. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/MIN(99)/ST/47
1 December 1999
(99-5240)
MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE
Third Session
Seattle, 30 November - 3 December 1999Original:  Spanish
URUGUAY
Statement by H.E. Dr. Didier Opertti ,
Minister of Foreign Affairs
Uruguay has come to Seattle with the firm intention of adding its voice, efforts and hopes to
those of the other WTO Member countries who want a successful ministerial meeting and the launch
of a new round of multilateral trade negotiations in the WTO framework that reflects the interests of
all.
In the scant five minutes we have for making our address, I shall confine myself to spelling
out my country's position on one aspect which we consider absolutely essential for attaining this
objective.
This new round, the eighth since the creation of the GATT, must achieve the objective of
fully integrating agricultural trade into the same rules, standards and disciplines as other goods withinthe WTO.  In other words, and I wish this to be clearly understood, the forthcoming multilateral trade
negotiations have to be the last stage of this integration, so ending the unfair discrimination from
which the agricultural sector has suffered for more then fifty years by always being considered a
special case.
Our position is just and reasonable.  There is no reason why efficient agricultural producers,
of which my country is certainly one, whose growth and development are directly linked with thissector, have to continue facing barriers, distortions and discrimination of all kinds in order to have
access to the markets of developed countries, while the tariffs and non-tariff measures for industrial
products,  capital goods or high technology products ar e cut to a minimum or eliminated.  Nor is there
any reason why, despite its efficiency and comparative advantages at the world level, our country's
share of world agricultural exports should continue to decline as a result of the trade distortions,domestic support policies and export subsidies of agriculturally inefficient developed countries which
do not wish to apply to agriculture the liberalization recipes they advocate for the rest of the world of
trade.
I am far from indulging in rhetoric here:  this is indeed a make-or-break issue for Uruguay.The Marrakesh Agreements established a mandate for continuing the agricultural
negotiations.  However, I wish to say once again that Uruguay has for some time come out in favour
of a new round as the most suitable and practical means of obtaining results that take account of the
interests of all parties.  It is in this spirit that we are joining in these discussions, but on theunderstanding that agriculture will have high priority in negotiations arising out of the Seattle
meeting.  In recent weeks we have made great efforts and displayed great flexibility in order to reach
an agreement along these lines.  Nevertheless, this has not been possible.  We have the feeling that
there was a wish to leave all decisions to this Seattle meeting.WT/MIN(99)/ST/47
Page 2
To conclude, we think it is important to stress two essential points that we must bear in mind
at all times as the backdrop to our work at this Ministerial Conference.  The first is the need to find
the overall balance of these negotiations within the framework of the broad range of different issues
that we will finally agree upon as the basis for negotiations.  This balance includes agriculture, but is
not confined to agriculture.  The second is to accept that for the time being the only subjects that wehave agreed to negotiate after Seattle are those included in the built-in agenda (agriculture, services
and some intellectual property aspects).  We want to be able to establish negotiating mandates with
clear and precise objectives and modalities for these subjects.  If the political will to do this is lacking,
there will be no reason to launch a broad new round of multilateral negotiations at Seattle.  If that
should happen, we will resume the mandated negotiations in Geneva.  Naturally, in that case we are
not prepared to pay any additional cost for this.
We wish to make it clear that Uruguay is categorically opposed to the inclusion of the concept
of multi-functionality in the agricultural negotiations.  First, because multi-functionality is a concept
applicable to all production sectors - industrial, services and investment.  If it is to be analysed in the
WTO, this should be done across-the-board, taking account of all subjects and not agriculture alone.
Second, because it is merely another argument, perhaps more sophisticated but along the same lines asthe other older traditional ones, to justify protectionism.  And third, because the objectives of food
security, environmental conservation, bio-diversity, rural development and job creation can be
attained far better through measures specifically targeted at these ends rather than by other means that
distort agricultural production and international trade.
Uruguay accepts that the negotiations should take account of certain non-trade concerns, as
mentioned in Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture.  But these concerns should be dealt with
through specific, transparent and non-distorting measures: in other words, through the green box.  In
the case of developing countries, we could possibly consider some of them in the context of special
and differential treatment.
In keeping with its tradition and attitude so far, Uruguay will continue to deploy its best
efforts for a successful meeting in Seattle.  It will  do so in a constructive spirit and in the belief that
this is in the interests of all.  Uruguay certainly  wants to be on board the train that was mentioned
yesterday.  But not as a passive passenger, nor as sole driver, but rather with full awareness of the
destination towards which we are heading and the route we will take to get there, and pooling theforces that will both fuel and justify our journey.
__________