RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/18
4 March 1999
(99-0823)
Original:  French
GENERAL COUNCIL
Meeting held on 1 March 1999
Progress report by Ambassador W. Rossier on consultations
with a view to the appointment of the next Director-General
As you will recall, on 20 January last I presented to you the results of the consultations that I
conducted on 13, 14 and 15 January in order to learn the preferences of delegations with regard to the
appointment of the next Director-General of the WTO.
Everyone is aware of those results, and I shall not revert to them now.
During the last few weeks, some fifty delegations have contacted me, of which 38 have
informed me of a new position.
These new positions fall into four categories:
●In the great majority of cases, they are positions of delegations that had not expressed a preference
during the consultations in mid-January;
●other cases concern delegations that contacted me in order to change the position they expressed in
January;
●yet other delegations added to the position communicated in January, but without changing it;
●I was also contacted by delegations wishing to inform me that they did not want to express a
preference at this stage in the consultations but only at a later stage.
Lastly, a number of delegations confirmed, in writing or orally, the position they had already
made known in mid-January.
Thus, 118 delegations expressed their preferences during the consultation process that has
taken place since 13 January.
I should like to stress that, as in the case of the earlier consultations, the information provided
by delegations since 15 January has been treated with the utmost confidentiality.
Background comments on these results
1. The results I am presenting today are an updating of the preferences expressed by WTO
Members with regard to the various candidates for the post of Director-General.  This update
reflects the situation as of today, 1 March 1999, at 12 noon.WT/GC/18
Page 2
2. It should be noted that a large number of the positions expressed in recent weeks could
change at a later stage, depending on the outcome of the coordination efforts still under way
among a number of Members.
3. As may be seen from the figures that I will give you, many delegations have confined
themselves to replying to only the first of the three questions put to them in the consultations
in January.
4. As was the case during the January consultations, some delegations stated that they would not
be in a position to join automatically in a consensus on a candidate other than the one(s) they
had indicated as their first or second preference.  They also asked to be consulted once again
in that eventuality.  However, this is not the case of the majority of delegations, most ofwhom said that in such an event they would be able to join in a consensus on whichever of the
four candidates was able to obtain one.
Having said this, here is the situation today following this last round of consultations:
Members' first preference
Altogether, as at 1 March:
● 39 delegations gave their first preference to Mr. Supachai of Thailand;
● 35 delegations gave their first preference to Mr. Abouyoub of Morocco;
● 23 delegations gave their first preference to Mr. McLaren of Canada;  and
● 21 delegations gave their first preference to Mr. Mike Moore of New Zealand.
Members' second preference
As at 1 March:
● 32 delegations gave their second preference to Mr. Mike Moore of New Zealand;
● 23 delegations gave their second preference to Mr. Supachai of Thailand;
● 11 delegations gave their second preference to Mr. Abouyoub of Morocco;
● 8 delegations gave their second preference to Mr. McLaren of Canada.
Geographical distribution of support for candidates
The situation of Mr. Supachai and Mr. Moore has not changed significantly since 20 January:
they continue to have a wide base.
Regional support for Mr. Abouyoub has increased and at the same time he has won a
significant support in another region of the world.
The geographical base of the support for Mr. McLaren has also broadened to some extent
following the latest consultations.WT/GC/18
Page 3
Mr. Chairman, as was the case on 20 January, I shall not deal today with the replies given to
the third question posed on 23 December.  As I said on 20 January, these replies will have to come
into play further on in the selection process.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I wish to conclude this progress report by stressing that the final
remarks I made in my report on 20 January remain entirely valid, and therefore I shall not repeat
them.
__________