WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/MIN(99)/ST/6
30 November 1999
(99-5195)
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
Third Session
Seattle, 30 November - 3 December 1999Original:  English
PHILIPPINES
Statement by the Honourable Jose T. Pardo
Secretary of Trade and Industry
The Philippines shares the view that a balanced work programme for the WTO is extremely
essential in setting the direction of the multilateral trading system at least over the next ten years.  I do
not have any doubt that this work programme will be critical as well in enhancing the value of theWTO for all of us, and, more importantly, in ensuring its continued success.
But I am clearly aware that consensus on the work programme has remained elusive.  To the
thousands who belong to interest groups and who will closely observe how we conduct ourselves over
the next few days, the task ahead may indeed appear daunting.  And there are those who wish that wefail.
I am convinced, however, that we still could prove them wrong for we have the precious
opportunity here in Seattle to achieve consensus on a viable work programme.  We may not
necessarily need to agree to launch negotiations on each and every issue presented to us.  But we can
at least agree on how best to keep the momentum on trade-related issues which are intractable today.
On the basis of good faith, a firm commitment to the objectives of the WTO, a deeper sense offairness and equity mindful of the needs of developing countries, and last but not least, maintain
utmost transparency among Members, we can – and we will – achieve such consensus!
I believe that as we set out to fulfil our collective responsibility, we must be fully cognizant of
three fundamental elements.
First, in order to set the WTO in the right path along its avowed objectives, it will be of
paramount importance that we collectively agree to pursue in good faith what we have already agreed
to pursue in the first place.
A case in point is the built-in agenda in the GATS.  We have all been focused on the
mandated negotiations on services, neglecting that work on the emergency safeguard measures was
supposed to have been completed in 1998.  The deadline for this work has since been extended until
the end of next year.  I cannot overemphasise how important agreement on such measures will be,
especially as we pursue further progressive liberalization in services.
Another case in point is agriculture – and one that is especially close to the joint head of our
delegation, Agriculture Secretary Edgardo Angara.
The Agreement on Agriculture mandates negotiations to commence next year.  At the very
least, the work programme should spell out a minimum in respect of the scope, modalities and
time-frame for the negotiations.  Unfortunately, even this minimum is unacceptable to a fewMembers.WT/MIN(99)/ST/6
Page 2
Other Members do not adhere to the goal of substantial, immediate and lasting reforms in the
area of export and domestic subsidies.  Market access alone appears to be their main concern.  I am
afraid that this situation hardly gives us, and many other developing countries, any economic and
political justification for further liberalization.
Extraneous issues such as the alleged multifunctional character of agriculture have even
clouded the issues.  This sets a dangerous precedent, one where rich, industrialized countries demand
special and differential treatment for concerns that are not even related to agriculture.
I am equally alarmed that other Members think that special and differential treatment of
developing countries (or S&D) can be downplayed, if not pushed off the negotiating table.  S&D is a
legitimate concern that must be addressed fully and concretely in the process and outcome of themandated negotiations.  Food security, rural development and poverty alleviation cannot be glossed
over through mere preambular aspirations and provisions that are, at best, lip service.
Together with the Cairns Group, the Philippines only asks that we come to an agreement on
effectively launching the mandated negotiations as we have already agreed six years ago.
Second, to enhance the value of the WTO for the majority of its 134 Members, we must learn
to accept that certain agreements do present to many developing countries implementation difficulties
and onerous obligations that need to be resolved urgently.
A number of my colleagues have rightfully identified a number of these agreements, and have
made proposals that, among others:
- Deal with extending transitory periods, such as in TRIMs and Customs Valuation;
- clarify existing rules, such as in Anti-Dumping and Subsidies;  and
- seek to operationalize provisions, for example in SPS and TBT, to concretely address
the disparities in the ability of developing countries to implement their obligations
and enforce their rights.
I am grateful to these colleagues for their exemplary effort, and we continue to support their
proposals.  These implementation issues cannot solely be addressed through technical assistance, and
worse, be dismissed as attempts towards a two-tiered standard of obligations in the WTO.  These
problems will persist, and cry out to be urgently resolved.  As long as the WTO strives to become a
truly universal and credible organization, we must collectively heed this cry.
It is in this regard that the Philippines recently circulated a proposal on a declaration on
developing countries.  It seeks to establish a working group that will focus on and address the
concerns of developing countries.
And third, to ensure the continued success of the WTO, we should be able to formulate an
agenda that represents a mutuality of interests and benefits across all Members.  In respect of the new
issues, we must be careful not to unwittingly impose the folly of over-ambition upon ourselves.
Proposals indeed encompass a wide array of national interests and systemic pursuits that I am
sure each one of us believe will allow the WTO to keep pace with globalization, especially with theimpact of new technology on how we are able to trade in goods and services.
But we have also witnessed since our 1
st and 2nd Sessions that not all issues which are
important to a few Members are equally exigent for other Members.WT/MIN(99)/ST/6
Page 3
A number of issues – such as those on investment, competition policy, and even trade
facilitation and electronic commerce – are plainly not ripe for negotiations.  We should, however, be
able to simply continue useful analytical work on these areas.
And then, there are issues like labour and the environment, which the principle of subsidiary
dictates should be dealt with appropriately and competently by other international organizations.
Other issues, such as transparency in the operat ion of the WTO with respect to civil society – if
handled overambitiously – can only be a disservice to the inter-governmental character of the
WTO Treaty.  We need to be exceptionally circumspect in addressing these legitimate issues.
In conclusion, the Philippines stands ready to actively participate in the process that will
ensue over the next few days.  I sincerely hope, how ever, that in whatever we do, we will be imbued
with a strong sense of realism of what is possible now or in the future, and what is better left
untouched.  I also trust that our work will continue to be conducted with the fullest participation and
utmost transparency among Members.
On this note, I wish to thank you and your de legation, the organizers of this Conference, and
the warm people of Seattle for welcoming me and my delegation.  And to all the Members of the
WTO, I wish all of us success.
__________