RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/40/Add.4
5 July 1999
(99-2749)
General Council
18 June 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 18 June 1999
Chairman:  Mr. Ali Mchumo (Tanzania)
1. Appointment of the next Director-General
The Chairman made a statement1 in which he said that he had called the present meeting with
a view to bringing to a conclusion the process for the appointment of the next Director-General, and
to make clear the state of the process as he saw it.  Many delegations had impressed upon him that the
current impasse, which had lasted several weeks, could not be allowed to persist indefinitely.  There
were two ways in which the impasse could be broken.  The first would be to reach agreement on the
appointment of a new Director-General, and the s econd would be to recognize that the process
inaugurated in July 1998 had not been able to produce agreement, and to consider what new steps
should be taken.  The General Council had to decide how to proceed.  Since the most recent formal
meeting on this subject, on 26 May, he had been co nsulting extensively with all delegations wishing
to do so.  In the course of those consultations he had explored a number of suggestions as to ways to
break out of the impasse.  However, it had become clear there would be no agreement on any of them.
The essential difficulty was that some delegations were unwilling to accept that any "circuit-breaker"
had to be clearly within the parameters of the current selection process, while others were unwilling toaccept any procedures that would in effect entail the beginning of a new process.  On the basis of
these consultations, he saw the situation – which to a very large extent remained as he had explained it
in his Note of 14 June (Job No.3395) – as follows.   A substantial number of countries that had not
originally supported the candidacy of Mr. Moore had indicated they were prepared to support the
Chairman's proposal of 30  April that Mr. Moor e be appointed Director-General.  Thus, some
80 Members were now in a position to support that proposal.  The figure of 80 had been arrived at by
adding to the original supporters of Mr. Moore – none of whom had indicated a change in their
position –  those Members who had not originally supported him but had since stated that they
supported the Chairman's proposal, plus those Members who on their own initiative had indicated
their support for his proposal in consultations.  He had not given a precise figure, because his task indischarging the responsibilities laid upon him could not be reduced to a simple matter of figures.
Also, a precise figure, would have been higher than 80, since that number did not include Members
who had remained silent, but who presumably would not oppose consensus.
He had quoted a figure in relation to the level of support for his proposal because he had
thought such factual information would be useful, especially to Members without missions in Geneva.
However, in a process whose objective was to produce consensus, any such figures could have only
indicative value.  Whatever the figures, several Me mbers had stated that they maintained their formal
objection to his proposal, and a significant number of others had said they could not support it as long
                                                     
1 The statement was subsequently circulated to Members in document Job No.3502.WT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 2
as formal objections were maintained.  He had been  told that these would be maintained whatever the
level of support for the proposal.  As long as this was the case, he could not conclude there was a
consensus in favour of the appointment of Mr. Mo ore.  He had similarly been informed that the
objections to the proposal by Kenya would be maintained.  Thus, consensus could not be achieved on
that basis either.  He recalled that the process inaugurated in July 1998 had been intended to produceagreement on the appointment of a new Director-General by consensus.  Thus, the task before the
General Council was first to ascertain whether the situation was as he had described it, and second, to
decide what to do next.  The current process could be concluded either by agreement on a Director-
General or by acceptance that the process had failed to produce agreement.  In the latter case,
Members would have to consult on how to proceed, in light of the time pressures of which all were
aware.  It was for the General Council to appoint the next Director-General, and it was for Members
to accept their responsibilities.
Many delegations expressed support and appreciation for the way in which the Chairman and
the facilitator had pursued their work on this matter.
The representative of Norway said that Members were faced with the two alternatives listed
by the Chairman, which was to get agreement on the Chairman's proposal or to consider the process to
be followed from the present point forward.  He wond ered whether it was wise to continue with the
present discussion unless it was clear there was a breakthrough, and suggested that the meeting be
postponed until Members had drawn the clear conclusion that there would be no consensus on either
of the two candidates.  If that proved to be the case, Members should rapidly decide on a new processto be put immediately in motion.  Thus, he proposed that consultations be given a final chance to yield
a result.
The Chairman invited Members to react to Norway's proposal.
The representative of Australia said that his delegation was somewhat taken aback by
Norway's proposal, as it had come to the present meeting hoping to have a discussion about practical
ways to move forward.  The point Norway was making – with which Australia agreed completely –
was that Members were under the pressure of time.
The representative of Turkey said that his dele gation shared Norway's views, and appealed for
friendship and calm at the present meeting.  Members should not try to make either the Chairman or
the facilitator into a scapegoat for the current problems, and should focus on what could be done to
move this matter forward without repeating what were well-known positions.
The representative of Malaysia, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that these countries
supported Australia's views on Norway's proposal.
The representative of Haiti2 said that his delegation had noted from the Chairman's statement
that there was no consensus on either proposal.  Accordingly, Members had to accept that the process
begun in July 1998 had reached an end.  The process was dead, but the candidates were alive.
Therefore, Members had to try to find a way to choose one of the two candidates on the basis of anapproach that built on the process followed thus far.  To this end, Haiti suggested the following
approach, that was transparent, simple, easy and swift, and that complied with the principles of
consensus and confidentiality:  (i) the responsibility for the consultation process lay with the
Chairman;  (ii) the General Council would allow the Chairman to be assisted by the ambassadors from
the two countries with candidates;  (iii) each Member was invited, within a reasonable period to bedetermined by the General Council, to contact the Chairman either personally or in writing to inform
him of its preference, and after that deadline no proposal would be accepted;  and (iv) the Chairman
                                                     
2 The statement was subsequently circulated in Job No. 3548.WT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 3
would present the name of the candidate having the greatest support to the General Council for
approval by consensus.
The representative of Peru said that his delegation agreed with the Chairman's analysis of the
current situation.  Members had to take a decision on how to proceed.  Either the General Council
elected a new Director-General, or it brought the current process to a close, with all the concomitant
results.  However, since the first option seemed im possible, the only alternative was to conclude the
current process.  His delegation supported Norway's  proposal, because to conclude the current process
now would necessitate deciding on a new process, and this could not be done without consultations
and reflection.  In diplomacy and negotiations, a so lution could almost always be found.  A decision
could be taken only once all efforts in the current process had been exhausted.
The representative of Mexico said that Mexico's position had not changed since 30 April and
that there was no reason it would change in the future.  His delegation was surprised that the
Chairman's most recent report contained figures regarding support for his proposal.  Mexico's
understanding was that the objective of  the Chairman's consultations had not been to collect support
for a single candidate, but to define with Members a way to guarantee a fair and democratic process.Figures could not be the foundation for a decision, sin ce they were an evolving element, and if this
was to be the approach, Members should proceed to an informal indicative vote that would allow both
candidates to compete on an equal footing.  He asked for clarification of the meaning of the word
"yet" at the end of the third paragraph of the Chairman's Note of 14 June, and whether the attempt at
consensus-building on Kenya's proposal would go be yond the present meeting of the General Council.
This was a key point of clarification for capitals to understand the Chairman's report.  Mexico would
not agree either to eliminate existing candidates without the prior agreement of Members, of the
candidates' respective countries, and of the candidates themselves, or to change the 1 October 1998
deadline for submission of candidacies.  The General Council should recognize that there was no
consensus on either proposal. Members should take the time to informally explore simultaneously allof the ideas suggested, since it was important to have a clear and not a fragmented picture of the
situation.  Norway's suggestion was not a proposal in the sense of rule 28 of the Rules of Procedure of
the General Council, and would have to be dealt with at the appropriate time.  The current process
would only be concluded once a Director-General was selected, and it should be continued until the
General Council decided otherwise.  From the legal point of view, there could be no new candidates,
since the agreed deadline for the registration of candidates was 1 October 1998.  This also meant that
the existing candidates remained.
The Chairman asked Members for guidance on how to proceed, since Norway had made a
proposal to adjourn the meeting.
The representative of Hong Kong, China, speaking on a point of order , said that the guidance
was clear in rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure.  That rule provided that Norway's proposal should be
submitted immediately for a decision to be taken by consensus.  There was clearly no consensus to
approve the proposal.
The representative of Australia said there had been a constructive discussion in the informal
meeting of the General Council on 16 June, and there was now a clear way forward.  Members needed
to be practical and to negotiate a solution.  The Chairman's statement was an accurate reflection of the
point that had been reached.  Since there was no prospect of consensus on either of the proposals, and
since many delegations would not accept – and Australia could never accept – any candidates other
than the current two, the practical issue was to find a way to make a choice between them.  Theelements of such a solution would have to be negotiated, and circumstances were now ripe to do so.
Members should thus agree to start such negotiations, but should not begin a pre-negotiation at the
present meeting on the details and elements of what would be complex negotiations.  During theWT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 4
Chairman's absence, the Director-in-Charge might initiate such negotiations between the principal
parties and other interested delegations, starting Monday morning.
The representative of Malaysia, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that it was clear from
the Note by the Chairman of 14 June that there was no consensus on the Chairman's proposal.
Despite the fact that there had been no formal obje ction to Kenya's proposal, the Chairman's statement
at the present meeting indicated that no consensus would be possible on that proposal.  While the
Chairman had indicated that he would avoid any method similar to voting, he had included a figure in
his most recent statement.  If the Chairman intended to work with figures, Members should have been
informed of this in advance, as well as of how he  intended to assess the results of consultations aimed
at obtaining figures.  The discrepancy between the ASEAN Members' tally and the Chairman's figure
was such that these countries had difficulty accepting the Chairman's figure.  If the intention was touse a figure as a means of decision-making by the General Council, a more transparent and efficient
process with a strict time-frame should be used, su ch as some form of indicative voting.  ASEAN
maintained its position, for reasons that had been clearly stated on previous occasions.  It was
precisely for reasons of institutional interest and concerns that ASEAN had objected to the Chairman's
proposal.  The decision-making process of the organization had to ensure and uphold the integrity andcredibility of the system, under which the principles of fairness, equity and transparency should
prevail.
The representative of Zimbabwe said that his delegation acknowledged the fact that 80 out of
134 Members were now willing to support the Chairman's proposal.  As the Chairman had said, many
of these indications of support were of an "institutional" nature, in that they represented support for
the process and the Chairman's proposal, rather than for the candidate.  From the beginning, some
Members had had difficulties with the candidature of Mr. Supachai, and no explanation had been
given for this, even when asked.  Had the Chairman's proposal, in the first place, been to seek a
consensus around Mr. Supachai, the result would have been not less than 100 Members supporting itas an institutional process, considering the much  greater support Mr. Supachai had enjoyed for the
three months up to 30 April.  This was without taking into account the veiled veto that had been
expressed in the General Council against Mr. Supachai by some Members.  The Chairman's proposal
had been meant to assist the consensus process.  However, the supporters of both candidates knew
that figures were a poor basis on which to build effective negotiations, and that consensus was rarely,
if ever, achieved in the context of countervailing strength, real or incipient.  The General Council's
task was to elect transparently a Director-General, and Members should begin the search forconsensus by examining a new process anchored on verifiability and testability.  This followed from
the fact that several Members continued to maintain their formal objection to the Chairman's proposal.
There was and would be no consensus on the Chairman's proposal, and the General Council should
draw the appropriate conclusion.  Members had to look at a new beginning, and to revert to the
statutes of the WTO in pursuit of an agreement.  Resort to the constitution of the WTO was aprecondition of its transformation into an organization that was more compatible with the highest
interests of all its Members.  Each meeting at which Members postponed the move out of the current
impasse enlarged the dimensions of disorder and further polluted the environment within which an
agreement could be reached.  Since either of the two candidates would make an excellent Director-
General, Zimbabwe's proposal was similar to Haiti's, i.e. to start a new process of full consultationsbased on one simple question to Members:  who do you support between the two candidates?  All
would have to agree from the outset to accept the end result.  The Chairman would preside over the
process and could have two assessors – chosen by supporters of both candidates – to help him.  The
process should be completed within two weeks, and statements to the assessors should not be
considered as compromising the principle of confidentiality.
The representative of Uganda said that in any process of selecting the next Director-General
the wishes of all Members should be taken into account.  It should not be a question of the few
deciding and the others being asked to agree with that decision.  There was a field of candidates withWT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 5
proven track records.  The underlying problem was the methodology of selecting one of them.  It
would be useful to have a quantifiable indication of support for each candidate.  He recalled that a
straw ballot had once been used to select a Secretary General of the United Nations, and had proved
neither divisive nor had denied the candidate chosen the respect of the membership.  Even where the
head of an organization was selected by a vote, such as in the World Health Organization, the resultwas not divisive.  As Jamaica had suggested, a predictable mechanism should be worked out that had
a time-frame. His delegation was willing to explore the proposals that had been made, but felt that the
way forward was to have some quantifiable indication that all would agree in advance would be
accepted.
The representative of Bangladesh said that if it was true there was no consensus around either
candidate, his delegation wanted to make a submission.  While delegations had differences as to their
preferred candidate, they were united in considering both candidates worthy.  Thus, Members might
devise a method or a formula to take advantage of the services of both candidates, by allowing each to
have a turn at the post.  Thus, the two might split the period between them, each taking three years.  It
would have to be agreed that during the period of office of one, the other would refrain from exerting
any influence on the organization's work.  The question of who would assume office first could bedetermined by a straw poll or some other method.  There would, of course, have to be formal
agreement on all of these points in advance.  This idea had been discussed among some delegations in
the corridors, and might be a way to unite a divided house.
The representative of Bulgaria made a statement
3 in which he said that his delegation could
not agree with the suggestion that the process was dead but that two of the candidates were still alive.
Under the established process, there had been a successive elimination of candidates until there had
been only one.  His delegation had accepted the elimination of its two first preferences among the four
candidates, and did not understand why other Members were unable to accept the elimination of the
third candidate.  His delegation was against declaring the current process concluded without havingappointed a Director-General.  From a procedur al point of view, the current process could be
concluded only by consensus or if the majority of Members so wished.  One assumption underlying
the suggestion that the current process was dead was that it was flawed.  However, the process had not
only been accepted by Members by consensus, but was logically the only possible process.  In the
course of this process, certain rules had evolved.  First, if the majority of Members did not want a
vote, the only conceivable and legally possible way to proceed was to appoint the Director-General by
consensus.  In the extreme case, Members would first have to vote on  whether they wanted a vote.Second, the only conceivable way to proceed was to reduce the number of candidates.  This had been
generally accepted by Members.  Third, certain criteria for the consecutive reduction of the number of
candidates had been established, which included the level of support, the geographical spread of the
support, and the level of acceptability of the candidates.  These criteria had been accepted by the vast
majority of Members and continued to be fair and equitable.  Fourth, as to the procedures to beapplied for the elimination of candidates, the current process had been accepted, although perhaps not
by consensus.  One of the remaining two candidates had been eliminated and the process had
continued without him.  If the Chairman's propos al could not be accepted by all, Members should
agree to accept the decision of the majority.  In the light of these considerations, the numbers
regarding support of the Chairman's proposal indicated in his Note of 14 June were significant,because they could be considered sufficient for the positive conclusion of the process in favour of the
Chairman's proposal.  His delegation could not agree to conclude the current process and to start a
new one before rules for that new process had been adopted.  The fault was not with the process or its
rules, but with Members who had failed to accept and to apply them.
The representative of Jamaica said that her delegation shared some of the views expressed by
Australia and Mexico.  The course of action to be decided on this matter would be important for the
future work of the WTO leading up to the 1999 Ministerial Conference, and possibly beyond.  Time
                                                     
3 The statement was subsequently circulated in document Job No.3792.WT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 6
was of the essence.  One possible course was for Members, taking full account of first and second
preferences indicated during the selection process, to join in finding consensus to appoint a Director-
General.  The other possible, and hopefully less likely, course was for some Members to remain fixed,
determined and inflexible, and so block resolution of the matter by consensus.  The following
elements might be a basis on which a consensus decision could be built with a view to concluding theprocess by 30 June 1999:  (i) the appointment should  be limited to the remaining two candidates, who
had attracted significant levels of support based on the agreed criteria;  (ii) the name to be proposed to
the General Council would be agreed by consensus;  and (iii) Members would agree to abide by the
outcome.  The steps leading to the decision would be the following:  (i) the Chairman's proposal in his
statement of 30 April 1999 and Kenya's proposal of 3 May 1999 would not be called into question
during this phase of the process;  (ii) the Chairman of the General Council, assisted by the
Chairpersons of the Dispute Settlement Body, Tr ade Policy Review Mechanism, Councils for Trade
in Goods, Services and TRIPS, and the Committee on Trade and Development would be mandated to
work with the Chairman of the General Council and the facilitator to determine the modalities that
would meet the requirements of the General Council regarding the preferences indicated for each of
the two candidates, it being understood that the co mposition of the group could be modified in the
light of consultations and that the Chairman's proposal would be the starting-point for the group'sdeliberations;  and (iii) the Chairman would report to the General Council on the modalities to be used
in resolving this matter.  These elements should be considered by Members either in an informal
meeting of the General Council or in another setting,  as agreed.  Further, the General Council would
agree to begin consideration of the proposals on rules and procedures for the appointment of the next
Director-General contained in Job No. 3506.
The representative of Kenya said that the fact that Members had failed to resolve this issue
was due to the process the Chairman had been mandated to follow, and was not the fault of the
Chairman or the facilitator.  That process had come to an end, since neither the Chairman's proposal
nor Kenya's proposal had thus far generated consensus.  The lesson to learn from this was that aflawed process could never produce acceptable results.  Reservations about this process stated early
on by Jamaica, Egypt and others should have been taken into account.  The selection of the next
Director-General should be made from and confined to the declared candidates, who were competent,
respectable and distinguished personalities who commended support from a wide cross-section of
Members.  No delegation had expressed difficulty with either of the candidates, who had invested
considerable time and effort in a process that was not of their making.  The fact that the General
Council had not made a decision was not the fault of any of the candidates, but rather of the process,
which had given conflicting signals such that the Chairman's recommendation had posed problems for
a number of delegations.  Whatever course of action was agreed upon, the selection should be made
from the declared candidates.
The representative of Ghana said that the agreed process had not produced a candidate by
consensus, and that it was time to devise another process without abandoning the two candidates.  The
current impasse could be resolved if those opposing a new process would be flexible.  Members
should seriously consider the proposals put forward for breaking the deadlock.
The representative of India said that his delegation agreed with the Chairman's assessment
that there was no consensus on either of the two proposals.  However, there seemed to be no desire to
move away from the two candidates.  From the outse t, all Members had said that both candidates were
highly qualified to be the next Director-General, and both enjoyed strong and widespread support.
Therefore, there was a need to find a way to select one of them, particularly since there was
apprehension about embarking on a totally new process with new candidates.  This matter should besettled as soon as possible, and the starting-point should be to find a way of choosing one of the two
candidates through a quick, fair, transparent and credible process based on a straightforward and
simple question as to the preference between the two candidates.  Based on the responses to that
question, an assessment would be made by the Chairman of the level of support for each of theWT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 7
candidates, and whoever enjoyed the higher level of  support would be agreed in advance to be the
consensus choice of the General Council.  This was not very different from Australia's or Haiti's
proposals.  The details of this method could be worked out only once Members agreed on the
approach, but this should make it possible to achieve results reasonably quickly.
The representative of the Dominican Republic said that his delegation presumed it had been
included among those the Chairman had indicated had not taken a position on his proposal but were
ready to join a consensus.  That decision by his delegation had been due to the recognition of how
difficult it was for Members to reach a decision on this matter, which was why the Dominican
Republic fully endorsed the proposals just made by Kenya and India.
The representative of Brazil said that his delegation had hoped that at the present meeting
Members could agree that the current phase of the selection process was over, so that they could look
for another way forward.  It was clear that if the same method were to be pursued, it would have to be
consensus by erosion, meaning that one side would finally give up.  However, the Chairman's report
indicated that this would not happen soon, and time was of the essence.  The two remaining
candidates were excellent, and if possible, Members should choose between them.  There were severalways to do that:  one was consensus by erosion, which was not practical;  another would be some kind
of quantifiable evaluation, but some Members had difficulties with that;  a third was Bangladesh's
suggestion to divide the term between the two candidates;  and a fourth was drawing lots, but this
would likely not be acceptable.  With these four options, all of which had negative implications, the
list of possibilities was exhausted.  Members should declare that the current phase was concluded, andshould negotiate with an open mind to find the best solution for the organization.
The representative of Bolivia said that while the process agreed upon was clear, it seemed that
there were always problems when numbers were cited.  There remained only one candidate.  Her
delegation hoped that the Chairman's proposal would continue to garner support, and was convincedthat the goal of consensus would be reached on the basis of the agreed process.  That process had
worked up until 30 April, and the rules of the game could not be changed midway.  The process had
been adopted at a time when there were no candidates and all possibilities were open, which was the
only time an objective, credible and applicable procedure could be approved.  If Members could not
get out of the current impasse, how could they agree on new rules or a new process?  Her delegation
agreed with the statement by Bulgaria.
The representative of Pakistan said that the process had moved matters forward, if slowly and
painfully.  Members now had to decide on a meth od to choose between one of the two candidates.
His delegation proposed that Members agree on a simple decision that would include the following
four elements:  (i) the selection of the next Director-General should be based on a continuation of the
process initiated in July 1998 and should be made by consensus;  (ii) taking into account thepreferences of Members and of the progress made towards reaching a consensus, the next Director-
General should be selected from the candidatures of Mr. Moore and Mr. Supachai;  (iii) a fair
methodology would be agreed to determine the level of support of each candidate, with a view to
reaching a definite recommendation for the selection of the next Director-General by 30 July 1999;
and (iv) this recommendation would be accepted by consensus by all Members.
The representative of Venezuela said there were two alternatives:  to continue efforts to reach
consensus on the Chairman's proposal, or to agree that the process had failed and that that a new
process was needed.  In the latter case, a new methodology would be needed in order to open a new
process, which would have to involve new actors and to meet the concerns of Members regardingjustice and equity.   If it was true that the process was tainted, as some had claimed, it would take
Members nowhere and should be scrapped.  Consensus-building was a difficult task, and he wondered
whether Members had made sufficient efforts to do this.  He also wondered what would happen to the
negotiating process if Members were unable to solve even an administrative problem.  With theWT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 8
methodology and rules defined at the start of this process, there were enough elements to meet the
concerns of equity and justice, and further efforts had to be made to reach a consensus.
The representative of the United States said the Chairman's report showed that support for his
proposal had increased, and her delegation would c ontinue to support the Chairman and the agreed
process.  The United States was willing to consider any suggestion that might help the General
Council to reach consensus.  However, most of the proposals were for a vote, and her delegation had
consistently said that a vote was unacceptable.  Others had completely left out delegations that had no
representation in Geneva, or stripped the confidentiality element from the agreed process.  Members
had to continue to try to build consensus within th e agreed process.  If no agreement could be reached
in that process, the only alternative would be to start an entirely new process with new candidates.
However, the Chairman's process was still alive and gaining support.  No other proposal commandedthat proposal's strength of support.  The attempt by some delegations to change the rules of the game
midway was disconcerting and unacceptable.  She suggested that Members take time to reflect on the
Chairman's report and on the present discussion, and consult again.
The representative of New Zealand said that the Chairman's Note of 14 June indicated that at
least two-thirds of those Members expressing a view on the appointment of the next Director-General
had registered support for the Chairman's proposal.  These Members had decided to treat the WTO, its
principles and its procedures as paramount.  New Zealand recognized that not all 80 or so Members
were expressing support for Mr. Moore, and that some had simply opted to send a signal of
institutional support for the WTO.  A number of Members had chosen to remain silent.  This wasdirectly relevant to the point that at least two-thirds of the Members supported the Chairman's
proposal.  If 80-plus Members had expressed support, 40 or less Members were currently either not
standing in the way of a consensus decision in favour of the Chairman's proposal, or were for the time
being maintaining an objection to that proposal.  Delegations in the latter category represented a
relatively small proportion of the 40 Members.  Thus, Members now had important additionalinformation indicating that the level of support for the Chairman's proposal was extensive.  Regarding
the first criterion under the agreed process, the "threshold of preference", the margin was now
substantial, and the geographic spread of support had been further enhanced.  New Zealand asked
those Members who had thus far not allowed the Chairman's proposal to move forward, to reflect on
the following points.  First, all had been pursuing an agreed process that was transparent and open.  In
good faith, candidates had made presentations, visited capitals and discussed key issues with
delegations.  Second, considerable energy and effort had been invested over many months byMembers, the Chairman and the facilitator, in fo llowing the agreed procedure.  This had involved
intensive consultations with Members, the results of which had been reflected in the Chairman's
successive reports to the General Council.  Third, Members had consistently favoured no resort to
either vetos or voting.  Fourth, within the agreed process, New Zealand and others had not been
inflexible on procedures.  "Circuit breakers" had been floated, but it had not been possible to reachagreement on them.  Efforts to achieve agreement in this regard had failed, essentially because some
had sought to by-pass the key findings of the agreed process.  New Zealand would await the collective
membership's decision on whether to endorse, by consensus, the clearly preferred candidate generated
by the process agreed unanimously by the General Council in July 1998.  As no proposal other than
the Chairman's had any prospect of success, the choice facing the General Council was betweenaccepting the Chairman's proposal and taking a major leap into uncharted and non-transparent waters.
Key principles and agreed rules should not be cast aside.  His delegation remained available to engage
in any dialogue the Chairman felt was appropriate a nd looked forward to this matter being brought to
an early decision.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said it was clear from the Chairman's report that it
was not possible to form a consensus on the Chairman's recommendation, which a substantial number
of Members continued to oppose.  In the context of the question and the size of the membership, 80
was not a large number.  The Chairman's report of 30 April was an unclear and insufficiently certainWT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 9
basis on which to base any recommendation or make an appointment.  It showed only the narrowest
of numerical leads for one candidate, and it was not customary in the WTO to make recommendations
for consensus on such a basis.  His delegation opposed the Chairman's proposal and any extended
process based on an unsound foundation.  The Chairman himself had recognized that consensus on
the basis of his recommendation was not viable.  However, it should still be possible to appoint one ofthe two candidates as Director-General since, as Haiti had said, the process was dead but the
candidates were still alive.  The problem was to find a mechanism to break the deadlock.  While
efforts in this direction had not yet succeeded, the three basic propositions put forward by Australia
provided a basis to resolve this matter.  Efforts should be made to choose one of the two existing
candidates through a new mechanism, i.e. one not based on the Chairman's proposal.  Starting a new
exercise from scratch would be a voyage into the unknown in terms of both outcome and duration.
His delegation was disappointed that in a press statement by one of the candidates, Hong Kong, Chinahad been portrayed as a recalcitrant minority to be bowed into submission, and was also disappointed
by the implication in New Zealand's statement that  delegations such as Hong Kong, China did not
hold the institutional interests of the WTO paramount.  It was for institutional reasons that his
delegation had objected to the Chairman's proposal, as his delegation did not share New Zealand's
view of the reasonableness of the process to date.  His delegation was against any suggestion to start acompletely new process, as it continued to support the candidature of Mr. Supachai and would not
consider any proposals that would endanger his candidacy.  Hong Kong, China supported the four
elements outlined by Pakistan and agreed that th ese were fundamental.  Members were searching for
new ideas to move ahead, rather than new processe s.  As the Chairman had said in his statement,
Members had to accept their responsibility and to move ahead.  It had to be admitted that the processthus far had failed to produce any agreement.  As Australia had suggested, the WTO Director-in-
Charge might begin informal consultations with in terested delegations to explore the new ideas that
had been floated, and his delegation would like to participate in those consultations.
The representative of Uruguay said that the Chairman's Note of 14 June showed that the
current process was still alive, and provided important new elements, e.g. that support for the
Chairman's proposal was growing, that the quest for consensus on it was continuing, and that two-
thirds of the membership supported it.  Whatever was decided should be based on the majority's
views.  While there remained a number of objectio ns to the Chairman's proposal, the agreed process
could not be ignored and the two candidates put back on an equal footing.  What was at issue was the
need for Members to rally around the Chairman's proposal, or to accept that the process had ended
and to start a completely new process with new candidates.  His delegation was ready to listen to anyconstructive proposals that would take into account all Members' concerns.
The representative of Morocco said that the interests of the institution should be kept in mind.
A process had started some months earlier, and the time had now come to draw conclusions.  It was
clear that the Chairman's proposal was not acceptable, and that there was no consensus on Kenya'sproposal.  Consensus had to be based on good faith and conviction.  If consensus could not be reached
at the present stage in the process, there was no chance it could be reached in the future in that
process.  It was the collective responsibility of the Members that the process had failed to reach
consensus.  Recognizing that the process had failed was a necessary step towards a solution.  Options
to break the impasse should not be linked to specific preferences, and the word "never" should not beused regarding any possible option.  Three options were available:  first, the two candidates could be
maintained, but without a vote there would be no solution to the impasse.  Second, one could go back
to the four candidates, but this would not solve the impasse either, as the General Council would be
faced with the same problems.  Third, one could open the process to new candidates, but this could
only be done once objective, transparent and fair working procedures were decided upon.  The currentprocess had failed because of lack of transparency and fairness.  Had time been of the essence, a
decision would have been taken long ago.  Met hodology was more important than who the candidates
were, and during the Chairman's absence, delegations should consult on methods to break the
impasse, independent of issues relating to the candidates themselves.  The current process was dead,WT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 10
and Members had to so decide.  The Secretariat was not an elected body, and therefore should not be
involved in the selection of the next Director-General.
The representative of Japan said that Members had to admit they had not succeeded in finding
a Director-General on the basis of the Chairman's  report of 30 April.  There was and would be no
consensus on the Chairman's proposal.  The current process had failed, and  Members should ask the
Chairman to make a ruling to put an end to that process.  Members could then discuss the next steps to
take to arrive at an expeditious result in a fair and transparent manner.  The criteria for the selection
had perhaps not been clear enough and had allowed for subjective judgements.  The formal objections
raised had not been to either of the candidates, but rather to the criteria and procedure chosen.  The
appointment of the next Director-General should be made from the existing candidates.  Any so-called
"circuit breaker" should be based on criteria that were objective, fair, transparent and provided for aclear deadline.  Figures given in support of the Chairman's proposal were not enough to justify
continuing with the process of building consensus.   He suggested that two or more representatives
from each group of supporters could be chosen to work as honest brokers in collaboration with the
Chairman, and could put one question to Members:  "which candidate did they prefer?".  The General
Council would accept the candidate who had gained  the majority of support in response to that
question.
The representative of Korea said that since there was little chance of consensus on the
Chairman's proposal, the time had come to make efforts to establish a new approach that would meet
with greater sympathy from Members.  One of the be st alternatives was to resort to a quantitative
approach that was open, fair and transparent.  It was necessary to be more flexible and positive in
exploring the various ways to break the impasse, which was due primarily to insufficient transparency
in the process.  The selection should be made from the two existing candidates.
The representative of the Czech Republic said that Members had to either make a deal or start
a new process.  His delegation was optimistic that there would eventually be a good result.  It had
been suggested that one way to break the current impasse would be to indicate relative levels of
support.  This could take the form of the Chairman's progress reports, the latest of which indicated
that support was increasing for his proposal.  While there was as yet no consensus on that proposal,
consensus took time, and given the time and energy spent on the agreed process over eight months,
that process should not be scrapped.  There was no logic in the approach that the process was dead but
the candidates alive, and to start a new process would require detailed rules.  Consultations should begiven another chance.
The representative of Egypt said that the fact that Members had been unable to take a decision
on the next Director-General before the end of Mr. Ruggiero's term had damaged the credibility of the
organization.  His delegation had said from the outset that if there was no consensus within a time-bound frame, the General Council should proceed to a vote, as stated in Article IX of the WTO
Agreement, in order to avoid a paralysis of the system.  That was the present situation.  Those who
were afraid of the automatic majority had insisted on a decision by consensus.  However, the rules had
to be enforced.  There should be no new process, because this would have to include all interested
candidates and might reach the same stalemate.  Members should be pragmatic and proceed to a vote,either formally or by a straw ballot.  His delegation did not agree that the current process, which had
been initiated in July 1998, had been decided by consensus.
The representative of Nigeria said that his delegation supported those delegations who had
proposed continuing the process until an agreement was reached on the appointment of the next
Director-General.  The General Council had agreed to  appoint the next Director-General from the four
candidates by consensus, and there should be no vote and no veto.  The Chairman had been charged
with the responsibility of selecting the next Director-General using certain criteria.  The process had
already produced remarkable results which Members had accepted.  The Chairman's report showedWT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 11
that considerable progress had been made.  Thus far, the selection process was on course and all
Members were fully committed to it.  Time was needed to conclude the process, which could not be
abandoned halfway and had to be brought to its logical conclusion.  Time should be given to
delegations to reflect on the Chairman's report and, together and with the Chairman, to see how gaps
could be closed and consensus achieved around the leading candidate.  There was no guarantee that anew process would achieve a result acceptable to all Members, or that it would not be blocked
halfway. Members should continue to be patient and to protect the image and credibility of the
organization by being consistent with their decisions.  If one Member decided not to join a consensus,
a decision was not reached.  However, throughou t the history of the GATT/WTO, Members had
invariably joined the consensus.  Members should  not set a bad precedent by allowing the current
impasse to persist, and the use of a disguised form of veto augured ill for future WTO decisions.  No
Member could be prevented from blocking a decision it felt was not in its interests.  Members shouldshow flexibility in this matter, in order to preserve the integrity of the WTO.
The representative of Mexico said it seemed  that the General Council could now draw the
appropriate conclusions and act accordingly.  Members should decide informally how to proceed and
then decide what changes or additions to make to the current process.  Any such changes or additionswould have to be decided by consensus.  Members should explore informally all of the ideas that had
been floated, which fell into two broad categories:  a quantitative method and a new process.  Mexico
did not agree that the Secretariat could take over for the Chairman during the latter's absence, as this
matter was the Chairman's responsibility.  Also, the confidentiality of the process had to be
maintained.
The representative of Slovenia said that Norway's proposal was reasonable, and his delegation
would have supported it.  Positions were being repeated with no serious effort to reach a solution to
this matter.  Slovenia fully trusted the Chairman and fully accepted the Chairman's statement at the
present meeting.  The fact that there had been no breakthrough did not mean that the process ofconsultations had ended, and the Chairman's statement indicated there was a substantial basis for
continuing these consultations, notwithstanding the formal objections to the Chairman's proposal.  He
associated his delegation with the statements by Bulgaria and Nigeria that the current process could
not be declared closed.  Any new process would imply ground rules accepted in advance and abided
by all delegations, in order to guarantee that its end result would be accepted.
The representative of Thailand said that his delegation had remained silent because a
candidate country should be subject to the views and decisions of the membership, rather than
influence them.  However, he wanted to clarify Thailand's position.  Thailand had engaged in the
process of the selection of a Director-General with a sense of responsibility and with the intent of
contributing to the functioning of the organization.  It was regrettable that Members had been unable
to reach a decision, particularly at a time when a heavy agenda lay ahead for the WTO.  The currentimpasse went beyond the candidacy of Mr. Supachai, Thailand or ASEAN, and involved a large
number of Members.  His Government wanted to contribute to resolving this impasse, and would
work with all Members to do so.  Many good idea s had been put forward.  The methodology for the
selection process should continue to be based on the principles of equity, fairness, objectivity,
transparency and efficiency, and should provide for the shortest possible time-frame.
The representative of the United States said that time should be taken to carefully consider all
of the statements made at the present meeting, including the Chairman's, and the ways suggested to
move forward.  The Chairman's statement reflected the Member-driven nature of the organization, and
how even those whose preference had not necessarily been for the candidate recommended by theChairman had moved the process forward by supporting the Chairman's proposal – which the United
States continued to support – and laying the gr oundwork for progress.  Time should be taken for
further consultations.WT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 12
The representative of India said that in light of the fact that there was no consensus on either
of the proposals, and the fact that there was an overall desire to find a way to select one of the two
candidates, the General Council should arrive at a common approach to do the latter.  Statements at
the present meeting indicated that Members were willing to explore how to do this, and
communication among them was essential.  Members had a responsibility to find a solutionirrespective of their individual positions, and consultations should be held to this end.
The representative of Australia said that the three previous statements were both important
and encouraging, as they showed it was still possible for Members to communicate on this issue and
that delegations were prepared to act with a sense of statesmanship and leadership to resolve it.  There
had been indications from many delegations of new and greater flexibility, and while positions might
still be far apart, this was the usual beginning for a complex and difficult negotiation.  Delegationswho had expressed difficulties would no doubt want to be part of the negotiations and to influence and
shape the final result.  While there was now a visible way out of the impasse, the present meeting was
not the place for Members to discuss the details of the negotiations or to address the many questions
raised.  The elements of such negotiations could be discussed during the Chairman's absence, and
negotiations could begin immediately upon his return.
The representative of Ecuador said that his delegation agreed with the Chairman's assessment
that there was no consensus on either the Chairman's proposal or on Kenya's proposal, which his
delegation continued to support.  Lack of consensus did not mean failure.  There had been other
situations in which no consensus had been reached during an even longer period, and in the end asolution had been found.  Consensus had to be sought after and constructed, and conditions provided
that facilitated it.  A new process should be structured that was flexible and transparent.  However, it
would be premature to try to develop the details of a new process at the present meeting.  This would
take time and should be discussed over the course of the following weeks.
The representative of Chile said that her delegation shared the Chairman's analysis.  While
suggestions for resolving the current impasse had been  made in a positive spirit, they disregarded the
agreed process, and many were based on voting.  In a situation where the process was clearly
paralysed, the agreed rules could not be changed.  The process had to be seen as comprehensive and
as including the four original candidates.  Any solution had to safeguard the results of the agreed
process and the Chairman's proposal, had to allow non-resident Members the opportunity to express
their preferences, and had to preserve the confidentiality of the process.  Given that most Membersdid not want a new process, they should give a last chance to consensus-building.  If no consensus
could be achieved, Members should agree that the process had failed and should hold consultations to
decide on how to proceed.  However, a new proce ss implied new candidates, new procedures and new
rules, and would have to reflect the rule of consensus in WTO decision-making.
The representative of Mauritius said that his delegation had heeded the Chairman's appeal to
be flexible and had decided that it would join any consensus that was forming.  However, while
Mauritius had remained silent during the process, it was not among those delegations assumed as
being ready to support the Chairman's proposal, as the Chairman's statement seemed to indicate.  It
was clear that there was no consensus on either proposal.  Any new process would require a decisionby the General Council.  Several ideas had been suggested, and Mauritius was ready to explore them
in further consultations.
The representative of Romania said that his delegation's position was in line with those of
Bulgaria, Nigeria and Slovenia.  The Chairman's statement and the present discussion indicated that
the process was alive.  For the time being, there was no consensus on the Chairman's proposal.
However, consensus-building was alive, as had been shown by the increasing support for the
Chairman's proposal.  The dialogue should continue, and Members should reflect on the currentWT/GC/M/40/Add.4
Page 13
situation and find a way forward, so that consensus could be built around the Chairman's proposal,
which was already supported by two-thirds of  the membership.
The representative of Sri Lanka said the Chairman's report was accurate in stating that there
was no consensus on either of the proposals.  His delegation supported the proposal by Pakistan
regarding the four elements outlined as the basis for the new phase of the existing process.  It was
hoped that such an approach could be agreed soon, in order to move the process forward and find a
consensus candidate.
The representative of Djibouti said that the WTO had functioned well so far, and in order to
continue to do so, it would have to reach a c onsensus on this matter.  Members would have less
respect for the organization if a vote was taken on this matter.
The representative of Argentina said that the selection of the next Director-General was an
important matter but did not justify the level of confrontation that had been reached among Members.
The future of international trade did not depend on the person elected to this post, and the agenda for
the 1999 Ministerial Conference would not be shaped by the future Director-General.  However, thecredibility of the WTO and its capacity to function efficiently, in particular with only a few months to
go before the launching of new multilateral trade nego tiations, were issues of particular interest to his
Government.  Argentina had supported and continued to support the Chairman's proposal, and would
participate in all efforts to overcome the existing impasse.  The alternative to this would be a new
process, with new rules and possibly with new candidates, which would take time and had noguarantee of success.  No process should be started before clear rules of procedure were agreed, in
order to avoid another deadlock.  Any other avenues to be explored should take account of the fact
that technically there were three candidates, since Canada had not withdrawn its candidate.  Any path
to be explored should be within the Chairman's responsibility and not the Secretariat's.
The Chairman expressed appreciation for the positive spirit with which delegations had
contributed to the present discussion, even though there appeared to be no common view.  It had been
recognized that as things currently stood, there could be no consensus on either of the two proposals
unless there was a marked change in positions.  However, Members did not seem to be ready to
decide that the process started in July 1998 should be regarded as concluded.  Thus, it was incumbent
on delegations to consult intensively among themselves.  There had to be an early decision on how to
move forward, and Members had to reflect and to decide on how to proceed.  This could only be doneby consulting.  It was the Members' problem and the Members' decision.  He appealed to delegations
to talk together, and to remember that when the final decision on this matter was taken, all Members
would have to work together and with the new Director-General with mutual confidence and good
will.  As he would be away from Geneva for a week, he proposed that the General Council adjourn
and reconvene early in July to decide how to move forward.
The General Council took note of the statements and so agreed
.
__________