentrating initially on paragraph 9.  He noted that the agenda for the
present meeting, and the Chairman's proposed initia l work programme, referred to substantive issues
and proposals by Members.  Hong Kong, China wished to take this opportunity to raise a number of
issues of priority interest to it, some of which might indeed lead to proposals.  First, it subscribed tothe importance of implementation of Uruguay R ound Agreements.  Adequate attention had to be
given to this area, in the interests of both effective management and overall balance. There was an
onus on those expressing dissatisfaction with the status of implementation to identify specific issues
and, as appropriate, to come forward with proposals that would give substance to their concerns.  ForWT/GC/M/30
Page 14
its part, Hong Kong, China was concerned with:  (i) the virtual ineffectiveness of some integration
programmes and other related problems under the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing;  (ii) the slow
progress made in the discussions on rule-making mandated by the GATS;  (iii) the inability of the
CRTA to come up with any recommendations regarding the systemic implications of regional trade
agreements, notwithstanding their proliferation and the evident inadequacy of the current legal
framework.  There was a need for far greater clarity and scope, too, for making RTAs morecomplementary to the multilateral trading system;  a nd (iv) the need to address in a more meaningful
way the real difficulties which implementation posed for developing and least-developed economies.
Regarding the mandated negotiations that were an integral part of the WTO's future work,
Hong Kong, China, as a major service economy, acco rded the highest priority to preparing for the
next round of services negotiations.  It supported the Analysis and Information Exchange Programme
being conducted by the Services Council, but believed that the Council should expedite this work and
begin discussions on negotiating guidelines and procedures as soon as possible.  An early indicationof the scope and modality of negotiations would facilitate preparations as well as domestic
consultations.  On the Singapore work programme, Hong Kong, China recognised the growing
importance of the interaction between trade and competition policy and trade and investment.
Discussions in the two working groups had been useful in fostering a better understanding among
Members, and their work should be continued with a view to making recommendations for futureactivities that would tie in with preparation of recommendations to the Third Ministerial Conference.
Such recommendations should reflect the interests of Members in a balanced way.  Hong Kong, China
also believed that trade facilitation and transpar ency in government procurement should be important
features in future plans.  The High-Level Meeting   on least-developed countries represented a
beginning of what should be a concerted effort to help LDCs to enhance their trade opportunities.Continuous action was needed and consideration should be given to how the needs of LDCs could be
better reflected in the WTO's future agenda and, where appropriate, in the WTO budget.
As to other possible issues for the WTO's forward agenda, Hong Kong, China strongly
supported the inclusion of negotiations on industrial tariffs, including tariff peaks and escalation.  Inaddition, there should be no a priori exclusions in the product or sectoral coverage of tariff cuts. A
formula approach would seem to offer the best way forward.  The list of issues his delegation had
raised was by no means complete or exhaustive, but envisaged quite a complex set of negotiations
beginning in 2000.  Others had their own sets of issues and priorities.  Members had to listen carefully
to each other and bear in mind Ministers' injunctions with respect to both breadth and balance.  Onecould only give substance to Ministers' instructions by carefully constructing a balanced package of
future work.  His  delegation believed that Ministers had foreseen that need in paragraph 10 of the
Declaration, in calling for further recommendati ons regarding the organisation and management of
future work, including scope, structure and timeframes.  They had also re-emphasised in paragraph 11
the aim of achieving overall balance of interests.  The way ahead lay in devising, for the consideration
of Ministers at the Third Ministerial Conference, a comprehensive and balanced package of proposals
aimed at further progressive trade liberalisation and strengthening of the rules of the multilateraltrading system.  In his view, the most effective way of carrying forward such a package would be
through a single undertaking with a single timeframe.  In so proceeding, Members would give the
world an unmistakable signal that the WTO was a vibrant and relevant institution fully capable of
responding positively to the challenges of the world today and tomorrow, however daunting those
challenges might now appear.  As to the preparatory process, Members were now embarking on threebroad phases.  First, a phase of identification of issues which would lead on to the formulation of
proposals.  Second, negotiations among Members on these issues and proposals.  Third, coming to a
common understanding as to the scope, structure and timeframe of a resultant package.  His
delegation looked forward to participating actively in the forthcoming, more targeted, inter-sessional
discussions that the Chairman had outlined, when it would take the opportunity to elaborate on theissues it had mentioned at the present meeting.
The representative of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, said that
ASEAN considered the full and faithful as well as effective implementation of the Uruguay RoundWT/GC/M/30
Page 15
commitments to be of utmost importance.  Ministers had emphasized this, either collectively or
individually in various fora, including the Second Ministerial Conference.  The discussion on
implementation issues, particularly the question of evaluation of implementation of individual
agreements and the realization of their objectives, were essential in enhancing the credibility of this
organization as well as ensuring the continued active participation of developing countries.  The
problems relating to implementation were by no means simple and clear cut.  They involved theinability or failure of Members to fulfill their obligations due to various reasons, and also related to
measures which might not violate the letter of the Agreements but clearly were in contravention with
their spirit, which in the end raised misgivings over the general trading conditions for developing
countries.  Problem areas that were related to implementation, to name a few, were:  agriculture,
textiles and clothing, rules of origin, anti-dumping, special and differential treatment for developing
countries, including Part IV of the GATT.  All of these and others would fall under the purview of
paragraph 9(a)(i) of the Ministerial Declaration, which the General Council would discuss.  Equallyimportant were the future activities of the WTO.  Every Member had an important stake in the
continued vitality of the system.  It should not only be forward-looking but also cognizant of and
sensitive to the conditions and capabilities that existed in developing countries.  A key starting-point
for the WTO future activities would be its built-in ag enda.  The built-in agenda provided a significant
platform for progress both in terms of continued trade liberalization as well as improvements toexisting rules.  The built-in agenda would launch ne gotiations in the two sectors of agriculture and
services by the year 2000.  It would also entail major reviews of important agreements such as the
TRIPs, TRIMs and the WTO Dispute Settlement Unders tanding.  It extended to nearly all the WTO
Agreements, including areas such as technical barriers to trade, sanitary and phytosanitary, subsidies,
textiles and clothing and anti-dumping.  Thus it was clear that the built-in agenda should constitute amajor proportion of the future activities of the WTO.
In ASEAN's view the built-in agenda should begin on schedule and should not waste time in
debating negotiating agenda.  Another issue of gr eat concern to ASEAN was the plight of the least-
developed countries.  This preparatory process should not only be aimed at addressing meaningfullythe outcome of the High-Level Meeting   of LDCs  but should also look towards formulating other
innovative means to effectively integrate the LDCs into the multilateral trading system.  It was also
equally important that the WTO kept abreast of changes to the world economic and trading system.
In this respect, ASEAN welcomed the proposed work programme on electronic commerce.
Electronic commerce had significant implications for the traditional notions of cross-border trade.Paragraph 9(d) of the Ministerial Declaration of May 1998 provided an avenue for Members to raise
trade-related issues they deemed relevant to the current and future state of multilateral trade relations.
Members who would have concrete proposals in relation to all the operative paragraphs of the May
Ministerial Declaration should come forward with them as early as possible so that they could be
given due consideration.  ASEAN would endeavour to  do likewise.  On the preparatory process itself,
ASEAN would emphasize that it should be organized in a way to allow for an adequate and balanced
opportunity for all Members to address their issues of concern.  In this respect, ASEAN welcomed thesuggestions made in connexion with the issues to be taken up by the three intersessional meetings of
the General Council.  ASEAN agreed to a thematic  approach being used.  This would allow for a
more structured discussion.  Thus, it would be useful if the first intersessional meeting could tackle
implementation issues, in relation to paragraph 9(a)(i) of the Ministerial Declaration of May 1998;
the second, built-in agenda issues such as the mandated negotiations and reviews arising fromparagraphs 9(a)(ii) and (iii);  and the third, future activities (i.e. paragraphs 9(b) to 9(d)).  In view of
the substantial amount of work that was to be covered in this "first reading" of issues, it might be
useful to also provide an opportunity for Members to revisit these issues at the second special session
of the General Council scheduled to be held in early 1999.  However, ASEAN was prepared to be
flexible and would leave it in the Chairman's hands to find a compromise that would take on boardsome of ASEAN's view and which was also acceptable to all Members.  Members should be mindful
that they were deliberating against the backdrop of the recent economic and financial crisis with its
profound impact on other sectors and widespread ramifications.  Although trade was not the cause of
the problem, it would have a role to play in the solution, and Members would have to ensure that allWT/GC/M/30
Page 16
derived the maximum benefits trade could bring.  ASEAN wished to reiterate that for the WTO
system to win the confidence of all parties, particularly those who would have to face the challenges
of recent international economic developments, it was important to ensure that this work programme
achieved overall balance in comprehensiveness, allowed for the interests of developing countries to
stand at par with those of the developed, and enabled the WTO to pursue its ambitions with an
adequate dose of realism and pragmatism.
The representative of Korea reiterated that Korea supported the launching in 2000 of a
comprehensive round of negotiations, with a much broader scope than the built-in agenda.  Trade
liberalization had been one of the main forces behind the remarkable growth of the world economy
over the past five decades.  A broad and comprehensive trade liberalization would offer greater
opportunity for economic growth in all participating countries.  In order to guarantee the success of
the new round of negotiations, it was crucial to maintain a balance of interests among the participatingcountries.  Only such a balance would create the political and economic momentum required for the
negotiations.  A comprehensive scope would facilitate achieving the balance of interests in
negotiations since it would provide the participating countries with ample opportunities to linkages
and trade-offs between issues and areas.  Therefore, for the new round of negotiations, Korea wished
to include all issues that were mature enough to be negotiated at the multilateral level.  Beside thebuilt-in agenda, Korea was interested in market access for industrial products, trade and competition
policy, trade and investment, transparency in government procedures and regional trade agreements.
Korea would identify the issues that were of particular interest to it and would also listen to the
suggestions of other Members with an open mind.  In Korea's view, there was an increasing concern
that the international financial crisis and the prospect of a world-wide recession might adversely affectinternational trade.  In order to preserve the integrity of the multilateral trading system, Members
would have to renew their commitments to guarantee and improve access to their markets.  As to
industrial tariffs, Korea could consider their incl usion in the agenda of the new round.  Given the
developing countries' concerns, however, Members might need an assurance from major
industrialized countries that they would also substantially improve developing countries' access totheir markets so as to secure greater mutual benefits from multilateral liberalization.  As a country
striving for structural reforms and deregulation, Korea was flexible on the inclusion of investment and
competition policy in the agenda for a new round of negotiations.  But Members might have to take
into consideration the progress in the related work  of the OECD, including in particular the MAI
negotiations.  As to the modalities of the negotiations, Korea believed that it would be too early todiscuss the structure and the time-frame of the new round since the decision on both of these elements
would depend largely on the scope of the round.  However, a comprehensive round would require a
"single-undertaking" approach.  This approach would make it possible for the participating countries
to conduct trade-offs between issue and areas and thus was the best way to ensure a balance of
interests among them.  Korea supported the Chairman's proposal regarding the schedule of meetings.
At this point in time and with respect to the organization of work, it would be difficult to try to
establish a schedule for meetings beyond February 1999.  Korea also supported the Chairman'ssuggestion concerning the allocation of agenda items for the proposed meetings, as it would allow
Members to hold discussions on all the items listed in paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration of
May 1998 by the end of the year.  With respect to the organization of work, Korea hoped that the
discussions from October through December would provide useful guidelines for the Members to
deliberate on the next course of action at the second session of the General Council.
The representative of Peru said that the present meeting was taking place at the time of a
delicate international economic situation whose consequences on international trade were as yet
undefined.  In any case, the final effects of the crisis would be determined according to the conduct of
trade transactions and the future conduct of capital flows.  However, the crisis had taught countriesthe need to promote a more integrated outlook on financial and trade matters.  It was necessary to
explore lasting and effective mechanisms affecting the liberalization of markets which assured an
opportune flow of capital necessary to correct imbalanc es and to avoid disturbances in trade.  In this
context, it was evident that the evaluation of the assets of the WTO as concerned trade liberalizationWT/GC/M/30
Page 17
and future negotiations on services and agriculture should use the experience of this crisis to affirm
Members' commitment to open markets.  In the context of the current international situation, his
government attached great importance to the objectives of the process that the General Council was
initiating at its present meeting, in accordance with paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of the Ministerial
Declaration.  Members had to define important aspects of the procedure and the substantive outlook
which would orient the preparations for the Third Ministerial Conference.  Peru considered that theissues relating to the evaluation of existing agreements should be subject to a procedure which would
ensure the fulfilment of two basic conditions:  the exhaustive analysis of problems in the
implementation of existing agreements, and the forecast of a procedural methodology which would
allow Members to arrive at specific conclusions and the identification of concrete solutions.  This
procedure should be transparent and efficient, and should permit results particularly in the following
aspects:  (a) a wide evaluation of the degree of implementation reached;  (b) the identification of
proposals that would allow for a solution to the problems which had emerged during implementation;and (c) possible cooperation mechanisms so that developing countries might overcome difficulties
encountered in the implementation of existing agreements.  As a general criteria, it was indispensable
to establish means that would allow the special and differential provisions for developing countries to
be operational and efficient from the point of view of the impact on trade flows or on the use of
concessions granted.  In this context, Peru attached special importance to the evaluation of the resultsobtained in the implementation of the textiles and services agreements.  As regards consultations and
negotiations that were ongoing for new areas, Peru considered that priority should be given to the
negotiations foreseen in agriculture and services.  It was indispensable, here too, to have a negotiating
format that was transparent and included time lim its.  With regard to pr eparations for the Third
Ministerial Conference, particularly in relation to paragraph 9 of the Ministerial Declaration, hisdelegation believed, first, that Members should clearly distinguish between those recommendations
based on agreements already reached and for which there was an existing mandate, and others for
which there was no such consensus yet.  In this cont ext, Peru was convinced that the first task was to
make recommendations regarding implementation of agreements and the built-in agenda.  Second,
any eventual decision on additional trade liberalization negotiations should not be a condition for theinitiation of pending negotiations.  The above guidelines should be directed to ensure an adequate
framework and a systematic order in the negotiating process which would facilitate and not be an
obstacle to conciliating positions with the final objective of achieving agreements and commitments
that were mutually beneficial and acceptable.  It was evident that all the subjects and questions linked
to the Third Ministerial Conference were substantive matters, and his delegation had abstained fromgiving a view at the present time on these substantive matters.  Peru was agreeable to the Chairman's
proposals for a calendar.
The representative of Egypt, speaking on behalf of the African Group
, said that despite the
continued growth in world trade, and with a population that now exceeded 700 million people, the
share of the value of African merchandise exports in global trade had declined from 5.9% in 1980 to
4.2% in 1985, and further to 2.3% in 1996.  This was a source of deep and justifiable concern toAfrican countries, and should be so to their trading partners as well.  The 1998 Ministerial Declaration
recognized that more remained to be done to en able all the world's peoples to share fully and
equitably in the achievements of the multilateral trading system.  Ministers had also renewed their
commitment to ensuring that the benefits of the mu ltilateral trading system were extended as widely
as possible.  African countries therefore expected wide-ranging practical steps aimed at rectifying thisimbalance, and would continue to monitor the situation and developments closely.  They believed that
the utmost priority should be given to addressing the difficulties facing developing countries, and
African countries in particular, in implementing the Uruguay Round Agreements as well as to the
effective implementation of the special and differential treatment provisions in these agreements.  The
African countries had continued to commit themselves to achieving progressive trade liberalization ingoods and services in the last Ministerial Declaration.  They recognized that there were wide-ranging
expectations from the process that all were embarking on.  However, they had to emphasize to their
trading partners that they should have realistic ambitions.  As a result of the Uruguay Round, the
obligations of most developing countries had increased dramatically.  A number of these obligationsWT/GC/M/30
Page 18
were yet to be implemented, while the implementation burdens were already high.  Moreover, in order
to ensure public support for any new liberalization efforts in their countries, the multilateral trading
system should effectively meet these legitimate expe ctations and address the concerns of the weaker
trading partners as already referred to in the Ministerial Declaration.  It should contribute to their full
integration in the system and not to their further marginalization.  The WTO should not continue to
move in a direction where computers and silicon chips would enjoy free access under the InformationTechnology Agreement while many products of export interest to developing countries still faced all
kinds of barriers and constraints, whether in terms of tariff peaks or tariff escalation.  In some cases,
restrictive and even protectionist technical standards and trade measures had been introduced.  They
reiterated the hope that the Director-General's proposal in 1996 for the elimination of market access
barriers to exports of LDCs could be implemente d as soon as possible.  Meanwhile, they would
continue to monitor closely the follow-up of the outcome and of the commitments made at the High-
Level Meeting   for LDCs, two-thirds of which were in Africa.  Members should also address thedifficulties facing African countries ineffectively using the dispute settlement mechanism to safeguard
their interests and defend their rights.  Otherwise, these countries would not be able to benefit from
one of the major opportunities in the multilateral trading system after the Uruguay Round, namely, a
strengthened dispute settlement system.  Finally, the members of the African group wished to pledge
their cooperation to the Chairman and to their trading partners.  They would approach this process in a
practical and pragmatic manner and hoped to be able to make a constructive contribution.
He emphasized the priority to be given to addressing all problems of implementation of the
relevant provisions and decisions adopted at the end of the Uruguay Round negotiations, particularly
those relating to the needs and interest of developi ng countries.  Egypt pleaded for an end to the
practice of misuse and abuse by some developed countries of the various provisions of the WTO,
aimed at depriving developing countries of their comparative advantage and thus creating additional
market access difficulties for products of export interest to developing countries.  Implementation
should therefore be dealt with in all stages of the preparation for the Third Ministerial Conference,
and in the meeting proposed for October, November, December and beyond.  As regards the issuesderiving from the Singapore Ministerial Declaration referred to in paragraph 9(b) of the 1998
Ministerial Declaration, these could not be addressed before Members had received and studied
carefully the reports of the three working groups established to explore and study trade and
investment, competition policies and transparency in government procurement, together with the
report of the Council for Trade in Goods relating to trade facilitation.  These issues could not be takenup before the following year, and should preferably be considered in February 1999.  His delegation
had noted the call by some for a comprehensive new round of trade negotiations to start in the year
2000, and even the proposal that such a round should end within a three-year span.  Egypt was
committed to the built-in agenda to negotiate furthe r trade liberalization in agriculture and in services
respectively, together with the individual reviews of other Agreements.  Since Egypt was still
suffering from the scourge of marginalization and non-implementation of the various provisions and
decisions of the Uruguay Round Agreements, it was not ready to face further marginalization byengaging in a new round of negotiations that would benefit most the developed and strong economies
to the detriment of the poor and weaker economies.  Egypt shared the deep concern expressed by a
number of delegations in relation to the financial crisis that faced the world at present.  This crisis had
resulted in substantial economic and social implications.  Members should send a message to the
public that protectionism was not the solution to this crisis.  However, equally importantly, theyshould not be insensitive to the suffering of hundreds of millions of people as a result of this crisis, by
taking the approach that the solution to these di fficulties was through further liberalization and
additional marginalization.  Egypt also wished to s upport other delegations in stating that it would not
accept negotiations or consideration of any non-trade-related  issue such as labour standards.  The
question of movement of natural persons was lagging behind, and it should be given priority in thefuture work programme.  As regards the various dates for the schedule of meetings, his delegation
suggested that any duplication with major mee tings should be avoided, and proposed that the
February 1999 meeting be held in the second half of February to avoid duplication with the G-15
Summit.WT/GC/M/30
Page 19
The representative of Chile said that Chile was in favour of continuing with trade
liberalization and with making the standards ever more perfect in a multilateral framework.  Members
had undertaken in Marrakesh to implement the Uruguay Round results and, inter alia , had committed
themselves to continuing with liberalization of trade in agriculture and services.  Chile reaffirmed the
need to continue with this rigorously, and emphasized that these negotiations should begin on thedates already set.  Members should also add industrial products to the negotiating agenda without
excluding any sector so as to achieve a  balanced result in the area of tariff cuts.  It was necessary also
to elaborate and make more perfect the disciplines in the areas such as countervailing duties and anti-
dumping so that these instruments were not used with protectionist aims.  As regards the subjects for
the working parties as contained in the Singapore Ministerial Declaration, it was necessary to consider
in a future negotiation multilateral disciplines for investment.  The links between trade and investment
were a reality, and the time had come to consider the negotiation of disciplines in this field.  Chile wasalso open to considering the drawing-up of di sciplines on the interaction between trade and
competition.  These suggestions were by no means exhaustive, and Chile was interested also in many
of the issues raised by other Members.  It was important to draw up a global negotiating package that
was balanced, and where trade-offs could be achieved so that all Members would benefit from a trade
round that would show liberalizing results in a brief time-period, such as three years.  As regards the
process, it was the General Council's duty to carry out and monitor the process, as indicated in the
1998 Ministerial Declaration.  The Chairman had proposed a work programme until the next General
Council meeting in special meeting, and Chile supported the proposal.  It was necessary to agree on
the order of the subjects to be discussed so as to facilitate preparation and discussion by Members.  At
the same time, Members had to preserve the necessary flexibility to allow for the discussion ofmatters already dealt with previously, if a Member so wished.  The February 1999 meeting should
aim at a stock-taking and agree on a programme of work until the Third Ministerial Conference.  In
order to prepare such a meeting in an optimal way, it would be necessary to have another informal
meeting in, say, mid-January as several delegations had suggested.  The process should be undertaken
in the General Council in special meetings.  The General Council should receive all the inputs by
Members so as to draw up a menu of subjects, and should decide if any matters were to be sent to a
subsidiary body with a specific mandate limited in time.  After the February 1999 meeting, the
process should be intensified through informal meetings of HODs and also informal meetings of the
General Council in special meetings which would take note of progress.  As of January, Members
should hear more detailed proposals in connexion with paragraph 10, in other words, on the scope,structure and calendar of the work programme and negotiations in order to be able to adopt
recommendations for the Third Session of the Ministerial Conference, taking into account the general
balance of interests of all Members referred to in paragraph 11.
The representative of Brazil said that Brazil was convinced that trade was not at the root of
the present international crisis, either as a cause for its eruption or a reason for its deepening, although
trade flows had been and were continuing to be ne gatively affected.  He emphasized that there was a
need in this crisis to seek global solutions and that  part of the solution was related to maintaining and
sustaining the open, rule-based multilateral trading system.  While all had a common responsibility to
maintain the WTO acquis, there were different responsibilities to be borne, and the major developed
countries, due to their larger shares in world markets, were better equipped to provide trade-related
answers to the crisis.  With regard to the work programme, Brazil wished to underline that the issues
referred to in paragraph 9(a) (i), (ii), and (iii) of the Ministerial Declaration carried a different weight
than the post-Uruguay Round issues that were referred to in the remainder of paragraph 9.  The
sequencing of the topics in paragraph 9 of the Declaration had a particular hierarchical importance
which should be retained in addressing these issues.  If  Members were to develop a broader base of
negotiations, the principle of a single undertaking would be critical.  Brazil would not envisagesectoral negotiations as a recommended way of proceeding.  That being said, he wished to clarify that
mandated negotiations were not to be considered as sectoral negotiations.  As regards the organization
of work, his delegation agreed with proposals outlined by the Chairman regarding the informal
intersessional meetings to be held in the coming months.WT/GC/M/30
Page 20
The representative of Cuba said that his country attached particular importance to
paragraph 9(a)(i) of the Ministerial Declaration.  Developing countries had entered into a number of
commitments through the adoption of the WTO Agreements and had undertaken an important
liberalization process.  Nevertheless their expectations of economic progress had not been satisfied
due to insufficient market access for products of interest to them, and also due to low and unstableexport prices, among other problems that had been compounded by the recent international financial
crisis.  The crisis clearly concerned the international financial system, and it was therefore essential to
ensure the reform of this system to avoid its negative effects.  His delegation therefore attached great
importance, under implementation, to the discussion of the issue concerning the relation between
trade and international monetary and financial stability.  The discussion at the informal General
Council meeting on 18 September had pointed to the urgency of squarely facing up to the need for
reform of the world monetary and financial system.  This problem required a deep-rootedrestructuring for it to be resolved.   It was essential that the WTO send out to the world
recommendations and an evaluation that would guaran tee the growth and stability of international
trade based on the reform of the financial system, valid for all regions and countries of the world.
Another issue to be dealt with under implementati on involved the consideration in greater depth of
special and differential treatment for developing c ountries as a way of promoting equitable trade and
the development of the poorer economies.  It was necessary to keep in mind the different levels of
development at the time when obligations were set, taking into account the specific needs of the
weaker economies.  Transition periods should be increased in order to take into account the real
problems that developing countries had had to face in implementing the WTO Agreements, and to
enable them to bring their legislation into conformity.  It would also be extremely important to dealwith the economic and legal consequences of the application of unilateral and extraterritorial
measures, and of the countries which suffered the resulting consequences directly or indirectly.  It
would be unthinkable for the Third Ministerial Conference not to touch on this issue and its systemic
ramifications.  In the same vein, Cuba opposed the increasing use of non-tariff measures, among
others, transitional safeguard mechanisms, anti-dumping measures applied unfairly to developingcountries, as well as other barriers to trade in the form of environmental rules, technical or sanitary
and phytosanitary regulations.  Cuba would consider unacceptable any initiative aimed at reducing the
stipulated transition periods for the reduction or consolidation of tariffs in the area of industrial and
agricultural goods.  Another key point for Cuba wa s that a detailed discussion be undertaken in the
light of paragraph 7 of the 1998 Ministerial Declaration to ensure that the 32 countries in the processof accession would become WTO Members as rapidly as possible.  Cuba agreed that accession to the
WTO required full respect of WTO rules and disciplines as well as meaningful market-access
commitments on the part of acceding candidates.  It nonetheless rejected any pressure that might be
brought to bear by certain trading partners aime d at obtaining greater commitments and concessions
from acceding countries than those that had been established in the WTO Agreements.  This was
unfair and clearly showed the urgent need for greater and more complete universilization of the WTO,
without which one would otherwise send a negative message to the international community.  Finally,
his delegation agreed on the need for a calendar of meetings that would give sufficient time to the
discussion of implementation issues in the three in formal meetings that were being proposed for the
forthcoming months.  In the course of these meetings, the built-in agenda should also be examined,
and new issues could more appropriately be discussed after December in order to enable capitals to
have time to reflect on the results of the work being undertaken by the three working groupsestablished at Singapore.
The representative of India said that the General Council's task had been made easier by the
fact that both the mandate for the work programme and classification of its different components in
order of priority and importance, in their essentials, had already been indicated through the MinisterialDeclaration.  India wished to see that the work programme now being initiated followed the
Ministerial Declaration with regard to the emphasis and priority to be placed in the handling of
subjects.  Thus, issues relating to implementation of existing Agreements should receive prime
consideration, and one might thereafter move to the other issues in accordance with the agendaWT/GC/M/30
Page 21
already decided at the last Ministerial Conference.  India would wish to concentrate on paragraphs
9(a)(i), 9(a)(ii), and 9(a)(iii) during the present quarter, as issues that arose in these paragraphs were
commitments already undertaken in Marrakesh.  Details of these could be worked out in the informal
meetings of HODs that were being proposed.  Although India agreed in general with the "top down"
approach being suggested by several delegations, meaning thereby that some aspects of the
preparatory process for the next Ministerial Conference could be delegated by the General Council torelevant subsidiary bodies, it strongly advocated that implementation issues and concerns requiring
political sensitivity in their handling be directly under the charge of the General Council.  India had
given utmost importance to the implementation of existing Agreements and Decisions in their proper
spirit, since it was only through this that the basic rationale for the creation of WTO could be realised,
which, as stated in the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement, was to raise standards of living and to
ensure that developing countries, and especially the least-developed amongst them, secured a share in
the growth of international trade commensurate with the needs of their economic development.  It wasin this perspective that the element of special and differential treatment to developing countries
assumed crucial importance.  The special provisi ons in the WTO agreements with regard to the
developing countries were designed to take into account the constraints inherent in their international
trade relations occasioned by the peculiar structural features characterising their economies, their low
level of industrialisation, their inability to access advanced technologies, and non-availability ofadequate infrastructure.  The special and more fa vourable treatment provisions fell under two major
categories:  First, time-limited derogations in the form of longer transition periods, more favorable
thresholds in the application of countervailing measures and for undertaking certain commitments,
and greater flexibility with regard to certain obl igations.  Second, clauses providing for specific,
although undefined, action by developed countries under certain agreements, while dealing withdeveloping countries.  As regards the first category, the experience of developing countries over the
past three years would have to be evaluated to determine whether the negotiators' intentions had been
effectively translated into practice.  In certain cases, such as the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing,
while provisions might have been implemented in letter, meaningful market access had not accrued to
developing countries.  As regards the second category of provisions, which were in the nature of "bestendeavour" clauses, these were virtually ignored in the process of implementation of the agreements.
Article XVIII:B of the GATT, dealing with quantitative restrictions on imports maintained by
developing countries for balance-of-payments considerations, was a case in point.  It was
distinguished from Article XII by the fact that it exp licitly provided for assessment of the adequacy of
foreign exchange reserves after taking into account the long term development needs of a developingcountry.  In actual practice, however, Article XVIII:B and Article XII were treated similarly.  Again,
Article 15 of the Anti-dumping Agreement provided for special regard to developing countries and
urged developed countries to seek constructive remedies under the Agreement before imposing anti-
dumping measures.  In actual practice, developing countries were often targeted for repeated anti-
dumping proceedings on the same commodity.  Similarly, the injunctions contained in Article 10 of
the SPS Agreement and those contained in Article XII of the TBT Agreement for taking into account
the special needs of developing countries in their formulation and application of standards, werehardly ever honoured in implementation.  This led to the imposition of standards by developed
countries, adherence to which was frequently beyond the technical competence of developing
countries, and which did not take into account their special development, financial and trade needs.
Similarly, a lack of understanding of developing c ountries' problems could be seen in the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, which considered as non-actionable the subsidies used bydeveloped countries, but considered actionable the kinds of subsidies usually used by developing
countries for development, diversification and  upgrading of their industry.  Article 27.2 of this
Agreement provided a special dispensation for poor-income and developing countries, but the
subsidies maintainable under these provisions were subject to countervailing measures, thus nullifying
the apparent benefit given through Article 27.2.  The GATS, although enjoining through its ArticlesIV and XIX, the facilitation of increasing participation of developing country Members in world
trade, in its implementation aspect revealed an increasing pressure on developing countries to
undertake greater market-access commitments without adequate trade-offs in market access accruing
to them in sectors and modes of supply of export interest to them.  The Dispute SettlementWT/GC/M/30
Page 22
Understanding did have several provisions for special and more favourable treatment of developing
and least-developed countries, but they remained largely as "best endeavour" clauses, not visible
either in the procedure or in panel reports.
He emphasised that there should be no expectation that developing countries seeking
solutions for their legitimate concerns in the implementation area should pay a price for what wasonly a redressal issue.  Implementation issues were essentially an overhang from the past.  They
related to asymmetries and imbalances in the agreements for developing countries, and a review of the
empty platitudes of special and differential treatment for developing countries, in order to substantiate
them.  This indeed should rightly have been done earlier, and should be done now, delinked from any
new negotiations.  These issues should not, therefore, be viewed as part of any new package, but as a
realistic realignment and balancing of an earlier imba lanced package, so as to facilitate the meaningful
involvement of developing countries in the "process" mandated by Ministers earlier in the year.  Inthis context, paragraph 9(a)(i) to 9(a)(iii) of the Ministerial Declaration would constitute a sufficiently
large volume of work, and it would be unrealistic to take up paragraph 9(b) in the last quarter of 1998.
Several other areas were of significant importance.  Issues of food security, specifically highlighted in
the Preamble to the Agreement on Agriculture, needed to be adequately addressed.  It would be too
simplistic to assume that the agricultural liberalization sought to be ushered in by the agreementwould, by itself, be able to overcome the problems of food security for developing countries with
sizeable populations.  The application of regimes in the Agreement meant to curb the trade distorting
subsidies used by some Members were likely to cause enormous hardships if applied with the same
rigidity to countries that did not distort international trade and whose subsidies were mainly meant to
produce adequate food at affordable prices and provide a livelihood for their poor populations largelydependent on agriculture for a living.  This, juxtaposed with the fact that some of India's major trading
partners were still maintaining unacceptably high levels of subsidies, clearly implied that while
thinking about further liberalisation of international trade in agricultural products, concerns of
countries like India relating to food security had to be taken on board.  The prevailing view in the
WTO had been that the WTO Agreements did not permit Members to impose unilateral traderestrictions otherwise inconsistent with their WTO obligations.  Yet, there were examples of Members
that, under their domestic laws, undertook investigations and trade actions outside the multilateral
trading system.  It was also necessary that Members took a close look at the provisions relating to
regional trading arrangements that were tending to threaten the thrust towards global free trade.
Another cause for concern to India were the imbalances and asymmetries in the TRIPS Agreement,which extended high protection to industrial products, but did not recognize the rights of countries of
origin while granting patents on products developed by using traditional bio-resources of developing
countries.  The higher protection under Article 23 of TRIPS available to wines and spirits, which were
products of export interest primarily to developed countries, without corresponding higher protection
for the region-specific exports of products of developing countries, was another obvious inequity in
the Agreement.  The question of transfer of technology at fair and reasonable cost had been raised by
India in the context of the Committee on Trade a nd Environment, in the Committees dealing with SPS
Measures and Technical Barriers to Trade, as also in connection with the new subject of electronic
commerce introduced in the course of the last Ministerial Conference.  Unless means were provided
to developing countries to access advanced technolog ies at affordable costs, it would be difficult for
them to discharge their obligations under existing WTO Agreements, and moreover to participate in
the high technology thrust areas now being proposed to  be added to the universe of multilateral trade
disciplines by the developed countries.  Whether in terms of opening an environmental window into
WTO or asking developing countries to conform to higher health and technical standards prevalent in
industrialized countries, or securing developing country participation in commerce through electronic
media, a crucial factor which had to be introduced into the WTO agenda was a new type of "enabling
clause", one designed to facilitate transfer of advanced technologies.  National regulations on rules oforigin were threatening market access of developing countries, particularly in the textiles area.  The
pressure on developing countries to liberalize areas  of interest to the industrialized world, while
meaningful market access was delayed in areas where they had comparative advantage, such as
textiles and the movement of professionals and skilled personnel, made it apparent that the balance ofWT/GC/M/30
Page 23
concessions promised to developing countries as equal partners in the multilateral trading system had
thus far not been achieved.  For the credibility of the WTO, it was important that Members realise
what was intended.  As regards the built-in agenda, India believed that fresh negotiations under the
Agreement on Agriculture and the GATS should commence after 1 January 2000, as mandated.
Similarly, with regard to the future work of mandated reviews, the designated Committees concerned
with relevant Agreements should continue their work in accordance with the agreed schedule.  Therewas no need to bring forward the consideration of these issues or to prejudge them at this stage.
Regarding the work programme agreed to at the Singapore Ministerial Conference, the education
process was continuing in the area of Trade and Investment, Trade and Competition Policy and
Transparency in Government Procurement.  A wider and deeper understanding of the issues was
necessary before one could conclude that a multilateral trade agreement in each of these spheres was
necessary.  Regarding trade facilitation, he noted that the proposal included two major aspects:  first,
the simplification of customs documentation and procedures, and second, the improvement ofinfrastructure for trade transactions, including throug h electronic modes.  Regarding the first issue, the
World Customs Organization (WCO) under the Kyoto Convention was looking into simplification of
various aspects of customs documentation and proced ure, and India was participating in this work.
As long as the WCO's work in this regard was not complete, there was no likelihood of any
substantial simplification being implemented by any country.  Therefore, the WTO should await thecompletion of this work in the WCO.  It was the perception of developing countries that
environmental concerns were being used as disguised trade barriers and as causes for unilateral action
by developed countries to restrict market access.  A considerable amount of work had already been
done in the Committee on Trade and Environment in this regard.  The CTE  discussions had
highlighted that no commitments in the area of trade and environment could be undertaken, despitethe initiative in this regard by developed countries, unless the developed countries first met their
obligations under the Convention on Bio-diversity and the Rio Principles.  Until the developed
countries had proved the genuineness of their intentions by engaging themselves in commitments in
the area of international environment conventions, no weight could be given to their professed interest
in safeguarding the environment through action lim ited to the trade and environment interface.  As
regards new issues sought to be raised by Members, such as the  proposals for initiating a new round
of reduction of industrial tariffs, a high level initiative in the sphere of Trade and Environment, an
initiative to introduce greater transparency in the WTO functioning , inter alia, through greater
involvement of "stakeholders", or the proposal for launching a comprehensive new round of trade
talks, it was India's perception that these were premat ure if they were to carry with them the voluntary
participation of developing countries.  These countries were still in the process of implementing the
last round of tariff negotiations and would be so engaged until 2000.  They would need, as would
many others, time to assess the impact of these reductions before launching any new commitments.
Overloading the WTO agenda would not be productive, and it was premature to talk about any
comprehensive new round of negotiations as sugge sted by some.  India was also opposed to the
induction of non-trade issues such as labour standards into the WTO agenda.  Members should first
address implementation problems and the built-in agenda, and ensure that trade became an instrumentfor promoting development, as envisioned by the Uruguay Round negotiators.  Members should be
conscious of the limitations of developing and least-developed countries and their inability to
undertake more and more commitments, to participate meaningfully in negotiations relating to ever-
expanding areas of commercial and economic activity, and to discharge a growing number of
obligations in diverse sectors.  The thrust towards global free trade would be far more fruitful if the
realities prevailing in the world economy were fully understood and the needs and problems of
developing and least-developed countries were taken into account.  It was also too early to deal with
the question relating to a single undertaking, since Members were now in the very early stage of
discussing a work programme mandated by the 1998 Ministerial Declaration.  He endorsed Egypt's
suggestion to schedule the next Special Session in the second half of February 1999.
The representative of the United States recalled that Ministers had decided in May that the
present meeting of the General Council in Special Session should be the start of a process designed to
enable the General Council to ensure full and faithful implementation of existing agreements and toWT/GC/M/30
Page 24
submit recommendations to the Third Session regarding WTO's future work programme.  Among
those recommendations were those that would relate to the commencement of already agreed
negotiations and those which could relate to other further liberalization initiatives which might be
desirable in order to respond to the range of interests and concerns of all Members.  The United
States, at the present time, had not come to conclusions as to what these recommendations might be.
It had started a process of consultation with its private sector and with the Congress, which would beon-going for the next several months.  Until this consultative process had been completed, the United
States would not know the answers to some importa nt questions that would need to be known before
one could decide on recommendations to be forwarde d to Ministers.  Addressing these questions and
developing the answers was, in essence, the thrust  of the work programme.  Experience had shown
that Members should be deliberate and serious in their work.  This was particularly true in light of the
need to arrive at consensus recommendations.  Some delegations seemed to feel they had the answers
already, and knew what the recommendations to Ministers should be.  The United States did not.  Asthe United States President had stated on the occasion of the 50
th Anniversary commemoration event
in May, in the fast-moving global trading system, one could no longer afford to take seven years to
finish a trade round or let decades pass between id entifying and acting on a trade barrier.  Members
needed to explore what types of negotiations were best suited to the new economy.  They should
explore whether there was a way to tear down barriers, without waiting for every issue in every sectorto be resolved before any issue in any sector was re solved.  Furthermore, this should be done in a way
that was fair and balanced.  Members also needed to consider that the WTO's future agenda might
dictate that they needed to consider other ways to address their concerns.  The United States believed
that the best way to approach decision-making was to adopt a work programme that followed the
order in which issues were addressed in the 1998 Ministerial Declaration.  Members needed to spendadequate time – in the very beginning – addressing the important issue of implementation.  They
needed to consider issues relating to the launch of the already agreed negotiations, and to ensure that
these negotiations were launched on time.  New issues, such as those addressed in the Singapore work
programme, would need to be carefully considered  and Members would need to wait for the end-of-
year reports of the working groups in order to begin their collective consideration of these issues.There should be a phase in which all delegations had an opportunity to present their proposals for
recommendations to Ministers.  Finally, there should be a consolidation phase at the end of the work
programme, which accorded Members the time to finalize their recommendations to the Third
Session.  Her delegation believed that this was the thrust of the proposals that had been discussed with
Members by the Chairman of the General Council.  The approach the Chairman had put forward waswell-organized, balanced and deliberative, and the United States strongly supported them.
The representative of Jamaica said he wished to make a few points under very specific
headings.  First, he wished to follow the age nda that had been adopted by dealing with some
substantive issues and the organization of work.  Second, he wished to draw attention to Jamaica's
proposal in document WT/GC/W/97, which set out its thinking on dealing with the issues, and asked
whether this could be appended to his short statement and be circulated as a derestricted document.He wished to recall also the process leading up to, and the end of, the Uruguay Round.  At the launch
of those negotiations, there had been some substantial autonomous trade liberalization measures
undertaken by developing countries.  At the end of the Round, a multiple of the trade covered and
engaged in at the import level of developing countries had been bound under WTO rules, and that was
a plus.  He also recalled that the process had been  started with a standstill commitment with regard to
measures on trade in goods under the GATT.  Also, while negotiations had not begun on both goods
and services as a single undertaking, they had ended as a single undertaking.  He recalled this because
it was important that as one moved to the next phase of comprehensive negotiations, one be clear
when one referred to a single undertaking.  It was clear that when the Uruguay Round had been
started, there was not a permanent negotiating forum as such.  In the WTO, Members now hadpermanent negotiations, and they should therefore be very clear that a single undertaking did not
mean starting today and ending everything tomorrow.  Some results could be implemented if they led
to a balance of benefits among the trading partners.  Regarding the substantive issues, Jamaica had
every confidence that, in launching the services negotiations in the year 2000 and the agricultureWT/GC/M/30
Page 25
negotiations by the end of 1999, Members would fulfill the commitments undertaken in the Uruguay
Round without any damage to a single undertaking that they might undertake in the future.  He
wished to underscore that one did not need to wait for a comprehensive Round for these negotiations
to begin and to make progress.  There was a distinction to be made between the mandated
negotiations and the other issues on which there was as yet no agreement that Members would
formulate additional rules, disciplines and commitments.  It was only when those decisions weretaken in the General Council that these issues could be brought to that level.  As part of the ongoing
work,  the least-developed and developing countries should have their substantial concerns addressed
at the outset, and he agreed with India that one might have "enabling" legislation in this regard.  In
addition to the points in WT/GC/W/97, he wished to briefly mention a few areas that gave Jamaica
some difficulty, and which it wished to see dealt with.  First, he recalled that the ACP countries and
the European Community had been granted a waiver not once, but twice, and yet the waiver had
nevertheless been challenged, and the benefits that these countries thought they had derived from theWTO had been brought into question.  Second, with regard to the Dispute Settlement Understanding
that would be reviewed starting in October, he ha d seen some interpretations, such as for example
regarding the Agreement on Agriculture and its consistency with the WTO Agreement, and he
believed that those issues should be addressed.  One had also seen sectoral negotiations such as the
ITA that had now been multilateralized, but had a curious place in the WTO and had affected thebalance of benefits of countries like Jamaica that had negotiated concessions with its partners.
Jamaica also had difficulties in areas such as anti-dumping, technical standards and phytosanitary
measures.  It had also seen that some regional trade agreements, such as that between the ACP and the
Community, had been brought into question, while other agreements had not been addressed, and
consequently some of the adverse effects on Jamaica had been allowed to stand.  Finally, with respectto agriculture, it was not sufficient to take account of the net food-importing developing countries;
rather, one now had to have a single undertaking on agriculture where everything of interest to
developing and developed countries was negotiated.
In the area of services, particularly financial services, his delegation had tried to draw
attention to the difference between prudential su pervision and a regulatory framework that would be
part of the liberalization measures in the WTO.  This had not found favour, and one now saw the
effect of lax prudential supervision.  Consequently, he believed that in any new services negotiations,
some of the measures that had not been considered important should be taken fully into account.  In
respect of TRIPS, Jamaica believed that it was not sufficient just to seek implementation andcompliance by national legislation, but that one should be aware that new avenues were being opened
up, so that the review of the TRIPS Agreement woul d be all-embracing to bring to new entrants the
benefits of the TRIPS Agreement.  With regard to accession, he believed that the introduction or
inclusion of new Members in the WTO could only be to the advantage of all.  With regard to the
organization of work, his delegation believed that the timetable proposed by the Chairman was
broadly satisfactory.  Jamaica had indicated in WT/GC/W/97 that Members should set out clearly at
the present meeting the schedule of the formal and in formal meetings for the coming months, that any
informal consultations should be open to all Members, and that there should be sufficient advance
notice of dates and the subject-matter for each meeting so that all could participate effectively.
Furthermore, his delegation believed that background documentation by the Secretariat, where
possible or relevant, should be made available in good time.  He supported other delegations that had
suggested that the next formal session be held in the third week of February, and suggested that
account be taken of the proposal for a further informal meeting in late January 1999.  Regarding
suggestions that had been made for a new comprehensive round of trade negotiations as a single
undertaking, he asked whether, in light of proposals being made elsewhere for negotiations for reform
of the international monetary and financial system - and even that they be undertaken and completed
within the year - it was timely for governments in the framework of the WTO to be undertakingglobal, comprehensive negotiations at the same time. He asked whether one should not continue on a
methodical approach using the WTO as a permanent negotiating forum.  As regards the proposal for a
standstill, he believed that such a commitment on the part of WTO Members could be a contribution
of the WTO to the discussions that would be taking place in Washington over the coming days.  HeWT/GC/M/30
Page 26
believed that a standstill commitment not to undertake any new measures or rules that were more
trade restrictive could be useful in indicating that the WTO was not only opposed in rhetoric to
protectionism, but that its Members were committed by virtue of a solemn undertaking to maintain a
standstill on new trade barriers.  Members should at the same time make a commitment to advance
and proceed more expeditiously on liberalization measures in favour of developing countries.
The representative of Switzerland said that his Minister had already provided the major
outline of the Swiss position regarding future negotiations.  Switzerland was aware that the present
meeting was taking place in a difficult economic environment, more so than that which prevailed
during the Ministerial Conference in May.  The economic crisis had brought about major macro-
economic adjustments which in turn would have an impact on the international community as a
whole.  However painful these adjustments might be, they were unavoidable and should make it
possible to bring about a healthier situation in the long term and establish the basis for healthyeconomic growth.  He believed that the main contribution that WTO Members could make consisted
of three elements.  First, maintain open mark ets in conformity with WTO obligations. Second,
consolidate the multilateral trading system through the full implementation of the WTO Agreements.
Third, develop this system on the basis that Members had already been able to identify or that the
recent crisis had in fact demonstrated.  The overall process that Members would undertake at thepresent meeting would go along two distinct path s:  first, work on the implementation of WTO
Agreements and preparations for the future trad e negotiations.  Implementation remained the most
urgent priority, and involved the very credibility of the multilateral trading system.  In this regard it
would be imperative to respect the implementation time-frame, put into place the necessary domestic
legislation, and scrupulously comply with notifi cation obligations.  Switzerland was prepared to
examine any concrete problems which arose in this area, and was prepared to contribute pragmatic
responses.  However, this exercise should not in any way challenge the commitments already taken
under the WTO Agreements.  All were aware of the difficulties which least-developed countries had
encountered in implementing the agreements, and Members had a responsibility to help these
countries through intensified technical assistance.  The objective would be to enable these countries torespect the obligations they had entered into and to maximize benefits which they expected to derive
from the multilateral trading system.
Regarding future trade negotiations, these should guarantee the balance of interests of all the
Members.  Therefore, no issue could a priori  be excluded and the only approach possible was that of
a global round of negotiations.  Like the Uruguay Round negotiations, the results of the future
negotiations should be the object of a single undertaking.  Negotiations should permit notable
improvement of market access and adapt the multilateral trading system to the requirements of the
beginning of the twenty-first century.  Such negotiations should include areas that were not already
covered by the system but which necessitated action by the WTO.  Regarding sectors where
negotiations had already been mandated, the first area was services.  Negotiations in this area should
make it possible to pursue liberalization in this sector by ensuring greater market access and reductionof restrictions for m.f.n. treatment.  The obligations that were undertaken should not be limited by
procedures authorizing non-conformity with the crit eria of transparency and proportionality.  In the
area of agriculture, Switzerland was ready to continue its reform process in the long term in
accordance with the four specific modalities set out in Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
The choice of measures and rhythm of reform should fully take into consideration the multi-functionalcharacter of agriculture.  Furthermore, it would be essential to aim for a substantial cut in tariff and
non-tariff barriers on industrial goods across all sectors.  Members should also aim to eliminate
excessively burdensome or complex customs operations whose costs  were often higher than the
customs duties that were collected.  He referred here not only to trade facilitation, but also
harmonization of rules of origin.  Regarding sanitary and phytosanitary measures and technicalbarriers to trade, the present provisions should be reinforced and clarified.  The negotiations should
also aim at drawing up multilateral rules to impr ove, on a non-discriminatory basis, respect for
government procurement transactions which in substance constituted an important part of the whole
issue of market access.  Regarding investment and trade, these were closely linked and both required,WT/GC/M/30
Page 27
for their development, a predictable and coherent multilateral framework.  The WTO should
undertake the natural role which fell to it in this area, as also in the area of the interaction between
trade and competition policy.  Regarding trade and environment, the aim of sustainable development,
to which all countries had subscribed, called for a coherent practice in trade policy and in
environmental protection policy.  It was therefore essential to work at ensuring the coherence of WTO
rules and the trade provisions of international environmental agreements.  Members should also aim atstrengthening the cooperation between the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO.  The current
international economic situation clearly argued for this.  Furthermore, Members should accord all
necessary attention to the problems of the least-developed countries, and should put into effect the
recommendations of the High-Level Meeting and to improve coordination between the agencies
charged with providing technical assistance.  Finall y, with regard to the programme of work proposed
by the Chairman, his delegation agreed that the preparatory work for the Third Ministerial Conference
could be undertaken in three phases.  First, a phase of reflection during which the issues for the nextnegotiations would be identified and discussed.  Second, an inventory phase in the course of which
Members would take stock of the work and take not e of proposals put forward.  Third, and finally, a
phase devoted to elaborating a programme of negotiations that would be submitted to Ministers for
consideration.  The first phase should be relatively short, as the positions of various Members were
already known to a large extent.
The representative of Uganda associated his delegation with the statement by Egypt on behalf
of the African group.  For Uganda, a critical test of the WTO lay in how it integrated the least-
developed countries into the world trading system and enabled them to benefit.  The High-Level
Meeting   in 1997 had been a positive step, and Members needed to move to its implementation.  Onlya few Members had come up with market access proposals, and it was Uganda's hope that as
Members discussed the follow-up to this meeting, it would be possible to evaluate the offers, how
they had been implemented, and their contribution to the integration of the least-developed countries
into the multilateral trading system.  For Uganda, special and differential treatment for developing
countries was very important, and he hoped it would be possible to provide a legal basis forpreferential treatment for regional subgroupings of developing countries.  A recourse to waivers for
providing such treatment, as had been the case under the GATT, no longer offered a practicable long-
term solution.  More flexible provisions could al so be provided for autonomous trade preferences
offered by developed countries to regional subgroups.  Developing countries had also encountered
problems in the areas of technical barriers and sanitary and phytosanitary measures.  As had beenindicated by many, the Uruguay Round commitments in these areas had been mostly in the nature of
"best endeavour" clauses.  It was his hope that as Members prepared for the Third Ministerial
Conference, these best endeavour provisions would be examined with a view to making them more
concrete.  He hoped that it would also be possible for developed countries to assist least-developed
countries where they could, to meet any new standards that might be developed.  The transitional
provisions in the WTO Agreements for the least-developed and developing countries were not only
meant to allow time for these countries to put into place the relevant domestic legislation;  there was
also an assumption that in the meantime the developing  countries would be assisted to be able to fully
implement the agreements.  He hoped that there would be a balanced outcome to the Third Ministerial
Conference that would take into account the interests of the least-developed and other developing
countries.  With regard to the organization of work, his delegation could go along with the proposals
made by the Chairman.  However, it wished to emphasize that there should be a central role for theGeneral Council in the process, and that the General Council should continuously monitor
developments and take up cross-cutting issues.
The representative of Tanzania associated his delegation with the statement made by Egypt on
behalf of the African group.  Most of Tanzania's concerns had been raised in that statement as well as
in statements by Uganda and several other delegations.  With regard to the statements made by a
number of delegations concerning the recent international economic crisis, he noted with interest the
emerging consensus that a subject that had earlier been seen as falling within the ambit of other
international organizations could  have an adverse trade impact on Members of the WTO.  HisWT/GC/M/30
Page 28
delegation together with some others had expressed concern on previous occasions regarding other
issues which, in their interpretation, had had an adverse impact on their countries' trade viability.
Unfortunately, they had met strong resistance from various quarters, and had been told that those
issues could well be addressed in other fora, and in particular the IMF and World Bank.  He hoped
that the realization by some countries that developments in other areas could have trade effects would
extend also to the concerns that his delegation, among others, had raised previously.  As Membersembarked on a new work programme, he hoped that the beginning of the process would not worsen
the situation for smaller delegations, and that the organization of work that would be agreed would
take into account their predicament in the face of  the large number of meetings being held.  His
delegation supported the Chairman's proposals for the organization of work in the coming months,
and believed that an effort should be made to maintain the number of meetings as proposed.  With
regard to substantive issues, it was his delegation's expectation that the status of implementation of
commitments made at the High-Level Meeting for least-developed countries would be reviewed, and
that a careful assessment would be made of the im plementation of the integrated framework in order
to make the necessary recommendations to the Third Ministerial Conference.  His delegation also
hoped that the commitments made in paragraph 6 of the Ministerial Declaration regarding improved
market access for products exported by least-developed countries would be implemented as proposed
by the Director-General in 1996.  Finally, his delegation attached great importance to theimplementation of existing agreements and decisions, and hoped that in the discussions on
implementation, due consideration would be given to the areas of interest to least-developed
countries.
The representative of Costa Rica said that he viewed favorably the Chairman's proposal
regarding the organization of informal meetings  in the coming months, and believed the suggestion
for a further meeting in January 1999 was a good one.  Although each of these meetings should focus
on the issues in the 1998 Ministerial Declaration in the order proposed by the Chairman, the
possibility should be left open for delegations to raise issues that had been raised at earlier meetings.
Costa Rica attached great importance to the issue of implementation, as well as to issues relating tothe built-in agenda, and in particular the work on agriculture and services.  As regards the
commitments and further work agreed in Singapore, Costa Rica had a particular interest in the
relationship between trade and investment, and believed it was necessary to develop a multilateral
framework for investment in the WTO.  In the light of the current international financial sector
difficulties, a clear signal in this direction was absolutely necessary in the shortest period of time.This would help create an environment of secu rity that would favor direct investment and
undoubtedly benefit economic growth and development.  Costa Rica was also interested in seeing
progress made in discussions on the interaction between trade and competition policy as well as in
transparency in government procurement.  She hoped that the forthcoming process would make it
possible for Members to identify issues where development of multilateral disciplines was necessary.
Her delegation hoped also that the process of work being launched would lead to the Third Ministerial
Conference approving an overall negotiating framework for all sectors of trade.  Her Government hadundertaken considerable commitments in earlier sectoral negotiations, such as in the area of
information technology, because it considered that the benefits of trade liberalization in these sectors
could not wait any longer.  However, it now believed that further liberalization should be sought in all
sectors by means of a global negotiation in which benefits and concessions for all could be included
by means of a commitment to a single undertaking.  Furthermore, that  a standstill commitment would
be necessary on the way towards such a global negotiation.
The representative of Argentina said he wished to endorse the views expressed by others as
well as by the Director-General that the present eco nomic crisis could not be resolved by returning to
protectionism.  Indeed, the best signal the WTO could send, and the best contribution it could make
towards a solution to this crisis, was by reiteratin g Members' determination to keep markets open and
their wish to carry forward a new stage in the trade liberalization process.  As far as implementation
was concerned, Members should draw a distinction between three types of problems.  First, those that
resulted from non-application of existing agreements or violations assumed by Member states.  TheseWT/GC/M/30
Page 29
problems could only be resolved by means of consultations between the countries concerned, with a
final analysis through the dispute settlement mechanism.  The second set of problems concerned the
issues that had not been foreseen in the Uruguay Round Agreements, or those that had arisen after the
implementation of the Agreements.  These problems would have to be discussed within the
framework of the work referred to in paragraph 9(a)(i) of the Ministerial Declaration, and which could
lead either to the negotiation of new instruments or the review, revision or agreed interpretation ofcertain aspects of existing rules.  The third set of problems concerned non-implementation of
commitments collectively assumed during the Uruguay Round.  The most relevant case of such
problems was the delay in the development of agreed multilateral disciplines on export credits.
Argentina hoped that the Marrakesh commitments would be fully implemented before Members
began new comprehensive negotiations.  With regard to the negotiations already agreed to and the
reviews contained in the built-in agenda, if a future round of negotiations were to include new issues
and objectives which went beyond those agreed to in Marrakesh, one would logically have to reviewthe objectives set out in Marrakesh.  This would be particularly relevant in the case of agriculture and
Article 20 of the Agriculture Agreement which set out the scope for future negotiations in this sector.
As regards the repeated references made in some statements to the supposed multi-functionality of
agriculture, his delegation believed that behind this new term lay an old agricultural protectionist
theme suspiciously being voiced by the same countries.  His delegation hoped this was not a newattempt to hold back the liberalization process in this sector, and that this sector would be given the
same treatment under WTO rules and disciplines as given to other sectors covered by the WTO's
activities.  If this were not to be the case, there would once again be several countries that would find
no encouragement at all to begin negotiations in other sectors.  Finally, his delegation supported the
Chairman's proposal regarding the organization of work.  Argentina also supported holding an
additional meeting in January for the purpose of taking stock of issues discussed at the three earlier
informal sessions of the General Council.  Argentina also supported the possibility of splitting the
process between now and the Third Ministerial Conf erence into three stages, as suggested by New
Zealand and Switzerland.
The representative of Colombia said that his delegation supported the Chairman's suggestions
regarding the calendar of meetings for the coming months.  The areas of work had been clearly
spelled out, and it would be up to the General Council to establish a method that would facilitate the
analysis and discussion of the proposals submitted by Members.  Colombia believed that the starting
point should be the evaluation of the implementation of agreements, with special attention being paidto the problems and difficulties that developing countries had encountered.  Developing countries had
stated on several occasions in the General Council th e necessity of taking into account, in any future
development or progress in the process of liberalization, the very often adverse conditions in which
they had been assimilating and adapting to the multiple obligations flowing from the complex
multilateral trading system.  While enormous institutional efforts had been made, there were still
considerable difficulties that required attention and the corresponding technical assistance from WTO.
It was important also to give thought to an extension of certain exceptional regimes so that thetransition to the application of rules of a general nature would be in accordance with developing
countries' possibilities.  Furthermore, careful consideration should be given to concerns expressed
regarding the contribution of developed countries to the liberalization of trade in areas of interest to
developing countries, such as market access for agricultural goods and textiles.  In this respect, the
General Council should consult the reviews and studies that had been undertaken by the varioussubsidiary bodies.  As to the negotiating mandates contained in the Agreements on Agriculture and
Services, Members should aim to recommend a reference framework which, on the basis of the
relevant provisions, would specify the methodology, the scope and the time frame for the
negotiations.  In the preparation, in the formulati on of recommendations for Ministers, and in their
decisions, there should be no interference whatsoever from developments regarding additionalnegotiations in other areas.  The new negotiations should furthermore be oriented toward attaining the
greatest symmetry possible in market access between products originating in developed countries and
those of particular interest to developing countries.  As regards the consideration of new issues and
multilateral disciplines, such as moving towards a greater liberalization in the industrial goods area,WT/GC/M/30
Page 30
Colombia would approach the discussion positively,  but would set its position only in light of the
positions and the analysis of the scope of the proposals made.
The representative of Pakistan said his delegation was pleased to note that many delegations
had prefaced their interventions by referring to the broader economic context in which the present
meeting was taking place.  This demonstrated Members' collective awareness of the manifold anddirect implications of the ongoing financial crisis on the work that they were engaged in the WTO.
However, Pakistan was concerned at the somewhat simplistic lessons drawn by some from the
financial crisis.  While Members did indeed need to ensure that there was no emergence of
protectionist tendencies as a result of the financial crisis, and that they should work together to further
strengthen the multilateral trading system, this di d not mean that there should be a rush towards an
ambitious liberalization agenda.  In fact, the one clear lesson that had emerged from the financial
crisis was that there should be a very careful and measured approach towards liberalization.  Indeed,there was now general agreement that a major cause of the financial crisis was the hasty opening of
financial markets.  Regarding the work that Member s were to engage in in the run up to the Third
Ministerial Conference, the issues to be consider ed had not only been explicitly set out in the 1998
Ministerial Declaration but had also been accorded a certain hierarchy of importance and, in effect,
had been prioritised.  The focus of work had to be on the areas pertaining to paragraph 9(a) of theMinisterial Declaration.  These encompassed implementation issues and the negotiations and other
work already mandated for the WTO.  At the second Ministerial Conference, his delegation had
highlighted, in broad terms, Pakistan's concerns regarding implementation issues.  These included
concerns regarding the lack of liberalization in the textiles sector that had been subject to MFN
restrictions for the past five decades, the inequi ties in the Agreement on Agriculture, the misuse of
certain provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and the tendency to minimise and even roll back
the provisions in various Agreements on special and differential treatment for developing countries.
Pakistan would be submitting papers with specific proposals for addressing these concerns, and would
not go into details at the present meeting.  However, he reiterated that if the implementation exercise
was to be meaningful, if must not be a mechanical exercise.  It should, instead, be a broader economicand political evaluation which would:  (i) assess whether the anticipated benefits of the Uruguay
Round Agreements were being achieved;  (ii) identify the problems encountered in the course of
implementation or inherent in the agreements;  and (iii) suggest ways and means to redress these
problems and meet anticipations regarding the benefits supposed to flow from these Agreements.
Pakistan was prepared to discuss the proposals which might be introduced by Members, but wished tomention certain caveats:  first, in putting forward proposals, especially on any new issues, Members
should be realistic in their level of ambition;  second, there should be no linkage between any new
issues and the issues that Members were already mandated to consider and negotiate on;  third, non-
trade-related  issues, for instance the question of labour standards, could not be addressed in this
Organization.  Finally, in regard to the organization of work in the coming quarter, he had taken note
of the schedule of meetings proposed by the Chairman.  However, his delegation was strongly of the
view that given the many, and fairly complex, issues covered by paragraph 9(a) of the MinisterialDeclaration, it would be necessary to devote at least the first three intersessional meetings to an
exclusive consideration of paragraph 9(a), and that there should also be the possibility of returning to
these issues in subsequent intersessional meetings.  With regard to the dates of the proposed meetings,
he joined those that had suggested a rescheduling of the February 1999 meeting.
The representative of Guatemala said that the world crisis had given Members food for
thought and, as had been stated by others, the multilateral trading system was part of the solution to
the crisis.  The rhythm of trade liberalization shou ld be maintained, and Members should ensure that
the WTO work continued at its present rhythm.  At the same time, there was a need for positive
efforts to ensure that developing countries could benefit from further liberalization and therefore thatthere be a balance in the further liberalization efforts.  As regards agriculture, Members should seek
real liberalization with regard to all products, eliminating all subsidies for agricultural products. His
delegation agreed with the statement by Australia with regard to the objectives of the Cairns Group.
Developing countries competitive in the area of agriculture needed real access for their products so asWT/GC/M/30
Page 31
to guarantee a better quality of life for their populations.  As regards services, his delegation sought a
liberalization that would respect the principles and rules that had been flagged with the aim of
achieving the expansion of services under conditions of transparency and progressive liberalization,
while recognizing the existing asymmetries and en abling smaller economies like Guatemala's to have
access to technology and information.  As regards implementation, Members should ensure that all
the agreements were complied with.  His delegation supported the calendar proposed by the Chairmanand was agreeable to holding a fourth informal meeting in January 1999.
The representative of Turkey said that the current global economic problems should not affect
the programme outlined for Members by Ministers in May, and Turkey hoped that Members would
not give in to protectionist pressures building up due to the current crisis.  With this in mind, Turkey
attached importance to the continuation of efforts for a liberal international trading system based on
the principles of free competition, non-discrimination and elimination of barriers to trade, ensuring atthe same time a balanced approach with the interests of all Members in mind.  Turkey believed that
the negotiations and reviews covered by the built-in agenda should be given priority.  It attached great
importance to the launching of negotiations on services and agriculture and the review of the TRIPs
Agreement as scheduled.  It was important, for the credibility of the WTO, to do this in time.  Turkey
also supported the proposal to include negotiations on industrial tariffs for further liberalizationthrough significant market access improvements in all sectors.  Members should take up new issues
such as investment, competition, government procurement and electronic commerce after the working
groups and relevant subsidiary bodies had finished their work.  Turkey welcomed the work
programme on electronic commerce which would enable Members to identify issues on which they
could collaborate within the WTO.  In order to ensure the credibility and the universal nature of theWTO and the multilateral trading system, the ongoing negotiations on the accession of applicant
countries should be concluded in the shortest period.  Accession to the WTO required full respect for
WTO rules and disciplines, but a balanced approach for all acceding countries should also be ensured
at the same time.  Turkey believed that consideration should be given to the special needs and
development requirements of the developing and least-developed economies.  Consideration should
also be given to the difficulties encountered in implementing the outcome of the Uruguay Round
Agreements.  In this regard, providing technical assistance and capacity-building programmes for
developing and the least-developed countries had significant importance for the effective participation
of these countries in the multilateral trading system.  Turkey also attached importance to improved
market access for the least-developed countries.  The integration of these countries' economies ininternational trade was important not only for their economic development but also for global trade.
Finally, his delegation agreed in general with the timetable proposed by the Chairman for meetings to
prepare for the Third Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Sri Lanka said that his delegation supported the views expressed by a
number of delegations to focus attention on paragraphs 9(a) and 9(c) of the operative part of the 1998
Ministerial Declaration in the organization of the work programme being deliberated at the presentmeeting.  However, this did not mean that Sri Lanka was opposed to the work identified in paragraphs
9(b) and 9(d) of the Declaration.  On the contrary, it was fully supportive of all the work that had been
agreed to during the Ministerial Meeting.  However, the latter work would naturally need to be
programmed in such a manner that it was taken up after the implementation issues had been fully
dealt with.  Having listened to some of the vary ambitious plans expressed by certain delegationsrelating to the organization of the work of the General Council, Sri Lanka wished to emphasize that it
preferred first things to be first, i.e. evaluati on of the implementation of existing agreements and
decisions and then, in a logical sequential manner, matters coming under the built-in agenda.  With
regard to the launching of a new round of comprehensive negotiations, to which some delegations had
referred, his delegation was of the view that it was fa r too early for countries such as his to even think
of such issues.  As in the case of a large number of other developing countries, Sri Lanka was
scratching the surface of the enormous challenges and obligations that it had already undertaken
following the last comprehensive round of multilateral trade negotiations.  The situation of small
economies such as Sri Lanka's could not be over-emphasized if one took into account the disastrousWT/GC/M/30
Page 32
consequences the current economic crisis had brought throughout the world.  These economies were
extremely vulnerable to these developments, over which they had absolutely no control.  It was only
common sense that they tread slowly but surely in their future endeavours.  Sri Lanka nevertheless
wished to reiterate its full commitment to the ob ligations under the Uruguay Round and to the further
strengthening of the multilateral trading system.  In that context, its priority was to see that Members
completed the extensive work already undertaken under the various WTO Agreements beforeembarking on any comprehensive round of negotiations.  His delegation was in broad agreement with
the work programme and the associated timetable proposed by the Chairman.
The representative of Canada said that the present special session of the General Council
came at an opportune time.  It was crucial that Members showed the world that they were committed
to maintaining an open multilateral trading system.  As the Director-General had said, and as
Members appreciated, trade and investment, goods and services and capital, demand and growth, didgo together.  As one sought to restore growt h, create employment, and thus develop markets in
affected countries, some success should be maintained in accessing markets in Japan, North America
and Europe.  Closing borders, or other manifestations  of increased protectionism, could aggravate the
situation.  Conversely, more meaningful adherence to existing WTO-based rules of transparency, fair
and non-discriminatory regulation, and market access would offer traders and investors the confidenceto enter these markets and contribute directly to jobs and growth.  Put simply, the WTO rules-based
framework was not part of the problem, but part of the solution.  Another concrete way to demonstrate
Members' commitment to the rules-based multilateral trading system was to move ahead with
preparations for the Third Ministerial Conference.  In that respect, it was clear that many countries
were advanced in their thinking about the scope of the negotiations upon which Members wouldembark by the end of 1999.  Her Government had begun the process of seeking input from interested
domestic constituents.  This was a much more complicated task than in the past, in large part because
of the very success of the WTO.  More and more elements of civil society considered that the
multilateral trading system had direct and immediate impact on their well-being.  They were rightly
concerned to ensure that their views were taken into account in developing detailed Canadianpositions on the issues with which all were dealing in the WTO.  Canada had some clear objectives in
mind which served as the backdrop for the domestic consultations that it was undertaking.  It would
continue to give priority to ensuring that the results of prior multilateral trade negotiations were turned
into real benefits, an objective that all Members no doubt shared.  Canada was also looking to the
opportunities that new negotiations provided in areas that Members were already committed to,namely on agriculture and services, beginning at the end of next year.
Like many others, Canada had not yet decided what other issues should be injected into this
negotiating mix;  this needed to be decided in the coming months.  However, a range of issues needed
to be addressed systematically before Members determined the final recommendations for Ministers
in 1999.  These issues included the following:  first, reducing traditional barriers:  industrial tariffs,
quotas and import restrictions, as well as border measures that increased administrative burdensinstead of facilitating the cross-border movement of goods and services;  second, as tariff barriers
were lowered, Canada had increasingly become concerned with non-tariff barriers, such as technical
standards and sanitary and phytosanitary measures that might unduly restrict trade.  Members should
maintain the balance that WTO rules provided be tween avoiding unwarranted trade restrictions, on
the one hand, and protecting a government's right to regulate for legitimate public interests, on theother;  third, Canada fully supported the decision of Ministers at the Singapore Ministerial Conference
to add a work programme on trade and competition, on trade and investment, and on transparency in
government procurement.  Further analysis in these areas and the reports of the respective groups to
the December meeting of the General Council would allow Members to make more informed
decisions on next steps.  Taken together, the increasing focus of the work on non-tariff barriers,services, competition and investment, on sound regulatory frameworks, and on transparency, signified
to Canada that the trade agenda was increasingly about strengthening markets in addition to opening
markets.  Its focus became the horizontal, domestic agenda of regulatory reform, democratic
development and good governance.  All were working under existing WTO rules to create aWT/GC/M/30
Page 33
predictable and transparent supervisory structure that ultimately avoided corruption and created a
stable environment for traders, investors and consumers.  This in turn underlined the importance of
increased transparency in the work of the WTO, and especially in the preparatory work.  This was a
demanding agenda.  Members would need to decide how to structure the negotiations to deal with it.
Many delegations at the present meeting had supported a comprehensive new round of trade
negotiations.  Members should also consider how to achieve results in a timely fashion.  Canadaconsidered that consideration should be given to cl ustering or packaging groups of issues together for
concluding negotiations at different times.  This could offer a balance of incentives to encourage
countries to move forward, and could lead to an ea rly harvest in some sectors.  These were complex
issues, both with respect to the substance of negotiations and to the process of carrying them out.
They would require much preparation, both in Gene va and domestically.  The process of preparations
leading to the Third Ministerial Conference that the Chairman had outlined fit well with the domestic
consultations which Canada had begun, and her delegation fully supported it.
The representative of Venezuela said that, like others, Venezuela was convinced that world
trade was an integral part of any solution to the pr esent international crisis, and that its liberalization
would contribute to development and economic growth.  The difficulties inherent in the current
financial crisis would lead to other weaknesses and deficiencies that would have to be corrected.  Thesearch for greater trade liberalization and new disciplines to regulate trade would constitute a
contribution to avoiding future crises.  His delegation agreed that the present meeting should send a
clear message of alarm to neo-protectionist agents that might try to take advantage of the present
difficulties that many countries were going through.  The launching of the preparatory work for a new
round of negotiations should be seen in a complete and real dimension.  Members had to be very clearas to the context in which they operated and the content with which they wanted to imbue the round.
His delegation also believed that future negotiations should be broad in scope to encompass the
greatest number of options within a schedule which should have as its basis already established
commitments.  Flexibility in the process would be important.  Members would need to discuss also
the issue of implementation.  A clear-cut inventory of the difficulties that developing countries hadencountered in implementing their commitments shoul d be analyzed in depth, and the necessary time
allowed to ensure that the real sources of the difficulties being faced could be determined and thereby
solutions found.  Furthermore, the obligation of maintaining the existing commitments undertaken by
all in the WTO should continue to be a first priority.  The issue of market access, for example in
sectors of essential interest for developing countries, was particularly important.  Developed countriesshould understand the aspirations of the poorer and the less important countries in the trading system.
His delegation fully supported the calendar of meetings proposed by the Chairman, and stressed the
need to show the necessary flexibility that would ensure sufficient time was allowed for the discussion
of the first parts of the mandate set out in the Ministerial Declaration.  Members should also be
flexible as to the time-frame to enable them to  comply with the recommendations in the Ministerial
Declaration.
The representative of Israel said that his delegation shared many of the views that had already
been expressed and would focus in his statement on points that were of greater importance to his
delegation. Israel supported a comprehensive trade round that allowed for trade-offs between different
sectors and areas and, as such, provided mutual benefits to all Members.  Israel attached great
importance to the built-in agenda, in particular to the mandated negotiations concerning furtherliberalization in the services sector.  Israel also s upported further negotiations on the traditional issues,
i.e. the reduction of duties on industrial goods as well as the removal of non-tariff barriers.  However,
the time was right for Members to launch a process of negotiations on other issues as well.  Israel
attached importance to issues that were part of the Singapore Ministerial Declaration, particularly to
transparency in government procurement.  All Members stood to gain from greater access to publictenders.  His delegation encouraged Members to positively consider the possibility of joining the
Agreement on Government Procurement.  Israel also  affirmed its support for all efforts to simplify
customs procedures and other procedural and bur eaucratic issues under the framework of trade
facilitation.  Regarding electronic commerce, his delegation welcomed and supported theWT/GC/M/30
Page 34
development of the proposed work programme.  His delegation supported the Chairman's proposal
with regard to the organization of work, and would accept any adjustments that were necessary to
satisfy all Members.
The representative of the Dominican Republic said that one of  the necessary conditions for
overcoming the effects of financial crises such as the one being experienced at present was a
reinforced, fair and effective multilateral trading system that was able to prevail over unilateralism
and protectionism.  His delegation believed, like Brazil and India, that the treatment of topics in the
preparatory phase was implicit in the order in which they were presented in paragraph 9 of the
Ministerial Declaration.  In particular, implementation issues had focused until now on evaluating
compliance of developing countries with their obligations.  Little or no attention had been paid to
compliance by developed countries, or to how they had exercised their rights, especially in
agriculture, textiles and clothing, and special and differential treatment.  His delegation wasconcerned also that although GATS Articles IV and XIX were pending application since being
negotiated, Members were already proposing new negotiating topics which would erode the integrity
and equilibrium inherent in the GATS.  The consequences would be that the scope of the GATS
would be limited to the coverage of certain aspects of cross-border services trade.  For these and other
reasons, his delegation joined Egypt in requesting that the topics under paragraph 9(a)(i) of theMinisterial Declaration receive continuous attention through the preparatory process leading to the
Third Ministerial Conference.  For that reason, these topics had to be included on the agenda of all
forthcoming meetings.  As regards the launch of a new round of negotiations, his delegation agreed
with other delegations that had commented about the built-in agenda.  The work already mandated on
services and agriculture should not affect the preparatory process.  Most of the objectives presentedfor agriculture by the Cairns Group were adequate for balanced results.  In services, the mandate of
Article XIX should be implemented fully, and should lead to concrete results in sectors in which little
change in the status quo had been seen during the cu rrent century, such as in maritime transport.  The
possibility should also be explored of bringing air transport under the scope of the GATS, given that
all could clearly see the effects of the growing number of "open skies" agreements signed after theconclusion of the Uruguay Round.  The consideration of this topic would be crucial for the increased
liberalization in tourism trade, which was one of the rare sectors in which there was a surplus for
developing countries.  The increased participation of developing countries in services trade required
the elimination of barriers to access to transport networks and distribution systems.  Among these, the
Dominican Republic placed priority on the distortions present in world air transport networks, most ofwhich were distortions to competition, with a palpable effect on the capacity of developing countries
to attract tourists on regular flights.  He agreed with Members who had proposed further discussion on
the rules in WTO Agreements that covered regional integration agreements or free-trade areas.  The
Dominican Republic was concerned that new integration agreements were being proposed for
negotiation which would, in theory, be WTO-plus agreements, but to which only certain provisions of
the WTO Agreements were applicable.  His delegation believed that any WTO-plus agreements
should take into account not only the rules and disciplines but also the rights and obligations ofMembers of the WTO.  The debate on regional integration should also analyze certain aspects that
demanded deeper consideration, such as the effects of rules of origin and trade remedies, which had
not been disciplined effectively even with the clear provisions of GATT Article XXIV.  The
application of GATS Article V was also unsatisfactory.
Regarding the work programme initiated at Singapore, his delegation sympathised with the
arguments presented by Community on competition policy.  The Working Group on this subject
should continue its work under the present mandate, even after having prepared its report at the end of
November.  The Group should further explore the relationship between trade and competition,
focusing on trade in services.  This topic had not been examined deeply, for most of the attention hadbeen focused on the relationship between trade in  goods and competition, given the anti-competitive
effects of trade remedies.  For his delegation, competition policy in the WTO was one of the topics
that deserved consideration in the quest for a balanced result of any new round of multilateral trade
negotiations.  Members should take into account the precedent created by the TRIPS Agreement.WT/GC/M/30
Page 35
Since 1992, when negotiations for this Agreement had been concluded, not all countries had been in a
position to present their laws and institutions in conformity with the minimum standards of the
Agreement.  The solution was to provide for a transition period, and in this fashion ensure the
eventual enforcement of the commitments to protec t these rights under the rules of multilateral trade.
A negotiation on competition policy could lead to a similar result:  minimum standards;  legal,
procedural and cooperation issues;  and transition periods for the legal and institutional work requiredfor enforcement at the national level.  Therefore, in the same manner that negotiations for a
comprehensive single undertaking Free-Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) had been launched in
April 1998, Members could launch new WTO negotiations at the next Ministerial Conference.  This
would avoid sectoral or single-issue negotiations that would further unbalance the multilateral system
against developing countries, as well as the consideration of other non trade-related topics such as
labour standards and the environment.  The preparatory process might be managed in informal
meetings by the General Council, if and only if there was no repetition of the exclusion that a majorityof Members had experienced at the Singapore Ministerial Conference.  Finally, the work programme
of meetings proposed by the Chairman for the rest of 1998 was adequate, although it would be
necessary to hold a fourth meeting by mid-January 1999 and a second Special Session of the General
Council towards the end of February.
The Chairman recalled that at the beginning of the present discussion, he had reminded
delegations that Ministers in their Declaration 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.  He believed that an important
start to the process had been made at the present meeting.  Having listened to the debate, he drew theconclusion that this task was even more important at the present time because of the deterioration in
international economic conditions.  Many delegations had spoken of the need in these circumstances
to resist protectionism and to proceed expeditiously  with the full and faithful implementation of the
WTO Agreements, and to maintain the momentum towards further trade liberalization which would
be of benefit to all Members.  Delegations had also made the point that such efforts would make apositive contribution to alleviating the crisis.  Some delegations had already begun to talk of their
aspirations for the Third Ministerial Conference, and many had indicated their intention to set out
their views or to make proposals in the coming months.  The inputs and the proposals from
delegations would drive the work forward.  The view had also been reaffirmed that all of this work
should be under the clear direction and control of the General Council.  He proposed that the GeneralCouncil suspend its formal meeting to allow for further consultations to be held on the question of the
organization of future work.
The General Council so agreed.
Upon resumption of the meeting, the Chairman  drew attention to the following proposed
schedule of formal and informal meetings of the General Council for the coming months:
26 [and 27] October 1998 Suggested Focus: Issues and proposals relating to paragraph
9(a)(i) of the Ministerial Declaration
23 [and 24] November 1998 Suggested Focus: Issues and proposals relating to paragraphs
9(a)(ii) and (iii) of the Ministerial Declaration
14 [and 16] December 1998 Suggested Focus: Issues and proposals relating to paragraph 
9(c) of the Ministerial Declaration
Third week of January 1999 Suggested Focus: Issues and proposals relating to paragraphs
9(b) and 9(d) of the Ministerial Declaration, and the
organization of future workWT/GC/M/30
Page 36
Third/Fourth week of February 1999 Special Session of the General Council
It would be understood that once an issue had been raised in the informal meetings,
delegations would have the possibility of returning to it at subsequent meetings.  In particular, it
would be useful to consider the meeting in December as an opportunity for delegations to be able to
return to the issues that had been raised in earlier meetings under paragraph 9(a).
The representative of Argentina recalled a suggestion made by the Chairman in informal
consultations that when Members in successive meetings revisited items discussed at an earlier
meeting, they should do so only after the conclusion of the discussion on the item that was the focus
of that particular meeting.
The representative of Pakistan said that while the point raised by Argentina might be a logical
way of proceeding, Members should perhaps not tie themselves down too rigidly into compartments,
since some of the issues in paragraph 9(a) might have implications also for subsequent discussions on
other items.  His delegation would be comfortable with the suggested organization of work as initially
proposed by the Chairman, without seeking to constrain future discussions in any way.
The representative of Egypt said that implementation was an ongoing business, and should be
taken up at all the informal meetings of the General Council.  If the understanding read out by the
Chairman was not shared by all, then it should be made clear.  There should be equal treatment for
implementation issues and all the other issues that would be dealt with in the coming meetings.
Implementation encompassed a number of issues and, as his delegation had indicated on earlieroccasions, Egypt intended to submit papers reflecting its concerns and preoccupations in this area
throughout the forthcoming preparatory process for the Third Ministerial Conference.  If this
understanding was shared by all, his delegation could agree to the proposal made by the Chairman.
The representative of Australia said that Members should not spend valuable time debating
this procedural matter.  There was no question that all issues would be taken up and treated equally.  It
was common practice at meetings to take up first issues first before going on to other matters, and
there was therefore no question of equal or unequal  treatment,.  Argentina's point was a useful one,
and it was important that Members set themselves specific tasks to be completed at the forthcoming
meetings before taking up other matters.
The Chairman suggested that the understanding be left the way that he had suggested it.  The
additional comments would be reflected in the re cord of the meeting and would serve as a useful
reminder to the Chairman of the matters he would need to keep in mind as the organization of each
meeting was planned.  He would also wish to be in touch with delegations before those meetings to
have some idea of the issues that they wished to raise.  It was important to recognize that Members
would need to address all of the issues that they felt needed to be raised at these meetings.
The representative of Venezuela said that the issue of implementation was of importance to
his delegation, and asked if the Chairman could give some indication of how the discussion scheduled
for 26 October might be organized so as to ensure the best possible progress on this subject.  This
would help avoid delegations making statements at that meeting without a general theme.
The Chairman said this was something that delegations themselves would need to reflect on
as they prepared for the meeting.  He could certainly sound out delegations to see if there was a desire
to hold consultations on how to organize the discussion at the forthcoming meetings, although he
noted that the agenda for October was already very busy.  Delegations had of course been given someguidance in the Ministerial Declaration, as also in the WTO Agreements themselves.  Additional
guidance could also be found in the discussion that had been held on the present Agenda items, in
which many delegations had raised a considerable number of points with regard to implementation
issues.  It would be useful if the Secretariat c ould have the record of the discussions on these itemsWT/GC/M/30
Page 37
ready as soon as possible so that delegations would have the benefit of being able to look at precisely
what had been said.  This would be important in terms of permitting delegations to prepare properly
for the discussion.  He believed, furthermore, that th e discussion would also certainly be driven by the
consensus among delegations on these issues and the proposals that were put forward.
The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to the organization of work as
proposed by the Chairman, including the understanding thereon read out by him.
3. Date of the Third Session of the Ministerial Conference
The Chairman recalled that at the 1998 Ministerial Conference, Ministers had agreed to
accept the offer from the government of the United States to host the Third session, and had invited
the General Council to determine the date and duration of that session.
The representative of the United States said that having reviewed a number of options and
having consulted with a considerable number of cities that had offered to host the Third session, her
delegation proposed that the General Council  agree at the present meeting that the next session of the
Ministerial Conference be held from 30 November- 3 December 1999.  Her delegation hoped to be ina position to notify the General Council of the city in which the meeting would be held within the next
few weeks.
The representative of Egypt said that his delegation had noted the dates proposed by the
United States.  As his delegation had stated on earlier occasions, it was Egypt's understanding that the
Ministerial Conference should be held every two years and therefore that the Third Ministerial
Conference should be held in the year 2000.  If that date were to be advanced to November-December
1999 with the intention of launching a new round of comprehensive trade negotiations, he wished to
underline that Members had not by any means agreed as yet to launch any new multilateral trade
negotiations.  Egypt had always stressed the impor tance of implementation of existing commitments
before acting on any new issues, and this needed to be kept in mind.  His delegation wished to make
this point very clear for the record, and wished to reflect on the convenience of the dates proposed by
the United States in the light of the engagements of delegations relating to other international events
or conferences that might be held at that time.
The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note of the statements and agree to
revert to this matter at an earl y opportunity with a view to finali zing agreement on the date of the
Third session of the Ministerial Conference.
The General Council so agreed.
4. Work programme on 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 commer ce, including those issues identified by Members.
This was to be done by the time of the present meeting of the General Council in Special Session.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, take into account the
economic, financial and development needs of developing countries, and recognize that work was also
being undertaken in other international fora.  He recalled that Members had had considerablediscussion on this matter since the adoption of the Ministerial Declaration.   On the basis of informal
open-ended consultations that had been held over the past two months, a draft comprehensive workWT/GC/M/30
Page 38
programme had recently been circulated to delegations for their consideration as document no. 5099,
dated 23 September 1998.  With regard to the penultimate sentence of paragraph 1. 1 of the draft work
programme as contained in that document, which read "Further issues may be taken up at the request
of Members by any of these bodies", he wished to make clear for the record his understanding that the
words "request of Members" meant request of any Member.
The representative of the United States thanke d delegations for their contribution to finalizing
this work programme so that part of the mandate in the May Ministerial Declaration on electronic
commerce could be carried out.  The United States looked forward to the work ahead and to the
educational process and any resulting recommendations and report required for the 1999 Ministerial
meeting.  The work programme outline and the Declaration itself would guide Members into
discussions that would examine the trade and WTO relevancy of issues identified in the illustrative
lists and of others that might arise in the course of discussions.  The Declaration also chargedMembers to take into account the work alr eady underway within the competence of other
organizations.  There were many important issues of domestic and international proportion that the
WTO need not be tasked with, but which were significant for all countries.  Many of these issues were
being expeditiously and diligently handled by other competent organizations, and the contributions of
those organizations would assist Members and w ould complete the evolving picture of global
electronic commerce.  The invaluable contribution of the private sector would also be needed in order
to learn more about electronic commerce and how to enhance trade benefits.  The work programme
acknowledged the need for private sector involvement.  As provided in the Declaration, the needs of
developing countries would also be a major focus.  Without the necessary discussion and examination
of trade-relevant issues in development and the active participation of developing countries, thegrowth and scope of electronic commerce would not be global.  It was the United States' goal in the
WTO to pursue initiatives that the entire membership would accept.  Some developing countries were
already very active in electronic commerce.  The United States looked forward to enhanced
participation by those countries and the inclusion of others.  The work programme would reveal more
of the ideas expressed in the April Secretariat report that electronic commerce would facilitate greaterdevelopment and trade access for developing countries.  Her government intended to launch an
Internet Economic Development Initiative, which would include development assistance to accelerate
the role of the Internet in developing countries.  The United States expected that any examination and
consideration of electronic commerce during the work programme would result in the promotion of its
growth.  Any commitments and rules should only encourage its expansion, not burden the remarkablegrowth already seen.  Without prejudging the outcome of the work programme, her delegation noted
that the Declaration contained a separate mandate to examine the continuation of the commitment not
to impose customs duties on electronic transmissions.  That commitment sent the right message to
industry and consumers as the 21st century approached, and encouraged the benefits and expansion of
electronic commerce for all participants.
The representative of the Dominican Republic said that the work reflected in the draft work
programme was considerable as a result of the Uruguay Round negotiations, and that the subject-
matter was sufficiently rich for Members to be in a position to deal efficiently with the issue of
electronic commerce.  A number of issues related to electronic trade should be the subject of further
negotiations, such as issues relating to intellectual property and new negotiations if necessary.
Members were dealing with a new product of digital information which might require a newagreement unless it could be covered under the terms of the existing Agreement on Trade in Services.
The representative of Norway said that his delegation attached great importance to the
initiation of work in the context of the WTO on issues related to electronic commerce.  The adoption
of the work programme was an important step.  It showed that the WTO was able in a timely fashionto respond to the challenges posed by technological developments in world trade.  The WTO's
engagement in the field of electronic commerce would also contribute to its legitimacy in the eyes of
public opinion and as such should be helpful in demystifying the WTO's work, which was politically
so important.  The work programme would to a large extent leave it to the subsidiary bodies toWT/GC/M/30
Page 39
determine how to manage their work.  Consid erable resources could be spent on this work
programme, both by the Secretariat and by delegations.  Norway, for its part, intended to follow
actively and, to contribute to the discussion on electronic commerce in the different WTO fora.
However, Norway cautioned that the resources spent on this process had to be seen in the context of
other aspects of the work of the subsidiary bodies in question.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation supported adoption of the draft work
programme.  Members were now starting intensive efforts as follow-up the Ministers' instructions in
the May Ministerial Declaration.  While most of the technological developments that had so
dramatically changed many aspects of life had occurred in the private sector, the government sector as
well should create an appropriate environment for electronic commerce.  The WTO had an important
role to play in encouraging activit ies in the private sector in an unrestricted trading environment. Its
work should be carefully defined in order to avoid duplication of work being done by otherinternational organizations.  A balanced approach was necessary between the comprehensive nature of
the work and the efficient management of the process.  The main job was to look extensively for
issues which had a significant impact on trade.  Given the time-frame of this work programme,
extraordinary efforts would be necessary to meet the deadline which was only ten months away.
None of these efforts should le ad to a downgrading of the existing WTO framework.  There were
many aspects of electronic commerce where the existing WTO framework already applied, and the
values protected by that framework should be retain ed.  In this context, the following three issues
should be addressed:  (i)  were there any elements missing in the WTO framework that were
necessary to address identified issues?  (ii)  if s o, was it the role of the WTO to address those issues?
(iii)  if so, what were the options to pursue?  Since most electronic commerce activities were beinginitiated in the private sector, close contact with  the non-governmental sector should be maintained;
this was mentioned in the work programme.  It was essential to find out what was happening in the
business community and to identify the role of the WTO.  Japan  supported informal contacts between
the WTO and the private sector.
The representative of Indonesia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members, said that these
countries had no major difficulty with the work programme as currently drafted.  The work
programme would be a guideline for carrying out the mandate of Ministers.  It was not exhaustive and
could be supplemented in the course of deliberations.  He then presented the ASEAN Members' views
as well as their understanding of various points in the work programme.  While the latter had broadlydescribed the central role of the General Council and what should be done by its subsidiary bodies, it
had also reflected the need for particular issues, such as customs duties, to be discussed in the General
Council as well as in its subsidiary bodies.  It was expected that the economic, financial, and
development needs of developing countries would be taken into consideration in all aspects of the
discussion of electronic commerce and in all bodies of the WTO.  The ASEAN Members understood
that the definition of electronic commerce in the work programme was exclusively to provide a
common parameter in order to guide the deliberations.  As the process of examination of electroniccommerce proceeded, it might be necessary to provide further precision to the definition.  There was
also a need to involve other intergovernmental or ganizations, such as UNCTAD, in examining the
issues.  Their input could provide information on  activities undertaken in the respective IGOs, thus
avoiding duplication of work.  Interactions with the private sector should be on an informal basis
through symposia, seminars, projects etc.  The ASEAN Members hoped that it would be possible todiscuss adequately and exhaustively the issues outlined in the work programme.  Without a proper
knowledge of the implications of electronic commerce for the future of developing countries, it would
be difficult for them to participate actively in this field.  They further hoped that issues of interest to
developing countries, such as human resources development, transfer of technology and access to
global infrastructure, as well as the impact of electronic commerce on developing countries' small andmedium enterprises, would be adequately discussed.
The representative of Peru said that in the course of negotiations on the work programme his
delegation had identified five general areas of agreement:  (i)  this was a complex matter which wouldWT/GC/M/30
Page 40
impact on trade practices and would have an increasing impact on international trade flows;
(ii)  electronic commerce was a consequence of new technologies, new information and
communication data exchange, e-mail, and global networks.  These new electronic media and means
were producing radical changes in commercial transactions;  (iii)  there were very unequal levels of
development in the technological capacity of various countries, which could be decisive in their
capacity to make the best use of the development of electronic commerce.  This specific aspect hadbeen recognized in the Ministerial Declaration of 20 May 1998, which pointed to a number of
financial and development inequalities among Members;  (iv)  Members had agreed to maintain for
the time-being the current practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions;
(v)  the importance and urgency of agreeing on general rules within a work programme which should
be both comprehensive and balanced.  His delegation had taken part in a number of talks prior to the
present meeting of the General Council, and had agreed on the need to focus on specific
understandings which should be developed within the competent subsidiary organs of the WTO.  In
prior consultations each subsidiary organ had been assigned a number of specific issues within its
competence.  It was necessary, however, to take into account a number of general trends which by
their very nature could not be discussed at a sectoral level, and in particular, the issue of the special
situation of developing countries.  This developm ent aspect should be present wherever electronic
commerce was discussed in the subsidiary organs.  Developing countries and firms and enterprises ofdeveloping countries should be in a position to have access to electronic commerce in order to be able
to benefit from the development in such commerce.  Transparency was essential, and right from the
start, the crucial issues of access to technologies which serve as a vehicle to electronic commerce, and
the transfer of technologies with a view to improving developing countries' participation in electronic
commerce should be examined.  Another relevant aspect was the link-up between rules anddisciplines which could be adopted with regard to electronic commerce and general commercial
transactions.  This should be viewed in the light of the general global objective of promoting a free,
safe, transparent, mutually beneficial trading system.  Firms and enterprises should be consulted, and
this should be done within a national  framework established though ad hoc  seminars and events.  One
final aspect which required a global treatment and approach within the General Council was the legalregime applying to electronic commerce and the specific decisions that should be taken under the
Marrakesh Agreement.  Electronic commerce would not develop fully unless economic agents and
business circles fully trusted the validity and mandatory nature of transactions.  The identification of
possible commercial partners through an open network, the integrity and security of information, the
confidentiality of such information, the reliability of transaction mechanisms, the right of recourse in
case of error or negligence, and the effect of transactions on third parties were all matters related to
the legal dimension of electronic commerce.  These issues gave rise to legal problems which should
be resolved at a global level not only to create rules but also to make them compatible with the
existing structures of the WTO.  The General Council should provide the necessary means and
arbitration mechanisms in order to ensure that these matters were dealt with globally and
comprehensively, irrespective of developments in the subsidiary organs.
The representative of Cuba said that the work programme had been improved due to the
initiative of a number of developing countries an d that this was a positive development.  Thus, Cuba
would not oppose the consensus.  However, from the time this issue had first been introduced in the
WTO, Cuba had advocated the need to carry out in-depth studies, in view of the complexity and
novelty of the subject, before this item was placed on the agenda of the WTO.  It was vital to have abroad knowledge of the impact of this new means of world commerce before new rules and increased
obligations were agreed, mainly for the sake of developing countries.  Never before had a new subject
been integrated so swiftly on the agenda of the WT O without prior studies.  This was due in part to
the quasi-monopolistic character of electronic trade, which conferred benefits to the major trade
partners.  For this reason, it was necessary to provide special modalities and special conditions fordeveloping countries in order to ensure the balanced and fair development of this area of commerce.
This implied the transfer of resources, technology and vocational training for developing countries, all
of which should be agreed before new trade rules were agreed within the WTO. It was essential that
the General Council carry out an ongoing review of the work programme about to be adopted, that itWT/GC/M/30
Page 41
play a steering role and that it establish priorities in this regard.  It was also vital to keep a close watch
on the process in order to ensure that developing countries benefited equally from this type of
commerce.  Access to telecommunication infrastructures, technology transfer and the development of
human resources, which were issues covered in the work programme, were of major significance for
developing countries.  They should therefore be duly analyzed and channelled, amongst other routes,
through technical cooperation.  Once the implications of electronic commerce for trade and for theorganization were known, WTO Members - especially the developing countries – would have to draw
their own conclusions and to determine the benef it or otherwise of maintaining the standstill on
customs duties on electronic transmissions.  In this regard, Cuba fully supported the statements by the
Dominican Republic and Peru.
The representative of India said that the draft work programme underscored not only the
complexity of the issues that govern electronic commerce but also the broad spectrum of expectations
of WTO Members from the exploratory and information-seeking phase being undertaken.  India
considered the following issues, among others, to be important.  First, every facet of electronic
commerce should be addressed thoroughly and with full and effective participation of all WTO
Members.  The work programme covered issues which had been listed as well as issues that might
emerge during the conduct of the examination.  Second, the Ministerial Declaration explicitlyenjoined Members to take into account the economic, financial, and development needs of developing
countries.  This emphasized that these countries faced serious resource constraints, both human and
financial, which had to be addressed when the work programme was executed.  It also reiterated that
the work programme had to examine how the growing importance of electronic commerce in the
conduct of international trade would impact on the trade and development opportunities of developingcountries, as well as the role electronic commerce would play in the development process itself.  The
work programme also had to pay equal regard to the revenue and other fiscal implications of
electronic commerce for developing countries.  This implied in particular, first, that the work
programme had to spell out ways and means of enhancing the participation of developing countries in
electronic commerce, and second, that it had to ensure that market access and trade opportunities ofdeveloping countries were not eroded due to the substitution of traditional means of conducting
commerce with electronic means.  Third, issues in the work programme, such as the examination of
customs duties on electronic transmissions, that were prima facie  cross-cutting in nature, should not
be fragmented for consideration by different subsidiary bodies, but should be examined in the General
Council itself, which had the necessary competence as well as the mandate to seek relevant inputsfrom subsidiary bodies.  This was important to maintaining cohesion and direction in the examination
process and would facilitate the participation of small delegations in these discussions.  Fourth, policy
challenges, as outlined in Chapter 5 of the March 1998 WTO publication on global electronic
commerce, should be an integral part of the work on this subject.  Fifth, issues related to intellectual
property and the ability of developing countries to ensure the participation of domestic constituents in
global electronic commerce were inextricably linked.  There was an urgent need for developing
countries to have a modern infrastructure in place if they were to reap any benefit from electroniccommerce.  In addition, there were implications for unrestricted access to technologies, including
state-of-the-art encryption technologies, on fair and reasonable terms, as well as to products and
equipment related to electronic commerce, including high-performance and sophisticated computing
systems.  Such access to infrastructure, including the Internet, and transfer of technologies, whether or
not embodied in products, were key elements in th e study process.  India would raise the issue of
transfer of technology in this context, and would address this issue with specific reference to
paragraph 4.1 of the work programme.  The manner in which standards would be established and
administered would be equally germane.  Therefore, it was appropriate that these aspects be studied
by the TRIPs Council as well as the Committee on Trade and Development as set out in the work
programme.  His delegation understood that the dr aft work programme would enable WTO Members
to deal with all the issues relevant to electronic commerce, including those just referred to.  In the
light of this, India agreed to the adoption of the draft work programme.WT/GC/M/30
Page 42
The representative of Uruguay said that the draft work programme significantly improved the
text of the original draft, and represented a proper framework for the work on this subject.  Uruguay
supported the work programme and wanted to highlight three factors which were important for
carrying out these activities:  (i) the particular importance in all this work of economic, financial and
development needs of developing countries;  (ii) the need to bear in mind fully the work that had
already been done or was being done by other international organizations;  and (iii) clarification thatthe definition of electronic commerce to be used was not a legal and definitive definition, but merely a
working definition that would be used as a basis on which to begin the studies and that would
probably be a theme of great importance in future discussions.
The representative of Egypt said that the views his delegation had expressed in both formal
and informal meetings had been reflected in a balanced manner in the draft work programme.  Egypt
shared many of the views expressed at the present meeting, and felt that Members were embarking onthe right track for fulfilling the mandate in the May Ministerial Declaration on global electronic
commerce.  The needs of the developing countries - whether economic, financial or development -
had to be taken into consideration, as reflected in the work programme, and the development
perspective should be observed throughout the work to be undertaken by the various bodies.  The
contribution of other international organizations should be taken fully into consideration within themandate of each one, in particular UNCTAD, ITC, ITU and WIPO.  The ITC role was extremely
important in view of the need for input from civil society and the non-governmental organizations.
This input should be in a framework of semina rs or workshops financed through extra-budgetary
resources.  The enhancing of the participation of developing countries in electronic commerce should
be effected through the transfer of technology and the improvement of access to infrastructure.Another important issue to bear in mind was the movement of natural persons.
The representative of Argentina said that his delegation fully supported the draft work
programme.  Argentina attached great importance to  the discussion of this matter in the WTO and at
all times had highlighted the need to go into more detail in its study.  In his delegation's view the workprogramme as submitted was satisfactory, and covered many of Argentina's expectations for this first
stage of study.  The objectives of this work had been clearly set out in the Ministerial Declaration in
May 1998, and the purpose of the work programme was not to rewrite that declaration, but rather to
implement the study process that Ministers had agreed upon.  The work programme should be, and
was, flexible.  Overly ambitious objectives for this first stage should be avoided.  The wording ofissues in a neutral way, without prejudging the outcomes of the studies, would enable Members to
tackle each of them from all facets.  He emphasized that this was an illustrative list on issues which,
due to their very nature, did not rule out the consideration of any other issue.  Other issues could be
included or existing ones debated as the analysis proceeded and knowledge of the nature of electronic
commerce expanded.  He emphasized that the analysis of the issues contained in the illustrative list as
well as the inclusion of new issues should be in line with precise criteria which should be exclusively
aspects of electronic commerce connected with trade.  Regarding the definition of electroniccommerce agreed upon for the work programme, this was a first working definition, which should be
adopted without prejudice to the results of future studies or to what was finally adopted as the
definitive definition of electronic commerce.
The representative of Pakistan said that the draft work programme was well balanced and
reflected many of Pakistan's concerns, and his delegation supported its adoption.  However, it was
Pakistan's understanding the Committee on Trade and Development, while examining the financial
implications of electronic commerce, would cover th e entire spectrum of fiscal implications, including
the revenue impact on developing countries.
The representative of Uganda said that his delegation could support the work programme and
expected the various Committees to deal with the developmental aspect in their examination of the
issues related to electronic commerce.  Uganda expected the Committee on Trade and Development to
take into account particular programmes of the least-developed countries, and hoped that the Sub-WT/GC/M/30
Page 43
Committee of the Least-developed Countries would also examine this issue and integrate it into the
programmes for these countries.  The process being undertaken was essentially one of education, at
the end of which Members would know the challenges and opportunities electronic commerce
presented and how existing provisions covered electronic commerce, and would be able to assess
whether there was a need for change.  For the least-developed countries, the essential infrastructure
components required for electronic commerce were the necessary hardware and software as well asaccess to networks.  Trade in digital form on the Internet mixed the traditional roles of goods and
services and could blur the distinction between them.  This presented challenges for cross-border
regulatory provisions and monitoring.  Another important point for developing countries was how to
determine where a transaction had actually taken place. Further, the cost of the infrastructure for
electronic commerce could be an important barrier to export expansion and could make for an unlevel
playing field.  These were some of the issues Uganda hoped could be examined in terms of the
development dimension.
The representative of Israel said that by developing a comprehensive work programme on
electronic commerce the WTO had demonstrated its ability to respond quickly and efficiently to new
challenges facing the international trading community .  Israel attached great importance to this issue.
The representative of Brazil recalled that his delegation had been very active in the informal
discussions that had led to the draft work programme.  Brazil welcomed and supported adoption of the
work programme which would help Members to deal with this complex issue.
The representative of Jamaica recalled that his delegations had made a specific set of
proposals in a written document.  A number of these had been taken into account in the draft work
programme.  He emphasized that in the informal consultations, Jamaica had indicated that Members
should look at all of the activities in all of the WTO bodies.  Jamaica's proposals had referred to the
Information Technology Agreement (ITA), because technology was essential to any efficient global
electronic commerce.  Jamaica had also suggested the plurilateral Agreements should be examined tothe extent that some of them, such as the Agreement on Government Procurement, covered a
significant exchange of services or goods via the Internet.  These elements had not been reflected in
the draft work programme.  However, Jamaica trusted that since the plurilateral Agreements and the
ITA were all integral parts of the WTO, the issues that turned up in those Agreements would not be
overlooked.  He said that the WTO was now a comprehensive trade investment, intellectual property,services organization with a powerful dispute settlement mechanism.  He hoped that in the process of
elaborating on the work programme Members would not lose sight of the fact that this was a process
which might lead to the drafting of rules and thence to disputes which would be subject to the Dispute
Settlement Understanding.
The representative of Colombia said that his delegation had consistently supported adoption
of the text which had become the Ministerial Declaration as well as the work programme under
discussion.  This work programme was well balanced and would allow Members, both in Geneva and
in capitals, to work on a suitable schedule.  His government had worked intensively on this issue and
a draft bill was under review.  It was essential that issues such as development of basic infrastructures
for electronic commerce be duly dealt with.
The General Council took note of the statements and adopted  the Work Programme on
Electronic Commerce in document Job. No. 5099 dated 23 September 1998 with the understanding
that the Chairman had proposed at the outset of the discussion on this item.
__________