RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/W/150
3 March 1999
(99-0817)
General Council Original:  English
PREPARATIONS FOR THE 1999 MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
General Council Special Session - 25 February 1999
Communication from India
The following statement made by India at the Special Session of the General Council on
25 February 1999 is being circulated at the request of that delegation.
_______________
1. At the outset, my delegation would like to wish you all the best in the discharge of your
responsibilities in your new assignment as Chairman of the General Council. We are grateful to you
for the paper you have circulated with regard to organisation of future work and also for your initialremarks. I would also like to associate my delegation with the remarks made earlier by the
Ambassador of Egypt, on the recently held G15 meeting. I would also like to thank Ambassador
Weekes for his statement on the work done in the General Council since the September Special
Session. As Members would recall we had in the September session of the General Council agreed to
hold four inter-sessional informal meetings so as to start the preparatory work entrusted to the General
Council by the Geneva Ministerial Declaration. During the course of these meetings we got an
opportunity to look at the work programme referred to in paragraph 9 of the Geneva Declaration.
2. During these inter-sessional meetings, my delegation had made a number of statements and
had also circulated a number of papers, detailing our position, and putting up specific proposals for
Members’ consideration. Our paper highlighting the concerns that we have regarding the
implementation of provisions relating to differential and more favourable treatment of developing
countries in various WTO Agreements, and the statement that we made in this regard in the OctoberMeeting have been circulated to Members as document nos. WT/GC/W/108 dated 13.11.98 and
WT/GC/W/114 dated 18.11.98 respectively. The statements made by us in the November inter-
sessional meetings on paragraphs 9(a)(ii) and 9(a)(iii), that is on mandated negotiations and the future
work provided for under other existing Agreements were distributed to Members, and will shortly be
circulated as formal documents.  In the third inter-sessional meeting of the General Council, apartfrom our statement relating to the concerns of LDCs, we also submitted two papers on ‘Unilateral
Trade Measures by States’ and on ‘Implementation of the Agreement on Implementation of Article
VII of GATT 1994’. These have since been circulated as document nos. WT/GC/W/123 and
WT/GC/W/124, both dated 16.12.98, respectively. Our views on paragraph 9(b) of the GMD, on the
preparations for the 1999 Ministerial Conference, expressed in the January inter-sessional meeting
have been circulated as document no. WT/GC/W/141 dated 29.1.99. Finally, our proposals on some
key issues relating to intellectual property, again with reference to paragraph 9(b) of the GMD, put
forward in the February inter-sessional meeting, has been circulated as document no. WT/GC/W/147
dated 18.2.99.WT/GC/W/150
Page 2
3. We agree that the inter-sessional meetings held so far have provided an opportunity for all
Members to place their views/concerns/suggestions with regard to the various elements of the work
programme within paragraph 9 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration on the table. However, as stated
by others we also feel that the first phase of work  which we are now in the process of completing, has
been only a preliminary phase and that it is now important to move into a more interactive andproposal driven phase. It is our view that this se cond phase of work would be extremely crucial since
it would provide an opportunity to now table specific proposals and thus enable other Members to
have an idea about the expectations of each Member, with regard to the outcome of the Third
Ministerial Conference. For this it would be important that proposals which are put forward by
Members are totally unambiguous and clearly spell out their intention and objective. However, in
order to ensure that there are no last minute surprises we would like to support those delegations
which have spoken in favour of having an indicative deadline, for submission of proposals byMembers. We also feel that Members should, as far as possible, submit their proposals before the
summer break. Smaller delegations with limited resources, would not be able to appropriately
respond, if proposals continue to be made up to the eleventh hour.
4. We have had a look at your proposal regarding the structure and focus of the future work. My
delegation feels that the mix of formal and informal meetings, which we adopted for the first phase ofwork, was conducive to generating proposals and stimulating discussions on the various issues, and
hence we favour a continuation of this approach. However, we would like the current practice of
statements/proposals made during informal meeting being circulated as official documents at the
request of the concerned delegation, to continue. We do however have one concern on the tentative
schedule of meetings suggested by you. We feel that it would be very difficult for delegations likemine to devote 4 full days each month to this work, specially since the work in the other bodies of the
WTO is expected to go on as usual. We had specifically stated in the informal meeting of the General
Council held on 12.2.99 that while we are not averse to the scheduling of one formal and one informal
meeting each month, we would like these meetings to be restricted to a total of 2 working days each
month. Needless to say, if at some stage of the second phase, Members were to feel that based on thenumber of proposals put forward, additional time was needed, we would be willing to consider
increasing the pace of work at that stage. We would th erefore like to suggest that at least in the initial
part of this phase of work, the formal and informal meetings should be restricted to one day each.
5. Coming now to the structure of the work, we agree that the work should be structured around
paragraph 9 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration. As Members are aware, this is the approach that
we adopted during the first round of inter-sessi onal meetings. We would however like to join Egypt
and some other delegations who have stressed the importance of separately devoting time toparagraph 8 of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration.  We also feel that this is an extremely important
issue which needs to be addressed appropriately.  Further, as stated by us earlier, we feel that
paragraph 9 has an in-built hierarchy and prioritisation of issue. Our Ministers, when they met in
Geneva, clearly recognised the need of a priori addressing implementational issues. This is the reason
that the first sub paragraph of paragraph 9 was devoted to the recommendations relating to theimplementation of existing Agreements and Decision s.  In fact, my delegation strongly feels that
implementational concerns in the S&D area should be taken up on a stand-alone basis and addressed
across the board, so as to cover all Agreements.
6. Members would recall that my delegation, before the GMC, during the GMC, and
subsequently in the current preparatory process, has repeatedly highlighted the implementationalconcerns and problems of countries like mine so that we may able to create an image of the WTO as
not merely an organization negotiating commitments in more and more areas, but also as an
organization which is sensitive to the concerns of developing countries with regard to implementation
of commitments already undertaken. We have repeatedly explained that implementational concerns
and problems can be divided into two broad categories. Under the first category we can include theproblems being actually experienced while implementing some of the Agreements. These problemsWT/GC/W/150
Page 3
were not foreseen while negotiating and signing the concerned Agreements. The second category of
problems  and concerns arise out of non-realization by developing countries by and large, of benefits
expected to accrue from some of the Agreements. It is a matter of regret to us that in spite of repeated
explanations given by us as to what we perceive as implementation concerns, some delegations have
chosen to ignore our explanation and in some cases have even tried to misrepresent our explanation.Some of our trading partners, while seeming to  agree with the importance of looking at the
implementation issues, have tended to argue that the only subject for consideration is whether all the
Agreements are being implemented fully and have hinted that even in those cases where developing
countries have transition periods to implement some of the Agreements, these countries (that is
developing countries) should explain to their developed country partners the steps taken by them to
implement their commitments on the due date. We are afraid this is not what we mean by
implementational concerns and problems. Some other trading partners are trying to suggest that byhighlighting implementational issues and concerns we are trying to unravel the Agreements and
thereby are trying to upset the balance of rights and obligations contained in the UR Agreements. We
have repeatedly pointed out that what we are seeking is merely the removal of the asymmetries and
distortions in the Agreements by providing meaning and content to the S&D provisions and
achievement of the objectives set out in the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement. We would alsolike to point out that it is inappropriate to dismiss implementational issues and concerns as a matter
for technical assistance. We have repeatedly highlighted the fact that the concerns raised by us cannot
be solved by simply organizing seminars and training classes. There are some who seem to argue that
“implementation” and “development” are sought to be made synonymous by us. In response I can
only say that if the WTO Agreements do not contribute to the development of the less fortunateMembers, these Agreements are irrelevant for them. We find that there are subtle attempts to link
implementation to issues like policy environment, good governance etc. However, these attempts
cannot succeed in masking the real issues. On this subject I would like to make a final point. After all,
the WTO is a highly visible organisation and almost all the governments are run by elected
representatives. My system will not be able to appreciate the argument being given by some of ourtrading partners that it is almost a blasphemy if, in terms of the GMD, we place our concerns on
implementation before this body in an absolute ly transparent fashion, seeking a consensus based
solution, while on the other hand it is a holy act on the part of a developed country Member to impose
a 1000% tariff on the import of an agricultural product on the ground that such a course of action does
not violate any provision of any Agreement.
7. Similarly, when developed countries continue to provide domestic support to certain sectors
much above the de-minimus value prescribed for deve loping countries, we are told that it is entirely
legal and within the four corners of the concerned Agreements. On the other hand, when developing
countries complain that there are certain asymmetries and imbalances in some of the Agreements, for
instance as in TRIMs, the provisions of which have not permitted developing countries to take steps to
foster domestic industrial growth, or the provisions of TRIPS which have not led to the expected
transfer of technology, then developing countries are told that they are trying to unravel alreadynegotiated Agreements. This is extremely unfortunate, and let me be candid in stating that if
implementational issues are not addressed, then developing countries would feel extremely
apprehensive and reluctant in taking on new commitments.
8. We have often heard Members state that the UR outcome provides a correct balance of rights
and obligations and that any endeavour to change certain provisions of the Agreements, whether toaddress implementational concerns or otherwise, would disturb the internal balance of these rights and
obligations. Let me state that my delegation believes that the negotiations already mandated within the
Agreements are also very much a part of this internal balance of rights and obligations. Thus we find
it surprising and unacceptable when certain delegations state that in order for them to constructively
engage in negotiations relating to liberalisation of the agricultural sector, a mandated area ofnegotiations, they must get satisfaction, or a quid pro accrual of benefits in new areas like industrial
tariffs, investment etc.  Negotiations in agriculture and services are already mandated and a part of theWT/GC/W/150
Page 4
overall balance. Thus there is no justification whatsoever of asking Members to accept new areas for
negotiations in order to enable Members with strong agricultural protectionist policies to engage
themselves in the mandated negotiations in Agriculture.
9. Members would recall that some developing c ountries, including India, showed enormous
flexibility in agreeing at Singapore to launch a study programme on certain new subjects like tradeand investment, trade and competition policy, trade facilitation, and transparency in government
procurement.  The Ministerial Declaration very cl early indicates the contours and understanding on
the basis of which the study programme is to be undertaken.  We have been participating
constructively in studying these issues.  Any effort to prematurely bring these issues to the negotiating
mode without enabling developing countries to fu lly understand all the implications involved would
be tantamount to going back on a commitment given through a Ministerial Declaration.
10. While on this issue, let me also state that the only agreed agenda items as far as the next
Ministerial Conference is concerned are those which have been included in paragraphs 9 (a) and 9(c)
of the GMD, that is to say implementational issues, mandated reviews and negotiations and future
work already provided for under other existing Agreements and Decisions taken at Marrakesh as well
as the follow-up to the High Level Meeting on LDCs. All other issues have to be considered by the
Members and their inclusion in the next round of negotiations would depend on whether consensusdevelops on these issues. Hence, we would like to reiterate our position that we are only committed to
paragraphs 9(a) and 9(c) issues as far as the next Ministerial Conference is concerned.
11. We have seen some concern expressed by some Members about the ability of developing
countries to participate effectively in the dispute settlement system.  It is obvious that almost all the
developing countries have been mostly at the receiving end.  We feel prevention is better than cure.We suggest that developing countries should be he lped in the following two ways, so that they can
avoid, by and large, disputes being raised against them.
(a) Developing countries should not be coerced or seduced into accepting commitments
which, it is obvious, they cannot fulfil in their current state of development.
(b) When Agreements are negotiated and drafted, developed countries should not hide
their real intentions by resorting to constructive ambiguity.  If the Agreements are
written in clear and simple language, then the scope for disputes would be
significantly reduced.
12. We have in this context heard a number of Members talk of a comprehensive round of
negotiations. One of the reasons which is invariably adduced for such a comprehensive round is that
the more the issues and sectors which could be put into this basket, the better would be the balance of
rights and obligations that developing countries would be able to achieve. This is a logic which weneither understand nor are willing to accept. Firstly, it is worth noting that developing countries, who
it is stated would benefit most from the round being made comprehensive, were not responsible for
bringing in 9 (b) or 9(d) issues, at least initially, though some of them might have subsequently agreed
to some of the subjects. It is the developed countries which have by and large made all the suggestions
for the inclusion of additional issues and sectors. Secondly, if simply having a large number of issueson the negotiating table was to be beneficial to developing countries, then the Uruguay Round should
have by now provided the maximum trade benefits to developing countries.  These are benefits that
we have at least not perceived or received. This has obviously not happened and in fact developing
countries see a large number of the UR Agreements as being tilted against them. In our view, these
are points which need to be closely reflected upon, before giving the argument that a larger round byits very definition and scope would benefit developing countries.
__________