RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/W/151
8 March 1999
(99-0901)
General Council Original:  English
PREPARATIONS FOR THE 1999 MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
Discussion on Paragraph 9a(iii) of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration
23-24 November 1998
Communication from India
The following statement by India at the informal intersessional meeting on
23-24 November 1998 is being circulated at the request of that delegation.
_______________
1. As all of us are aware, paragraph 9a(iii) of the Geneva Ministerial Declaration deals with
recommendations concerning future work already provided for under other existing agreements anddecisions taken at Marrakesh in the context of the General Council's preparations for the Third
Ministerial Conference.  My delegation recalls that the Secretariat had brought out a paper in
October 1995 (WT/L/88) listing all the provisions in various agreements for review, future work or
negotiations in the WTO Agreement and related decisions and declarations.  If one looks at this list,
there are two broad categories: provisions where future negotiations are explicitly contemplated and
provisions where various terms like review, examination, report, etc. are used.  We have had
discussions earlier on the first set of provisions which basically come under paragraph 9a(ii), i.e.mandated negotiations.  These are basically found in Agreement on Agriculture, Services Agreement
and TRIPS Agreement.  As far as the provisions relating to review, examination etc. are concerned, as
the Secretariat's document shows and as confirmed by the deliberations so far in this session, they are
found in various agreements.
2. In the first inter-sessional meeting, a number of delegations including my own have spoken
extensively about our concerns with regard to implementation of the various WTO agreements.  Some
delegations, who have spoken earlier, have highlighted the interface between implementation and
review/examination etc. provided for in a number of agreements.  It is my delegation's understanding
that a number of provisions were built into various agreements during the Uruguay Round
negotiations because of the strong feeling in the minds of almost all delegations at that time that theseagreements provide for substantial commitments in many areas and that there was a certain amount of
anxiety as to what effect these agreements will have on the trade and development of various
countries, especially developing countries.  Besides, it was recognized that the WTO Agreement
covered many new areas like TRIPS, Services, etc. and delegations were not sure as to how the
commitments in these new areas will work in actual practice.  And also there was a generalrecognition that the WTO Agreement is going to be  a highly intrusive agreement having far-reaching
implications for what was until now being considered a domestic policy-making area.  It is obvious
that it is because of these various considerations the negotiators were wise enough to build in some
safety walls in the form of reviews etc.  Therefore, it is clear to my delegation that the purpose of
these provisions is not to impose additional commitments and burdens on developing countries but to
ensure that on the basis of experience gained provide relief to all Members, especially developingWT/GC/W/151
Page 2
country Members, if implementation of any agreement gave rise to grave difficulties.  In the light of
this, I am rather surprised to hear some delegations  hinting today that they would like to utilize the
review/examinations etc. provided for in various  agreements to broaden the scope of commitments
already taken or impose additional commitments on developing countries.  If this happens, it would be
contrary to the idea behind building in the review/examination etc. process in various agreements.  Ineed hardly say that my delegation would not be in  a position to go along with any approach whose
design is to use the review process to impose additional burdens on developing countries.
3. There is another general point I would like to make at this stage.  There are specific time
frames provided for the reviews in different agreem ents.  It comes as a surprise to us that some
delegations treat some reviews rather casually wh ile showing extraordinary enthusiasm to complete
some other reviews.  In fact, we have heard delegations even arguing in some committees that
developing countries should report even before the end of the transition period as to how they aregoing to implement their commitments which would kick in at the end of the transition period.
However, in a committee like the Rules of Origin Committee where we have already failed to observe
the time-limit provided for in the Agreement, we are told we should not fix any deadline for the
completion of the work since it will affect the quality of the work and quality of the
recommendations.  I think it is necessary for all of us to decide that if time-limits are to be observed,they should be observed in all cases and not selectively depending upon the individual interest of
some delegations.  We would like to stress this important aspect of the reviews etc. covered by
paragraph 9a(iii) of the Geneva Ministerial Conference.
4. There is another general point I would like to make about reviews.  It appears to us that one
major delegation is trying to hint that virtually every review/examination provided for in the WTOagreements should be a subject matter for consideration in the Third Ministerial Conference.  I do not
think that this is what we had in mind when we drafted paragraph 9a(iii).  I remember a statement was
made to me at that time that no recommendation is also a recommendation.  As I had indicated earlier,
reviews provided for in each agreement should be  undertaken on the basis of experience gained and
difficulties faced in implementing that agreement.  It looks as though that some delegations are
anxious to promote a comprehensive round, whatever it might mean, and in trying to pave the way for
linking every review/examination to a new round of negotiations.  I would simply like to say that this
is unfair.  As I mentioned earlier, the review provisions built in various agreements were meant to
remove difficulties and inequities noticed on the basis of experience acquired through
implementation.  It appears that some delegations would like developing countries to accept new
inequities and new difficulties as a price for removal of inequities and difficulties experienced in
implementing existing agreements by linking virtually every review provision to a new round.  I amafraid that my delegation does not find this approach acceptable.
5. There is one last general point I would like to make.  If one goes through the document
WT/L/88, one will find the responsibility given to Ministerial Conference, WTO, Goods Council,
TRIPS Council, Services Council, Committee on Agriculture, etc. for a decision basing on the review
provisions.  Very ironically, the General Council does not figure in any of these provisions except tothe extent that it should constitute a Committee on Trade and Environment, which it has already done.
I recognise that when the Ministerial Conference is not in session, the General Council can exercise
the powers of the Ministerial Conference.  I also recognise that the General Council can discharge the
functions of any other WTO body.  We continue to believe that the preparatory process for the third
Ministerial Conference should be the responsibility of the General Council.  However, we would likeyou to request the Legal Division to clarify in due course as to whether the review provisions in which
the authority for taking a decision on the basis of review is given to the Ministerial Conference imply
that such decisions should necessarily wait for the Ministerial Conference.
6. I note that some delegations have referred to th e subject of environment in the context of our
discussions on paragraph 9a(iii) of the Geneva Ministerial Decision.  The General Council has alreadyWT/GC/W/151
Page 3
established a Committee on Trade and Environment in early 1995 as mandated by the Ministerial
Decision taken at Marrakesh.  At Singapore the Ministers directed the Committee to carry out its
work, reporting to the General Council, under its existing terms of reference.  The trade and
environment interface issue is a complex one and in our assessment the existing WTO provisions are
more than adequate to deal with genuine and bona fide  environmental concerns.  The real solution for
the problem, if any, lies with international in stitutions dealing with multilateral environmental
agreements.
7. Today, I do not intend to go into the review provisions of various agreements and highlight
our concerns and points of view with regard to thos e reviews.  This is for two reasons.  Firstly, a
number of delegations who spoke before me have already made detailed contributions on this aspect.
My delegation shares almost all the points made by Egypt, ASEAN and Dominican Republic and
most of the points made by Pakistan and Cuba.  We also share a number of points made by Venezuela
and Argentina.  Secondly, we are participating actively in the reviews taking place in different WTO
bodies and have presented our concerns in detail in these bodies.  Thus, Members are aware of our
concerns.  We would therefore like to simply reiterate at this stage that the redressal of the problems
and shortcomings highlighted in the various Agreements by the above Members, and by us in this and
other bodies, is extremely important.  Moreover, we would like these imbalances to be corrected inthe preparatory process to the third Ministerial Conference.
8. Before I conclude, I would like to make one more point.  The Director General of the WTO
has been stressing that this is a rule-based organi zation and not a power-based one.  It is our view that
paragraph 9a(iii) of the Geneva Ministerial Decision provides an opportunity to the Members to
demonstrate that this is actually a rule-based organization and that equity considerations areparamount.
__________