RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/36
30 March 1999
(99-1254)
General Council
1 March 1999∗
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 1 March 1999*
Chairman:  Mr. Ali Mchumo (Tanzania)
1. Appointment of the next Director-General
The Chairman made a statement1 outlining how he intended to continue the process of
selection of the next Director-General.  He would take full charge of the consultations leading to the
appointment of the new Director General, and would ask Mr. Rossier to continue as a facilitator and
to work with him as a team.  He would also ask Mr . Rossier to make a report on the last part of the
previous phase of the consultations.  The consultations in the coming phase would involve more
interaction among Members and between Members and candidates in order to build a consensus.  He
and Mr. Rossier would report to the Council as fully and as frequently as feasible.  The aim would be
to resolve this matter not later than the end of March.
The General Council took note of the statement and agreed  to the proposal contained therein.
Mr. Rossier made a report2 on the information conveyed to him since his report on
20 January 1999.
The representative of Egypt said that Mr. Rossier's report provided information on a greater
number of delegations' positions, and that the first preference indicated should command greater
attention.  Seventy-four delegations had indicated a candidate from a developing country as their first
choice.  One could not equate a minority with a majority. The candidates should draw conclusionsfrom Mr. Rossier's report.  Consensus should be sought within a timeframe and not indefinitely.  If no
consensus was reached within an established deadline, which should be 31 March, there would have
to be a vote, in order to avoid a crisis of leadership.
The representative of the United States said it was clear from Mr. Rossier's report that an
approach had to be found that would move Members cl oser to their goal of consensus on the selection
of the next Director-General.  First preferences were only indications at a given time, and there was
much more to be taken into consideration.  There were elements in Mr. Rossier's report that would
enable the Chairman to explore with Members where there was flexibility and where they would be
willing to move to build a consensus.  The Chairman would then be able to assess how to move
forward and how Members might interact with each other to choose the next Director-General.  Her
delegation gave its full support to this effort.
                                                     
∗ This meeting of the General Council was adjourned.  Subsequent discussions will be reflected in
Addenda to this document.
1 The statement was circulated in WT/GC/17.
2 The report was circulated in WT/GC/18.WT/GC/M/36
Page 2
The representative of Mexico, on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries, said
that the most recent deadlines and target dates established in the process of selecting the next
Director-General had passed.  A new target date had to be set, and that date should be 12 March.  The
new Director-General should have sufficient time to prepare for his new function.  The change in the
chairmanship of the General Council enabled a re turn to the normal selection procedures for a
Director-General in accordance with the proced ures established on 26 November 1986 (BISD33S/55).
Between the present date and 12 March, the Chairman and Mr. Rossier should inform Members of
any significant developments, either positive or negative, which would have an impact on the
selection process, so that Members could react.  One was approaching a crisis situation where there
would be neither a Director-General  nor any Deputy Directors-General.  Therefore there should be a
meeting of the General Council on or around 12 March to take stock of the situation.  The timeframes
set had to be respected, and in this regard he noted that Mr. Rossier's report was to have been ondevelopments through 12 February and not 1 March.  It  was a matter of concern that, according to Mr.
Rossier's report, some Members had indicated they would not be prepared to join automatically in a
consensus.  All Members had to bear in mind the clear understanding that all four candidates were
viable;  without this understanding, it would be impossible to reach a consensus.
The Chairman said that it had been thought to be of practical value to have Mr. Rossier report
on developments up to the present, since Members had wanted to know the current state of play.
Mr. Rossier said that one should not draw worrying conclusions from the fact that some
Members had said they wanted to be consulted further should a consensus be building on a candidate
other than their first or second preference.  This was merely the status of the consultations at the
present time, and he and the Chairman would have to find out what lay behind this reservation and
what the scope of Members' concern was.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation too had understood that Mr. Rossier's
report would be on developments through 12 February.  He welcomed the update but wondered
whether any significant changes had taken place between 12 February and 1 March.  In this next and
more interactive phase of  the process, several principles should be respected.  The first was urgency
in achieving a consensus, and the deadline should be 12 March.  Time was running out.  He supported
Egypt's view that in the absence of consensus by the end of March there would have to be a vote.  The
second principle was transparency.  It had been reported that some positions had changed and that
some Members had not been able to state their posit ion.  It would be useful to know how many and
whether any indication had been given of when their position would be stated, as this was relevant to
the emergence of a consensus by the deadline.  The third and most important principle was
democracy.  The most important question posed was what a Member's first preference was.  On the
basis of that question, the information provided to  date indicated that two candidates, each from a
developing country, enjoyed wide support.  Between  the two of them they had received three-fourths
of the support of the membership responding.  It remained Pakistan's understanding that the
endeavour would be to promote a consensus around one of the two leading candidates.  The fourth
principle was that of responsibility, which in the present context meant that the minority would seek
to adjust its position to that of the majority, and that the weaker of the candidates would reconsider
their candidacies and contribute to the emergence of a consensus.  It also meant that no Memberwould block the emergence of consensus around one of the four candidates, and that all Members
would remember the understanding at the time of the selection of the current Director-General, which
was that the next time would be the turn of the developing countries.  It was hoped that on the basis of
these principles, the Chairman would be able to evolve consensus on one of the two leading
candidates in this process.
The representative of Jamaica asked how the forthcoming consultations would be different
from the previous ones, and how the dynamic interaction among Members and between Members and
candidates would take place.  Whatever approach the Chairman chose, there should be uniform
questions and uniform responses so as to avoid a sk ewed result.  The appointment should be made byWT/GC/M/36
Page 3
consensus on one of the four candidates and not later than end-March.  He asked what was meant in
Mr. Rossier's report by "intra-group" consultations.  The WTO had yet to define a clear set of
procedures for the appointment of its Director-General, and Jamaica had not subscribed to the process
currently underway.  The General Council had approved the establishment of a Secretariat
independent of the UN Common System with separate rules, regulations and pension fund.  Likewise,it should ensure that the appointment of its highest officer was based on accountable rules and
procedures that were clear, transparent, democratic and predictable.  The terms of the three remaining
Deputy Directors-General would expire at the same time as that of the Director-General.
Compounding the difficulties, the date of the Third Ministerial meeting and the continuation of
substantial negotiations in agriculture and services was fast approaching.  He urged Members to
interact in a way that would allow the selection of the Director-General to be made as soon as
possible.
The Chairman said that the questions put in the next consultations would have to be those
which would lead to consensus.  By dynamic process, he meant that there should be horizontal
interaction among Members.  Regarding the lack of clear rules on the appointment of the Director-
General, this could be discussed in future, but the immediate problem was how to deal with thecurrent situation.
The representative of Malaysia, on behalf of the ASEAN Members, said that the update report
should enable Members to move to the final phase of the process.  Future undertakings should be
aimed at producing a conclusion based on transparency, democracy and consensus.  The candidatesshould re-evaluate their candidacies and the field should be narrowed.  To this end, each candidate
should be informed of his respective standing by the facilitator or the Chairman.  The ASEAN
Members had confidence in the Chairman's ability to generate a consensus around a leading candidate
through his active contacts with Members, so that the process could be brought to a timely conclusion
within the coming weeks.
The representative of Venezuela said that it was crucial to appoint a new Director-General
before the end of March, particularly as the year would culminate in a Ministerial conference.  Several
delegations had mentioned democracy, but in the present situation consensus was a higher stage of
democracy.  Consensus would make it possible to obtain legitimacy, which was essential to the
candidate chosen.  According to Mr. Rossier's report, 79 Members did not support the candidate with
the highest number of points.  More sophistication should be brought into the type of questions askedso as to elicit a general idea of the hopes and expectations of Members and thus to indicate who would
be the consensus candidate.
The representative of Japan said it was important to maintain momentum in the process and to
conclude it by end-March.  Regarding Mr. Rossier's updated figures, he said that while figures for the
second preference were useful in judging broad support, they should not be given the same weight as
those for the first preference.  Interaction between the Members and the candidates and between the
facilitators and the candidates was very important, and the candidates should be objective and
contribute to the consensus-building process.
The representative of Australia said that after four months of consultations, Members had
failed in the first phase because it had ended as it had begun, i.e. with four candidates.   He agreed
with Japan that it was time for the candidates to think about the system.  Time was running out.  His
delegation called upon the Chairman to help narrow the field.  Whichever way one looked at the
numbers, there was at least one candidate who clearly enjoyed strong support and there were clearlycandidates who enjoyed very little support.  The only way forward was to do work at both ends – to
try to build consensus around the candidate who after four months still commanded strong support,
and to encourage the candidates to put the interests of the system ahead of other considerations.WT/GC/M/36
Page 4
The representative of Argentina said that the information in Mr. Rossier's report indicated
certain trends as to Members' preferences.  However, the figures were not definitive.  He reiterated his
delegation's confidence in the Chairman, who should have a broad and flexible mandate to proceed as
he saw fit.  It would be useful to have a progress report before the end of March.
The Chairman clarified that he had not said he would convene a General Council meeting on
31 March but that it was his intention to complete the process by the end of  March.  He reiterated that
he would convey any significant development,  positive or negative, as soon as possible.
The representative of the European Communities said that the way ahead would be difficult
because the figures given by Mr. Rossier did not necessarily show that there was a candidate well
ahead of all the others, but that if one took the mean around the 118 Members who had expressed aview, every candidate was within nine votes of the mean, which in mathematical terms was a fairly
level dispersion.  In addition, it was known that there were wide divergences of views within the
Informal Group of Developing Countries, and that there was strong support in various regions for
various candidates.  Further, among the major trading countries, each supported a different candidate.
This indicated a serious need to consider how to proceed, because it was clear that progress was notbeing made in narrowing the differences.  The Community supported the Chairman in any approach
he chose.  However, a difficult situation was getting more difficult, and time was running out.
The representative of Egypt supported the statement by Mexico and said again that if
consensus was not reached by a set deadline there would have to be a vote.  Those who had not
expressed a preference should not hold the process hostage.  Any consensus that emerged should be
on the basis of the highest scores.  The process should not be left to Members horizontally.  The
Chairman had a role to play as a catalyst and should keep the Members informed of developments.
The representative of Turkey said that the figures reported could be interpreted in many
different ways.  For example, ten per cent of the membership had not expressed their preferences.
Further, not all those responding had answered all th e questions, and this had skewed the results.  The
point was that this path would lead nowhere.  In vi ew of the fact that as many as one-third of the
Members might shift their positions in the weeks to come, his delegation renewed its faith in the
Chairman to find a consensus.
The representative of Pakistan said that Members should be clear that they were proceeding
on a commonly understood basis, so that there would be no surprises or frustrations at a later stage.
Democracy meant respect for the wishes of the major ity.  The minority had to adjust to the majority if
democracy was to be respected.  The point was that there were four candidates with different degrees
of support.  Pakistan hoped that the Chairman would be able to persuade some of the weaker
candidates to stand down, but if that did not produce results, how would one proceed?  There had tobe agreement that if consensus did not work, the organization would not be allowed to descend into
crisis by failing to select a new Director-General, and that if no consensus was reached by end-March
the General Council would be obliged to resort to the rules of procedure.  Such a decision would assist
Members in achieving consensus.  Fluidity in positions should be expected of all countries alike -
large and small, developed and developing.  If the Chairman's consultations did not lead to aconsensus, it might be relevant to ask each Memb er whether it could support each candidate, as this
would help to determine the degree of support that could be achieved around each candidate.
The representative of Uruguay joined in the statement by Argentina.  Members and
candidates should draw conclusions from the update report.  It was the Chairman's task to build a
consensus around the candidate who was most acceptable to all.  Uruguay fully supported the
Chairman in whatever way he saw fit to proceed, and hoped that the list of candidates could be
shortened.WT/GC/M/36
Page 5
Many delegations expressed their confidence in and support for the Chairman's efforts and for
Mr. Rossier's participation as facilitator.
The Chairman said that he would take into account all of the points made.  He then described
how he intended to proceed3.  The next consultations would be intensely focussed on building the
necessary consensus around the most acceptable candidate. Mr. Rossier's report would provide a basis
for candidates and Members to further reflect on their positions and to draw the necessary
conclusions.  From this point forward there would have to be more dynamic interactions among
Members and between Members and candidates so as to bring about new situations which would lead
to consensus.  He and Mr. Rossier would endeavour to forge such consensus on the basis of a
combination of objective factors, the most important of which were the following:  (a) the strength of
support in terms of first and second preferences for the candidates as indicated in the previous phaseof consultations and as this evolved in the process of further consultations;  (b) the extent to which a
candidate enjoyed the least opposition, or what might be called the extent of "tolerance" enjoyed;  and
(c) the extent of the geographical spread of a candidate's support.  None of the above factors alone
would bring the consensus sought, which had to be a judicious combination of all of these elements.
The consultative process of this new phase had to firmly establish the tradition that for the election ofthe Director-General of the WTO, there would be no recourse to a vote or to a veto.  It was the
Members who would bring about that consensus.  He and Mr. Rossier were merely facilitators of the
process.  They would expect Members to come to them for information, and they might need to call
on Members for further clarifications in order to arrive at a consensus.  They would be available every
day from 2 March through 5 March to receive information from delegations, and would report to theGeneral Council as frequently as feasible should there be significant developments, be they positive or
negative.  He asked Members to take into account the common desire to finish this matter as soon as
possible, and in any event before the end of March, and proposed that the meeting be adjourned.
The General Council took note of the statements and of the report by Mr. Rossier, and
adjourned.
__________
                                                     
3 The Chairman's concluding remarks were circulated in WT/GC/19.