RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/40/Add.2
31 May 1999
(99-2192)
General Council
26 May 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 26 May 19991
Chairman:  Mr. Ali Mchumo (Tanzania)
1. Appointment of the next Director-General
The Chairman made a statement2 in which he recalled that the present meeting of the General
Council was a resumption of the meeting that had started on 14 April and had been adjourned and
reconvened several times, most recently on 6 May.  The purpose of these meetings was to consider the
appointment of the next Director-General.  Since the meeting on 6 May, he had been consulting
intensively with delegations, and he wished to repo rt on those consultations and to hear any views of
delegations.  His consultations had been helpful, particularly regarding possible ways to bridge the
gap between the supporters of Mr. Supachai and those of Mr. Moore.  There had been powerful
support for the view that the solution should be found within the parameters of the existing process,
i.e. that the appointment should be made from am ong the existing candidates.  No delegation had said
that the process opened in July 1998 had to be regarded as exhausted and that a new process should be
opened.  It would be a serious and unfortunate development if Members were forced to admit that the
process set up in July 1998 had failed, and he was not prepared to assume the responsibility for such a
decision as long as he believed there was any chance of reaching agreement within the current
process.  He believed there was such a chance.  Since there had been no objection on grounds ofpersonal merit to either of the candidates, it should be possible to reach agreement on his proposal.
However, he could not impose agreement.  Members were engaged in a common endeavour, and the
difficulty of the choice to be made should not be allowed to damage the spirit of tolerance and
cooperation in the organization that would be greatly needed in the negotiations to be launched later
in 1999.  Regarding developments, he said there had been an increase in the number of countries thathad intimated that they supported his proposal.  Regarding Kenya's proposal, he recalled that he had
said the proposal was on the table and had been extensively discussed.  Delegations had been and
were free to comment on that proposal.  However, he had understood, both from consultations and
from the General Council's meetings, that there were objections to the proposal.
The representative of Japan, speaking on a point of order, noted that the Chairman had stated
that Kenya's proposal was on the table, which his delegation took to mean that delegations were free
to comment on the substance of that proposal.
Most of the delegations who spoke thanked th e Chairman for convening the meeting and for
his progress report.
                                                     
1 This meeting is the continuation of the meeting that was adjourned on 14 April 1999 and reconvened
on 30 April and 1, 4 and 6 May.  The minutes of those resumed meetings are contained in WT/GC/M/40/Add.1.
2 The statement was subsequently circul ated to delegations in Job No.3029.WT/GC/M/40/Add.2
Page 2
The representative of Belize supported the Chairman's proposal and suggested that this matter
be concluded as soon as possible.
The representative of Costa Rica said that the Chairman had carried out this selection process
in a just manner and in strict accordance with th e rules agreed in July 1998, and that he should
continue his efforts until consensus was reached.  His delegation continued to support the Chairman's
proposal.
The representative of Mexico said that his delegation concurred in what the Chairman had
said that the present meeting was a continuation of the General Council meeting of 14 April that had
been resumed most recently on 6 May.  As such, the General Council should continue to consider
Kenya's proposal.  It was not correct, as some delegations had said, that the proposal was notacceptable on procedural grounds.  He noted that some delegations, including Mexico, had said that
the Chairman's recommendation did not have the nature of a proposal in accordance with the General
Council's rules of procedure, and his delegation wished to look into this.  There were also differences
regarding the specific procedures that had been agreed regarding the selection process.  His delegation
was ready to discuss all of these issues.  However, a clear deadline should be set for deciding whetherthere was consensus on any of the existing candidates.  Members – and public opinion – could not
remain in total uncertainty on this matter.  In the deliberations on this matter there should be equal
opportunity for the existing candidates, so that the process itself did not give an advantage to one or
the other that was not foreseen or agreed in the rules of procedure.
The representative of Malaysia, on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, said that the basic
responsibility of the Chairman was to facilitate consensus.  The Chairman was the manager of this
selection process and the membership remained the owner of the process.  In the Minutes of the
July 1998 General Council meeting (WT/GC/M/29), the Chairman had clearly stated that:  "[t]he
selection of the next Director-General was the responsibility of the Members.  It was not a task whichcould be delegated to a Chair or a group of persons.  It was important that Members not confuse the
management of the process with the responsibility to select and appoint the next Director-General."
Under Article VI:2 of the WTO Agreement, it was the Ministerial Conference that had the power to
appoint the Director-General.  Such power could al so be exercised by the General Council by virtue
of Article IV:2  of the WTO Agreement.  There had been no delegation of power to any other WTO
bodies or to the Chairman.  On 30 April the Chairman had submitted his recommendation to the
General Council that Mr. Moore be appointed Director-General.  Accordingly the consultationprocess under the July 1998 procedures had been terminated.  The ASEAN Members had made a
formal objection to that recommendation in accordance with Article IX:1, and reiterated that objection
at the present meeting.  Therefore, under the applicable rules it was conclusive there was no
consensus on the Chairman's recommendation.  Fo llowing the failure to achieve a consensus on
Mr. Moore, Kenya had made a formal proposal in accordance with Rule 28 of the General Council'srules of procedure, in an attempt to establish a consensus on the name of Mr. Supachai.  Under that
rule the General Council was obliged to formally consider the substance of that proposal.  In light of
this, all reasonable efforts had to be exhausted to arrive at a consensus decision before decision by
other means could be contemplated.  Established practice had always been to assess whether there
was consensus on any of the proposals related to the matter at issue.  Thus, in conformity withArticle IX:1 and with established practice, and in view of the absence of consensus on the Chairman's
recommendation, every reasonable effort had to be exhausted to build consensus on Kenya's proposal.
The representative of India said that his delegation's views were broadly similar to those of
Mexico and Malaysia.  The Chairman had said that there were no objections on the grounds of
personal merit of either of the two candidates, and that it should be possible to reach consensus on the
Chairman's proposal.  If that were true, a consensus might have been reached on Mr. Supachai well
before 30 April, based on the figures that had been given up to that date, and it should be possible
now to reach consensus on either of the two candidates.  Kenya had made a proposal that hisWT/GC/M/40/Add.2
Page 3
delegation had supported and, as the Chairman had said, that proposal was still on the table.  India
wished to see a more substantive discussion on that proposal at the present meeting, in order to be
able to know whether a consensus was possible on Mr. Supachai.  India's views on the procedural
issues involved in this matter were on the record.  In the name of equity and fairness, Kenya's
proposal should be considered.
The representative of Uruguay said that his delegation was encouraged that in the course of
the Chairman's recent consultations there was strong support for finding a solution within the
parameters of the existing process, which meant that the process had not been concluded, that the
rules agreed by consensus for this process were still valid, and that Members were now considering
the results of that process, i.e. the Chairman's proposal.  Uruguay's position from the outset had not
changed – Mr. Moore was the candidate best able to lead the organization.  As the Chairman had said,there were no objections on the grounds of personal merit to either of the candidates and it should
therefore be possible to reach consensus on his proposal.  That proposal had not been considered
substantively.  A formal objection had been made by Malaysia on behalf of the ASEAN Members but
had not been justified.  Without reasons being given for that objection, Uruguay could only assume it
was based on that Member's candidate not having been chosen.  Any selection process involvingseveral candidates for one post had to be predicated  on the assumption that all the candidates would
accept the results obtained.  The ASEAN Members' objection was therefore not admissible.  All other
delegations who had not supported the Chairman's proposal had referred exclusively to the process
and not to the substance of that proposal.  The Chairman had also said that there had been an increase
in the number of delegations supporting his proposal, which indicated that consensus was slowlyevolving around it.  There was only one method of decision-making in the WTO, which was
consensus.  The information provided by the Chairman at the present meeting showed that consensus
was generating around his proposal, and that was the direction that should be followed.  There had
been a broad-ranging discussion on Kenya's proposal in  which it had been clear that that proposal was
not acceptable.  It was not receivable because it did not fit into the process that had been agreed.  Inaddition, issues of principle and fairness had been raised.  For all these reasons, it was clear that
Kenya's proposal – which had been amply discusse d – had no possibility of achieving a consensus.
The representative of Zimbabwe said that there was no basis for consensus on the Chairman's
proposal, despite the Chairman's efforts to that end.  He reiterated that his delegation took umbrage
when certain delegations said that they would never accept the provisions of the WTO Agreement to
proceed to a vote in the absence of consensus.  The WTO was supposed to be a rules-basedmultilateral trading system.  The consensual approach had served some countries well, but it had
served others ill, among them the poor countries in economic decline and being marginalized in the
WTO.  These countries, especially the less developed country Members – the majority of which were
in Africa – had not realized the promises of Marrakesh.  Members who did not support the Chairman's
proposal should not be seen to be disrespectful of the institution of the Chair.  The General Councilhad to accept that there was no consensus on the Chairman's proposal.  Kenya's proposal provided an
option, and the General Council should consider it.  It was possible that under that proposal, Members
might find they could accept a candidate from a developing country.  The worst result that might
ensue was another deadlock.  Those who rigidly elevated consensus to the level of global ethic should
indicate an alternative to voting when there was no  consensus.  The multilateral trading system was
facing a crisis, and each day of delay in choosing a Director-General enlarged the dimension of that
crisis and further polluted the environment for reach ing agreement.  For the small and weak countries,
this development was ominous.  The inability of Me mbers to choose a Director-General using clearly
established rules bode ill for the negotiations at the Seattle Ministerial Conference, where Members'
self-interests would be at stake.
The representative of New Zealand said that issues had been raised again that touched on
fundamental questions of fairness of treatment and the maintenance of respect, both for the
candidature of Mr. Moore and for the agreed processes and rules of the organization.  His delegation'sWT/GC/M/40/Add.2
Page 4
statements at both the 30 April and 6 May meetings of the General Council remained valid.  At the
30 April meeting the Chairman, consistent with his mandate and the rules of the organization, had
made a recommendation for consensus appointment of the new Director-General.  Many Members
had accepted this recommendation as being the product of a prior agreed process based on six months
of intensive consultations.  However, others had sought to delay the next natural step by theChairman, which was to seek – through further intensive consultations – to establish a consensus
around his recommendation.  Some had suggested bypassing the consensus approach and holding a
vote.  However, on 30 April more than 40 Members had rejected the voting option and had called for
the Chairman's recommendation to be pursued, st ating that any other approach would improperly
change the rules of the game and contradict earlier comments on the concept of no vote, no veto.  The
subsequent discussion on 6 May had run counter to the idea of giving the Chairman the opportunity to
pursue his proposal, before he had even started consultations on his approach, and there had been aneffort to shift the focus to a different proposal.  There had been procedural, legal and substantive
comments on this from many delegations.  Leaving aside the candidate countries, it was notable that,
while some delegations had suggested focusing on another proposal, the great majority had supported
active pursuit by the Chairman of his proposal.  It was surprising that some delegations at the present
meeting wanted to have a replay of the 6 May discussion and to explore other tracks, when theobvious track still to pursue was the Chairman's consensus recommendation, which had yet to have a
full run.  While time had elapsed since 6 May,  there had in fact been only a few days for proper
intensive informal consultations on the Chairman's proposal.  That work should go on.  Members
should recall the process agreed upon and honour that process, in the name of all four candidates who
had been subject to its rules.  New Zealand would maintain what it considered to be the only properpolicy,  which was to support the Chair and the agreed WTO process, and appealed to other Members
to take the same approach.  To allow agreed procedures to be cast aside would seriously undermine
trust and confidence in the system of decision-making in the organization.  It would be doubly
surprising to take such steps when the Chairman's proposal – according to the progress report at the
present meeting – had gained added momentum.
The representative of Lesotho, also on behalf of Botswana, Mozambique and Swaziland
, said
that until such time as the General Council unanimously agreed that there could be no consensus on
the Chairman's proposal, these delegations could not consider any alternatives to that proposal.  That
time had not come.  They reaffirmed their support for the agreed process and its results and urged all
delegations to work towards consensus on it.
The representative of the Czech Republic recalled his delegation's statement at the General
Council meeting on 6 May (WT/GC/M/40/Add.1).
The representative of Haiti said that certain delegations seemed to want to minimize the
objections of others to the Chairman's proposal.  He reiterated his delegation's support for the
Chairman.  However, this process of selection of th e next Director-General threatened to destroy both
the Chairman's credibility and the organization.  During the past weeks there had been a series of
manipulations and manoeuvres by some Members that violated the principle of transparency.  For
example, on 14 April the Chairman had not proposed the then-leading candidate as the consensus
candidate.  Rather, there had been a call for a suspension so that there could be further manoeuvres.Then on 30 April the New Zealand candidate had suddenly taken the lead, but there had been no
consensus on his candidacy.  There had then been further delays, misinformation and machinations,
that undermined the credibility of the Chairman and of the WTO.  Haiti urged the Chairman that in
the spirit of equity, Kenya's proposal be considered as being as valid as the Chairman's proposal, and
that the Chairman urge Members to give Mr. Supachai's candidacy the same treatment as that ofMr. Moore's.
The representative of Uganda said that there had been a formal objection to the Chairman's
proposal and that the Chairman could not impose agreement.  This reality had to be faced.  AccordingWT/GC/M/40/Add.2
Page 5
to some delegations, the Chairman's recommendations were a kind of edict, and if delegations did not
agree to that edict they were seen as not respecting the Chair.  The Chairman had made a courageous
decision to make a recommendation, but there was no consensus on it.  Kenya had usefully proposed
that it was time to explore the alternatives.  Since there was no objection on grounds of personal merit
to either of the candidates, there could be no prob lem exploring the candidacy of Mr. Supachai.  His
delegation supported Kenya's proposal.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation took the Chairman's opening
statement as a progress report.  Regarding the indication in that report that there had been an increase
in the number of delegations who had intimated that they supported the Chairman's proposal, a
number of those would tend to support that proposal for institutional reasons, and that the phenomena
would have applied equally had the Chairman's recommendation been in favour of another candidate.Also in that report, the Chairman had referred to objections to Kenya's proposal but not to objections
to his own proposal.  First, he recalled that the objections to the Chairman's proposal had been both
procedural and substantive, and had emanated from delegations beyond the ASEAN Members.
Second, the objections to Kenya's proposal had been  purely procedural, and any further objections to
substantive discussion of Kenya's proposal should be overruled by the Chairman.  Third, regarding theChairman's statement that no one regarded the process begun in July 1998 as having been exhausted,
it was clear that Members were in a different phase of the process, since the Chairman had made his
recommendation a month earlier and objections had continually been raised to it.
The representative of Romania reiterated that Members should respect the process engaged in
since July 1998.  His delegation maintained its support for the Chairman's proposal and was
encouraged to hear that support for that proposal had increased.  This course should be followed.
The representative of Nigeria supported the statements by Uruguay and Lesotho.  He
reiterated his delegation's support for the agreed selection process, and supported the Chairman's
proposal which was a result of that process.  Nige ria was encouraged that support for that proposal
had grown since 30 April, and urged Members to try to reach consensus on it and to conclude this
matter.  Kenya's proposal was not as far-reaching as the Chairman's proposal and had not been the
result of the process agreed to.  Therefore, it was inappropriate, and the General Council should
remain focused on the Chairman's proposal.
The representative of Kenya said that in his delegation's view, progress was being made.
Kenya had tabled a proposal after realising that the Chairman's recommendation was not garnering the
necessary consensus.  Despite repeated appeals by numerous delegations, the substance of Kenya's
proposal had not yet been considered by the General Council.  While some delegations had voiced
procedural objections, they had not disagreed with  the content of the proposal, which was to build
consensus on Mr. Supachai.  He recalled that no Member had ever formally objected to Mr. Supachaias the next Director-General.  He reiterated his delegation's earlier request that Kenya's proposal be
given a fair hearing in accordance with the rules of procedure of the General Council.  Members could
then draw conclusions and decide how to proceed.  This matter had been under consideration for some
time, and a time-frame should be set for its conclusion.  If consensus on either of the two candidates
was not possible using the current process, Members should look for other means of resolving thislong-standing matter.  His delegation could support the holding of a straw ballot or an indicative vote,
which could be conducted in an informal setting and based on a common understanding that the
outcome of such a process would be acceptable to all Members.  The Chairman could then propose in
a formal meeting and as the consensus candidate, the name of the candidate enjoying the highest level
of support.
The representative of Guatemala said that his delegation was encouraged to hear that the
Chairman's proposal had been given a greater degree of support.  The General Council's inability to
take a decision on the next Director-General was projecting a bad public image.  Regarding Kenya'sWT/GC/M/40/Add.2
Page 6
proposal, a specific procedure had been established for the selection of the next Director-General
which took precedence over the general rules.  Consensus had to prevail, despite the difficulties
encountered.  Guatemala supported the Chairman's and Mr. Rossier's efforts as being the best way to
select the next Director-General.
The representative of Korea said that the stalemate over selecting the next Director-General
was becoming an institutional crisis with clear and present implications for the organization's
credibility and functioning.  There was an imperative need to put an end to this costly vacancy of
leadership.  In light of the failure to achieve consensus on the Chairman's recommendation, Kenya
had proposed building a consensus on Mr. Supachai, in accordance with the rules of procedure of the
General Council.  However, three weeks later, s ubstantive consultations on that proposal had yet to
start.  Korea urged the Chairman to put Kenya's proposal to the General Council for discussion and tosuggest a consensus on Mr. Supachai.  An attempt to build consensus on Mr. Supachai had to be made
before other options could be considered.  Kenya's proposal could not be dismissed simply because
some Members did not expect it to lead anywhere.
The representative of Bolivia said that her delegation was encouraged to hear that work was
being carried out within the existing process.  Certain legal problems arose regarding Kenya's
proposal within that process.  Specific rules had been adopted by the General Council for that process.
The phase during which Members could propose candidates had ended some months earlier.  The
Chairman's proposal was entirely different from Kenya's proposal in that it was the fruit of six months
of consultations.  The objections to the Chairman's proposal had to be explained so that Memberscould make progress in this process.  The rules could not be changed mid-stream.  She recalled that
Members had complained in January 1999 that the process was not moving and had said that the
number of candidates had to be reduced.  That had been done.  If the General Council decided that the
possibility of establishing consensus on the Chairman's proposal had been exhausted, Members would
then have to look into new processes and new candidates.
The representative of Cuba agreed with Haiti that certain delegations were trying to minimize
the objections to the Chairman's proposal.  It was clear that there were substantive objections to that
proposal, and doubts concerning the results in the report  of 30 April, that precluded acceptance of that
proposal.  Given that there was a factual political situation and two proposals, an indicative vote was a
healthy approach.  Article IX had been agreed by all and there should be no hesitation to apply it.
Cuba agreed with Mexico that it was necessary to establish a deadline for this process.  It also agreedwith Zimbabwe that consensus in this organization had served the stronger and had not helped the
weaker to make their points known.  Cons ensus should not be achieved at any cost.
The representative of Pakistan said that while the Chairman had reported that support had
increased for his proposal, it seemed as well that the proposal had received stronger opposition and
that prospects of consensus on it were not good.  Kenya's proposal was on the table and Pakistan
supported it.  No process the General Council could ever adopt could foreclose the right of a Member
to present a proposal, and his delegation strongly rejected any contrary interpretation.  This was thus
not a credible argument against Kenya's proposal.  However, if there was no consensus on either
proposal and no agreement to resort to the rules of procedure and hold a vote, there was a truedeadlock, and other options would have to be explored.  The question was whether the General
Council was prepared to do that.  Pakistan's preference was to make a choice between the two
candidates, and as the Chairman had said, no delegation had any objection to either one on the
grounds of personal merit.  That was an important element, since the only way out of the current
impasse might be resort to some form of indication of relative support that would allow Members toreach agreement on one of the two candidates.  The WTO was in crisis, and his delegation counted on
the Chairman to intensify his efforts to find a way out of the impasse that was fair and seen to be fair,
would be acceptable to all Members.WT/GC/M/40/Add.2
Page 7
The representative of Chile reiterated her delegation's support for the process undertaken, for
the Chairman and the facilitators, and for the criteria agreed for this process.  Chile had understood
that according to that process, the Chairman would make a proposal to the Members on the basis of
the agreed criteria and after a series of consultations.  For this reason, the proposal by Kenya – like
and other proposal that departed form this process – was not receivable until such time as that processhad been concluded, which was not yet the case.  Regarding a straw ballot between the two
candidates, this had already been carried out by the Chairman and the facilitator during their
consultations, since one of the criteria in those consultations had been the preferences expressed by
delegations.  Chile had taken note of the increase in the number of Members expressing support for
the Chairman's proposal and urged the Chairman and the facilitator to persevere in their consultations
so that the process could be concluded as soon as possible an don the basis of consensus.
The representative of Japan said that he was perplexed to hear several delegations say that
Kenya's proposal was not receivable, and did not understand whether the allegation was that the
proposal was not consistent with the rules agreed in July 1998, or that the rules of procedure of the
General Council did not apply to this case.  The c onsultations provided for in the process agreed in
July 1998 had ended on 30 April, and the General Council was in a new decision-making process.The Chairman had repeatedly stated that Kenya's proposal was on the table, and at the outset of the
present meeting had said that delegations were invited to express their views on the substance of that
proposal.  Japan supported that proposal, which was on the table and open for discussion.
The representative of Egypt said that his delegation's position remained unchanged.  Egypt
was willing to discuss any reasonable proposal, po sition or argument, but some issues were hard to
understand.  For example, no delegation had said there was only one method of decision-making in
the WTO, which was consensus; that was factually incorrect.  One should be careful to distinguish
between a position and a fact.  Kenya's proposal was on the table, and while there might be different
opinions on it, its existence could not be denied.  Some delegations had thought it would be damagingto the organization to end this process with a vote – as Egypt had been arguing for over six months –
but the current institutional crisis was more devastating than any vote could have been.  Many
organizations used a vote to choose their leaders, and this was not questioned.  He associated his
delegation with the statements by Mexico, India, Zimbabwe, Pakistan and Hong Kong, China.  Egypt
hoped that a time-frame for this process would be set, since it was negatively affecting the
environment in the organization and the preparatory process for the Seattle Ministerial Conference.
The representative of Bulgaria confirmed the positions expressed by his delegation in earlier
meetings.  Kenya's proposal was outside the agreed selection process and did not have an equal status
with the proposal that had resulted from that process.  Bulgaria had accepted that both of the
candidates it had initially supported had been eliminated from that process, and did not understand
why others had not accepted the what was the essence of the agreed process.  He wondered whyKenya's proposal should be considered without considering the other two candidates who had been
eliminated from the process.  His delegation did not accept the distinction between a consultation
phase and a decision-making phase.  Consultations were an intrinsic part of the decision-making
process.  The agreed rules for the selection process were the lex specialis  that took precedence over
the general decision-making rules.  The latter could be applied only if and when there was a negativedecision on the Chairman's proposal.  At that point, a new process and new proposals could be
considered.  His delegation supported the continuation of the present process and a solution to the
current impasse that was fair and consistent with the present process.
The representative of Colombia recalled that from the outset of this process, all Members had
agreed that the Chairman and the facilitator would carry out consultations and that the Chairman
would make a proposal to the General Council.  Thos e were the central pillars of the agreed process.
While it was true that Members' right to make proposals could not be precluded, in a sensitive process
like the selection of the Director-General it was essential that proposals be limited to a time-frame soWT/GC/M/40/Add.2
Page 8
that they could be included in the consultations held.  Kenya had made a proposal which some
delegations had supported and others had expressed reservations to.  In order to keep to the guideline
that only the Chairman would make proposals for consensus, the Chairman should take Kenya's
proposal as another of the elements that should be put to Members and assessed.  The Chairman could
then make a final recommendation.
The representative of United States recalled her delegation's statement at the 6 May meeting
of the General Council regarding Kenya's proposal or any proposal other than the Chairman's – which
was the membership's – proposal.  While some delegations had said they could not join a consensus
yet on the Chairman's proposal, there was no consensus either that Kenya's proposal could be
considered as having the same status as the Chairman's proposal, or that it was procedurally
appropriate to consider it.  No proposal coming from a single delegation could be considered as equalin weight to a proposal resulting from six months of consultations.  It was clear that the Chairman's
proposal enjoyed greater support than it had three weeks earlier.  Her delegation did not agree that
there was an institutional crisis or deadlock.  Building consensus took time.  The only proposal before
Members was the Chairman's, which was the proposal of the greatest number of Members, and the
consensus to be reached was on that proposal.  Her delegation would not accept considering Kenya'sproposal because it had agreed that procedurally a Member could not table proposals in favour of its
own candidate.  To do so would be unfair to the candidate proposed by the Chairman, to the Members
who had participated in good faith in the agreed pr ocess and to other two candidates.  The only formal
objection to the Chairman's proposal had come from Malaysia on behalf of the ASEAN Members.
Since it would not be acceptable for those Members to block consensus on Mr. Moore simply becausehe was not their candidate, the reasons for that objection should be made known so that Members
could consider ways to deal with whatever substantial problems there were and arrive at a consensus
on Mr. Moore.  It would also not be acceptable for those Members to block consensus on the
membership's proposal because of concerns over th e process that had produced that proposal.  Some
delegations had said that the process had not been transparent, but it was the Members who hadagreed to the process – on several occasions – and had agreed to the extensions of time-frames.
Her delegation's position on voting was clear.  First, voting on the selection of the next
Director-General was politically unacceptable to the United States;  there was no consensus in the
WTO to decide this issue by voting, and even less that Members would be bound by the outcome of a
vote.  Second,  it was incorrect that Article IX:1's provision for a vote where there was no consensus
applied to this matter.  The procedures governing the selection of the Director-General of the WTOwere the same as those applying in the GATT 1947;  these were found in document L/6099 of
26 November 1986 and amounted to a codification of what had been GATT practice up until that
time.  Those procedures had never been used to justify recourse to a vote on the selection of the
Director-General, notwithstanding GATT's deci sion-making provision in GATT Article XXV:4,
which spoke only of decision-making by vote.  Nevertheless, the agreed approach to GATT 1947decision-making on the selection of the Director-General had been consensus only.  The continued
validity of that approach was confirmed by the first sentence of Article IX:1, particularly when read in
conjunction with Article XVI:1 of the WTO Agreement.  Furthermore, the agreed procedures of
GATT 1947 had been made an integral part of the WTO through their incorporation in to GATT 1994
by virtue of paragraph 1(b)(iv) of the GATT 1994.  These procedures were the legal provisions thatapplied to the selection of the Director-General, and they were reflected in the General Council's
decision in July 1998.  Her delegation would not support any proposal that this issue be subject to a
vote.  Third, a Director-General selected by a vote could not be effective were it widely
acknowledged that a consensus in his favour had not been possible, or given that almost half of the
membership did not want him in the job.  Fourth, discussions in the General Council had indicatedthat only a small minority of Members believed voting could be appropriate in this case.  Thus, there
would be no consensus to vote and thus no vote.WT/GC/M/40/Add.2
Page 9
The representative of Australia said that his delegation wished to make a proposal that was
aimed at trying to move beyond the present impasse.  Australia supported Kenya's proposal on two
main grounds:  (i) it was the logical next step following the end of the original consultation process on
30 April and once it was clear the Chairman’s proposal did not have consensus;  and (ii) the proposal
had been properly made in terms of the rules of procedure.  However, comments made during theprevious procedural discussion on that proposal  indicated that it would probably be rejected.
Members therefore needed to go beyond the fact that the Chairman’s proposal was blocked and that,
while Kenya's proposal was on the table, Members seemed unable to have a substantive discussion of
it.  There were three basic propositions that, if accepted, would enable progress:  (i) two proposals had
been made but neither had commanded consensus;  (ii) there were still two candidates who continued
to enjoy high levels of support;  and (iii) the selection had to be made among the existing two
candidates.  What was needed was to find a way to choose between the two candidates that would be
acceptable to all Members and would result in a quick decision on the basis of consensus.  What was
needed could be described as a “circuit breaker."  Various proposals had been floated by Members,
and it would be useful to discuss those at informal meetings the following week.
The representative of Norway supported the statements by Pakistan and Australia.  These
were forward-looking statements.  There was a st alemate that required innovative thinking.  He
agreed with the statement by the United States on voting.  Members had to begin to look at procedures
that could break the deadlock.  His delegation was willing to work with the Chairman to find those
additions to the procedures that would help to do that.
The representative of India said that two proposals had been made and considered in previous
meetings – the Chairman's proposal and Kenya's.  India was surprised to hear the former repeatedly
referred to by one delegation as the membership's proposal.  This was factually incorrect and logically
untenable.  While it was for the membership to decide on this issue, the Chairman's recommendation
could not be considered as the membership's proposal.  It was also not correct to say that Kenya'sproposal did not have the same weight as the Chairman's;  that could only be determined after it had
been substantively considered.  India supported Australia's proposal as a positive way forward.
The representative of Cameroon asked Australia to repeat its proposal.
The representative of Australia said that his proposal would be circulated in writing.3
The representative of Bolivia said that what Australia had proposed seemed to imply a change
in the process agreed at the outset.
The representative of Israel supported the statement by the United States regarding the way
decisions should be taken in the WTO.
The Chairman said that the present meeting had provided a large measure of transparency
regarding developments since 6 May.  It was clear that many delegations felt there was a need for
continued consultations on this matter, and he would conduct those consultations and reconvene the
General Council as soon as he thought it helpful.  Regarding the remaining items on the agenda of theGeneral Council's meeting of 14 April, he would re convene the General Council as soon as possible in
June to take up those items.
The representative of Japan said that the Chairman's summing up did not seem to reflect what
Australia had suggested.
                                                     
3 The proposal was circulated in document Job No. 3037.WT/GC/M/40/Add.2
Page 10
The Chairman said that one of the points suggest ed by Australia, and the main thrust of that
proposal, was that there was a need to explore ways to break the deadlock.  Norway had supported the
approach suggested by Australia, and Pakistan had indicated there was a need to explore options.
This was why he had suggested there be consultations, and that he report to the General Council at an
appropriate time.
The representative of Bolivia said that her delegation could agree with the suggestion in
Australia's proposal for consultations.  However, it seemed that Australia  had also suggested a change
in the rules underlying the agreed process that had been followed thus far.
The Chairman said that it had emerged clearly that there was a need for further consultations.
A number of proposals had been made, and these needed to be consulted upon.  All elements would
be included in those consultations.  He proposed that the meting be adjourned.
The General Council so agreed.
__________