RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/46
2 August 1999
(99-3257)
General Council
22 July 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 22 July 1999
Chairman:  Mr. Ali Mchumo (Tanzania)
1. Appointment of the next Director-General
Prior to this formal meeting of the General Council, an informal meeting of this body had
been convened by the Chairman on 20 July for the purpose of considering the text of a draft decision
on the appointment of the next Director-General, co ntained in document Job No. 4119/Rev.1.  At the
formal meeting it was decided that all statements from the informal meeting would be included in the
record of the formal meeting.  The following reflects the discussion first at the informal, and then atthe formal meeting.
The Chairman said that intensive consultations had been taking place among delegations, and
that the text in Job No. 4119/Rev.1 reflected the positions taken in those consultations.
The representative of Bangladesh said that Members still confronted an impasse regarding the
appointment of the next Director-General.  Further delay would inflict irreparable damage on the
organization.  The intensive deliberations over the past months had led to a deadlock, and the many
options put forth to break the deadlock had not succeeded.  On 16 June, Bangladesh had informally
broached a proposal for a term-sharing by the two candidates.  Thereafter, consultations with
delegations had led to further sharpening and honing of the ideas in this proposal.  Australia had
subsequently organized a series of meetings to facilitate the process through an informal mechanism,where all protagonist parties were represented, and many delegations had made useful suggestions.
The draft recognized and asserted Members' insistence on the principles of transparency, equity and
fairness throughout the process, and responded to the desire of many that the elements be clearly
stated and carved in stone.  Care had been taken that the weight of the details not sink the proposals or
cause them to run aground, and the need for balance had been key.  Precision had been written intoevery element, including the provision of exact dates and specific time-frames.  The draft decision
entailed the appointment, by a single decision and for a period of six years, of Mr. Moore and Mr.
Supachai, each for exactly three years, and ruled ou t the possibility of any extension or reappointment
of either.  A variety of necessary conditions had been linked to the appointment of Deputy Directors-
General ("DDGs").  The special nature of the current situation had been acknowledged, and it hadbeen asserted that this decision would not constitute a precedent.  There was an explicit resolve in the
draft decision to strengthen the existing regulations, leading to the elaboration and adoption of a set of
rules and procedures for future appointment of the Director-General by the end of September 2000.
While the draft decision was not an ideal solution, it was a compromise, and under present
circumstances, the most practicable one.  It was al so one that possibly commanded the widest measure
of acceptance.  While longer deliberations on this matter might yield a better solution, there was noWT/GC/M/46
Page 2
time for this, since a decision was long overdue.  Members had to take advantage of the current mood
of conciliation, and his delegation commended the draft text to them.
The representative of Brazil said that his Government would abide by a consensus, should one
emerge, on the draft decision, but had considerable concerns.  This was a strange solution that did not
cast the organization in a positive light.  Even though there had been intensive discussion on this
solution, and even though Brazil had participated in some of these discussions, his delegation had the
feeling that this solution might be seen by the outside world as a deal between the two candidates.
This was not the proper procedure.  It seemed that the quest for consensus had been replaced by
aggregation, and this was not a good precedent for the organization.  Brazil had political, conceptual
and legal doubts about the proposal, which was not inconsistent with the Marrakesh Agreement itself
but ran counter to previous decisions in relation to th e designation of the Director-General.  It was still
not clear whether one was speaking of a mandate of six years divided by two, or of two consecutive
mandates of three years.  From all angles, this was not a good precedent and was not good practice.  A
mandate of six years was unprecedented in any international organization.  Two mandates of three
years meant that Members would be choosing at present an individual whose profile might not be the
best for the problems the organization might be facing in three years.  He reiterated that if there wasconsensus on the proposal, and provided that the precisions in the text were maintained, Brazil would
not block a consensus.  Among those precisions, his delegation attached great importance to the fact
that re-election of either candidate was banned, that any extension under any circumstances of the
mandate of either candidate was also banned.  Thus, should the candidate designated for the second
three-year period not, for any reason, assume his post, the whole process would be re-opened.  Hisdelegation would also look very carefully into the provisions relating to the DDGs, to ensure that an
appropriate balance was ensured from the outset in the process, i.e. the geographical balance and the
balance between developed and developing countries.  In closing, he said that these comments were
not intended to diminish the courage and the public spirit in which the proposal had been made.
The representative of Argentina said that the draft decision had been discussed intensively in
consultations and reflected comments made by a large number of delegations.  While the text might
not be perfect, an effort had been made to implement, through it, many of the concerns expressed by
delegations.  The solution that was being proposed, while not necessarily logical, was realistic in the
present circumstances – since both candidates were considered to be excellent candidates for the
organization, both candidates had to be an integral part of the solution.  From that point of view, and
despite all the doubts his delegation might have about the draft decision, this was all that could beexpected at the present time and in the light of Members' current views.  His delegation could support
a consensus, should one develop, on the draft decision.
The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation had followed the "circuit-breaker"
debate closely and had been impressed by the commitment of many Members in seeking to resolve
the current impasse.  Circumstances had prompted Members to explore new avenues and to test
options and solutions.  New Zealand shared the aim of seeing a new Director-General take up his post
with a minimum of further delay, as this was vital to the effective functioning of the organization.
The new Director-General, and all future Director s-General, should assume their post with the
backing of the entire membership.  If Members decided that the draft decision represented the mostpromising way forward to achieve these objectives, New Zealand would accept the decision of the
Members.
The representative of Morocco said that while the proposed solution carried with it serious
institutional and systemic risks, it would be difficult for any Member to oppose a consensus, were
there to be one, on this idea.  With this proposal, Members were entering troubled waters, and his
delegation was not sure that the selection of a Director-General with all these strings attached would
make it possible to work in the serene atmosphere required in approaching new negotiations.
Morocco echoed all of the views expressed by Brazil.  In order to make a bad solution somewhatWT/GC/M/46
Page 3
better, a number of considerations would have to be incorporated into the text of the draft decision.
First, there was total uncertainty as to the mandate of the Director-General, and it should be clarified
in the text what the normal term of office of a Director-General was.  That way, there would be no
doubts or uncertainties about this in future.  Second, concerning the DDGs, there had been
considerable discussion in the General Council on this subject without reaching a consensus solution.He recalled that agreement had almost been reached on the number of two.  In a spirit of flexibility,
Morocco would like to see reference made to the fact that there could not, in any case, be more than
four DDGs, and thus would suggest inserting the words "up to four" after the word "appoint" in the
first line of the penultimate paragraph of the draft decision.  This would avoid any further slippage in
this area.  This would not prejudice the position of those who wished to have one, two or three DDGs.
Third, he stressed the need for geographical balance.  His delegation would do everything necessary
to ensure that there was an African DDG.  The GATT/WTO had never had an African DDG, and itwas high time to do so, particularly since it had not been possible to have an African selected as
Director-General.  Lastly, in the interests of g ood governance and proper management, he proposed
that in future, for the posts of DDG, no WTO representative – permanent or otherwise – should be
able to be appointed to such a post within, e.g., two years of his service as a Member representative.
This would avoid accusations and rumours, as well as conflicts of interest.  Most Membergovernments observed such measures.  Thus, his delegation proposed that in the guidelines for this
decision, there be three elements regarding the DDGs:  (i) that there be no more than four;  (ii) that
there be geographical balance, i.e. effective geographical distribution;  and (iii) that an individual
could not go directly from a permanent mission to the post of DDG, regardless of his rank.  He said
that one solution to taking account of the comments on the draft decision without making substantivechanges to it would be to have a consensus statement by the Chairman that would accompany the
decision.  However, he asked whether any delegation opposed the amendment regarding the four-year
term of the Director-General, as suggested by Pakistan.  Regarding the second preambulatory
paragraph, Morocco could accept maintaining or deleting this text, and suggested deletion of the
words "by consensus" in the third preambulatory paragraph, since it was clear that this was the onlyway decisions were taken in the General Council.
The representative of the United States said that the selection process for the next Director-
General had been difficult for all Members.  All r ecognized the need to move forward with the WTO
agenda and to bring closure to this process.  The proposals made to date to break the impasse on this
issue had not been successful.  Therefore, her delegation welcomed the statement by Bangladesh and
the circuit-breaker proposal that had been developed with the leadership of Australia and thecontribution of many Members.  While the text was not perfect, she hoped that all Members' concerns
had been met, and that they could live with the text.  The proposal was basically consistent with the
goal to proceed with the work delegations had been charged with by their capitals.  A split term
between Mr. Moore and Mr. Supachai was an excellent compromise solution that would enable each
of these very highly qualified individuals to take an active role in the future advancement of the
WTO.
The representative of Bolivia said that considerable efforts had been made in what had been a
difficult process.  Members should have a positive attitude and see whether there was anything in the
draft decision that they could not accept.  Everything that could be done, had been done, and adecision had to be taken.  The background that had led Members to the present decision was on the
record, and the current text was the only apparent way forward.  This was not the worst possible
decision.  Many possibilities had been tried, but none had been successful, and this was the only
decision that would enable Members to overcome their differences and to achieve unity.
The representative of Panama said that Brazil had stated many of the concerns his own
delegation had regarding the present solution.  While the solution was not ideal, it had achieved the
most support under the present circumstances.  His delegation's main concern with the draft decision
related to the fourth-to-last paragraph, since it seemed that the General Council would have toWT/GC/M/46
Page 4
re-confirm the availability of Mr. Supachai before the latter would be able to take up office.  Another
concern related to need for the Director-General to take into account the views of the other designated
Director-General in appointing his deputies.  While the text might not be ideal, it was the best solution
available at present, and his delegation could join a consensus on the overall idea contained in it.
The representative of Japan said that while this was not the best solution, his delegation could
go along with it.  The last paragraph of the draft decision seemed to be at variance with the fourth-to-
last paragraph – if a comprehensive set of rules and procedures for the appointment of the Director-
General were to be elaborated and adopted by the end of September 2000, as stated in the last
paragraph, there would be no need for the procedures provided in the earlier paragraph for one of the
DDGs to function as an acting Director-General.  In order to make it clear that there was a
comprehensive set of rules and procedures for such appointments, one could add a sentence at the endof the last paragraph that would read:  "In the absence of such agreement on the adoption of a clear set
of rules and procedures for the appointment of the Director-General, Article IX of the WTO
Agreement applies".  While his delegation did not advocate decision-making by voting, there would
be no incentive to agree on a new set of rules and procedures without the pressure of the possibility of
a vote.  Regarding Morocco's suggestion for the penultimate paragraph, his delegation would havedifficulty accepting the addition of the words "up to four" before "Deputy Directors-General", because
this would almost authorize the Director-General to appoint up to four DDGs.  He noted that the work
on the issue of the number of DDGs had been suspended at the end of 1998, when Members were
close to reaching agreement on a maximum of two DDGs.  He asked what the Chairman's intention
was with regard to the suspended consultations, and said it was time to resume that work.  Regarding
the term "geographical balance" in the penultimate paragraph, there were many geographical regions,
and equitable geographic representation could be satisfied by having one DDG from a developed
country and one from a developing country, or a turnover in the regions represented when the next
Director-General took office.  Care should be taken not to have too many DDGs in the name of
equitable geographic balance.  Regarding the "good governance" proposal by Morocco, manygovernments had very strict rules on seeking employment in government when one was coming from
the private sector, and vice versa, and Japan could go along with Morocco's proposal.
The Chairman said that it was his intention to resume the consultations on the question of the
appointment of DDGs after the summer break.
The representative of Bulgaria proposed the deletion of the second preambulatory paragraph
of the text.  His delegation had consistently supported a solution that would be rules-based, and the
present solution was not.  A reference to the principles of transparency, fairness and equity in the
present text was inappropriate.  Regarding Japan's suggestion to add language to the last paragraph,
his delegation had strong doubts about the usefulness of such an amendment, because this would
indicate that Members were currently in breach of Article IX.  While Bulgaria understood thereasoning behind Japan's proposal, this was not the right way to express those concerns.
The representative of Uruguay said that his delegation did not believe this solution was the
best one, and shared many of the well-founded concerns about the proposal.  However, the proposal
did have the merit of being in line with the majority of positions on this matter and of being a possibleway of finally solving the problem in the overall interests of the organization, thus clearing the way
for Members to ensure a successful conference in Seattle.  Therefore, Uruguay could go along with a
consensus to adopt the draft decision.  A decision should be taken at the present meeting, so the that
new Directors-General could be appointed by the end of the week.
The representative of Nigeria said that his delegation could join a consensus to adopt the text
which, although it contained deficiencies, was a compromise text.  Nigeria supported the statement by
Morocco regarding the number of DDGs and that one of these posts should go to an African.  His
delegation intended to make a substantial contribution regarding the development of a set of rules andWT/GC/M/46
Page 5
procedures for the appointment of the Director-General, since it felt strongly that Africa should also
have a representative in that post at some point.
The representative of Korea said that Members' inability to agree on the selection of the next
Director-General had already inflicted severe damage on the credibility of the organization.  The
current impasse should not be allowed to continue, and Members had to be more flexible and
pragmatic so as to arrive at a prompt conclusion to this matter.  The proposal offered a practical
solution to the impasse, though not the best one.  The decision on the split terms for the Director-
General should not constitute a precedent for future selection of the Director-General.  The present
text was carefully balanced, and his delegation could go along with it.  Korea urged all Members to
show flexibility, so that a final decision could be taken at the present meeting and Members could get
on with other pressing business.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the text was not an ideal solution;
however, overall the cure was not worse than the disease.  Members were in a difficult and
unfortunate situation and the proposal did offer a way out.  Notwithstanding the disadvantages of this
solution, his delegation could accept it, particularly since the draft decision envisaged doing thingsdifferently in future.  Regarding the concept of geographical balance and the appointment of DDGs,
while his delegation appreciated that this concept was very important to a number of Members and
understood the considerations that had led them to being attached to it, the concept entailed a number
of disadvantages.  First, why should just one aspect of this balance be singled out?  The concept of
balance had many aspects – developed/developing, North/South, East/West, small/large, male/female– thus, it would be wrong to single out only one aspect.  Second, his delegation was concerned that if
this formulation were adopted, one  could end up with more DDGs than could functionally be justified.
This would be bad, both on management and budget grounds.  Experience showed that where there
had been, in the past, four DDGs, real authority had reposed actually in two, at most.  Third, adoption
of this formulation could lead to a situation in which the selection of DDGs was by nomination byregional groupings.  Thus, once such a nomination had been made, it would be difficult for any
Member outside of the region to object.  His delegation proposed either deleting the penultimate
paragraph entirely, or ending the paragraph immediately after the word "Director-General" in the
second line.  He stressed that his delegation was not against the concept of balance per se , and noted
that the concept of balance was included in the guid elines for the selection of chairmanships of WTO
bodies.
The representative of Hungary said that while this solution was far from perfect, his
delegation was satisfied with it.  Only a solution such as the present one could create a way out of the
present impasse.  On this basis Hungary, could go along with the text as it stood.
The representative of Poland said that this was in principle a pragmatic solution and did not
set a precedent for the future.  His delegation appealed to others not to introduce new proposals and
amendments to the text, but to concentrate on the implementation aspect.  Regarding the appointment
of DDGs, his delegation did not think it was appropri ate to decide on the number of such posts or to
give a clearer picture of what was meant by geographical balance.  The mandates of the DDGs and the
Director-General should be entwined together, in order to provide the greatest equitable geographicalbalance.  The criterion of high competence and the principle of equitable geographical balance could
in practice be harmoniously accommodated together.  On this understanding, his delegation was ready
to join a consensus to adopt the draft decision.
The representative of the Czech Republic said that while the solution was not ideal, it was
pragmatic, and one allowed Members to take advantage of the qualities and services of two excellent
candidates.  It would help Members not only to overcome the existing impasse, but to become more
united and better equipped to meet common challenges.  His delegation was ready to support the
proposal.  However, it would feel uneasy with most of the suggestions made regarding theWT/GC/M/46
Page 6
penultimate paragraph of the draft decision, as it had always maintained that the choice of a Director-
General and his deputies should be based on the qualities and experience of the candidates, and should
not be influenced by any regional criteria.  His delegation had never favoured the concept of
geographical representation in the WTO's executive structure.
The representative of Colombia said that it seemed that even delegations that did not like the
proposal were willing to go along with a consensus to adopt it.  An attempt was being made to add
different issues to the issue of the appointment of the next Director-General, and this was putting at
risk the adoption of the proposal.  It was confusing issues and adding to the main issue procedural
matters that related to other aspects of other decisions.  His delegation was willing to accept the
essence of the draft decision that there be two three-year terms.  If Members could focus on that point,
a decision might be adopted at the present meeting.
The representative of the European Communities said that important contributions to the
debate had been made by Brazil, New Zealand, Morocco and the United States.  Members should
focus on doing first things first.  He recalled what  Bangladesh had said about the need for an urgent
decision and for the organization to move on.  His delegation hoped that some of the statements that
had been made could be taken as comments on the draft decision, rather than as insistence on
modification of the text.  Members had to focus on the main issue, which was how to appoint the next
Director-General.  He noted that in discussing the question of the post of DDG, Members had come
very close to a decision, which had then vanished.  This could not be allowed to happen to the
decision at hand, as it would be a tragedy for the organization.  It was clear that Members were veryclose to a decision on this matter.  His delegation shared some of the points that had been made
regarding the penultimate paragraph and, like Colombia and Hong Kong, China, could agree to delete
that paragraph.
The representative of the Slovak Republic said that her delegation welcomed all
developments that could allow Members to break a long-standing deadlock.  The proposal, while not
ideal, provided a way out of the impasse.  Her delegation welcomed it and was prepared to join a
consensus on adoption of the draft decision.
The representative of Kenya said that his delegation was concerned with the length of time
that was being taken to resolve this issue.  Kenya had said all along that it could live with either of the
two candidates.  While the present solution was not ideal, it had the full support of his delegation.Kenya also supported the proposal by Morocco, and did not see a situation in which there would be
more than four DDGs.  He agreed that one of the DDGs should come from Africa.  Thus, his
delegation supported the draft decision with the proposed amendment by Morocco.
The representative of Chile said that her delegation could go along with a consensus to adopt
the text.  While it was not an ideal solution, it was a pragmatic one.  Chile fully supported the
statement by Brazil.  While it would be better not to try to amend the text, her delegation could accept
the deletion of the penultimate paragraph, and should that paragraph remain in the text, would like to
insert the words "up to two" after the word "appoi nt" in the first line of this paragraph.  Thus,
equitable geographical balance would be in the way described by Japan.  However, since such anamendment might take more time to agree to and would take Members away from the main objective,
which was to appoint a Director-General, it might be better to leave the text as it stood.
The representative of Venezuela said that while the proposal was not an ideal one, it brought
Members closer to the objective they were seeking.  Members were now building a consensus around
a formula, and his delegation could join in a consensus, should there be one, to adopt the draft
decision as it stood.WT/GC/M/46
Page 7
The representative of Mauritius said that while the draft decision was not ideal, it was the
result of intensive consultations and had taken on board the suggestions of many delegations, and his
delegation was ready to go along with it.  There was an urgency that Members not miss this
opportunity, and his delegation appealed to all to finish this business quickly.
The representative of Pakistan said that Members should not forget the rôle the Chairman had
played in this long and difficult process.  His delegation's initial instinct had been to resist the
proposal and to uphold principle, as Bulgaria had said, but Pakistan could now endorse this solution.
However, comments had been made on the draft decision, and it would not be appropriate to ignore
them.  His delegation wanted to make the follow ing suggestions, in order to see whether those
comments could be accommodated in a way that did not prejudice the intent and purpose of the draft
decision.  First, he endorsed the proposal by Bulgaria to delete the second preambulatory paragraph.Second, regarding the incompatibility cited by Japan between the fourth-to-last paragraph and the last
paragraph, he suggested the deletion of the text in the fourth-to-last paragraph after the words "shall
commence immediately", because it was presumed that by that time, there would be new rules to
forestall the kinds of possibilities that had arisen in the present case.  He also suggested that one could
add to this paragraph, text indicating that should Mr. Supachai not be available, the new Director-General would be from a developing country.  That was part of the balance that had been struck in the
draft decision and should be clarified.  This could be reflected either in the draft decision or in the
Chairman's introductory statement.  Most of the problems with the draft text seemed to be focused on
the penultimate paragraph.  One of the three comments made by Morocco in this context was already
in the text, which was equitable geographical balance.  He said that in the past, there had been anattempt to have some kind of geographical representation among the DDGs.  Thus, this reference in
the text was essential, not only for Africa, but for other regions that felt they should have adequate
representation at the level of DDG, and the paragraph should remain as it stood.  Regarding the length
of term of the DDGs, this should remain open for the moment, and should be left to the consultations
the Chairman would undertake on this matter.  Rega rding Morocco's last point, some reference could
be made to the principle of avoiding conflict of interest in the appointment of DDGs, but appropriate
language would have to be found.  In the last paragraph, his delegation suggested adding, in the
second line after the word "whose", the word "normal". Pakistan hoped that with some slight changes
in the text, Members could soon come to a consensus decision on it.
The representative of Guatemala said that his delegation would not object to a consensus on
the draft decision.  However, Guatemala had experienced some frustration in the flexible way in
which the rules and practices of the organization had been applied.  Both Pakistan and Bulgaria had
referred to this point, and Guatemala fully shared the views expressed by Brazil.  His delegation
would carefully study the proposed amendments in order to comment on them at the appropriate time.
The representative of Mexico said that while his delegation was not happy with the draft
decision, it could live with it.  His delegation would have preferred that each of the split terms be two
years, so that the sum of the two terms of office would be the normal four years, as set out in the 1978
Decision.  However, his delegation had no instructions to oppose a consensus on this text.  In neither
of the two cases could there be any formal extens ion or renewed designation under any circumstances.
Further, the re-confirmation of the availability of Mr. Supachai should be automatic – in other words,there should be no need for a decision by the General Council to make this aspect of the draft decision
operative.  In this regard, Mexico fully shared th e statement by Panama.  Regarding the issue of the
DDGs, he noted that at present there were four, as the result of a decision taken by the General
Council.  That decision remained valid until such time as the General Council decided otherwise.  He
noted that his delegation had not joined the consensus – when one had been near – regarding amaximum of two DDGs.  Mexico fully shared the points made by Morocco, because of strong
pressure that would probably be brought to bear regarding an increase in the number of DDGs.  With
this in mind, Morocco had sought to make it clear that there should be a maximum of four DDGs.
Mexico did not read the penultimate paragraph as in any way prejudging the outcome of theWT/GC/M/46
Page 8
Chairman's consultations on this matter.  Geographical balance was a very important concept, and it
was his intention, as Chairman of the Informal Group of Developing Countries, to convene a meeting
of that Group so that all developing countries would have the opportunity to have access to the posts
of DDG.  However, this would only happen once the Chairman had conducted his consultations,
which were independent of the selection process of the next Director-General.  While the draftdecision was not an ideal solution, Mexico recognized the professional approach of Bangladesh and
Australia to achieving the progress that had been made on the draft decision.  He suggested that the
second preambulatory paragraph might be included in the last paragraph of the draft decision, because
these were principles that should be applied to any fo rm of guidelines that were to be followed in the
selection of the Director-General.  His delegation's reading of the last paragraph was that if there was
no improvement brought about in the current rules and procedures for the selection of the Director-
General by September 2000, then the current rules of procedure would nonetheless apply.  TheDecision of November 1986 contained certain elements , for example the four-year term of office, the
need for initiating consultations six months before the actual designation, and the decision on the
position of DDGs, and that decision continued to be valid until it was changed.  It was clear from that
decision that the term of the DDGs was three years.
The representative of India said that his delegation could live with the draft decision.
However, it had some concerns about one delegation's view concerning the penultimate paragraph.
His delegation attached importance to the institution of the post of DDG.  The first two sentences in
this paragraph, as well as the concept of continuity , had been incorporated with a view to ensuring
that the DDGs were not considered as personal appointees of the Director-General, but rather theappointees of the organization, and these concepts should not be ignored.  The second preambulatory
paragraph could perhaps be incorporated in the last paragraph of the text.  Whatever decision was
taken on this matter, his delegation could go along with it.  Regarding the fourth-to-last paragraph and
its possible incompatibility with the last paragraph, care had to be taken that whatever rules and
procedures were decided and adopted by the end of September 2000 would not negate the terms of thepresent decision.  Whatever new rules or procedures were decided would apply only to the
appointment of the Director-General after Mr. Supachai's term.
The representative of Zimbabwe said there seemed to be a growing consensus on the
compromise proposal under consideration.  While this was not the best solution, it was a compromise,
and enjoyed the support of the two candidates and the candidate countries.  His delegation supported
the emerging consensus on the proposal.  Regarding the fourth-to-last paragraph of the draft decision,one of the DDGs should come from Africa, especially in view of the fact that Africa was not
represented at the senior management level in the organization.  The quest to achieve balance should
not be limited to geographical balance only.  Rather, that balance should reflect the overall
membership of the organization.  His delegation agreed with those who had said that the next
Director-General should come from a developing country.
The representative of Malta said that her delegation supported the essence of the proposal but
shared many of the concerns expressed about the draft decision.  In particular, Malta would have
preferred to leave the issue of the post of DDG out of the text.  However, in the interests of the
organization, her delegation was ready to endorse the text as it stood, and hoped that it would achievea consensus in order to open the way to more pressing business.
The representative of Mongolia said that her delegation shared the concerns expressed that
this was not the best solution, but agreed that it offered a compromise.  It was important that the
candidates were ready to accept this solution.  Her delegation could support the draft decision inprinciple.  In considering the text further, Members had to concentrate on the main issue, which was
the appointment of the Director-General as soon as  possible.  Members should strive not to burden
this possible break of the deadlock with extensive deliberations on the issue of the post of DDG.  ItWT/GC/M/46
Page 9
was important to agree that this decision and this solution did not constitute a precedent and applied
only to the specific case at hand.
The representative of Panama expressed his delegation's concern over incorporating the
second preambulatory paragraph in the last paragraph, as this would imply that Members wanted to
have these principles apply in future, but that they had not applied in the past.  In his delegation's
view, the current process had been conducted with fairness and equity.  Regarding transparency, he
noted that Members themselves had chosen the process of confidential consultations with the
Chairman.
The representative of Israel said that his delegation could join a consensus to adopt the draft
decision as it stood.
The representative of Cuba said that his delegation shared the views expressed by Brazil.
However, his delegation would accept a compromise solution at the present stage in view of the
majority spirit of the organization. Cuba would have preferred an indication that the term of the DDGs
would be two years rather than three, but would not oppose the draft decision.  His delegation agreed
with the statement by Mexico that the appointment of DDGs should be made in accordance with
previously agreed rules.
The representative of Honduras said that although this was not the best solution, his
delegation could join a consensus to adopt the draft decision.  Honduras agreed with Mexico that the
appointment of Mr. Supachai should be automatic, and endorsed the statement by Brazil.  Regarding
the number of DDG posts, his delegation reserved its right to revert to this issue in future.
The representative of Cameroon said that the time spent on this issue had allowed Members to
take a careful and close look at the rules and procedures as they stood at present, and to recognize the
complex problems that had arisen in their application.  The draft decision would make it possible for
the General Council to take a fair decision vis-à-vis the two candidates, and his delegation could join
any consensus that might emerge on it.
The Chairman said that the draft decision summed up the general acceptance of the proposal.
Unless there were specific amendments on which delegations wished to insist, the suggested
amendments should not block the adoption of the text.
The representative of Morocco said that when the decision was taken, the Chairman could
make a statement that flagged the various concerns expressed.  He asked whether any delegation was
opposed to the suggestion by Pakistan that would make clear that the normal term of the Director-
General was four years.
The Chairman said that if delegations so wished, one might consider how to incorporate in the
text the commonly accepted amendments that had been made, if these could be accommodated
without controversy.  One suggested amendment was to add, in the last paragraph, after the word
"Directors-General", the words "whose normal term shall continue to be four years".
The representative of Brazil suggested the deletion of the word "normal".
The representative of Morocco suggested that in the third preambulatory paragraph, the words
"by consensus" be deleted.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation agreed with the suggestion that the second
preambulatory paragraph be incorporated in the last paragraph.WT/GC/M/46
Page 10
The representative of Bulgaria recalled that Panama had objected to moving the text of the
second preambulatory paragraph.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his delegation could not accept the draft
decision as long as it contained the penultimate paragraph, for reasons that he had described earlier.
However, his delegation's difficulties with this paragraph would not prevent the General Council, if it
so wished, from taking a decision in relation to the appointment of two candidates as Directors-
General.  It might be possible to delete this paragraph, and for the Chairman to make a statement that
would reflect all of the views expressed regarding the question of the post of DDG.  This would then
constitute the negotiating guidelines that would be laid down for subsequent discussions on the issue
of the appointment of DDGs.
The Chairman said that this matter would be taken up in his consultations.  Thus, even if the
paragraph were left as it was, this matter would be subject to the decisions that would emerge as a
result of those consultations.  The other option would be to delete the paragraph.
The representatives of India and Pakistan  asked Hong Kong, China to consult with its capital
on this matter, since it would be difficult for their delegations to agree to delete the paragraph, for the
institutional and organizational reasons their delegations had already explained.
The representative of Colombia said that his delegation agreed with the position of Hong
Kong, China on the penultimate paragraph.  One shou ld not mix up the appointment of the Director-
General with the appointment of the DDGs.  His de legation could agree to delete this paragraph.
The representative of Bulgaria said that his delegation supported the Chairman's proposal that
Members focus on and endorse the substance of the decision.  The deletion of the second
preambulatory paragraph was a matter of principle to his delegation, which had to insist on thisamendment.
The representative of Japan said that his delegation was flexible regarding the deletion of the
penultimate paragraph, on the understanding that the next Director-General would not appoint his
deputies until the question of the post of DDG was resolved.
The representative of Morocco said that the penultimate paragraph was part of the overall
balance that had been struck in the text, and was one of the elements that formed the basis of the text.
The new Director-General would not be blocked in his decision to appoint deputies by any decision of
the General Council, and he disagreed with Japan in this regard.
The representative of Brazil said that if ther e were any substantive changes in the text, he
would have to consult again with his capital.  His delegation could agree to delete the second
preambulatory paragraph.  Brazil had said earlier that it did not oppose a consensus;  however, this did
not mean that it did not oppose the proposal.
The representative of Panama said that his delegation could agree with the Chairman's
suggestion that Members avoid making substantive changes to the text.  Its position on the text would
depend on what the final draft looked like.
The Chairman said that if no Member opposed the deletion of the second preambulatory
paragraph, or the deletion of the word "by consensus" in the third preambulatory paragraph, these
amendments were accepted.  He would call a formal General Council meeting before the end of the
week in order to take a decision on this matter.WT/GC/M/46
Page 11
At the formal meeting of the General Council on 22 July, the Chairman made an introductory
statement.1  He said that the purpose of the meeting was to consider and adopt the draft decision on
the appointment of the next Director-General contained in WT/GC/W/258.2  As Members were aware,
this draft decision was based on a draft prepared by Bangladesh and Australia after extensive informal
consultations with interested delegations.  At the informal meeting of the General Council on 20 July,delegations had had a further opportunity to examine this text in detail.  At that meeting, Members
had shown considerable flexibility to arrive at this compromise proposal.  Although the proposal was
not fully satisfactory to all Members, there was a strong convergence of views that it would be the
only basis for resolving this question.  At the conclusion of the informal meeting, he had stressed that
any efforts to introduce substantial changes to the draft decision would alter the delicate balance that
had been achieved, and seriously jeopardize any possibility of reaching a conclusion within the
immediate future.  He proposed that all statements made at the informal meeting on 20 July berecorded in the minutes of the present meeting.  Thus, all the views that had been expressed would be
on record and could be read in conjunction with the decision.  He wished to stress certain important
aspects of this text.  First, it was clearly stated in the final operative paragraph that this decision would
not constitute a precedent for future appointments of Directors-General, whose term would be of four
years.  It was further recognized that a comprehensive set of rules and procedures for futureappointments would be elaborated and adopted by the General Council not later than the end of
September 2000, which would aim to improve and strengthen the current rules and procedures for
appointment of Directors-General.  It was also su ggested that should Mr. Supachai not be available
for the second term, a Director-General from a developing country should be appointed in his place.
Second, regarding the preceeding operative paragraph on the appointment of DDGs, a number
of divergent views had been expressed at the informal meeting about this paragraph.  He had taken
careful note of them, in particular the strong concern expressed by some delegations as to the
implications of the reference to "geographical balance".  It was his understanding that this expression
was in no way intended to imply that the number of DDG posts should be increased.  However, thedecision made it clear that the Director-General would appoint his deputies in consultation with
Members.  As he had stated at the informal meeting, he intend to resume, as soon as possible after the
summer break, the consultations that had been suspended nearly a year earlier on the question of the
number of DDG posts.  These consultations would also provide an opportunity for delegations to
elaborate their views on other aspects of this matter, and would no doubt be helpful to the Director-
General in this respect.  It should therefore be clearly understood that the elements included in the
penultimate paragraph of this decision had to be read in the light of the consultations to be held inSeptember.  He therefore urged delegations to show the same spirit of flexibility with which they had
approached this proposal in the earlier informal consultations, and to enable Members to take a
decision that would open the way for the Genera l Council to move forward on this question at the
present meeting.  Before giving the floor to delegations, he asked the Secretary of the meeting to
clarify two typographical corrections to the draft decision.
The Secretary of the General Council said there were two typing errors in the draft decision in
WT/GC/W/258.  The necessary corrections would be made when the document was formally
circulated as a decision of the General Council.  First, in the first sub-paragraph of the paragraph
reading " Decides  to appoint", the word "Mr." would be deleted.  Second, in the subsequent sub-
paragraph, the comma would be deleted.
The representative of Bangladesh said that the document in WT/GC/W/258 reflected the
discussions at the informal meeting and had been amended accordingly, and he commended the text
for adoption.
                                                     
1 The statement was subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/26.
2 The version of this text discussed at the informal meeting of the General Council on 20 July was
contained in document Job No. 4119/Rev.1.WT/GC/M/46
Page 12
The representative of Colombia recalled that at the informal meeting, his delegation had
expressed its reservations concerning the inclusion in the decision of matters other than the specific
subject at issue, i.e. the appointment of the Director-General.  Attempts to lay the foundations or
establish criteria for the appointment of the DDGs deviated from the subject of the decision, and
involved the establishment of guidelines that prejudged the results of consultations that had been
suspended due to the priority of appointing a Director-General.  Those consultations concerning the
number of DDGs and the elements and criteria to be considered in their selection had to be resumed.
The next-to-last paragraph, apart from referring to a matter that was outside the subject of the
decision, contained elements that qualified and prejudged the result of future consultations.  Thus, the
use of the plural in referring to DDGs precluded the possibility of appointing one single DDG, which
was an idea that had considerable support.  The same could be said of the reference to geographicalbalance, which deprived other criteria of some of their importance and opened the door to certain
expectations of representivity, possibly implying the creation of up to six or seven DDGs.  The latter
would be absurd, not only in terms of cost, but also in terms of the attribution of responsibilities.  His
delegation appealed to Members to reflect on how to better use the WTO's resources, for example, in
improving technical assistance to the developing countries.  For these reasons, his delegationproposed that the penultimate paragraph be deleted from the draft decision.
The representative of Bulgaria said that his delegation would not oppose the adoption of the
proposed decision on the appointment of Directors-Gene ral, for the following reasons:  first, from the
outset of the selection process, his delegation had been of the opinion that both Mr. Moore andMr. Supachai were very good candidates and that both would be excellent Directors-General;  second,
the decision offered a solution that helped the organization out of the current impasse;  and third, the
majority of Members seemed prepared to accept this solution.  However, this was a very unfortunate
solution, because it was not based on rules – neither on the rules agreed in 1986, nor on those that had
evolved in the course of the process preceding the present decision.  Bulgaria had consistently pointedto the importance it attached to rules and to the need to adopt such rules for the selection of the
Director-General.  Therefore, his delegation strongly supported that part of the decision resolving that,
in order to improve and strengthen the current rules and procedures, a comprehensive set of rules and
procedures for such appointments shall be elaborated and adopted by the end of September 2000.  It
was Bulgaria's understanding that the "current rules and procedures" that had to be improved and
strengthened included the basic principles that had evolved in the course of the process of selection
that had preceded this decision.  There were four such basic principles:  first, that if the majority ofMembers did not want a vote, the appointment had to proceed by consensus;  second, that if there
were several candidates, the only logical way forward was to reduce the number of candidates;  third,
that there should be criteria for the reduction of candidates, e.g. the level of support, the geographical
spread of the support, and the level of acceptability of the candidates;  and fourth, that the procedures
for the reduction of the number of candidates should foresee their elimination by consensus and, ifthat should not be possible, by majority wish.  The "improvement" and the "strengthening" of these
principles could foresee, inter alia , the adoption, in advance, of strict time-frames for the consecutive
stages of the process.  His delegation hoped that the General Council would be able to adopt efficient
rules and procedures by the end of September 2000, thus avoiding the painful experience of the past
selection process and risking again the credibility of the organization.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said  that his delegation did not feel that the
Chairman's reference, in his introductory statemen t, to the concerns expressed regarding the concept
of "geographical balance" was adequate.  That statement did not take on board many of the elements
of Hong Kong, China's concerns, such as the need for a much broader concept of balance than purelygeographical balance.  His delegation supported the suggestion by Colombia that the penultimate
paragraph be removed from the decision and dealt with separately.WT/GC/M/46
Page 13
The representative of Sri Lanka said that his delegation could go along with the term-sharing
arrangement in the draft decision even though this was not the ideal solution.  Had it not been for the
magnanimous gesture of Mr. Supachai, it would not be possible to resolve this matter now.  His
delegation applauded both candidates for the spirit of flexibility they had shown.
The representative of Paraguay said that although the solution proposed was somewhat alien
to the process that had begun months earlier, it should be understood that this solution did not set a
precedent, and that just this once, the General Council would appoint two Directors-General in one
single procedure for the periods indicated in the dr aft decision, and that the two would share the term.
Paraguay also understood that the dates for the end of each part of the shared term were fixed and
automatic, and that no new procedure would  be re quired for the next appointed Director-General to
take up his functions.  Although his delegation shared the views of Colombia, it would not make anyreference to the post of DDG, since the present decision concerned only the appointment of the
Director-General, nor would it object to the inclusion of the penultimate paragraph in the decision.
His delegation would join in a consensus, should there be one, and hoped that others would do the
same, so that Members could bring this process to a close and focus their energy on the tasks ahead.
The representative of Egypt said that his delegation supported the draft decision in
WT/GC/W/258 as amended, which was a satisfactory solution that could enjoy consensus.  This
compromise would allow Members to benefit from the capabilities and efficiency of the two excellent
candidates.  Egypt looked forward to finalizin g discussions in the General Council on rules
concerning the appointment of the DDGs, and to working together to formulate and adopt acomprehensive set of rules and procedures for the future appointment of the Director-General.
The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation supported the consensus that was
emerging on the sharing of terms of office by Mr. Moore and Mr. Supachai.  His delegation
understood that this arrangement had been approved by the two candidates, and on this basissupported the proposal in the draft decision.  That proposal sought to settle 10 months of consultations
and discussion in the process of appointing a new Director-General.  Jamaica acknowledged that the
proposal was a deal that struck a delicate balance between issues that could otherwise prolong the
search for a solution.  His delegation looked forward to participating in the consultations on issues
relating to the appointment of DDGs, includ ing whether new DDGs would be appointed when
Mr. Supachai took office and the number of DDGs that would have to be appointed in order to respect
the principle of equitable geographical balance.  However, Jamaica recognized that the ambiguity inthe text on these questions might facilitate consensus on its adoption.  His delegation underscored the
importance of elaborating and adopting a comprehensive set of rules and procedures well in advance
of the next selection process for the Director-General.  The latter would not apply to Mr. Supachai,
but to his successor.
The representative of Panama said that his delegation wanted to clarify one point in the
fourth-to-last paragraph of the draft decision concerning the re-confirmation of the availability of
Mr. Supachai for office.  While this text could open the door to an interpretation that Mr. Supachai's
taking up of office would depend on a further d ecision of the General Council, Panama understood
that his taking up of office would not be postponed beyond September 2002.
The representative of Japan said that the reference in the Chairman's introductory statement to
the appointment of DDGs was not entirely clear.  The number of DDGs still had to be decided.  His
delegation understood that the Director-General would not be appointing his deputies until the
Chairman's consultations on the appointment of DDGs had been concluded.  Japan shared theconcerns expressed by Colombia and Hong Kong, China, and could go along with their suggestion.
However, his delegation would not insist on the deletion of the penultimate paragraph on DDGs, and
suggested the possible deletion in the first line of that paragraph of the letter "s" in the word
"Directors-General".WT/GC/M/46
Page 14
The Chairman confirmed that his understand ing regarding the appointment by the new
Director-General of his deputies was the same as Japan's.
The representative of South Africa expressed his delegation's satisfaction that the process of
appointment of a Director-General was almost over.  South Africa s upported the proposal that the two
candidates take up the post of Director-General consecutively for three years each, starting with
Mr. Moore, since both candidates were equally qualified and of the highest calibre.  While his
delegation would have liked to see the WTO headed by a candidate from a developing country, it
considered that the organization would be enriched should either candidate take up the post.  Many
delegations had expressed concerns regarding both the proposal and the draft decision, and many
suggestions had been made that reflected Members' frustrations with the current selection process.His delegation shared many of the concerns regarding the precedent-setting effect of the proposal and
the loop-holes in the text.  The current selection process was flawed, and South Africa urged that it be
reviewed and revamped.  His delegation agreed with those who had said that the proposal was neither
the best nor the worst, but that it served as a basis upon which a compromise could be struck.  The
flexibility shown by Members on such an important decision was welcome, and something uponwhich all should try to build.  On the issue of DDGs, his delegation would be flexible on the numbers,
but supported the idea that one of them should come from Africa.  His delegation was prepared to join
the consensus on this proposal.
The representative of Pakistan said that wit hout the determined efforts of Bangladesh and
Australia in the face of much scepticism, Members would not be close to a decision on this matter.
The Chairman had said in his introductory statement that there was a suggestion that should
Mr. Supachai not be able to assume his post, the next Director-General would be from a developing
country.  However, this was an understanding, and not merely a suggestion, and Pakistan wished to
confirm this.  Regarding comments on the penultimate paragraph, the reference to the appointment ofDDGs was one of the elements of the consensus Members were seeking to adopt.  Any effort to
change the balance struck might destroy the delica te consensus that was forming.  Regarding the
questions raised by Colombia and Hong Kong, China, the existing situation was that the WTO was
operating with four posts of DDG.  Unless a change was made in that decision, that was the operative
situation.  Second, the question of equitable geographical balance had been proposed by his
delegation and supported by others in the informal consultations.  It was important that the regions of
the developing world – Asia, Africa and Latin America – be represented at the second tier of theWTO's leadership.  If there was any objection to this, Pakistan would have great difficulty in joining a
consensus on the text.  The paragraph took account of the fact that consultations would be held on this
matter.  It was possible that, as a result of these consultations, the number and allocation of DDG
posts would be changed.  Therefore, the entire contents of this paragraph were qualified by this
phrase, and this issue could be raised in the Chairman's consultations.  Pakistan would find it difficultto move away from the concept of geographical balance that was part of the elements of consensus
that had evolved.  He clarified that his delegation did not have a candidate for the post of DDG.
The representative of the Dominican Republic said that the reference in the fourth-to-last
paragraph could cause problems if the re-confirmation of the availability of Mr. Supachai for office
was dependent on a decision by the General Council.  His delegation sought confirmation that this
was not the case, and that the entry-into-force of Mr. Supachai's office would be automatic.  His
delegation fully endorsed the statement by Panama and supported Japan's suggestion to delete the
letter "s" in the word "Directors-General" in the first line of the penultimate paragraph.  His
delegation agreed with Pakistan's statement that it was understood that, should Mr. Supachai not be
able to assume office, the next Director-G eneral would be from a developing country.
The Chairman said it was his understanding that Mr. Supachai's assuming office would
depend only on his availability, and not on any decision by the General Council.WT/GC/M/46
Page 15
The representative of Ecuador said that his delegation wished to express appreciation to
Mr. Supachai and Mr. Moore for the flexibility they had shown that had made it possible for Members
to find a way out of the current impasse.  His delegation agreed with Japan's interpretation that the
new Director-General could not appoint his deputies until the General Council had concluded itsconsultations on the question of the post of DDGs.
The representative of Brazil said that his de legation hoped that lessons would be drawn from
this chapter in the history of the WTO.  As a fled gling institution, the WTO was still insecure as to
how best to solve the kind of problem Members had been grappling with the past few months.  The
WTO was not yet, in its practices and procedures, a fully matured organization.  At best, the process
that had just been completed would be remembered as a crisis of growth.  His delegation had onseveral occasions expressed its high esteem for both candidates.  For that reason, and because Brazil
had a well-deserved reputation as a consensus-builder, it would not oppose the consensus that was
emerging on the proposal before Members.  However, Brazil was not comfortable with the essence of
the compromise proposal, and feared that Members might be creating a dangerous precedent.
Precedents were essentially examples - good or bad - that tended to be resorted to whenever, in thefuture, people or states were unable to find appropriate responses to difficult situations.  It was only
then that it would be known whether or not a precedent had been created with the action being taken
at the present meeting.  Brazil was concerned that his new sort of consensus – "consensus by
aggregation" – might look to many in the outside world like an artificial fix that had all the
appearances of putting the short-term interests of the personalities above the long-term needs of theWTO.  In such a case, the result of such aggrega tion might well be of lesser value than the sum of the
parts, since both men would, from the very beginning, suffer from a certain "capitis diminutio".
Brazil hoped this would not impair or compromise their ability to perform the demanding tasks that
awaited them.  While the time had come for pragma tism, pragmatism without principle might be the
bearer of its own demise.  Brazil hoped that its fe ars and apprehensions would prove to be unfounded.
The representative of Nicaragua said that his delegation did not oppose the draft decision and
could go along with the concensus to adopt it.  However, his delegation had some doubts as to
whether this was the best solution to the present impasse.  The organization, which was rules based,
had suffered irreparable damage, because this solution basically violated established rules.  His
delegation endorsed the statement by Colombia that Members should not mix up the issues and should
concentrate on the appointment of the Director-General.
The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation could accept the
draft decision as it stood.  The Community, too, had concerns regarding the penultimate paragraph.
However, problems with this particular paragr aph would not prevent the Community from adopting
the draft decision at the present meeting.  It was inconceivable that Members would not take adecision at the present meeting.  His delegation understood this paragraph to confirm what had
already been agreed in the past, that the Director-General would appoint his deputies in consultation
with Members, and had added the phrase in the current draft decision that Mr. Moore should consult
with Mr. Supachai in making such appointments.  The rest of the paragraph was not binding but rather
indicated factors that should be taken into account, and at the same time the Community would wantto take account of past practice.  He suggested that a statement, to be included in the record of the
meeting, might be made to the effect that this text would not be understood to change anything in
terms of past practice, and might be helpful to those delegations who had difficulty with this
paragraph and sought its deletion.  The past prac tice in terms of selection of DDGs had been that
certain criteria should be observed.  Two of those criteria referred to the merits of the individualcandidates – which the Community continued to consider to be very important – and that there would
be no geographical distribution of the posts, although a global balance would be sought.  This was an
important phrase that was subtly different from what was included in the text of the draft decision.
Members could then go forward to the consultations on the question of DDGs with all of these factorsWT/GC/M/46
Page 16
in mind, rather than just the ones in the text of the draft decision.  He hoped that his suggestion might
enable those with difficulties on this paragraph to join a consensus to adopt the draft decision, and to
be confident that in the consultations to be held on this issue their concerns would be taken into
account.
The representative of Mexico said that his delegation noted that there were currently four
DDGs.  Discussions had been held to see whethe r that was the appropriate number, but those
discussions had not led to any concensus.  Mexico was one of the Members who had insisted on
maintaining the number of four posts of DDG.  The only way the number of four could be changed
was by taking a new decision that would change the previous decision.  That decision would clearly
be taken by consensus.  Mexico's position was that all developing country regions should be
represented, i.e., Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa and Asia.  Therefore, his delegation was notprepared to agree to any change in the draft decision in this paragraph, except for the two
typographical corrections made by the Secretary.  Any other type of change would not be acceptable.
His delegation was grateful for confirmation that it was understood that should Mr. Supachai not be
able to take up his post, a representative of a developing country would assume the post of Director-
General, and also that there would be no further decision required of the General Council forMr. Supachai to take up his post should he be available to do so.  He suggested that this clarification
be included in the Chairman's introductory statement.
The representative of the United States said that the draft decision before Members was one
that all could be proud of.  Two highly skilled and qualified individuals would lead the organization.
The proposal would give each of these individuals an opportunity to play an active role in helping the
organization to meet the challenges ahead.  Regarding the situation in which Mr. Supachai might be
unable to take up his post, her delegation stressed that, in such a case, a developing country candidate
should assume this post, and that there should be no misunderstanding about this.  She hoped that the
draft decision could be adopted as it stood, with clarifications made in the form of the statements atthe present meeting and the Chairman's statement, so that Members could move forward.  Members
had taken a decision by consensus.  The two candidates should feel gratified that this was the will of
the organization.  More important than the time that had been taken to reach this decision was the fact
that Members had come to a conclusion that represented the entire membership.
The representative of Canada, referring to the penultimate paragraph, recalled that his
delegation's position in the consultations on the question of the post of DDG had been that there
should be one DDG.  He also recalled that one year earlier, Members had come very close to agreeing
on two as the appropriate number of such posts.  No delegation had expressed any opposition to that
in the General Council.  However, several delegations had indicated that more time was needed to
consider the appropriate number.  The Chairman's statement on this matter at the outset of the present
meeting was useful, and Canada was pleased to hear that the consultations on this matter would beresumed.  Canada had taken careful note of the point the Chairman had made that this would provide
an opportunity for delegations to elaborate their views on other aspects of this matter as well.  His
delegation shared many of the concerns expressed by Colombia and Hong Kong, China.  However,
regardless of how the General Council decided to address the proposal by Colombia, Canada could
agree to the draft decision on the basis that it did not prejudge the outcome of the Chairman'sconsultations and did not prejudge the question of how many DDGs was appropriate.  Even if the text
were left as it stood, this would not prejudice a possible determination that the appropriate number of
DDG posts was one.  He reiterated that his delega tion was entering into this decision without
prejudice to the question of how many DDGs there should be.
The representative of Egypt suggested adding to  the fourth-to-last paragraph text that would
make it clear that, should Mr. Supachai not be able to assume his post, the next Director-General
would be from a developing country.  Alternatively, this could be made clear in the Chairman's
statement.WT/GC/M/46
Page 17
The Chairman recalled that the statements that had been made would be duly reflected in the
record of the present meeting and would therefore be read in conjunction with the decision Members
were about to adopt.  Regarding the situation in which Mr. Supachai would not be available to assume
his post, the understanding had not been challenged that, in such a case, the new Director-Generalwould be from a developing country.  He conf irmed that the re-confirmation of Mr. Supachai's
availability to serve as Director-General would depend entirely on Mr. Supachai, and not on any
decision by the General Council.  He reiterated that any changes to the draft decision as amended
might break the balance that had been achieved and would seriously impair any action the General
Council needed to take at the present meeting.
The representative of Colombia said that in view of the developments in the discussion, it was
important to clarify certain elements.  First, his delegation's proposal had been supported by Hong
Kong, China, and other Members had expressed sympathy for it.  There had been various suggestions
regarding how to modify the paragraph so as to di spel any doubts regarding any prejudging of future
developments.  Some delegations had indicated that if the paragraph was not retained or was
modified, the consensus on the draft decision would be endangered.  The most serious difficultywould be not to achieve consensus on the appointment  of the Director-General at the present meeting.
In this respect, he reassured Members that his delegation would not oppose a consensus, and if its
proposal was not accepted, it would nevertheless accept a consensus on the draft decision as it stood.
However, a series of clarifications would have to be made that would reflect delegations'
understanding regarding the subject-matter, such as not prejudging the number of DDGs, notprejudging the representational aspect and what was understood by the General Council regarding
balance, and there would have to be a clear understanding that the new Director-General could not
appoint any DDG un til a decision had been taken by the Ge neral Council on th e number of DDGs.
He asked the Chairman to try to find a formulation for the fourth-to-last paragraph that might be better
received.
The Chairman confirmed Colombia's understanding regarding the fact that the penultimate
paragraph would not prejudge the number of DDGs or any other matter that woul d be discussed in the
consultations, and that the new Director-General would take the results of those consultations into
account.  He suggested that since this confirmati on would be included in the record, one might avoid
tampering with the text of the draft decision.
The representative of Hong Kong, China reiterated that his delegation did not object to the
concept of geographical balance, as this was an important element in any concept of overall balance.
His delegation's objection was the singling out of this element alone.  He referred to Pakistan's
reference to the latter part of the fourth-to-last paragraph regarding the fact that Members would be
bound by any decision of the General Council with regard to ensuring continuity at the seniormanagement level, and said his delegation was not reassured by that statement because it seemed that
according to that interpretation, Members would be bound only by decisions relating to ensuring
continuity and not regarding any other question.  The interventions by the European Communities and
by Canada were extremely helpful, in particular the Communities' statement that this decision would
not be seen as changing past practice, and Canada's reference to the fact that this decision would notprejudge the number of DDGs.  A statement by the Chairman that reflected these views would put his
delegation in the position of not having to oppose a consensus on the draft decision.
The representative of Morocco said that the various views expressed were not consensus
views, and the Chairman could not make any statements for the record that represented the views of
only some delegations.  Morocco did not understand why the Chairman should have to do or say
anything more than he had already said and done.  Also, some delegations seemed to want the
Chairman to make an interpretation that would change the text.  That was not acceptable.  It had
already been agreed that the decision did not set an y precedents.  Any attempt at an interpretation thatWT/GC/M/46
Page 18
could contradict the elements in the fourth-to-last paragraph were not acceptable.  While it was true
that this paragraph was at variance with practice, this is what had been intended.  The text in this
paragraph was a safety net, and in future there might be agreement on other elements that had been
discussed regarding the appointment of the DDGs.
The representative of Mexico said that his delegation shared the view that the fourth-to-last
paragraph did not prejudge the outcome of the consultations that would be held on the question of
appointment of DDGs.  Those consultations had a mandate established by the General Council, and
that mandate had not been changed.
The representative of Hungary agreed that Members had to make an extra effort to solve this
problem at the present meeting.  The Chairman had stated for the record that what was contained in
the penultimate paragraph of the text did not prejudge the number or the country or region of origin of
the DDGs, and his delegation urged Members to  join a consensus on the draft decision.
The representative of Pakistan expressed his delegation's appreciation for the statements of
support regarding the fact that, should Dr Supachai not be able to take up his post, the next Director-
General would be from a developing country.  Regarding the concept of equitable geographical
balance, he said that this was an element in th e compromise that had been achieved.  If there were
four DDG posts, his delega tion would seek representation of the three regions of Asia, Africa and
Latin America.  The Chairman's introductory statement sufficiently conditioned the penultimate
paragraph by stating that all of these issues would be subject to the consultations he would hold, andthat all delegations were free to express their points of view in those consultations.  The decision
should be adopted on the basis of the introductory statement already read out by the Chairman.
The Chairman said that he thought he had already said all that could be said in order to
confirm delegations' understanding on this matter.  There would be consultations regarding the post of
DDG, and the penultimate paragraph did not prejudge the outcome of those consultations on the
number of DDG posts.  Regarding the reference to geographical balance, this was not intended to
exclude the consideration in those consultations of any other elements that would have to be taken
into account.  The Director-General would take into account the outcome of the consultations on these
matters.  He proposed that the General Council take note of the statements and adopt  the draft
decision contained in document WT/GC/W/258.
The General Council so agreed.
Delegations expressed their appreciation to the Chairman, the facilitators, the former
Chairman of the General Council, Bangladesh and Australia for their dedication, patience,
professionalism and considerable efforts in bringing this difficult matter to a successful conclusion,and to all four candidates for the interest they had shown in leading the WTO.  They expressed their
congratulations to Mr. Moore and Mr. Supachai on their respective appointments as Director-General,
assured both individuals of their countries' full support and cooperation in the performance of their
duties during their respective tenures, and wished both individuals all success in taking the work of
the WTO forward.
The representative of Myanmar, on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, commended all Members
for taking this positive step in successfully appointing new Directors-General.  This demonstrated the
sense of responsibility Members had for the system and the organization.  In the interest of the
membership and the organization, the ASEAN Members had taken a principled stance on this crucialsystemic issue.  There was a need for an efficient and timely procedure for a process of selection of
the Director-General based on the principles of fairness, equity and transparency.  Thus, it was
imperative and incumbent upon Members that they institutionalize such a procedure as soon as
possible.  Under the guidance and leadership of th e two individuals appointed as Director-General, theWT/GC/M/46
Page 19
WTO would make great strides towards attaining the hopes and aspiration of all Members.  The
ASEAN Members were confident that both Mr. Moore and Mr. Supachai would understand the
concerns of individual Member countries – particularly the less fortunate – as well as the need for
balance within the organization, while bearing in mind the crucial relationship between trade
liberalization and development and the systemic imbalances among Members.  He expressedASEAN's gratitude to all Members for their concerted efforts in putting aside their differences and
thereby allowing a consensus agreement at the present meeting.
The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation had known from the outset that the
selection process for the next Director-General would not be easy, given the high calibre of all four
candidates.  He expressed his country's appreciation to all Members who had, through a consensus
decision, placed their trust in the New Zealand candidate to serve as Director-General for three yearsfrom 1 September 1999.  It was a great honour both for Mike Moore and for New Zealand to be able
to serve the WTO and all its Members in the role of Director-General.
The representative of Bangladesh expressed his delegation's satisfaction that, beyond the
important issue of resolving the appointment of the next Director-General, a spirit of cordiality and
good will had been restored in the WTO, and its hope that this mood would continue through the 1999
Ministerial Conference and beyond.  When Bangladesh had first floated the idea that had just been
adopted, it had been guided by one thought – that this was perhaps the only way a divided house
could be united.  He expressed his delegation's gratitude to the many delegations that had contributed
to this process.  His delegation was confident that the organization would be in good hands during thenext six years.
The representative of Bolivia said that th e leadership and guidance of Mr. Moore and
Mr. Supachai would be to the benefit of all Members, particularly those with small and fragile
economies.
The representative of Australia said his country was confident that Members would be in
good hands for the next six years.  This exercise  had brought developed and developing countries
from very different backgrounds together, and all had gained from it.
The representative of Cuba said that the long and costly process of electing a Director-
General had been plagued with difficulties and pressures, and had highlighted the need for greater
democracy and true transparency in the WTO decision-making process.  This applied as much to the
approval of any trade regulation as to the election of the Director-General.  No country, however big
or small, should be excluded from the WTO decision-making process.  Another lesson to be drawn
from recent experience was that the developing countries should have greater weight in WTO
decision-making and should play a more important role, given that they represented the majority ofMembers and that the WTO was seeking to become a universal organisation different from the
GATT.  As Members began a new stage in their work, the WTO should be working hard to achieve a
better and fairer world and to address the serious problems affecting international economic relations,
in order to make a true contribution to the development of the Third World.
The representative of Kenya said that the decision Members had adopted, though not ideal, as
many had observed, was one that his delegation had supported in light of the present circumstances.
Kenya had no doubt that the two distinguished indi viduals appointed as Director-General would play
their expected role and would shoulder the responsibility of leading the organization during the next
six years.  All Members should fully support each of two Directors-General, who would serve theentire membership of the organization.  The General Council had to agree on a comprehensive set of
rules and procedures for the future selection of the Director-General, and the paper circulated by
Jamaica could be a starting-point for this work.  It was significant that the two men appointed as
Director-General came from a developed and a developing country, respectively, and it was aWT/GC/M/46
Page 20
welcome development that for the first time in the 50-year history of the or ganization, an individual
from a developing country had been named to lead the WTO.  In supporting the effective participation
of all developing countries in the international trading system, one should also support their
integration into the leadership of the institution that managed that system.  Particular attention should
be given to the participation of African countries, which were confronted by special and unique tradeand development challenges.  His Government would offer its contribution to the leadership of the
organization.
The representative of Hungary, speaking also on behalf of the CEFTA countries and Latvia
,
expressed these delegations' satisfaction and relief that the process of the appointment of the next
Director-General had been brought to a consensus-based end.  It was clear that this process would
never have resulted in a consensus had delegations  not been ready to show flexibility and mutual
respect.  He delegation appreciated the efforts of all WTO Members, and in particular the delegations
that had presented candidates.
The representative of Thailand expressed his delegation's satisfaction that a conclusion had
finally been reached on this difficult and delicate issue.  His delegation congratulated all WTO
Members for having successfully come to a decision on this matter.  In a spirit of compromise, all
Members had shown flexibilit y and understanding, thereby allowing a decision by consensus.  This
bode well for future endeavours of the organization and its membership, and sent a strong and positive
signal to the rest of the world.  The time spent on this process had strengthened the institution, and the
events of recent months were part of the growi ng-up and learning process that a young organization
had to go through.  The decision taken by the General Council was historic in that it further reaffirmed
the membership's resolve to stand united in purpose and outlook vis-à-vis  the challenges that
concerned all.  The experience had also underlined the prevailing desire of Members for a fair,
equitable and transparent system.  Despite whatever criticisms had been raised regarding the
shortcomings of the outcome of the selection proces s, there was now a growing recognition of the role
of the emerging economies in the organization.  This would be a foundation for trust and confidence
upon which differences among Members could be conciliated.  The multilateral trading system and
the WTO were at a crossroads, and Members should  give both individuals appointed as Director-
General their unqualified support and turn their full attention to the substantive work ahead.  He called
on all Members to work together to meet the challenges ahead and to achieve their common goals for
the betterment of the multilateral trading system and for the benefit of all peoples as the world entered
the new millennium.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said it had been particularly helpful that the
Chairman had added to his introductory statement certain elements that had enabled his delegation to
accept a decision, some parts of which were unpalatable.  These elements were the following:
(i) confirmation that the decision did not prejudge the outcome of consultations on the number ofDDGs;  (ii) clarification that the reference to geographical balance did not exclude other elements of
balance from consideration;  and (iii) additional emphasis that the Director-General would take into
account the outcome of the consultations on the DDG issue.  He nevertheless wished to record certain
views of his delegation's interpretation of the phrase "geographical balance":  (i) the phrase was not to
be interpreted too narrowly in terms of scope;  "geographical" could embrace not only physicallocation, but also more qualitative concepts such as state of development and other similar concepts;
(ii) neither was it to be interpreted narrowly in terms of time;  geographical balance could be achieved
over more than one Director-General's term of office, and was not to be regarded as strictly applicable
at any particular moment in time;  (iii) the reference to "geographical balance" could not be allowed to
undermine the principle that each DDG had to be acceptable to all Members; thus, regional"nominees" were not automatically appointable;  (iv) neither should the decision override principles
of sound management, which should remain, as always, the prime consideration in determining the
number of appointments at each and every level of the organization;  (v) it followed that Members
were not pre-committed to any particular number of DDGs pure ly in order to satisfy a narrowWT/GC/M/46
Page 21
definition of geographical balance, and might still consider a reduction from the present level of four.
Hong Kong, China regarded the decision as reinforcin g past practice, as elaborated upon earlier by the
European Communities. His delegation regarded the appointment of Mr. Supachai as particularly
noteworthy and welcome, since he was the first Director-General from a developing country and from
Asia.
The representative of India said that his delegation joined others in welcoming the adoption of
this historic decision by the General Council.  India was particularly happy that a candidate from a
developing country had been selected for the post of Director-General.  This augured well for the
future of the WTO.
The General Council took note of the statements.
__________