. /.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/W/129
16 February 1999
(99-0589)
Original:  French
GENERAL COUNCIL
Informal Meeting Held on 14 December 1998
Statement by Morocco
Let me say right away that I take the floor on the basis of instructions received from my
capital, having had the privilege of hearing from both Ambassadors this morning and therefore having
had an opportunity to consult at length with my capital.
First of all, let me say very clearly that the Moroccan authorities fully appreciate the work that
has been undertaken by Ambassadors Lafer and Rossier and have the highest respect for their
experience, their integrity and the spirit in which th ey are defending the interests of this institution.
There is no doubt in our minds in this regard.  As regards the results, or the trends as they have been
called, my capital quite simply does not understand the methodology which has been followed.  As Ihad an opportunity of saying to both Ambassador Lafer and Ambassador Rossier, who have tried to
give me some explanation, and in the light of today's discussion, I myself, like the informal group of
African countries, still cannot clearly understand the methodology followed, or at least consider that
at best it is a "judgement call".  Now, I do not think that the role of a facilitator, and here I would
differ with the two Ambassadors, is to make value judgements.  I do not think that one can mix up the
objective elements and those based on judgement.  I think everything should be based on objective
elements, and in this case the objective elements are the preferences.  A State that does not give itspreference should be classified in the category of countries that have not given their preference.  It
should not be a question of interpreting their preferences.  Each Member of the WTO must be in a
position of voicing a preference, or of putting the four candidates, who by definition are all good, in
an order of priority.  My capital therefore cannot understand how these three criteria are weighted in
the equation.  If my country cannot understand the methodology used in order to reach the consensus,by definition there never will be a consensus because my delegation and my authorities will never be
convinced by the results that will be given.  This has nothing at all to do with Ambassadors Lafer and
Rossier, it is simply that the methodology is not clear to my authorities.  I must say, quite objectively
and sincerely, that on the day when we were received by the two facilitators we were told that not
only the first preference would be taken into consideration but the other preferences too.  I even recallsaying that in WIPO my delegation had not accepted this approach because it would already be
prejudging the results of the first preference expressed.  Obviously we would like to have a clear idea
of what the first preference is, and then envisage other possibilities if the first preference were not that
of an overwhelming majority.  But now these two extra criteria have been added, which I have heard
for the first time this morning, and several delega tions have in fact asked exactly what was intended
by these two criteria and how they would be weight ed.  You have a certain objective result, which is
then weighted by other criteria.  What factor have you used?  And how?  We don't understand how
this works.  I repeat - and I think in this house we  all know each other well enough, everybody knows
I hold the two Ambassadors concerned in great respec t, as indeed do my authorities - but if we do not
understand the methodology followed there cannot be any consensus because my delegation will not
be able to give its agreement to one if we cannot understand it and are not convinced by it.  Consensus
in our view is based on responsibility, as Ambassador Narayanan has rightly said, and responsibility isWT/GC/W/129
Page 2
not lack of responsibility.  I think we are all of age here, as are our authorities.  I don't think I am
alone in saying that I have not understood.  Many if not all of the developing countries, and at any rate
the African group, have not understood the methodology used.  It is no doubt based on "best
judgement" but it is not the sort of methodology wh ich I think would enable us to reach a consensus.
Ambassador Zahran, on behalf of the African group, has proposed that we should hold a straw ballotin order to enable us to be convinced.  That would give you all of our first preferences, and then we
could always work on that basis and other factors in order to reach a consensus.  My authorities have
asked, given that there would seem to be a region very near to us here which has not yet given its
point of view, how that has been taken into consideration in the overall weighting of the second
criterion, namely, geographical distribution.  So th ere is a problem, I think, with this methodology,
and I repeat that this is not in any way directed towards the two facilitators.  We really do not
understand the methodology, and I hope that we will be able to do so, because otherwise, as I saidearlier, we will have to vote, purely and simply, or at least hold a straw ballot.
__________