RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/173  
 
5 October  2018 
(18-6185) Page: 1/116 
General Council  
26 July 2018    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG 
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 26 JUL Y 2018 
Chairperson : Mr. Junichi I hara (Japan ) 
The Chairman and the Direct or-General bade farewell to  Ambassador Marcelo Cima (Argentina), 
Ambassador Bentley Gibbs (Barbados), Ambassador Pich Rithi (Cambodia), Ambassador Stephen 
Karau (Kenya), Ambassador Htin Lynn (Myanmar), Ambassador Tauqir Shah (Pakistan), 
Ambassador  Yvette Stevens (Sierra Leone) and th e 22nd Chairman of the WTO General Council – 
Ambassador Harald Neple (Norway ), and expressed appreciation for their  valuable cont ribution 
during their time as Permanent Representative s. 
 
Upon the adoption of the agenda, t he General Council agreed to amend the proposed agenda in 
relation to the item "Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration – Report on Meetings of 
April and June 2018"  (Item 9) . Only paragraphs 1.1 to 1.12 of WT/BFA/172 and attachment 
WT/BF A/W/448 were taken up under that  item. The con sideration of the fu ll documents referred to 
in that  item (WT/BFA/172 and WT/BFA/173) was de ferred to a subsequent meeting.  
 
Subjects discussed1: 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CH AIRMAN OF THE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS COMMITTEE AND 
REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
2   IMPLEMENTATION O F THE BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUT COMES – 
STATEMENT BY T HE CHAIRMAN  ................................ ................................ .......................  5 
3   WORK PROGRAMME O N SMALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSIO N OF THE COMMITTEE O N TRADE AN D DEVELOPMENT  ...............  8 
4   WORK PROGRAMME O N ELECTRONIC COMMERC E ................................ .......................  9 
4.1   Review of Progress  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
4.2   Information Sharing – Request from China  ................................ ................................ ....11 
4.3   Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions: Need for a re -think – 
Communication from India and South Africa  ................................ ................................ .......... 12 
5   MEASURES TO ALLO W GRADUATED LDCS, WI TH GNP BELOW US$1000 , 
BENEFITS PURSUANT TO  ANNEX VII(B) OF THE  AGREEMENT ON SUBSID IES AND 
COUNTERVAILING MEASU RES – COMMUNICATION FROM THE CENTRAL AFR ICAN 
REPUBLIC ON BEHALF O F THE LDC GROUP  ................................ ................................ ..... 25 
6   VIEWS ON CHINA'S  TRADE -DISRUPTIVE EC ONOMIC MODEL AND 
IMPLICATIONS FOR THE  WTO – SUBMISSIONS F ROM THE UNITED STATE S ..................  29 
7   TWELFTH SESSION OF THE MINISTERIAL C ONFERENCE – DATE AND  VENUE  ............  41 
8   WAIVERS UNDER AR TICLE IX OF THE WTO AGREEM ENT ................................ ...........  42 
                                                
1 The proposed agenda was ci rculated in document WT/GC/W/748 . WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 2 - 
 
  8.1   Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds – Waiver Extension – 
Draft Decision  ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 42 
8.2   Review of Waivers pursuant to Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement  ................................ ...43 
8.2.1    Least -Developed Country Members – Obligations under Article 70.8 and Article 
70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to Pharmaceutical Products, granted on 30 
November 2015 until 1 January 2033  ................................ ................................ ................... 43 
8.2.2    Preferential Treatment for Least -Developed Countries, granted on 27 May 2009 
until 30 June 2019  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 43 
8.2.3    Canada – CARIBCAN, granted on 28 July 2015 until 31 December 2023  ......................... 43 
8.2.4    United States – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, granted on 5 May 2015 
until 31 December 2019  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....43 
9   COMMITTEE ON BUD GET, FINANCE AND ADM INISTRATION – REPORT  ON 
MEETING OF APRIL 201 8 ................................ ................................ ...............................  45 
10   WTO PENSION PLA N ................................ ................................ ...............................  46 
10.1   Report of the Independent External Audi tor on the Audit of the Financial 
Statements of the World Trade Organization Pension Plan for the year ended 31 
December 2017  ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 46 
10.2   Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ending 31 December 2017  .............. 46 
11   STATEMENTS OF G ROUPS OF MEMBERS IN OFFI CIAL WTO MEETINGS – 
STATEMENT BY THE UNI TED STATES  ................................ ................................ ..............  46 
12   CREATION OF A N EW INFORMAL GROUP OF  MEMBERS TO DISCUSS TRADE 
AND ENVIRO NMENT – STATEMENT BY  COSTA RICA  ................................ .......................  48 
13   CHAIRMANSHIPS O F THE COMMITTEE ON T RADE AND ENVIRONMENT  AND 
THE COMMITTEE ON TRA DE AND EN VIRONMENT IN SPECIAL  SESSION – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  ................................ ................................ .....................  49 
14   CHAIRMANSHIP OF  THE WORKING PARTIES  ON THE ACCESSION OF  
UZBEKISTAN AND BHUTA N – STATEMENT BY THE  CHAIRMAN  ................................ ....... 49 
15   STATEMENT BY TH E CHAIRMAN IN CONNEC TION WITH ADMINISTRA TIVE 
MEASURES FO R MEMBERS IN ARREARS  ................................ ................................ .........  49 
ANNEX 1 – THE REPORT S BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAIRS  OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUPS A T THE INFORMAL TNC  AND INFORMAL HODS M EETING 
HELD ON 24 JULY 2018  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 51 
ANNEX 2 – STATEMENTS  BY MEMBERS AT THE I NFORMAL TNC AND INFO RMAL 
HODS MEETING HELD ON 24 JULY 2018  ................................ ................................ .........  61 
 
1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE A ND REPORT 
BY THE DIRECTOR -GENE RAL 
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the Director -General had convened an Informal TNC and Heads of 
Delegation meeting  on 24 Jul y where he had provided a report on his recent activities and 
consultations. The Chairs of Negotiating Bodies had also provided their reports on the  negotiating 
work and forty -five delegations had taken the floor.  
1.2.    As had been announced at that meeting , the Director -General's report an d the reports of the 
Chairs of N egotiating B odies would  be included in the minutes of the  General Council meeting.2 
                                                
2 The Director -General's report (also circulated in JOB/GC/195) and the reports of the Chairs of 
Negotiating Bodies at the 24 July  Informal  TNC and HODs Meeting  are incorporated in the minutes of this 
meeting and are  reproduced in Annex 1  of this document.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Statemen ts deliver ed by delegations would  also be in cluded in the  minutes under the current item  
unless indicate d otherwise.3 
1.3.  The representative of Uganda  aligned with the statements made by the African, LDC and ACP 
Groups.  
1.4.  Uganda wished to draw  Members' attention to the extreme importance of the Chairs'  reports 
made  under their responsibility. Tho se reports should correctly reflect the true substance and facts 
of discussions , especially taking into account where there were divergent views , and should be 
done in the spirit  of transparency. The Chairperson's role wa s to listen attentively to ensure that 
concerns expres sed by Members at each meeting would be  correctly recorded and properly 
addressed. No Chairperson should arrogate to onese lf the figment of authority and brush  aside as 
unimportant the views of other Mem bers. No single Member's views we re superior to th ose of 
another. There should be collective responsibility since t o act otherwi se would risk losing the 
aggrieved Members' confidence in the Chairmanship . 
1.5.  He remin ded Members of the time when the organization had been  established . Uganda 
referred to the purpose and the objectives of the Marrakesh Agreement  likening the Secretariat to 
corporate bodies  which had been created  with a Chief Executive in the person of the  Director -
General . The Secretariat's  main function wa s to undertake the operationalization of the objectives 
into the implemen tation activities through projects which required using  funds provided by 
Members and all partners or friends.  
1.6.  In the case of fun ding from partners or friends, Chapter 6 Regulation 19 of the WTO Financial 
Regulations stipulated  a process for acceptance of voluntary contributions  by the Director -General: 
"Voluntary contributions, gifts or donations from WTO Members and Observers may be accepted 
by the Director -General provided that the purposes for which the contributions are made are 
consistent with the policies, aims and activities of the WTO and provided that the acceptance of 
such contributions which directly or indirectly involve  additional financial viability for the WTO shall 
require consent of the Committee. Voluntary contributions, gifts or donations from non -
governmental donors are subject to the additional guidelines laid out in Annex C . […]" 
1.7.  On the other hand, Article VI.4 of the Marrakesh Agreement provided  that, "[…] I n the 
discharge  of their duties, the Director -General  and the staff of t he Secretariat shall not seek or 
accept instructions from any government or any other authority external to the WTO. They shall 
refrain from any action which might adversely reflect on their position as international officials. The 
Members of the WTO shall respect the international character of the responsibilities of the 
Director -General and of the staff of the Secretariat and shall not s eek to influence them in the 
discharge of their duties. "  
1.8.  Uganda recalled that provision  in light of the recent development in the Committee on 
Budget, Fin ance and Administration. Since the WTO's inception, it had been the good practice to 
respect rules  to avoid chaos . For any Se cretariat member to come up and say that it had  been a 
mistake  all along – that member needed  impeachment.  
1.9.  Concerning  the fundamen tal subject near and dear to Uganda's heart, especially as an LDC, 
the DDA issues represent ed its most critical needs and the institution's relevance was premised  on 
the positive outcomes of tho se issues. Uganda stress ed the multilateral nature of the  organizatio n 
and the consensus principle in  decisi on-making. Members' acclamation or commitment  to the 
multilateral trading system should  be matched by actual  relentless efforts towards that  
preservation and not actions that undermine d it. Uganda therefore reaffirmed all existing 
multilateral mandates including paragraphs 30, 31 and 34 of the Nairob i Ministerial Declaration.  
                                                
3 The statements at the 24 July  Informal TNC and HODs Meeting by the following delegations  are 
incorporated in the minutes of this mee ting and can be found in Annex 2  of this document:  Republic of Korea; 
Panama (Article XII Members); South Africa (African Group); Canada; Malawi (ACP); Australia (Joint Statement 
Initiative on E -Commerce); European Union; Colombia ( Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for 
Development); Costa Rica; China; Chad (LDCs); I ndia; Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs); United 
States; Indonesia (G -33); Brazil; Pakistan; Argentina; New Zealand; Chile; Zimbabwe; Russian Federation; 
Switzerland; Egypt; Norway; Turkey; Bangladesh; Hong Kong, China; Sri Lanka; Ecuador; Peru; Sin gapore; 
Paraguay; Nepal; Trinidad and Tobago; Qatar; Kenya; Mexico; Thailand; Vanuatu (Pacific Group); Japan; 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Dominica (OECS); Benin (C -4) and Cuba.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 4 - 
 
  1.10.   Agriculture remained  a high priority for Uganda. Negotiations should  be guided by the DDA 
mandates, the July Framework a nd the Hong Kong Declaration. Members should  desist from 
making unnecessary linkages on various e lements of d iscussions which would  have the effect of 
polarising them. Domestic support remained  the most pressing issue and should  be addressed.  
1.11.   Uganda  reaffirm ed the Nairobi Decisions on Public Stockholding  and SSM, the mandated 
work on cotton and  the specific  decisions in favour of LDCs. Uganda  particularly stressed  
Paragraph 44 of the  Doha Declaration which mandated  Members to review S&D provisions with the 
view to making them more effective, precise and operational.  
1.12.   Regarding e -commerce, the 1998 w ork programme w as an excellent basis for multilateral 
work. The pursuit of an informal proces s on the same issue sadly painted  a deep picture of 
seriousnes s of some Members to fulfil that  mandate despite their repeated support  for multilateral 
work. Such was a critical i ssue for discussion along with the moratorium on customs duties on 
electronic transmission and development issues , amon g others. It was important for those issues 
to be dealt with under the work programme.  
1.13.   The swift adherence to the m ultilateral decisions of the Ministers over the years would take 
Members a long way. SDG 17.10 called  for the promotion of a universal, rules -based, open, non -
discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system under the WTO including through the 
inclusion of negotiations wi thin its Doha Development Agenda. Members should therefore intensify 
their work in the diff erent committees to realize that goal without cherry -picking SDGs.  
1.14.   The representative of Haiti, on behalf of the CARICOM , welcomed  the renewe d start of the 
negotiations on Agriculture  after the Ministerial Conference  in Buenos Aires . Those negotiations 
should however be accompanied by the necessary political will t o help obtain outcomes that would  
correct the historical imbalances that exist ed in that  field. 
1.15.   The outcomes of the negotiations should allow CARICOM to guarantee food security for the 
populations of  its m ember S tates, as well as employment. CARICOM wished  to see an SSM that 
was easy to use in cases of pric e depression and import surge s. A permanent solution for public 
stock holdin g for food security purposes should  take into account existing and future programs.  
1.16.   CARICOM reiterated  its readiness to continue engagement in the negotiations on fisheries 
subsidies to ensure that the outcome redounded  to the sustainable management and development 
of thei r fisheries. The Group's participation in those negotiations was  critical to safeguarding the 
invaluable contribution of the fisheries sector to the region' s food security, jo b creation and 
livelihood. CARICOM had  reiterated in the negotiations the importance of, inter alia , coastal state' s 
sovereignty and sovereign rig hts within their maritime space,  as enshrined in international law; 
appropriate special and differential tre atment for developin g and least -developed countries; and 
preservation of policy space to allow developing count ries and LDCs to support fisherfolks  in 
improving their competitiveness, fishing practices and valu e-added production. CARICOM was  
ready to contribute to the impleme ntation of the mandate given by Ministers at MC11 in Buenos 
Aires to reach an a greement by  December 2019.  
1.17.   On Services, CARICOM noted with concern the attention that had  been diverted from the 
multilateral process in favour o f plurilateral initiatives. It was CARICOM 's hope that t hose 
plurilateral discussions would ultimately e nrich the multilateral process. The Group reiterated  its 
desire to see movement in  market a ccess in services. Given the importance of the services sector 
for the Caribbean reg ion, the Group was  committed to continuing its positive engagement.  
1.18.   CARICOM wa s concerned about the lack of progress in the S& DT negotiations. The Group 
called  for the implementation of paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration to make the S &DT 
provisions more precise, effective and operational. CARICOM did  not see the need f or the case 
study approach as it could only divert the Committee from its  mandate. S&DT was sacrosanct and 
directly linked to the ability of developing countries and LDC s' ability to implement WTO rules and 
by extension a successful inte gration into the world economy. In that regard, CARICOM called  on 
all Members to show flexibility and redouble their efforts so that those who were most vulnerable 
could  benefit from such provisions to promote their development.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 5 - 
 
  1.19.   CARICOM recognised the tense climate in the multilateral trading s ystem which could  have 
negative and unintended consequences on the most  vulnerable Members , such as those of t he 
Caribbean Community. The Group invited Members to find an equita ble solution regarding the 
Appellate Bo dy as soon as possible to have a functioning d ispute settlement s ystem.  
1.20.   CARICOM reiterated its commitment to the multilateral trading system based on clear, 
predictable and inclusive rules and associated with the stat ements of the ACP at the 24 July 
Informal TNC meeting and at the current General Council meeting.  
1.21.   The representative of Malawi , on behalf of the ACP , recalled the Group's  statement4 at the 
24 July Informal TNC meeting . The functioning of the system and agr eements negotiated under 
the consensus rule remain ed vital in the interest of its members. The ACP placed great interest in 
that important rule which it  expected to be considered in the DSU reform negotiations. In 
particular, the Group wa s keenly examining  the Africa n Group proposals.  
1.22.   The Group  emphasize d that while promoting the rules based system under  the consensus 
umbrella, Members should  also ensure an effective  enforcement mechanism which had  been a core 
pillar of the WTO. The  current status quo of t he App ellate Body remained worrisome and the Group 
urgently call ed on pragmatic solutions to the impasse. The Group likewise stressed its  support to 
Ambassador Shree Servansing's re -appointment which needed  to be resolved by September 2018.  
1.23.   The General Cou ncil took note  of the report of the Chairman of the TNC and of the Director -
General's report, and of the statements delivered at the current meeting and at the Informal TN C 
and Informal HODs meeting on 24 Jul y. 
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOME S – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  
2.1.  The Chairman5 said that the item remained  on the General Council's agenda to follow up on 
the decisions adopted in B ali, Nairobi and Buenos Aires and to do so in an inclusive and 
transparent manner.  
2.2.  On 23 July, he had  held a meeting with the Chairs of Regular Bodies where they had  heard 
updates  on the work taking place in tho se bodies, including with respect to the implementation of 
the Ministerial mandates. The  discussions from that meeting were the basis of his statement .  
2.3.  Regarding the Bue nos Aires Decision on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints, the 
TRIPS Council had continued it s work at its June meeting, where a number of delegations had 
expressed readiness to engage in a substantive discussio n of scope and modalities, should non -
violation complaints become applicable to TRI PS. The TRIPS Council Chair would  continue small 
group consultations ahead of the Council's next meeting in November.  
2.4.  Regarding some of the Decisions on Agriculture, at its June meeting, the Committee on 
Agriculture had continued its reviews of the Bali Decision on TRQ Administration and the Nairobi 
Decision on Export Competition. The Chair of the Committee on Agriculture  had suggested that the 
Committee conclude d the trienni al review of the Nairobi Decision at its September meeting, while 
the Review of the Bali  TRQ Administration Decision was expected to conclude in 2019.  
2.5.  The third dedicated discussion pursuant to the Nairobi Decision on Export Competition had 
also taken  place in June. The Secretariat had subsequently circulated the document with the 
replies to the questions ask ed during the meeting and  the revised Secretariat's background 
document on export competition.  
2.6.  Australia, Israel and Norway had  their revised schedules  certified while Canada, Colombia, 
the European Union, South Afri ca, Switzerland and Uruguay had  circulated draft revised schedules 
pursuant to the Nairobi Decision. Other Members with scheduled export subsidies commitments 
had updated the CoA on the steps  taken to implement the Decision.  
                                                
4 The statement is incorporated in the minutes of this meeting and can be  found in Annex 2, pages 65-
67 of this document.  
5 The Chairman's statem ent was circulated in JOB/GC/196 . WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.7.  Concerning Development and  LDC matters, on the  Decision on Preferential Rules of Origin for 
LDCs, only six  preference -granting Members  were yet to submit their notification using the new 
template adopted in 2017, with Kaza khstan being the most recent Member to  do so. In October, 
Members would  conduct another annua l review of developments in the  area where they would  
consider a new note on preference utilizatio n and continue examining existing origin requirements.  
2.8.  Regarding  the LDC Services Waiver, at the May meeting of the Services Council, the LDC 
Group and Bangladesh had put forward a number of specific ideas on technical assistance and 
capacity building measures in line with paragraphs 1.4 a nd 1.5 of the Nairobi Decision.  A number 
of delegations had asked LDCs to provide greater detai l on their different proposals. The CTS Chair 
would  further consult Members on how to advance the process . To date, 24 notifications had  been 
received on the part of 51 Members.  
2.9.  The LDCs also continue d to highlight the importance they attach ed to DFQF market access as 
it remained  a standing item on the CTD's agenda. At the July CTD meeting, the LDCs had called on 
Members to agree to their 2016 proposal for the Secretariat to carry out a study o n the "clinical 
examination" of DFQF implementation.  
2.10.   On the Bali Decision on the Monitoring Mechanism on Special and Differential Treat ment, a 
common understanding had  yet to be reached on how to proceed with th e Mechanism's review - 
which had been  mandate d to take place three years after the first forma l meeting. The CTD Chair 
intended  to hold further consultations in that  regard after the summer break.  
2.11.   Regarding Aid for Trade, its 2018 -2019 work programme with the theme "Supporting 
economic diversificatio n and empowerment for inclusive, sustainable develop ment through Aid for 
Trade", had moved into the implementation phase, which  included meetings, workshops , and the 
2019 Aid for Trade Globa l Review. The CTD Chair intended to consult on the parameters of A id for 
Trade achievements and the monitoring and evaluation exercise in preparation for the Review.  
2.12.   At a recent meeting of the Working Group on Trade and Transfer of Technology, discussions 
had continued on the basis of a WIPO presentation on "Harnessing P ublic Research for Innovation 
and Knowledge/Technology Transfer – The Role of Int ellectual Property". The FAO had  been invited 
to share its work in relevant areas at its next meeting.  
2.13.   On the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement,  137 acceptanc e instruments 
had already been deposited – corresponding to 84 percent of the Membership.  
2.14.   The representative of Chad, on behalf of the LDCs , said that  the issue of implementing 
decisions taken in the past to support LDCs  including in Bali and Nairobi and the decisions in 
Buenos Aires were vital. Tho se decisions relate d to DFQF market access, rules of origin, 
Preferential Treatment to Services and Service Suppliers o f LDCs, market access to cotton -related 
products and expo rt competition . The i mplementation of those decisions streng thened the 
credibility of the organization and its effectiveness should be monitored . 
2.15.   DFQF market access for LDCs was a key aspect for the LDCs  to access the multilate ral 
trading system and to hel p them improve thei r 1% share in global trade.  
2.16.   On ru les of origin, the LDC Group had  made a submission on 13 April focusing on 
implementing Nairobi decisions. The Group asked  Members to report to the Committee on the 
effective measures being taken to i mplement the decision so that they could  evaluat e the 
operationalization of the  decision and  for transparency purposes . 
2.17.   On the Services W aiver, the LDCs thanked those who had provided preferences and had  
notified that to the Secretariat  and encourage d other s who had  not yet done so to notify their 
preferences.  
2.18.   Underscoring the importance of capacity building linked to trade in implem enting WTO 
programmes and Ministerial Decisions through aid for t rade and strengthening the EIF we re key 
issues for the LDCs. The  Group  therefore recognized the need to incorporate the development 
dimension and to have true trade -related policies in that respect when drawing up commercial and 
economic strategies.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 7 - 
 
  2.19.   The LDC Group reiterate d its thanks to donors who had  undertaken comm itments in Nairobi 
and Buenos Aires to support the EIF – a key framework and useful tool for LDCs within the 
multilateral context  which helped them build new trade links, strengthen existing ones  and 
promote more inclusive and fair trade.  
2.20.   Implementing Mini sterial Decisions within the WTO would  clearly contribute to improving the 
positive future for LDCs and would help them combat poverty more effectively.  
2.21.   The representative of Sierra Leone  aligned with the statement made by the LDC, African 
and ACP Groups . 
2.22.   As it would be her  last General Council  meeting , she took the opportunity to thank the 
Director -General and his staff and all her  colleagues who had supported the cause of the LDCs  at 
the WTO. Her statement would be made through the lens of an LDC Permanen t Representative 
who had  spent the past five years advocating for LDC interests in the organization . 
2.23.   Since Bali , Members had seen  the unanimous adoption by  the United Nations General 
Assembly of the 2030  Sustainable Development Agenda which promised that " no one should be 
left behind". The Addis Ababa Action Agenda which laid  down ways and means of finan cing the 
Agenda stressed the importance of trade as an engine for development. But up until then, the 
global trade regime had fallen short of what wa s need ed for LDCs  in general, and Sierra Leone in 
particular, to use trade as an effective tool for sustainable development and poverty reduction.   
2.24.   Sierra Leone then asked how the outcomes of tho se three WTO Ministerial Conferences 
could address the LDCs – the weakest link in the chain.  
2.25.   In Bali, the landmark Trade Facilitation Agreement had been  reached and it  had provided for 
special and differential treatment to be accorded to LDCs and had demonstrated that Members 
could  reach co nsensus when political will wa s present.  
2.26.   At Bali, there was an "LDC package" covering DFQF  market access; rules of origin and the 
services waiv er. She noted that t he LDC s had addressed progress on those three items.  Since the 
adoption of the package, pr ogress in the implementation had b een slow.  The LDC c oordinator, in 
his statement, had called for technical assistance to be provided to expedite the implem entation of 
the Bali outcomes . 
2.27.   Bali had also promised further work on  the Doha Programme of Action. Meaningful 
outcomes on remaining D DA issues  including agriculture, cotton, special and differe ntial tr eatment 
and fisheries subsidies  were essential fo r the development of the LDCs. Outside the context of the 
Doha Deve lopment Agenda, such issues would  undoub tedly continue to be negotiated  but o n 
terms that no longer capture d the development focus of the Doha mandate. That would  result in a 
multilateral  trading system that perpetuated inequities  particularly in agricultural trade.  
2.28.   Trade preferences could work  but require d basic capacities, ' right' market conditions and 
domestic policies. It was about time to take a critical look at  the reasons why the g ranting of trade 
preferences had  not led to a significant increase in the LDC s' share of world trade. It should  also 
be demonstrate d through c oncrete evidence  how th e denial of granting s pecial and  differential 
treatment for LDCs at  MC11 affect ed trade and development in LDCs. Sierra Leone  recommend ed 
that individual stu dies be taken in each LDC on tho se two issues.   
2.29.   Aid for trade for LDCs, inc luding through the Enhanced Integrated Framework, should be 
enhanced and geared towards the obstacles to trade in individual countries.  
2.30.   Gender -sensitive trade policies we re crucial to securing productive opportunities and decent 
incomes for women. The impo rtant linkag es between trade and gender should  not be an 
afterthought, as wa s currently the case. Gender considerations should  form an integral part of 
trade agreements and trade policy. The structural imbalances which contribute d to an unequal 
distribution  of the benefits from trade should  be acknowledged and acted upon.  
2.31.   The multilateral trading system should  deliver for count ries such as Sierra Leone that were 
rich in natural resources yet remain ed poor  inter alia  becau se of unfa ir trading practices. But that  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 8 - 
 
  should not only be in the form of  concessions or aid for trade. Fair and humane r egulations also 
had great potential to contribute positively to the development of LDCs.  
2.32.   The representative of Tanzania  said that negotiations w ere irrelevant if the decisions agreed 
in the past were not implemented and could not be enforced. It was even more concerning when 
some M embers inhibit ed the smooth functioning of the well -established procedures of the dispute 
settlement m echanism.  
2.33.   Regard ing the implementation of Preferential Rules of Origin for LDC s, Tanzania was  
cognizant of the incremental steps being taken by some preferenc e-granting Members. In 
principle, the implementation of the decision would  facilitate LDCs to increase their expor ts 
globally as aspired by the UN Istanbul Programme of Action which aimed  to double the s hare of 
the LDCs' exports by 2020. Tanzania  urged all Preference Granting Members to imp lement the 
decision as required  to support LD Cs to fully integrate into the mul tilateral trading s ystem.  
2.34.   On the Services W aiver, Tanzania appreciated the pref erence already granted by some 
Members and continue d to urge other s to do the same. Tanzania was however frustrated on the 
lack of utilization of the preference s given . Apart from the  capacity constraints that it  faced, there 
were other reasons such as t he continued cumbersome and burdensome procedures being put by 
the Preferen ce Granting Members to the LDCs' services providers. Nothing or very little had  
changed in s treamlinin g the procedures. The low level of awaren ess of the LDCs as beneficiaries  
and the Preference Granting Members called for the redoubling of efforts on sensitization.  
2.35.   For the effective and meaningful implementation of the Services Waiver, it wa s critical th at 
an enquiry point or help desk would be  established to enable the Preference Granting Members to 
assist or  provide support to the Service  Providers from LDCs. Tanzania , in collaboration with othe r 
members of the LDC Group, would  continue to engage with prefere nce-granting Members to seek 
an effective way to implement  the waiver.  
2.36.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement and of the other statements.  
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPO RT BY THE CHAIRMAN O F THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE C OMMITTEE ON TRADE AN D DEVELOPMENT  
3.1.  The Chairman  recalled that i n line with the agreement in the General Council in 2002, the 
Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the  agenda and the Committee on 
Trade an d Development reported  regularly to  the Council on the progress of work in its Dedicated 
Sessions. In Buenos Aires, Ministers  had adopted a Decision reaffirming their commitment to the 
Work Programme and instructing the CTD to continue its work in Dedicated Sessions under the 
overall respon sibility of the General Council . 
3.2.  Ambassador Diego Aulestia (Ecuador) , Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD , 
report ed that the CTD's Dedicated Session on Small Economies had met on 7 June to continue its 
work on the background document prepared by t he Secretariat (WT/COMTD/SE/W/34) regarding 
the challenges and opportunities experienced by small economies in their efforts to reduce trade 
costs, particularly in the area of trade facilitation, as had been mandated in the Ministerial Decision 
WT/MIN(15)/ 40 adopted in Nairobi in 2015 and confirmed in the Ministerial Decisi on 
WT/MIN(17)/63 adopted in Buenos Aires  in 2017 .  
3.3.  The discussion in the meeting had focus ed on the specific challenges derived from trade costs 
that SVEs faced and the most important sources of merchandise and services trade costs reported 
by them. The debate had been  based on presentations by the WTO Secretariat and representatives 
from the g overnments of Panama and Sri Lanka.  
3.4.  It had been  noted in the presentations how aspects like transportation and logistics, border 
costs such as burdensome procedures and documentation requirements, the cost of information 
and tariff and non -tariff barriers had complicated efforts to reduce trade costs. Representatives 
from the SVEs had also hi ghlighted that some of them had  geographic locations favourable to 
transit and transhipment activities. Nevertheles s, they had been  hampered by poor infrastructure, 
lack of IT solutions for everyday processes and lack of information sharing between public and 
private entities.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 9 - 
 
  3.5.  The presentations  had generated an interactive dialogue in which more detailed answers had 
been given about partnerships between public and privat e sectors, training programmes with 
foreign universities and the problems faced while implementing a single window.  
3.6.  Several SVEs had taken  the floor to share t heir national experiences in tho se matters. They 
had added to the discussion elements such as cos ts incurred to hire security firms for road 
transport of goods in dangerous areas, NTMs such as SPS measures which had affected SVEs 
particularly because of their concentration on the export of agricultural and food products, the lack 
of functional and dur able administrative procedures and institutional memory in customs 
administrations, the lack of trade financing mechanisms and the need to improve national business 
environments.  
3.7.  During the meeting, the SVE Group had announced that once the sessions on the  topic were 
completed, they would  present an outcome document to be further discu ssed in the Dedicated 
Session.  
3.8.  Later in the year there would  be ano ther Dedicated Session that would  focus on best 
practices and policy approaches for addressing the challeng es identified in the previous  meeting. 
Speakers from SVEs would  be invited to participate as well as representatives from other 
international organizations.  
3.9.  The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the SVEs , said that  the dedicated session had  
been implementing the Ministers' mandate and had held a meeting on 7 June to discuss challenges 
small economies experience d in thei r efforts to reduce trade costs  particularly in trade facilitation.  
3.10.   The meeting had been  well attended and had given  the opportun ity to many SVE 
delegations to share their national experiences highl ighting the challenges they had been  
experiencing when trying to reduce trade costs. Some of the main challenges highlighted during 
the ses sion had been  high transport costs, non -tariff barriers, high costs in customs and  lack of 
access to information on how foreign markets work, among others.  
3.11.   It had been  evident from the ses sion that the challenges faced had  not been easily 
surmountable  because many relied  on road infrastructure and access to technology that require d 
significant investments. There we re however steps that their economies could  take to diminish 
trade costs for thei r produce rs and exporters. A future meeting, as agreed by the Committee, 
would be held in October where they would  be discussing possible solutions to the challenges 
identified  in the first session. During their discussions, they would  pay particular attention to 
solutions that could be worked at a multilateral level in  the WTO.  
3.12.   At the end of tho se sessions, the SVEs would work on an outcome document that 
summarized and put forward some ideas for action  that could be further explored in t he CTD and 
in other committees. The SVEs thanked  all delegations that had participated active ly during the 
meeting  and hope d that their work could  continue to advance.  
3.13.   The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the CTD and of the 
statement.  
4  WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  
4.1  Review of Progress (S/C/54, G/C/60)  
4.1.  The Chairman  recalled that a t MC11, Ministers had adopted a Decision on the Work 
Programme  on Electronic Commerce. In the  Decision, Ministers  had decided to continue the work 
under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and  had instructed the General Council to 
hold perio dic reviews in its sessions of July and December 2018 and July 2019 based on the 
reports that could  be submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with the implementation  of the Work 
Programme –the Councils for Services, Goods and TRIPS, and the Committee on Tra de and 
Development. In that respect, he drew Members'  attention to the reports submitted by the Chairs 
of the Council for Trade in Services and of the Goods  Council to the General Council  contained in 
documents S/C/54 and G/ C/60, respectively. He invite d the four Chair s to report on developmen ts WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 10 - 
 
  under the Work Programme on Electronic C ommerce since the General Council's last periodic 
review in July 2017.  
4.2.  Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama) , Chairman of the Services Council , said that the CTS 
had taken up the work of the e -commerce work progr amme in its formal meetings . During the 
meetings, Members had supporte d a multilateral approach to  e-commerce.  
4.3.  In the March meeting, the CTS had  reviewed two documents that had been  submitted by 
Chinese Taipei on cyber space trade barriers  and on the impact of changes in the digital era . Those  
led to a ric h debate where many positions were expressed. Delegations had concluded that it had 
been a useful step in revitalizing their  work.  
4.4.  Both in the March and the May meetin gs, Members had raised relevant questions  for the 
exploratory work taking place under the work programme , including the application of standards 
and commitments that we re already unde rtaken in e -commerce at the WTO. Other topics had also 
been discussed inc luding p roblems related to inf rastructure and rules which would  stop developing 
countries from participating in the digital economy, tax implications of the moratorium, concerns 
relating to competition and market structure and questions related to technolo gical neutrality and 
the co mpilation of statistics, among others. Several  delegation s had considered that tho se 
questions should be di scussed in further detail and had said that any proposal at that stage would 
be too early and that there was no negotiatin g mandate at that stage.  
4.5.  In the May meeting, China had  informed the Council of the two -week workshop on "E-
commerce for Development under the Multilateral Trading System"  that had been held in China . 
The representatives of various developing countries had highlighted that the activity had been  
useful for overcoming the gaps in knowledge and to  highlight the importance of such matters  for 
developing countries.  
4.6.  He referred to the draft document tackling  issues such as the moratorium and technological 
neutra lity which would  be discussed at the current meeting under the same Agenda item.  
4.7.  Delegations had also expressed  their general interest to hold a technical workshop on e -
commer ce which had been agreed in principle in 2016. He  urged interested delegations to discuss 
the matter with each other. It had been agreed that he would continue to maintain contact with 
delegations to e nsure that the progress that had been made would be  acceptable to all con cerned.  
4.8.  He said that some Members had also raised concerns on the plurilater al initiative which they 
had found to counter the work programme's mandate since negotiations could not be pursued . 
They had also highlighted  Members' common responsibility to revitalise multilateral discussions 
under the work programme.  
4.9.  The CT S would  continue to conduct its work under the work programme at its upcoming 
formal meeting to be held in  October . Members should  step up their effort s under the work 
programme if they we re to a void losing the progress that they had  in relation to other i nitiatives. 
It was encouraging to see that there we re new p roposals such as the one that they would  have the 
opportunity  to look at later that day  which would reinvigorate thei r discussions on the matter also 
at the General Council.  
4.10.   Ambassador Stephen De B oer (Canada) , Chairman of the Goods Council , reported that i n 
order to fulfil the Buenos Aires man date on e -commerce  and in prep aration for the periodic review 
to be held by the General Council under the current Agenda item, the CTG had included the issue 
of e-commerce on the agenda of its meetings i n March and July 2018. At tho se meetings, the CTG 
Chair had invited delegations to express their opinions and make suggestions as to how they could  
work on the preparation of that  periodic review.  
4.11.   At the  23 and 26 March meeting , several  delegations had expressed the view that the 
Buenos Aires Decision had demonstrated Members' interest in and willingness to reinv igorate and 
continue work on e -commerce  and to work in an engaged and constructive manner in t he context 
of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  discussions. China, supported by various 
Members, had reiterated its proposal that a workshop on electronic commerce and trade in goods 
be organized  in 2018 under the aegis of the CTG.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.12.   At the 3 and 4 July meeting , he had briefed the CTG  on two informa l rounds of consultations 
that he had held with delegations  with the objective of exploring their preliminary views and 
suggestions with regard  to themes, speakers and dates  for an y such proposed workshop.  It had 
been agreed that he  would continue the informal process of consultations on a possible workshop 
on electronic commerce and trade in goods.  
4.13.   Ambassador Walter Werner (Germany ), Chairman of the TRIPS Council , reported on 
discussions in the TRIPS Counc il with respect to the Work P rogramme on Electronic Commerce  
based on the Minis terial Decision taken at MC11. Different from other W TO bodies, electronic 
commerce wa s not a standing item on the agenda of the TRIPS Council. For its first meeting after 
MC11 under the prev ious Chair, Ms Irene Young (Hong Kong, China), no Member  had requested 
the inclusion of electronic commerce as  an ad hoc item. The Council had  therefore not consider ed 
the issue at its meeting on 27 February.  
4.14.   To prepare for the Council's following meeting on 5 -6 June, he had  discussed bilaterally and 
in small group consultations whether any Member had intended to discuss the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce at that meeting. However, there had  again  been no request for the inclusion 
of an ad hoc item to cover electronic commerce at the Council's meeting on 5 -6 June. Instead, 
Members  had exchanged views on how to take the work forward under the agenda item on "Other 
Business".  
4.15.   Some delegations  had proposed that, in pursuance of the Ministeri al mandate to continue 
the work under the Work Programme, the Council should agree to include electronic commerce as 
a standing item on its agenda until MC12. They  had also suggested that the Secretariat update d its 
background note circulated in document I P/C/W/128/Rev.1 in 2003.  
4.16.   Some  other Members had  not however  seen the need for a standing item on electronic 
commerce on the Council's agenda. One Member  had also opposed to the update of the 
Secretariat's background note. He had  therefore concluded the discussions at the last TRIPS 
Council meeting by indicating his  intention to consult with Membe rs on how to move forward on 
those procedural issues.  
4.17.   Ambassador Diego Aulestia (Ecuador) , Chairman of the CTD , recalled that  since the Buenos 
Aires Ministerial Conferen ce, two meetings of the CTD had  been held. The item concerning the 
Work Prog ramme on Electronic Commerce had been  listed on the agenda of both meetings.  
4.18.   At the CTD's April session, Members had an initial exchange of views on possible work for 
the C ommittee in the e -commerce area  on the basis of the Buenos Aires Minis terial Decision. Some 
ideas had been shared  and a number of delegations had requested that the specific proposals 
made for work in the CTD be submitted in writi ng so that they could be given due consideration.  
4.19.   The item concerning the Work Programme on E -Commerce had  also been on the agenda of 
the re cent CTD meeting held on 5 July. However, there had been  no requests from any Member to 
take the floor.  
4.20.   Since the Ministerial decision  established to reinvigorate Members' work on the basis of the 
existing mandate, the CTD should  examine and report on the development impl ications of 
electronic commerce  taking into account the economic, financial and development  needs of 
developing countries. On that basis  and following  the practice,  stemming from the Work 
Program me on Electronic C ommerce , in the CTD adopted in 2001 – the CTD had agreed to revert 
to the  agenda item at its next meet ing which would  be held in November.  
4.21.   The Chairman  extended his gratitude to the four Chairs for the work carried out on e -
comm erce in their respective bodies,  and for their reports.  
4.2  Information Sharing – Request from China  
4.22.   The Chairman  recalled that t he sub-item was on the agenda at the request  of the delegation 
of China . He therefore  invite d China to take the floor.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 12 - 
 
  4.23.   The representative of China  said that p ursuant to the request of many Me mbers, he  wished 
to take the opportunity to  brief the General Council on the "Workshop on E-commerce for 
Development under the Multilateral Trading System " that had been  held in China from 8 to 
21 May. Since he had not participate d at the workshop personally, he had asked his colleague s to 
prepare a short video about the workshop. He then invited Members to watch  the video .6 
4.3  Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic Transmissions: Need for a re -think – 
Communication from India and South Africa (WT/GC/W/747)  
4.24.   The Chairman  recalled that  the sub -item was on the agenda at the request of the  
delegation s of India and So uth. He drew the General Council's attention to the communication  
from India and South Africa circula ted in WT/GC/W/747  and invite d India and South Africa  to 
introduce it. 
4.25.   The representative of India said that as it wa s clear from the review of progress from the 
Chairs, a lot of useful work had  taken place  under the work programme in the context of two 
submissions from Chinese Taipei .  
4.26.   India also thank ed the Government of China for sponsoring the workshop in China on e -
commerce for d evelopment during 8 -21 May as part of the work programme on e -commerce.  
4.27.   In the curr ent exploratory phase, e mphasis should be laid on the need to understand the 
full scope and dimensions of the various issues involved and to addres s the knowle dge gap which 
existed in that  area. 
4.28.   India had  always main tained that while e -commerce had  created new and exciting trade and 
investment o pportunities, it also posed  several new infrastructure and regulatory challenges which 
should be addressed first. Tho se include d the classification issue on  whether e -commerce should 
be treated as trade in goods or services; to what extent existing WTO rules applied  to the digital 
economy; fiscal implications of e -commerce; the scope of electronic transmissions; the impact  of 
e-commerce on competition and market structure s; and  the need for bridging the digital divide.  
4.29.   It was in that context that India introduce d the proposal "Moratorium on customs duties on 
electronic transmissions – Need for a re -think" contained in docu ment WT/GC/W/747. The 
proposal wa s self-explanatory and therefore did  not require a detailed presentation.  
4.30.   The realit ies prevailing in 1998 when Members had agreed for the first time to the 
temporary moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions  had changed significantly. 
Those changes necessitate d a re-examination of the implications of the temporary moratorium 
particularly from the development perspective , including the effect on government revenues and 
digital industrialization as many of the products on which developing countries impose d customs 
duties were then being traded digitally at zer o tariff under the moratoria.  
4.31.   A recent UNCTAD study showed that developing countries we re major losers due to the 
shifting of trade from tradition al produ cts to electronic transmissions; the impact of new emerging 
technologies like remote additive manufacturing and 3D printing on manufacturing physical 
products and therefore the scope of electronic transmissions; w here the change in technology was  
undermini ng the GATT commitments agre ed in 1995 as zero -duty regime wa s being followed even 
for products with non -zero bound rates – that could alter the negotiated balance of rights and 
obligations against developing countries.  
4.32.   Before  attempt ing to deliberate, it was important for the Membership to come to a common 
understanding on the scope of the  moratorium and on what was covered under the definition of 
electronic transmission. Indonesia for instance in a statement circulated at MC11 had me ntioned 
that the moratorium did  not apply "to products or contents which are submitted electronically".  
4.33.   Those  were therefore issues of critical concern to mos t developing countries.  
                                                
6 The video on the e -commerce workshop held in China was then shown at the meeting.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 13 - 
 
  4.34.   Since the proposal had  only been recently circulated, India and South Af rica did  not expect 
Members to come up with deta iled comments. Going forward, they  propose d to continu e engaging 
with Members and to take discussions further forward under the auspices of the General Council in 
a way the membership would want including in a dedicated session of the General Council to 
examine all the above -mentioned and other issues related to the imposition of customs duties on 
electronic transmissions.  
4.35.   The representative of South Africa  recognized a growing interest in the implications of not 
imposing customs duties on elect ronic transmissions. There was  more attention being paid to the 
fiscal and revenue impact o f the moratorium in many of their governments. I ncreasingly , there 
was however  attention on its possible implications for the bro ader, longstanding economic and 
developmental objectives of governments.  
4.36.   Members had  already heard questions about the scope and reach of the moratorium and  in 
the context of rapid technological advances  including the rise of additive manufacturing and th e 
growth in the digit al content of trade, Members could  benefit from a further in -depth assessment 
of the moratorium.  
4.37.   That was  the essential rationale und erpinning the joint proposal. They  propose d that 
Members further discuss ed the topic under the existi ng 1998 Wor k Programme on Electronic 
Commerce and if Members were open to that, further consultations could  be needed to decide how 
best to advance the discussion.  
4.38.   The representative of Benin , delivered the  statement on behalf of the member States of the 
West African Economic and Monetary Union  composed of  Benin, Burkina Faso, Côte d'Ivoire, 
Guinea -Bissau,  Mali, Niger, Senegal and Togo. WAEMU wa s a structured and dynamic economic 
area with approximately 120 million producers and  consumers. The GDP growth ra te in constant 
prices had been 6.7% in 2017.  
4.39.   WAEMU had  undertaken substantial reforms aimed at the progressive liberalization of intra - 
and extra community trade and had  significantly improved the legal envir onment for business 
activities. The Group actively participated  in WTO work, particularly in the groups to which its 
members belong ed: the African, ACP, LDC, G -33 and C -4 groups.  
4.40.   The Community of approximately 119 m illion men, women and children wa s keen to 
promote regional economic integration.  WAEMU viewed  e-commerce as an area wi th enormous 
potential that formed an integral part of the current  economic and  trade environment and that 
would  continue to do so in the future.  
4.41.   At the same time, e -commerce tools and support provide d undeniable benefits  for goods 
and services. Whether for individuals, households, companies, authorities or, on a broader scale, 
countries or regions, the impact of digital technolo gy on ec onomic and social life was huge. It 
provided instantaneity;  saved  time in operations co nducted by a growing number of people, 
companies, authorities and other covered se ctors or institutions;  and helped  to increase revenue, 
profits and opportunities thanks to the multiplier effect.  
4.42.   E-commerce favoured  contact between producers and exporters of goods and services and 
consumers  however large  the distance between them and was also an important instrument for  
regional economic integration. The WAEMU countries recognise d and appreciate d its true potential.  
They were however aware of certain constr aints in activities carried ou t on a daily bas is which they 
were working to remove with their technical and financial partners (bilateral, regional, sub -regional 
and multilateral).  
4.43.   Those constraints most notably include d problems  regarding access to power and internet at 
affordable prices and the lack of an appropriate or harmonized legal framework, as well as 
difficulties relating to technologies, digi tal and physical infrastructure and logistics. All tho se 
problems require d a proper response on their part  but they  also need ed adequate assistance if 
they we re to successfully overcome them.  
4.44.   In pu rsuance of the objectives in those  areas  and other objectives relating to the promotion 
of trade and sustainable and inclusive development, the WAEMU member States had adopted on WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 14 - 
 
  13 July 2018  a joint declaratio n on e -commerce for development7. In that  declaration, they had 
reaffirmed their attachment to multilateralism in the context of a trading system based on fa ir and 
inclusive rules that considered  the development  needs of those Members that had  the most 
difficulty integrating into and benefiting from the multilateral trading system.  
4.45.   In paragraph 11 of the Declaration, in view of the challenges they face d, the WAEMU 
member States consider ed that exploratory work co uld form a valid basis for m oving forward on 
the issue of e -commerce while continuing negotiations on outstanding elements of the Doha 
Development Agenda.  
4.46.   In paragraph 14 of the Declaration, the WAEMU countries call ed for consideration to be 
given to their needs in terms of trade, finance, infrastructure, logistics, training and capacity 
building, employment and development, cybersecurity, payment instruments, and taxation or 
revenue sharing resulting from e -commerce, as well as to flexibility for countries belonging to 
certain categories  such as devel oping and, in particular, least -developed countries.  
4.47.   WAEMU  reaffirm ed their commitment and their readiness to work with other WTO Members 
on e-commerce -related issues with  a view to exploring any possibility of advancing the discussions 
within the framework of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, and to contribute to work 
regarding the potential of e -commerce and the challenges still to be m et, so as to transform that  
type of commerce into a tool for promoting trade and inclusive and sustainable development.  
4.48.   The representative of the United States  noted that the recent paper circulated by India and 
South Africa raised  certain questions and concerns about the longstandi ng prohibition on customs 
duties on electronic transmissions.   
4.49.   When Members had first established the e -commerce morat orium in 1998, digital trade had 
been in its in fancy.  Twenty years later, it was clear that the moratorium had  supported the rapid 
growt h of digital trade by ensuring t hat digital goods and services were not subject to border 
taxes. That WTO agreement had  been echoed in at least 56 FTAs  and RTAs in a permanent 
manner  including the  India-Singapore bilateral FTA based on the same logic: duty -free treatmen t 
of electronic transmission could  enhance growth and productivity of an economy, whil e imposition 
of such duties would  likely do the opposite, and in an extremely disruptive manner.  
4.50.   The central concern raised by India and South Africa was that the e -commerce moratorium 
would  cause a loss of revenue for governments, especi ally in developing countries. According to a 
Secretariat working paper (JOB/GC/114) , the customs revenues Members currently earn ed from 
tariffs on digitizable  goods  – such as  film, books, newspapers, software, and music – was minimal.  
In 2014, such goods had accounted for 1% of total goods trade and 0.2 5% of global customs 
revenue. As those digitizable goods we re increasingly traded in digital format, Members stood  to 
lose ve ry little customs revenue.  
4.51.   Interestingly, the paper also noted  that for all WTO Members, digitizable goods account ed 
for only about one half of one percent of all exports. But for LDCs, digitizable goods account ed for 
7.7% of their total exports. So, if countries had to begin imposing tariffs on digital products, the 
pain could be disproportionately borne by entrepreneurs, artists, and businesses in LDCs, as they 
sought  to move their sales online.  
4.52.   India and South Africa fear ed that the revenue impacts of th e e-commerc e moratorium 
could grow as 3D printing became  a mor e viable mode of manufacturing.  They theorize d that 
developing count ries could  become cent res of 3D printing, and if that occurred, governments 
would  lose out on revenue because they would  be unable to collect customs duties on the digital 
files that serve d as blueprints for 3D printers.   
4.53.   It wa s true that the rise of 3D printing could theoretically cause a decline in tra de in some 
manufactured goods. Such a shift was likely far in the futu re given that 3D printin g was currently 
used for low -volume,  specialized production, and could  only be used for production in certain 
specialized materials.   
                                                
7 The Joint Declaration on E -Commerce for Development by WAEMU mem ber States was subsequently 
circulated in WT/L/1040.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 15 - 
 
  4.54.   In any event, impo sing duties on 3D printing files  would surely be unnecessary and 
ultimately sel f-defeating for several reasons.   
4.55.   First, if a developing country would  impose customs duties on 3D printing files, they would 
raise the cost of conducting such manufacturing in their territory, and manufactur ers would simply 
look elsewhere – to a j urisdic tion without such duties – to build their manufacturing base.  
4.56.   Imposing customs duties on 3D printing files would have the perverse effect of decreasing 
investment in innovative additive manufacturing services – services likely to increase the domestic 
tax base of an economy. Duties would also harm local firms that depend ed upon products 
transmitted electronically a s inputs for goods and services many of which could be subsequently 
exported – such as imported film editing software which helped  drive a ma jor Indian industry and 
one of the country' s biggest exporters.  
4.57.   Second, if a developing country had successfully develop ed a 3D manufacturing base, that  
would likely increase imports in the physical materials n eeded to facilitate 3D printing  such as the 
printing machiner y and the raw material inputs. Governments seeking to raise revenue through 
tariffs could much more easily and effective ly collect tariff revenue on those goods which we re 
traded physically and subject ed to customs procedures.   
4.58.   By contrast, 3D printing blueprints took  the for m of an electronic transmission  shared via 
email attachment or a link  to a file stored in the cloud.  It would be extremely difficult to reliably 
identify electroni c imports for tariff collection since they we re not subject to customs procedures, 
and still more difficult — if not impossible — to discern the country of origin of such electronic 
transmissions.  
4.59.   The third reason imposing customs duti es on electronic transmissions – including 3D 
printing files – would be impractical and self -defeating was  the difficulty of identifying the country 
of orig in of electronic transmissions. For governments that had  taken binding, permanent FTA 
commitments not to impose customs dut ies on electronic transmissions – such as India – they 
would find themselves in the challenging position of trying to discern whether or not a given email 
attachment or download originated with an FTA partner.   
4.60.   The United States strongly supported  maintaining the existing moratorium.  
4.61.   The represent ative of Cuba said that India and South Africa's proposal was an  important 
contributi on to the discussion in the Council. It was an issue within the  mandate sin ce the issue of 
the moratorium and any related discussion were  under the General Council's responsibility. The 
issue had been r aised in previous discussions by a representative group consisting of many 
developing countries and at MC11 . It was a legitimate concern , due its  fiscal and other impacts on 
developing countries.  
4.62.   Two important issues we re raise d relating to the impact of the  moratorium on current 
schedules and the lack of a definition o f electronic transmissions. That was an  appropriate topic to 
begin with because Members were currently at a key stage in discussions as they  move d towards 
the next Ministerial Conference . Cuba therefore welcome d and supported the communication and  
agree d with what Ambassador Suescum (Panama) had said on that matter – that the 
communication could contribute to revitalize the  work programme and work in the rel evant bodies . 
4.63.   The representative of Uganda  continued  to support all efforts towards the reinvigoration of 
work on e -commerce based on the existing mandate in WT/L/274 , as instructed by  Ministers at 
MC11 . The work programme on e -commerce wa s an excellent ba sis for discussion on areas of 
common interest to the entire membership. T he submissions of some Members under the work 
programme had raised issues that Uganda had found useful and that warrant ed further discussion 
in the relevant bodies of t he organizatio n.  
4.64.   Among the many issues wa s one of technological neutrality which was still an open one . The 
progress report to the General C ouncil as adopted  on 19 July 1999 contained i n S/L/74 stated that 
while that had been  the general view  in the sense that the GATS  had not contain ed any provision 
that distinguish ed between different technological mea ns through which a service could  be 
supplied, some delegations had expressed the view that those issues had been  complex and WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 16 - 
 
  needed further examinati on. Members  would  greatly b enefit from a discussion on the  issue to 
resolve the legal uncertainty.  
4.65.   There we re also serious questions that the CTD should discuss , including financial 
implications of electronic commerce for developing countries , the fiscal implications as c ompanies 
move d from commercial presence to cross -border supply, the financial implications of t he 
moratorium on customs duties, and the impact of e -commerce on structural transformation and 
industrialization especially in light of the infant industries in the most immediate future in a 
situation wher e most of the offline trade went online.   
4.66.   Members should build on those and other  topics through discussions in the different relevant 
bodies  in fulfilling the existing mandate renewed by their Ministers at  MC11 . 
4.67.   The representative of Tanzania  said that his delegation  had raised the need for a rethink on 
the matter in several  occasions. As had been alluded b y the proponents , the situation and trading 
realities on digital products had  changed si nce 1998 when the m oratorium had been  adopted for 
the fir st time.  
4.68.   In recent years, high value digital products had been  traded across border s. The volume of 
transactions on those products had  also tremendously increased and was projected to continue as 
e-commerce wa s the fu ture mode of trading. That raised  concern s particularly on the potential loss 
of revenues. Tanzania, as an LDC , was  looking for area s to expand its revenue sources and 
certainly that was one of those.  
4.69.   Digital products should  be treated the same way as phy sical products. Tanzania  therefore 
fully support ed the cal l made by the proponents  for Members to rethink and called  for such 
discussions to commence.  
4.70.   The representative of Chad said that everyone recognized  that the innovation of new 
technology , particularly in  the field of communications , had become important tools at least to the 
extent t hat it had become part of one's  daily life. Some spe cific difficulties for LDCs and a very 
broad divide between developing and developed countries however pers isted in that  area. 
4.71.   The cost of a telephone call to Chad for five minutes was the same as a call to North 
America for an hour. Working at the WTO in Geneva would necessitate constant communication to 
capital such as on  negotiating issues.  When sending an email to Cha d, the response  from its 
capital would be received 24 or 48 hou rs later due to a communication breakdown  through a  
power cut. In the meantime, negotiations continued to move forward. Those were actual problems 
faced by  LDCs. Apart  from infrastru cture, they  also experienced  e-commerce related issues in 
banking and security .  
4.72.   The LDCs had also diminished knowledge of e -commerce in companies, gove rnments and 
authorities. There wa s a lack of clarity on t he scope of e -commerce and  an absence of a faci litation 
mechanism for setting up companies in that area. There was weak technology and  lack of 
industrialization, infrastructure, credit and  logistics for online s ales and deliveries. Those issues 
called for further capacity building . 
4.73.   The LDCs' concerns a nd priorities were well known as had been confirmed in Buenos Aires 
by the  Ministers of Trade of LDCs. Their arguments we re based on the econ omic and social reality 
which was  extremely difficult across LDCs and notably their near  absence in world trade. Th e LDCs  
would like to pursue negotiations on e -commerce at the WTO but it should  not in any case be at 
the cost of their priorities. That was a vital issue for them,  for the mu ltilateral trading system  and 
for the credibility of the WTO.  
4.74.   If there would be a  balanced and fair market, then the system would achieve credibility and 
the LDCs would  be able to fulfil their rightful place. R egardless of the view s of other Members, the 
WTO would  continue to be the place for settling trade disputes and implementing ag reements that 
would put Members in a better position to develop thei r trade relations and to ensure that the WTO 
continued to be the place where all Members could have their voices heard and their concerns  
addressed. That was  important for both the LDCs an d development in general.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 17 - 
 
  4.75.   The LDCs were open to discuss e -commerce issues but only after taking into account their 
priorities and difficulties.  
4.76.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  continued to support  the MC11 Ministerial Decision to 
maintain the current practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissi ons. After 
listening to Members' comments on the proposal, Chinese Taipei had the feeling that some 
Members realize d the importance of the impac t of e -commerce on global trade  while others 
seemed n ot to have the motivation to move forward in the discussions on those issues .  
4.77.   Chinese Taipei drew Members' attention to its non -paper in JOB/GC/171 entitled  "How 
Cyberspace 'intrudes'  on the physical space ?" The paper pointed  to the paradigm shift of  the digital 
economy and fully acknow ledged that e -commerce had  already had a major impact on 
international business practic es and global trading patterns.  
4.78.   Electronic transmission had  not exist ed 70 years ago when the GATT had been  formed, a nd 
it had  not prevail ed in the busi ness world even when the WTO had been established.  
4.79.   Chinese Taipei fully understoo d that a "Moratorium on Customs Duties on Electronic 
Transmissions" could  involve some comp licated issues. Nevertheless, Chinese Taipei welcome d 
Members' awareness of  and active discussion on the key issues relating to the pursuance  of free 
and fair e -commerce. Chinese Taipei encourage d Members to focus not only on the sc ope of the 
tariffs on electronic transmissions but also to pay attention to other e -commerce -related issues  
since even freezing the moratorium would unlikely change the e -commerce momentum . 
4.80.   Chinese Taipei would  continue to engage con structively in the discussions and  looked 
forward to working with M embers to establish healthy and fair trade through e -commerce.  
4.81.   The representative of Brazil  said that it was a timely occasion to collectively reflect on  
recent e-commerce developments in the o rganization. The r eports of the Chairs we re useful 
descriptions of the state of play of multi lateral discussions. Brazil would  continue to engage in 
discussions on the 1998 Work Program me and would also cont inue to be of the view  that a 
dedicated forum to address horizontal issues would have contributed more productive multilateral 
discussions under the W ork Program me. In that regard, MC11 had been  a lost opportunity.  
4.82.   Brazil  thank ed China for its report on recent activities devoted to sharing knowledge on its 
experiences in enhancing nati onal capabilities in e -commerce  particularly on the E -commerce for 
Development Workshop  to which Brazil had sent a representative. Brazil  hoped it could further 
exchange views on the  issue with China.  
4.83.   Brazil also thanked  India and South  Africa for their communication which wa s being 
carefully considered. It highlighted  some important issues regarding the moratorium on electronic 
transmissions. Brazil had referred to similar points in its most recent paper on e -commerce 
circulated in document JOB/GC/176. The questions raised by India and South Africa merit ed to be 
the obje ct of serious discussions in any decision -making process on the  moratorium at the WTO . 
4.84.   The representative of Pakistan  said that Pakistan had been one of the countries that had 
benefited from the two -week workshop organized by China in May. Pakistan therefo re thanked the 
Government of China for that tremendous experience as it had been remarkable to witness first -
hand how e -commerce and development had come together in the wake of Chinese efforts.  
4.85.   In China, Pakistan had learned, among many others, that e -commerce thrived when all 
segments of the economy gelled together to make it effective. The collective impact of those 
elements became more pronounced when MSMEs gained global connectivity and helped bring 
scores of people out of poverty by creating new jobs . 
4.86.   Under the FEDs platform in partnership with China, Pakistan had hosted a joint seminar in 
June for the benefit of those who could not attend the workshop. The seminar had been well 
received and allowed fruitful engagement.  
4.87.   Pakistan also thanked South Af rica and India for their proposal. Pakistan keenly followed 
and participated in all the discussions under the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 18 - 
 
  was interested on the issue of the moratorium on customs duties. The issue was one of the oldest 
in e-commerce related  discussions at the WTO and had figured in almost every Min isterial decision 
since 1998. His delegation had shared the proposal with its capital and would be sending feedback 
from that day's  discussions as well.  
4.88.   While some FTAs  or plurilater al agreements had  attempted to define the scope of electr onic 
transmissions, there seemed to be no widel y agreed definition of the term  encompassing both  
realms of goods and services.  
4.89.   The issue of revenue from electronic commerce moreover remained  relevan t and important 
for developing c ountries. A recent OECD report on " Addressing the Tax Chal lenges of the Digital 
Economy" pointed  to the potential erosion of and challenges to tax collection as economies 
adopt ed digital technologies and participate d in e -commerce. The study also highlighted  that 
exchange of information and international co -operation could play a significant role in addressing 
and overcoming the challenges for tax administrations.  
4.90.   Pakistan saw  merit in the need fo r a dedicated discussion on the issue under the Work 
Programme  both in the context of re venue and taxation implications  as well as understanding the 
scope and definition of the term electronic transmission.  
4.91.   On a personal note, he said that i t had been  a privilege to re present his country in the 
organization . He had enjoyed the unique camaraderie in  the organization among Members and 
between the delegat es and the Secretariat. It had  been fascinating to see enlightened self -
interests working together, overcoming differences and producin g shared benefits. It had therefor e 
been an honour to represent his country in that worthy process  particularly  during  the last two 
Ministerial Conferences. He wished success in ensuring that  the global organization functioned  
effectively to the benefit of  fair and transparent world trade which wa s not an end in itself but a 
means to the econo mic and human development of the  people.  
4.92.   He was grateful to all delegations for their support in his  work as Chair of the CTE SS and to 
the members of the FEDs , Frien ds of Fish, Friends of MSMEs, Friends of Investment Facilitation, 
Cairns Group and G -33 for their outstanding support and teamwork. He also thanked the 
Chairman, the Director -General and the Secretariat. The Director -General was fortunate to be 
leading a t eam of world class professional s. Pakistan would always  count on their expertise. 
Although he was completing his tour of duty as an Ambassador to the WTO, the organization could 
always count on him as an Ambassador for the WTO.  
4.93.   The representative of Costa Rica said that his delegation  was committed to the  Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce. Costa Rica had contribute d to the development of knowledge 
on all  aspects of electronic commerce  including on how to maximize its benefits, take greater 
advantage of the opportunities it offered, and ensure it contributed  to the participation of 
developing countries and MSMEs  in global trade.  
4.94.   India and South Africa had  raised an interesting question  in their document – one that 
should be answered taking into account all the aspects i nvolved. Electronic commerce had  
contributed to the growth of Members' economies and had  generated employment and  new 
sources of tax revenue. So, while Members could  forego customs revenue in one sector, 
consideration should be given to th e fact that that effect wa s more than offset by the business and 
employment opportunities that had been created and would be created in the future  thanks to the 
existence of the moratorium.  
4.95.   There wa s little doubt that man y of those opportunities had benef ited and would benefit  the 
developing countries and their MSMEs. Contrary to what some could  think, Members retain ed the 
ability to implement tax policy  since the moratorium on the i mposition of customs duties did  not 
mean foregoing the imposition of domes tic taxes and other duties or ch arges on electronic 
commerce. A ny balanced discussion should therefore also cover tax revenue generated by 
electronic commerce thanks to the trade opportunities created by the same moratorium.  
4.96.   Under the Marrakesh Agreemen t, one of the WTO's objectives wa s "the substantial 
reduction of tariffs and other barriers to trade and […] the elimination of discriminatory treatment 
in international trade  relations". E -commerce  had been free from the imposition of tariffs on WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 19 - 
 
  electroni c transmissions from the outset which wa s why imposing such tariffs would create 
additional barriers to trade where no barriers had previously existed. Costa Rica wondered if that 
was the message that they  wished to send out in the  international climate of gr owing uncertainty.  
4.97.   Certainty was  fundamental for the proper functioning of the multilateral trading system. A 
moratori um at multilateral level enabled enterprises, in particular MSMEs, to benefit from s imilar 
treatment in all markets and helped  to promote South -South trade. In the absence of permanent 
multilateral resul ts, many developing Members had had to create that  certainty by consolidating 
the moratorium through preferential agreements. The permanent consolidation of that moratorium 
at the WTO was the refore  a result that would benefit developing Mem bers. Any step backwards in 
that respect would only contribute to deepening t he divide between those who had  made 
commitments in that area and those who had  not, making their participation in cross -border 
electronic commerce even more difficult.  
4.98.   The representative of Ecuador  thanked India and South Africa for their communication on 
the need for an  in-depth analysis on  the implicat ions for developing countries o f the continued 
application of  the moratorium o n electronic transmissions. Given the wide range of consequences 
and the growing importance of the issues surrounding the moratorium, Members should undergo a 
very detailed analysis on the matter and identify its  different impacts.  
4.99.   Although it could be appropriate for d eveloping countries such as Ecuador  to undertake 
negotiations on new rules and commitments on e -commerce , they should not do so without  first 
overcoming  the asymmetries on the digital landscape and en suring  that all their work took  into 
account everything that had  been set out in the 1998 Work P rogramme  on Electronic Commerce .  
4.100.   Beyond that, Ecuador  hoped to seek concrete results in agriculture negotiations . Unlike in 
agriculture, it was  not however clear to Ecuador what the impact would be  on the distribution of 
income in developing countries if they would undertake new commitments on e-commerce – a 
sector which had  very high levels of concentration and which required  very valuable resources 
such as information and data.  
4.101.   The representative of the Russian Federation  welcomed the disc ussions on e -commerce at 
the General Council and other relevant bodies , but noted that the discussions within th e 
framework of the Work Program me on Electron ic Commerce had unfortunately not advanced 
much. The focus had shifted to the discussi on under the Joint Ministerial Statement on E -
Commerce adopted at MC 11. 
4.102.   Conducting s ubstantive debates on trade -related issu es of e -commerce and elaborating 
regulations in the area would  have a positive impact on international tr ade and econo my to the 
benefit of the whole membership. T o achieve a global positive impact, Members should actively 
participate. Russia  therefore call ed on those who we re not  yet involved in the work to join . 
4.103.   Russia  thank ed India and South Africa f or their communication on  the moratorium on 
customs duties on electronic transmissions. Due the lack of a common understanding on  the 
concept of "electronic transmission" and noting the classification issue, the discussion on those 
matters  should continue.   
4.104.   The workshop on e -commerce would be  a valuable ground for experience and knowledge 
exchange. If the workshop would take  place unde r the auspices of the CTG, it would be  advisable 
to limit its topics b y that Council's mandate. Russia looked  forward to the in formal con sultations in 
light of  the preparation s for that  workshop.  
4.105.   The representative of Indonesia  support ed the proposal from India and South Africa 
regarding discussion on the scope of the moratorium on customs duties on electr onic 
transmissions. It wa s timely for the WTO to have a look on t he issue since Members had  not been 
able to discuss it prior to and after MC11.    
4.106.   As some Members were aware,  at MC11 , Indonesia had suggested to cl arify the s cope of 
the moratorium by stating that  its application s hould exclude  electronically transmitted goods. 
Such view had been  driven by the increasin g digitization of goods which wer e tra nsmitted 
electronically and had  the potential to cause revenue loss . WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 20 - 
 
  4.107.   As had been mandated by the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce , the 
General Council should be examining all aspects of the work programme concerning the imposition 
of customs duties on ele ctronic transmission which could  be related to serv ices and goods. Due to 
the rapid developm ent of e -commerce  within the past decade, there wa s an urgent ne ed for 
Members to address the  issue.  
4.108.   The representative of Japan  said that e -commerce wa s transforming the global economy  
and had become a powerful engine of global inclu sive economic growth. It enabled Members  to 
enhance productivity of existing industries, cultivate new markets and industries and achieve 
inclusive sust ainable growth and development.  
4.109.   Japan expect ed to see pro gress in their work based on the work programme and was  
willing to j oin the ir work in a constructive manner.  Japan would like to create a sy nergy with the 
Joint Statement Initiative on Electronic C ommerce for facilitating discussions under the Work 
Programme.  
4.110.   On the communication from India and South Africa, Japan was  convinced that the 
continued moratorium was  important for enhancing business  predictability and  would like to 
deepen the discuss ion with the cooperation of all M embers.  
4.111.   The representative of Thailand  said that e -commerce had  been playing an increasing role 
in international trade, providing more trade and growth opportunities for both large and small 
firms. The e -commerce landscape had  also been rapidly evolving and it wa s important for polic y 
makers to keep abreast of that evolution. Multilateral rule -making wa s established  neither  to 
restrict nor  to liberalize trade but rather to ensure transparent and predictable rules and a level -
playing field for all stakeholders.  
4.112.   Thailand fully supported  the work on e -commerce in accordance with the 1998 work 
programme. Th ailand  also recognize d the need for frequent, fast -paced a nd focused discussions 
that could be accommodated through transparent and i nclusive discussions under the Joint 
Statement Initiative on Electronic Commerce. Thailand viewed t he joint initiative and the work 
programme as  complementary and not mutually exclusive.  
4.113.   Thailand  looked forward to actively contribute to the area of e -commerce to arrive  at 
negotiated  outcomes that would benefit all  stakeholders especially those in develo ping countries. 
Thailan d thank ed China for its presentation and  India and South  Africa for their submission and 
looked forward to discuss the issue in detail in the near future.  
4.114.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  share d the vie w that electronic transmission 
was playi ng a fundamental role in the current  trade environment. Korea was therefore open to 
discuss that  highly relevant trade issue in the General Council.  
4.115.   Concerning th e proposed approach in India and South Africa's paper, in Korea's view, the 
moratorium had  helped promote e -commerce, creating jobs and new market access opportunities 
in particular for small and medium sized enterprises  – contributing  to economic growth of many 
developing countries. As such, it wa s equally important to discuss the benefits of the m oratorium 
which had  bearing on development.  
4.116.   Korea was  convinced that th e gains from the moratorium would  become only grea ter by 
making it permanent. That wa s particu larly true as the moratorium would  remain crucial in 
facilitating digital trade in the  era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.  
4.117.   Korea looked forward to discussing that  further with other Members.  
4.118.   The representative of Australia  supported  continued work u nder the 1998 work programme 
and saw  the development dimension as a relevant aspect of such work. Australia was  taking 
concrete actions to addres s the digital divide through its  aid programmes particularly in its region 
and was open to new ideas for how they could  work collec tively in the WTO to narrow that divide. 
Australia would  also contin ue to engage in the exploratory work under the E -Commerc e Joint 
Statement Initiative and saw the work in both streams as mutually supportive.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 21 - 
 
  4.119.   On the paper submit ted by India and South Africa, Australia had  taken note of the issues 
raised in the paper an d was happy to engage in further discussions under the work programme on 
the benefits of the customs d uties moratorium. T he creation of new trade barriers in the form of 
customs duties on electronic transmissions , including goods and services delivered electr onically , 
would be a step backwards countering the efforts  to liberalize global trade. It would potentially 
lead to market distortions and trade diversion and hinder all Members' ability to leverage digital 
trade to further integrate into the global econom y. 
4.120.   The fact that the moratorium was only temporary created  uncertainty for businesses 
engaging in global el ectronic commerce especially MSMEs. That was something Australia  would like 
to see addressed by making the moratorium permanent.  
4.121.   The representative o f the European Union  strongly believed that the twenty -year-old WTO 
moratorium on custom s duties on el ectronic transmissions – which wa s the only concrete 
deliverable that existed  in the context of the Work Programme – had made a significant 
contribution to the  global growth of digital trade. Among other things, it had  provided certainty to 
both consumers and business, including MSMEs, and had encouraged their engagement in global 
e-commerce.  It had  also ensured predictabil ity and facilitated the decisions of businesses in terms 
of strategic planning and structuring of enterprises.  
4.122.   The EU hoped  that any further discussions on that  issue would allow Members to commit 
to a permanent moratorium instead of having to renew it ev ery two years, demonstrating the 
continued relevance of the WTO in the global digital world.  
4.123.   The EU took  note of the communication from South Africa and India and of their request to 
examine certain issues rel ating to the moratorium. At the current stage,  the EU would  need to 
understand better the  nature and th e specificities of the proposal.  If the proposed examination 
would be limited only to the issues that were briefly presented in the submission, t he EU asked for 
the reason on  limiting the discussion  only to concerns without  assess ing the benefits. The EU also 
queried about the manner, the period and the forma t the review would be conducted. The EU 
looked  forward to better unders tanding the why and the how of the  proposal before being in a 
position to move ahead with such examination.  
4.124.   The representative of Norway  deemed as striking the information from the written reports  
of the CTG and CTS about how difficult  it was  to reach consensus on either holding new workshops 
or seminars, or getting new or updat ed secretariat documents. For various reasons, Members were 
holding back  the work that could go on under the work program me. At the same time, some 
Members we re worried a bout the discussions under the Joint Initiative on E -Commerce that were 
going on in pa rallel while others we re conce ntrating their efforts on the  initiative.  
4.125.   Whether one called it  e-commerce or digital  trade, the developments in that area had  been 
enormous and continue d to be so. All M embers need ed to acknowledge that drive  and to continue 
to update their knowledge. The work program me should continue to inform Members. The 
Member -driven e -commerce init iative from Buenos Aires which wa s conducted in a transparent, 
inclusive and open -ended manner, would  do the same and would go the next natura l step which 
was exploring issues that could be up for negotiations.  
4.126.   Members should continue to seek that the two processes were mutually reinforcing for the 
benefit of the whole membership. Norway  support ed Brazil regarding the need for dedicated 
discussi ons on crosscuttin g issues under the Work P rogram me on Electronic C ommerce.  
4.127.   On the submissi on from India and South Africa, Norway continued  to support making the 
moratorium on customs duties on electronic tran smissions permanent. When Me mbers had first 
agreed  on the moratorium, it had  not been clear how large digita l trade would become, but it had 
been clear th at placing customs duties on tho se transmissions would be technologic ally challenging 
and would probably impede the development of many electronic  products.  
4.128.   Norway would not however stand in the way of a discussion under the work program me 
regarding digitalizatio n of physical goods and how that affected trade flows. As others had already 
mentioned, one would  always need physical  factors of productio n that would  be traded as goods. 
For the 3 D printing example in the document, a ma jor question would be who – the consumer, a WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 22 - 
 
  service provider or a goods producer in the importing Member – brought in the value added. The 
good news was that there wa s a poss ibility for more activit y within its borders. Taxation was not 
an issue for the WTO but Members should keep in mind that digital trade should be tackled in a 
holistic manner.  
4.129.   The representative of Canada  supported  the establishment of a permanent prohibiti on on 
levying customs duti es on electronic transmissions.  
4.130.   In their FTA practice, many Members, inc luding Canada, already undertook a permanent 
prohibition on that  practice.  In the absence of a permanent multilateral customs duty prohibition, 
Members witho ut vast FTA networks risk ed facing u nfavourable terms of trade – especially for 
many developing countries.  A multilateral prohibition would ensure a level playing field for all 
Members.  
4.131.   Canada had  recently submitted a paper to the General  Council (JOB/GC/189) in which it  
propose d text  which would prohibit th e imposition of harmful tariffs  while making clear that 
Members retain ed the right to impose internal taxes, fees or other charges.  
4.132.   The representative of Kazakhstan  said that Kazakhstan  as a land -locked country wa s 
deeply committed to the regulatory framework for e -commerce and the facilitation of e -commerce 
application both at the national and multilateral levels. Kazakhstan therefore thanked  the 
Government of China for organizing a wor kshop that had provided practical knowle dge on 
electronic commerce. It wa s evident from  the Chinese experience  that efficient e -commerce 
platfo rms would foster domestic MSMEs'  access to international markets.  
4.133.   Kazakhstan also  welcome d the communication from India and South Africa and express ed 
its readiness  to engage in constructive disc ussions on their proposal . 
4.134.   The representative of Sri Lanka  noted that a  lot of the discussions focused on the benefits  
of e-commerce. Sri Lanka was however concern ed on whether every country wa s ready with the 
necessary infrastructure and other requirements to have a fair s hare of the e -commerce market. 
As a member of the informal like -minded group on e -commerce fo r development, Sri Lanka was 
actively pursuin g that  view to ensure effective engagement of all stakeholders for  positive results.  
4.135.    Sri Lanka thanked the Government of China for the excellent programme that they had 
organized to share their experience on the ir e-commerce  success . 
4.136.   On the  moratorium on  customs duties  on electronic transmissions, Sri Lanka  thank ed India 
and South Africa for the ir proposal and look ed forward to engaging  in constructive discussions.  
4.137.   The representative of Singapore  supported all efforts to reinvigorate the work of the 1998 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce as instructed by the Ministers at MC11.  
4.138.   Singapore welcome d the initiatives to organise e -commerce workshops/ seminars at the 
CTG and CTS and  looked forward to engaging constructi vely with others to help finalize the ag enda 
for tho se wo rkshops/seminars.  
4.139.   The work programme wa s a useful platform for Members to narrow the knowledge gaps on 
trade -related e -commerce issues. It had however  been difficult to make progress in recent years 
for various reasons including an inabil ity to agree on an effective way to consider the various 
cross-cutting aspects of e -commerce in an integrated and holistic way. Singapore  therefore agree d 
with Brazil that MC11 had been a lost opportunity for Members  to have done so.  
4.140.   Singapore also thank ed China for sharing on t he two -week e -commerce seminar which had 
taken  place in  Beijing, Hangzhou and Shanghai  in May. Info rmation and experience sharing were 
important aspects of WTO's work on e -commerce and China's experience wa s an important case 
study f or the potential of e -commerce to support development objectives.  
4.141.   Singapore  thank ed India and South Africa for their paper on the moratorium on customs 
duties  on electronic transmissions. Singapore was  still looking at the paper back in capital and 
looked forward to  further technical discussions on the issues raised in the paper.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 23 - 
 
  4.142.   A permanen t moratorium at the WTO provided  certainty and predictability for busine sses 
and consumers, and promoted  inclusive participation in e -commerce by lowering barriers to en try 
especially fo r MSMEs. As more and more RTAs we re concluded with e -commerce chapters 
containing prohibitions on customs duties on electronic transmissions, those outside tho se 
networks would risk being at a disadvantage i f the moratorium would end.  
4.143.   Singapore  had listened carefully to the statement by Benin on behalf of WAEMU and by 
Chad on behalf of the LDCs. Singapore welcome d their openness to making progress on e -
commerce work  in the WTO and  looked forward to reading the WAEMU statement that would be  
circulated soon.   
4.144.   The representative of Switzerland  thank ed India and South Africa  for the communication 
they had circulated and  underline d the positive effects of the e-commerce moratorium as it had 
promoted and was  still promoting the wider disseminati on of e-commerce. E -commerce reduced  
the cost of market transactions a nd of cross -border trade and had  a positive effect on int ernational 
trade growth. E -commerce also improve d the flow of information for consumers and enterprises 
enabling the creation of new markets, products and services.  
4.145.   Concerning  the impact on fiscal revenues, an analysis done by the WTO Secretariat had 
calculated the share of trade in digitizable goods to be less than 1% of total trade in goods in 
developed and developing countries al ike. The estimated cus toms revenues collected from tho se 
goods had averaged around 0.25% of all customs revenues.  
4.146.   In light of changing trade patterns and the advance of technolog ies, it seemed  vital to 
focus the efforts on stepping up the digital capaciti es on e -commerce sectors of developing 
countries to allow them to face the c hallenges of digital trade. That was  one of the key 
recommendations that the UNCTAD report had mentioned in the submissi on by India and South 
Africa. T he flourishing of e -commerce would  generate benefits much greater than the revenues 
foregone as a result of the moratorium.  
4.147.   Switzerland wa s dedicated to advanc ing discussions in the  organization  on all the aspects 
of e-commerce including on how to address the challenges developing and  least-developed 
countries were facing to take full advantage of digital trade. That should however not lead 
Members to jeopardize  the e -commerce moratorium and to add an impediment  to trade. 
Switzerland continued  to support making the moratorium permanent.  
4.148.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that Hong Kong, China was a free trader and  
encourage d the removal of trade barriers  including customs dut ies. Hong Kong, China therefore  
support ed the morator ium on e lectronic transmissions and wished to make it permanent to 
enhance predictability.  
4.149.   In making customs duties de cisions, revenue implication was a legitimate consideration. 
One should not however forget  that on the other side of the equation there were also significant 
gains such as  the reduction in transaction co sts, the increase in trade flow  and the greater 
incentive f or developing new products, services and markets. Those we re gains to t he economy as 
a whole which could not be easily quantified and could  not immediately tr anslate into government 
revenue – but those remained gains that should  not be ignored.  
4.150.   Looking  at electronic commerce itself, one could see how rapidly the sector had  grown 
over the past decades  and what treme ndous business potentials it had opened – and t he 
moratorium on customs duties wa s one of the enabling factors.  
4.151.   Outside of the WTO, the be nefits of duty -free e -commerce were also widely recogniz ed. 
According to an analysis done by the  Secretariat in 2016, there had been 66 RTAs at tha t time 
which ha d a specific e -commerce section  and 85% of them contained a commitment not to apply 
customs dutie s on electronic transmissions. Tho se RTAs cover ed developed and develo ping 
economies alike. In fact, 95% of them involve d developing economies. There wa s clearly a shared 
aspiration among trading partners to keep electronic transmissions duty -free on a long -term basis.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 24 - 
 
  4.152.   On the way forward, g iven the im portance of the subject, Hong Kong, China  would 
welcome more opportunities to discuss the various trade -related aspects of e -commerce and  
continued to support making the moratorium permanent.  
4.153.   The representative of Turkey  thank ed China for holding the e -commerce seminar and for 
sharing its experienc e on e -commerce and India and South Africa for their communication 
regarding the moratorium on customs duties on electronic tran smissions. There wa s a need to 
identify the exact scope and coverage of the term electronic transmission to better determine its 
impact on countries' nationa l regulations and polici es. With the rapid technological advancement in 
global electronic commerce, a f urther analysis of the moratorium would therefore be needed .  
4.154.   The WTO should not  however lag  behind the o ngoing rapid development in that  field. The 
ongoing exploratory work was  helping Members  clarify the many faces of electronic comme rce. 
Valuable thematic work was  taking place in many subjects ranging from all the existing ru les in 
WTO agreements that applied  to e-commerc e and the existing legal gaps on  how to  overcome the 
digital divide. Turkey  encourage d the Membership to take part in that  comprehensive exercise.  
4.155.   The representative of Mexico  reiterated Mexico's  commitment to reinvigorating the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce.  Mexico  thank ed China for organizing the Semi nar on 
Electronic Commerce for Development  which  had provided an excellent opportunity to share 
success stories regarding electronic commerce and its contribution to development.  
4.156.   Mexico express ed its appreciation on the communication from South Africa and India which 
had highlighted the need for reflection on the moratorium on customs dutie s for electronic 
transmissions. Any disc ussion on that  matter should also con sider the moratorium's benefits 
including how it had  encouraged electronic commerce to flouri sh particularly in developing 
countries. In Mexico's case, the certainty generat ed by the current moratorium had  resulted in the 
creation of new productive p rocesses for goods and services  which in turn fuel led activity and 
economic growth . 
4.157.   Many of those products and services had been developed by SMEs which took  full 
advantage of the current rules to participate successfully in innovative and high -value -added 
processes in international markets. Recognition of that wa s refl ected in the fact that Members 
were increasingly including a permanent moratorium on the imposition of tariffs for electronic 
transmissions in their respect ive trade agreements. Mexico had  always been in favour of applying 
a permanent moratorium at the WTO as it  recognize d the benef its that such a measure provided . 
4.158.   The representative of Chile thank ed India and South Africa for their communication. Chile 
stress ed the importance and value it attached  to the current moratorium on customs duties on 
electronic transmis sions and the benefits t hat the moratorium had  led to in terms of growth . That 
tallied  with a key objective of the WTO – to develop international trade based on  the progressive 
elimination of tariffs. Chile had also followed closely the debate on measures which could  be 
adopted t o ensure that all Members and MSMEs could  benefit from e -commerce.  
4.159.   The Chairman  recall ed that at the  last General Council meeting, he had reported on the 
consultations he had  held with Members regarding the way forward and how to implement the 
Buenos Aires  Ministerial Decision . Further to their discussion at the meeting , and in particular to 
the submiss ion by India and South Africa, he  intend ed to undertake consultations immediately 
after the summer b reak on the way forward. T he reports of the Chairs of the  regular bodies  as well 
as the discussion that day had been useful. He encourage d delegations to continue that  discussion 
including on how to reinvigorate the Wo rk Programme as instructed by thei r Ministers.  
4.160.   The General Council took note  of the statements  of the Chairs of the Services Council, the 
Goods Council, the TRIPS Council and the CTD, of the reports in S/C/54 and G/C/60 and of all the 
statements made under the three sub -items . WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 25 - 
 
  5  MEASURES TO ALLOW GR ADUATED LDCS, WITH G NP BELOW US$1000, BE NEFITS 
PURSUA NT TO ANNEX VII(B) O F THE AGREEMENT ON S UBSIDIES AND COUNTER VAILING 
MEASURES – COMMUNICATION FROM THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC ON BEHALF O F 
THE LDC GROUP (WT/GC /W/742)  
5.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the item had been placed in the agenda at the request of the 
delegation of the Central African Republic, on behalf of the LDC Group , and dre w attention to the 
LDCs' communication circulated in WT/GC/W/742.  
5.2.  The representative of Chad, on behalf of the Central African Republi c – LDC Coordinator , said 
that g raduating LDCs being able to hold on to existing flexibilities pursuan t Annex VII  of the 
SCM Agreement was an important issue. The LDCs had  submitted a proposal on 19 April in  
response to the demand which thei r Trade Ministe rs had formulated in their statement at the 
Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference.  
5.3.  The LDC Group  had submitted the  proposal relating to graduating LDCs  so that a technical 
oversight in Annex VII  of the SCM Agreement could be corrected and to take into accou nt both the 
possibility for LDCs and non -LDC developing countries with a GNP under 1,000 USD per capita to 
benefit from flexibilities under Article 27.2 of the SCM Agreement relating to export subsidies . 
5.4.  That was a technical oversight that had not been taken into ac count when the original text 
had been drafted because those we re countries that should be able to benefit from the option of 
reintegrat ing Annex VII (b) if their GNP went  below the level of 1,000 USD per capita.  
5.5.  The countries that appear ed in Ann ex VII  should enjoy the same benefits as LDCs in tho se 
cases. Even though the countries i n question could  at some point go above the 1,000 USD  per 
capita threshold , they should be able to benefit from Annex 7  if the ir GNP would again go below 
the threshold . That was a technical oversight that had  not been taken care of  and the LDCs would 
like that matter to be kept  on the agenda of the General Council.  
5.6.  The philosophy underlying the LDCs' approach and vision on the matter was equity. LDCs  
should achieve f ull equity with the Members by allowing countries to continue to make progress 
once they graduate d from LDC status. That would  allow them to move on to be full -fledged 
developing countries and perhaps achieve developed country status at some point in the future.   
5.7.  There we re three specific aspect s to the LDCs' argument. First, the decision did  not bring in 
any n ew concepts as it had simply intended to correct a  technical oversight. Second, the decision 
would reassure LDCs that had  graduated by giving them a n option after graduation of being 
reincluded on the list if they met the criteria just as what the  non LDCs which appear ed in 
Annex  VII(b) could do. Third, such was simply a positive step for the  organization to take.  
5.8.  The LDCs  thank ed the Permanent Missi on of Bangladesh especially  H.E. Dr. Mostafa Abid 
Khan who had  made a massi ve contribution to drafting the  proposal on  graduation.  
5.9.  The representative of Nepal  endorsed the statement made by the LDC Group and thank ed 
the Members who had  already supported the LDC proposal  in G/C/W/752. Nepal acknowledged 
Members'  constructive engagement in the bilateral consultations during  the Goods Council meeting 
on 3 July which had helped Members understand  the subst ance and process of the issue . 
5.10.   Development would not sto p after graduating from LDC status as it was a continuous 
process. Although graduation was prestigious, it also brought  challenges to LDCs as they would 
have to  relinquish preferences, flexibilities and concessions provided to them under various 
mechan isms. Sustainable graduation had therefore  been a central focus of the 2030 Agenda for 
Sustainable Development.  
5.11.   During the Uruguay Round,  the issue of LDC graduation had not caught  attentio n. It had 
only started to take momentum after the third UN Conference o n LDC s held in B russels in 2001. 
The fourth UN C onference on LDC s held in Istanbul in 2011 had set the target of graduating half of 
the LDCs by 2020. At present, there wa s a momentum towards g raduation as some countries had  
already  graduated or declared th e date while others we re at various stages in the process.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 26 - 
 
  5.12.   Annex VII of the SCM Agreement allowed  the LDCs and  developing countries having GNI  per 
capita of less than USD 1000 in constant 1990 dol lars to grant subsidies. In that  respect, it should 
also equally apply t o the graduating LDCs that would meet the same criteria. The technical caveat 
should however be clearly addressed . 
5.13.   The LDC Trade Ministers had emphasized that issue in their Ministerial D eclaration issued at 
MC11 in Buenos Aires in December 2017 . 
5.14.   The WTO Se cretariat updated the list of Members covered under Annex VII( b). 
5.15.   The LDC proposal did  not seek any amendment to the SCM Agreement as it only intended  to 
clarify the missing information regardin g the graduating LDCs . Nepal looked forward to Members' 
consensus on the  issue.  
5.16.   The representative of Bangladesh  associated with the statement made by the LDC Group. 
The submission by the LDCs in WT/GC/W/742 was  self-explanatory and the statement by the 
Coordinator had  further  explained the context in which the proposal had been made.  
5.17.   LDC graduation had  received a momentum after the adoption of  the Istanbul Pl an of Action 
for LDCs by the UN whereby a target had been  set to enable half of the LDCs to meet t he 
graduation criteria  by 2020. To date, five LDCs had  graduated and mor e were in the pipeline. 
UNCTAD had projected that sixteen LDCs we re likely to graduate from LDC status by 2024. The 
graduation process was  not easy and once g raduated , multiple challenges including in trade  areas 
awaited . Suppor t from international community wa s therefore crucial to keep that momentum . 
5.18.   Article 27.2 (a) of the SCM Agreement  read with Paragraph 10.1 of the Doha Ministerial 
decision on implementa tion-related issues and concerns provided  flexibi lities to LDCs and countries 
with GNI  per capita of less than USD  1,000 in constant 1990 dollar listed in Annex VII in providing 
export subsidies. Wh ile discussing  the trade -related chal lenges of graduated LDCs, the LDCs had 
realized that it was not clear from Annex VII of the SCM Agreement and the related decision on 
whether a gra duated LDC having per capita GNI  below USD  1,000 in  constant 1990 dollar  terms 
would  receive the same treatment avail able to the dev eloping country Members with GNI  per 
capita of less than USD 1,000 in constant 1990 dollar listed in Annex VII . Logically , it should be 
automatic. Annex VII was however  unclear about it. W hen the SCM Agreement had been  agreed 
upon, LDC graduation had  not been visualized. Since there curr ently was  aspiration among LDCs 
to mee t the graduation target, it was then the right time to addr ess that  missing element in Annex 
VII through a decision by the General Counci l. Members should realize the merit of the LDC  
proposal and positively consider i t.  
5.19.   The proposal did  not envisage any new flexibility since it only called  for a decision for the 
continuation of the same flexi bility when a graduated LDC would fall  within the criteria already 
agreed by Members a long time ago. Flexibility would  not be extend ed to all graduated LDCs but 
only to those which would fall within agreed criteria at  the time of graduation. It did  not a lso 
foresee that graduated LDCs which would have that flexibility would  automa tically use it. They 
could resort to it when needed which would largely depend  on the availability of their resources. A 
positive deci sion by the General Council would  allow the Secretariat to calculate GNI  per capita for 
graduated LDCs for the year after graduation during annual updates of the An nex VII list. That 
exercise could  only be carr ied out after graduation as it would be impossible to do so otherwise.  
5.20.   The LDCs had held bilateral  consultations with more than fourteen Members on their 
proposal. They  had discussed  it in the recent session of  the CTG and had  not observe d any 
opposition. Many Members saw the logic and merit of the  proposal and had extended unequivocal 
support to it. O thers had sought clarification on the impact o f the proposal and the LDCs had  tried 
to respond to those is sues i n bilateral consultations .  
5.21.   There wa s a concern about retroactive impac t of the proposal on the 5 LDCs which had 
already graduated. In that regard, the LDCs i nformed the Members that the GNI  per capita of  the 
five graduated LDCs were higher than USD  3,000 in 2010 constant dollar terms according to the 
World Bank data which we re much higher than the 2016 GNI  per cap ita of those Annex VII 
Members which had  already been excluded from the Annex. I t was therefore clear that there wa s 
no possibility for th e decision to have a retroactive effect . WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 27 - 
 
  5.22.   Bangladesh urged the General Council to consider the  following issues to take a decision in 
the right direction: first, whether M embers agree d that the proposed decision intended to address 
a missing element which h ad not been earlier visualized; second, whether M embers agree d that 
the proposed decision would  not create any new flexibility for any Member; and third, whether 
Members agree d that a graduated LDC des erved  the same flexibility availabl e to other developin g 
countries  with the same level of development. If the response to the above were not negative, the 
General Council  should take a positive d ecision on the LDC proposal.   
5.23.   Bangladesh looked forward to a constructive discussion on the proposal.  
5.24.   The representa tive of the United States  thank ed the LDC Group for their paper and had 
appreciated the opportunity to d iscuss the proposal in advance.  
5.25.   Generally, the United States  question ed the need to change the rules in the  area. The UN 
process already provided  for a rather lengthy transition process out of the LDC category,  including 
possible extensions. The specific need for that proposal was also unclear as it wa s not evident  
what export subsidy programs we re in pl ace for which an extension could  be needed.  
5.26.   While the United States was  willing to discuss the issue further, it would be helpful if the 
relevant Members would provide  a subs idy notification to clarify the issue.  If technical assistan ce 
was needed, the United States  would welc ome the opportunity to share its experience and 
technical knowledge.  
5.27.   The representative of Vanuatu  supported the LDC proposal to clarify  the situation of LDCs 
that had graduated as Vanuatu prepared  for its gr aduation in 2020. A fter graduation, LDCs would 
face important challenges due to  loss of trade preferences and concessional financing that could 
adversely  affect their economies – which c ould be exacer bated  by climate change and natural 
disasters which for the Pacific region was  increasing in frequency and intensity.  
5.28.   In 2015 Vanuatu had been  hit by category 5 hurricane Pam which had incurred economic 
losses amounting to 64% of  its GDP. Three years later, Vanuatu wa s still trying to rec over and 
rebuild. I n recent months , volcanic eruptions had  resulted in the  evacuation of the entire island of 
Ambae which, as of 25 July , had  gone dark due to the heavy ashes that had spewed out. Those 
ashes we re being felt in other neigh bouring islands and had  affected drinking water and had 
caused flight disruptions. The W orld Risk Index 2016 which listed  171 countries prone to natural 
disasters listed  Vanuatu as the most vulnerable and as the most at risk of natural disasters.   
5.29.   The combined effect of tho se economic challenges and natural disaste rs could have a 
significant imp act on Vanuatu' s economy that could push its  GNP per capita below the USD  1,000 
threshold. Vanuatu therefore supported the LDC proposal that would correct that  technical 
oversight and would put  graduating LDCs on similar treatment as those of other develop ing 
countries in Annex VII(b).  
5.30.   To clarify, the decision would not automatically extend the treatment to LDCs but would  be 
subject to the same process as tho se in Annex VII(b) as it would be based on the annual 
assessm ent by the Secretariat that would be br ought to Members.  
5.31.   Vanuatu  looked forward to the support of the General Council . 
5.32.   The representative of India thank ed the LDC Group for their proposal and agreed  in principle 
that the GNP per capita thres hold for graduation from Annex VII  of the SCM Agreeme nt should be 
extended to newly -graduated LDC Members as well. India  therefore support ed the proposal to 
include g raduating LDC Members in Annex VII (b) of the SCM Agreement . 
5.33.   The representative of Benin  associated with the statement made by the LDC Group . The 
communication put forward by Chad enjoyed  the full accept ation of the LDCs as a group. The 
proposal talked about vulnerab le and weak countries which had  graduated to an intermediary 
category . Unforeseeable circumstances such as economic problems caused  by crisis and natural 
disasters should how ever still be considered.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 28 - 
 
  5.34.   Benin  recall ed the energy crisis of 2008 and t he ensuing financial crisis. Tho se two 
circumstances had a very harsh impact on developing and LDC Members w ith the social upheavals 
that the y had  witnessed at that time. There were also natural disasters such as the ones 
experienced by  Vanuatu and Haiti. Such circumstances , which were very heavy and complex , had 
led the LDCs to find windows of flexibil ity on the basis of th e communication put forward 
particularly the GNP of below  USD 1000 threshold and the three -year benchmark .  
5.35.   In Africa , there was  a saying that when one would climb up a ladder or a tree, one would 
not foresee what would happen next. Overcoming such unexpected situations was t he reason that 
the LDCs had put forward the communication. Benin was ready to discuss that and was certain 
that they would be able to find consensus on the matter.  
5.36.   The representative of Japan  appreciated  Chad's  explanation . As it had stated at  the 3 July 
meeting of the CTG, Japan understood the rational of the  proposal and the importance of the 
issues related to LDC graduation. Japan remained  open-minded about engaging in the discussion. 
Further detailed information from the proponents would be appreciated.  
5.37.   Just as had been demonstrated on the agenda item, Japan hoped  that the discussio ns on 
trade and development would  be conducted in a pragmatic manner by choosing an appropriate 
forum  and by duly reflecting the reality and needs of developing countries, par ticularly  the LDCs.  
5.38.   The representative of Malawi , on behalf of the ACP , placed on record the ACP' s support on 
the proposal put forward by the coordinator of the LDC G roup. The importance of putting i n place 
mechanisms that supported  LDCs after they graduate d could  never be more emph asized as spelt 
out by the LDC Group. Some of the ACP members  remain ed in a vulnerable s tate and hence the 
proposal would  come a long way in ensuring the smooth graduation of LDCs in that  category.  
5.39.   The pro posal also aimed  to correct an im balance in Annex VII of the SCM  Agreement 
regarding the graduation of LDCs. Article 27.2(a) exempted  developing countri es listed in 
Annex  VII from applying the prohibition relating to export subsidies as part of special and  
differe ntial treatment. Annex VII listed  the beneficiaries as LDCs as well as other developing 
count ries when their GNP per capita wa s below USD 1,000 per annum.  
5.40.   Through the Ministerial decision taken at Doha, the situation of developing countries listed  
in Annex VII (b) was reviewed annually and could be put back on the list of beneficiari es if their 
GNP per capita fell  below USD  1,000 per capita for three consec utive years. No such treatment 
was granted to LDCs listed in Annex VII (a) to be re listed and  to benefit from that provision after 
they graduate d. In fact , it was assumed  that the situation of graduated LDCs  would be better off 
than the developing c ountries in Annex VII (b) that we re subject to annual reviews and  could  be 
relisted.  The proposal so ught to extend the same treatment to LDCs after graduation.  
5.41.   LDCs would face  two important chall enges after graduation. First was  the loss of trade 
preferences that provide d them with DFQF  access and the loss of concessional financing from 
multilateral ins titutions, both of which could severely affect economic performance  of graduating 
LDCs. T o assist LDCs in successfully adjusting after their graduation , the ACP  therefore supported  
the proposal by the LDCs to bring that oversight in  line with other Annex V II Members.  
5.42.   The representative of the European Union  thanked the LDCs for sharing their proposal. The 
EU had  on many occasions expressed its readiness to engage constructively on development 
issues, in particular those conc erning LDCs, but would wish that  to be done on the basis o f 
analysis that clearly explained  where specific problems lie d and justified  specific courses of action.  
5.43.   The representative of New Zealand  said that New Zealand was  still studying th e proposal 
carefully and had  been listening carefully to the explanatio ns given by the proponents. They were 
useful in its consideration of it and would continue to carefully stu dy the merits and needs for the  
proposal.  
5.44.   The representative of Brazil  had already expressed its support to the  proposal in the CTG. 
The proposal wa s fair and logical on its own merits. Brazil  thank ed the LDCs – and particularly the 
delegate of Chad, who had spoke n on behalf of the group – for the additional inp uts brought to its WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 29 - 
 
  attention . Brazil trusted that those inputs we re a contribution to address the concerns and 
reservations by some Members.  
5.45.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
6  VIEWS ON CHINA'S TRA DE-DISRUPTIVE ECONOM IC MODEL AND IMPLICA TIONS FOR 
THE WTO – SUBMISSION S FROM THE UNITED ST ATES  (WT/GC/W/745 AND 
WT/GC/W/746)  
6.1.  The Chairman  recalled that  the item was included on the agenda at the request of the 
delegation of the United States together with the two submissions circulated in documents 
WT/GC/W/745 and WT/GC/W/746.  
6.2.  The representative of the United States  said that the United States had placed that item on 
the agenda because that discussion was long overdue. Few issues we re as critical  to the future 
viability of the  institution as the econ omic system embraced by China.  
6.3.  He knew his  colleague , Ambassador Zhang, would  have so mething to say in response to his 
remarks and he  welcome d his comments. He said that the goal was  not to upset or provoke but to 
shed li ght and perhaps even educate. The United States was  confident that through constructive 
dialogue and anal ysis the truth would  eventually reveal itself.   
6.4.  He said that o ne of the most critical issu es facing the WTO membership was China' s failure to 
fully embrace the open, market -oriented policies on which the institution w as founded. Despite 
China' s repeated portrayal of itself as a staunch defender of free trade and the  global trading 
system, China was  in fact the most protectionist, mercantilist economy in the world. Contrary to 
Members' expectations, China had  not been m oving toward s a fuller embrace of market -based 
policies and practices since it joined the WTO i n 2001. In fact, the opposite was true. The state's 
role in China's economy had  been increasing.  
6.5.  If China's economy had been  small, the problems posed by China' s state-led, mercantilist 
approach to trade and investment would not have as serious repercussions for China' s tradi ng 
partners and the WTO itself. But China's economy was not small. Over the past 17 years, China's 
economy and China' s role in the global tra ding system had  grown drama tically. China was 
currently one of the WTO' s largest traders.  
6.6.  China's size magnified  the harm caused by its state -led, mercantilist approach t o trade and 
investment, and that harm was growing every day and could  no longer be tol erated.  
6.7.  In the paper that the United States had submitted for the meeting, the United States  focused 
on China's economic model which had  proven to be particularly trade -disruptive.  
6.8.  The Chinese G overnment and the Chinese Communist Party had a constitutional  mandate  
echoed in China's broader legal framework to develop a "socialist market economy ". To that end, 
the government and the Communist Party continue d to exercise control directly and indirectly over 
the allocation of resources through instruments such as government ownership and control of key 
economic act ors and government directives. As a r esult, the means of production we re not 
sufficiently allocated or priced according to market principles.  Instead, the government and the 
Communist Party continue d to control or otherwise influence the price of key factors of production, 
including land, labo ur, energy and capital.  
6.9.  Just as when China had acceded to the WTO in 2001, state -owned enterprises continue d to 
play an outsized role in China's economy. Moreove r, the government  and the Communist Party 
had for de cades exercised control over tho se enterprises through the appointment of key 
executives and the provision of preferential access to land, energy and capital and other important 
inputs.  
6.10.   Recently, the Com munist Party had also  taken steps to increase the strength and presence 
of the Communist Party within all b usiness organizations in China. Those efforts we re so pervasive 
that the Delegations of Germany Industry and Commerce had released a public statement  in WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 30 - 
 
  November 2017 pushing back against a ttempts by the Communist Party " to strengthen their 
influence in wholly foreign -owned German companies in China".  
6.11.   China's system also treated  law as an instrument of the state in the sense that it wa s used 
to facilit ate the government 's industrial policy goals and to sec ure discrete economic outcomes.  In 
addition, key legal institutions such as the courts we re structured to  respond to the Communist 
Party's direction. That type of system made it very difficult for ente rprises to act independently of 
approved industrial policies on a systemic or consistent basis.  
6.12.   China' s leading companies attest ed to the fundame ntal non -market nature of China's 
economy at present.  For example,  the technology firm Alibaba had stated that  "a substantial 
portion of productive assets in China is  still owned by the government", " the PRC government 
continues to play a significant role in regulating industry development by imposing industrial 
policies" and " the PRC government also exercises sig nificant control ove r China' s economic growth 
by allocating resources."  
6.13.   China was currently in its thirteenth  five-year planning cycle, a hallma rk of a planned 
economy that had  become more, not less, salient since China had joined the WTO.  Various 
institut ions participate d in formulation and execution of industrial policy plans, including central 
government agencies with legislative and regulatory authority, thousands of local government 
authorities, various organs of the Communist Party and Chinese enterpr ises.  
6.14.   A key focus of China' s industrial policies was technology development which China viewed  
as integr al to its economic development. Currently, China wa s seeking to attain domestic market 
dominance and global leadership in a wide range of advanced tech nologies. In pursuit of that  
overarching objective, China had  issued a larg e number of industrial policies including for example 
the "Made in China 2025"  industrial plan.  
6.15.   Among other things, China' s industrial policies deploy ed massive market -distorting su bsidies 
and provide d other forms of financial support fo r targeted domestic industries.  All too often, 
severe and pe rsistent excess capacity resulted. Excess capacity hurt  the global economy not only 
through direct exports from China  but also because lower  global prices and a glut of  supply mad e 
it difficult for even the most competi tive producers to remain viable as had been  seen in the steel, 
alumin ium and solar sectors.   
6.16.   Subsidization wa s by no mea ns the only tool that China used  to support its domestic  
industries.  As an  example, as Members likely we re aware, the United States had issued a detailed 
factual report in March that illustrated how China had  pursued a variety of un reasonable  policies 
and practices that harm ed US intellectual property rights, innovation  and technology development. 
Those types of policies and practices injure d not on ly the United States  but also other WTO 
Members.   
6.17.   Meanwhile, China continued  to benefit tremendously fr om its WTO membership. Chin a was 
currently the world' s largest aut omotive market, the world' s largest oil importer, the world' s 
largest s teel manufacturer and the world' s largest meat consumer, and it had  six megacities wi th 
over 10 million residents. China also hosted  the largest n umber of  super -computers in the world. 
While China undoubtedly struggled  with poverty -related challenges in some areas of its economy, 
the claim that it wa s a developing country on par with many others  and therefore should be 
exempt from contributing to pr ogressive liberalization of global tra de rules wa s simply not 
sustainable when measured again st numerous indicators of China' s rapid development and 
accumulation of wealth.   
6.18.   Since joining the WTO, China had  repeatedly signal led that it was pursuing econom ic 
reform. Unfortunately, China' s use o f the term "reform" differed  from the type of reform that a 
country would be pursuing if it had been  embrac ing market -oriented principles.  For China, 
economic reform meant perfecting the government's and the Communist  Party' s management of 
the economy and strengthening the state sector, partic ularly state -owned enterprises. As long as 
China remained on that path, the implications for the organization we re decidedly negative.  
6.19.   China' s basic response to criticisms about i ts trade -disruptive economic model wa s to as sert 
that China strictly adhered to its WTO obligations. That was  the thr ust of its recent white paper, WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 31 - 
 
  "China a nd the World Trade Organization" which China had handed out for the meeting. China held 
itself out a s a "model" for other Members to emulate and asserted that it " firmly observes and 
upholds the WTO rules, and supports the multilateral trading system that is open, transparent, 
inclusive and non -discriminatory".   
6.20.   China's portrayal of itself was not accura te as many would  know. China's white paper which 
was 22 pages long provided  few details about the actual policies and practices that China pursued 
and did  not discuss the many problems that other Members had  identified.   
6.21.   The United States, for e xample, ha d produced a  148-page report that catalogued  in great 
detail the numerous problematic trade and investment policies and practices that China pursued . 
The United States had submitted the " 2017 U STR Report to Congress on China' s WTO Compl iance" 
in connection with the meeting. If Members want ed to truly understand the  unique problem that 
China posed for the institution, the United States  would recommend reading that report along with 
its paper on China' s economic model.  
6.22.   What would become ob vious wa s the unusually large number of serious concerns about 
China's trade and investment regime. In so many cases, those serious concerns aro se because the 
Chinese government, or a Chinese government official, had  intervened in th e market.  
Unfortunatel y, that was  what could be expected when a Member pursued  a state -led, mercantilist 
approach to trade and investment.  
6.23.   China often described its approach as " win-win". In fact, it used the term "win -win" eight 
times in its 22 -page white paper. But that was  not accurate . China pursued  indus trial policies that 
typically went  well beyond traditional approaches to guiding and suppo rting domestic industries. 
As wa s catalogued  in the USTR report, China sought  to support its domestic industries too often by 
enacti ng measures and taking actions that impede d, disadvantage d and harm ed the foreign 
competition. In other words, China's approach seemed  to be bas ed more on the view that trade 
was a "zero -sum game"  rather than the view that f ree, fair and reciprocal trade w as mutually 
beneficial.   
6.24.   The purpose of the United States in bringing the situation to the at tention of the General 
Council wa s two -fold. 
6.25.   First, the United States  wanted to ens ure that Members truly understood that change was 
necessary if the WTO wa s to r emain relevant to the international trading system.  
6.26.   Second, the United States  wanted to make clear that the best s olution from a WTO 
perspective wa s for China finally to take the initiative to fully and effectively embrace open, 
market -oriented p olicies l ike other WTO Members. As the United States had explained during 
China' s recent trade po licy review, the WTO itself did  not currently provide the tools nee ded to 
bring about that change. If the necessary change was to take place, it would be  up to China.  
6.27.   The representative of China  said that the remarks by Ambassador Shea had  made the air 
smell like gunpowder in the Council room. Members should thank Ambassador Shea  as he had 
reminded them that they were currently  in an unprecedented crisis of the multilate ral trading 
system and they could  no longe r sit leisurely by the lakeside to enjoy  the sunshine and summer 
breeze. He thank ed Ambassador S hea in particular for sending him  a cop y of the US submission on 
China' s Trade -Disruptive Economic Model on 13 July so  that he could digest that heavy cake before 
coming to the meeting. But much to his disappointment, it tasted  more like a half -cooked dough 
than a cake.  
6.28.   The Trade Policy Review wa s a collective appreci ation and evaluation of Members' trade 
policy and pract ices. Two weeks earlier , the 7th Trade Policy Review of China had concluded during 
which his colleague,  Vice-Minister Wang Shouwen , had answered many questions including those 
that showed up in the US paper.  He had no objection should any Member  wish to cr iticize other 
Members' trade policy under another mechanism. If one fe lt like having more to say, he was then 
all ears. Although he did not believe the WTO was  the appropriate place to discuss t he economic 
models of Members, China  had chose n not to block t he adoption of the  agenda item at the  meeting 
of the General Council b ecause blocking the normal proceedings and forcin g a WTO body out of 
operation was definitely not China's  way of doing things.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 32 - 
 
  6.29.   In response to those charges r aised by the US in its paper,  he reiterate d what China had 
stated in its trade policy review that  the st ate-owned enterprises in China were market entities  
carrying out autonomous operation and assuming the sole responsibi lity for profits or losses; the  
root cause for overcapacity was  contraction of global demand following  the financial crisis; China 
had no legal provisions that impose d compulsory requirements on technology transfer; th e 
industrial policies in China we re guidance in nature;  China  had strictly  abided by its WTO accessio n 
commitments and had implemented all dispu te settlement rulings; China's development had 
benefited the whole world; as a dev eloping country, China still had  a long way to go in terms of 
achieving  compreh ensive and balanced development, etc. He could go on  elaborating all those 
facts and Members could call it a day. But for him, that seemed a bit unfair to his US colleagues 
who had  spent many hours in drafting the paper. It wa s impolite not to re ciprocate. The US 
submission had  a dozen  pages – to respond to  it could take around 30 minutes. He  had never l iked 
to make long interventions but he  asked for Members' indulgence . 
6.30.   There we re some basic rules to follow both in terms of giving and receiving criticism. For 
those who receive d criticism, they should have an open min d for any criticism and embrace those 
criticisms that were fair and just. That  should be the case no matter how harsh the criticism was or 
how much factual it was. Members should treat that criticism in the spirit of c orrecting mistakes if 
one h ad made any and guarding against them if one had not. In his Mission, they we re often 
having critic ism and self -criticism among their  colleagues.  China therefore did  have enough 
courage and broad mind to receive criticisms.  
6.31.   To be fair, for those who gave c riticism, they should  also abide by some basic principles. For 
example, criticism should be based on facts, should refrain from putting labels on others, should 
use correc t facts and correctly use facts and  there should be clear logic in rea ching conclusio ns 
through analysing evidence. Only in that way could  criticism be convincing and produce good 
results. U nfortunately, the US paper seemed to fall short of those principles.  
6.32.   First, regarding one's own views as others'  positions or even the multilateral rul es. Back in 
1992 when China had  announced that it would build a sociali st market economy in Room W, a 
question had been  posed to a Ch inese delegate on what  a socia list market economy was. The 
delegate replied  that the socialist market economy was the marke t economy under the leadership 
of the Chinese Communist Party. 26 years had passed since then and China had never changed its 
position. As for those who had s peculated that China would change and move on  to a different 
path upon its WTO accession – that ha d just been their wishful thinking. There was  more than one 
model of market economy in the world. China had  been vigorously exploring a road of market 
economy which suited China' s own natio nal situation and circumstances and China had  made 
remarkable progr ess in that  endeavo ur. Whatever others could say, China would march along that 
road unswervingly.  
6.33.   In his remarks, Ambassador Shea  had mentioned the term "non -market  nature  of China's 
economy". China could not however find the definition of " market economy"  throug hout the WTO 
rule book.  There was no one -size-fits-all "market  economy" standard in the  world.  The WTO rules 
never authorize d any Member to use its own economic mod el as the template of "market 
economy"  and to accuse any other Mem ber who would not copy it as a "non -market economy" . 
6.34.   If there was any relevance in the topic of  "non-market economy", it would be as regards 
certain Members  including  the United States that, disregarding the WTO ru les and their own 
commitments, were still using the notorious "surrogate country"  methodology in anti -dumping 
investigations according to the "market economy"  standards of their domestic laws. China  again 
urged those Members to honour their commitments made 17 years ago – "pacta sunt servanda" . 
6.35.   Paragraph 1. 5 of the US paper  had partially quoted an expression from the Communiqué of 
the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee – "the g overnment plays its role better" . 
The US paper had intentionally omitted the rest of the sentence which said, " the m arket should 
play a decisi ve role in allocating resources".  In that regard, it was critically important to recognize 
the decisive role  that market played in allocating resources as that wa s precisely the economic and 
institutional  basis upon which China pr omoted  its economic and trade relations with the  Members.  
6.36.   The full quote of the entire paragraph in the C ommuniqué stated, "Economic structural 
reform is the focus of deepening the reform comprehensively. The underlying issue is how to strike WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 33 - 
 
  a balance bet ween the role of the government and that of the market, and let the market play the 
decisive role in allocating resources and let th e government play its functions  better. It is a general 
rule of the market economy that the market decides the allocation of  resources. We have to follow 
this rule when we improve the socialist market economy. We should work hard to address the 
problems of imperfections in the market system, too much government i nterference and poor 
oversight."  
6.37.   Similarly, the preamble of the US  paper  partially quoted the  Marrakech Declaration of 1994 
that the multilateral trading system should be " based upon  open, market -oriented policies". T he 
paper however intentionally omitte d the rest of the sentence which said, "based upon [...]  and the 
commitments set out in the Uruguay  Round Agreements and Decisions". The  second half of the 
sentence wa s extremely impo rtant as each Member had  its own domestic policy objectives, and 
that the result s of multilateral negotiations were a balance between Member s' domestic policies 
and the process of global trade liberalization.  
6.38.   Such balance wa s reflected in the trade rules, t he tariff  schedules an d services schedules of 
Members  which contain ed descriptions of Members'  legitimate regulatory policies a nd measures. 
The WTO Agreement was a set of contracts achieved through negotiations. Within the scope of 
those contracts, Members abide d by the conditions set forth in the contracts. Beyond the scope of 
those contracts, Members had  their own policy space.  
6.39.   Article 16 of  China's Constitution clearly stated  that state -owned enterprises had  decision -
making power over their operation and  management. The US paper spent many  paragraphs trying 
to arg ue that the Chinese government controlled  enterprises. But the paper had failed  to provide 
evidence to prov e that the government intervened  in the normal operation of the enterprises.  
6.40.   He had once debate d with a senior US official over that  point. The official  had later conceded 
that he was unable to pr ovide evidence. At the end of th eir debate, the official had  said that 
control was not  science but an art. Although they had adjourned the debate, he did  not agree with 
the notion that tho usands of enterprises in China we re controlled by a group of artists.  
6.41.   It was  known to many colleague s present that day that the real purpose of the United 
States was  not only to try  to prove that Chinese enterprises we re controlled by the gove rnment, 
but also to try  to establish the logic that for as long as enterprises were controlled by the 
government,  they already  assume d and perform ed part of government functions and  therefore 
should be deemed as "public bodies" in the WTO context and should undertake obligations under 
the WTO agreements such as the Agreement on Subsid ies and Countervailing Measures . 
6.42.   Such logic had unfortunately been  overturned by the Appellate Body. In the US -China Anti -
Dumping and Countervailing Duties case, the Appellate Body had stated that " the mere ownership 
or control over an entity by a government, without more, is not sufficie nt to establish t hat the 
entity is a public body". He had been told that his American colleagues had  been quite unhappy 
with losing that case – but the ruling of the  Appellate Body could not be challenged.  
6.43.   In Paragraph 1.14 of the paper, the United States had questioned China for using the 
"Social Credit System" as a " new tool to monitor, rate and condition the conducts of all enterprises 
in China". Such a system was however meant  to create a fair and credible business environment 
and prevent fraud and misb ehavio ur. China's "Social Credit System" wa s based on the experience s 
of over 60 countries including France and Germany that had  established a similar public credit 
system. He asked whether  it was simply because of its differences from that of the United S tates 
that such system became  a tool to monitor and control enterprises.  
6.44.   Second, there lacked  consistency in the stan dards used in assessing Members' policies.  The 
developed countries we re inventors and major users of industr ial policies and subsidies. It was 
Alexander Hamilton who had pioneered the concept of industrial policies in h is 1790 Report on 
Manufactures. At present , the US Advanced Manufacturing Partne rship (AMP) and  the US National 
Information Infras tructure (NII), to name a few, were key industrial policies in the United States . 
According to the Good Jobs First, a U S national policy resource cent re that tracked  subsidie s, the 
US federal government had  allocated a total of 68 billion USD in the form of government grants 
and tax credits from  year 2000 to 2015.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 34 - 
 
  6.45.   Like other countries, China had also developed some  industrial policies for strategic and 
planning purposes which had  played a certain role in China' s social and economic devel opment. 
But in the US paper, those policies were described a s rocket engines – which was plainly 
exaggerated. If that had been the  case, there would be no need for any country to work hard and 
enhance their productive capacity as it could  simply rush to draw up fancy industrial policies.  
6.46.   He recalled that  several ye ars before , he had  served as the Director General for the Policy 
Research Department i n the Ministry of Commerce and he  had been involv ed in developing some 
plans. A former colleague from that d epartment  had recently visited him . His former colleague, 
with a bit of surprise and confusion, said that he used  to feel frustrated quite often with the ac tual 
effect of the plans that he  had joined in developing . Happily, some people we re currently saying 
that those plans had changed China and  had shocked the world  making him  realize  how powerful 
he and his plan could be. He then told his colleague to  wake up as he should know better what 
those plans could do.  
6.47.   Third, there we re mi ssing links between evidence and arguments. The Vice Minister of 
Agriculture and Rural Affairs in China, Mr. Qu Dongyu, who was an agricultural scientist and a 
friend , had recently come to Geneva. He had asked him what made  a scientist diffe rent from an 
ordinary person. He had replied that one would  seldom hear a "Yes or No " answer from a sc ientist. 
Scientists could  talk a lot abou t facts in a descriptive manner but they would be very cautious to 
give any conclusions. Although one could not use the scienti sts as a benchmark for everyone, it 
was scientifically wise not to draw hasty conclusion s before making thorough analysis.  
6.48.   Paragraph 2.9 of the US paper argued that China's planned economy " has become more, 
not less  salient over the past 20 years" . The evidence used to support the argument was that 
thousands of agencies  participate d in planning industrial policies. To him, tho se facts only prove d 
that the mechanism for  setting industrial policies had  become more open and transparent, that 
government agencies m aking policies increasingly relied  on extensive consultations with 
stakeholders.  
6.49.   In section 4 of the US paper entitled " Benefits  to China of its economic model", the United 
States had pointed to several facts  such a s "China has seized on the benefits of WTO membership  
to rapidly develop its economy" and the lower cost of China's manufactu ring owed to " economies 
of scale and more ad vanced supply -chain development". But from those facts, that section jumped  
to questioni ng China' s status as a developing country and criticizing China as exempting itself from 
contributing to liber alizing global  trade rules  without providing any  cause and effect analysis. It 
was hard to see how China's development had  benefited from its developing country sta tus. All 
countries and regions joined the WTO with a view to developing their ec onomies  and that principle  
had been stated in the Preamble of the WTO Agreement. China had  been able to contribute  to 
global development precisely because it had achiev ed growth through developing its  own 
economy, and more importantly, sharing the opportunities and benefits with th e rest of the world.  
6.50.   Fourth, there was a  lack of seriousness in selecting and using evidence . He had  read the US 
paper very carefully  – including  the 88 footnotes. For some footnotes, he could not find the 
sources as referred. His colleagues had been sayin g that because he had been born in June and he 
was a Cancer in the Zodiac, he  often paid too much attention to the details. As the devil was in the 
details, if a paper had flaws in its footnote then its evidence could  be called into  question and its 
argume nts would be put into doubt.  
6.51.   Paragraph 1.3 of the paper said that China limited  the power of the market and cited in its 
footnote China' s Property Law as a source. China's  Property Law however clearly stated that China 
"encourages, supports and guides the development of the non -public economy." He  wonder ed why 
in the eyes of his US colleagues, the very words "encourage, support and guide" could be misread 
as "suppress, limit and intervene" . 
6.52.   Section 3A of the paper was entitled " non-reciprocal and protected market"  of China. But 
one par ticularity over that section was that it did  not have a single footnote. He presume d it wa s 
difficult to find evidence that could support that argument. In reversing the argument, one could 
however find plenty of evidence. In 2017, China' s contribution to the growth of the world economy 
was 34%. China wa s the largest trading partner for over 12 0 countries and regions. There were WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 35 - 
 
  plenty more such evidence in the white paper on China and the World Trade Organization that 
China had  recently submitted to the General Council in the document WT/GC/W/749.  
6.53.   The 2013 Report to Congress of t he US -China  Economic and Security Review Commission 
co-signed by Ambassador Shea had stated that " growing demand from China has supported 
American expor ts in certain sectors of the US economy, such as aerospace, the auto ind ustry and 
agricultural products" . He questioned how those US products entered the Chinese market if China 
had been a " non-reciprocal and protected market".  
6.54.   Concerning Paragraph 3.5 on excess capacity, o n 3 May, Professor Simon Evenett had 
published an article entitled "Don' t go spare over excess capacity in manufactures" which  had 
provided that 86% of China's exports to the G20 countries we re not coming from the so -called 
sectors with excess capacity. The  Global Trade Alert that he ran had examined financial reports of  
16 Chinese and 31 non -Chinese listed steel companies. The figures show ed that subsidies had only 
accounted for less than 0.4% of sales revenue of the Chi nese steel compan ies while that share 
was much higher for many non -Chines e steel companies . 
6.55.   As fo r the other submission by the United States on  the 2 017 Report to its Congress on 
China's WTO Compliance, there was no need for him to comment on it. He fe lt a bit sorry for hi s 
USTR colleagues who had worked so hard to produce those documents and respect ed them. He 
had identified some questions in their submissions to help them improve t he quality of their 
criticism. He was certain that it had  nothing to do with their profes sionalism and diligence. One 
would likewise  know that by already having a preoccupied viewpoint when starting to write a 
paper, its quality would have been less than what one would have expected.  
6.56.   In China, there was a saying that  it would only take three peop le to make one believe there 
was a tiger aro und. He then shared a story. O ne day, someone had told the Emperor that there 
had been  a tiger rambling arou nd the Capital. The Emperor had not believe d him. Later that  day, 
another person had told the Empe ror th e same thing. He still had  not believe d it. But when the 
Emperor had heard the same story from a third person, he had ordered his generals to go out and 
hunt for the tiger. The lesson was that fiction repeated enough times could  become a belief.  
6.57.   That could  be the anticipated result by those who we re labe lling others.  He did not think 
they had a  bigger chance of success as it could  work the opposite way. Those who we re label ling 
others would  change from the hired agents in the Strategies of the Warring State s to the boy who 
cried wolf in Aesop's Fables. Facts and truth could never be covered or altered. As he had  said in a 
recent interview, someone had criticized China as a mercantilist country  but he asked whether 
they had ever seen a mercantilist country th at cut  tariff voluntarily and that hosted  an 
International Import Expo to increa se imports from around the world.  
6.58.   The WTO was currently  facing unprecedented challenges. Members should be fully aware 
which country's trade measures were most disruptive. He asked h ow disrupti ve the Section 232 
measures that restrict ed import of steel and alumin ium using  national security as a pretext and 
the Section 301 measures that unilaterally impose d tariffs on imports were.  If com pared to the 
FIFA World Cup, tho se measur es had severely undermined the rules of the game and deserve d a 
couple of red cards. What was worse was that the United States wa s blocking the referees from 
performing their duties by obstructing the reappointment of the Appellate Body members.  
6.59.   As mentio ned in the beginning, he had an open mind for criticisms even if they could be 
unjust attack s and not  done in good faith. They could just laug h it off. For China, holding its  feet to 
the fire had never worked.  In the past, external pressure had only made a  nation  of generations of 
hard working peo ple striving for a purpose.  For now, cri ticisms help ed China keep a cool  head 
while moving forward. For the WTO, the only way to resolve differences was  through consultations 
on equal footing, to find out about the  root cause, the nature and implications of the problems and 
explore their relationship with the WTO rules. Extortion,  distortion or demonization would do  no 
good to resolve the issues.  
6.60.   China had never denied that there were problems in its economic system  and its reform wa s 
enterin g into the deep -water zones. China  faced many challenges and there were much more to be 
done. China readily welcomed the construc tive criticisms and suggestions which they we re more 
than happy to consider.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 36 - 
 
  6.61.   In the Trade Policy Rev iew of China that had taken place two weeks earlier , many Me mbers 
had provided constructive comments and suggestions. They had  all heard the comments by H.E. 
Ambassador Didier Chambovey (Switzerland) as discussant in China's TPR. He  commend ed him on 
his st atement as it wa s based on in -depth insight and objective analysis. For him, the most 
impressive  sentence from  his concluding remarks was: " Membership at the WTO is multifaceted. 
We all have different types of economic models, differing frameworks for trad e and investment. 
Yet at the centre of this diverse universe is a more or less common belief i n the virtues of market 
forces."  Ambassado r Chambovey  had rightly pointed out  that in the transition from huge quantity 
to high quality, and in properly handling the relationship between the government and the market, 
China still had  many challenges to overcome. And that wa s exactly the priority for China's future 
reform.  China would accept  such good faith and obj ective opinion wholeheartedly. China would 
regard t hose who kindly gave it good faith and just comments as its  teachers and would learn from 
them constantly.  
6.62.   The representative of Morocco  thank ed the United States and China for sharing with the  
Members their views on world trade and their as sessments of its current state. Morocco  
commend ed them for those views  which express ed a commitment to "a fairer and more open 
multilateral tra ding system" – a system that lessened  all tendencies towards "concentrations o f 
power in international trade" and that regulat ed all that "distorts the market".  
6.63.   Morocco  also appreciate d the commitment of both delegations to the WTO's key princi ples, 
particularly "fairness". The principle of fairness should  be considered so that inequalities were not 
allowed to persist in the  trading system, in any negotiating area, ab ove all in agriculture, which 
was vital for developing countries.  
6.64.   Like all M embers,  Morocco paid  close attention to the important developments in the deb ate 
on the WTO's future. If that debate would lead to meetings, talks or negotiations, Morocco hoped  
that a completely inclusive p rocess involving all Members  would be observed and respected. Due 
consideration should be given to the points of view reflecting different concerns and approaches.  
6.65.   Morocco continued to be in volved in multilateral trade. G lobalization should bene fit 
everyone. Countries who had  opened their markets through numerous agreements should 
therefore not be penalized as a result of trade disputes that did  not concern them.  
6.66.   Morocco  also plan ned to contr ibute constructively to the discussions taking shap e in its  
capacity as a member co untry of the African Group. The group represented  a continent that should 
be fully integrated into world trade leading to development for all.  
6.67.   The representative of Japan  understood  the difficulties of discussing the  issue at  the General 
Council for its sensitivity and p olitical implication. G iven its importan ce in the context of the 
current  crisis of the  multilateral trading system, Japan  took the opportunity to share its views with 
the M embers.  
6.68.   Japan appreciated that the United States had  brought several issues to the table in a timely 
manner, utilizing the platform of  the General Council, and shared the concerns raised. China wa s 
one of the most important players in international trade under the WTO system. A s such, China 
had a responsibility to maintain and enhance the free trade system and to further promote 
market -oriented economic reform.  
6.69.   How to ensure fr ee and fair market competition  was one of th e biggest challenges for the 
current  internation al trade. The challenge should be addressed to provide a level -playing -field – a 
necessary condition  for the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
6.70.   China, as a member of the G20, had  committed  itself to fighting unfair trade practices and 
striving to ensure a level playing field and had  participated in calling for the removal of market -
distorting subsidies and other types of support by governments and  related entities. Japan 
expected China to a ct on those commitments. Japan would  actively join the discussion on 
addressing non -market oriented policies and practices  and inadequate protection of intellectual 
property rights  such as forced technology transfer.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 37 - 
 
  6.71.   On the other hand, it wa s not permissib le to take trade measures that we re not consistent 
with the WTO agreement whether they were intended to address those challenges or not. Japan  
expect ed the United States and China, the world' s two largest economies, to ensure that their 
actions contribute d to the stable growth and development of the global economy.  
6.72.   No one would benefit from tit -for-tat measures of imposing tariffs. Japan  therefore 
express ed its  strong concerns about its negative impacts on the  global economy and  the potent ial 
negative impac ts which could  be caused by the possible measures on automobiles and auto parts.  
6.73.   The representative of Pakistan  said that Pakistan had been following the recent discussions 
at the WTO on China's economic model. Pakistan had  always attached great value to t he TPRM to 
review and highlight issues in Members'  trade policies. Any concern or issue with a Member's trade 
policy in general should therefore be discussed under the TPR framewo rk. 
6.74.   The most remarkable an d interesting feature of China's economic model was  the 
tremendous progress it had achieved in the past decades  in terms of inclusive growth, eradication 
of poverty and  sustainable development. China had  shown developing countries that rapid 
progre ss and alleviation of poverty could be achieved  in a short span of time.   
6.75.   China had  been a firm and consistent advocate for open trade and the multilateral trading 
system, fulfilling its obligations under the WTO and its stringent accession pr otocol at 
unprecedented speed.  
6.76.   Pakistan said that based on its experience with the China -Pakistan Economic  Corridor, a 
component of China' s One -Belt-One-Road initiative whereby several Chinese co mpanies were 
operating in Pakistan, Chinese SOEs operated solely on market principles, we re driven by market 
consideration a nd uphe ld open competition.  
6.77.   Members should  take a holistic view and not a snap shot. The white paper circulated by 
China before its TPR clearly showed  that the share of SOEs  in total imports and exports of China 
had reduced from 42.5% in 2007 to 16.3% in 2017. At the same time, the share of private and 
foreign invested enterprises had  increased from 57.5% to  83.7% in the same period – showing a 
phenomenal change within ten  years.  
6.78.   On the open trading front, China was  not only contributing to global trade in a very 
significant way. It was  also open to im ports in the same manner as it wa s to exp orts. Pakistan's 
FTA with China was an example of both countries'  openness to trade, cooperation and integration 
into the globa l economy.  
6.79.   As a developing count ry aiming to get to a path of rapid growth and development, Pakistan  
highlight ed serious systemic concerns at the direction of  the conversations taking place at the 
WTO. While Members could always criticize thei r rule -makin g history a nd negotiations through 
which they had created a  framework,  they could not just, after more than two decades from its 
creation, shift the goal post or burn the bridges for countries at lower stages of development.  
6.80.   Many countries had  faithfully e xecuted their obligations under the multilateral trading  
system with the knowledge that while they participate d in the system, t he rules applicable to them 
would  remain the same as those that had existed for countries that had been  in a similar position 
a few decades ago. Shifting the goal  post would be unfair to tho se countries and detrimental t o the 
system. Members should  ensure that all countries retain ed a fair  level of policy space to leverage 
their domestic policies for inclusive growth and prosperity . 
6.81.   The calls for abandoning legitimate policy objectives, relinquishing development goals, 
surrendering the pursuit of techno logy and industrial upgradation  and eschewing structural 
transformation through the building of productive capacities only denied  developing countries their 
right to make lives b etter for their people. It took  away from thei r governments the  chance to do 
what governments were supposed to do – to make lives better for their people and to make 
countries better for them to live in. That h ad been the practice of all developed countries and 
should remain the focus of those that follow ed. One could not simply kick away the development 
ladder after climbing it.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 38 - 
 
  6.82.   Developing countries  had joined the system with the knowledge, hope and appreciation that 
their individual dev elopment needs and concerns would  be respected and they would be allowed 
the policy space to design their own economic policies, to integrate and to reform at their own 
pace and to pursue their objectives commensurate with their needs. Developing countries want ed 
to integrate and were willing to participate. T heir need for policy space should however  be 
recog nized and their objectives should  be supported.  
6.83.   The representativ e of the Russian Federation  found it notew orthy that the United States had 
asked to place that item on the agenda. Members had  had a n extensive discussion on China' s 
economic and trade policy during the 7th Trade Policy Review of China. T he meeting  had reg istered 
new reco rd numbers in interest to China  with more than 1 ,900 written questions and 
70 delegations taking the floor.  
6.84.   China was  very successful not only as one of the l eading nations in world economy  but also 
as a major trad ing partner for most of th e Memb ers. Like everyone else at the WTO , Russia  
attach ed great importance to its ec onomic and trade performance. Russia  highly appreciate d the 
current strategic economic reforms carried out by the Chinese Government  which aim ed at supply -
side economic gro wth, creation of new open economic system, with the role of the state in the 
economy being  revisited. Russia shared a  positive overall assessment of the economic policies 
pursued by Chinese authorities.  
6.85.   Transparency and predictability we re substantial iss ues for creating a more business -
friendly environment fo r economic activity in China. Russia  therefore appreciate d Beijing' s 
significant efforts to improve its respective legal and institutional framework.  
6.86.   Every country had  a right to conduct its own economic policy. Its consistency with WTO 
rules would determine its legitimacy. Many Members had  expressed their willingness to work to 
address the concerns that the United States had conveyed. Russia remained  committed to working 
with other interested Members to resolve the current crisis around tariffs and the Appellate Body. 
All trade conflicts should be resolved in full compliance with the rules and procedures of the WTO.  
6.87.   The representative of the European Union  said that the EU was satisfied that they had 
adopted with the United States on 25 July  a forward -looking , constructive agenda that sought  to 
achieve trade liberalisation, regulatory cooperation and work on WTO reform . 
6.88.   The European Union had  taken good note of the paper and presentation of the United States 
and had  listened carefully to China's reply. The discussion followed  on the heels of the one that 
had taken place during the Trade Policy Review of China.  
6.89.   Many of the topics had also come up at the TPR such as the need for market reform by 
allowing  the private sector to play a decisive role in the economy, the lack of level playing field 
when competing with state -owned enterprises, overcapacity in a number of sectors, forced 
technology transfers and the need for more transparency.  
6.90.   The EU shared  several of the concerns that the United States had  raised vis -à-vis China and 
was keen to find solutions that would effectively a ddress them. That could however  only be done 
in one way: by updating the rules, applicable horizontally t o each player. The EU's ai m was  to pu t 
in place new disciplines that limited the spill -over effects of specifi c domestic industrial policies.  
6.91.   The EU welcomed  China's repeated commitment to the rules -based, transparent, non -
discriminatory, open and inclusive  multilateral trading sys tem and  looked forward to constructi ve 
discussion with China, the United States  and others on various aspects of levelli ng the playing field 
on which thei r companies operate d.  
6.92.   The representative of Cuba said that including the item on the agenda wa s not o nly unu sual 
but also  worrying. Calling into question Members' economic models only for not being satisfactory 
to others wa s neither appropriate nor healthy partic ularly in the current context . Members' main 
obligation wa s to comply with the rules and the m ultilateral commi tments and obligations they had 
taken on – done i n the context of the models each country had chosen in a sovereign manner. 
Those models generally respond ed to the national and historic reality of the countries concerned 
and we re and shoul d aim at the social well -being and economic prosperity of the nations.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 39 - 
 
  6.93.   The TPR  of the Plurinational State of Bolivia could be an example. It had provided the 
opportunity to see a  review of a model based on knowledge and ancestral culture aimed at not 
only attaining economic prosperity but also at gaining a fair and balanced society and the well -
being of mankind. Members had applauded a model which had been  anything but orthodox. It was 
therefore  not necessary to follow orthodox models for countries to be prosperous and to  comply 
with their WTO obligations . 
6.94.   Cuba also had the opportunity to take  part in the TPR of China where the significant 
progress and ongoing reforms in China had been lauded. Members had also seen and  identifi ed the 
challenges that China was facing. Cuba  had also lauded China's renewed commitment to the 
multilateral trading system at a time where such a system was  under crisis. All of those were  
covered by the document that China had distributed in WT/GC/W/749. Cuba therefore commended 
China for its efforts an d marked commitment to the organization.  
6.95.   The type of discussion they just had would  not help ease the trade tensions that were 
already high. Cuba remained in favour of enhancing constructive dialogue and c ooperation among 
Members as it  was the only w ay to move forward and help the  multilateral trading system.  
6.96.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  had listened carefully to the debate betw een China and 
the United States in the discussions at the General Council, those done in other occasio ns and 
those in the media .  
6.97.   In the democratic tradition, Chinese Taipei did  not see public debate as  a bad thing. It wa s 
a time -honoured process most commonly used to spot the real essence of the problem  and to 
reach solution s among different groups.  
6.98.   The fierce debates of recent days had  simply served to reve al the unspoken truth that the 
existi ng multilateral trading system wa s probably not capable of accommodating Members' key 
interests, or of tackling their conflicts in the current international busines s environment.  
6.99.   The Internet was an obvious example as it was  already an indispensable condition of doing 
business locally and globally. 70 years ago, when the GATT had been signed, the Internet did not 
however  exist and it did certainly not prevail  in the business world 25 years ago  when the WTO 
had come into being. One could  hardly imagine how the fra mers of Agreements at that time could 
possib ly foresee that a problem like i nternet connectivity or accessibility  could amount to trade 
barriers. T hey therefore had set the rules tackling such  issues accordingly. Currently, however, 
some internet -related issues like those that had  just b een raised by the United States could 
probably be dealt with effectively under the existing system.  
6.100.   A crisis could be a window of opportunity , depending on how Members faced it. Chinese 
Taipei  therefore call ed on all Members to look more deeply into th e controversial issues before 
them and to consider vi able approaches to resolve them  from the ir roots.   
6.101.   The representative  of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that Venezuela had taken 
part in China's TPR which allowed it  to better understand C hina's development . 70 Members had 
intervened  which could be  consider ed as a record. I mportant recommendations on areas of 
improvement  had been made and e veryone had recognized the importance of China's con tribution 
to global growth. The current discussion was not the way in which they could solve the ex isting 
tensions. Every country was entitled to choose its own  economic model as long as  such a model 
respect ed the WTO rules. T he mult ilateral trading system also had  the necessary mechanism to 
solve the problem  in case a Member could not abide by them . 
6.102.   The representative of Australia  had listened with int erest to the exchange unde r the item 
and had taken note of the many views that had been expressed. S ome of the issues raised by the 
United States could be addressed through existing WTO mechanisms. Concerning those issues 
which could  not be adequately c overed by existing WTO rules,  Australia  would welcom e greater 
efforts to address tho se in a constructive  manner. Members should  continue to talk collectively on  
the trad e and economic issues which had been raised with an open min d on how to address them .  
6.103.   Australia recognized  that the WTO like  other institutions only remained  strong and relevant 
by evolving to meet n ew and emerging challenges. With a sense of urgency, Australia therefore  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 40 - 
 
  support ed efforts aimed at ensuring WTO rules were relevant and reflected  the reality of t he 
modern globa l trading environment. That wa s the cen tral purpose of the work which wa s under 
way through the Joint Statement Initi ative on Electronic Commerce. Australia was  ready to work 
with others to s trengthen the functioning of the system. All Membe rs had  a stake in the WTO, the 
rules b ased trading system, and they all had  the responsibility to work towards protecting it.  
6.104.   The representative of Brazil  had ta ken note of the views that had  been ex pressed. While it  
would welcome further reforms and trade  liberalization in China, Brazil  express ed concern about 
any rhetorical escalation and polarization a t the WTO. Brazil would rather avoid criticism aimed at 
individual Members. Conversations should be constructive  to be productive.  Brazil  urged Members 
to address their c oncerns and differences through  and wit hin the WTO legal framework. Changes in 
the rulebook c ould be necessary for that.  If such was the case, Brazil would be open to discussions 
on possible ideas of WTO reform or moderniz ation as long as th e agenda was balanced.   
6.105.   The representative of Mexico  had listened closely to the arguments put forward by the 
United States and the repl ies by China and the comments from other delegations who had 
previously spoken. I n any possible dispute, the channels th at the mu ltilateral trading system 
offered should  be used to fi nd a solution which wa s satisfactory t o all parties and which respected 
the rules of trade, and when necessary , update d those rules. With that, Members could  avoid yet 
another situation which would lead to a trade  escalation which the world did  not need. The main 
element wa s dialogue together with an atmosphere of cooperation and understanding of the 
positions of the other party. Mexico  urged the United States  and China to resolve th eir differences 
according to tho se rules.  
6.106.   The representative of the United States  had listened intently to the Chinese Ambassador 
and assure d him that the United States' criticisms were offered in good faith. He did not  have to 
feel sorry for  the USTR staff working on the  two papers. The United States was  deeply concerned 
about the fundamental incompatibility of the Chinese economic system with WTO pri nciples. If 
China continued its current path, it would make the WTO less and less r elevant since t he policies 
that flow ed from China's economic model we re so harmful to its trading partners and China' s very 
large role in international trade made it impossible to ignore that  harm.  
6.107.   The United States thanked those Members who had been willi ng to participate with the 
United States and China in that  important conversation.  
6.108.   He said that China's "socialist market economy" was not a market economy. A useful way 
to look at China's economic system would be to see that the Chinese government allowed the 
market to function but only up to a point.  As soon as market outcomes would begin  to conflict wi th 
the outcomes sought by China' s industrial polic ies, the Chinese government would  intervene in the 
market to ensure th at the outcomes sought by China's i ndustrial policies we re achieved.  That type 
of system was highly market -distortive as had been  explained in some detail in the paper that the 
United States  had submitted . 
6.109.   The representative of China  said that Members could comment on other Member s' 
economi c policies and their relationship with the WTO. Members  should  however  have th e courage 
to look first into themselves and to also  have a sense of where t he border line was . 
6.110.   Confucius had said that one should not vent one's anger on others or blame others for 
one's own failure. A t the end of the day, all structural issues we re domestic  issues. For instance, if 
the United States did  not increase its savings rat e, it was unlikely that it could  solve its trade 
deficit problem . Before criticizing others, one sh ould think twice if one had  done similar things in 
the past. Like what the developed counties  had done in the past, the present  developing countries 
also need ed time to enhance their protection  of intellectual property rights  or to develop their 
industries  through strategic planning and policies. As Ambassador Tauqir Shah  (Pakistan) had said 
during China's TPR, one could not burn the bridge after crossing the river.  
6.111.   Laozi, the founder of Taoism, had said that if one knew when to stop, one would not face 
danger. There were boundaries to the WTO's functions and Members' capacities. Members  should 
focus on those areas where they had  shared concerns and cou ld potentially make progress. They 
should not debate on issues that were beyond the realm of the WTO and th eir capacities.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 41 - 
 
  6.112.   Members should think about the future of the WTO  and explore how to make the 
multilateral system compatible with the chang es in globalization. China wa s willing to play a 
constructive r ole and to make its contribution. The WTO's paramount t ask at present was however  
to curb the spread of unilateralism and protectionism, to bring the dispute settlement to its full 
function and to stop the trade w ar. Members should not waste thei r time finding scapegoats or 
look away from tho se fundamental cha llenges.  
6.113.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
7  TWELFTH SESSION OF T HE MINISTERIAL CONFE RENCE – DATE AND VEN UE 
7.1.  The Chairman  recall ed that, at th e May General Council meeting, he had  announced that, in 
line with Ministers' instructions, he  would s tart consultations on the matter of the date and venue 
for the Twelfth Session of the Ministerial Conference – MC12.  
7.2.  On 29 May, he had  received a communication from Kazakhstan circulated in WT/GC/193  
kindly offering to host MC12 in Astana.  
7.3.  Following the offer by Kazakhstan, he had sent a communication to all Members on 30 May, 
inviting them to consult with him on the offer. That had been followed by an additional invitation to 
consult, through a communication dated 18 June. After a second round of consult ations, a meeting 
with group coordinators a nd several other delegations had been  held on 29 June, and an open -
ended infor mal General Council meet ing had taken place on 23 July.  
7.4.  At that meeting, he had provided a full report of his consultations where he had recalled that 
all delegations that had expressed a view to him had  appreciated and had welcomed the offer by 
Kazakhstan and had seemed to be willing to agree to hold MC12 in A stana. At that meeting, h e 
had also re called that the matter which had  been mostly discussed in his conversations had been  
the possible date of the Conference, as the delegation of Kazakhstan had indicated that the best 
timing for a Conference in Astana wo uld be the late spring or early summer of 2020, with a clear 
preference fo r the first week of June 2020.  
7.5.  Through the various rounds of consultations in different  configurations, flexibility had been  
shown by many Members. At the same time, cer tain concerns  and questions had been raised 
which had  also been discussed at that meeting . The discussion  had focused on the dates contained 
in the Buenos Aires Ministerial Decisions on Fisheries Subsidies, on the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce, and on TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints.  
7.6.  When Ministers  had taken up those Decisions in Buenos Aires, they had been  working on the 
assumption that the next Ministerial Conference would be held in 2019. Ministers had also 
requested the General Council to condu ct consultations to determine the date and venue of MC12. 
In deciding that the next Ministerial Conference would  be held in 2020, some clar ification about 
the dates in those Decisions wa s needed.  
7.7.  Therefore, on the basis of his  consultations in different co nfigurations, on the preference for 
the date of the Conference expressed by Kazakhstan as the MC12 potential host, and on the 
discussions held at the Informal G eneral Council meeting, he  believe d that Members were in a 
position to agree that MC12 be held i n Astana, in early June 2020, on the basis of the following 
understanding:  
a. First, that the 2019 deadline in the Buenos Aires D ecision on Fisheries Subsidies wa s 
upheld. The importance of adher ing to the 2019 deadline in that Decision had  been 
repeatedly e mphasized  to meet the SDG target 14.6 which referred  to prohibiting certain 
forms of fish eries subsidies by 2020. In that  respect, he recall ed that the text of  the 
Buenos Aires decision read, " Members agree to continue to engage constructively in the 
fisher ies subsidies negotiations, with a view to adopting, by the Ministerial Conference in 
2019, an agreement on comprehe nsive and effective disciplines". He  remind ed the 
Membership that Article IV of the Marrakesh Agreement stated, " in the intervals between 
meetings of the Ministerial Conference, its functions shall be c onducted by the General 
Council". That clearly meant that the General Council could  take any necessary decision, 
as appropriate, without waiting for the next Ministerial Conference.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 42 - 
 
  b. Second, and further to the request by several delegations at the  23 July  Informal 
General Council meeting which had encountered no objection, that the dates of 2019 
relating to the two moratoria on Electronic Commerce and on TRIPS non -violation and 
situation complaint s mentioned in the res pective Buenos Aires Decisions were 
maintained as they were in the Decisions. He  recall ed that, in essence, the Buenos Aires 
decisions said " we agree to maintain the current practice [...] until our next session 
which we have decided to hold in 2019";  
c. Finally, that the Conference would take place in early June 2020, with the exact dates to 
be communicated in  due course, so that efforts could  be made to avoid scheduling 
conflicts with other major international events  to the extent that it was possible.  
7.8.  Unless there we re additional co mments, and on the basis of that understanding, he  invite d 
the Ge neral Council to take note of his  statement and to agree that the Twelfth Session of the  
WTO Ministerial Conference would  take pla ce in Astana,  Kazakhstan  in early June 2020.  
7.9.  The General Council so agreed . 
7.10.   The Chairman  congratulate d Ambassador A itzhanova and the Government of Kazakhstan for 
the successful offer. He expressed his appreciation to Ambassador A itzhanova  for her personal 
contribution and engagement in the process. It was  very positive that the  General Council could 
make that decision at that early stage. He also thank ed the whole member ship for participating in 
that important endeavour with a constructive  spirit. Kazakhstan's offer wa s a sig n of its 
commitment towards the organization and he was certain that Kazakhstan could  count on the 
support of all Members in working together towards a suc cessful Ministerial Conference.  
7.11.   The Director -General  added his  words of thanks to Kazakhstan for stepping forw ard to host 
MC12. It demonstrated its  strong belief in the multilateral trading system and that Members could  
keep on strengthening the organiz ation and making progress on the issues that matter ed the most 
to them. Coming from one of the newest Members, that wa s particularly powerful. He also thanked 
Ambassador A itzhanova and  looked forward to working with her as preparations went  under way.  
7.12.   The representative of  Kazakhstan  thanked the Membership for the confide nce they had 
entrusted to the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan to host such an important event – 
which was a great honour for a young independent State and a recently acceded Member. 
Kazakhstan also appreciated Members' flexibility to move the date to June 2020 which would allow 
everyone  to be better prepared both in terms of ensurin g necessary logistics and  most 
importantly, substantive outcome s. Kazakhstan also  thank ed the Chairman  for his skilful and 
neutral leadership in guiding the process of  numerous consultations at bilateral, regional and 
multila teral levels to achieve consensus among the Membership on the date and venue  of MC12.  
7.13.   Since gaining its independence in 1991 , Kazakhstan had been  a strong supporter of the 
multilateral trading system  and tra de liberalization policy which was clearly demonstrated by her  
country's WTO accession commitments and  the terms of the bilateral and regional trade 
agreements to which Kaza khstan was a party. A s the host country, Kazakhstan stood  ready to 
construc tively engage in and make contributions to addressing all outstanding issues under the 
WTO agenda with the view to securing substantive outcome s at MC12 .  
7.14.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
8  WAIVERS UNDER ARTICL E IX OF THE WTO AGRE EMENT  
8.1  Kimber ley Process Certification Scheme f or Rough Diamonds – Waiver Extensi on – 
Draft Decision (G/C/W/753 a nd G/C/W/753/Add.1)  
8.1.  The Chairman  noted that t he draft waiver decision on the Kimberley Process Certificatio n 
Scheme for Rough Diamonds had been taken up for  consideration by the Council for Trade in 
Goods at its meeting on 3 July.  For that item, the  Chairman of the Goods Council wa s required to 
report to the General Council. He  therefore invite d Ambassador Stephen De Boer  (Canada) to 
report on the  Council's c onsideration of the  matter.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 43 - 
 
  8.2.  Ambassador Stephen De Boer (Canada ), Chairman of the Goods Council , report ed that the 
Council for Trade in Goods, at its 3 and 4 July meeting , had considered and approved a collective 
waiver request to extend for an additional six years, until 1 January 2024, the current waiver 
relating to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme, containe d in document WT/L/876, which 
was due to expire on 31 December 2018. The waiver extension request and draft decision 
considered by the CTG w ere contained in document G/C/W/753  as had been indicated i n the 
meeting's convening notice . He informed the General  Council that Botswana, Brazil, India, 
Kazakhstan, the Republic of Korea, Montenegro, Namibia, Panama, Singa pore, Sri Lanka, Chinese 
Taipei and Thailand had  also requested to be included in the Annex of the Draft Waiver Decision, 
as had been  reflected in documents G/C/W /753/Add.1 and G/C/W/753/Add.2. The CTG had agreed 
at its last meeting that the draft waiv er decision be forwarded to the  General Council for adoption.  
8.3.  The Chairman  propose d that, in accordance with the Decision -Making Procedures under 
Articles IX and XII  of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93), the General 
Council adopt ed the draft decision as it had been  referred  to by the CTG Chair.  
8.4.  The General Council so agreed8.  
8.5.  The representative of Sierra Leone  said that Sierra Leone was one of the countries that had  
been most negatively affected by the illicit sale of blood diamonds. The Hollywood film under that 
title atte sted to that  fact. An eleven -year war fuelled by the sale of blood diamonds had resulted in 
high mortality and had devastated development gains. It had been for that reason that Sierra 
Leone had been a founding  Member of the Kimberley Process. The Kimberl ey Process Certifica tion 
Scheme adopted in 2002 aimed  to break the link between armed conflicts and trading of 
diamonds. Sierra Leone would therefore like to add its name to the gr oup of countries supporting 
the request for the waiver and would  be taking ap propriate steps to do so.  
8.6.  The Chairman  said that i n accordance with paragraph 3  of the waiver Decision, if a Membe r 
not listed in the Annex wished  to be covered by the waiver decision and to apply  measures 
implementing the Kimberl ey Process Certification, it had to notify that  decision to the CTG in 
written form. The Goods Council would  then ci rculate the notification to all Members.  
8.7.  The General Council took note  of the statement.  
8.2  Review of Waivers pursuant to Article IX:4 of the WTO  Agreement  
8.2.1   Least -Develop ed Country Members – Obligations under  Article 70.8 and 
Article  70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to Pharmaceutical Products, granted 
on 30 November 2015 until 1 January 2033 (WT/L/971)  
8.2.2   Preferential Treatment for Least -Developed Countries, granted o n 27 May 2009 
until 30 June 2019 (WT/L/759)  
8.2.3   Canada – CARIBCAN, granted on 28 July 2015 until 31 December 2023 
(WT/L/958, WT/L/1036)  
8.2.4   United States – Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, granted on 5 May 2015 
until 31 December 2019 (WT/L/950, WT/L/1038)  
8.8.  The Chairman  recalled that in accordance with P aragraph 4 of Article IX of the WTO 
Agreement, "any  waiver granted for a period of more than one year shall be reviewed by the 
Ministerial Conference not later than one year after it is granted, and thereafter a nnuall y until the 
waiver terminates." There we re four waivers before the General Council fo r review and they we re 
listed in the proposed Agenda. Two of the waivers under review provide d that an annual report 
should be submitted by the Member concerned rega rding the operation or implementation of those 
waivers with a view to facilitating their annual  review by the General Council.  The reports from 
Canada and the United States had  been circulated in documents WT/L/1036 and WT/L/1038 
respectively.  
                                                
8 The decision was subsequently circulated in WT/L/1039.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 44 - 
 
  8.9.  The representative of  Haiti, on behalf of the CARICOM , thanked  Canada  for its report on the 
implement ation of the CARIBCAN Programme the aim of which wa s to help 18 Commonwealth 
Member Caribbean States and territories promote their economic and trade developme nt and 
improve their investment prospects.  
8.10.   The CARICOM Group viewed  the CARIBCAN programme as an important instrument for 
trade relations between Canada and  CARICOM. The programme provided  beneficiary Caribbean 
States with a good opportunity to expand their markets and diversify their economies by accessing 
the Canadian market on a duty-free basis which enabled  them to improve their export earnings.  
8.11.   CARICOM was  pleased to see that Canada's  import trend under CARIBCAN had stabilized 
and thanked  Canada for its continued support to the region.  
8.12.   The CARICOM Group also thank ed the United States for its report on the Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act (CBERA) and its continued support to the r egion. Since the United States 
was the leading export market for many CARICOM economies, the programme wa s an important 
arrangement for  the region. It provided  CARICOM Members, in a predictable manner, with an 
opportunity to export a certain number of produc ts to the American ma rket on a duty -free basis – 
creating jobs and promoting  economic growth.  
8.13.   CARICOM noted a 10.3% rise in US imports under the CBERA in 2017. The value of US 
imports under the programme had risen  from US$870.9 million in 2016 to US$961 mi llion in 2017.  
8.14.   The CARICOM Group hoped that the positive trend would  also be reflected in the next 
annual report on the CBERA programme.  
8.15.   The representative of Jamaica  associated with the statement made by CARICOM and 
thank ed Canada and the United States fo r their submissions on two important trade instruments 
for CARICOM and by extension Jamaica.  
8.16.   On Canada – CARIBCAN, Jamaica had  had a longstanding and mutually beneficial 
relationship with Canada including  in trade. Canada was  ranked third among Jamaica's m ain 
export markets and tenth among Jamaica's main sourc es of imports. That was  owing in large part 
to CARIB CAN through which Jamaica enjoyed  duty-free treatment in the Canadian market and 
which covered  about 97% of its goods entering Canada. Jamaica noted the mutually ben eficial 
nature of CARIBCAN. Not only was  there a substantial level of imports from Canada into Jamaica. 
Jamaica had  also consistently maintained a trade surplus with Canada since the early 19 80s. 
Within January – April 2018, that trend wa s set to continue. Jamaica's main exports to Canada 
include d alumina, alcoholic beverages and non -traditional foo d items. The Canadian market had  
been a particularly prime destination for non -traditional exports from Jamaica which in 2017 had 
stood at 17.9 m illion USD.  
8.17.   On United States  – CBERA , as with Canada, Jamaica had  also had a long standing and 
mutually ben eficial relationship with the United States including in trade. The United States wa s 
not just one of Jamaica's traditi onal trading partners. It had  also been Jamaica's main trading 
partner sin ce the 1960s. Jamaica enjoyed  preferential access on 90% of its exports to the US 
market under the CBI through CBERA and the CBTPA which govern ed their trade relations with the 
United States. Exports to the Unit ed States had  increased steadily over the last three years and in 
2017 exports had increased by 15.3% over t he recorded number in 2015. In 2017, the United 
States  had accounted for 42% of Jamaica's total merchandise trade. Jamaica's exports of no n-
traditio nal products to the United States had  also experienced growth and in 2017 , non-traditional 
exports had accounted to 69% of J amaica's total exports to the United States .  
8.18.   The role of the Jamaican diaspora in fuelling the demand and distribution of non -traditional  
products in both countries should be emphasised. Jamaica valued  the market opportunities 
provided by both CARI BCAN and CBERA especially at a  time when achieving sustained and robust 
economic growth and job creation we re high priorities for the count ry. In 2017, the United States  
and Canada combined had a ccounted for close to 50% of Jamaica's total merchandise trade. Both 
CARIBCAN and CBERA complement ed Jamaica's national export strategy which inter alia  sought  to 
expand and diversify Jamaica's export s, increase value addition and increase employment.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 45 - 
 
  8.19.   CARIBCAN and CBERA we re also contributing to the wider trade policy objectives which 
Jamaica had  established. CARIBCAN and CBERA we re therefore of trem endous value to Jamaica 
and had  cemented the partner ships with the two countries. Jamaica  looked forward to 
strengthening those partnerships and to the continued operation of both regimes in the years 
ahead particularly with the view to helping Jamaica to attain the target set out in its national 
developmen t plan – Vision 2030.  
8.20.   The representative of the United States  said that the US  trade preferences programs for the 
Central Am erican and Caribbean region had been  initially launched in 1983 by the Caribbean Basin 
Economic Recovery Act (CBERA). Since its impl ementation, CBERA had  continued to generate 
important benefits for beneficiary countries and territories.   
8.21.   The expansion of benefits through enactment of s ubsequent legislation represented  an 
important  affirmation of the ongoing US  commitment to economic development in the Caribbean 
Basin, by expand ing duty -free access to the US  market for eligible goods.   
8.22.   The CBERA program h ad helped beneficiary cou ntries diversify their exports. On a region -
wide basis, the export diversification had  led to a more balanced pr oduction and export base and 
had reduced the region' s vulnerability to fluctuations in markets for traditional products.  
8.23.   At present, 17 countries and territories receive d benefits under the program.  
8.24.   In 2017, US  imports under CBERA  preferences had increased 10.3 perc ent over 2016, to 
$961 million. The United States' report included  detailed trade data on the program.  
8.25.   The Uni ted States was  committed to  working in partnership with its  neighbo urs in the 
Caribbean to expand economic opp ortunities. The CBERA provided  a vital con tribution to the 
efforts in that  partnership by creating opportunities to expand trade between the United  States 
and the Caribbean  thus promoting economic opportunity and growth in the region.  
8.26.   The representative of  Canada  noted that, r ecognizing the special relationship between 
Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean, CARIBCAN had been  established  in 1986  to help 
improve the trade and economic development prospects of the region.  
8.27.   In light of the continuing relevance o f the considerations unde rlying CARIBCAN, the 
initiative' s objectives, scope and coverage remain ed unchanged.  
8.28.   Canada thanked those Members that had  expressed support for the CARIBCAN program and 
the associated WTO waiver.  
8.29.   The General Council took note  of the reports contained in documents WT/L/1036 and 
WT/L/1038 and of the statements, and agreed to revert  to the review of multi -year waivers under 
Article IX.4 of the WTO Agreement at its meeting in December.  
9  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE AND ADMINIS TRATION – REPORT ON MEETING O F 
APRIL 2018  
9.1.  The Chairman  recalled that a s had been  indicated at the beginning  of the meeting, the 
General Council would c onsider paragraphs 1.1 to 1.12 of document WT/BFA/172, and only the 
attachment contain ed in document WT/BFA/W/448.  Those specific paragraphs and the referred 
attachment relate d to the dependency allowances of WTO Se cretariat staff. As had been earlier 
indicated,  he therefore propose d that under that  item, the General Counc il only approved  the 
Budget Comm ittee's specific recommendation  in paragraph 1.12 of document WT/BFA/172.  
9.2.  The General Council so agreed . WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 46 - 
 
  10  WTO PENSION PLAN  
10.1  Report of the Independent External Auditor on the Audit of the Financial 
Statements of the World Trade Organization Pension Plan for the year ended 31 
December 2017 (WT/L/1035)  
10.2  Annual Report and Financial Statements for the year ending 31 December 2017 
(WT/L/1037)  
10.1.   The Chairman  drew attention to the Annual Report of the Management Board for 2017 
contained in document WT/L/1037 which was  submitted  to the General Council in accordance with 
Article 5(d) of the Regulations  of the WTO Pension Plan. He also drew  attention to the Report of 
the Independent External Auditor on the Audit of the Financial Statements of th e WTOPP in 
document WT/L/1035. He invited Mr Robert P rochazka  (Austria), Chairperson of the Management 
Board, to introduce the reports.  
10.2.   Mr Robert Prochazka (Austria), Chair of the WTOPP Management Board , presented  the 2017 
Report of the External Auditor and the 2017 Annual Report of World Trade Organization Pension 
Plan which could be found in document s WT/L/1035 and WT/L/1037. Tho se reports, covering the 
period from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 201 7, had  been prepared in accordance with Article 5 
of the Regulations of the Plan for presentati on to the General Council and to Plan participants.  The 
Management Board also inform ed Members of  a positive audit report with an unqualified opinion.  
10.3.   On investments, 2017 had been  an even more rewarding year for financial markets than the 
previous year, a nd the returns of the WTOPP investment portfolio reflect ed that . The Management 
Board's investment strategy had delivered a real return of 10 .4% for the year which  was well 
above the long -term target rate of return used in  the actuarial assumptions. It wa s normal th at in 
some years the return would  be above the expe cted level and in others it would  be below.   
10.4.   Current economic circumstances remain ed challenging for investors and we re likely to 
remain so for some time. Following a few years o f above average returns, it would  be nor mal to 
expect that markets could  correct and t hat the Pension Plan could experience  some below average 
returns in the future. A s a long -term investor , the WTOPP could however tolerate and even benefit 
from that  short-term volatility . Market downturns provide d the opportunity to purchase assets at 
more attractive prices that also he ld the potential for more sustained returns.  
10.5.   Regarding  the plan's actuarial position, the updated actuarial va luation based on 2017 data 
showed  that the plan's actuarial position had slightly improved. The consulting actuary however 
continued  to recommend that the Board closely monitor ed the situation over the coming years  
particularly as regards  investment returns and any long -term changes in staffing lev els or policies.  
10.6.   Concerning outlook and g overnance , consistent with good pr actice, the Management Board 
had launched a competitive procurement exercise fo r its consulting actuary which wa s very close 
to completion. The intention was to have a new contract in place before the end of the year.  The 
Management Board was  also beginning wor k on a risk management policy. Those efforts we re 
simply part of the Management Board's commitment to be fully engaged in ensuring the continued 
good governance of the WTO Pens ion Plan.  
10.7.   The General Council took note  of the Annual Report of the Management Board for 2017 in 
document WT/L/1037, the Report of the Independent External Auditor on the Audit of the Financial 
Statements of the WTOPP in document WT/L/1035, and of the stat ement.  
11  STATEMENTS OF GROUPS  OF MEMBERS IN OFFIC IAL WTO MEETINGS – STATEMENT 
BY THE UNITED STATES  
11.1.   The representative of the  United States , speaking under "Other Business" , recall ed that at 
the May meeting, the United States had acknowledged the statements d elivered on behalf of the 
Informal Group of Developing Countries delivered in both the informal TNC and the formal  session 
of the  General Council, and had requested that Members be made aware of the individual Members  
associating themselves with those stat ements. The United States had requested specifically that 
those Members be identified in the official record of the May General Council meeting . The United WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 47 - 
 
  States  had noted that transparency wa s important as the composition of the  IGDC, unlike other 
groups  at the WTO, wa s not publicly known th rough appearance on the WTO web site. 
11.2.   The United States was disappointed that its request for that  basic degree of transparency 
had not been accommodated.  
11.3.   The United States recognized  that the work  of various groups of Members was a reality of 
their work at the WTO. Particularly in the context of negotiations, those groupings could  play an 
important coordinating function. The United States  also recognize d that group coo rdination could  
be especiall y helpful for Members which had small delegations in Geneva.  
11.4.   To be clear, the United States had  no objection to the work of any of the  existing groupings 
of Members.  
11.5.   The United States  however  also consider ed it important to bear in mind tha t the WTO was 
fundamentally  an institution made up of individual cou ntries and customs territories. It was vitally 
important for  all Members to think and speak for themselves in an independent manner. They 
could sometimes be at risk of group interests dominating the views a nd positions of individual 
Members and it wa s important to guard against that risk. 
11.6.   It was from that  perspective that the United States had considered it reasonable to be 
informed of the individual Members associating themselves with the IGDC statements de livered in 
May. 
11.7.   One would know who was speaking when l istening to statements from other groups such as 
the ACP, Africa or LDC Groups because they had  transparency regarding the ir composition. Other 
groups of Members  such as the "Friends of the System" grou p had  tended to issue statements in 
which the individual associating Members we re clearly identified.  There had been no such 
transp arency with respect to the IGDC and the United States had felt  and continue d to feel that it 
was an important shor tcoming in their work.  
11.8.   The United States  appreciate d that the IGDC had made available to it  on a bila teral basis a 
list of the group's m embers and was told that a ll of those m embers except one we re associated 
with the statements made in May. The United States however  recall ed that its  request for 
transparency had  not been intended merely for its benefit  but for the b enefit of the entire 
membership which remained  uninformed abo ut the composition of the IGDC. That  therefore  
remained  an unsatisfactory situation.  
11.9.   In addit ion, the United States noted with serious conce rn that the list presented to it 
encompassed a number of countries that were not yet full Members of the organization. It wa s 
clear that WTO observers had  the ability to express their views in official WTO meetings under 
specific, proscribed circumstances.  
11.10.   But in the case o f the May statements, it appeared that those observers had been  given 
voice in a manner equivalent to that acco rded to full Members of t he WTO  and not in keeping with 
the special r ules established for observers. The United States  consider ed that  to be a significant 
lapse in respect for established rules of procedure.  
11.11.   The United States intended  to continue to pursue its concerns with regard  to that  issue in 
the interest of achieving a more transparent working mechanism for dealing with group stateme nts 
in official WTO meetings. Th e United States looked forward to working collaboratively with the 
Chairman, the IGDC coordinator and the Secreta riat on the  matter.  
11.12.   The representative of Argentina  said that , according to the corresponding administrative 
measures, Members in  arrears with  the payment of their contributions especially  those inactive 
Members who spoke in the General Council should be i dentified as such. Argentina asked the 
Chairman  to comply with that administrative provision. The request could  seem unprecedented but 
it was also unprecedented for  an inactive Member to be speaking  against th e candidacy of a group 
member  within the framew ork of GRULAC . WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 48 - 
 
  11.13.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  said that, regarding  being 
labelled as an inactive Member by another Member, Venezuela was unfortunately currently  facing 
quite a regrettable situation that it had  not want ed to bring before the WTO because it did not 
think that the WTO wa s the approp riate place to do so. I n the current situation , there was however 
no other solution but to do so. The reason for her country to object  to a candidate within the 
GRULAC despite t he po ssibilities of a dialogue remaining open was due to a decision which had 
been taken by the Lima Group  – a group made up of  a certain number of countries from Latin 
America and the Caribbean which wa s vetoing the membership of the candidate of Venezuela to all 
bodies. In other words, that was  not an autonomous decision under t he initiative of Venezuela. It 
was a reaction resulting from mere reciprocity. The lack of empath y and understanding regarding  
its Latin American brothers an d sisters in the current sit uation  was highly regrettable . Venezuela 
had already been suffering for some time . It was not only however the country and the 
government but also the people of Venezuela  including her and her family  that were  suffering from 
the consequences of the financi al embargo that the United S tates and other countries that were 
represented at the WTO had imposed. Venezuela had therefore  launched an appeal  in different 
ways for dialogue a nd reconciliation because the people of Venezuela were confronted on a daily 
basis with the consequences of that  lack of  understanding. As a Venezuelan and a human being, 
she said that the only way to resolve problems , whether they be political or commercial , was 
through dialogue, understanding and empathy.  
11.14.   The representative of Cuba did not associate with a statement earlier made and did  not 
share the position raised, for the good of Latin American  solidarity and the relationship among 
their countries . Venezuela had been very clear on the origins of the issue. Cuba invite d political 
dialogue between M embers whether inside or outside the organization.  Members already had 
sufficient problems in the organization. Cuba therefore called for constructive dial ogue and 
cooperation to allow for the analysis  of the origins  of the problem so that they could  be resolved.  
11.15.   The General Council took note  of the statement s. 
12  CREATION OF A NEW IN FORMAL GROUP OF MEMB ERS TO DISCUSS TRADE  AND 
ENVIRONMENT – STATEM ENT BY COSTA RICA  
12.1.   The representative of Costa Rica , speaking under "Other Business" , noted that the 2030 
Agenda, a universal roadmap with concrete targe ts and timelines for solving the  current global 
crisis, identified  in SDG 17  trade, investment, partnerships and capacity building as means f or 
implementing all the other sixteen  SDGs. It therefore called  for capacity development to enable 
countries to connect to the global market and facilitate the proliferation of and access to clean 
technologies and stimulate innovation.  
12.2.   Costa Rica, along with Canada, we re launching an informal  group of Friends Advancing 
Sustainable Trade – FAST – so that Members could  discuss openly and constructively in an 
informal setting, withou t prejudice to  their negotiating position, on how they could  all explore 
ideas to improve mutual supportiveness and  understanding on the positive synergies between 
trade and environme ntal policies. S uch opportunities deserve d to be  further explored. It wa s a 
good time to initiate a new thinking on t he environment and trade agenda . The current times 
required a  kind of l eadership  that could both defend the multilateral trading system by making it 
more robust and at the same time set the sails towards building a better world and strive to get 
there .  
12.3.   Costa Rica was  appealing to the leadership in the House to join in that e ndeavour and to 
help steer the WTO into its bett er future. Costa Rica  invite d Membe rs to join FAST and to 
participate constructively in the discu ssions at the next Public Forum which wa s about Trade 2030  
and related to sustainable and inclusive trade.  
12.4.   The representative of Norway  took the  opportunity to say a few words in his  final me eting of 
the General Council. He thank ed the Director -General, the Chairman and his  good friends and 
colleagues for all the kind words that he had been hearing that day and  over the last few weeks. It 
had been a privilege to represe nt his country at that important organization. He had enjoyed 
working with  all of them  and wish ed them  every success in strengthening and safeguarding the 
rules based mu ltilateral trading system i n those challenging times. They had an important job 
ahead of them  and he would follow them from a distance. He also thank ed his  good friends in the WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 49 - 
 
  Secretariat – first and  foremost because of the work they had during the General Council period –
in particu lar the team of the Council and TNC Division . Their professionalism wa s an invaluable 
asset for t he organizati on. He also thanked the interpreters for their very able contribution. He 
also thanked his own fantastic team and wished everyone the best of luck  in moving forward.  
12.5.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
13  CHAIRMANSHIPS OF THE  COMMITTEE ON TRADE AND ENVIRONMENT AND THE 
COMMITTEE ON TRADE A ND ENVIRONMENT IN SP ECIAL SESSION – STAT EMENT BY THE 
CHAIRMAN  
13.1.   The Chairman , speaking under "Other Busin ess", recalled  that Ambassador Sondang 
Anggraini (Indonesia), Chairperson of the Committee on Trade and Environment, had already left 
her post. And a s announced at the start of the  meeting, Ambassador Tauqir Shah (Pakistan), 
Chairman of the Committee on Tr ade and Env ironment in Special Session would  also be le aving his 
post. It wa s therefore necessary to hold consultatio ns to appoint new Chairs for those two WTO 
Bodies. In line with the Guidelines for the appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies (WT/L/510), he  
would  therefore conduct consultations with the assistance of Ambassador Kangvalkulkij (Thailand), 
Chairperson of the DSB, and Ambassador Carim (South Africa), former Chairman of the General 
Council, immediately after the summer break.  
13.2.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement.  
14  CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE WORKING PARTIES ON T HE ACCESSION OF UZBEKISTAN 
AND BHUTAN  – STATEMENT BY THE CHAIRMAN  
14.1.   The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business" , recalled that  Deputy  Director -General Alan 
Wolff had  conducted consultations on his  behalf regarding the Chairmanship of the Accession 
Working Parties o f Uzbekistan and Bhutan. In that respect, he  referred to the communications 
dated 30 April and 29 May, respectively. Following tho se consultations, he reported that th ere 
appeared  to be consensus on the appointment of Ambassador Elisabeth T ichy-Fisslberger  of 
Austria as Chair of the Working Party on the accession of Bhutan; and Ambassador P aik Ji-ah of 
the Republic of Korea as Chair of the Working Party on the accession  of Uzbekistan. He  sincerely 
congratulate d them and wish ed them all the best in that  new endeavour.  
14.2.   The representative of Bhutan , speaking as an Observer , thanked Austria for once again 
agreeing to Chair the Working Party on the accession of  Bhutan and  the General Council for 
approving Austria's Chairmanship. Bhutan looked forward to working closely with Austria and  the 
WTO Membership.  
14.3.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statem ent and of the other statement . 
15  STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN IN CONNECTI ON WITH ADMINISTRATI VE MEASURES 
FOR MEMBERS IN ARREA RS 
15.1.   The Chairman  noted that the revised Administrative Measures for Members in arrears in 
WT/BFA/132 required that, at the end of each meeting of the General Council, the Chairman of the 
Committee on Budge t, Finance and Administration should provide information with regard to which 
Members and Observers we re under Administrative Measures. He invited the Chair  of the Budget 
Committee , Amba ssador Juan Aguirre (Paraguay),  to provide the Council with that  information.  
15.2.   Ambassador Juan Aguirre (Paraguay), Chairman of the CBFA , reported that the General 
Council approved the rules for Members and Observers subject to Administrative Measures and 
that those had been implemented on 1 March 2013. As required by th e decision of the General 
Council, the Chairman of the CBFA would state all Members and Observers under all categories of 
Administrative Measures as of 26 July 2018.  
15.3.   There were 19  Members and 4 Observers under Administrative Measures.  There were 
8 Members  in Category I: Belize, Burkina Faso, Congo, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon 
Islands, Suriname, Uganda and Zambia. There were 2  Observers under Category I: Somalia and 
the Syrian Arab Republic. There were 4 Members in Category II: Antigua and Barbud a, Cameroon,  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Guinea and Rwanda. There were 7  Members under Category III: Burundi, Chad, Guinea -Bissau, 
Mauritania, Niger, Sierra Leone and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. There were 2 Observers in 
Category III: Libya and Sao Tomé & Principe.  
15.4.   The Chairman  said that he was required at each Council meeting to request Members and 
Observers in Categories II and III of the Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their 
payment of arrears could be expected. Likewise, the General Council urged Members and 
Observers under Administrative Measures to liquidate their arrears.  
15.5.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
 
 
 
_______________  
  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 51 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
THE REPORTS BY THE D IRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHA IRS OF THE NEGOTIATI NG 
GROUPS  AT THE INFORMAL TNC  AND IN FORMAL HODS MEETING HELD ON  24 JUL Y 2018  
Report by the Director -General1 
The Chairs have given you a detailed account of the state of play in our negotiating work. So I will 
just draw some conclusions on where we stand today.  
While we did make some important progress in Buenos Aires, the Ministerial Conference also 
exposed some fundamental differences and divisions among the membership – on both substance 
and process. If we are to address these issues and move beyond them it wo n't be enough for 
Members to simply continue restating how important specific issues are for them, or what their 
sensitivities are. We need new ideas that could lead to convergence. There are some early signs of 
modest movement in some areas. We should see k to build on that in the second semester.  
One of the many risks of the rising trade tensions is that we neglect this work. We must resist this 
temptation and keep making progress wherever we can. Indeed, I am pleased to see that there is 
real energy in m any areas of our work – in some of the negotiating groups and also in initiatives 
carried out by some Members.  
Of course the need to keep moving is particularly pertinent in areas with specific deadlines – such 
as public stockholding and fisheries subsidi es. On this last point, there seems to be a consensus to 
keep the deadline for Fisheries in December 2019, following yesterday's discussion convened by 
the GC Chair.   
Let me now give you a run through of some of my contacts and consultations since our las t 
meeting in this format in May. These exchanges have touched on a variety of issues – from our 
negotiating work and discussions leading on from MC11, to various systemic matters.   
My meetings have included a bilateral visit to Suva, Fiji and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat 
also based in Suva, where I attended a Regional Workshop on MC11 outcomes and the way 
forward. I also attended the APEC Ministerial Meeting in Port Moresby, combined with a bilateral 
visit to Papua New Guinea. I took part in the O ECD Ministerial Council in Paris and an informal 
meeting of WTO Ministers hosted by Australia, in the side -lines of the OECD meeting. On the same 
trip I conducted a bilateral meeting with the President of France, Emmanuel Macron. I participated 
in a meetin g hosted by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin with the heads of six 
multilateral agencies. And I addressed the International Monetary Conference in Washington DC. 
During these various visits I also conducted a range of bilateral meetings with Minis ters and 
others.  
Here in Geneva, in addition to my frequent contacts with Members, I took part by invitation in a 
number of meetings, including: the Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance where I provided 
an update on trade finance issues; a workshop on  Trade, Gender and Government Procurement 
co-organised by the Republic of Moldova, the WTO, ITC and the European Bank for Reconstruction 
and Development; a workshop organised by the Informal Working Group on MSMEs on the 
occasion of the world MSMEs day; a meeting of the LDCs Group to reflect on MC11 and the way 
forward; and an interactive session at the Geneva Week event which is an opportunity to discuss 
issues with WTO Members who do not have permanent missions in Geneva.  
In addition, in early June – on behalf of the ICC and B20 – we hosted another Trade Dialogues 
session with the private sector. It was another successful event, bringing together over 60 senior 
business people, representing small and large enterprises, from developed, developing and least  
developed countries.  
The level of engagement was very impressive, as was the detailed nature of the debate. In terms 
of the substantive discussion, I think it was a notable step up from the first such event which was 
held in 2016. The Trade Dialogues mee ting was intended as an opportunity for businesses to share 
their ideas with Members in a number of specific areas, and they did this to good effect. But the 
attendees also used the session as an opportunity to send us an encouraging message about the 
                                                
1 Also issued as JOB/GC/195.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 52 - 
 
  importance of the trading system for the business community, and the need to keep working to 
strengthen it for the years to come. This is very positive in the current climate.  
Let me turn to the issue of the day.  
Members are well aware of the growing crisis i n global trade. Tensions are growing. New measures 
are being announced with increasing frequency. This was highlighted in our report on G20 trade 
restrictions issued on 4 July. This report showed that the number of new restrictive measures per 
month has do ubled. And the coverage, in other words the value of trade affected by these 
measures, has increased by over 50%. It is worth noting that the period covered by this report 
ended in mid -May. Numerous additional trade restrictive measures have been announced  since 
then, meaning that the deterioration in trade relations may well be even worse. The WTO -wide 
monitoring report has been shared with Members and will be published tomorrow at the meeting of 
the TPRB.  
There is real and justified concern about the esc alation we are seeing. Whether or not you call it a 
trade war, certainly the first shots have been fired. Continued escalation would risk a major 
economic impact, which would pose a serious threat to growth, jobs and recovery in all countries. 
There is als o a potential systemic impact, which poses a greater threat in the longer term, 
particularly if countries begin to accept this "tit for tat" dynamic as the "new normal".  
The situation requires an urgent response. We have a duty to help resolve these issues , and to 
alert people to the potential risks and consequences. That is what I have been working to do. I 
have been consulting with Members on these issues. And I have been meeting with leaders and 
Ministers – urging dialogue and exploring steps to resolve the current situation. But I have also 
been talking to a wider range of contacts – such as parliaments, business, think tanks and the 
media – in order to increase awareness and understanding of what is at stake. Trade touches all of 
our lives. So I am call ing on everyone who believes in trade as a force for good to speak up. Now 
is the time.  
And let me stress that, by necessity, I am doing this with great care. It is not my role to point the 
finger at specific Members or specific policies. I have never don e this, and won't start now. I have 
to preserve the channels of communication, as well as the role of the Director -General as an 
impartial facilitator. Nevertheless, I am working to defend the system in every way I can.  
And in some ways I actually think w e are seeing some progress. Leaders are increasingly aware 
and engaged in WTO issues – in a way that I have not seen before. There is renewed engagement 
from many Members on systemic issues, bringing more focus on the WTO and how it can be 
improved. I thin k that this could be positive – and could potentially help us to find a path out of 
the current crisis.  
There is clearly a belief among some that the trading system is not addressing a number of issues 
in the global marketplace – issues which did not exis t in 1995. Therefore many are talking about 
the need to update the system – and some are using the word 'reform'.  
This has become a common theme in almost all of my exchanges with Members. Certainly I think 
we would all agree that the system needs to be m ore efficient, more effective and more responsive 
to today's challenges – which actually also includes some of "yesterday's" challenges that are left 
unaddressed.  
Leaders have been asking my opinion on what the priorities in this conversation should be. I tell 
them the kind of issues we face in Geneva, and the various tensions which have emerged in our 
discussions here and which in my view need to be resolved. Of co urse this includes resolving the 
current situation with the Appellate Body – and I'll come back to this shortly.  
No-one should be surprised if Members' visions of reform are very varied. After -all, reform is in the 
eye of the beholder. I think we know why  reform may be needed, but there are big question marks 
on what any reform process will involve and how and when it might proceed – if at all.  
People are already discussing some of these issues in different formats in Capitals and in Geneva. 
A range of con cepts and ideas have been formulated already – and it is positive that Members are 
working proactively here. As yet I don’t think anyone has the answers – we are still at a very early WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 53 - 
 
  stage. The discussions seem to still be at a very, very high level – in fact I think we are still in the 
stratosphere.  
So I suggest that Members should continue to reach out to other delegations to develop this 
discussion, if they want to do so. Talk and listen to each other. Of course any continuing 
conversation here must be  Member -driven, based on your desire to take it forward. And, as I 
indicated earlier, it must not crowd -out our other work. I've always said the system must be 
responsive to the challenges of the 21st century without brushing aside the existing issues.  
To the extent that this is something that Members want to pursue, I will stand ready to help. I will 
be talking to Members, listening to your views and trying to understand what solutions you want to 
see.  
Finally, I'd like to address the situation in the Ap pellate Body. Encouraging discussions have been 
taking place on this issue. But still we are not moving forward. I have heard nothing which would 
indicate that a breakthrough is in prospect. Time continues to pass, yet we are no closer to a 
solution. We mu st continue working, and continue talking. My instinct is that the way forward may 
go deeper than a relatively simple adjustment of procedures. Of course, this would require a 
deeper conversation. So I ask Members to engage here with renewed urgency.  
We ha ve to understand the full gravity of the situation. Failure to find a solution here could 
severely compromise the whole multilateral trading system. It would have knock -on effects across 
all of our work. One could argue that rules quickly lose their value if there is no functioning dispute 
settlement body to help enforce them. So, again, I call on all Members to play their part in 
resolving this impasse.  
We face some immense challenges today. But, in closing, I would just remind you that one sure 
antidote to the negative messages around us is success. If we can find solutions to these 
challenges and deliver on the initiatives that Members are pursuing, we will emerge from these 
crises stronger and more impactful than before.  
The successes that we have recor ded over recent years – against the odds – show that we can 
achieve remarkable things. So this should be the goal that keeps us motivated in the weeks and 
months ahead.  
With these words, I conclude my report.  
Reports by the Negotiating Group Chairs  
1. Negoti ating Group on Rules  
I would like to provide an update on the work of the Negotiating Group on Rules since my last 
report to the Heads of Delegation a nd Trade Negotiations Committee  in May.  
 
At that time, the Negotiating Group was just about to hold its f irst meeting cluster on the basis of 
the fisheries subsidies work programme that it had agreed for the period May through July. This 
week – yesterday, today and tomorrow – we are holding the last cluster of meetings under that 
work programme, and are in th e process of finalizing the fisheries subsidies work programme for 
September through December.  
 
The agreed programme of work for the May through July period has consisted of monthly three -to-
five-day meeting clusters, each comprising a mix of different ac tivities. These include a technical 
session at each cluster, generally involving a workshop with outside experts, along with 
information  – and experience -sharing among Members. In June, where the theme of the meeting 
cluster was subsidized fishing on overf ished stocks, we held a workshop on how fisheries resources 
are assessed, with presentations by experts from a number of fisheries organizations. Yesterday, 
we held a workshop on how determinations of illegal, unreported, and unregulated fishing, or IUU 
fishing, are made by different entities operating in different contexts, also with presentations by 
fisheries experts. Again, this is in keeping with the theme of the cluster, subsidies to IUU fishing.  
 
In addition to these purely technical activities, each meeting cluster since May has included 
thematic discussion of issues under negotiation, organized by main pillar or topic of the disciplines. 
These thematic discussions explore, in a conceptual rather than a textual way, the technical and WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 54 - 
 
  other issues that  have been raised in the proposals and other negotiating documents, and in prior 
discussions. The purpose is for delegations to develop a deeper and more granular understanding 
of their respective positions, and the reasons for their differences, on the ma ny issues that must 
be resolved for a result to be reached in the negotiations. This is with a view to setting the stage 
for a return to full negotiating mode.  
 
The other main activity at each cluster is cont inued streamlining of the Group' s negotiating t exts 
from the basic compilation document into the streamlined document. This work has proceeded 
smoothly, and should be completed soon after the summer break.  
 
As a complement to the activities of the Negotiating Group as such, at the request of the Group  
the Secretariat has produced a series of factual papers on a number of subjects. These are purely 
factual documents, compiling information from different sources. Members have indicated that 
these papers are very useful.  
 
While essentially all delegations cons ider that the Negotiating Group' s different activities since May 
have been useful as building blocks and confidence builders, there also is an increasing ly strong 
call for a return to "real"  negotiating work. And this implies a major shift in gears from what we 
are doing now, which in turn has required me to consult extensively with delegations about exactly 
how to take the work forward into its next phase, following the summer break.  
 
In this regard, many delegations have called for some s ort of less -than-plenary work, while others 
have emphasized the need to put text -based discussions back at the centre of our process. On this 
basis, I have circulated a draft proposed work programme for the period September through 
December, again with mon thly meeting clusters, extended to five days, and again with a mix of 
activities, including some work in structured brainstorming groups to which all delegations could 
provide inputs, with the aim being to generate fresh ideas that could help to bridge the  many gaps 
that we are facing. The meeting clusters also will include, as main elements, technical sessions, 
text-based discussions in open -ended small group format, and completion of streamlining. 
Delegations also have suggested additional topics for Secr etariat factual papers. I am hopeful that 
during our meetings this week the Negotiating Group will reach agreement on a work programme 
for September through December, along the lines that I have just described.  
 
As a further element of our activities, I i ntend to call a meeting at the Ambassador -plus-one level 
in September, during the week before our first meeting cluster of the fall, to brief Ambassadors on 
what we are doing in relation to fisheries subsidies, and to seek their support for all aspects of that 
process. This would be a first step in gradually engaging Ambassadors in our fisheries subsidies 
work, so that they will be fully informed and enabled at whatever point their more active 
engagement may be required.  
 
Finally, I would note that since I  assumed the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules, all of our 
activity has been focused on fisheries subsidies. That said, I am well aware that there are other 
elements in the rules agenda, and in this regard, on a number of occasions specific interest has 
been expressed in taking up work on trade remedies in the Negotiating Group. At whatever 
moment I receive a specific indication in that respect, whether through a new submission or other 
specific request, I will ensure that the necessary space is provi ded for the Negotiating Group to 
fully air any such issues and proposals.  
 
This concludes my report. I look forward to continuing to brief the Heads of Delegation and the 
Trade Negotiations Committee at future meetings of this sort.  
 
2. Committee on Agricult ure – Special Session  
I would like to make a brief report on the state of play in the agriculture negotiations.  
 
Since my last report to the informal meeting of the Trade Negotiation s Committee on 7 May, I held 
(i) several consultations in various formats,  (ii) two informal open -ended meetings of the 
Committee on Agriculture in Special Session on 24 May and more recently on 16 July and (iii) a 
Dedicated Discussion on trade -related developments for cotton on 19 June. The 16 July CoA SS 
meeting was followed b y the two dedicated sessions on PSH and SSM.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 55 - 
 
  My reports to the CoA SS meetings were circulated in two sets of documents JOB/AG/136 dated 24 
May and JOB/AG/140 dated 20 July. I also held a series of consultations with Members and group 
coordinators and was  invited to participate in the activities of some groups.  
 
My key take -aways before the summer recess can be summarized as follows:  
 
The importance of agriculture reforms and the centrality of agriculture in the WTO negotiations 
was emphasised by almost al l Members, who said essentially that disciplines are needed to 
prevent those subsidies that distort agricultural trade.  
 
Members engage d actively in the discussions. This engagement was reflected in the number of 
submissions put forward in advance of the m eeting on 16 July and I was very encouraged by the 
intensity and the quality of the subsequent exchange of views amongst Members.  
 
Transparency was considered crucial and emphasised by many Members. It was thought that 
adequate and up -to-date information,  including thorough up -to-date notifications, complemented 
by adequate analysis and impact studies were necessary to enhance the understanding of issues 
on the table and to inform the discussions.  
 
Several Members considered that it would be advisable to ensure sufficient time for preliminary 
technical work amongst experts to discuss and analyse data. However, some Members emphasized 
that this should not be done at the expense of the negotiations.  
 
Several Members considered that the June symposium organized by the Secretariat had been very 
successful due in part to the participation of external experts. It was noted by some Members that 
it would be useful to continue to have access to the views, opi nions and analysis of external 
experts as inputs into the negotiations.  
 
Several Members stressed that the agriculture negotiations should be approached in the broader 
context of the UN sustainable development goals, including those relating to "No povert y" or "zero 
hunger", while some noted such an approach should not be given precedence over WTO's own 
objectives, mandates and agreements.  
 
On substance, Domestic Support remains the priority issue for most Members and the centre piece 
of the agriculture ne gotiations, but views differ on how this topic should be approached. There 
were many requests for more information and data to enable Members to focus on the real issues 
in the Domestic Support negotiations. The divide here evolves around issues such as (a) potential 
for and level of AMS reductions; b) the treatment of other types of trade distorting support; and 
(c) linkages to other areas such as Market Access and Public Stockholding  
 
Cotton is also an area of prime interest for many delegations. It was i dentified as a high priority by 
the C -4 and several other delegations. There was also broad agreement on the need for updated 
information and data to inform the cotton negotiations. The divide here was mainly around (a) 
whether there can be a stand -alone o utcome on cotton Domestic Support and (b) the type of 
approach to address trade distorting support for cotton.  
 
With respect to PSH, many Members stated that it was a priority issue for them and should be 
addressed expeditiously given that the MC11 deadlin e had not been respected. The key divide here 
evolves around: (a) linkages between this issue and other issues and (b) the willingness of 
different Members to get into substantive discussions. Whereas some Members called for a 
standalone outcome, others st ated that progress on this issue would only be possible if 
corresponding progress was made on domestic support generally. A few Members cast doubts on 
the possibility of reviving the debates surrounding the Public Stockholding issue.   
 
Regarding Market Ac cess, the discussions seemed to reveal an emerging willingness within the 
Membership to explore engagement on the relevant issues related to Market Access. Some 
Members believed that the inclusion of market access in the negotiations would provide the 
necessary balance to the negotiating basket. It was suggested to focus on specific issues, like tariff 
peaks, tariff escalation, special agricultural safeguard or reducing tariff overhang with a view to 
achieving incremental outcomes. The divide here revolves around: (i) the appetite to engage and 
progress in agricultural market access prior to making progress in the domestic support pillar; (ii) 
linkage with negotiations in NAMA and trade in services. Some also believe that the proliferation of WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 56 - 
 
  regional trade agreements doesn't facilitate Members' engagement in multilateral market access 
negotiations.  
 
With respect to the creation of a Special Safeguard Mechanism for developing countries, which is 
also considered to be a priority issue by some Members, the key to making progress continues to 
depend on Members' overcoming the fundamental divide on the issue of linkage between SSM and 
broader market access reforms. In the absence of parallel improvement in market access, an SSM 
is seen by some Members as compromis ing the fundamental principle of WTO tariff bindings by 
way of regressing on the existing market access commitments; this perception has constrained a 
serious engagement among Members on this topic.  
 
Export Competitio n is still being considered as "unfinis hed business"  by some Members, in the 
areas of export finance, international Food Aid and STEs.  
 
Export Restrictions was again highlighted as a possible deliverable by several Members while some 
Members reiterated their concerns, notably in relation to any  additional compulsory transparency 
requirements such as the advance period for notification.  
 
Finally, the divide remains with regards to how SDT should be addressed and also when it should 
be addressed in the agricultural negotiation  
 
Views also remain apart on how the negotiations should proceed, whether different issues should 
be taken up simultaneously or sequentially, which issues should be addressed as a matter of 
priority and which issues should or should not be linked within and outside agricultur e. While 
several Members consider that progress can only be envisaged through incremental steps, views 
differ on how this could be achieved in practice.  
 
While all Members recognize the need for more flexibility, it is my reading that this recognition has  
not translated sufficiently on substance. It is also recognized that the current political and policy -
making environment may be limiting the room for manoeuvre.  
 
Nevertheless, several Members highlighted the increasing urgency to restore the credibility o f the 
WTO insofar as it is the principal international trade negotiations forum. In that regard, there were 
several calls for Members to redouble their efforts and find solutions to the challenges being faced 
in the negotiations.  
 
I committed in my last re port to you in May:  
• To engage much more interactively;  
• To engage sooner rather than later;  
• and to provide, share, try to understand and use information in ways that help to forge a 
consensus.  
 
I will continue to uphold this commitment and urge Members to  be proactive, innovative and 
flexible and to engage with each other in a constructive manner.  
 
After the summer break, my intention is to hold more issues -specific agriculture negotiation 
meetings on a monthly basis alongside continued consultations in se veral formats.  
 
I will send to Members over the coming days a schedule to guide work after the summer break, in 
order to give Members the necessary time to prepare their submissions.  
 
This ends my report.  
 
3. Committee on Services – Special Session  
First, on  Domestic Regulation, let me briefly note that the Working Party on Domestic Regulation 
has not yet met this year.  However, a group of Members has continued to hold open -ended 
meetings to work on the text of disciplines, and said that they would report to  the WPDR in the 
future.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 57 - 
 
  I convened an informal meeting of the Special Session of the Coun cil for Trade in Services on 
16 July. The purpose of that meeting was to discuss a recent communication proposing exploratory 
discussions on market access in the context of the mandate under GATS Article XIX.  
 
The communication proposed that delegations engage in an exchange of views on their current 
interests, priorities and aspirations, without prejudice to whether, how or when  Members may wish 
to negotiate.  The co-sponsors of the communication envisaged a process that would be paced over 
a few meetings of the CTS SS in 2018 and 2019, with each meeting focusing on a few modes or 
sectors at a time.  
 
Different views were expressed during our meeting.  Discussions sh owed that a number of 
delegations had appetite to pursue structured discussions in the context of  Article XIX on market 
access. Some of those delegations expressed strong interest, and others showed openness and 
readiness to engage, while being realistic. At the same time, a number of other delegations had 
less interest or expressed reservations because, for example, of concerns about export potential, 
lack of progress in other negotiating areas, or capacity constraints.  
 
As I indicated at the conclusion of  the meeting, I think that, even if some Members voiced 
concerns, the Special Session should still be able to hear from Members that wanted t o 
communicate their interests. What was proposed were basically discussions under the Special 
Session's standing ag enda item, but with more of a focus and structure. Nobody was asking 
anybody to take any particula r actions in the negotiations. In that context, I indicated that I was 
willing to facilitate focused discussions in future meetings of the Special Session.  
 
From what I understood from interventions, a number of princip les may guide these exchanges. 
First, discussions should be exploratory and incremental in nature so as not to put an excessive 
burden on de legations.  Second, discussions should also be construc tive and forward looking, and 
avoid targeting any specific Member and making linkages t o other areas of negotiations. Third, 
Members expressing interests should highlight possible benefits from a development standpoint.  
 
That said, I recognized that further reflection would be required on how disc ussions might best 
take place. I therefore invited delegations that had ideas or views on the structure of the 
discussions to relay those to me by seeking bilateral  or small group consultations. That would 
allow me to seek as much convergence as possible on those  aspects in the coming months.  
 
4. Negotiating Group on Market Access2 
My last report to the TNC was made on 7 May 2018.  The report was subsequently ci rculated in 
document TN/MA/32.  
 
It won't come as a s urprise to anyone when I report that since that date th e situation remains 
unchanged.  There has been no mov ement in the Negotiating Group.  In fact, neither has the 
Negotiating Group met nor have I held any consultations this year for the simple reason that  no 
paper or proposal has been presented to the NGMA since the start of the year.  
 
You will recall that there was one proposal concerning Transparency in Regulatory Measures for 
Trade in Goods which was submitted in 2 017. I did not pursue consultations on  this proposal 
because the proponents themselves had advised me early this year of their intention to pursue this 
proposal in other fora.   
 
The current state of affairs is not satisfactory but neither is it entirely unexpected given the 
broader contextual  situation.    
 
In the event that written contributions are made in NAMA, I would be more than happy to convene 
a meeting of the Negotiating Group in order to discuss them.   
 
With that I conclude my report.  
 
 
 
                                                
2 Also issued as TN/MA/33 . WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 58 - 
 
  5. Council for TRIPS – Special Session  
As you kn ow, there has been very little activity in this negotiating group for some time now. At the 
last formal meeting of the TRIPS Special Session in October 2017, the demandeurs had reiterated 
their commitment to the GI Register negotiations, and to keeping the  TRIPS issues on the table in 
the WTO after MC11, but this did not result into any specific initiative or declaration at Buenos 
Aires. In May this year, I therefore reported to the Informal HoDs meeting that I detected no 
appetite among Members to resume a ctivities in the context of the TRIPS Special Session.  
 
Since then I have kept in informal contact with delegations, and held a small group consultation 
with the most active members of the Joint Proposal Group and the supports of the W/52 modalities 
paper  on 13 July, to seek their views on how to proceed our work. At these consultations I pointed 
out that this lack of activity in the TRIPS Special Session stands in stark contrast with considerable 
activity on GIs in Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements which create multiple new protection 
regimes for GIs, and to the active development of domestic systems of GI protection in numerous 
WTO Members. The TRIPS obligations regarding GI protection also remain a popular topic for 
which Members request technical assistance from the WTO Secretariat. Unfortunately this outside 
momentum has not translated into increased initiative in this negotiating group, which has not 
engaged in the substance of its mandated work on a GI Register for wine and spirit GIs since 
several years now.  
 
I suggested that delegations reflect on whether a discussion of the recent developments in 
bilateral trade agreements and domestic GI protection systems could be relevant or useful for the 
work in the TRIPS Special Session. Given the pace of these developments, such a discussion might 
cast a new light on some of the negotiating positions, which date from around 2008.  
 
In response, delegations supporting the W/52 modalities proposal reiterated the importance they 
attached to the TRIPS issues  and pointed to recent side events on TRIPS questions as reflecting 
Members’ interest in these questions. They confirmed their view that the WTO was the right forum 
to discuss these questions. While the current difficult negotiating context was, in their v iew, not 
conducive to engaging substantively at this time, they continued to reflect on these issues and 
would return after the summer to re -assess the situation.  
 
The delegations supporting the Joint Proposal reiterated the need to respect the mandate and 
declared themselves open to consider proposals to negotiate a register for wine a spirit GIs. One 
delegation argued that the longstanding divergence of views meant there was little likelihood that 
convergence could be achieved, and was therefore oppose d to any intensification of work in any of 
the negotiating groups.  
 
In light of the above it is my assessment that the situation in the TRIPS Special Session remains 
unchanged – with little appetite for substantive engagement on either side of the debate.  
 
Going forward, I will stay in contact with delegations and remain available to help progress these 
negotiations whenever delegations return to the table. I will call consultations again after the 
summer break to see whether there has been any improvement.   
 
This concl udes my intervention for today.  
 
6. Committee on Development – Special Session  
Members will recall that at the last informal TNC/HODs meeting held in May I presented a detailed 
report on the consultations that I had undertaken early this year.  I had said that I intended to 
begin another round of consultations in variable geometry that would focus on some of the points 
highlighted in my report, and that in my v iew needed further exploration.  Accordingly, on 16 May I 
sent a fax to Members announcing  my intention to hold a second round of consultations from early 
June.   
 
In the fax, I posed four questions that I thought would be useful to guide the consultations and to 
build on the issues and ideas that had emerged in my earlier consultations in Apri l. 
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 59 - 
 
  Fifty-eight Members conveyed that they would attend the consultations, of which 45 eventually 
participated.  I met these Members in three different groups in variable geometry on 4, 6 and 
8 June 2018.  
  
Even though some delegations responded directly t o each of the posed questions, most of the 
discussions were  free-flowing and interactive. Most delegations were open to any suggestions and 
new ways that could help  unlock the current stalemate. Discussions centred primarily around the 
case-by-case and cas e study approaches. Some delegations that had already expressed a strong 
objection to such approaches seemed, nonetheless, prepared to listen.  
 
I will be circulating a detailed report of my take -aways from these consultations. However, as it is 
about three  thousand words and 5 pages long, for the purposes of my oral report today I will only 
highlight a few points from it.   
 
There were some very strong reactions against the CTD  SS discussing differentiation, including 
towards case -by-case approaches to special and differential treatment  
 
On the issue of a broader discussion on trade and development, and whether trade rules are good 
or bad for development, views continued to be m ixed as to whether su ch a discussion was 
necessary. If such a discussion was to be held, views differe d as to the appropriate forum. The 
predominant view was that the CTD  SS was not an appropriate forum and its work should remain 
focused on concrete outcom es as spelled out in its mandate derived from paragraph 44 of the 
Doha Declaration.   
 
With regard to the suggestion for a case study methodology of work towards the G90’s proposals, 
regardless of where delegations stand, there seemed to be a general willi ngness to explore further, 
in a non -prejudicial way, the feasibility of such a methodology.  
 
In the June round of consultations, a new idea was suggested, namely, to choose one or two of the 
G90’s proposals to test the feasibili ty of a case study methodology.  It was also recognised that 
different proposals might require different approaches for case studies.   
 
Building on this new idea, there were further suggestions that the one or two proposals chosen to 
test the feasibility of a case study meth odology could be those that were more likely to have 
outcome by MC12 as it would help to build trust by delivering something concrete.   
 
It was stressed that whichever one or two proposals were chosen, it was important that the G90 
was alright with it.   
 
It was also very important that all Members, and not just the G90, engage constructively in 
exploring the fe asibility of this methodology. Coming up with the appropriate case studies should 
not be so b urdensome as to be impossible. The burden for building  them should not fall solely on 
those who might be the subject of the studies. It was suggested that assistance for building the 
case studies could come from other Members, the Secretariat, academics or consultants.   
 
Conclusion  
 
I believe that we are sta rting to have a different conversation that is worth pursuing further. The 
degree of engagement was good, and most Members seemed to be in a problem -solving mode. 
For example, the suggestion for a case study methodology was made in the spirit of trying to find 
ways for moving for ward and elevate discussion.  Regardless of where Members stand, most are 
prepared, on a non -prejudicial basis, to consider the feasibility of case study methodology to 
examine the issues of concern raised in the G90's proposals.   
 
Nevertheless, we are still at the level of generaliti es and in an exploratory mode. Some delegations 
were concerned about investing a lot of effort and time into considering new approaches, including 
the case study approach, only to conclud e that it was no t practicable. However, it was also pointed 
out that the situation at hand was between finding new ways forward to re -engage on substance, 
or continued disengagement on substant ive discussions in the CTD SS. The need  for good faith 
was essential.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 60 - 
 
  My view remains that the G90 proposals tabled in 2017 merit a fresh look in their substance. It is 
only when we have an open -minded and deeper appreciation of what the substantive concerns 
are, that we may arrive at informed views as to t he possible solutions to t hem. The G90's 2017 
proposals had attempted to take into consideration the observations that had been made by 
Members on their proposals in the 2015 process. There was very little time to discuss the technical 
and substantive elements of the proposals in t he run up to MC11, although lack of time was not 
the only factor contributing to the lack of engagement on the substance of the G90’s proposals in 
2017.  Here, I would like to recall that during the June consultations, one Member had said there 
was a mispe rception that all ten of the G90’s proposals were about seeking additional policy space 
or exemptions from obligations.  On the  contrary, only three proposals  pertained to policy space.  
 
Of course, the new approaches being proposed would still need to be ex plored deeper, but I have 
sensed a change in the disposition of Members to discuss and engage after MC11.  
 
It is also clear that if we do not address the broader trade and development issues it will be very 
difficu lt to get any results at MC12. Hence, whet her or not they would be dealt with in the CTDSS, 
such discussions should start soon.   
 
As for the way forward, I will continue my consultations with Members in various configurations 
and formats to narrow our focus and define our work methods for the CTD  SS.  
 
This concludes my oral report.  As mentioned earlier, a more detailed written report3 will be 
circulated to the membership shortly.  
 
7. Committee on Environment – Special Session  
Last May, I held a round of bilateral consultations with interested delega tions to hear their views 
on how they see the work of the CTE  SS post -Buenos Aires. In this context, I wish to note that 
eight delegations reached out to me. As in previous occasions, during the consultations, 
delegations reiterated the importance of envir onmental issues and of discussing trade and 
environment issues in the WTO. However, no new idea to revive the discussions in the CTE  SS was 
suggested. One comment that I would like to share with you as I sense that it is shared by several 
delegations, is t hat the existing mandate of the CTE  SS could be modernized to accommodate the 
reality of today's world.  
 
8. Dispute Settlement Body – Special Session  
 
• Ongoing work  
 
On 12 July, the DSB SS completed focused work on a further issue, Timeframes. This issue is 
about a series of proposals by Australia and the Africa and Like -Minded Groups concerning time -
savings at various stages of dispute settlement and related S&D aspects. I circulated a C hair's Text 
on this issue under my own responsibility on 5 July 2018. With this issue, we have completed work 
on seven issues.  
 
• Upcoming work  
 
After the summer break, we will begin work on a new issue – Remand.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  
                                                
3 The CTD Chair's written report was circulated in TN/CTD/34 . WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 61 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS AT THE INFOR MAL TNC AND INFORMAL H ODs MEETING HELD 
ON 24 JUL Y 2018  
Following the Director -General's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements made 
by Republic of Korea; Panama (Article XII Members); South Africa (African Group); Cana da; 
Malawi (ACP); Australia (Joint  Statement  Initiative on E -Commerce); European Union; Colombia 
(Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development ); Costa Rica; China; Chad 
(LDCs); India; Uruguay ( Informal Working Group on MSMEs); United S tates; Indonesia (G -33); 
Brazil; Pakistan; Argentina; New Zealand; Chile; Zimbabwe; Russian Federation; Switzerland; 
Egypt; Norway; Turkey; Bangladesh; Hong Kong, China; Sri Lanka; Ecuador; Peru; Singapore; 
Paraguay; Nepal; Trinidad and Tobago; Qatar; Keny a; Mexico; Thailand; Vanuatu (Pacific Group); 
Japan; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Dominica (OECS); Benin (C -4) and Cuba  are included 
below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
1. Republic of Korea  
 
My delegation thanks  the Director -General for convening this meeting and sharing his assessment 
on the current situation.  
 
Since this is my first intervention in the TNC meeting, I would like to begin the statement by 
sharing my personal impression that I have got since I arr ived here in Geneva.  
 
As I expected, there are many meetings in the WTO. Some of them seem to be just repetition of 
conventional positions of each Member or not that related to substantive discussions. But in a 
large number of meetings Members are making h uge efforts to deal with substantive issues and 
are thus taking meaningful steps towards progress.  
 
The negotiations on fisheries subsidies are a good example. Active discussions are ongoing, 
including the meetings taking place this week. Korea welcomes t he Chair's revised draft work 
programme. We will continue to do our best for achieving meaningful outcomes for the UN SDG 
14.6.  
 
E-commerce is another important area where a large number of Members are actively participating 
in the discussions under the Jo int Statement Initiative. Recently, members identified and discussed 
lists of substantive areas and will intensify their work after the summer break. Most importantly, 
the whole process has been open, transparent and inclusive, which will continue to be th e case. 
Korea believes that our work under the Joint Statement Initiative will help facilitate discussions on 
e-commerce in the regular bodies, which we are also ready to engage in. Korea will ensure its 
contributions remain open and constructive in advanc ing e-commerce in the WTO.  
 
Next, agriculture. Korea very much appreciates the CoA -SS Chair's leadership. We will continue to 
engage in discussions with open mind to achieve balanced outcomes. And, we associate ourselves 
with the statement to be made by I ndonesia on behalf of G -33. 
 
Despite these efforts, it is prevalent observation that the WTO is becoming somewhat 
dysfunctional as an international trade regime. Since its inception in 1995, despite nearly two -
decades of discussions and negotiations, the T rade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) is its only 
multilateral achievement. In this context, we are witnessing active conversations and various ideas 
being presented on potential WTO reforms through various channels. Korea welcomes all efforts 
for making the W TO more relevant and effective. My delegation agrees that our system needs to 
adapt to the global changes that we face today.  
 
However, it seems that each Member has a different diagnosis for the current systemic issues and 
consequently a different prescri ption for the reforms. We are afraid that this could lead us to 
another Geneva -based controversial negotiation that drifts nowhere without contributing any 
meaningful solutions to the current systemic crisis. What we need right now is a balanced, realistic  
and pragmatic approach. We should all focus on the most urgent and critical issues first, and then 
move on to other reform agenda. As one of the strongest supporters of the Multilateral Trading WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 62 - 
 
  System (MTS), an indispensable public good, Korea is now read y to fully participate in all 
discussions regarding the reform of the WTO.  
 
As my delegation mentioned at the previous TNC meeting in May, I would like to urge all Members 
to start the selection process of a new member of the Appellate Body without further  delay. The 
prolonged vacancy in the Appellate Body is seriously detrimental to the core function of the WTO 
and is the most urgent problem that needs to be addressed.  
 
Before concluding my statement, I would like to urge all Members to refrain from adopt ing new 
trade restrictive measures, given the potential for a spiral effect leading to misuse and abuse. My 
delegation touched upon this issue at the last TNC meeting, but it appears that the situation is 
getting worse.  
 
In particular, we are concerned about a high risk of escalation resulting from trade tensions 
between major Members. This could harm not only those directly engaged in the measures but 
also other related numerous Members in the global value chains. The costs of the trade wars could 
be mu ch higher if we take into account the uncertainty and instability in the market created by 
such trade tensions.  
 
Here, I would like to raise one question for all to ponder: Is the current crisis a temporary 
deviation from the right track or is it the begin ning of a long -term transformation or permanent 
shift away from our current system? The future steps we need to take will vary according to our 
answers.  
 
2. Panama (Article XII Members)  
 
The Group of Article XII Members thanks the Chairman for convening this meeting. I am speaking 
on behalf of the Group of Article XII Members.  
 
Two months have passed since our last TNC meeting. Since then, our Group has met in several 
occasions for technical meetings amongst ourselves and with the Secretariat. We held dialogu es 
and bilateral meetings with other Groups and Members to discuss the state of play in the 
negotiations, various proposals and the way forward. Our Group continues to believe dialogue, the 
exchange of ideas and information, is essential if we want to achi eve concrete results for MC12.  
 
The Group of Article XII Members are open to the idea of working in an array of subjects that 
require our attention before, during and after the next Ministerial meeting. However, in this spirit, 
we would like to remind Mem bers that during our accessions, the Article XII Members made 
extensive commitments in Agriculture, Goods, Market Access and Services significantly greater 
than those of the original WTO Members. We expect any result to close the gaps.  
 
To be more specific , in Agriculture in domestic support, there are various developing Members in 
our Group that have their de minimis levels below the 10% enjoyed by original Members. 
Additionally, half of the Group do not have AMS entitlements unlike many of the larger orig inal 
Members. The disparity in Agriculture Market Access is even more striking. The average agriculture 
bound tariff of the original Members of 60% is almost four times higher than that of the Article XII 
Members at 16%.  
 
In terms of NAMA, this trend pers ists. The average goods bound tariff of all original Members 
stands at 34% while those of the Article XII Members is at a third of that at 13%, even the highest 
average goods bound rate of all Article XII Members is at least 12% below that of the original 
Members. In terms of bound coverage of all Article XII Members, one Article XII Member has 
99.9% binding coverage and the rest of the Group has 100% coverage. This is not the case for 
many of the original Members whose binding coverage average is 74.5%, wi th only 37 of the 
original Members having 100% coverage.  
 
In Services, Article XII Members have subscribed on average 107 commitments whereas the 
average original Members subscribed 42 commitments, the average of non -Article XII Developing 
Members 44 and the non -Article XII developed Members still below our participation with 94. In 
terms of all the subsectors in Services, Article XII Members have made more commitments in 
virtually every subsector.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 63 - 
 
  No matter how you interpret the data the evidence is cle ar: Article XII Members have made larger 
and more extensive Commitments than the original Members.  
 
Consequently, we would like to see future negotiations result in a balancing of rights and 
commitments, access and concessions amongst all Members. The mult ilateral trading system will 
become stronger if all Members work towards a level playing field. This can only be achieved 
through the promotion of dialogue, inclusiveness and the sharing of information. The Group of 
Article XII Members is very diverse in o ur geography, economies, and specific negotiating 
priorities, but we reaffirm our commitment to work towards fairer and more balanced trade.  
 
I take this opportunity to reiterate our Group's commitment to a successful outcome in the 
ongoing negotiations.  
 
3. Panama  
 
Panama would like to thank the Chairman and the Chairs of Negotiating Bodies for each of their 
reports today. The Chairman's efforts and those of the Chairs of Negotiating Bodies, together with 
those of all the Members that participate actively and constructively in the negotiations, are critical 
if we are to have a revitalized, effective, reliable and legitimate multilateral system that can stand 
up to those who think that the multilateral trading system is becoming irrelevant.  
 
We align ourselv es with the statement we have just read on behalf of the Article XII Members. 
Beyond that, Panama is ready to achieve, and committed to achieving, extensive progress in the 
services and agriculture sectors under the integrated agenda, as well as on other i ssues, such as 
fisheries, electronic commerce, MSMEs, investment facilitation for development and women's 
empowerment in trade.  
 
Together with five other Latin American countries, we have worked intensively on an equitable, 
effective and transparent propos al to establish disciplines on fisheries subsidies with a view to 
fulfilling the mandate given to us by our Ministers at the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. 
We remain committed to this effort and we will seek constructive ways to move the work forw ard. 
 
Progress in the negotiations on agriculture is of the utmost importance. In addition to adopting 
new disciplines, it is important for Members to work on the ground with existing disciplines. We 
feel that notifications and transparency in this sector are a high priority. We are pleased to confirm 
that we are up to date with these commitments. Panama eliminated its export subsidies in 2004 
and, as agreed by our Ministers at the Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, we hope that Members 
who have not yet don e so will also follow through.  
 
The negotiations on agricultural market access must be resumed as soon as possible in order to 
level out disparities in Members' policies. Like other Article XII Members, Panama supports the 
taking on of new commitments by M embers with very flexible policies so as to achieve more open 
and balanced trade.  
 
Liberalization of trade in services is a priority for Panama, in terms of both access and rules. The 
negotiations on services are a neglected part of the built -in agenda of the WTO Agreements. It is 
for this reason and in accordance with the mandate contained in Article XIX of the General 
Agreement on Trade in Services that Panama, together with Chile, Mexico and New Zealand, has 
co-sponsored the proposal on exploratory discu ssions on market access. We seek an organized 
mechanism that allows Members to exchange information and views on their interests and identify 
sectors where they can increase their participation, improve their competitiveness and bring about 
a greater integ ration of developing countries in global and regional services value chains.  
 
We also wish to highlight the importance of other efforts that seek to promote Members' 
development, such as the Informal Working Group on MSMEs, the informal group on investment  
facilitation for development, and women's economic empowerment. Of special importance for all 
Members is the work being done in connection with the joint initiative on electronic commerce, 
which will no doubt contribute to the resumption of substantial di scussions on this issue in the 
various bodies of the WTO.  
 
We hope to be able to see greater progress in the negotiations beginning immediately after the 
summer, and we remain ready to contribute substantively and constructively.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 64 - 
 
  4. South Africa (African Grou p) 
 
I deliver this statement on behalf of the African Group. The African Group thanks the Director -
General for his report and assessment on the state of affairs in our Organization. We also thank 
the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their updates. The African Group consisting of 44 
Members continues to work to strengthen our common positions as we engage in these processes.  
 
On 8 and 9 July, the African Group held a two -day Retreat to discuss WTO issues. We had the 
benefit of the presence of the Africa n Union Trade Commissioner, H.E. Ambassador Albert 
Muchanga, who gave a comprehensive update on the Continental FTA negotiations and the report 
we got was encouraging. His core message is that Africa remains committed to multilateralism and 
went on to dire ct us to ensure the work we do in the WTO does not undermine Africa's integration 
and industrialization objectives.  
 
I would summarize the outcomes of the Retreat as follows: The African Group reaffirmed the 
developmental objectives embedded in the Doha M andate as well as the principles of full 
participation, transparency, inclusive processes and consensus -based, Member -driven negotiations 
and decisions.  
 
We reaffirmed our commitment to developmental outcomes in agriculture, notably with respect to 
domesti c support, public stockholding and cotton as proposed by the C -4. We recommitted to our 
common objectives in fisheries subsidies on the understanding that flexibility and S&D is required 
to address our capacity constraints and to build our fishing industri al capabilities into the future. In 
this respect, the African Group will not agree to any proposals disadvantaging any of its Members 
through a change to the negotiating mandate.  
 
We reaffirmed the centrality of Development as set out in the Marrakesh Agre ement, and the 
existing architecture and rights under special and differential treatment. The Retreat 
recommended that the African Group, as part of the G -90, continue to pursue the S&D proposals 
as mandated, and to consider refining those proposals within  the existing mandate.  
 
The African Group expressed solidarity with countries in accession, particularly African countries. 
We strongly urge Members to desist from seeking commitments that are inconsistent with the 
levels of development and regulatory capacity of acceding countries, and we urge the Secretariat 
and relevant organizations to continue to provide technical assistance prior to, during and in the 
follow -up to accession.  
 
We discussed the Joint Statements and the processes that followed. While  we agree that the 
matters under consideration are important, we continue to disagree that multilateral rule making is 
the way to address the challenges that they pose. We observed that it is still unclear whether 
participants would reach agreement amongst  themselves and, even if they do, whether and how 
they would try to bring them under the cover of the DSU. We underscored that decision -making in 
the WTO is by consensus.  
 
Unavoidably, we discussed the ongoing escalation of trade measures that undermine t he stability 
of the WTO and concern was expressed at the collateral damage inflicted on African economies. 
We are concerned that the MFN principle is being undermined and we discussed the ramifications 
of the ongoing impasse in the Appellate Body. On all t hese matters we called for more constructive 
dialogue in a search for multilateral solutions. The Group again reaffirmed its support for the 
reappointment of Ambassador Servansing to the Appellate Body in due course.  
 
Let me close by saying that we did not  have the opportunity to engage directly on recent calls for 
WTO reform. Nevertheless, many of the issues we did discuss have a direct bearing on those 
conversations. When we talk of WTO reform, the key questions will be: What is its direction? Will 
the re form support our developmental objectives or close off more policy space for development? 
Will it encourage or diminish the voice of smaller players in the system in favour of a critical mass? 
Would the reform take up our common responsibility to address w hat is the major concern today – 
growing inequality across the globe?  
 
5. Canada  
 
Canada thanks the Director -General.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 65 - 
 
   
We have entered a particularly challenging time for global trade and the multilateral trading 
system.  
 
Canada is profoundly disappointed a nd concerned with the recent protectionist measures taken 
against imports of steel and aluminium, and investigations into automobiles and automotive parts, 
in the name of national security. There is no linkage between imports of these products and 
national  security and to claim so is an abuse of the national security exception.  
 
The current escalation of trade tensions, which are unprecedented, should remind us of the value 
of the rules -based multilateral system and how well it has served us since the GATT  was 
established.  
 
However, the WTO is not perfect. We have all acknowledged that there are challenges within the 
system even if we might disagree on what those are and that these merit our attention. We have 
to ask ourselves whether the WTO remains "fit for purpose".  
 
For this reason, the Government of Canada intends to convene a small group of like -minded 
Ministers committed to the multilateral trading system with the objective of identifying concrete 
and tangible ways the operation and functioning of t he WTO could be enhanced and improved over 
the short, medium and long terms. An initial meeting this fall is intended to be a discussion 
starter, or a catalyst, for a broadening conversation, with a view to identifying potential paths 
forward by MC12.  
 
While we examine broader questions, Canada remains committed to advancing the WTO's 
negotiating agenda. By addressing core issues in agriculture and fisheries subsides, as well as in 
other areas such as e -commerce, we will ensure that the WTO's trade rules r emain relevant and 
useful for trade in a globalized and interconnected economy.   
 
In this respect, Canada made a substantive contribution to agriculture negotiations by recent 
tabling an analytical paper, together with some Cairns Group members. The objec tive is to start a 
meaningful discussion on developing new domestic support disciplines that reflect the current 
trade realities and trends in how Members support their agriculture sector. We encourage Members 
to engage in technical discussions to advance our discussions on domestic support, which remains 
a priority for Canada and the large majority of the WTO Membership.  
 
Despite 16 years of talks, WTO Members have yet to agree on disciplines on fisheries subsidies. 
We must follow through on the renewed mandate given by Ministers at MC11. To be successful, we 
will necessarily need to be innovative and flexible, explore new approaches and creative ideas, and 
provide political impetus through regular Ambassadorial involvement and other senior officials as 
appropriate. We know that past efforts have not delivered and we must chart a different course if 
we are to meet the 2020 deadline for SDG 14.6.  
 
We are pleased by the progress made to date on the joint statement initiatives launched at MC11 
on e-commerce, services domestic regulation, investment facilitation, MSMEs, and women's 
economic empowerment. The initiatives are important in ensuring our trade policies are not only 
relevant to today's global economy, but deliver inclusive results for all of our stake holders. I would 
like to commend Moldova for holding a successful second seminar in support of the Joint 
Declaration on Women and Trade.  
 
The momentum on e -commerce is particularly encouraging. Canada recently tabled a paper on 
market access to generate d iscussion as to whether negotiations in this area are worthwhile.  
 
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not reiterate Canada's concerns with the United States blocking 
the Appellate Body selection process.  
 
6. Malawi (ACP)  
 
Malawi takes the floor to make a st atement on behalf of the ACP Group and we would like to 
request that it be recorded for the relevant item on the July General Council Agenda.    
 
First and foremost, let me thank the Chairman for his report and able leadership. We also thank WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 66 - 
 
  the other resp ective Chairs for their Reports and take note of them. The ACP has participated in 
many consultations and negotiating groups with specific ideas and contributions to the 
deliberations.  
 
It is worth mentioning at the onset that while ACP's aggregate share of world trade is about 10%, 
the Group consists of predominantly LDCs and small, vulnerable states, comprising 62 of the 164 
Members of the WTO, with other members still in the process of accession. As we approach the 
next phase of the year after the summe r break, we are committed to engage constructively as per 
the mandates that guide the WTO and consistent with the embedded principles of the institution 
that take into account the development needs and capacity constraints of our members. Our 
members are a lso harnessing regional integration initiatives that aim to transform into new 
opportunities in the coming years.  
 
On the multilateral platform, we achieved gains over the years where the ACP Group has found 
common ground to play a central role in contribu ting ideas, building consensus, or being part of 
the consensus. The Director -General himself took good note of our role in moving forward the 
Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) negotiations to Bali. One of my predecessors as coordinator of 
the ACP Group, A mbassador Kakonge of Kenya, took the lead in 2014 together with the Director -
General to design and establish the TFAF.    
 
We also spearheaded the advancement of the fisheries subsidies disciplines negotiations from the 
perspective of development and food security of our small -scale, subsistence and artisanal fisher 
folk, and that our rights and obligations under existing fisheries regimes are not compromised as 
we undertake to fulfil the DDA mandate for fisheries talks and SDG 14.6. The ACP Group has 
proac tively submitted proposals in agriculture, fisheries, and with the G -90, the Doha Declaration 
paragraph 44 mandate on special and differential treatment. Our Members seek to ensure that 
results from the S&D mandate complements the respective national trade  policies of the member 
states. This approach is aimed at improving export performance by facilitating, inter alia , 
enhanced competitiveness, increased productivity, innovation, exports diversification, policy 
resilience, and integration into global value chains.  
 
We therefore reiterate our concerns about our negotiating interests in agriculture, Development 
including the G -90 S&DT proposals and fisheries, as well as our concerns about unilateral actions 
and the way the institution should be operating.    
 
It is critical going forward that the transparent, representative, inclusive, and consensus -based 
foundation of our process in negotiations and deliberations is maintained, grounded in the 
structure of the multilateral framework.  
 
Moreover, we must stress again that the escalation of trade tensions among major Members has 
direct and spill -over impact on our members. You must have heard of the African proverb that 
when elephants fight, it's the grass that suffers. Further to that, flagrant resort to unilater alism 
and protectionism as a first option is inconsistent with the foundation of the GATT and the WTO 
rules. While some of the institutions within the WTO such as the DSB reform process must 
accelerate, the process should not be driven to a halt or become entirely dysfunctional.   
 
We applaud the recent activity in the CoA SS that reflects the enthusiasm of many Members, both 
developed and developing, to continue to contribute ideas to move forward the agriculture 
negotiations. Despite the many divergences, we remain committed to eng age in the negotiations. 
Regarding services market access, the existing GATS structure and mandates provide the 
framework for any Member to put forward their proposals or to pursue their interests in the CTS -
SS and the relevant services bodies. With severe ly small delegations, there is no need to support 
the introduction of a new layer or structure for discussions. It was not the ACP Group that decided 
to take these negotiations outside of the WTO. Many of our Members have always expected 
balance throughout  the negotiations under the DDA, with expectations of movement in other areas 
including agriculture. The domestic regulations negotiations under Article VI.4 of the GATS can 
only advance consistent with adaptation to concerns raised by Members, including t he right to 
preserve regulatory sovereignty and pursue development -driven regulations. To deliver on 
agriculture for the poorest, small and vulnerable Members, including cotton, will be fundamental 
for the next Ministerial Conference.   
 
The ACP Group cont inues to strive for concrete results in the fisheries, agriculture and special and WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 67 - 
 
  differential treatment mandates.  
 
7. Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on E -Commerce)  
 
The e -commerce Joint Statement initiative has remained open, transparent and Member -driven.  
 
Our exploratory talks have made good progress. We have met twice since the May TNC meeting – 
making five times this year. We have just completed thematic work on all of the issues raised in 
the 13 Member submissions received, and have taken stock of our progress.  
 
This exploratory work has been positive, interactive and productive. It is clear from the strong 
engagement that there is a keen interest in intensifying this work after the summer break.  
 
In the interests of transparency, all documents relevant to this initiative, including submissions 
and meeting reports, are available to all WTO Members and I refer Members to these reports for 
further information.  
 
This initiative remains open to participation by any WTO Member that shares the objectiv e of 
conducting exploratory work toward future WTO negotiations on trade -related aspects of electronic 
commerce.  
 
8. Australia  
 
At the last HODs/TNC meeting on 7 May, Australia and 36 other Members expressed concern about 
increasing trade tensions and the rel ated risk for the multilateral trading system and for world 
trade.  
 
Paris Report  
 
At an informal Ministerial gathering meeting in Paris on 31 May, organised and chaired by Australia 
in the margins of the OECD MCM, 28 Ministers and senior officials discuss ed how to build greater 
resilience in the WTO trading system and advance negotiations post MC11.  
 
Ministers expressed support for the WTO rules based system, while acknowledging that it was 
under pressure.   
 
Many Ministers raised concerns about growing trade tensions, including unilateral actions and 
countermeasures. They called on all Members to work within WTO rules and resolve differences 
through dialogue, and committed to work to strengthen the WTO to enab le it to address the trade 
challenges of today effectively.  
 
Ministers saw both a need and an opportunity to work together to strengthen the core pillars of the 
WTO including by reinvigorating the WTO's negotiating function; addressing trade and 
developme nt issues; and, reinvigorating the work of the WTO's regular bodies.  
 
Ministers also discussed the impasse in the appointment of new Members to the Appellate Body.  
They expressed their support for the dispute settlement system, their openness to discuss 
concerns regarding the functioning of the system, and their willingness to find positive solutions.  
 
Nearly two months have passed since that meeting and those concerns have not abated.  In fact, 
the pressure on the system is mounting.  Every Member has a s take in the future of the WTO, and 
a responsibility to work towards protecting it.   
 
We all lose if we abandon our commitment to the multilateral rules -based trading system and 
resort to tit -for-tat approaches to trade relations. We must instead use the W TO systems and 
framework to resolve our concerns and differences.   
 
The WTO is invaluable for global economic stability, upon which the prosperity of every Members' 
economy depends.   
 
We must all work together to find solutions to the challenges the WTO is facing and we must all 
cooperate to make these solutions work.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 68 - 
 
   
WTO Modernisation/Reform  
 
Australia believes the multilateral trading system must evolve if it is to continue serving the 
Members' interests effectively. For this reason, we support discussions aimed at ensuring WTO 
rules remain relevant and reflect the reality of the modern global trading environment.  
 
We are also committed to strengthening the functioning of the WTO. Australia is ready to 
contribute to greater transparency, fulfilme nt of notification commitments and accountability.    
 
Negotiating Agenda  
 
As the Chairman noted, now is not the time to neglect the WTO's negotiating agenda.   
 
For Australia, addressing the excessive levels of trade -distorting domestic support is critica l to the 
improved functioning of global markets, and to our collective food security. The entitlements of 
just nine Members will top US 1 trillion dollars by 2030. We can and must do more to arrest this 
growth.   
 
Australia, with other Cairns Group Members , will continue to work hard to prepare necessary 
analytical groundwork and we undertake to work with all Members to develop approaches that can 
deliver outcomes in this area.  
 
We also need to finalise work in the fisheries subsidies negotiations as mandated by our Ministers 
in Buenos Aires.  
 
But to do so, we can no longer stick to entrenched positions – it is time to show flexibility and 
creativity. We have full confidence in the Chair and believe the informal "incubator groups" that he 
proposed will  foster the breakthroughs we need to meet the deadline set by our Ministers.  
 
MC11 Joint Statement Initiatives  
 
Ideally, we would like to see all 164 Members agreeing and negotiating all new rules multilaterally.  
However, as we have seen over the past 17 years, this is very difficult to achieve. If we care about 
the system, we have to find ways forward that address the needs of business in the 21st Century, 
including through plurilateral approaches, such as the work underway on the MC11 joint statement 
initiatives.  
 
Electronic commerce is a growing priority. Modern trade is increasingly being transacted digitally 
and we need modern rules to reflect this reality.  
 
Australia is very pleased with the progress made in the e -commerce Joint Statement initiative and 
the constructive engagement by Members representing different levels of development.  
  
It is important that we deliver outcomes on e -commerce so that our businesses and consumers 
can capture the opportunities offered by digital trade as soon as possibl e.  
 
On services domestic regulation, we are pleased with the constructive engagement by so many 
Members. We are making solid progress and believe we are on track to deliver on the commitment 
under the joint ministerial statement to conclude negotiations i n advance of the next Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
A successful outcome on services domestic regulation would result in real -world benefits for all 
services suppliers through reduced regulatory red tape; increased transparency; and streamlined 
procedures for q ualifications, licensing and technical standards.  
 
We also support the work underway under the Joint Statement initiatives on investment 
facilitation, MSMEs and Women's economic empowerment.  
 
Trade and development  
 
On trade and development, we reiterate A ustralia's commitment to assist developing countries to WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 69 - 
 
  integrate into the global trading system, not only through targeted capacity building and technical 
assistance, but also through trade rules that provide stability and predictability and support 
devel opment objectives.  
 
Dispute Settlement  
 
Finally, while we acknowledge there are issues regarding the functioning of the WTO dispute 
settlement system, Australia is deeply concerned about the longstanding impasse which has 
prevented the appointment of Appe llate Body members.  
  
In Australia's view, a strong and effective WTO dispute settlement system is vital to underpin the 
multilateral trading system. We are therefore committed to resolving this impasse as a priority, 
and are ready and willing to work with  others to find positive, long -term solutions. We ask other 
Members to join us and engage in good faith in such efforts.  
 
In conclusion, I recall that at the Paris meeting, the Director -General encouraged engagement and 
solution -finding approaches to address the current challenges facing the WTO. And he urged 
Members to show flexibility in order to overcome divisions across t he negotiating function.   
 
Australia fully supports this approach and is keen to work with all WTO Members to ensure we 
continue to improve and strengthen the WTO to deliver for all of us.  
 
9. European Union  
 
The European Union thanks the Director -General fo r convening this meeting today and for his own 
report.  
 
The failure of the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires was already a strong reflection of the 
deep crisis of the global trade system and of the profound paralysis of the WTO. The recent 
escalation  of trade tensions takes us a step further. Soon, we may face the blockage of the 
enforcement arm of the WTO while the stalemate in rule -making remains and the WTO's 
monitoring function is impaired by the lack of transparency of its Members and ineffective  
procedures.  
 
The multilateral system is further threatened by unilateral and WTO -incompatible trade actions. 
The EU remains of the firm view that we should find ways to resolve concerns in a manner that is 
compliant with WTO rules. A trade war would be in  no one's interest and would lead us back to a 
time before the World Trade Organization and GATT, before we could rely on a set of rules that 
made the trade environment predictable. And we should be clear: in such a world where power 
has replaced rules as the basis for trade relations, it will be the smallest and poorest that will be 
hurt the most.  
 
It is our belief that the crisis we are in is in large part the result of tensions that have been 
simmering for a long time and of problems that have been allo wed to remain unaddressed for too 
long. They largely stem from our failure to adapt the rules to the changing global trading realities 
and to address the fundamental gaps in the WTO rulebook linked to distortions created by non -
market policies and practice s.     
 
We need to act now and step up our efforts to remedy this situation. We need a comprehensive 
and swift process to modernise the WTO to avoid that our system collapses. This is no longer just 
a question for trade diplomats. It is a top political que stion. The gravity of the situation was 
discussed by European Union leaders at their meeting on 28 June. They decided to call for the 
modernisation of the WTO. This is the priority of the EU's trade agenda.  
 
We believe three directions of work are needed.  
 
First and as a matter of priority, we need to unblock the Appellate Body appointments. The EU is 
working on a comprehensive proposal that would respond directly and concretely to concerns that 
have been raised and would make the dispute settlement system  more efficient. The EU believes 
that it is possible to address these concerns, related to the functioning of the Appellate Body, in a 
systemic manner that would improve the system while maintaining its main features and principles 
of a two -stage process, and those are: independence of the members of the body and binding and WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 70 - 
 
  enforceable dispute resolution through negative consensus.   
 
Second, we need to accelerate work on crafting new rules to recreate the competitive conditions 
that are needed for trade t o thrive and to develop tools to address quickly uncompetitive and 
unfair behaviour, regardless of whether they are linked to state intervention or enterprises.   
 
In the run -up to Buenos Aires, the EU, together with other Members, had raised some of these  
concerns, in particular related to industrial subsidies. We need to deepen this work at once and 
prepare the ground for the negotiations of new rules.  We need to focus here on measures that 
improve the control over subsidies and the operations of SOEs, a ddress unfair barriers to services 
and investment, including on forced technology transfers and advance on the issue of digital trade.  
 
Let me be clear: this is not a replacement agenda for the WTO. Progress must also be made on the 
outstanding Doha issue s. The EU is ready to engage on agriculture domestic support and public 
stockholding – just as it is ready to engage in other areas, in particular on fisheries subsidies 
where the WTO has to demonstrate it can live up on time to its task of contributing to  sustainable 
development.  
 
Third, we need to reinforce the WTO as an institution and reshape its monitoring, surveillance and 
deliberative functions. Beyond negotiations and dispute settlement, the WTO's councils and 
committees do useful work, but their potential is underutilised. Making this regular work respond 
more effectively to the interests of stakeholders would complement our efforts to keep the WTO 
relevant.  
 
Most importantly, we need to fix the longstanding transparency problems of the organisati on and 
ensure that Members can have informed discussions about each other's trade practices.  
 
The EU is working with other WTO Members on concrete ideas to improve transparency and 
compliance with notification obligations. There are various concrete things  we can do without 
changing any rules.  
 
Finally, the EU welcomes the rich and intense work that has taken place in the first half of the year 
to follow -up on the Buenos Aires Joint Statements. The EU will continue supporting these 
processes and look forwar d to the continuation of the discussion and negotiation.  
 
Today we face a simple choice: either we take a significant step forward in the organization or we 
accept the demise of the rules -based trading system. It is a dangerous illusion to believe that th e 
status quo is an option. We see a growing convergence among the Membership on the diagnosis 
but also doubts on the path forward and its feasibility. The European Union is prepared to assume 
its responsibility to deliver and urges other Members to do like wise. 
 
10. Colombia (Structured Discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development)  
 
In keeping with the open -ended, transparent and inclusive nature of the Investment Facilitation for 
Development initiative, I wish to ensure, as the Coordinator of the Str uctured Discussions, that all 
WTO Members are regularly informed about the initiative's state of play. To this end, I would like 
to inform Members about developments since the last report to the HODs in May.  
 
Two meetings have taken place since May. First , we had an intersessional meeting on 28 June to 
build on the previous meeting in 23 April and further advance in the identification of the elements 
of an Investment Facilitation framework that would improve the transparency and predictability of 
investmen t measures. As you may recall, this is the first topic for discussion outlined in the Joint 
Ministerial Statement. An informal summary of the June meeting was circulated under my 
responsibility on 19 July. Second, we had a meeting yesterday – 23 July – to discuss the second 
topic identified in the Joint Statement, namely the elements of an Investment Facilitation 
framework that would "streamline and speed up administrative procedures and requirements". An 
informal summary of yesterday's meeting will be circ ulated under my responsibility in due course.  
 
Both meetings were well attended and counted with very focused and detailed interventions that 
allowed the discussion to make substantive progress on the topics under consideration. We also 
benefited from ver y informative and topical presentations by experts from the International Trade 
Centre, the OECD, UNCTAD, and the WTO Secretariat.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 71 - 
 
   
Our methodology of work, consisting of thematic background non -papers, guiding questions and 
presentations by experts, has proven effective in advancing Members' understanding of the issues. 
Many participating Members have also shared their own experience with investment facilitation 
measures and mechanisms, including both the benefits and challenges faced by Members when 
putting in place those mechanisms.  
 
In line with the transparent and inclusive nature of the initiative, all documents are posted in the 
Investment Facilitation for Development webpage available only to Members.  
 
Keeping in mind the objective of identifying a nd developing the elements of a multilateral 
investment facilitation framework, and responding to suggestions made by some delegations at 
the June meeting, I prepared, under my responsibility, a 'checklist' of issues raised by participating 
Members so far,  starting with those elements of the multilateral framework that would improve the 
transparency and predictability of investment measures, and other issues mentioned of a cross -
cutting nature, such as the "Development Dimension". The checklist encapsulates  all the issues 
raised and it may be considered as a tool – or aide mémoire – intended to facilitate open, 
transparent and inclusive discussions on these topics. The checklist was circulated on 19 July and 
discussed by Members in our meeting of 23 July. As  I stressed at the meeting yesterday, the 
checklist should be seen as a 'living document' that will be updated in light of Members' inputs 
during the structured discussions. The content, structure, and wording of the checklist do not in 
any way prejudge th e position of any Member in the structured discussions.  
 
The next meeting of the Structured Discussions will be held on 21 September and will focus on the 
third topic identified in the Joint Ministerial Statement, namely the elements of an Investment 
Facilitation framework that would enhance international cooperation, information sharing, the 
exchange of best practices, and relations with relevant stakeholders, including dispute prevention.  
 
To conclude, let me reaffirm my commitment, as Coordinator, to keep this process open -ended, 
transparent and inclusive, and to engage with all Members to better understand your views and 
possible concerns. Thus, I wish to stress my availability to meet with each one of you – and to 
extend my invitation to all delegati ons to get involved in these Structured Discussions.  
 
11. Colombia  
 
Colombia wishes to reiterate the call to defend the principles and rules of the multilateral trading 
system. We are facing a situation that poses challenges and difficulties for the delicate b alance of 
the institutional architecture of world trade. We therefore encourage Members to think ahead and 
take decisions with a view to the long term.  
 
For over half a century, the global trading system has provided us with multiple benefits and has 
been crucial for the growth and development of our economies and for the prosperity and well -
being of our citizens. However, we must avoid taking its strength for granted and undermining its 
pillars.  
 
In the past two years, it has become apparent that improveme nts and adjustments need to be 
made to ensure the proper functioning of the Organization, which means that we have to work 
towards new rules that respond to the changes, the challenges and the new global realities that we 
are facing. This is a Member -driven Organization, and it is our task to protect and strengthen the 
system. Colombia is convinced of the need to address these challenges through a frank and 
constructive dialogue that ensures the continuity and steady improvement of this key global public 
good. 
 
12. Costa Rica  
 
Seventy years ago, our predecessors understood that trade was a vehicle for bringing about peace 
between countries. They also understood that the rule of law provided the means for building, on 
the basis of values and principles, the oppor tunities and guarantees that they sought. No less 
important, they understood that the goal was not for the errors of the past to be corrected but for 
the future to be built collaboratively, by those first members who were shaping the multilateral 
trading s ystem.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 72 - 
 
  I wonder, what would those pioneers of multilateralism do under the present circumstances? They 
are certainly not the same circumstances. For one thing, more than 70 years have gone by and we 
have experienced and witnessed how trade has transformed  the world, creating opportunities and 
employment, encouraging cross -border value chains, mobilizing trillions of dollars in foreign 
capital, and promoting development in practically all the countries that undertook to apply the 
rules created by the system . 
 
However, we are now facing a situation of incompatibility and we all agree on where the problem 
lies: the WTO's rules no longer suffice to resolve the trade disputes arising in our modern world of 
fast paced innovation.  
 
I have a feeling that the most e ffective way to deal with this incompatibility lies in how we 
interpret the meaning of multilateralism, an indisputable innovation that has moved civilization 
forward. Multilateralism is not particularly agile or particularly simple. On the contrary, it is  slow, 
with complex dynamics and sporadic results.  
 
What is clear and effective about the system is that it creates shared value, makes the pie bigger, 
allows us – above all the smallest Members – to take home a much bigger piece of the pie than we 
would h ave if no multilateral trading system existed. In the specific case of Costa Rica – a country 
that believed and believes in the system, that committed itself and remains committed to both the 
current rules and the future ones that we must all create togeth er – our economy has expanded 
seven times since we decided to become part of the international economy. It is a decision that 
has not been easy to maintain, but the irrefutable results have made it easier for us to remain 
determined to continue the process  of economic integration, to seek new opportunities offered by 
the system and to make the most domestically of all the advantages and benefits this system has 
provided.  
 
For example, by following the rules, we have been able to diversify our output, improv e its 
competitiveness, provide it greater access to a greater number of international markets, improve 
the climate for the foreign investment that has flowed constantly into our country in search of the 
guarantees provided when international rules are obse rved, generate quality employment, train 
our workforce to compete at a global level, take advantage of our geographic and natural 
strengths to create market value, and have a voice in this forum that has represented so much for 
so many around the world.  
 
As a small economy, we know that in order to strengthen our vulnerable areas, we need to 
integrate into the global economy with greater determination. We also know that development is 
intentional: it requires effective decisions that are maintained as years  and governments and 
decades pass, as well as great effort, work and sacrifice, so that the necessary transitions can be 
undertaken on the path of development.  
 
But we are also aware that the economy is subject to risks and, when they arise, they can have a 
strong impact, above all on the most vulnerable. That is why we feel a strict attachment to the 
rules is indispensable in order for the system to function and provide the guarantees for which it 
was created. Our predecessors understood this attachment to  the rules 70 years ago and we, the 
subsequent generations who have been the system's workers, have reiterated it, especially since 
the WTO's creation.  
 
The multilateral trading system can improve in many areas, and today, once again, we are going 
through what these areas are. However, it is important to highlight the system's perfectible 
nature. Thinking about correcting the ills of the past keeps us anchored in the past. The leadership 
that is required, the same under these circumstances as 70 years ago, is one with a keen vision of 
the future scenarios that we must create together, with the complexities that come with being 
members of a civilized organization in the service of humanity.  
 
13. China  
 
China thanks the Director -General for his introductory briefi ng and the Chairs of the Negotiating 
Groups for their respective reports.  
 
I would first of all reaffirm that China's position on relevant issues stays unchanged.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 73 - 
 
  In particular, China echoes the statement made by Panama on behalf of Article XII Members, a nd 
the statement to be made by Indonesia on behalf of G -33. 
 
I would like to draw attentions of Members to particularly three real realities we are facing today.  
 
The first one is that the multilateral trading system is facing unprecedented grave challenge s. 
 
The fundamental principles and core values of the multilateral trading system are being 
challenged; trade bully, protectionism and unilateralism are rampant; the selection process of the 
Appellate Body members stalled; and, unilateralist measures like Section 232 and Section 301 
investigations are posing systematic threats to the WTO.  
 
Each one of us needs to have the sense of ownership to the WTO and spares no efforts to protect 
the multilateral trading system.  
 
The second one is that AMS is the most t rade-distortive and unfair subsidy tool in the agricultural 
sector.  
 
Some people say it is impractical to totally eliminate the AMS.  
 
I disagree.  
 
It is not an issue of practical or impractical. Rather, it is an issue of right or wrong. Our correct 
objective is to do the right thing. And only if the correct objective and direction are decided, can 
we talk about the methodology and implementation.  
 
One thing is for sure. We should never be penny -wise and pound -foolish. We cannot sacrifice the 
right ob jective and direction only to accommodate views of certain individual Members. That is like 
putting the cart before the horse, leading us only to nowhere.  
 
Nevertheless, we can be flexible for the methodology, provided that the objective and direction are 
correct. That is why India and China tabled our revised joint submission, proposing an incremental 
and step -by-step method to reduce the AMS. This is the first positive step we take in good faith, 
and we hope the next step should be taken by other Members.  
 
The third one is, "how to contribute according to the capacity to do so" should be determined by 
developing Members themselves.  
 
Developing Members have their real difficulties and practical challenges respectively. And special 
and differential treatment  was designed and agreed to address the capacity divide between 
developed and developing Members. In terms of how to apply special and differential treatment 
and how to contribute, it should be the decision by developing Members themselves.  
 
Notions like " differentiation", "graduation", so -called "case by case", and etc. are explosive in 
nature, and for developing Members, they are politically unacceptable and technically without 
benchmark. Therefore, there is no possibility to reach consensus on this. It i s only a waste of time 
to continue such a debate.  
 
On the contrary, what Members really need to do is, in the process of rule -making for future, we 
encourage the participation of developing Members by properly addressing their difficulties and 
challenges.  
 
Before concluding, I would like to reiterate that China is the staunch supporter for the multilateral 
work programme on e -commerce. Members should make full use of the existing mandated bodies 
to conduct multilateral discussions, listening to the concerns  of developing Members and 
encouraging them to be part of this process in line with their own conditions.  
 
Meanwhile, on behalf of the FIFD, I would like to thank Ambassador Carlos Gonzalez for his 
introduction on investment facilitation for development. F IFD welcomes more participation of WTO 
Members in this process. And we look forward to further explorations and discussions in Astana in 
the coming September.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 74 - 
 
  14. Chad (LDCs)  
 
I am taking the floor on behalf of the LDC Group and its 47 member -countries, on th e eve of the 
General Council meeting and the summer break, to express our Group's feelings, views and 
positions regarding the way forward for the Organization and the multilateral trade negotiations. 
We would also like this statement to be included under t he relevant General Council agenda item.  
 
On behalf of the LDC Group, I would like to reiterate how much we appreciated your participation 
in our retreat last month. Your contribution was particularly judicious and relevant. It provided us 
with additional elements to take into consideration for the next stage of our work.  
 
The LDC Group emphasizes multilateralism's importance as the basis for the further integration of 
trade rules at global level. We must all adhere to multilateralism so that it becomes the  common 
standard for facilitating growth and development.  
 
From the point of view of the LDCs, the WTO is the only organization in which all the countries of 
the international trade community (developed countries, emerging developing countries, middle 
income countries, landlocked developing countries, and LDCs), both collectively and individually, 
can make their voices heard. This is vital for defending our concerns and interests, including in the 
context of the settling of disputes between trading part ners. For this reason, we reiterate our full 
support for the multilateral trading system.  
 
We support the continuation of this system, and reject protectionist tendencies synonymous with 
economic regression and political deadlock. It is not only useful, bu t vital for the WTO to function 
in a predictable, transparent and appropriate manner that ensures Members have responsibilities 
commensurate with their level of capacity.  
 
Turning now to the negotiations, at the Tenth Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, Min isters reached 
agreement on paragraph 24 of the Declaration, which gives priority to issues of interest to LDCs. 
In this light, LDC Trade Ministers prepared a declaration specifying priority issues for LDCs at the 
WTO (WT/MIN(17)/40), which was adopted in Buenos Aires.  
 
The priority aspects are categorized as follows: First, the effective implementation of decisions 
taken in favour of LDCs; and second, the highlighting of areas identified by Ministers in respect of 
which LDCs seek an agreement with WTO Memb ers. These include areas subject to negotiations, 
as well as areas identified within the context of the deliberations of regular WTO bodies.  
 
In this light, the LDC Group would first of all like to remind Members of the importance of 
implementing the Hong Kong and Bali Decisions on duty free and quota free (DFQF) market access 
in favour of LDCs. This issue is key to our further integration into world trade and to helping us 
truly exceed our 1% share of such trade.  
 
Furthermore, in order to understand why th e preferences granted to us are underutilized, we 
reiterate the need for the Secretariat to conduct the clinical examination of DFQF market access 
that our Group prepared the terms of reference for at the end of 2016. The objective is quite 
simply to have a clear and precise understanding of what is preventing the full use of DFQF market 
access preferences at the tariff line level, on the basis of notifications. This would make it easier to 
resolve the situation.  
 
Regarding rules of origin, the LDC Group pr esented a submission on 13 April this year, with a view 
to the implementation of the Nairobi Decision. The LDC Group requests that developed and 
developing country Members inform the Committee of any effective measures taken to implement 
the Decision, for the purposes of transparency and the Decision's operationalization.  
 
Turning to the important matter of the implementation of the services waiver for LDC service 
suppliers, the LDC Group would once again like to thank those Members that have granted 
prefer ences and submitted notifications to the Secretariat. This is excellent, and we encourage 
other Members that have not yet done so, to notify their preferences.  
 
We wish to insist however on the operationalization of the Nairobi Decision and on raising LDC 
service suppliers' awareness of the opportunities they have to export abroad and to developed and 
developing country markets. In this respect, provision should be made for technical assistance WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 75 - 
 
  from Members under paragraph 1.4 of the Nairobi services waiver  Decision. The LDC Group is 
willing to discuss this matter further with preference granting Members within the context of small 
group meetings.  
 
This year's LDC proposals seek to ensure pragmatic, concrete and meaningful outcomes for LDCs 
before the Twelft h Ministerial Conference.  
 
On the issue of intellectual property and TRIPs, we have submitted a proposal regarding the 
implementation of Article 66.2 on technology transfer, in which we request developed countries to 
describe in their reports any initiativ es relating specifically to technology transfer to LDCs. This will 
provide clarity and allow for a more accurate assessment of the implementation of Article 66.2.  
 
Regarding the issue of LDC graduation, the proposal we submitted on 19 April requests that a  
technical oversight relating to the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures be 
corrected, and that LDCs that have already graduated be given the possibility of continuing to 
benefit from the flexibilities set out in Article 27.2 of the SCM Agre ement provided that their GNP 
per capita does not exceed US$1,000 or has fallen back below US$1,000 – as is established for 
non LDC developing countries and set forth in Article 10.4 of the Decision on Implementation 
Related Issues and Concerns.  
 
Turning n ow to other matters, most notably agriculture, we note the resumption of negotiations, in 
which we are prepared to participate fully. This problematic area obviously remains a priority for 
our group, particularly as regards distortive domestic support and,  more specifically, trade in 
cotton, which is very important to the C -4 and numerous LDCs. We are committed to working with 
the rest of the Membership to find a proper solution to the cotton issue, and we welcome the fact 
that many Members declared themsel ves in favour of resolving the cotton issue on a priority basis 
at the most recent Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture.  
 
We also recall the importance of finding a permanent solution to the issue of public stockholding 
for food security purpose s – one that takes into account the possibility of developing as yet non -
existent programmes in LDCs. Similarly, the introduction of a special safeguard mechanism is 
particularly relevant for LDCs and for the protection of vulnerable small -scale subsistenc e farmers.  
 
Regarding fisheries, the LDC Group is still actively working to reach, if possible before MC12, an 
agreement that is favourable to LDCs and to the protection and sustainability of their fishery 
resources. The LDCs continue to support a ban on illegal fishing, as well as disciplines to tackle 
overfishing, and the safeguarding of the rights of LDCs under the laws of the sea.  
 
In the context of the ongoing negotiations and in order to facilitate our negotiation capacity, the 
LDC Group calls upon W TO Members and the Secretariat to allow the establishment of a fund to 
cover the costs of an expert from the capital who can assist us at cluster meetings and in 
negotiations and interactions with experts from other Member countries.  
 
The LDC Group calls f or more inclusiveness and transparency in the ongoing discussions. It also 
wishes to point out that any new structure introduced should take into account the human 
resource deficit of its member States and not have any negative impact on its procedures and  
working methods. In short, the LDC Group would like to resume discussions based on the mandate 
given by our Ministers at MC11.  
 
In the context of the work of the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session, the 
LDC Group emphasizes the key role played by the CTD SS as regards special and differential 
treatment, and we recall that within the framework of the Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, the 
entire Membership undertook to ensure that all issues of specific interest to LDCs be pursued on a 
priority basis, with a view to strengthening them, making them commercially meaningful and, 
where appropriate, legally binding.  
 
The LDC Group also recalls the overall importance of technical assistance for capacity building, 
whether in the context of the imple mentation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement or within the 
framework of LDC accession to the WTO, to help speed up procedures.  
 
The LDC Group hopes that its voice will be heard by the Membership and that Members will ensure 
the achievement of concrete out comes in our favour and in favour of our further integration into WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 76 - 
 
  world trade. Our Group remains very much open to any suggestions and to discussions with other 
Members on trade -related matters, provided that our concerns and status as LDCs are fully taken  
into account.  
 
The WTO Agreements include provisions aimed at increasing trade opportunities for LDCs and 
allowing LDCs flexibility in implementing WTO rules. There is an urgent need to move from 
reflection to action, and to find convergence through an op en, inclusive, transparent, flexible and 
non-discriminatory process that reflects a shared desire to safeguard and strengthen the 
multilateral trading system. All this will undoubtedly help to ensure the participation and 
integration of LDCs in internation al trade.  
 
It is clear that LDCs have specific needs due to their particular circumstances and difficulties. And 
yet these countries possess largely unexploited potential in terms of natural resources, and need 
significant support to implement their divers ification and economic structural transformation 
policies with a view to strengthening their production capacity and creating an important dynamic 
for international trade.  
 
In short, trade is a means to an end. We believe that trade should contribute to ou r priority 
objective, which is to create value added with a view to improving the quality of life of our 
countries' populations, above all those that are most vulnerable.  
 
In this light, it is essential to introduce bold policy initiatives if we really wan t to achieve a 
concrete outcome. The absence of willingness to do so would risk putting the long -term resilience 
of the multilateral trading system even more to the test than it already is, and would deprive us of 
a valuable opportunity for change in favou r of the application of rules and principles that form the 
very bedrock of the WTO. It is in everyone's interest to preserve this multilateral trading system 
by ensuring it evolves and adapts to the current context.  
 
This is the main message the LDCs would  like to put across before the General Council meeting 
and the summer break.  
 
15. India  
 
India thanks the Director -General for convening this informal meeting of the TNC and for his report 
and insightful assessment as the Chair of the TNC. We also thank the Ch airs of the Negotiating 
Groups for their reports.   
 
India associates itself with the statement to be made by Indonesia on behalf of the G -33.  
 
We are now meeting for the last time before the summer break. As strong supporters of the 
multilateral trading system we are anguished at the situation that the WTO faces. Post MC11, the 
organization continues to face serious challenges with a spate of unilateral measures and counter -
measures, deadlock in important areas of the negotiations and continuation of the ongoing 
impasse in the Appellate Body. What is even more worrisome is the complete disregard for existing 
mandates and substantive work of the last two decades with some suggestions of resetting the 
negotiations. These have further amplified the risk of er oding the credibility of the organization 
and undermining the multilateral rules -based system.  
 
In this not very rosy background, let me enumerate some ideas and our views on the way forward.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Agriculture remains a gateway issue for a large nu mber of Members in this organization and a 
'must have' for any package to be harvested at MC12.  
 
In domestic support, it is clear that given the asymmetries, the large trade distorting subsidies of 
developed countries cannot be treated at par with the mini mal subsidies of developing countries 
targeted at subsistence farmers. To address this issue, India has jointly submitted a proposal with 
China for eliminating, in a phased manner, AMS beyond the de -minimis, which is the most trade 
distorting form of domes tic support. Our joint proposal is pragmatic, based on wide consultations 
and feedback and this approach has found favour with a large part of the Membership. It is a 
calibrated approach of taking incremental steps to eliminate AMS, rather than eliminating  it at one WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 77 - 
 
  go.   
 
The need for a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security for all developing 
countries and LDCs cannot be over -emphasised, as it alone can address the basic issues of 
poverty, hunger and malnutrition in the developing wor ld and would also help achieve the SDGs 1 
& 2. It is regrettable that despite having express and clear mandates from Bali and Nairobi 
Ministerials we could not come up with a permanent solution by the deadline of December 2017.  
Missing deadlines set by co nsensus should galvanise us even more to work with greater urgency.  
We again urge Members to constructively engage and address this issue in a time bound manner.  
 
The fight against hunger is a fundamental commitment which cannot be derailed by archaic tra de 
rules. We would also like to underline that to ensure a proper understanding of the ground 
situation we have brought up to date our DS1 subsidy notifications. We would encourage other 
proponents of transparency to catch up on this.  
 
E-Commerce  
 
India w as one of the proponents, and welcomes the decision taken at MC11 to strengthen the 
1998 Work Programme on E -Commerce.  We have always supported deepening our discussion and 
engagement under the Work Programme to understand the complex issues surrounding t he debate 
on E-Commerce. It is in this spirit that we have submitted a proposal jointly with South Africa, to 
understand the implications of the moratorium on customs duties on electronic transmissions.  
 
We believe that while E -Commerce can bring transform ational changes and opportunities in trade 
and investment, it also poses significant infrastructure, regulatory and other challenges, 
particularly, for developing countries which will not benefit from the opportunity, due to the huge 
digital divide. If we do not first address this issue urgently and on priority and instead move onto 
negotiations, e -commerce has the potential of creating further asymmetries and disruption for 
developing countries and LDCs.   
 
We would therefore again urge Members to engage t o reinvigorate the multilateral work 
programme which in the long run will build a foundation for our future work on E -Commerce Joint 
Ministerial Statements.  
 
We note with concern the joint initiatives being pursued in areas of regular work where there is a  
multilateral mandate in the WTO like E -Commerce and domestic regulation. Though proponents 
are suggesting that these are new pathways and approaches to multilateral agreements, we do not 
see the advantages of this approach and feel that this would further  undermine our multilateral 
work, mandates and the consensus principle.  
 
India has also consistently voiced serious concerns and reservations on introduction of new issues 
such as Investment Facilitation and MSMEs in the WTO until existing mandates have be en 
addressed.  
 
Role of the Secretariat  
 
The Marrakesh Agreement clearly demarcates and lays down that the primary role of the 
Secretariat is to support and strengthen the multilateral track. Moreover, it lays emphasis on the 
neutrality and need for the Secretariat not to align itself or take positions of particular members or 
groups. The work of the Secretariat should be based on mandates rather than areas for which 
funds are available. We would not like to see the day where the golden rule in the WTO be comes 
one who has the gold, makes the rules! Or even decides the work programme or the areas on 
which we work! And of course, we all need to be committed to the principle of Member -driven 
process and work!  
 
DSB 
 
The situation in the Appellate Body is now c ritical with the ongoing impasse in filling up of 
vacancies. If this is not resolved immediately, the Appellate Body will soon become dysfunctional 
and the dispute settlement mechanism would be rendered ineffective.   
 
While we appreciate that there is a n eed for reforming the DSU, this cannot become the reason for WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 78 - 
 
  paralyzing the Appellate Body. We again strongly reiterate the need to de -link the launch of 
vacancies from Appellate Body reforms, urge members to outline problems they have, along with 
suggeste d solutions so that the entire membership can engage to address them.   
 
Unilateral Measures  
 
Unilateral measures followed by a spate of counter -measures which weaken the fundamental 
architecture of the WTO agreements seem to be the 'new normal' in the WTO . We strongly believe 
that these raise serious systemic issues would severely impact the multilateral rules -based system, 
undermining its credibility and effectiveness. We would therefore urge Members to explore other 
legitimate ways to address their conce rns and seek concessions rather than resort to unilateral 
action.  
 
Development  
 
Development is a critical issue for a large majority of the Membership. The provisions of special 
and differential treatment for all the developing countries and LDCs are an in tegral part of the 
WTO agreements and need to be carefully preserved and protected in future agreements as well.  
Any talk of differentiation or graduation of developing countries is likely to be divisive, and a case 
by case approach a complete non -starter . The centrality of development is part of the basic 
structure of the WTO and a core principle enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement.   
 
Conclusion  
 
There was a sense of disappointment when we left MC11 as we failed to achieve any substantive 
outcomes. This  has now changed to a feeling of despondency due to whatever has happened 
since. Everyday, we see a fresh attack on the principles and processes of the WTO. As a result, the 
WTO weeps, it bleeds and each new day a gash is added to its wounds!  
 
Since the b eginning of the year, India has constructively engaged in suggesting ways to 
strengthen the multilateral track and take our agenda forward. However, the crisis has only 
deepened with the organization facing multifaceted challenges. It is important to reali se that we 
now run the risk of dismantling the system which has been built with several decades of work.  
Therefore, we would again urge all Members to engage constructively to address the challenges 
and re -establish mutual trust and faith in our work in t his rule -based organization which 
guarantees predictability. Let me reassure the Director -General that India stands committed to 
strengthen the organization.  
 
16. Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs)  
 
This statement is a summary of the statement that will  be subsequently circulated. I am making 
this statement on my capacity as the Coordinator of the Informal Working Group on MSMEs which 
is made up of 88 Members and continues to be open -ended to ensure that all WTO Members have 
the opportunity to take part in it. 
 
At the last Informal HODs meeting in May, we announced that we were holding open -ended 
dedicated sessions that looked at thematic issues that were of interest to the Informal Working 
Group. I will now give you an overview of the main results of those meetings.  
 
On 22 May, we held a technical follow up session on the issue of access and transparency of 
information under the leadership of Switzerland. The meeting was a follow up to the open -ended 
thematic session on access to information held on 27  March. The document JOB/GC/191 provided 
a summary of the meeting. The following are the main elements raised at that meeting by 
participants and speakers including the next steps: the importance of determining better sources 
of information for the global trade helpdesk as well as the option of sending surveys to Members to 
gather information on the use and benefit of the global trade helpdesk platform; the designation of 
national inquiry points to continue to improve access to information at the WTO; the w ork that is 
being conducted by the TBT and SPS Committees to improve transparency; and the proposal for 
the group to continue to study different ways to follow up on improving access to information 
including through the work of the relevant WTO bodies.  
 
On 8 June, under the leadership of Cote d'Ivoire, we had an open -ended working session on the WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 79 - 
 
  promotion of access by MSMEs to sources of financing. This was held back to back with the 
meeting of the Working Group on Trade, Debt and Finance. Concerning the ne xt steps, Members 
were invited to continue sharing their national policies and programmes on trade finance for 
MSMEs with a view to compiling all of that valuable experience into a single reference document. It 
was also agreed that a follow up debate would  be held on the basis of that information. We have 
set a provisional date for that debate which would be at the end of September.  
 
Finally, the last of the activities that was carried out during the first half of this year was a meeting 
held on 27 June or ganized by Pakistan and was held to coincide with the UN International Day for 
MSMEs. This was another open -ended working session which looked at how to reduce trade cost 
including in areas such as trade facilitation, logistics procedures and origin -relate d requirements. 
In this session, we were lucky to have the presence of the Director -General. Some Members 
wished to go into further detail in looking at the following questions: how to simplify and 
standardized import and export documents particularly on c ertificates of origin and the relationship 
between trade facilitation and access for logistics services – how to provide more logistics services 
to MSMEs including through the use of the TFA. Looking forward, we propose to hold one more 
follow up session o n this topic to be held at the end of September.  
 
Allow me also to seize this opportunity to update you on the activities that are planned for 
September in other areas. We have two activities. The first one will be at the WTO Public Forum 
organized by El Salvador and the Philippines. This is a dedicated working session which will look at 
the needs for technical assistance and capacity building for MSMEs. On 31 October, Bahrain will 
organize another dedicated working session which will look at the use of th e internet as a tool to 
be made available to MSMEs so that they can access and win over international markets.  
 
In conclusion, I would like to recall that there is a coordination committee meeting to be held with 
Bahrain; El Salvador; Hong Kong, China; Cot e d'Ivoire; Nigeria; Pakistan; Philippines; Switzerland 
and Uruguay. All of these Members are ready to hold consultations with interested delegations on 
the way the informal working group is working as well as to receive proposals, comments and 
observation s. 
 
Transparency is a fundamental principle that underpins the working of the Informal Working Group 
on MSMEs. In conclusion, I would therefore like to highlight that our group is a Member -driven 
group that aims to move forward with the help of those Membe rs. Alongside other Members, we 
used the services of the Secretariat and we are very grateful for that support. Our Informal 
Working Group continues to be an open -ended structure and we therefore look forward to other 
Members' comments and observations.   
 
17. United States  
 
I would like to touch today on a few specific areas of negotiating work on which the United States 
is particularly focused, and which we consider particularly relevant to the long -term credibility and 
good functioning of the WTO. We see thi s work as complementing the important efforts to 
implement the WTO Agreements that is taking place in our standing committees, and which must 
remain a priority.   
 
We share the broad understanding of the Membership that our negotiation on fisheries subsidi es 
carries particularly high stakes. We see good energy in this negotiation, and the active 
participation of both developed and developing country Members is especially encouraging. The 
existence of a ministerial -level mandate and timeframe for this negoti ation is important, and we 
must be respectful of that direction.   
 
Our work on fish must be organized in a sufficiently flexible manner to enable our negotiators – 
and occasionally Permanent Representatives – to really sort through and resolve the tough 
challenges that are by now very familiar to all participants. It is important to finalize a work 
program this week, before the summer break, in order to advance the negotiations in the fall.  
 
The WTO has a real opportunity to deliver meaningful subsidy refo rms that will help improve the 
dire state of our oceans' resources and the livelihoods of our law -abiding fishermen. And we must, 
at all times, keep in mind that the world will judge the WTO for whether the outcome we produce 
in this negotiation meaningful ly addresses the estimated $20 -plus billion per year of harmful 
fisheries subsidies – those contributing to overfishing, overcapacity and illegal fishing.   WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 80 - 
 
   
Turning to the work taking place on e -commerce and digital trade: participants in the Joint 
Statem ent initiative arising from the Buenos Aires ministerial are off to a good start, and the 
United States is pleased to be participating actively in that process. We appreciate the leadership 
offered by the co -conveners, and are gratified to see – at last – a truly substantive discussion 
taking place on a set of issues that is so critical to the future of global trade. The United States will 
continue to approach this work with a determination to seek outcomes that are as commercially 
meaningful as possible.  
 
Against this backdrop, we remain puzzled to observe that some Members appear more focused on 
revisiting and potentially rolling back longstanding understandings governing trade conducted 
electronically, rather than participating in and supporting efforts t o explore how an expansion of 
rules can create conditions for a flourishing global digital economy.   
 
Despite some Members' reluctance to move from their old demands and redlines in negotiations, 
we also see good work taking place on agriculture. The Unit ed States is, again, participating 
actively and constructively in this work – most recently through the circulation of an analytical 
paper examining the market access dimensions of current global agricultural trade. We applaud 
the Secretariat for organizin g a successful workshop on agricultural trade last month, and we look 
forward to continuing to support the efforts of the COA SS Chair as he continues consultations on 
issues of importance to nearly all Members.  
 
Turning now to development, where we have a lso begun to have extremely important – albeit 
difficult – engagement since Buenos Aires.  
 
The United States remains convinced that we cannot sustain a situation in which new rules only 
apply to the few, while others are given a pass in the name of self -proclaimed development status, 
or so-called "recently acceded Member" status. We also cannot condone efforts to re -open existing 
rules to insert more flexibility to break the rules.  
 
The United States believes that the trade rules developed in the WTO over t he decades are 
inherently positive building blocks for sustainable development, and that special and differential 
treatment is intended to be applied narrowly in order to facilitate the ability of developing 
countries to integrate fully into that framework  of rules.   
 
Some developing country Members appear to maintain their development status only to avail 
themselves of flexibility to skirt the rules should they deem fit, not out of a true need for flexibility 
to achieve implementation.   
 
We face a truly bizarre situation today where five of the six wealthiest countries in the world 
presently claim developing country status for no discernible reason.   
 
We see little likelihood of any future multilateral outcomes if the issue of development status is not 
successfully addressed. For example, how are Members to ensure those countries that truly need 
some flexibility have access to it while at the same time ensuring that some of the most advanced 
countries do not have access to it if both sets of countries cla im the same developing country 
status?  
 
The first big test case of our ability to get this right is the important negotiation now taking place 
on fisheries subsidies.   
 
Moving on, the United States also remains committed to finding a solution to the dimi nishing 
transparency in the organization due to the lack of timely notifications. We are continuing 
discussions with Members on the US proposal and appreciate the ideas presented to us thus far.  
We look forward to continuing this work in the fall.   
 
Finally for today, the United States wants to see a fuller discussion within the WTO with regard to 
the challenges posed to the global trading system by non -market economies. We look forward to 
discussing this subject in further detail during the General Counc il meeting on Thursday.   
 
For now, I would simply note that, to remain relevant, the WTO must unambiguously acknowledge 
and confront the disruption created by the policies of non -market economies. This is perhaps the WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 81 - 
 
  most significant issue facing this org anization. To maintain our citizens’ support for trade, we 
cannot allow the WTO to be used as a shield that protects the non -market -oriented policies of 
some Members that undermine the fairness and balance of the international trading system.   
 
18. Indonesia (G-33) 
 
I thank the Director -General for convening this meeting and for updating Members with his recent 
activities and his assessment on current situation. My gratitude also goes to various Chairs of 
Negotiating Bodies for providing Members with information on wh ere we are and how we should 
organize ourselves to continue our work in the respective negotiating areas. I fully share the views 
that we have to intensify work, in particular after the summer break.  
 
I will be first speaking on behalf of the G -33 to be f ollowed by the statement of Indonesia.  
 
On behalf of the G -33, I wish to reiterate the Group's view that Members must continue their work 
based on Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture and existing mandates given by Bali, Nairobi 
and preceding Minist erial Conferences.  
 
In the context of the post -Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference, the G -33 supports the COA SS 
Chair's approach to continue to use dedicated sessions as platforms for Members to discuss the 
issue of Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes and Special Safeguard Mechanism in a 
more focused, substantive and more expeditious manner, as per the mandate.  
 
The G -33 would also like to reaffirm its views that the establishment of a permanent solution for 
the PSH, and an accessible, simple and effective SSM, both volume and price based, remain to be 
the priority for the Group. Solutions for those issues are needed by majority of developing 
Members in this House to address persistent problems related to food security, livelihood security 
and rural development.    
 
It is therefore important for Members to redouble efforts to find acceptable solutions for those 
issues. The collective efforts to agree on such policy instruments will also facilitate the 
achievement of a number of Sustainable Devel opment Goals relating to the elimination of poverty, 
malnourishment and hunger to which we are all committed. Hence, those efforts will also provide a 
strong signal that the negotiating arm of the WTO is still working.    
 
Finally, rest assured of the G -33's constructive engagement in any process deemed necessary to 
move the negotiation forward.   
 
19. Indonesia  
 
Indonesia would like to reiterate its view that despite the lack of political guidance from Buenos 
Aires and the current political environment in this  House, work in Geneva shall be continued. 
Members should shift gears from reflection mode to working mode. Members should transform 
their political will to strengthen an open, predictable and rules -based multilateral trading system 
embedded in the WTO int o concrete ways.  
 
In continuing our work, unfinished work from Bali, Nairobi and Buenos Aires based on existing 
mandates agreed by Ministers and progress achieved so far, shall be immediately taken up. 
Indonesia believes that Members should also continue to use an incremental and pragmatic 
approach in addressing various issues that Members, particularly developing and least -developed 
ones, are confronting.  
 
Allow me now to offer Indonesia's views on some important issues, and how we can make 
progress.   
 
On Agriculture, while fully supporting the G -33's views on PSH and SSM, Indonesia welcomes 
Members' submissions on several important issues. They reflect Members' great interests to move 
the Agriculture negotiations forward. While welcoming those submissio ns, however, Indonesia is of 
the view that any initiative shall be directed to address imbalances and inequities inherited from 
the Uruguay Round and specific needs of developing and least -developed country Members.      
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, Indonesia commends the efforts of the Negotiating Group on Rules Chair to WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 82 - 
 
  intensify works in following up the Buenos Aires Ministerial Decision with a view to agree by the 
next Ministerial Conference an agreement on comprehensive and effective disciplines that prohi bit 
certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate 
subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. Indonesia stands ready to 
constructively engage in the intensification of work  outlined by the Rules Chair after the summer 
break.  
 
On development, Indonesia reaffirms its view that development elements have been integral parts 
of various WTO Agreements, with a view to, among others, assisting developing and LDC Members 
to reap equitable benefits from the multilateral trading system. R ecognizing this issue has been 
currently perceived by some Members as a hurdle in many areas of the negotiation. Indonesia 
suggests that Members need to intensify interaction in a more pragmatic manner to strike the 
right balance.   
 
With respect to some " new initiatives", while considering their important role in current economic 
realities, Indonesia continues to uphold its view that Members should be openminded and in an 
exploratory mode in continuing the conversations with a view to improve their underst anding. In 
those efforts, "development" and "special and differential treatment principles" must remain to be 
at the centre of our work.  
 
Finally, please rest assured of Indonesia's readiness to be actively and constructively engaged in 
any necessary proc ess after the summer break, particularly in finding acceptable solutions that will 
address everybody's interests and concerns.  
 
20. Brazil  
 
We obviously share the expressions of concern we heard this morning about the growing crisis 
affecting the multilateral trading system.  
 
But Brazil trusts that, eventually, we will overcome this situation.  
 
The reason for this assessment is that – despite critical views, particularly by one major Member – 
we believe that all in this room continue to be committed to this org anization.  
 
Criticism of the WTO may be unfair in many aspects. But we prefer to be confronted with criticism 
rather than progressive detachment and distancing.  
 
Brazil sees three immediate challenges in order for us to preserve the MTS.  
 
First Challenge – Trade Tensions that continue to deepen  
 
We urge the United States, once more, to reconsider the elastic application of the security 
exception. This approach stretches the multilateral trading system to the brink.  
 
With regard to Section 301 measures, we u rge the United States to only adopt decisions that are 
consistent with WTO obligations.  
 
We also urge those Members targeted by protectionist measures to exercise restraint in their 
responses – and to continue to respect the WTO legal framework.  
 
A tit-for-tat approach only reinforces a downward spiral. This is particularly true in the case of 
measures recently announced that affect third parties.  
 
Second Immediate Challenge – Appellate Body Crisis  
 
Brazil reaffirms that we are ready to address the c oncerns raised by the United States in a 
problem -solving mode.  
 
However, we are disappointed that the Membership's openness to discuss AB issues has not led to 
the unblocking of a new selection process so far.  
 
Back in 1994, there were two main justificat ions for Brazil to support the results of the Uruguay WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 83 - 
 
  Round. The dispute settlement system was one of them. We cannot conceive of a WTO without a 
fully functioning dispute settlement system.  
 
The other justification was agriculture, which leads me to the n ext challenge.  
 
Third Challenge – The Paralysis in the Negotiating Pillar  
 
We have been stuck in a deep divide regarding mandates. In other words: DDA versus new issues.  
Brazil continues to believe that the way forward is to address DDA fundamental issues  – 
particularly agriculture and LDC topics – and, at the same time, new issues.  
 
Ruling out new issues as long as the Doha Round is not concluded leads us into a deadlock. In the 
end, neither the DDA nor the new issues are addressed – or at least not as th ey should be: 
multilaterally.  
 
We invite fellow developing countries to consider that an agenda including topics of interest for the 
whole Membership is a necessary step to unblock the paralysis in the negotiating pillar.  
 
At the same time, I cannot fail t o remember that some of the same Members that regret a lack of 
flexibility regarding new issues also used, before Buenos Aires, the same argument of mandates to 
avoid discussions on SPS.  
 
We urge developed Members to show greater flexibility on topics that  are crucial for developing 
countries, such as agriculture, SPS and the implementation agenda focused on LDCs.  
 
Here, let me make one specific comment: Brazil believes that, besides fisheries subsidies, cotton is 
a topic that would showcase how this organi zation could be central to the promotion of the SDGs. 
After the summer break, we will engage with the main stakeholders in order to try to promote a 
discussion on possible ways forward in cotton.  
 
On top of the divide of old vs new issues, a new layer of c omplexity is being proposed in the 
negotiating pillar. I refer to the so -called WTO reform.  
 
The WTO is a multilateral institution. If Members wish to discuss topics of interest, Brazil will 
engage with an open mind – as we always have.  
 
But any WTO reform  or modernization agenda must be balanced and include interests of the whole 
Membership. To give an example: we do not see the rationale to propose a discussion on industrial 
subsidies if we leave agricultural subsidies aside. I was encouraged by the comme nt made by one 
major Member, one of the proponents of this new agenda, indicating that old issues must not be 
forgotten.  
 
It is also important to ensure that any WTO reform agenda be discussed with a constructive 
approach, without finger -pointing. In a mul tilateral institution, in which decisions are made by 
consensus, failing to follow such an approach would be self -defeating, by definition.  
 
21. Pakistan  
 
We also appreciate the Director -General for his relentless efforts for preserving the multilateral 
tradin g system, which is indeed a beacon of hope for developing countries. We would also like to 
thank the chairs of Negotiating Groups who have presented their reports.  
 
Pakistan continues to note with grave concern, the current scepticism in global trade and the 
escalating tension between major trading partners. As the Director -General mentioned, according 
to the latest WTO's G -20 Trade Monitoring Report, there has recently been a 50% increase in the 
estimated coverage of trade restrictive measures among G -20 countries. More specifically, G -20 
countries applied 39 new trade restrictive practices including tariff increases, stricter customs 
procedures, taxes and export duties during the period mid -October 2017 to mid -May 2018, along 
with an increase in the impos ition of trade remedy measures as well. Notably, these figures do not 
capture the restrictive actions taken by some Members since mid -May this year. The next quarter 
report may be even more alarming as the trend continues to show an increase.   
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 84 - 
 
  Such devel opments not only threaten the multilateral trading system, but are particularly harmful 
for developing countries by disproportionately affecting the poor, weak and vulnerable and going 
against the objective of inclusive prosperity. This is a sure recipe fo r conflict and chaos.  
 
The global economy is still in a delicate stage after recovery from the financial crises. A trade war 
at this juncture will destroy jobs, hurt small businesses and impact the supply chain of goods and 
services. This can brew another crisis which we can ill afford. Members must make efforts to de -
escalate tensions and promote global economic recovery, and not go against it.  
 
This place once belonged to the League of Nations. The present wave of unilateralism is worrying, 
it can cripple  the multilateral trading system. Let us all join hands to defend the rules -based 
system, and not let history be repeated.  
 
The rule of law is a universal principle but it becomes extremely relevant when small and 
vulnerable countries are involved in globa l trade. The WTO's dispute settlement mechanism rests 
on the same idea – the primacy of the rule of law for all countries regardless of their development 
levels. Pakistan's recent experience with the dispute settlement system has shown that it is a 
highly effective and technically sound system which adjudicates on technical matters without 
impacting political relationships between Members. The dispute settlement mechanism along with 
its Appellate Body is an excellent system for addressing the recent trade t ensions in an amicable 
manner.  
  
The Members filed 13 disputes in 2015, 17 each in 2016 and 2017. In 2018, so far 26 disputes 
have been filed in the last seven months. This is encouraging that Members see value in the 
dispute settlement mechanism. But if we do not have a functional Appellate Body, how would 
these disputes be resolved? We are heading for a crisis.  
 
We express concern that the DSB has been unable to fulfil its obligation under Article 17.2 of the 
DSU to fill vacancies in the Appellate Body membership. We feel that the solution to the concerns 
regarding the DSB lie in dialogue and constructive engagement. Continued deadlock can impede 
the work of the institution without any chance of improvement.  
 
Recently, several political, academic and te chnical discussions have been reported outside the 
WTO which are contemplating a reform of this institution. It sounds as if the WTO would be re -
invented. We hear of a reform agenda which is quite fundamental but we hope it does not tinker 
with the fundame ntal principles of the multilateral trading system. We hope this reform effort 
improves the WTO and makes it better for everyone. It would be good to know about the how, 
where and when of this reform agenda from the proponents. It is essential for inspirin g confidence 
in a large number of developing countries about the reform agenda. Furthermore, any reform 
effort must keep in mind the pending agenda of the WTO vis -a-vis developing countries.  
 
Pakistan has been actively engaging in all pillars of agriculture negotiations. We are satisfied with 
our progress so far under the able leadership of Ambassador Ford. We cannot underscore more the 
importance of an inclusive process and are happy with the current approach. We agree that 
incremental steps should be our preferred approach but addressing the existing anomalies in the 
Agriculture Agreement should be the starting point of our reforms agenda. Eliminating these 
existing inequities successfully wil l create a conducive environment to further look in to current 
trends in agriculture trade for future reforms.  
 
Pakistan is also concerned with the demands for equal contribution by all Members irrespective of 
their levels of development. We cannot simply  ignore the principle of Special and Differential 
Treatment for all developing countries particularly for LDCs and NFIDCs. It is a basic pillar of the 
multilateral trading system and one that symbolises the WTO.  
 
Cotton is a lifeline of Pakistan's economy and an outcome on cotton is a top priority for us. 
Developing countries face unfair competition from subsidised exports and closed markets of 
cotton. The C -4 has been pushing for reform in this sector for the last 20 years. Unfortunately, we 
have not been able to deliver on their genuine demands. We believe that negotiations must lead to 
significant reductions in cotton support with an ultimate view to total elimination. Pakistan has 
always supported the C -4 in their efforts and will continue to provide the m with all the technical 
and political support in the future.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 85 - 
 
  We are satisfied with our progress so far on fisheries subsidies in the Negotiating Group on Rules. 
Our priority has been to revert to text based negotiations as early as possible. We believe t hat the 
three clusters held before the summer break were very helpful in improving the understanding of 
the issues among Members. We welcome the revised work program circulated by the Negotiating 
Group on Rules Chair for future clusters and are happy to se e that one day has been allocated for 
text based negotiations. We are very confident that Ambassador Roberto Zapata will be able to 
rally the Membership to fulfil the mandate on fisheries subsidies. We assure our constructive 
engagement in any future work.  
 
On E-Commerce, Pakistan wishes to continue its positive engagement on the Work Programme 
mandated by the Ministerial Decision at MC11. We look forward to discussing all issues under 
various bodies for this purpose. Pakistan believes that only a multilate ral outcome will give true 
dividends in this area. As co -convenors of the FEDs, we will continue to make contributions on the 
development dimension of E -Commerce.  
 
Pakistan would like to commend the efforts of the convenors of the joint initiatives on E -
Commerce, MSMEs and Investment Facilitation, and appreciate the decision to keep the 
discussions open -ended, transparent and inclusive. Pakistan will keenly follow the discussions 
under these initiatives and hopes that they feed positively back into the mult ilateral system.  
 
To conclude, Pakistan wishes to underscore the importance of constructive engagement to ensure 
that we keep the WTO system alive particularly for the development and inclusive growth for all.  
 
22. Argentina  
 
I wish to thank the Director -Gener al and the Negotiating Group Chairs for their reports and for the 
work they have accomplished. I would also like to express my special appreciation for the work 
done by the coordinators of the groups on MSMEs, investment facilitation, e -commerce and 
domest ic regulation.  
 
I do not want to take up much of this meeting's time and would rather underscore some of the 
issues that give us most cause for concern. One of these issues is the situation in the Appellate 
Body, which for some months now has been facing a  major crisis. We regret that the various 
initiatives put forward in the DSB have not succeeded in leading to a breakthrough proposal that 
would enable us to move ahead with the process of filling the current vacancies.  
 
The situation appears to be especia lly critical at a time when trade tensions are on the rise.  
 
Under these circumstances, we believe that, as Members, all of us are all called upon to defend the 
system. However, there is no question that this needs to be done on the basis of consensual 
reforms which enhance its current profile and functions. Along with Members that have filed 
requests for consultations, we have confidence in the WTO and expect to see results. Once the 
summer break is over, we hope to move on to text based and small group ne gotiations on fisheries 
subsidies.  
 
The informal General Council meeting reaffirmed the Membership's interest in meeting the 
deadline agreed by Ministers in Buenos Aires. We therefore believe that the suggested pace of 
work should be stepped up as of Janua ry 2019 with a view to reaching the keenly awaited 
Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies.  
 
Because we are by nature an agricultural export country, we are also seeking to achieve a tangible 
outcome in the agriculture negotiations. We regard this as a high priority issue for a large number 
of Members, and it should therefore be possible to achieve at least an incremental result with a 
view to MC12.  
 
In addition, we are pleased to note that a significant number of Members are actively taking part 
in the work done in the framework of the Joint Initiatives launched in Buenos Aires.  
 
There is more and more talk about the trading system being in crisis. I think it would be 
interesting to analyse this term. The word crisis comes from the Greek verb "krino" which me ans 
to "separate".  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 86 - 
 
  In agriculture, it is used to separate the wheat from the chaff. Hence, despite the current 
difficulties, we see light, in the form of a positive outcome, at the end of the tunnel.  
 
Firstly, because bodies, as indeed societies and organ izations, ultimately tend towards balance, 
and secondly, because we are confident that we will be left with the best of what the system has 
to offer. We will be left with the wheat.  
 
23. New Zealand  
 
We thank the Director -General for his report and the Negotia ting Group Chairs for their updates.  
 
First, I will address the negotiating agenda.  
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, we have a clear instruction from Ministers to conclude negotiations in 2019 
– with Ministers responding to what is set out by our Leaders in SDG 14 .6. We heard from the 
Chair on his efforts to mobilise Members – which we support. But mobilising Members is the 
operative point. Members need to mobilise. We are eight months on from MC11. The clock is 
ticking and still Members seem to have great difficul ty in even agreeing a work programme. I 
would echo my Australian colleague in saying that we hope the innovation from our Chair can be 
matched by creativity from Members to set us on track for a successful conclusion of the 
negotiations in 2019.   
 
On agri culture, we have talked for long enough about the need for reigning in the excessive 
entitlements and spending on domestic support – however it is defined. It is time to take action.  
As our Chair noted, we now have some ideas on the table, including from members of the Cairns 
Group and other Members. We need to focus on these ideas in order to achieve something 
genuinely meaningful by MC12 including on cotton.  
 
New Zealand is one of the Members who consider the need to address the overhang of the 
unfinishe d business from the 20th century, including on agriculture. But like Brazil, we believe we 
can and should also address 21st century issues at the same time which is why, for example, we 
continue to look to advance work on Services and Services Domestic Reg ulation.  
 
As noted by the Director -General, the Joint Initiative processes are something of a bright spot in 
this regard and offer an opportunity to advance issues that respond to real world commercial 
evolution. On e -commerce in particular we look forward  to taking the discussion forward in an 
increasingly concrete way following the stocktake that took place last week.  
 
On systemic issues, the Director -General was right to point to the "gravity of the situation" in 
respect of the Appellate Body. New Zeala nd's views on the Appellate Body are well -known so I will 
not repeat them here.  
 
I do though want to comment on the fact that real world tensions in trade have only increased 
since our last meeting.  
 
The markets might be partying like it's 1929 (before the  traumatic events of that year) but – in 
the real world – a growing number of trade -restrictive measures are now actually in place, and 
business and informed commentators are increasingly sounding the alarm at the seemingly ever 
escalating series of threat s and counterthreats.  
 
It is well known that trade is not a zero -sum game. Increasing trade and opening markets have 
brought widespread positive benefits to WTO Members, individually and collectively.  
 
These benefits are usually underestimated ex ante. Exa mples abound of where the computer 
models used to estimate the benefits of trade agreement x/y/z significantly underestimate what 
happens in practice. That is not surprising as economists have not yet found a way to simulate the 
real-world effects as indiv idual businesses innovate and look to take advantage of the new 
opportunities that emerge dynamically in opening markets.  
 
Conversely, it has to be expected that the same types of models will significantly underestimate 
the downside effects in the negative -sum game scenario of escalating trade restrictions.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 87 - 
 
  As of today, the bulk of those downside effects remain in the realm of the hypothetical, as the bulk 
of possible trade restrictions remain in the realm of threats. But in any environment of uncertainty,  
businesses need to plan ahead across the range of possible scenarios and threats can quickly 
become self -fulfilling prophesy. New Zealand therefore urges the parties involved in these 
processes to urgently come to WTO -consistent negotiated outcomes that w ill help us move the 
WTO forward to the type of contract we need in the 21st century, and avoid otherwise making all 
of us – big as well as small – poorer.  
 
24. Chile  
 
Chile is a country that believes that the multilateral system is the most sensible and usefu l means 
for administering common solutions to common problems in a world where interdependence 
continues its upward trend.  
 
We therefore firmly believe in the multilateral trading system – a rules based trading system. The 
evidence is clear: free trade has  proven to be a formula that contributes to the development of 
countries and world peace.  
 
International trade based on rules approved by all Members, with the WTO at its centre, is already 
part of the multilateral legacy of an international order based on  peace and collaboration.  
 
At a moment in time when the WTO is being called into question, Chile agrees with other 
delegations that we are facing great challenges. The WTO is one of the most important 
organizations in the multilateral system, but also one of the youngest, and it is currently facing 
growth -related problems and calls for greater maturity and effectiveness in its operations. These 
are problems that are typical of adapting to change. Chile is open to looking at how to modernize, 
revitalize and reposition the WTO – openly, but also without preconceptions.  
 
We have no doubt that WTO Members will be able to find sustainable solutions to the current 
challenges. Most Members, the vast majority, want to modernize, revitalize and reposition the 
WTO thr ough international cooperation. This calls for different, innovative and flexible thinking. It 
means not just asking for, but also giving.  
 
It also requires resisting the temptation to block. The fact that consensus is a pillar of the WTO 
gives Members a d uty more than a right: the duty to make all necessary efforts to reach 
agreements rather than consistently rejecting them over time.  
 
"Unilateralism" and protectionism must also be shown the door. And to do this intelligently, we 
have to respond constructively, with ideas and proposals. We have to insist that the standards and 
rules of the Marrakesh agreements be observed and introduce new rules where necessary so that 
the liberalization of world trade for which the WTO stands can be adequately pr otected.  
 
It should also be remembered that negotiation and rule -making are inherent functions of the WTO. 
We must honour those commitments. The ideal is for all Members to move forward on the basis of 
high common denominators. If that is not possible, we must be open to the possibility of providing 
spaces where countries that are in a position to move forward may do so. For that, there are 
already important initiatives and declarations in place that resulted from Buenos Aires concerning 
sectors like electr onic commerce and investment facilitation and new areas such as micro, small 
and medium sized enterprises and women's economic empowerment.  
 
We also wish to emphasize that we support the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, which 
represent an opportunity t o validate the WTO's negotiating function. We welcome the leadership of 
the Permanent Representative of Mexico on this matter and reiterate our support for his working 
methods. We are confident that we will achieve positive results that will honour the abi lity of 
Members to reach agreements and the prestige of this organization.  
 
We consider progress in the negotiations on agriculture to be important and necessary. Agriculture 
is a key sector for the liberalization of world trade and is fundamental to the d evelopment of many 
Members.  
 
We also wish to highlight the initiative that we are promoting, together with Mexico, New Zealand 
and Panama, on exploratory discussions on market access for services, which was discussed at the WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 88 - 
 
  special session of the Council f or Trade in Services on 16 July 2018. This proposal seeks to open 
up a space where all Members can express their interests and aspirations regarding an area of 
fundamental importance that would benefit all Members.  
 
Lastly, we cannot fail to mention what i s happening in the Appellate Body. We are just over 60 
days away from suffering a self -inflicted defeat. There is time to find a solution. We do not have to 
wait until the last minute. Compared to consensus based solutions, demonstrations of force are 
less effective and cause greater harm.  
 
For Chile, the WTO dispute settlement mechanism is a fundamental element of the organization 
and one of its most valuable. It is a historic achievement of the Uruguay Round and a highly 
valuable tool for stability and ju stice for all in world trade.  
 
A call for generosity and "enlightened" national interest is indeed appropriate here. A call for a 
strategic view, and not a short term one. The failure to find a solution for the Appellate Body 
would herald systemic conseque nces that are difficult to foresee.  
 
Chile is aware that we are experiencing significant challenges to the international trading system 
and to multilateralism.  
 
My country – whether working alone or together with others who value and wish to strengthen the  
WTO – will do everything possible to find and contribute to effective and fair solutions that will 
help improve and update the rules and operations of our organization, which represents, like few 
other institutions, a global public good.  
 
25. Zimbabwe  
 
Allow me to first express my appreciation to the Director -General and to the Chairpersons of the 
Negotiating Groups for the comprehensive reports.  
 
As I contribute my national perspective to the discussion, let me associate my delegation with 
statements d elivered by the African and ACP Groups, the C -4 and the G -33. Given that over 70% 
of the population in Zimbabwe rely on agriculture which is also the backbone of our economy, my 
delegation prioritises work on agriculture negotiations. Let me then state my delegation's positions 
on the DDA negotiations as well as on current developments.  
 
The principle of SDT should remain integral in all of our work and developing countries' flexibilities 
should be preserved.  
 
We would like to have significant reduction of AMS support which is the most trade distorting form 
of subsidies and specifically, address the issue of concentration as a result of high levels of product 
specific support, including that for cotton. To this effect, we support the recent proposal by India 
and China.  
 
Developing countries with zero AMS entitlements such as our own should not have any reduction 
commitments. We are in support of an incremental approach in carrying our work forward and 
expect Mem bers to put disciplines to curb the growing trade distortive nature of the green box 
subsidies in the subsequent stages.  
 
Furthermore, my delegation expects to have an outcome on a permanent solution on Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes that covers existing and new programmes and with 
safeguards that will not result in burdensome obligations to developing countries such as our own.  
 
An effective and easy to use SSM remains our priority in order to address challenges related to 
food security, rural development and livelihood security.  
 
Regarding our discussions on agriculture technical issues, this should take place in the regular 
committee and it must complement our negotiations in line with the mandate. Most importantly, 
we would like the di scussions to reveal the impact of the trade distorting support on developing 
countries.  
 
Regarding development negotiations, we reiterate our concerns as regards advancing our work WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 89 - 
 
  based on a case by case or differentiation approach as this is not in line  with the Marrakesh 
Agreements and paragraph 44 of the Doha mandate. Work should continue based on the current 
mandates. The principle of S&DT enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreements should not be redefined.  
 
Regarding the broad discussions on development, our view is that this should be in the regular 
committee and must not delay the negotiations nor make an attempt to change the mandates for 
our work.  
 
Regarding e -commerce, we would want to see progress under the work programme on e -
commerce in line with the mandate and look forward to discussions that will improve our 
understanding of this evolving issue and thus improve our participation on the global digital arena.  
 
Lastly, I wish to underscore our commitment to a fair, rules based, transparent, consen sus based 
and balanced multilateral trading system. In this regard, we register our concerns on the on -going 
plurilateral work on non -mandated new issues.  
 
My delegation stands ready to work towards the success of the multilateral trading system and we 
pledge our commitment to engage constructively to achieve this.  
 
26. Russian Federation  
 
At the outset, I would like to express my gratitude to the Director -General and the Chairs of the 
Negotiating Groups for the fair assessment of the current state of play.  
 
Two months ago, our Ministers held an informal get -together in the margins of the OECD meetings 
in Paris. Ministers raised concerns over growing trade tensions, including the spiral of unilateral 
actions and countermeasures. They called on all Members to w ork within WTO rules and resolve 
differences through dialogue.  
 
We witness no positive changes since then. Moreover, the situation has visibly worsened. We 
register massive violations of the WTO rules, and threats to its enforcement mechanism are 
growing. The survival of the global trading system is at stake.  
 
The unilateral measures taken by one big Member are destroying competition and developing 
protectionism. We call upon bringing them in line with the WTO law. We do not agree with the way 
this big Mem ber used the concept of national security. In Russia's view, it is completely opposite to 
the basics of the WTO agreements.  
 
We need concrete actions to preserve the WTO's function of dispute resolution. We urge all the 
Members to address the Appellate Bo dy issue in an urgent and constructive manner. Specific 
domestic interests of a single Member should not prevail over the right of Members to get access 
to justice.  
 
The most important for us after the summer break should be to start talking about converge nce of 
Members' requests and sensitivities. This approach should enable us to balance interests of all the 
negotiating parties and find a way to consensus.  
 
The WTO is not only about dispute settlement. Negotiating and implementation functions are of 
equal  importance.  
 
We see a clear commitment to reach an agreement on fisheries subsidies disciplines by MC12. The 
group needs to double down on constructive and creative efforts. However, we are convinced that 
transparency of negotiations should be preserved.  Small group process should be open to all 
Members.  
 
Another priority issue for Russia is agriculture. We have been stalled into reflection mode since 
MC11. In our view, time is ripe to switch into productive discussion mode and re -establish a 
regular nego tiations process. Submission of all required notifications should form the basis for our 
discussions.  
 
Russia welcomes increased engagement on new important initiatives, namely electronic 
commerce, domestic regulation in services, MSMEs, investment facilit ation and women's economic WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 90 - 
 
  empowerment.  
 
We acknowledge the importance of addressing trade and development issues, in particular special 
and differential treatment. It is a fact that many Members, which were among poor developing 
countries decades ago, pro gressed much, and some of them are economic champions now. Russia 
is ready to engage in active discussions of further S&D development.  
 
Improving transparency and notification compliance is essential to reinvigorate the work of the 
WTO regular bodies. We a re of the view that this problem can be solved by "positive motivation" of 
Members. In particular, we may consider simplification of notification formats, or technical 
assistance to developing and least -developed countries which face constraints.  
 
I would like to conclude by saying that everyone in the WTO should stick to the rules of the game. 
Only by following the rules while working together can we overcome the current crisis and prevent 
ourselves from the downward spiral of everlasting trade wars with n o winners.  
 
27. Switzerland  
 
In Switzerland' s view, among all approaches to international trade governance, the multilateral 
system embodied in the WTO remains the best option by far.  
 
Since its inception, the rules -based system of the WTO has contributed to global economic 
stability, prosperity and development.  
 
What the WTO has been unable to do so far, with a few notable exceptions, is to adapt to new 
economic realities and to respond to Members' expectations.  
 
Clearly, perceptions on where and how WTO agre ements and mechanisms should be updated differ 
markedly across the Membership.    
 
These difficulties and related developments – notably the ongoing blockade at the Appellate Body 
and increasing trade tensions – are putting the multilateral trading system under heavy strain.  
 
Their impact is not only felt across the WTO's various fields of activity, but also increasingly on the 
ground, in Members' real economies.    
 
Insisting on long -held negotiating positions will not help reverse that trend. Just as prot ectionist 
measures are unlikely to produce any winners.  
 
Switzerland therefore strongly believes that there is no way around genuine dialogue and 
compromise, if the WTO is to be preserved and to be made fit for the future.  
 
As an obvious priority and matte r of credibility, WTO Members should undertake all efforts to meet 
the only multilateral mandate from MC11 on fisheries subsidies.  
 
At the same time, addressing the broader challenges facing the WTO has become a necessity.  
 
Switzerland welcomes the reform initiatives mentioned today and is ready to contribute to them.  
 
Switzerland also commends and supports the substantial ongoing efforts under the Buenos Aires 
"joint initiatives", which we consider to be a valuable addition to multilateral efforts.  
 
Howev er, for any of those efforts to succeed, the major players will need to be at the table and 
willing to c ontribute their fair share.  
 
The WTO is being put into question as never before. Members stand to lose a lot if we fail to act 
collectively to meet the current challenges.  
 
28. Egypt  
 
Allow me at the beginning to thank the Director -General and the Chairs of the negotiating groups 
for their reports and updates regarding the state of play in their respective areas of responsibility. WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 91 - 
 
  We do appreciate all his efforts in conducting consultations in different formats in order to advance 
the work of this organization despite the many challenges facing it.  
 
Egypt would like to associate itself with the statement made today by South Africa on behalf of the 
African Group.  
 
Egypt maintains its conviction that the entire WTO Membership has to ensure that the trading 
system retains its nature which Members had collectively created, namely, being intact, rule -
based, fair, equitable and transparen t. We also believe that greater engagement is the only way 
forward and the collective responsibility of the Membership is the main tool to address the 
challenges facing the system.  
 
Let me now put forward our views on some of the important issues before us : 
 
First, a general notice for my delegation is the urgent need to uphold the centrality of the WTO 
within the multilateral trading system. We all have a common shared responsibility towards a 
better future of the WTO and the global trading system. Additio nally, we need to strike a balance 
between Doha remaining issues and the issues that have been coming to the forefront lately. In 
order to achieve this crucial balance, we believe that it is about time to agree on a common 
priority or priorities towards MC 12 and start working effectively on successful outcomes for the 
upcoming Ministerial and pave the way towards the conclusion of the Doha Development Agenda 
emphasizing that S&DT shall be an integral part of any outcome.  
 
In the same context, we need to ma intain the centrality of development in our work at the WTO to 
achieve the integration of the DCs and LDCs in the multilateral trading system. Taking into 
consideration that the WTO Members are at different levels of development, we are of the opinion 
that relevant rules should provide necessary policy space with a view to enabling each developing 
country to formulate adequate policies that help in realizing the desired development.  
 
Second, on Agriculture, we would hereby like to underscore the importance Egypt attaches to this 
file being one of the largest NFIDCs, reaffirming that the current mandates shall be respected 
including the Doha Declaration, Hong Kong, Bali and Nairobi Ministerial decisions as well as the 
July framework and the General Council de cisions of 2014, and that LDCs and NFIDCs shall be 
exempted from any further commitments given the sensitivity of food security issues for these 
countries.  
 
Third, on Fisheries, we believe that two balances should be properly addressed during 
negotiations.  One is between the sustainable development of fishery resources and the economic 
development for developing countries. The other is between the level of ambition and 
implementing capacity for developing countries. The ongoing and future negotiations shall  identify 
the scope of applying the targeted provisions. Moreover, Egypt views that any future decision or 
agreement in this regard shall consider the needs of developing countries and LDCs for effective 
special and differential provisions. Special and Dif ferential Treatment is integral part of fisheries 
negotiations not only as per SDG 14.6 but also as per the Doha mandate and the reaffirmation of 
the Hong Kong 2005 Ministerial Conference.  
 
Fourth, on e -commerce and investment facilitation, Egypt is of the  opinion that the 1998 Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce represents the overarching framework within which this topic 
is discussed in the organization. Similarly, and as regards investment facilitation, we recall that the 
Nairobi Ministerial Declaratio n as regards the non -Doha issues has stated that any decision to 
launch negotiations multilaterally would need to be agreed by all Members. We are following 
various 'informal' consultation tracks that are currently taking place in the WTO regarding e -
comme rce, investment facilitation and MSMEs. We recognize them as forums that help enrich 
dialogue on the said topics though we are of the opinion that they cannot be transformed into any 
form of negotiation forums without securing the required mandate.  
 
Fifth, on issues related to Appellate Body, Egypt would like to thank Mexico and co -sponsors for 
their proposal. As we have previously expressed, we are deeply concerned with the prolonged 
impasse over the Appellate Body selection process. This is threatening th e proper functioning of 
the entire WTO dispute settlement system. Vacancies in the Appellate Body should be filled as 
quickly as possible without further delay. Egypt is prepared to engage with all Members in further 
discussion on a possible way forward.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 92 - 
 
   
To conclude, we stress once again our full readiness to work with all Members of this organization 
to preserve the multilateral trading system and to move the negotiations forward towards an 
outcome that would address our developmental needs and aspiration s. 
 
29. Norway  
 
We thank the Director -General for your report and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their 
updates.  
 
At the TNC and HoDs meeting in May, I voiced Norway's concerns that increased protectionism 
would have a damaging effect on the multilateral trading system. I also stressed that Norway is 
worried about risks of increased instability in the world economy, which may hamper the prospects 
for global economic growth.  
 
Developments since then have confirmed our fears. Norway's concerns a bout the state of play in 
the WTO are even deeper today. Trade tensions are escalating and Members are engaging in a tit -
for-tat that will strain the global economy and the multilateral trading system.  
 
Of particular concern is the ongoing 232 -process in t he United States. Norway urges the United 
States not to implement unilateral trade barriers on imports of autos and auto parts in the name of 
national security.  
 
In general terms, let me repeat that Norway is worried by:  
 
­ the apparent willingness to risk r uining the system that has served us all so well for more 
than 70 years;  
­ the idea that "might makes right" and the use of unilatera l tools outside the WTO;  
­ the risk of the Dispute Settlement Pillar grinding to a halt unless we quickly fill emp ty seats 
in the Appellate Body;  
­ the apparent unwillingness by emerging economies to accept their part in the fine balance 
of rights and obligations.  
 
Norway is fully aware that there are some underlying concerns that need to be addressed. 
However, the answer is not pro tectionism, unilateralism and "trade war". The entire WTO 
Membership needs to reflect on the deeper root causes of the current crisis.  
 
How all Members respond to the present challenges will have an impact on the multilateral trading 
system, which is a mul tilateral common good. The letters and spirit of the multilateral trading 
system must be respected. We urge all WTO Members to use the multilateral trading system to 
solve their differences.  
 
In this extremely challenging time, WTO Members have to commit t o work together to safeguard 
the system – including by being open to discuss its imperfections and by seeking the necessary 
improvements. Norway welcomes all initiatives and discussions in different configurations on how 
to modernize and maintain a WTO -rulebook that is relevant for the 21st century. In this respect, 
we welcome the Canadian initiative that was mentioned this morning by the permanent 
representative of Canada.  
 
For us, this includes looking at some of the fundamental underlying issues such as how to deal 
with overcapacity and subsidies, looking at ways to develop rules on electronic commerce, and so 
forth.  
 
Let me be clear. Focusing on such forward -looking issues is absolutely necessary. This does not in 
any way imply that this can or would be to the detriment of finding solutions in already well -
established processes such as those based on Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture and 
discussions on services. It is in particular abundantly clear that we need to continue and invigorate 
the nece ssary discussions on trade and development.  
 
One obvious way to strengthen the system is by delivering new multilateral negotiated outcomes. 
The Negotiating Group on rules discusses IUU this week but this is only a minor part of the 
mandate for the negotia tions on fisheries subsidies. Norway calls on all Members to show the WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 93 - 
 
  necessary political will to reach consensus and to fulfil all elements of SDG 14.6 in the WTO within 
the set timeframe. We are ready to do our part to obtain an effective and comprehensi ve result 
that is meaningful and has a real impact on fish stocks. The first necessary step is to agree on a 
work program for the autumn and that should be done this week.  
 
The outlook for global trade is rather bleak these days. It is impossible to open a  newspaper 
without reading about trade, the challenges we face, and warnings about the consequences if we 
do not step up our efforts to deal with the challenges. We need to do this now. This is the 
collective responsibility of the WTO Membership. Listening  to some of the other interventions 
today, I would like to stress that status quo is not an option.  
 
30. Turkey  
 
It is clear that our organization is facing serious challenges. Therefore, we as Members also face 
the challenge of how to work together to make th e WTO a more efficient and a better organization 
to adapt to the current realities in the global order.   
 
However, through the WTO, we have – albeit complex – only one set of rules that we can call 
universal. We also recognize that the core of the current  problems can only be addressed at the 
political level. This reality to a varying extent limits our ability to operate here in this room.  
 
In the meantime, we need to make this organization work to the best of our abilities taking into 
account the directi on the current mandates provide. We should try to better understand the 
concerns of Members that are sitting on the opposite side of any given issue to see how we can 
bridge these differences and make the system work.  
 
Having said that, allow me to touch upon two points of relevance. First, the current trade tensions 
as a result of unilateral actions remain to be the most pressing issue. These actions not only 
undermine the rule -based multilateral trading system significantly but also are detrimental to 
international cooperation. They present risks to the already fragile recovery in global economy.  
 
The situation on this front since the last TNC meeting has worsened. We reiterate our view that 
these actions are not conducive to better or more efficient or even fair trade.  
 
Second issue concerns the current impasse in the selection process for the Appellate Body 
Members. In the interest of time, I will not repeat our clearly outlined and communicated position. 
But let me underline our growing concern that t he current situation is not sustainable. And if the 
current situation is not preferable by any Member then surely we must be able to find a way to 
move forward.  
 
Agriculture continues to be at the centre in terms of the negotiating function of the WTO. Wh ile the 
main divergences still remain, it is encouraging that many Members have shown interest in 
negotiations through their recent papers.  
 
However, we believe that we should avoid polarizing debates based on immediate outcomes. 
Rather, we should concentr ate our focus on the objectives of the agriculture negotiations. If 
Members could agree on common objectives, we would be in a better position to discuss concrete 
outcomes to serve these objectives.  
 
For Turkey, the main objectives are providing competitio n framework in agriculture trade that is 
more just, reducing trade distortions and addressing international market volatilities. After the 
summer break, our delegation will continue to work closely with all interested delegations for 
exploring ways to achi eve these objectives and will contribute constructively in all debates aiming 
the agriculture reform process.  
 
Turkey sees the negotiations on fisheries subsidies as one of the most important topics on our 
current agenda. Members should shift gears into a more collaborative mode and focus on text 
based negotiations in the upcoming clusters. With the new working program prepared by the 
Negotiating Group on Rules Chair, we believe that the Membership will have a better opportunity 
to deliver a meaningful and credible outcome on fisheries by the end of 2019.  
 
Turkey is actively taking part in the works that are being undertaken by Members interested in WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 94 - 
 
  furthering the WTO agenda on domestic regulation in trade in services and e -commerce.  
 
On domestic regulation, let me repeat that Turkey supports establishing clear disciplines to reduce 
barriers and obstacles faced by service suppliers. The current environment present significant 
impediments to the service suppliers of developing countries.  Thus, we call on all Members to 
engage in talks to determine these disciplines in a result -oriented fashion.  
 
A short point on e -commerce: the ongoing exploratory work is helping us clarify the many facets 
of electronic commerce. Valuable thematic work i s taking place in many subjects ranging from the 
already existing rules in WTO agreements that apply to e -commerce and the existing legal gaps to 
how we can overcome the digital divide which is a serious concern for some Members. We 
encourage the entire Me mbership to take part in this comprehensive exercise to share their 
national experience and express priorities in search of a common denominator.  
 
With those in mind, let me also reiterate our belief that the pending issues within the framework of 
the WTO  negotiations should be addressed effectively for broad -based welfare gains from 
international trade and development should continue to be at the centre of our work.  
 
Turkey is open to constructively engage in all areas for exploring ways to achieve multi lateral 
outcomes.  
 
31. Bangladesh  
 
We thank the Director -General for his report and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups for their 
comprehensive reports. Bangladesh fully associates with statement delivered by the Central 
African Republic on behalf of the LDCs . Six months have passed after our last Ministerial in Buenos 
Aires. During this period, we have observed activities only in three areas of the Doha Work 
Programme.  Progress is seemingly very slow. Besides, we have been encountering new trade 
tensions. Al l these puts into question the WTO's role in setting the global trade agenda. Probably, 
time has come to refresh our thinking on how we should proceed. All Members are giving 
considerable time on WTO work. Sometimes, discussions are very extensive. However , we do not 
see any outcome. Perhaps it is important for us to have outcome -oriented discussions even on 
small issues so that we proceed in the discussions on contentious issues with the objective of 
reaching outcomes.  
 
My delegation along with members of  the LDC Group are making every effort to positively 
contribute to the discussions in regular bodies and in negotiating groups. During the last six 
months, our Group has submitted a number of proposals for consider ation by the whole 
Membership. We do expec t that Members will engage themselves in the discussion on those issues 
with an objective to have outcome.  
 
Having said that, let me highlight some issues.  
 
First, my delegation commends the work of the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules in 
advancing  the discussions on fisheries subsidies. We have a time bound mandate by our Ministers 
and we support his effort to continue discussions with an agreed half -yearly work programme.  It 
is important that we start text -based discussion as early as possible an d we appreciate the Chair 
for positively responding to our call. For countries like Bangladesh, it is important that any 
discipline in this area take care of the level of development of each Member in marine fisheries.  
Members with low levels of developme nt cannot take the same level of commitment with those 
who have over a long period developed their fisheries sector with adequate support measures.  
 
Second, during the last two Ministerial Conferences, we all tried our best to have outcomes on 
agreement s pecific S&DT proposals of the G -90. It seems to us that we could not achieve expected 
results under the able leadership of the Chair of the CTD SS because of gaps in our perception 
about development in rule making. We repeatedly mentioned that development does not mean 
only the transition period or exemption. It also comprises measures directed towards increasing 
trading opportunity for developing countries especially the LDCs and well -targeted technical 
assistance. G -90 proposals contain all aspects of dev elopment. However, the whole package of the 
G-90 proposal has been rejected due to the misperception of our proposal. We are sure that if 
Members are engaged in the discussions, we can achieve the expected result. The Chair's report 
contains fruitful thoug hts in the right direction. We urge Members to resume discussions on this WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 95 - 
 
  important issue after the summer break.  
 
Third, it is important for LDCs to observe that the decisions taken in favour of LDCs are 
implemented in their letter and spirit. Over the la st six months, we have submitted a number of 
proposals for Members' consideration. In this context, let me highlight some key issues.  
 
The Nairobi Ministerial decision on LDCs service waiver envisages the review of technical 
assistance and the initiation o f a process to review the operation of notified preferences. The LDCs 
requested the CTS to start this process and we do expect that the Chair will lead the process after 
the summer break. Members may recall that we had raised some issues in our collective request 
especially in sections B and C. While deliberating on those two sections of our request, Members 
agreed to consider those requests in domestic regulation. Accordingly, Ministers at Nairobi agreed 
to give special priority to addressing regulatory ba rriers of interest to LDCs in negotiations 
pursuant to Article VI.4 of the GATS. We do expect that Members consider this decision in 
developing a textual proposal.  
 
The implementation of the Nairobi Decision on Rules of Origin for LDCs is key to addressing  the 
marginalization of LDCs in international trade. We have some progress in developing the format 
for notifications and modalities for calculating the utilization rate of preferences. However, there is 
little progress in implementing the decision by pref erence granting Members. We urge Members to 
take positive steps towards the implementation of the decision in its spirit.  
 
The LDCs have made a submission on the implementation of TRIPS Article 66.2. We had fruitful 
discussions under the leadership of the TRIPS Council Chair. It is our conviction that Members 
recognize the concerns we have raised and we do expect a fruitful outcome in the right direction.  
 
The LDCs have made a submission to address a missing element in Annex VII of the Agreement on 
Subsidie s and Countervailing Measures for graduated LDCs which was not visualized at the time 
when we negotiated the agreement. In our proposal, we are not requesting for new flexibility. In 
fact, we are requesting to continue the same flexibility only if a gradua ted LDC falls within the 
criteria already agreed by the Members. Our proposal was discussed during the last session of the 
Council for Trade in Goods. A number of Members recognized the merit of the proposal and 
extended full support. Several others raised  some questions. We are expecting discussions on our 
proposal in the next session of the General Council. In this context, I like to recall that LDC 
graduation got a momentum when the international community agreed to enable half of the LDCs 
to meet the gr aduation criteria through the adoption of the Istanbul Programme of Action for 
LDCs. As of now, five LDCs have graduated and two are expected to graduate. As per UNCTAD's 
projection, 16  LDCs will be graduating from their LDC status by 2024. Members perhap s agree 
that the process of graduation is not easy and graduated LDCs will face many challenges including 
in trade areas. Therefore, they need support to keep the momentum of graduation. In this regard, 
it will be important that graduated LDCs receive the same treatment available to other developing 
countries with same level of development. We do expect that Members will give a positive 
consideration to our proposal and come up with a decision which is annexed to the proposal.   
 
You may recall that before MC11 we had a long discussion on the Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce and agreed to reinvigorate the Work Programme. Unfortunately, there was no 
substantive discussion on e -commerce in any WTO body assigned under the Work Programme. The 
Work Programme  clearly defines the issues which need to be addressed by each Committee and 
we have the mandate from Ministers. We therefore propose that the Chairs of each committee 
resume the discussions on the basis of the updated notes prepared by the Secretariat.  
 
Lastly, we like to reiterate that we consider a well -functioning, rules -based multilateral trading 
system embodied in the WTO to be of key importance for our economies as well as for global 
economic stability, prosperity and development. We are concerned ab out the increased trade 
tensions and related risks for the multilateral trading system and world trade. We urge Members to 
resolve their differences through dialogue and cooperation including through WTO bodies. It is 
important for us to fill all current a nd future vacancies on the Appellate Body without delay. In this 
regard, we share the statement made by Switzerland.  
 
My delegation likes to extend our all -out support to the whole Membership to constructively 
engage in any discussion with view to having a n outcome.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 96 - 
 
  32. Hong Kong, China  
 
I thank the Director -General for his report and the Chairs of the various negotiating groups and 
convenors of the Joint Statement Initiatives for their hard work.  
 
As an active participant in the discussions, Hong Kong, China is pleased to see good progress in 
the initiatives on e -commerce, investment facilitation and MSMEs.  
 
We also note the tremendous efforts made to take the negotiations on fisheries, agriculture and 
development forward. Although these are the priority areas  for many Members, there are still 
considerable gaps to bridge and a lot more work to be done.  
 
Unfortunately, adding to the challenge of negotiation is the fact that Members have to address at 
the same time the disruptions and damages caused by large -scale unilateral trade measures.  
 
None of us can claim immunity to the impact of these actions. All of us are affected either by the 
measures themselves or by the trade tensions that they create. The resulting anxiety and 
uncertainties are already affecting bu siness decisions. They are set to dampen global trade flows 
and economic growth.  
 
The truth is that, in a trade war, there is no winner. There are only losers. Maybe the initial targets 
are the big players, but in the end, it is often the smaller economies  which have no bargaining 
power that suffer the most.  
 
And for many of us, including Hong Kong, China, it is not just about defending our own commercial 
interest. It is very much a systemic concern.  
 
When agreed rules are not followed, the credibility of the rules -based multilateral trading system is 
called into question. One may even doubt the value of negotiating further trade deals if 
commitments that we have fought so hard to secure can one day simply be ignored.  
 
Meanwhile, the selection of Appellate Body members continues to be stalled. Unless the process is 
unblocked, the Appellate Body and a large part of the dispute settlement mechanism can become 
dysfunctional by the end of the next year.  
 
I can understand why the situation is described by many as  a crisis for the WTO. Hong Kong, 
China shares the deep concern. But as a staunch supporter of the multilateral trading system, we 
also feel that we should not give up so easily.  
 
Just like the optimist would see a glass half -full when the pessimist sees i t as half -empty, Hong 
Kong, China would also want to see crisis as an opportunity – an opportunity for change; an 
opportunity for improvement. A fundamental reform of the WTO will be a strenuous exercise but if 
going through it would allow the organization  to emerge stronger and better, then we believe it is 
worth pursuing.  
 
Any healthy organization will need to constantly review its operation to make sure that it can keep 
up with the times. The WTO is no different. The past 20 years have seen profound chan ges in the 
way that international trade is conducted. We have very good reasons to reflect on the strengths 
and weaknesses of this organization, to see how best we can respond to those changes.  
 
Perhaps the crisis we face today is like a strong wake -up cal l. The alarm bell may have been rung 
by Members who feel frustrated by the inadequacies of the system. Once we embark on an 
institutional reform, we are however accountable not to any individual Member but to the 
Membership as a whole and to the public goo d that the system serves.  
 
We need to have a sense of urgency. But it is also important that we can deliberate rationally and 
in good faith. To rebuild multilateralism, we need first to rebuild trust: trust in the system, trust in 
each other and trust in o ur ability to cooperate.  
 
If we ask the 164 Members what the WTO means to each of us, we are bound to get many 
different answers. Understandably, we have different expectations, interests and views on how 
things can improve. But there is one common startin g point which is that the WTO and the WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 97 - 
 
  multilateral trading system are valuable and should be preserved.  
 
With a positive attitude and an open mind, Hong Kong, China looks forward to a constructive 
dialogue on WTO reform and stands ready to contribute.  
 
33. Sri Lanka  
 
My delegation wishes to thank the Director -General and the Chairpersons of the Negotiating Group 
for their updates on the consultations and ongoing negotiations. We observed the progressing 
nature of the constructive discussions on various subject issues in taking up Ministerial directives 
provided at Buenos Aires.  
 
Trade can play a positive and vital role for sustainable development. It has been well recognized in 
the UN SDGs. We therefore believe that the role of the WTO towards this objective is  becoming 
more and more relevant. We also believe that we have a collective responsibility to ensure the 
effective functioning of the multilateral trading system to facilitate the fulfilment of these 
objectives.  
 
Changes in the global trade and the trading  environment have serious impacts on small economies 
such as Sri Lanka. For example:  
 
• From 2008 onwards, we experienced the impacts of global economic recession.  
 
• Similarly, the slow growth of world trade until the recent past affecting consumers' 
demand had directly affected our exports as well as imports.  
 
• Currently, we experience challenges from the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Digital 
divide, technological eva luation and challenges on addressing necessary needs on 
infrastructural development brought us great concerns.  
 
In light of the above global challenges, it is vital for small economies to sustain its trade and 
trading prospects. In this regard, we expect the multilateral trading system to drive us towards a 
fair and sustainable integration into global trade.  
 
In taking into account the directives that we have on the table on various subjects, we have a long 
agenda with a limited time period in preparing fo r MC12. Further, the challenges encountered by 
the multilateral trading system in taking forward the important subject issues and addressing the 
systematic concerns require more collaborative approach than before if we are to see the light in 
the dark tunn el.  
 
With regard to ongoing negotiations on disciplining fisheries subsidies, my delegation wishes to 
commend the active role played by Ambassador Roberto Zapata, Chair of the Negotiating Group 
on Rules. My delegation wishes to state that we are committed  to implement SDG 14.6 to prohibit 
certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity, overfishing and to eliminate 
subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing. However, the process should maintain a fair, transparent 
and inclusive participa tion while giving similar attention to SDG 14 where political direction has 
also been given to provide access for small -scale artisanal fishers to marine resources and 
markets.  
 
We observed that some countries have not yet established their national legis lative and 
management controls in disciplining IUU fishing, overfishing or overcapacity. These countries need 
technical and funding assistance with a time allowance to address these control and management 
issues. In the absence of such controls and managem ent measures, it is very much doubtful to 
realize the objectives  of the proposed disciplines.  
 
The importance of the fisheries sector may vary among the countries. The fishing industry in Sri 
Lanka is a vital sector for the nation in terms of socio -economi c aspects such as nutrition, food 
security, employment and government revenue. 70% of animal protein requirement of the 
population of Sri Lanka is met by the fisheries sector. It is expected that these aspects would be 
adequately reflected on the disciplin es that we are finally expected to agree upon. In this regard, 
the conclusions and decisions reached by RFMOs on stock management and capacity building are 
important areas to be considered.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 98 - 
 
   
With regard to trade and development, many Members in Nairobi rea ffirmed their commitments to 
address the remaining issues of the DDA. Addressing the development needs of developing 
countries in particular small economies is important to ensure the integration of those Members 
into the multilateral trading system.  
 
We also wish to take this opportunity to thank the Chair of the CTD and the WTO Secretariat for 
the special workshop organized under the theme of reducing the trade cost. Two capital based 
officials from Sri Lanka participated and shared their experience at t his workshop. We recognized 
the importance of continuing similar arrangements for the benefit of the Members to learn both 
opportunities and challenges encountered by small economies on their struggle to integrate into 
global trade.  
 
On agriculture, my del egation associates with the statement made by Indonesia on behalf of the 
G-33. 
 
A number of new issues are being discussed at this organization led by the delegations who co -
sponsored the joint statements issued at MC11 and the like -minded groups with rega rd to services 
domestic regulations, e -commerce and investment facilitation. While recognizing the rapid nature 
of the discussions, we believe that these discussions should not derail the outstanding subject 
issues to be addressed at the multilateral level . Some of these new subject issues have deadlines 
for their conclusion. With regard to ongoing informal discussions on various subject issues, my 
delegation appreciates if the Chair could clarify how these discussions are expected to progress.  
 
34. Ecuador  
 
We welcome both the Director -General's report and those of the Chairs of the various Negotiating 
Groups regarding the current state of play in the discussions.  
 
We align ourselves with the statements made by the coordinators of the G -33 and the group of 
Article XII Members.  
 
Let me begin this intervention by highlighting the importance that Ecuador gives to the multilateral 
trading system, which plays a crucial role in international relations and therefore in the 
negotiations of this organization.  
 
However, w e are witnessing a situation in which several of the system's stakeholders are calling 
into question this type of association by explicitly proposing plurilateral agreements that would 
only serve to weaken a system which, while not perfect, is preferable t o the alternative of a world 
in which bilateral relations would undoubtedly be harmful for smaller countries.  
 
For this reason, based on the principles of non -discrimination, inclusiveness, transparency and 
balance, all WTO Members must contribute to a dis cussion process to reform the multilateral 
system – a process from which no Member is excluded.  
 
We therefore welcome all contributions to this process such as the report submitted to the 
Director -General on 17 July by the representatives of a high -level b oard of experts, in which they 
refer, from their perspective, to the future of world trade governance. Although we are still 
examining the report, any initiatives in this regard are welcome. However, it remains a matter of 
concern that the approaches to re vitalizing the WTO as a forum for trade cooperation and dispute 
settlement involve supporting open plurilateralism and expanding the scope of the Secretariat's 
responsibilities. In our view, such approaches are not conducive to this end.  
 
Ecuador will do e verything within its power to strengthen the organization and ensure that it is an 
effective multilateral trading forum while taking into consideration the diversity of interests and 
avoiding approaches that aim to reform multilateralism through new rules agreed upon by certain 
countries.  
 
We will focus our efforts on giving priority to development and special and differential treatment 
thereby observing a fundamental element of the multilateral trading system which is contained, for 
example, in the mandate  established in paragraph 44 of the Doha Development Agenda. We 
therefore reiterate that we do not agree with classifying countries that would be granted such WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 99 - 
 
  treatment in a selective manner.  
 
As regards the negotiations in the different bodies, we wish to  place particular emphasis on the 
discussions on fisheries subsidies which we hope will lead to concrete outcomes in line with the 
Buenos Aires Decision. These discussions must take into account special and differential treatment 
in the establishment of an  agreement on comprehensive and effective disciplines that eliminate 
subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, as well as overfishing and overcapacity. 
We hope that the same focus and swiftness will be demonstrated in the negotiations on 
agriculture, in which equal priority must be given to achieving consensus outcomes.  
 
Furthermore, concerning the establishment of an efficient dispute settlement system that provides 
Members, and particularly smaller countries, with security and predictabil ity, we consider that it is 
the responsibility of the Membership to initiate, without delay, the appointment process to fill the 
vacancies in the Appellate Body, in order to comply with the rules on filling posts as they become 
vacant.  
 
To conclude, I wish  to refer to the recent developments that are increasingly affecting global 
growth prospects. The start of a series of numerous dispute settlement processes could lead to an 
extremely unfavourable situation for developing countries, particularly vulnerable  economies such 
as Ecuador. We call for dialogue among the parties in order to prevent a trade war that would 
harm us all.  
 
35. Peru  
 
We thank  the Director -General  for his report and for the comments and concerns he voiced on the 
state of the multilateral trad ing system, which we certainly share. We also thank the Chairs of the 
Negotiating Groups for their reports, which we listened to with keen interest.  
 
Although the purpose of our meeting is to continue addressing the way forward post Buenos Aires, 
the level  of trade escalation that we are witnessing and the uncertainty regarding the multilateral 
trading framework seem to confirm that some Members have chosen unilateralism as a different 
route for engaging in trade, placing significant obstacles in the WTO's post Buenos Aires path.  
 
Peru has maintained an official policy of economic and trade openness for over 20 years, and 
international trade has had a beneficial multiplier effect on the economy. Peru has had to become 
more competitive to face external compet ition while observing WTO rules. We therefore join others 
who have questioned the use of protectionist measures and unilateralism as a way to reverse the 
consequences of trade. But, at the same time, we must also strengthen the rules to increase the 
transp arency of domestic policies, and regulate government practices that distort trade by 
supporting the competitiveness of domestic industries in order to capture markets. In today's 
highly integrated world, these practices clash with the goal of a consolidate d multilateral trading 
system that helps create economic prosperity for all.  
 
Having said that, I would like to mention some elements that we believe should be built into the 
way forward.  
 
First, opening a space at the WTO for political dialogue on the cha llenges that we face in 
strengthening the multilateral trading framework, perhaps including new formats that would allow 
us to debate freely, without the rigidity of the formal working mechanisms. This effort would 
inevitably lead to a constructive discuss ion on institutional reforms or improvements to bring the 
organization up to date and into line with the new international reality. The leadership of the 
Director -General, transparency and inclusivity will be key factors for the success of this political 
dialogue. We saw the utility of opening up such a space for political dialogue at the Buenos Aires 
Ministerial Conference.  
 
Second, implementing and monitoring compliance with agreements reached. Specifically, we must 
achieve full implementation of the Mini sterial Decision on the elimination of fisheries subsidies. 
Over the last two years, we have made a significant effort to move on from the discussion of ideas 
to the presentation of proposals, and then to the analysis, compilation, consolidation and, final ly, 
simplification of the texts. We therefore have a good working basis for starting negotiations and 
reaching an agreement at the next Ministerial Conference, as called for by our Ministers. We must 
also achieve full implementation of all the provisions o f the Trade Facilitation Agreement, which WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 100 - 
 
  will help to significantly reduce the costs of trade worldwide, and the Ministerial Decision on Export 
Competition in order to eliminate some distortions in agricultural trade.  
 
Third, we must be fully open to disc ussing new issues. In addition to the widespread interest in 
continuing with the traditional agenda of the negotiations on agriculture, there is an emerging 
agenda of new issues that characterize the new state of international trade, which, we must admit, 
is different from the international background against which the organization was created. These 
new issues call for an updating of the WTO negotiating areas that can be examined without specific 
reform processes. Peru encourages more Members to participat e in the debate on these emerging 
issues and reiterates its commitment to keep working towards negotiations and discussions on 
domestic regulation of services, electronic commerce, the integration of micro, small and medium -
sized enterprises (MSMEs) in int ernational trade, and trade and economic empowerment of 
women.  
 
Fourth, we must regularize and recover the full operational capacity of the Appellate Body. The 
term of another member of that Body will soon come to an end, and this will worsen and further 
compromise its operational capacity. It is therefore of the utmost urgency that we begin the 
process of selecting new members to fill the current vacancies, as an initial sign of commitment, in 
the short term, to addressing the strengthening and improvement  of the dispute settlement 
system. Peru supports all initiatives for dialogue and remains firmly committed to helping resolve 
the impasse that is preventing the selection processes for new Appellate Body members from 
beginning, which will have serious syst emic consequences. At the same time, we believe that we 
cannot allow the operations of the Appellate Body and the credibility of the multilateral trading 
system to be affected, as a condition for beginning a discussion about their improvement.  
 
Finally, re gardless of the place or date of the next Ministerial Conference, Peru urges Members to 
keep working hard to make progress on the negotiating agenda, to fully implement the 
commitments agreed on and to build the way forward on the basis of firm consensus.  
 
36. Singapore  
 
Despite longstanding and deep seated challenges, the multilateral trading system delivered on 
TFA, agriculture export subsidies and ITA expansion at MC9 and MC10. It has also helped keep in 
check protectionist tendencies, facilitating world tra de in 2017 to grow at its fastest in both value 
and volume terms since the global financial crisis. However, as the Director -General points out in 
his report to the Trade Policy Review Body meeting tomorrow, "(a)t a point where the global 
economy is finall y beginning to generate sustained economic momentum following the global 
financial crisis, the uncertainty created by a proliferation of trade -restrictive actions could place  
economic recovery in jeopardy …  further escalation could carry potentially large risks for the 
system itself."    
 
Renewed calls for WTO reform  
 
The actions taken by some majors risk undermining core and fundamental WTO underpinnings 
that go to the fabric of the rules -based system. In the face of potentially existential threats 
confron ting the system, there are renewed calls for WTO reform. In this regard, we welcome the 
initiative by Canada as conveyed this morning.   
 
A well -functioning multilateral rules based system benefits all, and all Members need to invest in it  
 
A rules -based multilateral trading system constrains Members' policy space in exchange for 
transparency and predictability for international commerce which is an important tool in all 
Members' toolkits for delivering on sustainable growth and development.  
 
The impact of a significantly diminished WTO on larger Members may be relatively less than for 
the smaller ones who are in no position to influence global markets. But in the longer term, large 
and small alike will suffer a net loss overall. And it will be very difficult to pick up the pieces and 
attempt to rebuild the multilateral trading system again after that.   
 
It is in all Members' interest to come together quickly to engage and invest in the multilateral 
trading system for it to continue to functi on effectively as a global public good. The majors have a 
particular responsibility to lead and engage in proposing feasible and pragmatic solutions.   WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 101 - 
 
   
With regard to the substance of such an engagement, the agenda should be balanced and 
sufficiently ambi tious but also grounded in realism. It requires all Members to think "system" and 
"public good" with a longer term perspective, and not only the narrow pursuits of national agendas 
as that is a proven recipe for deadlock and impasse.   
 
On process, the con sensus principle is a powerful tool for big and small alike. It may help progress 
our work if each Member exercises more self -restraint in its use. Being open to explore creative 
ideas and fresh approaches which are presented in good faith could also help deliver results on 
core areas, including for fisheries subsidies, agriculture, development and emerging issues.  
Repeating methods that had repeatedly failed to deliver results would keep us in the rut, or worse 
still result in dis -engagement and ultimatel y disenfranchisement of especially the smaller 
Members.   
 
In the meantime, actions taken to be consistent with the rules and system  
 
Perhaps the most pressing priority at this particular moment is for the majors to find ways for 
mutual accommodation that are WTO -consistent to de -escalate current trade tensions.   
 
The imposition of unilateral tariffs is not the solution for resolving trade disputes, nor is a spiral 
into "tit -for-tat" measures.   
 
We are encouraged that cases are being brought to the WTO. O ne of the key roles the system is 
set up to do is to resolve trade disputes.   
 
Another key function of the WTO is negotiations, be it to negotiate new market access or rules.  
When key Members act in ways that seem to undermine existing rules, it could ma ke it even more 
difficult to convince Members with reservations about rule -making to agree to new ones. The 
difficulties already being encountered in negotiations on longstanding issues and so -called "new" 
issues will be further compounded, let alone in th e areas now gripping news headlines and which 
are at the core of current trade tensions.   
 
The real value of existing and new rules is derived from their effective enforcement. The success of 
the multilateral trading system lies in having a functioning an d effective dispute settlement 
mechanism. If the dispute settlement mechanism is crippled, it begs the question of why invest in 
any negotiations, including to update rules for the dispute settlement mechanism? It is therefore 
imperative that the appointme nt of Appellate Body members must be allowed to proceed 
immediately. Otherwise, the consequences are dire and have systemic implications that go beyond 
the dispute settlement mechanism.  
 
37. Paraguay  
 
I would like to thank the Director -General and the Chairs o f the different negotiating groups for 
their comprehensive reports and the outlook of our work for the next coming months. I would like 
to also thank them for their hard work in guiding us in our quest to achieve meaningful and 
concrete results in the prep arations for MC12.  
 
From what we have heard from the Negotiating Group Chairs and the Director -General, the task 
ahead is not and probably will not be easy to say the least. The current escalation of unnecessary 
trade restrictive measures in both rhetoric and actions create a  very complicated and not useful 
context. However, it is in this confusing international context that it is more important than ever 
that the WTO delivers results that prove that the system does work and that negotiations and 
compromises are the only way f orward to achieve prosperity for our countries and our people.  
 
Paraguay is a strong supporter and a definite beneficiary of the multilateral trading system and as 
such, renews its support to the fundamental principles of the organization and the commitme nts 
undertaken in the different WTO agreements. In this regard, we would like to call on Members not 
to impose any new trade reciprocal barriers. We pay special attention to those restrictive measures 
that have a direct effect on certain agricultural produ cts. These have already generated adverse 
effects on market prices and thus, affected agricultural exporting countries, including developing 
countries.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 102 - 
 
  Paraguay is ready to work and support the strengthening and revitalization of the WTO in its three 
pillars. We have learnt from past lessons the need to capitalize and build a stronger and better 
functioning multilateral trading system.  
 
As a producer of food for the world, we would like to see tangible results on Agriculture for the 
next Ministerial Meeti ng in Kazakhstan. The discussion on liberalization of the agricultural market 
cannot continue to be postponed. Market access must be an issue on the table and my delegation 
is ready to engage both actively and constructively with other Members in order to achieve 
progress on the negotiations. We have presented a paper, co -sponsored by Uruguay, on market 
access, which will hopefully aid in providing a clear picture of the discussions so far and where we 
stand, for us to move forward.  
 
On domestic support, t he Cairns Group has put forward a paper presenting an overview of current 
domestic support levels. My delegation wholeheartedly supports further data analysis that can 
ultimately deliver additional proposals to reduce current levels of domestic support.  
 
Moving past agriculture, we would like to thank the co -conveners of the Joint Initiative on 
Electronic Commerce for their work and leadership. As a landlocked developing country, Paraguay 
views e -commerce first and foremost as a tool for trade facilitation  and we support the exploratory 
talks into a possible future agreement on this matter. We would also like to stress our position that 
any potential agreement on e -commerce must take into account that the digital divide is a reality 
that affects the startin g point of different Members and a good mechanism of S&D should be part 
of any such agreement for all countries to fully benefit from the opportunities that the digital 
economy presents.  
 
We remain willing to engage multilaterally on services, NAMA (non -tariff measures) and fisheries 
subsidies. On other issues, we are pleased to note that interesting discussions are moving forward 
on investment facilitation and MSMEs and we would also like to see more progress on women's 
economic empowerment. These active d iscussions show that the WTO machinery is fully 
functioning, that not everything is deadlocked and that the organization has a fundamental role to 
play in setting the rules and liberalizing trade with the ultimate goal to bring prosperity for all.  
 
38. Nepal  
 
I thank the Director -General for his observation on the current trade ecology, state of play of trade 
negotiations and briefing on his consultations that took place in different formats and 
configurations.  
 
My delegation also thanks the Chairs of the Negot iating Groups for their persistent efforts in 
advancing relevant issues.  
 
My delegation associates itself with the statement delivered by Chad on behalf of the LDC Group.  
 
Revitalizing the multilateral trade governance at the WTO in order to safeguard the  fundamental 
purposes and principles underlying the Marrakesh Agreement that establishes the WTO is the 
prime responsibility of all Member States. Increased protectionist restrictive and anti -global 
tendencies in trade practices could lead multilateralism to dangerous crossroads of mistrust with 
the possibility of a trade war which not only hampers the business interests of concerned Members 
but also leaves systemic impact on global production, income and employment in this 
interdependent and interconnected  world. We emphasize on the continuation of result -oriented 
dialogues between the parties to solve the trade issues.  
 
Plurilateralism, in our view, does not bring a solution to the current problem experienced in the 
multilateral trading system as it does n ot support the global economic integration of a large 
number of developing and least -developed Members.   
 
We underscore the urgent need of fulfilling the vacancy of Appellate Body members to enhance the 
overall performance of the WTO and restore its credibility.   
 
As a faithful supporter of the rule -based, non -discriminatory, transparent, Member -driven 
multil ateral trading system, Nepal emphasizes on the need of strengthened deliberative and 
outcome -oriented function of the WTO through all its pillars, particularly dispute settlement, trade WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 103 - 
 
  negotiation and trade policy review.   
 
The least -developed countries,  including Nepal, have been facing several structural challenges for 
their meaningful integration into the multilateral trading system. Several NTBs and trade -distorting 
subsidies provided by bigger economies in their agricultural and manufacturing sectors  have 
paralyzed the competitive capacity of weaker economies. Such situation has contributed to push 
the weaker economies towards further marginalization. The global export figure of LDCs has 
dwindled to less than one percent as against the commitments sho wn in internationally determined 
development framework such as the Istanbul Programme of Action and Agenda 2030.  
 
Nepal emphasizes the effective implementation of the declarations and decisions reached in favour 
of LDCs in Hong Kong, Bali and Nairobi Mini sterial meetings, including Duty Free Quota Free 
market access, preferential rules of origin, LDC services waiver, technology transfer under Article 
66.2 of TRIPS agreement, among others.  
 
Since the graduation from LDC status is not the winning post, rath er a continuous development 
process, we request WTO Members to support the LDC proposal contained in G/C/W/752 to be 
discussed under agenda item 5 of the General Council meeting.  
 
As S&DT provisions are integral part of the WTO agreement, a more flexible,  creative and results -
oriented support is expected from Members in leading the development -centric agenda to a 
successful multilateral outcome as per paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration. The creation of a 
level playing field is necessary for the structura l transformation and diversification of the economy 
of weaker developing countries.  
 
Similarly, we underscore the need of effective leverage of international support mechanisms to 
address the capacity gap deeply felt in meeting the international standards  under the SPS and TBT 
agreements. In addition to addressing border level issues, we request development partners to 
support us in addressing physical and digital infrastructural constraints faced behind the border to 
ensure the expected benefits from the implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement.  
 
We are aware of the advancement in the information and communication technologies and 
increasing digitization of the world economy. We emphasize the formal conclusion of the current 
round of negotiations  with substantive outcomes in the remaining Doha issues which will pave the 
way for new emerging issues such as e -commerce.  
 
Finally, Nepal emphasizes the revitalization of the WTO as a robust multilateral trade governance 
body capable of preserving and p rotecting the values of the rule -based multilateral trading system 
on one hand, and addressing the emerging challenges in the interest of all Members in an inclusive 
manner.  
 
39. Trinidad and Tobago  
 
We thank the Director -General for convening this meeting and  for the report on his activities since 
we last met in this format. We do recognise and thank him for this demonstration of transparency. 
We reiterate our strong commitment to a rules -based multilateral trading system that is 
transparent, inclusive, and co nsensus -based. Similarly, my delegation expresses its gratitude to 
the Chairpersons of the Negotiating Groups for their various reports.  
 
At the outset, we would like to recall the statement we delivered in our last meeting in May 2018. 
As we stated in our  intervention, the development dimension of work at the World Trade 
Organization remains of paramount importance to Trinidad and Tobago.  
 
My delegation welcomes the work that has been done thus far in the area of Fisheries Subsidies 
negotiations. We have t aken note of the draft revised work programme that is expected to guide 
our work from September to December 2018. We are heartened by the format of the engagement 
thus far particularly the workshops which provide an opportunity to gain valuable insight fro m 
experts representing different regions and international organizations.    
 
We believe that it is imperative that we proceed with our negotiations in a manner that would see 
the finalisation of the envisaged agreement within the time limit instructed by our Ministers. All 
Members ought to be aware that appropriate and effective Sp ecial and Differential Treatment for WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 104 - 
 
  developing country Members and least -developed country Members should be an integral part of 
the negotiations.  
 
In agriculture, we welcome the approach advanced by the Chair the Committee on Agriculture in 
Special Sessi on to hold dedicated sessions to allow for intensive discussions on the issues of Public 
Stockholding for Food Security Purposes and Special Safeguard Mechanism. We look forward to 
Members engaging constructively in agriculture and we support the continuat ion of agriculture 
negotiations in the context of addressing the needs of Small, Vulnerable Economies.  
 
In view of the importance of Special and Differential Treatment in economic development, we urge 
Members to give priority to this critical area. Provisi ons for Special and Differential Treatment are 
an integral part of the WTO Agreements and we hope that there will be more positive engagement 
from all Members in September.  
 
Trinidad and Tobago welcomes the decision taken by Ministers at the Eleventh Minis terial 
Conference of the WTO in December 2017 to continue the work under the Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce based on the existing mandate. We recognize that e -commerce, if properly 
developed and harnessed, can be a key driver for economic growth. E -commerce has the potential 
to not only enhance the competitiveness and efficiency of firms, but also gives rise to new 
economic opportunities.  
 
We look forward to the exploratory discussions along the mandated lines. All Members have 
expressed their commit ment to multilateral discussions on e -commerce and my delegation is 
aware of the sincerity that must be given to the discussions in the WTO. In terms of our work in 
this area it is important to give due attention to addressing the needs of developing count ries. 
Trinidad and Tobago looks forward to the review of the Work Programme and stands ready to 
participate in this discussion while anticipating progress in the WTO.  
 
Trinidad and Tobago has recently given its endorsement to the Joint Declaration on Trade  and 
Women's Economic Empowerment adopted by some Members in December 2017. We look forward 
to actively participating in the Trade Impact Working Group and commend Moldova for its leading 
role in organising the seminar on Gender and Government Procurement.  
 
As we move towards planning for our Twelfth Ministerial Conference, we thank the Republic of 
Kazakhstan for its generous offer to host Ministers.   
 
My delegation reiterates its readiness to remain positive and engaged after the August break.  
 
In closing , Trinidad and Tobago endorses statements delivered on behalf of the Caribbean 
Community, the ACP Group of States and the G -33. 
 
40. Qatar  
 
We would like to first reiterate our commitment to the WTO and express our support for the 
multilateral trading system. As a small state, Qatar has always held great importance to the 
benefits accrued as a Member of the system.  
 
We find that it is critical to energize discussions on resolving some of the most pressing issues 
faced by the Membership to maintain these benefi ts not only to the smallest among us but to all 
Members of this organization. It is in this context that we would like to share our concerns on the 
rising trade tensions. The escalation of the current situation could undermine the progress and 
development brought forth by multilateralism. Unilateral trade measures and its consequences can 
threaten growth and economic development.  
 
The rules -based framework of the WTO provides the proper forum for settling trade issues and 
disputes, and we encourage Members  to utilize this framework to resolve their trade concerns. 
Additionally, we would like to further highlight the importance of resolving the impasse on the 
selection of Appellate Body members. The longer the current situation persists, the greater the 
threat towards the functioning of the dispute settlement system.  
 
On investment facilitation and MSMEs, we support furthering the work of these informal dialogues 
in a transparent manner. We are very encouraged with the level of support and activity of this WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 105 - 
 
  initiative as witnessed in yesterday's FIFD meeting. We look forward to the coming phase which 
would see us shift into a more structured and focused dialogue with the ultimate aim of developing 
multilateral outcomes.  
 
Finally, we would like to extend our full support to the bid by Kazakhstan to host MC12. As a 
country that has hosted a Ministerial Conference in the past, we understand the challenges and the 
burdens set on the host country. We therefore express our appreciation for their offer to host the 
next Ministerial Conference.  
 
41. Kenya  
 
We thank the Director -General for his report and the Chairs of various Negotiating Groups for their 
updates on the state of our work in the Negotiating Groups.  
 
Kenya associates with the statements made by Malawi, Sout h Africa and Indonesia on behalf of 
the ACP, the African Group and the G -33 respectively.  
 
Although the current picture of global trade looks bright as per the recent WTO forecast, we are 
concerned that the escalating unilateral trade restrictive measures could undermine this positive 
outlook. Increased trade tension is already hurting business confidence and investment decisions. 
Modern trade involves complex value chains which, unfortunately, are now being disrupted by 
unilateral trade measures and thereb y affecting many of our small and medium enterprises 
engaged in global value chain. It is important to emphasise here that in the current era of complex 
international value chains; the pain of trade war would not be at all one -sided and therefore many 
of the exporting firms are being caught up in the crossfire.  
 
As we are all aware, the WTO framework of rules has immensely contributed to the strengthening 
and stabilizing of the global economy thereby fostering trade and development. In a time when the 
WTO i s facing serious challenges, it is important that we all support and safeguard the integrity of 
the open, rule -based multilateral trading system embodied in the WTO.  
 
On the specific subject of negotiations, agriculture is of key interest to Kenya. Agricu lture is a 
gateway issue and therefore remains at the centre of the negotiations. We acknowledge the recent 
new proposals as well as submissions aimed at information sharing that have been circulated by 
different groups of Members. We are however concerned  that the many linkages and 
conditionalities that have been created among the elements under negotiations are likely to 
impede progress in agriculture. Domestic support in agriculture is a priority for Kenya and 
therefore we expect concrete results in this  area. The concerns of the NFDICs should be fully taken 
into account. We support the Chair's call for constructive engagement on issues of Public 
Stockholding for Food Security purposes and Special Safeguard Mechanism for developing 
countries in order to r each agreement on these important issues.  
  
On Cotton, we are looking upon the major subsidizers to provide the much -needed leadership in 
order to achieve progress in this area.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, Kenya is committed and expect an outcome in line wit h the MC11 decision 
and the SDG 14.6 mandate. We note the progress achieved during May -June cluster in terms of 
experience sharing and streamlining of certain aspects of the fisheries subsidies negotiations texts.  
We support the Chair's efforts in develop ing a work programme for September to December 2018. 
We take note of the introduction of the Incubator Groups with a view to generating new ideas to 
help move the process forward after summer break. However, the key principles of engagement 
such as inclusi vity, bottom -up approach and transparency should be adhered to. Appropriate and 
effective special and differential treatment should be an integral part of any outcome on fisheries 
subsidies.  
 
Development should be at the centre in all areas of the negotiat ions. It should also be a priority on 
any future WTO reforms agenda with a view to supporting the full integration of developing and 
least-developed countries into the multilateral trading system.  
 
We note with concern that work on strengthening the S&DT provisions has not delivered the 
desired results. Flexibility and constructive engagement is therefore needed to give effect to 
mandate in paragraph 44 of the Doha Development Agenda. We believe that the G -90 proposals WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 106 - 
 
  which have been submitted as part of incremental approach to S&DT provisions provide a good 
basis on which to build our work going forward. We are also open to any suggestion and new ways 
that will help unlock the current stalemate.  
 
Finally, we join many Members who have expressed concern on  the lack of progress in the 
appointment of Members of the WTO Appellate Body. It is important that the current stalemate 
regarding the appointment of members of the Appellate Body is resolved without any further 
delay.  
 
42. Mexico  
 
We thank the Director -General and agree with his assessment of the state of crisis in our 
organization.  
 
Firstly, as noted by himself and the TPRB report, there is a tendency towards the imposition of 
new protectionist measures which will only be exacerbated by the ann ouncement of measures, 
countermeasures and counter countermeasures not yet covered by this exercise.  
 
The sustained use of hostile rhetoric against agreed trade rules, together with an escalation in 
trade tensions such as the one we are starting to witness , will never benefit anyone, and we 
reiterate that any problem can only be resolved through dialogue and compliance with the rules on 
which we have all agreed.  
 
Secondly, a solution must urgently be found to resolve the deadlock in the Appellate Body vacan cy 
filling process. For this, Members need to participate actively, but above all pragmatically, and 
move on from the concerns expressed by some, to finding urgent solutions. Pointing out the 
system's problems or shortfalls is not enough – proposals are ne eded so that a mutually 
satisfactory solution can be found.  
 
Furthermore, we are very concerned to see that Members' positions have not only remained 
diametrically opposed, but become more entrenched. This is why it is necessary to create the 
conditions re quired for discussion that will help identify points of convergence on the basis of 
which negotiations can resume.  
 
In groups such as Intellectual Property and Dispute Settlement, meetings have basically been an 
opportunity to reiterate that positions have  not changed. In agriculture, while there is interest in 
moving forward, it is becoming increasingly clear that more information is needed – information 
that can be obtained through timely compliance with notification requirements and the proper 
analysis o f notifications. Other groups such as NAMA or Environment have not met for a long time 
now. 
 
Regarding fisheries subsidies, despite the commitment made in Buenos Aires and the international 
community's interest in seeing us achieve an outcome consistent wi th the Development Goals, it 
has been a major challenge to even map out a work programme for the next six months. We must 
work pragmatically when it comes to discussing substance, otherwise we will clearly be 
jeopardizing the fulfilment of Goal 14.6.  
 
One positive aspect that we must highlight is the work carried out within the context of joint 
initiatives. It is important to emphasize the level of participation and involvement of Members, 
both sponsors and those not initially part of the initiatives, in di scussions that are increasingly in 
depth and technical, for example on electronic commerce, as well as the level of understanding 
that is being reached on domestic regulation, investment facilitation and MSMEs.  
 
In services, on the basis of the proposal su bmitted by a number of Members, including Mexico, an 
opportunity seems to be opening up for initiating exploratory discussion on market access issues.  
 
Lastly, we clearly need to reflect on whether the approaches we have used for so long now in the 
negotia tions are appropriate, and to consider up to what point we should continue insisting on 
them. In our view, up to now these approaches have enabled us to only marginally meet the 
expectations of our own national stakeholders and the international community.  
 
I would like to reiterate our concern regarding the state of crisis in our organization and therefore WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 107 - 
 
  the very serious risk of the WTO losing its credibility. In this light, we welcome the opportunities 
for reflection that appear to be opening up in vari ous forums, which will enable us to examine 
ways of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the organization.  
 
Mexico will firmly support any process that helps our organization to address the current 
challenges in a more effective manner and to resp ond to the needs of its Members.  
 
43. Thailand  
 
We thank the Director -General for the summary of his recent activities and the respective Chairs 
of Negotiating Groups for their comprehensive reports.  
 
I would like to start by expressing Thailand's full support  to the multilateral trading system. As is 
the case with many Members, we are closely monitoring the current trade tensions with concern.  
 
As a trading nation, our economic growth and development is highly dependent on trade. With 
Members being more integr ated into the global value chain than ever before, the escalating trade 
tension will impact all Members directly and indirectly, especially smaller economies. It is why the 
rules-based multilateral trading system that provides predictable, stable and trans parent global 
trade environment is crucial to us.  
 
As WTO Members, it is our responsibilities to contribute to resolving trade tensions, preserve the 
system, and help it stay relevant through open -minded discussions undertaken collectively in a 
collaborati ve spirit and frank manner.  
 
We believe that delivering on trade issues that are fundamental to the WTO and world trade in line 
with expectations of the public will be essential for the WTO.  
 
In this regard, Thailand reiterates its commitment to conclude t he Fisheries Subsidies Negotiations 
by December 2019 as mandated at MC11. We view that a concrete timeframe should be 
established with a view to delivering the outcomes by the said deadline, and substantial text 
discussions should be undertaken as soon as possible. In this connection, we support the Chair's 
effort to establish a work programme which we hope would allow Members to start a text 
discussion at the earliest.  
 
In this critical situation where the WTO is in serious need to preserve its credibility  and relevance, 
we must send out much needed signal to the international community that the WTO and its 
Members can deliver an outcome that is important to the private sector and the general public by 
the set deadline.  
 
On Agriculture, we welcome the activ e participation of numerous Members with many constructive 
submissions tabled in the last CoA SS meeting this past week, which enabled some useful 
technical discussions. We view it as an encouraging sign of engagement from Members and we 
hope that with mor e submissions, these discussions can help Members find the needed 
convergence and flexibilities as we proceed.  
 
We are also supportive of continued activities on e -commerce and MSMEs which could help the 
WTO to be more relevant to present day trade. In thi s regard, we take note of the activities put 
forward by the coordinator and proponents of the e -commerce and MSMEs initiatives. Thailand has 
recently joined the Joint Initiative on Electronic Commerce and look forward to constructively 
participating in the  process with a view to facilitating greater participation and benefits for all 
stakeholders especially in developing countries.  
 
Finally, Thailand would also like to emphasize the importance of the dispute settlement mechanism 
and we hope that the Appella te Body impasse can be resolved as soon as possible to allow for its 
smooth functioning.  
 
44. Vanuatu (Pacific Group)  
 
I am delivering this statement on behalf of the Pacific Group. Our Group also supports the 
statements made by the ACP and the LDC Groups.  
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 108 - 
 
  Let me thank the Chairman first of all for his comprehensive report and commend his continuing 
efforts to support Members in progressing our work despite these challenging times. Our Group 
welcome in particular his recent visit to the Pacific which has enh anced the visibility and 
importance of the WTO in our members. I also wish to thank the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups 
for their reports.  
 
The Pacific Group has been working constructively within the ACP and the LDC Groups to advance 
the negotiations as  mandated by MC11 in December 2017 and on our priorities in the remaining 
Doha issues in line with paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration.   
 
On Fisheries Subsidies, the Pacific Group underlines the importance of this negotiation to our 
region as the fish eries sector is a critically important sector for our livelihood security, social, 
economic and sustainable development. Since 2015, fisheries has continued to remain a priority in 
the agenda of the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders. In 2017, Leaders further e ndorsed the Blue 
Pacific, a commitment to act collectively as one Blue Continent and an identity to reinforce our 
shared stewardship of the Pacific Ocean.    
 
The Pacific Group is therefore committed to delivering on the MC11 mandate to conclude an 
agreeme nt on Fisheries Subsidies in 2019 with appropriate and effective special and differential 
treatment for developing countries and LDCs. This deadline will enable WTO Members to meet the 
SDG 14.6. The Group therefore commends the progress made thus far in th e streamlining of the 
text in RD/29 into W/274 which is expected to be completed during the Rules Negotiating Group 
cluster this week. This will enable the consolidation into a single text for negotiations after the 
summer break. However, W/274 is heavily bracketed with many options and much work remains 
to be done to bridge the divergences amongst Members on the text. The Pacific Group also 
reiterates the importance of delivering on the WTO, SDG 14.6 and MC11 mandates that the 
fisheries subsidies agreement  must provide appropriate and effective special and differential 
treatment for developing countries, in particular to support the development of small island 
developing states and LDCs in line with SDG 14.7.  
 
The Group also expresses concern at the lack of  progress on the development and S&DT proposals 
of the G -90. These proposals which are in line with paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration are 
aimed at promoting value adding, economic diversification and industrialization of our economies.  
The Pacific Grou p encourages Members to find ways to address these proposals and to better 
integrate small members like us that are already at the margins of the global trading system.  
 
Finally, the Pacific Group expresses its commitment to the multilateral rules -based sy stem which 
provides predictability and certainty for all WTO Members. The Group expresses concerns at the 
continuing trade tensions and counter -measures by major WTO Members. These could 
unintentionally adversely affect the trade of very small WTO Members and we urge the Members 
concerned to find ways to urgently resolve these.    
 
45. Japan  
 
Japan appreciates the Director -General's report and those provided by the Negotiating Group 
Chairs.  
 
At the outset, Japan expresses its grave concerns about the rapidly gr owing tensions surrounding 
international trade. We would like to stress again that all trade measures must be consistent with 
the WTO agreement. No one benefits from protectionism.  
 
Since the establishment of the WTO twenty -three years ago, the global eco nomy has undergone 
deep structural changes. Unfortunately, however, this organization has not been able to respond 
adequately to these changes. As a result, we are now facing a severe crisis. We have had crises in 
the past, but on those occasions it was th e Doha Round that was at stake. This time, it is the 
system itself that is in real danger.  
 
To overcome this crisis, it is not enough to merely comply with the existing rules and addressing 
the existing agendas such as agriculture and fishery subsidies. W e must go beyond that. Efforts to 
reform and modernize the WTO are now urgently needed.  
 
First, it is crucial that we update the WTO rulebook since the conventional rules do not allow us to WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 109 - 
 
  adequately address today's challenges.  
 
That is why Japan is str ongly promoting the e -commerce agenda.  
 
Securing a level playing field is also an urgent matter. We need to work towards establishing new 
rules on industrial subsidies and state -owned enterprises.  
 
We must also restore the proper and effective functioning of the dispute settlement system by 
addressing the concerns that have been raised and filling the vacancies of the Appellate Body.  
 
Trade and development is another important challenge. While all developing countries are eligible 
for S&D treatm ent under the WTO agreement in principle, this does not mean that the same S&D 
treatment should be granted to all the developing Members equally. The core principle of the WTO 
is that all the Members should fulfil their responsibilities and contribute to t he system in 
accordance with their level of development and capacities. This is something to bear in mind in the 
forthcoming discussions.  
 
In order to tackle these challenges, business as usual is not an option. Needless to say, the 
multilateral approach is our basic principle. But, at the same time, where adequate and necessary 
we should take innovative and flexible approaches with an out -of-the-box mindset, while ensuring 
inclusiveness and transparency. Initiatives by like -minded Members, including the e -commerce 
initiative which I have just mentioned, are good examples of such approaches.  
 
In conclusion, the WTO has experienced several crises in the past, but we have turned them into 
opportunities to strengthen the system. Let us once again turn this cr isis into an opportunity to 
reform and modernize the WTO.  
 
46. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
We welcome the Director -General's report and those of the Negotiating Group Chairs.  
 
Having listened to the Chairs' various reports, it is clear that not all issue s advance at the same 
speed. This reflects the variety of viewpoints we represent.  
 
It is however positive to note that while we are gathered in this room, parallel consultations are 
being held on the issue of fisheries subsidies on the basis of an agreed mandate and as part of a 
work programme with clear direction that has been approved by all. This is most certainly very 
good news. Our country has actively participated in this negotiating group to the best of its ability 
and in the most constructive of sp irits. This is a good opportunity to reiterate our commitment to 
the issue.  
 
We also recognize as positive the results of the immense efforts made by the Chairs of the Special 
Session of the Committee on Agriculture to ensure that we can resume our work. W hile positions 
undoubtedly remain polarized, at least dialogue has resumed.  
 
In agriculture, by endorsing Indonesia's statement on behalf of the G -33 on the basis of our 
domestic realities, we are prioritizing food security related issues and requesting S& D for NFIDCs. 
The pure logic of systemic responsibility means that we also give priority to the issues of domestic 
support and cotton.  
 
By the same logic of systemic responsibility, while not being members of the G -90, we support the 
work of the Committee on Trade and Development and can assure its Chair of our commitment to 
continue participating as constructively as possible in the consultations.  
 
I would now like to turn to the three challenges we consider the most pressing, which, if not 
tackled asserti vely, could serious undermine the stability of the organization.  
 
The need to bridge the gaps dividing us in the trade negotiations  
 
All of us in this room are in one of the following three categories: those who defend the validity of 
the Doha Round and refuse to move on to new issues; those who recognize the validity of the 
Doha Round but are in favour of new issues; and those who do n ot want to know anything about WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 110 - 
 
  the Doha Round.  
 
You are all aware that my country is in the first group, something that those who oppose us fail to 
understand. It is our understanding that in 2001 the Ministers instructed us to try to remedy 
historical deb ts. This explains the particular importance that my country, like most countries in this 
room, gives to agriculture and development, in accordance with the Doha Round mandate.  
 
We believe that the way out of this impasse is via renewed awareness of these h istorical debts and 
therefore the gaps that exist between us, so that from there, we can look for solutions applicable 
to all of us.  
 
We must be creative and find win -win solutions to correct existing imbalances in international 
markets. We must put an end  to historical debts that affect the healthy development of 
multilateralism. The question we must ask ourselves is this: how do we balance trade 
opportunities so that all developing countries can achieve the industrial development required to 
meet their pe ople's needs? We undoubtedly need to be very empathic and cautious in our 
proposals. In these delicate circumstances, the neutral work of the Secretariat is extremely 
important. We must also be creative enough to ensure that any progress made in developing  
countries is not viewed as threatening by the traditional hegemonies of international trade.  
 
This leads me to the second challenge.  
 
Put an end to the escalation of tensions caused by the unilateral coercive measures and 
protectionist measures applied by  one Member of this organization, which directly affect the 
population of the affected Member  
 
The multilateral system has been robust enough to provide ways of addressing the trade concerns 
of its Members through the WTO dispute settlement process, a fund amental pillar of the 
organization.  
 
This leads me to the third challenge.  
 
Protect the effectiveness of the rules based multilateral system  
 
In this regard, it is alarming to see the lack of consensus for approving the procedural formalities 
required to fill the current vacancies in the Appellate Body as a result of one single Member 
blocking the launching of the process.  
 
As part of this challenge to protect the effectiveness of the rules based multilateral system, we are 
also concerned about the weakeni ng of the core principles of the multilateral trading system, as 
parallel, slanted negotiating processes are conducted on issues that do not enjoy the consensus of 
the Membership as a whole in what have come to be known as joint initiatives. In our view, t hese 
are informal processes under the sole responsibility of their proponents. Any intention to go 
beyond that would undermine the multilateral nature of the organization and jeopardize the 
principle of consensus.  
 
Today is 24 July, a national holiday in m y country that marks 235 years since the birth of our 
liberator, Simón Bolívar. For this reason, I would therefore like to conclude with the following 
quotes by the man himself: "Trust must give us peace. Good faith is not enough, it is necessary to 
show i t, because men always see and seldom think" … "Unity should save us, as divisions will 
destroy us if we allow them to exist among us".  
 
47. Dominica (OECS)  
 
This statement is being made on behalf of the OECS Economic Union WTO Members.  
 
At the outset allow me to thank the Director -General for his report as well as the Chairs of the 
respective Negotiating Groups for their reports. Allow me also to associate the Members of the 
OECS Economic Union with the statements delivered by Haiti on be half of CARICOM, Malawi on 
behalf of the ACP Group and Indonesia on behalf of the G -33.   
 
This informal meeting of the TNC is the final one before the summer break and for some of us, the WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 111 - 
 
  final meeting of this body before we close our tour of duty here in  Geneva.  
 
Therefore, today's TNC provides an opportunity for reflection on where we are, but more critically, 
on how the multilateral system writ large can produce the impetus for development, for developing 
countries and more particularly for those of us  that need it most.   
 
As of late, there has been much coverage in the media concerning increased trade tensions 
between some of our major trading partners. These tensions, in the main, have occurred as a 
result of some players seeking to re -calibrate the balance between their rights and obligations 
within the multilateral system. In a sense, the biggest economies in the world are seeking to 
ensure that the rules, and terms of trade, reflect the principles of equity and fairness.  
 
These recent calls for fa irness by the largest and most advanced Members of this House seems a 
strange irony to many small economies – small economies that have for many years demanded 
that the rules of the system be adjusted to reflect the structural disadvantages that come with 
smallness as well as a high susceptibility to external shocks including natural hazards. These very 
Small Economies have requested time and again that reforms should go beyond disciplines of 
specific carve -outs, such as extended implementation periods and modulated concessions to 
reflect a priori and de jure rules, written into covered agreements.  
 
How could it be that some large countries can understand the merits of finding a priori new 
balance between rights and obligations given the dynamism of the ext ernal economic environment 
but are reluctant to confer upon small vulnerable economies an in -built and standalone 
commitment.  
 
The challenges faced by this House should occasion collective soul -searching led by the question: 
"are the rules of this house f air and is there truly a development acquis including for the smallest 
and weakest? And, do the rules reflect the realities of 2018, not only for larger industrialised 
economies, but most importantly, for those of us hemmed in by water and under constant t hreat 
of destruction from natural hazards such as cyclones and hurricanes?" If the system is to survive 
or even thrive, we must take a clear -eyed and hard -nosed look at the rules and challenge 
ourselves to do better.  
 
It is for this reason that we have al ways reiterated our support for the WTO and the multilateral 
rules-based system. More than most, the OECS need a well -functioning open, transparent, 
predictable, equitable and inclusive multilateral trading system which represents the needs and 
concerns of  all Members including and particularly the smallest, weakest and most vulnerable of its 
Members. The OECS will continue to work constructively to achieve the goals and objectives of this 
organization and to deliver meaningful development outcomes in all a reas of its work.  
 
Moving beyond systemic concerns, permit me to quickly share my impressions on some of the 
reports tabled earlier today related to OECS priority issues. On fisheries subsidies, we would like to 
thank the Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules for all his hard work with the Secretariat in 
coordinating and steering the work on the Rules Negotiating Group. We thank him also for 
convening both open -ended as well as group consultations in an effort to find consensus on a Work 
Programme that wo uld provide impetus for further progress on this file.  
 
The OECS attaches great importance and priority to the negotiations on fisheries subsidies rules.  
Fishing is an important sector given its role in our socio -economic and cultural development 
through  its contribution to food security, livelihood security and sustainable economic 
development.  
 
The fishing sector in the OECS is primarily artisanal, subsistence and small scale in nature and 
confined mainly to our exclusive economic zone. We would like to  develop the sector including 
through increased capacity to fish for consumption and export. The provision of support to the 
sector is an important policy tool for OECS governments in that regard keeping in mind that any 
level of support we would provide w ould not be a problem.  
 
Of course, the OECS also attaches importance to the problem of dwindling global fish stocks and 
the role that subsidized overfishing, overcapacity and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing 
plays in that crisis.   
 WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 112 - 
 
  We therefore  fully support the SDG Goal 14.6 and agree that there is a role that the WTO can play 
in contributing to the environment and sustainable development objectives. We also attached 
significant importance to the provision of appropriate and effective special a nd differential 
treatment for developing country Members and least -developed country Members that should be 
an integral part of these negotiations.  
 
The OECS welcomes and thanks the Chair for his efforts at finalizing the work programme for the 
next semest er. We hope that it will be accepted this week so that we can continue and increase 
the momentum and engagement to meet the target of December 2019 for a successful and 
meaningful conclusion.  
 
The OECS delegations has supported the streamlining exercise ai med at consolidating all 
negotiating elements from the RD/…/W/29 room document into TN/W/274 working document 
which we hope can be completed before the summer break. On completion of the streamlining 
exercise, we fully agree with the ACP's call for a share d understanding that W/274 document 
becomes the negotiating text for new rules on fisheries subsidies rules and the basis of text based 
negotiations aimed at bridging the gaps and removing brackets.   
 
On the proposed Incubator Groups, we welcome the flexi bility demonstrated by the Rules 
Negotiating Group Chair with respect to the concerns shared by a number delegations including 
the ACP. Concretely, we are satisfied that the incubators will be convened intersessionally. This will 
allow for more meaningful participation and will preserve the clusters for deeper and more focused 
engagement of already settled elements of the text. We are satisfied that the purpose, design and 
intent of the Incubator Groups is to explore new ideas which could be considered by M embers for 
possible reflection in their positions in the more formal structures of the negotiations. In this view, 
the OECS could work with this new process to the extent that it functions and the rules of 
procedure conform with the understanding arrived a t with the ACP Group as well as established 
practice in this house.   
 
The OECS will continue to engage constructively including through the ACP to the conclusion of the 
negotiations as mandated by the end of next year.  
 
On the remaining Doha issues such a s Agriculture, NAMA, Services, and TRIPS, the OECS takes 
note of the lack of sufficient progress to no progress. We recall the commitment to continue work 
in these areas in line with paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Nairobi Declaration as reflected in the 
MC11 Chair's Closing Statement. The OECS notes recent discussion in the COA SS and welcomes 
expressions of interest in progressing elements of the domestic support and market access pillars. 
While we are heartened by the prospect of scoping for a potential re -engagement, it bears noting 
that the issues of critical interest of the OECS Economic Union should remain central to any future 
multilateral engagement in agriculture. These issues include the SVE modalities in Special 
Products, the Special Safeguard Mechan ism and the attenuation of preference erosion.   
 
On development and the mandate to improve and make more operationally effective the special 
and differential treatment provisions, the OECS attaches great importance to development 
provisions and S&DT. Reco gnising the wide gaps that existed between Members, new approaches 
and strategies are now required to secure progress. There are clearly differences in the 
perspectives of Members on the relationship between trade and development and the role of 
S&DT: thos e need to be addressed. This will require both creative and bold solutions in equal 
measure. In a recent interview on CNN, the Director -General noted the need to 'update the rules 
of global trade' – this will require the updating of the WTO rule book, taki ng into account new 
specific and systemic challenges to the system. We could not agree with him more. And in this 
view, it may be time for small economies like those of the OECS to be granted de jure, flexibilities 
in line with the structural limitations i mposed by smallness including high susceptibility to natural 
hazards such as hurricanes.  
 
The damage caused to the wider Caribbean region including the eastern Caribbean islands of 
Dominica and Barbuda is a clear demonstration of the increasing threat and  impact of climate 
change and the acute vulnerability of small island developing states.  
 
Should this new normal persist, the current model of development that relies on high public sector 
investment and foreign direct investment will not succeed. In weal thier countries disaster relief 
funds are quickly channelled to affected areas, leading to a boom in post 'event' construction. For WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 113 - 
 
  independent Caribbean microstates, such largesse is not available. In the case of Dominica, after 
picking up the pieces foll owing Tropical Storm Erika three years ago, local authorities were faced 
with the prospect of starting from scratch, again at the generosity of international donors and 
financial institutions.  
 
The international community led by the WTO must now take conc rete action to address what is 
quickly becoming an existential threat to small developing countries in the path of destructive 
hurricanes. How can the multilateral trading system function effectively if no accommodation is 
made for climate change related r isks? What is the value of effective market access when the 
entire productive sector is disrupted by catastrophic weather events? We thank the Secretariat for 
the symposium held earlier this year and look forward to the research that is to start in the com ing 
months.  
 
In addition to seminars and studies, the WTO must respond to the legitimate concerns of small 
economies and must mobilise concrete actions within the Committee on Trade and Development to 
consider the following questions:  
 
1. What safeguards can be established which can be automatically triggered after a 
catastrophic natural disaster that would suspend commitments under the covered 
agreements?; and  
 
2. How can existing and new disciplines support the building of economic and trade related 
resilience in small vulnerable economies?  
 
As stated in our proposal at MC11, the OECS WTO Members believe that there is a role for the 
WTO and the multilateral tradin g system in facilitating the recovery, rebuilding and rehabilitation 
of affected countries following catastrophic natural disasters. What that role should be needs to be 
informed by a clear understanding of the nexus between trade and natural disasters.   
 
As we begin our work towards preparations for the next Ministerial Conference in 2019, it is 
important that we work consistently to complete the mandates set at MC11. In so doing, we must 
be hard -nosed and focused on concrete outcomes that take account of  the interest of all of our 
members.  
 
As is always the case, the OECS will play its part in that process.  
 
Finally, as this is my last meeting of the TNC, the last ten years has been an incredible experience.  
I would like to thank Members, Ambassadors a nd delegates alike, the group coordinators and focal 
points that I have worked with – the ACP, SVEs, G -33 and CARICOM – and the Director -General 
and the staff of the Secretariat particularly those I worked closely with over the years for all the 
support, c ollaboration and cooperation. My colleagues next to me will now carry the OECS flag 
whom many of year already know.  
 
48. Benin (C -4) 
 
I am taking the floor on behalf of the group of co -sponsors of the Sectoral Initiative in Favour of 
Cotton (C -4). 
 
The C -4 ass ociates itself with the statements made by the African Group, the ACP Group, the LDC 
Group and the G -33. 
 
We would like to thank you for your status report on the multilateral trade negotiations and for the 
information you provided on your recent activitie s. 
 
We also thank the Chairs of the negotiating groups for their status reports and commend them for 
their commitment, their availability and their interaction with the Members and groups of Members 
concerning the different issues under negotiation.  
 
Once again, the C -4 stresses the need for progress in the ongoing work in order to preserve the 
multilateral framework in which appropriate improvements will have to made to the rules, 
principles and mechanisms governing international trade, notably as regards cotton. We recall that 
cotton is a strategic product that is vital to the C -4 countries, to the countries of Africa and to the WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 114 - 
 
  producing and exporting LDCs.  
 
In fact, production and exportation of cotton and textile products as well as other cotton related  
products helps to provide producers living in poor and vulnerable communities with a livelihood. 
These activities are an important tool in the fight against poverty in that they help to promote food 
security and other social services, including child educ ation, health care, habitat improvement, etc.  
 
This is why more than six months after the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference, held in Buenos Aires 
in December 2017, and 15 years after the submission of the Sectoral Initiative in Favour of Cotton, 
we need to work steadfastly to obtain substantial and measurable outcomes on cotton for the 12th 
Ministerial Conference. More specifically, the cotton negotiations must lead to a substantial 
reduction, with a view to the eventual elimination, of domestic support meas ures that distort the 
production and exportation of cotton.  
 
If we manage this, we will have fulfilled the mandate given to us in July 2004 and in Hong Kong, in 
December 2005, to address the cotton issue "ambitiously, expeditiously and specifically".  
 
The cotton issue currently under negotiation is a major issue that calls for appropriate and lasting 
answers. Hence the need to break the current deadlock.  
 
The C -4 appreciates the information, statistical data and proposed elements and approaches to 
modalitie s in agriculture and for cotton submitted by Members in the past few days and weeks. We 
shall further examine these proposals and approaches in the light of the updated statistics that 
Members are called upon to continue supplying so that after the summer break we can begin our 
active and substantive work.  
 
This work should cover the following areas:  
 
• Overall Trade Distorting Support (OTDS);  
• Aggregate Measurement of Support (AMS);  
• De minimis;  
• Total Production Value (TPV);  
• AMS/OTDS or TPV ratio;  
• De minimis/O DTS or TPV ratio;  
• Disaggregated levels of support in different categories (Amber Box, Blue Box, and Green 
Box), and product specific capping for cotton.  
 
To speed up the gathering of information and statistical data concerning the above -mentioned 
points an d areas, over the past few days the C -4 has transmitted to cotton producing and 
exporting Members individualized requests for information and data which it will include in the 
documentation for the analysis and parametrization work to be carried out jointl y and consensually 
after the summer break.  
 
Regarding the follow up to the Nairobi decisions on export subsidies and market access, Members 
will have to update their schedules of tariff concessions, to eliminate, within the set deadline, all 
export subsidi es on cotton and measures with equivalent ef fects, and to offer duty -free and quota -
free (DFQF) market access for cotton and cotton by products.  
 
The C -4 would also like to share with WTO Members its views on a number of other issues:  
 
• Multilateralism – The C-4 will continue to defend and promote multilateralism, which 
remains the institutional framework for its actions and interventions, including in the 
field of international trade.  
 
• Special and differential treatment – To address the legitimate needs, priorities and 
specificities of the developing countries and the LDCs, we must also endeavour, on the 
basis of a consensus, to speed up our work and agree, before MC12, on S&D provisions 
and elements of modalities to the benefit of the developing countries , and the LDCs in 
particular.  
 
• Dispute Settlement – We need to extricate ourselves without delay from the current 
deadlock that is blocking the process for selecting Appellate Body members. We cannot WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 115 - 
 
  over emphasize the fact that the Dispute Settlement Body  and the highest level of this 
legal and judicial architecture, namely the Appellate Body, are the key to ensuring 
compliance with Members' rights and obligations and promoting equity. They are also 
the mainstay of the WTO as an institution. Members of all  sizes and categories use the 
comprehensive legal infrastructure provided by the Dispute Settlement Body. We need 
to defend and preserve this robust system that enjoys so much credibility, and in which 
we reiterate our confidence.  
 
49. Cuba  
 
We would like to t hank the Director -General for his report and the Negotiating Group Chairs for 
their updates on the negotiations.  
 
At the outset, we would like to subscribe to the statements made by Malawi on behalf of the ACP 
Group and by Indonesia on behalf of the G -33.  
 
We are ready to continue working to ensure full respect of the Doha mandates agreed on a 
consensus basis. To do so, the work of the negotiating bodies must be revitalized. We must not set 
aside the technical knowledge that we have built up until now. We  do not favour new mandates 
nor new suggestion which are already covered by the existing mandates.  
 
In Agriculture, we consider that the time has come to achieve results in SSM and PSH. We are 
open to progressing with an incremental focus based on the most  distortive domestic support to 
correct the imbalances that stem from the Agreement on Agriculture giving priority to Cotton. On 
this basis, we do not consider that it is realistic nor is it fair to choose a focus where all Members 
contribute in this pilla r while there are still deep asymmetries between them. We would like to 
reiterate that countries that have not contributed to the agricultural trade distortions must not 
limit their current policy space to guarantee food security, rural development and pov erty 
alleviation. These are indicators which are part and parcel of our obligations as a State to comply 
with our domestic obligations.  
 
The S&D negotiations must be carried out according to the mandate using as a basis the proposals 
made by the G -90. Thi s is done to respect such mandate which is part of the multilateral 
agreements of the WTO. We should not subject this to a reinterpretation. The development 
dimension must be clearly reflected in any result which we will produce in the WTO as many 
Members have already said. That is why we are worried and we cannot subscribe to the positions 
that deny such aspect de facto during the negotiations.  
 
The work in fisheries must be carried out in a transparent and inclusive manner which would allow 
all Members to  put forward their interests. The importance of this mandate and the clear deadlines 
we have must not lead to an increase in the existing asymmetries. Special and differential 
treatment for developing countries must be agreed with substantive and effective  provisions.  
 
In electronic commerce and domestic regulation in services, we do not support the plurilateral 
initiatives which have proliferated without consensus. Both issues must channel their work on the 
basis of the multilateral mandate agreed by all M embers. A lot of work is still pending and we still 
have to carry out in this broader format. We note that during the first six months of this year, very 
little has been done along those lines.  
 
We urge Members to focus their work on the negotiations on a  consensus basis and multilaterally 
as is established in the Marrakesh Agreement. The proliferation of plurilateral meetings erode at 
this very function. We cannot support such multilateralism and I do not think that this really 
preserves the principle of consensus which must remain a pillar of this organization. Today's 
challenges are very important but a multilateral organization, even if the work becomes very 
complex, must focus on the mandates which have been agreed collectively.  
 
Many developing countr ies can share the lessons of flexibility in the organization especially 
because developed countries which have always enjoyed better conditions should shoulder new 
rules and commitments. Because of the experience we have had, we know that the flexibility t hat 
we offer must continue to be consistent with the needs and realities of our peoples and our levels 
of development – and not lead to pursuing or deepening the asymmetries and imbalances which 
exist today.  WT/GC/M/173  
 
- 116 - 
 
   
At a time where unilateral trade measures are being implemented, we are absolutely convinced 
that we have to preserve and support this system with more multilateralism, more dialogue and 
more cooperation.  
 
__________