RESTRICTED  
  
GPA/M/83  
 
14 June 2021  
(21-4856) Page: 1/5 
Committee on Government Procurement    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE FORMAL MEETING OF 2 JUNE 2021  
(VIRTUAL MEETING)  
CHAIR: MR CARLOS VANDERLOO (CANADA)  
The Chair opened the meeting by noting that prior to the meeting delegations had received an 
Airgram1 setting out the proposed agenda. The proposed agenda for the meeting was as follows:  
1. Election of the Committee's  next chair; and  
2. Other business, if any.  
No items of other business had been proposed by delegations.  
The Committee adopted  the agenda, as proposed by the Chair.  
1  ELECTIO N OF THE COMMITTEE'S NEXT CHAIR  
1.1.  The Chair recalled that two nominations for the next chair of the Committee had been submitted 
by Parties, one by the European Union and the other by Chinese  Taipei. He said that he had 
encouraged Parties to identify the next chair through bilateral consultations. To facilitate the process, 
he had invited Parties to make appointments to meet with him  to share their views and preferences, 
and he had met with most Parties. On 21 May, he had circulated a communication to all Parties to 
report back on the results of his bilateral meetings. On 25 May, the European Union, on its own 
initiative, had withdraw n its candidate from the chair selection process. On 28 May, the Chair had 
organized an informal  consultative meeting with Parties to discuss  whether the Committee would be 
in a position to confirm the only remaining candidate from Chinese Taipei as the Co mmittee's next 
chair. It became clear during the consultative meeting that the Parties had not reached a consensus 
and that more time was needed. Nevertheless, some Parties had requested that the election of 
the new chair be kept on the agenda of the forma l meeting for further discussion.  
1.2.  At the outset of the discussion, the representative of Hong Kong, China  said that prior to 
the first round of consultations, Hong Kong, China had met with both candidates personally to 
discuss their candidacies . Hong Kong,  China had informed the Chair in the first round of consultations 
that it would only support the candidate from Poland and object to the candidate from Chinese Taipei 
as the next Committee chair. As Hong Kong, China had informed the Chair on two occasions before 
the meeting, Hong Kong, China remained resolute in its position notwithstanding the latest 
development on nominations. Hong Kong, China had also informed the Chair on those occasions that 
Hong Kong,  China remained resolute in its position of not joi ning any consensus to designate the 
candidate from Chinese Taipei as the next Committee chair.  
1.3.  The representative  of the United States  thanked both Chinese Taipei and the European Union 
for their interest in chairing the Committee and appreciated the Europ ean Union's withdrawal in light 
of the support that had been shown for Chinese Taipei. She expressed the United States' regret and 
disappointment that the Committee was unable to acclaim the only remaining candidate as its next 
chair today. The United Stat es was particularly disappointed that the Committee and its 
long-standing tradition of collegiality was being impeded by this massive political agenda of those 
outside of the Committee. The United States wanted to make it clear that it did not take this 
 
1 WTO/AIR/GPA/25   GPA/M/83  
 
- 2 - 
 
  interference by a non -GPA Party lightly and it was highly inappropriate and not something that in 
the United States' belief had a place in this Committee.  
1.4.  Continuing, she said that WTO chairs were selected to act in their personal capacity and issues 
unrelat ed to that personal capacity should not be injected into this process. The United States also 
wanted to make it clear that accession candidates were not entitled to participate in 
the decision -making process of the Committee. The United States found the in trusion to be 
extremely damaging to the working of the Committee. It urged Hong Kong, China to carefully 
consider joining consensus to acclaim Chinese Taipei as the Committee's next chair. It also 
suggested that the Committee have the current Chair continu e in his role to help the Committee find 
his successor in a very near term.  
1.5.  The representative of the United Kingdom  said that her delegation wished to place firmly on 
record its full confidence in the consultative process led by the current Chair. The selection process 
for a new chair was a matter for the Committee and had now run its course. Through this process, 
all Parties had had the opportunity to present their preferences on the two excellent candidates that 
had been presented. The United Kingdom was satisfied with what it believed to be the final outcome, 
namely that one of the two candidates had formally withdra wn, and a coalescence of support had 
formed behind the one remaining candidate. It was therefore regrettable that the Committee found 
itself at this impasse. The Committee had important business to be getting on with. Therefore, the 
United Kingdom would st rongly encourage all GPA Parties to get behind the one remaining candidate 
from Chinese Taipei who had the skills and expertise needed to be an effective Committee chair. 
Given that the Committee was not in a position to take a decision on this business to day, 
the United  Kingdom would be grateful if the current Chair could continue to serve as the Committee 
chair whilst discussions continued.  
1.6.  The representative  of Chinese Taipei  appreciated the Chair for his time and efforts to facilitate 
the whole process of the selection of the next chair in an impartial and professional manner. 
Chinese  Taipei was also thankful for the time given by the Parties over the past few months to meet 
with its candidate and for their support of her candidacy. Chinese Taipei acknow ledged 
the European  Union for nominating an extraordinary candidate and for its withdrawal of that 
candidate after the Parties' clear preference had been revealed . The European Union's elegant 
demeanour had articulated its respect for the Parties' decision and its respect for the rules recognized 
by the Parties in this Member -driven Organization. However, it was regrettable to learn that 
the Committee was not able to reach a consensus on the chair election today despite the fact that 
the European Union had withdrawn its nomination and had joined the consensus on nominating 
the Chinese  Taipei candidate as the next chair. Chinese Taipei looked forward to a meaningful 
conversation in order to conclude the chair election process in a timely  manner.  
1.7.  The representative of Japan  appreciated the Chair's constructive role played throughout 
the process of selecting the Committee's next chair. Japan regretted that the Parties could not reach 
a consensus until today in spite of the Chair's efforts. Japan was concerned by the current situation 
where a consensus had not been found despite the fact that there remained only a single candidate 
for the next chairmanship. Japan called on all the Parties to demonstrate the same solidarity which 
had been show n in another process which they had experienced recently, and to join the consensus 
that had almost been formulated. Japan was ready to continuously support all the efforts in order to 
achieve consensus. For that purpose, together with the United States an d the United Kingdom, Japan 
proposed an extension of the current Chair's term to the extent the Parties considered necessary 
and appropriate, and if the circumstances around the Chair allowed.  
1.8.  The representative of the European Union  thanked the Chair for his extensive efforts since 
the beginning of 2021 to help find the most qualified person to succeed him. It was often said that 
the greatest token of leadership was finding one's best successor. He said that, as delegations knew, 
the European Union had pre sented a candidate, the Deputy Permanent Representative of Poland, to 
chair this Committee whom the European Union had considered well suited for the position. 
The delegation of Chinese Taipei had presented the competing candidate, Ms Lianron Lin. The Part ies 
had agreed from the start that it would be an open race based only on the merits of each person. 
According to the report of the Chair's subsequent informal consultations, GPA Parties had expressed 
their full confidence that either candidate would be we ll qualified to become the next chair. Ten days 
ago, the European Union had noted that the Chair's consultations had revealed a significant majority 
support for the candidate from Chinese Taipei. In keeping with the conventions of this Organization 
and to help the Chair reach consensus, the European Union had subsequently withdrawn its GPA/M/83  
 
- 3 - 
 
  candidate last week, leaving only one candidate for confirmation to the post. As was customary, 
the European Union was ready to support whoever commanded the greatest support  among Parties.  
1.9.  Continuing, he said that it had appeared during an informal meeting on Friday of last week that 
one Party would not be able to join the consensus around the sole remaining candidate. 
The European  Union noted that this Party was also a custo ms territory, and one which had occupied 
many high -profile chairmanships, including at a higher level, during the GATT's and the WTO's 
history. The European Union recalled that WTO Chairs were meant to be selected on the merits of 
candidates and subsequent ly to act in their personal capacity. The Committee on Government 
Procurement had not heard anything about the candidates' qualifications that would support 
the withholding of consensus on the grounds that they would not be able to exercise their duties. I t 
was said that this Organization's greatest current weakness was that it had become too easy for 
a Member to say "no". In conclusion, the European Union expressed regret that the Committee was 
not able to reach consensus on the next GPA chair today and ca lled upon the outstanding Party to 
review its position. The European Union urged all Parties to show flexibility and encouraged the 
current Chair and Parties to engage in consultations with a view to finding a solution soon. In order 
to ensure the function ing of the Committee and to help find the next chair rapidly, 
the European  Union invited the current Chair to consider continuing to exercise his role.  
1.10.   The representative of Switzerland  thanked the Chair for his update regarding the selection 
process of th e Committee's next chair and his efforts to move the process forward. Switzerland had 
recognized that the two candidates had the required profile and capabilities to perform the function 
and regretted that it had not been possible to reach consensus on a c andidate so far. Switzerland 
would remain constructively engaged to find a solution. It was important for all Parties and other 
WTO Members in the process of GPA accession and with observer status that a new chair can take 
over the leadership without delay  to progress the work of the Committee. Switzerland could join 
the suggestion by other Parties to ask the current Chair to continue his function and consultations 
to find a solution on this matter.  
1.11.   The representative of Australia  thanked both Chinese Taip ei and the European Union for 
nominating high -quality candidates and also thanked the European Union for its grace in withdrawing 
its candidate after Ms Lin attracted a clear majority of support. In accordance with established 
selection procedures, Austral ia had expected a smooth transition of the appointment of 
the remaining candidate. Australia was disappointed that a changeover would not occur today. 
Australia reiterated its confidence in the Chinese Taipei candidate's ability to perform professionally 
as chair. It remained optimistic that consensus could be achieved and urged all Parties to work 
together constructively. It was important that the work of the Committee continue unimpededly. 
Australia expressed its appreciation for the work of Mr Vanderloo as chair since June 2018 and 
the positive manner in which he had engaged with the Committee throughout his term. In particular, 
Australia thanked Mr Vanderloo for his welcome and valuable assistance in concluding Australia's 
accession to the Agreement in 2 019. Australia supported the current Chair continuing in the interim 
until a new chair was confirmed.  
1.12.   The representative of New Zealand  said that her delegation considered the candidate from 
Chinese  Taipei to be a suitable person to chair the Committee. Ne w Zealand had had the same view 
of the previous candidate from Poland. New Zealand thanked the European Union for its willingness 
to withdraw its candidate in the wider interests of following the rules and procedures and of securing 
a consensus for the app ointment of a new chair. New Zealand considered that, in the same manner 
as Hong Kong, China, as a full participant in the GPA and a Member of the WTO, Chinese Taipei was 
subject to all the responsibilities of membership and was able to exercise all the ri ghts of 
membership. Failure to reach consensus now on the appointment of a new Committee chair would 
send a negative signal in the context of the broader challenges confronting the wider WTO system, 
particularly as the WTO membership worked for a successfu l outcome from MC12 at the end of 2021. 
New Zealand, therefore, urged Hong Kong, China to reconsider its position and to join a consensus 
in favour of the appointment of the remaining candidate from Chinese Taipei. New Zealand thanked 
the current Chair for  his work on the consultative process to date. Like others, New Zealand would 
be grateful if the current Chair could be in a position to continue to serve as the chair of 
the Committee whilst discussions continued.  
1.13.   The representative of Canada  thanked the Chair for his active engagement in the process 
leading up to the selection of the new chair. Canada appreciated the crucial role that the chair of 
the Committee played in advancing the work of the Committee. In that regard, Canada had been GPA/M/83  
 
- 4 - 
 
  very pleased to see that two excellent and well -qualified candidates had been put forward. Following 
the consultation process for the selection of the new chair, the Committee was now left with one 
candidate for the position. In light of this and given that a significant majority of Parties had 
expressed a preference for the candidate from Chinese Taipei, Canada did not see any reasons as 
to why the Parties should not proceed with the election of the candidate, Ms Lianron Lin, as the new 
chair of the Committee. That said, Canada was disappointed and regretted that one Party was unable 
to join consensus in selecting the candidate from Chinese Taipei. Canada encouraged that GPA Party 
to reconsider and join the consensus expediently. In Canada's view, it was in the Committee's  best 
interest to select its new chair as soon as possible.  
1.14.   The representative of China , speaking as an observer, said that his delegation had taken note 
that the Committee was not yet able to select its next chair. As the Committee was aware, the chair 
of the Committee was selected only by all GPA Parties through consultations. China, as an observer 
to the GPA, fully respected these practices and outcomes and had no intention to interfere. 
Nonetheless, China had closely followed the process of chair select ion for the very simple reason 
that China was at the critical stage of its accession to the GPA. China hoped that the chair selected 
by the GPA Parties would play a positive role in China's accession to the GPA. On Tuesday of 
the meeting week, China had su bmitted documents of 33 pages in response to 96 questions that 
had been raised by the European Union and Australia regarding China's Sixth Revised Offer. China 
was also working hard on questions that had been raised by other Parties. This fully demonstrate d 
China's sincere willingness and great efforts made to accelerate the process of its accession to 
the GPA. Meanwhile, China was considering the possibility of further improving its offer. As all 
GPA Parties knew, this would not be an easy task and a large  number of internal coordination work 
needed to be done. Therefore, China hoped that the chair selected by the Parties would facilitate 
China's current and future work and not cause unnecessarily negative impact on China's accession 
to the GPA. China looke d forward to working closely with the next chair and hoped that China could 
join the GPA at an early date, which, in China's view, served the interests of all GPA Parties.  
1.15.   The representative of Japan  took the floor for the second time and said that Japan d id not 
consider it appropriate for China, as an observer, to make a statement under the agenda item of 
the election of the Committee's next chair. China's statement should be made in the informal 
session. Which Party takes the chairmanship did not affect t he chair's neutral and impartial 
character. Japan expected China to demonstrate its constructive attitude whoever the next chair 
would be, as constructive engagement of China would contribute to the facilitation of its 
own accession.  
1.16.   The representative  of Iceland  thanked the Chair for his efforts to find a successor as the next 
chair of the Committee. Iceland also thanked both candidates for their interest in chairing 
the Committee. Both candidates were highly qualified. Iceland had initially expressed its support for 
the candidate from the European Union. However, Iceland had also expressed its willingness to join 
a consensus in favour of the Chinese Taipei candidate after initial consultations had shown majority 
support for the Chinese Taipei candidate. Ic eland thanked  the European Union for withdrawing its 
candidate in light of this development. Iceland regretted that the Committee was not able to reach 
consensus. It was important for the Committee that the matter be resolved. The candidate from 
Chinese Ta ipei had Iceland's full support for being elected as the next chair.  
1.17.   The representative of the United States  took the floor for the second time and echoed Japan's 
statement that it was inappropriate for China to be making a statement on the chair election,  
especially as China had stated that it was not interfering in this process. It was important to know 
that the impartial nature of a GPA chair does not affect the outcome of any accession negotiations. 
GPA accession was determined by GPA Parties and the qu ality of an accession candidate's offer and 
other related materials. It was not related to the impartial nature of the selection of the GPA chair.  
1.18.   The Chair said that the Committee noted the statements made by delegations. He encouraged 
all Parties to engage and continue holding consultations without delay so that his successor could 
be selected as promptly as possible. He also noted that several Parties had proposed that 
the Committee consider an extension of his chairmanship beyond the day in order to ensure 
the continuity of the Committee's work and to have a chair in place to facilitate consultations as 
appropriate. He said that, if the Parties so wished, he was available to continue as chair, at least 
while he remained in post in Geneva. He therefore asked, in the light of the proposals made, whether 
Parties would be agreeable to his continuing as chair at least while he remained in post in Geneva.  GPA/M/83  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.19.   Since n o objection was made, it was so agreed  by the Committee.  
2  OTHER BUSINESS  
2.1.  There were no items of other business.  
 
__________