RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/36/Add.1
30 March 1999
(99-1252)
General Council
17 March 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 17 March 1999
Chairman:  Mr. Ali Mchumo (Tanzania)
1. Appointment of the next Director-General
The Chairman made a statement1 in which he recalled recent developments in the process of
selection of the next Director-General and made a progress report on the consultations held thus far.
On 9 March he had informed Members by a confidential circular that on the basis of a combination of
criteria, it had been determined that there was no possibility of promoting a consensus around the
candidacy of Mr. MacLaren and that the consultations would proceed in the light of this new
situation.  He described the current levels of support for the candidates as follows:  Dr. Supachairemained in the lead, Mr. Moore was close to that level, and Mr. Abouyoub's support was below that
of Mr. Moore.  He and Mr. Rossier would continue to conduct consultations in the next few days with
a view to finalizing this matter by the end of March.
The representative of Canada said that his delegation recognized the responsibility the
Chairman had to carry in this matter and would work with him in his efforts to find a consensus.  His
authorities were disappointed over the contents of the confidential circular and did not understand the
basis on which the determination about Mr. MacLaren's candidacy had been made.  His Governmentcontinued to support that candidacy, while the ultimate decision would be taken by the Members.
Mr. MacLaren remained ready to serve, should a consensus develop around his candidacy.
The representative of Zimbabwe, on behalf of the African Group, said that this Group had
made clear its concern that unless a decision was taken that would effectively narrow the field of
candidates, the process would go on interminably.  There came a time when it was clear that somecandidacies were not attracting the kind of support that would lead to any consensus forming around
them.  In that event, the candidate in question should be persuaded to withdraw.  It was encouraging
that Canada took the view that the ultimate decision on this matter would be made by the Members.
In this process the Chairman was on the right track.  He asked whether the situation the Chairman had
just reported took into account the request that one candidate withdraw.  It would also be useful toknow what each Member's first preference was.  The African Group fully supported the process and
the decision taken by the Chairman and Mr. Rossier thus far.
The representative of Mexico said that the Chairman and Mr. Rossier, as facilitators of this
process, deserved Members' full respect and consideration.  His country had supported the candidacy
of Mr. MacLaren from the outset and that support remained valid.
                                                     
1 Subsequently circulated under Job No. 1563.WT/GC/M/36/Add.1
Page 2
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation had the highest respect and confidence
in the Chairman and Mr. Rossier to lead Members in the process of evolving agreement on the
appointment of the next Director-General.  He understood that the decision reached in the General
Council would reflect the wishes of the vast majority of Members.  Several questions remained
regarding the basis for determinations of strength of support, least opposition and geographic spreadof support.  he wondered whether sufficient information was available to allow definitive conclusions
to be reached, since according to the report on 1 March less than two-thirds of Members had
expressed their preferences.  He wondered whether since then, there had been additional input from
Members who had not then taken a position.  As Members had stated that all four candidates were
viable, there was a presumption that no Member would block any candidate.  He asked whether this
was the case, or whether the facilitators had been told there were positions that would amount to this.
If one was working on the basis of no veto, the degree of geographic support became less important.If any Member was prepared to block any candidate it should say so, and thus remove any ambiguity
in this area so that others could take a position.
The representative of India assured the Chairman of his delegation's full support and respect.
India wanted to see this process completed as quickly as possible and hoped this could be done before
the Easter break.
The representative of Egypt said that his delegation fully supported the statement by
Zimbabwe and renewed its full confidence in the Chairman's efforts to advance this process.  He
asked how many delegations in the new round of consultations had expressed their views, and how
many preferences had been expressed for each of the candidates.  Members needed to know this in
order to be able to draw their own conclusions.  A consensus could not be sought indefinitely, and if
by end-March none had been achieved, there would be no alternative but to enforce the rules
according to Article IX:2 and resort to a vote.
The representative of Uruguay said that the only way to reach a consensus was to allow the
Chairman and Mr. Rossier to continue with the process.  Uruguay would continue to provide its
broadest support and would not question that process or ask the facilitators to divulge information thatwould undermine their task.
The representative of the United States recalled that the Chairman had previously indicated
that he intended to move to a new phase of consultations that would have to be different from the first
phase and intensified.  On 3 March he had laid out the basis on which he and Mr. Rossier would
conduct the forthcoming consultations to work toward a consensus without a vote or veto.  Members
had given their unqualified support for this, and her delegation continued to do so.  All agreed that
there were four highly qualified candidates, and that only one would ultimately be the consensuschoice.  Each Member had its reason for backing one or the other of these candidates.  To get a
consensus candidate it was clear that the Members had to work together.  The task of the Chairman
and Mr. Rossier was not an easy one, and the US lent its full support to their efforts.
The representative of Colombia said that the steps taken by the Chairman were of a critical
nature as they injected dynamism into the process.  Without this the process would go around in
circles, which could lead to a situation all wanted to avoid, i.e. resort to a vote.  Colombia fully
supported the work undertaken and would fully cooperate in the search for consensus.
The representative of Turkey said that Pakistan's point that there should be no veto was
crucial and overrode all other aspects.  Turkey could accept any one of the candidates.  Questioning
the Chairman about what he was doing would lead nowhere.  His delegation was ready to cooperatewith the Chairman and to change its position in future if necessary.  The Chairman should have a free
hand to conduct this process as he saw fit.WT/GC/M/36/Add.1
Page 3
The Chairman thanked all delegations who had spoken, the majority of which he said had
supported the action he and Mr. Rossier had taken.  When Members had agreed that appointment of
the next Director-General should be effected through a process of consultations conducted by the
Chairman, they knew that this would require trust in the Chairman.  The process could only work if
Members had such trust.  It would collapse without  it, and another system would have to be chosen.
The Chairman should be given the chance to perform the difficult task entrusted to him.  Where there
were four candidates and only one could be chosen, the process was by definition reductionist;  one
had to move from four to one.  If Members refused to act in accordance with this, the process could
not work.  It would be useless to go back to counting numbers.  Numbers and preferences were not the
only inputs, and the conclusion on Mr. MacLaren's candidacy had been based on a combination of
factors and had had nothing to do with a veto.  It was hoped that Members would never reach that
stage.  A veto would be an invitation to a vote, and he appealed to all Members to refrain from this.The Canadian authorities had been informed of the conclusion reached regarding Mr. MacLaren's
candidacy before the confidential circular had been sent out.  While it was true that only the Members
could take the decision on the next Director-General , they had charged the Chairman with the process,
and he and Mr. Rossier had acted in line with the mandate given them.  This was a very difficult task,
and Members should judge the process only at the end, when the question would be asked whether thecandidate chosen was acceptable.  Members' cooperation and understanding was necessary in order to
conclude the process within the timeframe.
The General Council took note of the statements and adjourned.
__________