RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/172  
 
6 July  2018 
(18-4269) Page: 1/94 
General Council  
8 May 2018    
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG 
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 8 MAY  2018 
Chairperson : Mr. Junichi I hara (Japan ) 
The Chairman and the Direct or-General bade farewell to Ambassador  Daniel Blockert (Sweden ) 
and Amb assador  Sondang Anggraini  (Indonesia) who were  leaving their  posts, and expressed 
appreciation for their  valuable cont ribution during their time as Permanent Representative s to the 
WTO. Before  the meeting was adjourned, Ambassador  Sondang Anggraini (Indonesia ) made a 
statement.  
 
Subjects discussed1: 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE A ND 
REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
2   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOME S – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  ................................ ................................ .......................  3 
3   WORK  PROGRAMME ON SMALL E CONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSIO N OF THE COMMITTEE O N TRADE AND DEVELOPM ENT ...............  5 
4   SELECTION OF NEW APPEL LATE BODY MEMBERS – STATEMENT BY CHINA  .................  6 
5   UNITED STATES OF AME RICA – SECTION 232 INVESTIG ATIONS AND 
MEASURES ON STEEL AN D ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS  – STATEMENT BY CHINA  .................  15 
6   UNITED STATES OF AME RICA – INVESTIGATIONS AND M EASURES UNDER  
SECTION  301 OF THE TRADE ACT  OF 1974 – STATEMENT BY CHINA  ..............................  23 
7   COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE AND ADMINIST RATION – REPORT ON 
MEET ING OF MARCH 2018   ................................ ................................ .............................  29 
8   WTO PENSION PLAN MAN AGEMENT BOARD – ELECTION OF A MEMBER  AND 
AN ALTERNATE – PROPOSAL BY THE CHAI RMAN OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL  .................  30 
9   DATE AND VENUE OF TH E TWELFTH SESSION OF  THE MINISTERIAL 
CONFERENCE – STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  ................................ .............................  30 
10   CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE WORKING PARTIES ON T HE ACCESSION OF 
ALGERIA AND THE BAHA MAS – STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  ................................ .... 31 
11   STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE 
MEASURES FOR MEMBERS  IN ARREARS  ................................ ................................ .........  31 
ANNEX 1 – THE REPORTS BY THE D IRECTOR -GENERAL AND THE CHAI RS OF THE 
NEGOTIATING GROUPS A T THE INFORMAL TNC A ND INFORMAL HOD s MEETING 
HELD ON 7 MAY 2018  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 33 
ANNEX 2 – STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMAL TN C AND INFORMAL 
HODs MEETING HELD ON 7 MA Y 2018  ................................ ................................ ............  44 
                                                
1 The proposed agenda was ci rculated in document WT/GC/W/744 . WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE A ND REPORT 
BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the Director -General had convened an Informal TNC and Heads of 
Delegation meeting  on 7 May , 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 fifty -four delegations had taken the floor.  
1.2.    As had been anno unced 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 
Statemen ts delivered by delegations would  also be in cluded in the  minutes under the current item  
unless indicate d otherwise.3 
1.3.   The representative of Zambia  associated  with the i nterventi ons delivered on 7 May by the 
G-33, the Afr ican Group, the ACP Group and the LDC Group.  Zambia thanked the Director -General 
for the update on his activities since the last General Council meeting and on his candid 
assessment of the current state of play in  the negotiations. Zambia also thanked all the Chairs of 
the N egotiating Bodies  for their comprehensive reports.  
1.4.  As it had  been highlighted by many  delegations  on 7 May, Members  should continue to 
pursue the development agenda to ensure that developing an d least -developed countries had  a 
commensurate share of economic growth and dev elopment. Such remained important for the 
global economy  to attain inclusive and sustainable growth in line with the 2030 Agenda on 
Sustainabl e Development and with Africa's  own co ntinental Agenda of developing "The Africa We 
Want"  by 2063. 
1.5.  Zambia  underscore d that paragraph 44 of the Doha  Ministerial Declaration remained valid 
and provided a clear mandate on how Members  should engage on the issue of developme nt. To 
that end, making the provisions of paragraph 44 operational should con tinue to remain a priority 
to create the necessary policy spa ce to foster structural transformation, diversifica tion and 
industrializ ation – which had been long overdue. T he G90 proposals in that regard provide d a 
strong basis on which to build their work going forward in that  process.  
1.6.  Another area that demanded Members'  serious attention was Agriculture due to its highly 
pronounced imbalances. Zambia  welcome d the recent efforts of the Chair of the Committee on 
Agriculture in Special Session and expected that negotiations would  be guid ed by the DDA 
mandates:  the D oha Declaration, the July framework and the Hong Kong Declaration.  
1.7.  Zambia  noted with concern the emerging trade tensions among some Members that we re 
posing serious challenges to the smooth functioning of the multilateral trading sy stem. 
Protectionist tend encies  in whateve r form if not contained could  endanger the smooth functioning 
of the multilateral trading system and could undermine the firm commitment Members had  made 
in 2001 to pla ce development at the core of thei r work. Members should therefore resist such 
                                                
2 The Director -General's report (also circulated in JOB/GC/186) and the reports of the Chairs of 
Negotiating Bodies at the 7 May  Informal  TNC and HODs Meeting  are incorporated in the minutes of this 
meeting and are  reproduced in Annex 1  of this document.  
3 The statements at the 7 May  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:  Switzerland (on 
behalf of Argentina; Australia; Bangladesh; Benin; Brazil;  Burkina Faso;  Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; 
Côte d'Ivoire; Dominican Republic; El Salvador; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Kazakhstan; Kenya; 
Republic of Korea; Lao People's Democratic Republic; Liechtenstein; Malaysia; Mali; Mexico; Republic  of 
Moldova; Myanmar; New Zealand; Nigeria; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Paraguay; Peru; Qatar; Singapore; 
Switzerland; Thailand; the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Turkey; Ukraine; Uruguay and Viet Nam); 
South Africa (African Group); United States; C entral African Republic (LDCs); Colombia (Informal Dialogue on 
Investment Facilitation for Development); Malawi (ACP); Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on E -Commerce); 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Indonesia (G -33); China; Benin (C -4); Uruguay (Informal Wo rking Group on 
MSMEs); European Union; Honduras (IGDC except Israel);  Zimbabwe; Panama (Article XII Members); 
Singapore; Mexico; Trinidad and Tobago; Egypt; India; Ecuador; Norway; Russian Federation; Cuba; Canada; 
Brazil; Iceland; Hong Kong, China; Turkey ; Peru; Ghana; Costa Rica; Plurinational State of Bolivia; Uganda; 
Tonga (Pacific Group); Republic of Moldova; Paraguay; Chinese Taipei; Haiti (CARICOM); Tanzania; Thailand; 
Nepal; Dominica (OECS); Chile; Japan; Jamaica; Kenya; New Zealand; Cambodia; Pakis tan; Bolivarian 
Republic of Venezuela; Malaysia and Republic of Korea.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 3 - 
 
  tendencies and consolidate thei r engagement within the multilateral framework to maintain 
stability in the gl obal trading system. It was time for them to show solidarity as WTO M embers and 
work together to sustain a rules -based mul tilateral trading  system that was transparent, inclusive  
and consensus -based.  
1.8.  Zambia  also hoped that the impasse in the Appellate Body would be  urgentl y resolved in a 
manner that would  not undermine the effective functioning of the dispute settlement mechanism.  
1.9.  The General  Council 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 TNC 
and Informal HODs meeting on 7 May.  
2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOMES – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  
2.1.  The Chairman4 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.  He had  held a meeting with the Chairs of Regular Bodies  on 1 May where they had  updated 
each othe r on the work taking place in their respective bodies  including – but not only – with 
respect to the implementation of the Ministerial mandates. As in the past, the discussions and 
inputs from that meeti ng formed the basis of his statement.  
2.3.  He first provided a report on the consultations that he had held wit h respect to the Work 
Programme on Elect ronic Commerce. He recalled that , at MC11, Ministers had agreed to continue 
and to reinvigorate work based on the 1998 manda te. In that regard, following his  invitation to all 
Members, twenty -three delegations had co me to consult with him on the way forward. He  had also 
previously met with the Chairs of the bodies responsible for the implementation of the Work 
Progr amme. In his consultations, he had  sought delegations' views on how the General Council 
should implement  the Buenos Aires Ministerial D ecision and on whether there had been interest in 
discussing cross -cutting issues and in what format.  
2.4.  He had generally sensed  willingness to engage under the Work Programme although some 
delegations had been  sceptical about  the possibility of achieving concrete outcomes. Some 
delegations had indicated their readiness to submit papers to advance the discussions. Others had 
considered that the Work Programme could build further und erstanding of e -commerce issues  
through semina rs, exchange of experiences  and cooperation with other international organizations. 
Some specif ic issues for consideration had  also been suggested  including development -related 
concerns and the moratorium.  
2.5.  With regard to the approach, some delegations  had reiterated their view that discussions 
should first take place in the relevant bodies – including the identification of cross -cutting issues. 
Others had preferred to start addressing cross -cuttin g issues in a horizontal manner but he had 
not sense d any appe tite to reconvene the Dedicated Discussion. Generally, delegations had 
indicated a preference for informal open-ended discussions le d by him in his  capacity as Chairman 
of the General Council . Many delegations had also made reference to the work under the Joint 
Statement on E -commerce . Some had hoped that the two processes could be mutually supportive.  
2.6.  Overall , he was  encouraged by th e general willingness to engage. But Members  needed more 
concrete ide as to initiate a dialogue. He  hoped that by the time th e General Council would review 
progress in July, they would have a clearer idea on how to advance thei r conversation on e -
commerce. In the meantime , his door remained open to any delegation that would  wish to further 
discuss t hat issue with him . 
2.7.  Regarding the Buenos Aires Decision on TRIPS non -violatio n and situation complaints, the 
issue would  be on the agenda of the TRIPS Council' s next meeting in early June. He understood  
that the incoming TRIPS Council Chair,  Ambassador Walter Werner (Germany), was planning to 
address that  matter in his contacts with delegations.  
                                                
4 The Chairman's statem ent was circulated in JOB/GC/187 . WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 4 - 
 
  2.8.  Concerning  Trade Facilitation, 136 Members had already deposited their instru ments of 
acceptance amounting to 83% of the M embership. He understood th at a few more could be in the 
pipeline. There had also been  a marked incr ease in notifications submitted  with 112 notifications 
under Category A, 62 under Category B  and 52 under Category C.  
2.9.  With respect to Agriculture and in particular  to the Nairobi Deci sion on Export Competition, 
the next dedicated discussion would  take place in the June meeting of the Co mmittee on 
Agriculture. For that  discussion, the Secretariat had circulated a background document on 24 April 
which compiled  information from Members' r elevant notifications along with responses to an export 
competition questionnaire circulated by the Chairperson of the Com mittee on Agriculture. Members 
were also expected to continue the triennial review of the Nairobi decision at the June CoA 
meeting.  Still on export competition, Au stralia, Norway and Israel had already  had their revised 
expor t subsidies schedules certified  in line with the provisions of the Nairobi Decision.  
2.10.   The Bali Decision on TRQ admi nistration needed  to be reviewed  in 2018 as well  in line with 
its provisions. Acc ording to the timetable for the review, the CoA would  meet in informal mode in 
June to discuss any issues raised by Members since the last meeting.  
2.11.   On Development and LDC matters, with respect to  the Decision on Prefer ential R ules of 
Origin for LDCs, almost all preference -granting Members had already notified their requirements 
following the adoption of a new template for the notification of preferential rules of origin.  The 
Committee on Rules of Origin had started to examine t hose notifications in a more detailed 
manner and to make comparisons to identify best practices. The Committee had also initiated an 
examination of preferential utilization rates on the basis of calculations made by the Secretariat. 
That was  an area  of wor k where the Committee could  also undertake focused discussions. He also 
understoo d that a number of preference -granting Members had informed the Com mittee about the 
measures they we re taking to implement the Bali and Nair obi Decisions and that there had  been 
an encouraging number of reforms to simplify origin requirements.  
2.12.   Regarding the Monitoring Mechanism, the fact that no written submissions had as yet been 
received had  led to different views among Members  as to how and whether  to proceed with a 
review of the Mechanism – which ac cording to the Bali Decision was  supposed to take place three 
years after the first formal meeting. Some delegations believe d that Members  should proceed with 
the review  while others fe lt that a review should only take pla ce afte r concrete experience had  
been gained. The CTD Chairman would  be holding informal consultations before the next meet ing 
of the Monitoring Mechanism which would be held in July  to see whether a shared un derstanding 
could  be reached on how to proceed with th e review.  
2.13.   DFQF market access for LDCs remained  a standing item on the CTD's agenda . At the April 
CTD meeting, the LDCs had once again highlighted the importance they attach ed to DFQF market 
access. Member s had been  called upon to faithfully implement the DFQF and related decisions.  
2.14.   On Trade and T ransfer of Technology, which had been part of the Bali Decisions,  discussions 
had continued a t the Working Group's meeting in April  on the relationship between trade  and 
transfer of technology. S ome Members had underlined the importance of th e Sustainable 
Development Goals especially SDG 17  in guiding the ir work .  
2.15.   Regarding Aid for Trade, he recall ed that at the previous General Council meeting, the  then 
CTD Chair, Ambassador  Taonga Mushayavanhu  (Zimbabwe) , had stated that further time had 
been needed to reach an agreement on the Aid for Trade work programme for 2018 -2019. 
Ambassador Mushayavanhu  had subsequently held extensive consultations in different formats to 
advance wor k on that topic and he understoo d that substantial progre ss and convergence of views 
had taken place. The C TD had concluded its adjourned 42nd Session on Aid for Trade on 23 Apri l. 
Subsequent to that meeting, the final out standing question had  been address ed.  
2.16.   As such, the final Aid for Trade work programme had been issued on 7 May  in document 
WT/COMTD/AFT/W/75. As per past practice,  the 2018 -2019 work programme was  circulated under 
the responsibility of the current CTD Chair, Ambassador Diego Aulestia  (Ecuador) . He took the 
opportunity to express his  appreciation for the efforts that the previous  CTD Chair, Ambassador 
Mushayavanhu, had made in securing a positive outcome.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.17.   The representative of South Africa , on behalf of the African Group , thanked the Chairman 
for his report relating to the 2018 -2019 Work Programme on Aid for Trade. The African Group  
recall ed that Aid for Trade wa s about assisting developing countries to increase exports of goods 
and services, to integrate into the multilateral t rading system, and to benefit from liberalized trad e 
and increased market access. Effective Aid for Trade would  enhance growth prospects and reduce 
poverty in developing countries, as well as complement multilateral trade reforms and distribute 
the global benefits more equitably across and within developing countries .  
2.18.   The African Group express ed its  deep gratitude to the outgoing Chairman of the Committee 
on Trade and Development, Ambassador M ushayavanhu , for all his efforts and his continuous 
consensus -building approach – which had  brought divergent positions closer together and  had 
allowed Members  to develop and finaliz e the Work Programme.   
2.19.   With his leadership, Members had  been able to come up with a 2018 -2019 Work Programme  
whose balance  was fragile but reflected  the priorities of all Members. The African Group  thank ed 
him for that result  as well as the development p artners for their cooperation.  
2.20.   The African Group pointed out that questioning of decisions adopted by relevant organs o f 
the o rganization notably in the General Council posed  a serious problem that undermined its 
integrity. It was regrettable that a Member had refused to refer to the 10  October 2006 General 
Council Decision contained in WT/GC/M/104 that had endorsed the Task Force  Recommendations 
on Aid for Trade  in the W ork Programme for reasons that were unclear to them . 
2.21.   With that said, the African Group welcomed  the 2018 -2019 Aid for T rade Work Programme 
and supported  its adoption.  
2.22.   The African Group would  shortly be submitting a  communication aimed at strengthening the 
Aid for Trade initiative with a view to making it more relevant and pragmatic for the benefit of 
developing and least -developed c ountries.  The forthcoming African Group Communication would  
propose a t ransparency me chanism  in addition to choosing the theme of t he Aid for Trade Work 
Programme  and implem entation of the commitments by development partners  in accordance with 
the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.  
2.23.   The African Group looked  forward to working with all Members under the guidance of 
Ambassador Aulestia in reaching a consensus decision in the CTD.  
2.24.   The representative of the European Union  said that two and a half years had passed since 
Members  had agreed to abolish export subsidies in the agricultu ral sector. Only 7 of the 
17 Members that had commitments on export  subsidies prior to Nairobi  had however submitted 
amended s chedules to implement the relevant Nairobi Decision .  
2.25.   As far as the EU was concerned, its Nairobi scheduling wa s part of the draft  EU-28 schedule 
forwarded  to Members in October 2017. The  EU encourage d Members who we re lagging behind to 
proceed with their schedule modification swiftly.  
2.26.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement and of the other statements.  
3  WORK PROGRAM ME ON SMALL ECONOMIE S – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TRA DE AND 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 ite m 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 instruc ting the CTD to continue its work in Dedicated Sessions under the 
overall responsi bility of the General Council. He therefore invite d Ambassador Diego Aulestia 
(Ecuador), Chairman of the CTD, t o report on developments in the  area. 
3.2.  Ambassador Diego Aulestia  (Ecuador) , Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD , 
recalled  that at the Eleventh Ministerial Conference held in Buenos Aires, Ministers had adopted a 
Decision that had instructed the Secretariat to continue its work on the challenges small WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 6 - 
 
  economies  experience d in thei r efforts to reduce trade costs  particularly in the area of trade 
facilitation. The  topic had originally been agreed at the 2015 Ministerial Conference in Nairobi and 
to fulfil the mandate, the Secretariat had prepared a factual document on the topic.  
3.3.  Members had  already had preliminary disc ussions on the basis of that  document in previous 
meetings o f the Dedicated Session. Preparations we re currently under way to hold another 
meeting in early June where Members would  discuss the challenges of the fuller integration of 
SVEs in the multilateral trading system and th e reduction of trade costs posed to SVEs. A draft 
agenda would  be circulated shortly.  
3.4.  The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the SVEs , said that  the SVEs had prese nted a 
proposal on how to advance work on "the challenges small economies experience in their efforts to 
reduce trade cost particularly in the area of trade facilitation" in WT/COMTD/SE/W/33/Rev.1 which 
had been  approved by the CTD Dedicated Session on Sma ll Economies.  
3.5.  Following the  decision, the  SVEs Group was  working clo sely with the Secretariat in preparing 
for their meeting that would  focus on the most important sources of merchandise and services 
trade cost repor ted by the SVEs. The aim of that sessio n was to identify the specific challenges and 
to have an in -depth conversation on the particularities of the sources of trade co st. On the 
following days, the SVEs would  be consulting with interested delegations to discuss the  agenda for 
such meeting and hoped to have the support of all Members to make it successful . 
3.6.  The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the CTD and of the statement.  
4  SELECTION OF NEW APP ELLATE BODY MEMBERS – STATEMENT BY CHINA  
4.1.  The representative of China  said that his delegation  was requesting the three agenda items  
to be taken up  since the WTO wa s facing grave challenges.  As the Airgram indicated, the three 
agenda items China had requested we re on the Selection of New Appellate Body Members, US 
Section 232 Investigations and Measures on Steel and Aluminium Products  and US Sectio n 301 of 
the Trade Act of 1974.   
4.2.  The reason for Members to focus on those issues was simple. Twenty -three  years after th e 
estab lishment of the WTO in 1995, the institution was currently  faced w ith an unprecedented 
challenge. The most urgent and b urning question that the WTO had to answer wa s how to respond 
to unilateralism and protectionism.  
4.3.  Before the end of the Uruguay Roun d, GA TT contracting parties had  severely suffered from 
unilateral and protectionist measures. In order to  curb their spread, Members had  negotiated and 
had agreed on the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes 
and other WTO ag reements. The prohibition on unilateral and protectionist measures had beco me 
the bedrock and central elements of the multilateral trading system ever since.  
4.4.  What was however  dangerous and devastating was that the United States was systematically 
challengi ng tho se fundamental guiding principles by blocking the selection process of the Appellate 
Body members, applying restrictive trade measures under Section 232 and threatening to impose 
tariff measures of 50 Billion USD of goods imports from China under Sec tion 301 of  US domestic 
law. Any one of those  if left untrea ted would  fatally undermine the functioning of the WTO. T he 
WTO being  confronted  with those  "three hard blows"  was already a reality.  
4.5.  China had therefore request ed those three  items to be taken up  in the meeting and was  
ready  to discuss ways to tackle tho se seve re challenges with all Members. China  earnestly 
expect ed all M embers to join efforts and defend thei r system, rules and order, the equal rights of 
all Members and the dignity of internationa l law. In so doin g, Members could  collectively 
strengthen and improve the multilateral trading system  and prevent the unilateral or protecti onist 
actions from damaging the  system and undermining international trade.  
4.6.  Regarding  Agenda Item 4,  China noted that the WTO's crown jewel wa s losing its brilliance. 
The dispute settlement mechanism with it s efficiency and effectiveness wa s widely considered to 
be the crown jewel of the WTO. Since 1995, several  hundreds of trade disputes had  been settled 
throu gh suc h WTO mechanism – becoming  one of the most efficient and effective dispute WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 7 - 
 
  settlement mechanism s in the history of international law. Within such system, the Appellate Body 
played  a vital role in ensuring the stability and predictability of the WTO a nd its rules.  
4.7.  China stressed that t he WTO's dispute settlement system wa s currently facing its  most 
difficult time since its creation. Only four of th e seven Appellate Body members we re in of fice. If 
the selection process would  not be launched, the functio ning of the Appellate Body would be 
paralysed – putting the entire dispute settlement system in crisis.  
4.8.  Without such system, the WTO trade rules would  no longer be effectively enforced  and the 
trust and credibility of the multilateral trading system would  be deepl y undermined.  Members 
would  not ultimately be able to effectively control unilateralism and protectionism.  
4.9.  China had noticed that the United States had  expressed for many times its concerns with 
respect to the WTO d ispute settlement system. In China's  view, the system functioned  generally 
well and the United States was  among the Members who had benefi tted the most from such 
system. Any concern s with respect to the system could  and should be addressed by discussion 
under the WTO framework. China was willing  to engage in such discussion but  could not agree to 
link tho se concerns with the selection process.  
4.10.   Being a Member -driven organization did not mean that the WTO  was driven by only one 
Member. By taking the select ion process hostage, the United States was abusing the consensus -
based decision -making mechanism . China  urged for the selection process to start so that the 
Appellate Body could  resume its proper functioning as soon as possible.  
4.11.   The representative of the European Union  expressed regret about  the DSB's inability for 
more than a year  to launch the selection process for new AB  members and  recall ed the proposal 
made by the Europ ean Union and 36 other Members at th e DSB meeting on 27 April in 
WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.3. The EU  thank ed all Members tha t had co-sponsored and had endorsed the 
proposal. All Members had  a share d responsibility to resolve that  issue as soon as possible and to 
live up to A rticle 17.2 of the DSU which stated that vacancies should  be filled a s they aro se. 
4.12.   The EU had noted the c oncerns raised in past several DS B meetings by the United States on 
the issue of Rule 15 of the Working Pr ocedures for Appellate Review. The EU saw  no link between 
the issue of Rule 15 and the issue of appointments. The discussion on Rule 15 could take pla ce 
without delaying the decision on appointm ents any further. A fortiori, the EU saw  no rationale in 
blocking the launch of the mere selection process.  
4.13.   The EU reiterate d its readiness to en gage in such discussions  if that  would help unblock the 
appointmen ts. If the concerns on Rule 15 we re guided by a legitimate desire to improve the proper  
administration of transition, an appropriate solution could  surely be reached.  
4.14.   The representative of Mexico  recalled the statement made by his delegation  at the Inform al 
HODs  meeting on 7 May , stressing  that the critical situat ion of the Appellate Body was  
unprecedented.  
4.15.   In a normal situation where Members  had an Appellate Body composed of a ll of its seven  
members, they  would already be facing a series of challenges  such as the overload of work derived 
from an increasing use of th e appeals process . 
4.16.   On average , seven out of ten  cases reach ed the Appellate B ody. Around 80 Members had 
participated in an  appeal.  It was  expected th at, in addition to the current eight  appeals, another 
five panel reports could be appealed in  2018.  
4.17.   With only four of its seven  members, it was clear that  the si tuation of the Appellate Body 
was alarming. In the current scenario, the Appellate Body wa s operat ing at almost half its capacity  
withou t full representation of the Membership and without the possibility of making decisions in 
collegiality.  
4.18.   The current  international con text where commercial tensions we re increasing and the 
narrative  of an eventual trade  war was becoming more frequent made that situation even more 
worrisome.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 8 - 
 
  4.19.   He said that t he situation could unfortunately get even worse  if Members were not  able to 
renew the mandate of Mr. Shree Servansing , whose first term would  expire on 30 September – 
only five  months  away. The WTO would by then run the risk of having only three of the seven  
members  which would put them  in an extremely delicate situation where the entire dispute 
settlement system would be exposed to a  high risk of paralysis.  Mexico  reiterate d the need to start 
the selection process of the current vacancies as had been proposed by 65 Members and to renew 
the mandate of Mr. Servansing.  
4.20.   While Mexico recogniz ed that the dispute settlement system could be improved and that it 
had expressed its willingness to discuss concerns and w ays on how to address that matter, that  
should in no way interfere with the launching of the selection processes for the current vacancies  
in the Appellate Body  and with the possible extension of the mandate of its members.  
4.21.   For that reason, Mexico  once again urge d Members to make a serious commitment in 
creating  the conditions to enable the Appellate Body  to fully function. All Members had  the 
obligation an d the responsibility to ensure the full operation of the Appellate Body and to  preserve 
a hea lthy dispute se ttlement system that strengthened rather than weakened thei r common goal  
of conducting international trade  based on rules th at they had agreed upon and that were  clear.  
4.22.   The representative of Cambodia  associated  with the statement made by Chi na and 
emphasized  the importance of filling all current and future vacancies in the A ppellate Body without 
delay. Cambodia  urged Members to speed up and to support the launching of the selection process 
as early as possible and  called on those who had  expressed their concerns to provide specific 
proposals so that those matters could  be addressed.  
4.23.   The representative of Zimbabwe  joined other s in expressing its serious concerns about the 
ongoing paralysis in the DSB which  was negatively impacting the WTO 's image and credibility  and 
sapping the energy  out of the other pillars of the organization . Such a paralysis could subliminally 
push Members to question the time and energy  invest ed in negotiating new rules when current 
ones could not be adjudicated. That was a perilous road to take for a rules -based organization . 
4.24.   Zimbabwe therefore  called for a return to a predictable, rules-based WTO that the world had 
known  and for the lifting of the current impasse  to allow for the appointments to  the Appellate 
Body and to avoid further paralysing  the dispute settlement system .  
4.25.   Zimbabwe welcomed  the proposal for the urgent need to  appoint Appellate Body members 
which was co-sponsored by over 60 Member s. The increasing number of co -sponsors to that 
proposal showed the growin g concern over the cont inued stalemate. Zimbabwe therefore  called for 
continued engagement, commitment and flexibility on the part of all to break the  deadlock.  
4.26.   Zimbabwe also express ed its  deep anxiety over the  unilateral trade measures  imposed to 
settle d isputes which was against the raison d'être  of having a World Trade Organization. 
Zimbabwe  urged all M ember s to meet their obligations and to comply with WTO rules. Any 
contrary action t o multilateral trade rules and to Members' obligations would  ultimatel y 
compromise the functioning of the multilateral trading system and the integrity of the WTO.  
4.27.   The negative wind of change had  the potential to sweep across the whole globe resulting in 
market distort ions and retaliation which would not only lead to the esc alation of trade wars but 
also to economi c crisis. Developing countries we re particularly vulner able to the ramifications of 
those unilateral and protectionis t measures. Zimbabwe  therefore urged Members to resort to 
dialogue or make use o f the dispute settlement system  which should be made functional again in 
resolving issues.  
4.28.   The representative of the Russian Federation  thanked China for raising that  vital issue and 
reiterate d its serious concerns expressed previously at the DSB and in the co urse of di scussions 
with Members.  
4.29.   The WTO had reached a critical point by facing that  unprecedented challenge in its history. 
With the  sword of Damocles  hanging over their heads, it wa s up to a ll Members to make strenuous 
efforts to maintain the effectiveness of th e dispute settlement process  and to restore the 
confidence in the multilateral trading system.   WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 9 - 
 
  4.30.   The Appellate Body was close to collapsing due only to the actions of one Member . In spite 
of contin uous efforts, the membership had not yet  found a solution to  the current situation.  
4.31.   In Russia' s view, the first step to remedy the situation was to avoid any linka ge between the 
appointment of Appellate Body  members and the resolution of the issues related to the adoption 
and operation of the Working Procedure s for Appellate Review. Russia believed that it was within 
Members' reach to do so and encouraged them  to seek effective solutions in order to overcome the 
deadlock the entire membership had been  put in against its will.  
4.32.   The representative of Honduras , on behalf of the IGDC except Israel , expressed  the IGDC's 
concern on the delay in the Selection Process for the Appellate B ody members' positions that had  
been left vacant and call ed for the  selection process to resume. The IGDC  urged all Members to 
support the process with a view to its prompt completion.  
4.33.   It was also important for delegations who had  expressed systemic concerns to provide 
propo sals on how their concerns could  be addressed independently from the selection process. Any 
further delay  in fillin g the vacancies in the Appellate Body would jeopardiz e the effectiveness of the  
institution and of the dispute settlement function of the organization.  
4.34.   The representative of Uganda  shared  the concerns expressed by China in its st atement on  
the selection of  Appellate Body members.  Uganda reiterated the views it had shared with Members 
regarding the enforcem ent mechanism of the WTO when it had  spoke n about the destabiliz ing 
moves on the existence of the Appellate Bod y of the DSB.  
4.35.   Uganda recall ed the question it had  posed concerning the application of WTO rules. Uganda 
asked whether tho se rules were made for all Members or only for certain Members to comply with 
and whether there were some Members among them who were above the rules.  If the prevailing 
situation  continued, Members would soon have no  place of recourse to address thei r grievances.  
4.36.   The representative of Japan  concurred  on the importance of the issue raised by China under 
that agenda item and did  not deny the meri t of general discussions on that  matter at the General 
Council. Japan however noted  that, under the terms of the WTO Agreement, it was the DSB's sole 
responsibility to select members of the Appellate Body. The General Council wa s not convening to 
discharge the responsibility of the DSB t hat day. Members should be aware of that  distinction.  
4.37.   On the selection of new Appellate Body  members , Japan did not  wish to  repeat its position 
since it had been made abundantly clear at the DSB meetings. Ja pan simply emphasized that it 
was the responsi bility of the entire membership acting as the DSB  to ensure the proper functioning 
of the dispute settlement system including the Appellate Body  in a manner consistent with the 
DSU. 
4.38.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  recalled that  as part of a new large 
group of Members, Bolivia had  expressed its concern s about  the current situation within the 
Appella te Body  on a number of occasions . Such a situation had been seriously affecting the  
functioning  of the Appellate Body  and the dispute sett lement system in general to the detriment of 
the interests  of Members.  
4.39.   The same  group of Members had also proposed procedures which w ould solve the paralysis 
of the Appellate B ody through the launching of t he selection process for  the current vacant post s. 
The proposal had  unfortunately not achieved its aim and the selection process for the candidates 
for the Appellate Body continued to be blocked by one Member.  
4.40.   The s election process for Appellate Body members would not hinder  the possibility of the 
Membe r that wa s blocking it from discussing its issues of concern . Bolivia therefore  encourage d 
the Me mber in question to revise its position on the matter . 
4.41.   The representative of Tanzania  said he was equally c oncerned with the acts of some 
Members that obstruct ed the selection process of Appellate Body m embers. The non -replacement 
of AB members would  greatly undermine the functioning  of the WTO's dispute settlement  system.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 10 - 
 
  4.42.   As state d in Art icle 17.2 of the DSU, the vacancies of Appellate Body members should  be 
filled immediately as they arose. Tanzania therefore found it difficult to understand why one 
Member wa s holding the process of appointing new Appellate Body members hostage against the 
rest of the membership , despite the established rules and procedures.  
4.43.   The WTO had  previously bee n praised  as the only multilateral organiz ation with a strong 
and effective enforcement mechan ism through a well -structured dispute s ettlement system. For 
that reason , non-trade related matters had also been  introduced in the WTO . 
4.44.   There we re three  unfilled vacancies  in the Appellate Body . If the current situation wa s left to 
continue, there could be a total of five vacancies out of seven by the end of 2019. It would 
consequently be  impossible to constitute the required n umber of thr ee Appellate Body members to 
serve a case. Such a scenari o could lead to the WTO's down fall – a situation Tanzania  trusted no 
one would like to author.  
4.45.   Tanzania therefore called upon the entire membership to fully commit to positive 
discussions in o rder to  resolve the matter. Members  needed to act together before the dispute 
settlement system would  be rendered inactive  for selfish interests of some Members who could be 
seeking the demise of that  long, well-function ing branch of the WTO.  
4.46.   The representative o f Qatar  said that  Members  had the  responsibility to safeguard the 
Appellate Body and the duty to proceed with the selection process as soon as possible . Qatar wa s 
a strong believer in the multilateral se ttlement of disputes. Like many other small countries , Qatar 
had a veste d interest in safeguarding the WTO's integrity.  Qatar  therefore urge d the launch o f the 
selection process to  maintain  the proper functioning of the Appellate B ody. 
4.47.   The representative of Benin  highlighted his country's strong  interest in international trade. 
The current 164 WTO Members  and those in the process of acceding to the organization we re all 
concerned with t he state of international trade  and its future . All the countries in  the world 
produce d, sold and bought.  Businesse s, households an d individuals we re als o involved in 
international trade activities. Everyone ate, moved through di fferent modes of transportation  and 
communicated through different devices and platforms, among many other s. Everyone was 
affected by  the rule s, principles and mechanisms governing international trade , including the 
dispute settlement mechanism . Everyone should therefore remain attentive to what was being 
done and built in the WTO.  
4.48.   International trade should be  open and based on fair and equitab le rules, principles and 
mechanisms.  The multilateral approach supported such endeavour and provided credibility better 
than any other trade and economic action, intervention and initiative. Benin was therefore among 
the Members  that support ed the Joint De claration pr esented by Switzerland on 7 May at the 
Informal TNC and HODs meeting.  
4.49.   The dispute settlement system  remained  the cornerstone and the credible multilateral 
mechanism  for dealing with disputes that aro se in the conduct of trade by Members. Member s, 
large or small, had always relied on the dispute settlement system  given its credibility and the 
confidence that they had bestowed upon it. The judgments rendered by the Appellate Body  had 
historically  been guided by rules and pract ices of international  economic law  and had been 
conducted accordin g to the cardinal principle of equity. Benin therefore urged all Members to take 
action t o resume, speed up and finalize  the process o f selecting new Appellate Body m embers  as 
soon as possible , and to observe  the rules and procedures during such process . 
4.50.   The representative of Guinea  reiterated his delegation's  firm support for multilateralism 
which promoted the stability of the global economy  and said that  the multilateral context should 
be preserved and reinforced , given  its importance to developing countries.  
4.51.   Guinea noted  with concern the multiplying trade disputes at the WTO and around  the world.  
Protectionism could  only weaken the credibi lity of the organization which wa s at the crux of the 
multilater al trading system. It was up to all Members  to put into place everything that they could  
to promote open markets and a transparent, inclusive and consensu s-based process so that the 
WTO could  be a vector for grow th and sustainable development. Members shou ld work together 
through genuine dialogue to find a multilateral solution to their  disputes.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 11 - 
 
  4.52.   Members should urgently reinvigorate the dispute settlement , a fundamental pillar of the 
WTO, by proceeding with the appointment of new Appellate Body members. Members should 
ensure that the selection process moved forward since t he paralysis  of the Appellate Body  would 
have significantly harmful consequences on the international trade system.  
4.53.   The representative of Turkey  highlighted that conce rns about the workload  of the Appellate 
Body, the dispute settlement system and the WTO in general continue d to increase as the impasse 
persisted . Being a co -sponsor of the joint proposal that wa s submitted to the DSB for launching 
the selection process for the three vacant pos itions of the Appellate Body, Turkey  regret ted to see 
that the DSB had  failed to take a decision on t he issue for more than a year.  
4.54.   Turkey maintained  that the concerns regarding the working procedures of the Appellate 
Body should be dealt with separately and should not block the immediate start of the selection 
process  and urged all Members to engage constructively on the  issue.    
4.55.   The representative of Norway  noted that a  well-function ing dispute settlement system was  
of essential interest to N orway. His country remained  deeply concerned about the situation in the 
DSB. It was imperative to quickly and continuously fill empty seats in the Appellate Body. There 
should be no doubt that Members  needed a well -functioning dispute settlement system in the 
WTO.  
4.56.   As had been stated on pr evious occasions, Norway remained  open and willing to listen 
seriously and to engage c onstructively with all and any M ember on t heir grievances with the 
system , including procedural issues relating to the Appellate Body. No rway was however  not 
willing to let the search for solutions put the system at risk.  
4.57.   Norway  encourage d all Members to work together and to show flexibility and commitment 
to find solutions to surpass the  deadlock , and again urged all M embers to contribute  to preventing 
a crisis in the dispute settlement pillar  and to agree to launch the process of selecting new 
members of the Appellate Body without any further delay.  
4.58.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  expressed deep  concern about the prolonged 
impasse in the selection of  Appellate Body members as it  threatened  the proper functioning of the 
dispute settlement system. She recalled that her delegation had  said many times before  that 
vacan cies in the Appellate Body should be filled as soon as possible. Hong Kong, China and dozens 
of fellow Members had  submitted a joint proposal t o the DSB on how to conduct that process 
expeditiously. A  decision could not however be made  because of just one  objection – reach ing a 
stage where  the Appellate Body was three m embers short. If the situation persisted , it would  soon 
becom e dysfunctional. Member s were regrettably not even close to a solution.   
4.59.   As proced ural issues and more fundamental questions about  how the Appellate Body had  
been performing its functions  stood in the way, Hong Kong, China remained open to discussing 
any proposal that could  address systemic concerns and further improve the operation of the DSU. 
This should not however hold up t he sel ection of Appellate Body members. Hong Kong, China  
urged for flexibility to unblock the process without further delay.  
4.60.   The representative of Brazil  said that the Appellate Body situation had  been a matter of 
concern since  the beginning of 2017. It was trul y regrettable that it had become a serious crisis 
bringing Members  close to  paralysing that essential body. As the Director -General had reminded 
them, Members did  not seem to be any closer to a possible solution.  
4.61.   The current deadlock undermined  the rules -based multil ateral trading system by  causing 
concrete nullification and impairment to the rights of Members under the DSU.  65 Members 
including Brazil had  therefore co-sponsored DSB proposals to immediately launch a selection 
process to fill the  vacancies in the Appellate Body. Brazil saw that as a legal obligation.  
4.62.   In parallel  and like other Members , Brazil had consistently stated its readiness  to discuss the 
concerns of any Member on the Appellate Body's functioning. In that  regard, it would be  helpful if 
interested Members could share views, ideas and  proposals on how to address tho se concerns.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 12 - 
 
  4.63.   Linking the two tracks – the selection processes and discussions on the funct ioning of the 
Appellate Body – was not however helpful. The link would not bring Members  closer to the le vel of 
confidence necessary for them  to have productive discussi ons on the functioning of the Appellate 
Body. Brazil invite d the Member making the  link to reconsider its position.  
4.64.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  thanked China for including 
Agenda Items 4, 5 and 6 on the agenda of the  meeting given the seriousness of the situation  
which had arisen under each one of those items. The WTO should  prioritize attend ing to the 
concerns expressed by Members wi th the application of unilateral measures by the United States 
and its ongoing blockage of the selection process for the Appellate Body  vacancies . Those issues 
were undermining the multilateral tra ding system and the WTO as a whole , and had  an impact on 
the edifice and the enjoyment of human rights including development, international relations, 
trade and cooperation.  
4.65.   Venezuela had  reiterated on a number of occasions the importance of  the Appellate Body 
and its special contribution to the multilateral trading system. Echoing the concerns expressed by 
the rest of t he Members, Venezuela could not allow the concerns expressed by  the United States 
to prevent them from  moving forward and to  be linked to the filling up of va cant posts. Venezuela 
therefore hoped that the Member  opposi ng that would understand the urgency of the situation and 
would  consequently act expeditiously to unblock the selection p rocess of new Appellate Body 
members , as had been proposed in WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.3.  
4.66.   The representative of Canada  was disappo inted that the United States had  linked the  start 
of the Appellate Body selection p rocesses to the re solution of concerns that it had  raised in respect 
of Rule 15 of the Proce dures for Appellate Review.  A properly functio ning dispute settlement 
system wa s in the interest of  all Members. Many of them  had expressed the ir willingness to work 
together to addr ess the concerns conveyed by the United States . Canada remained  committed to 
working with other interested Members including the United States to r esolve the current situation 
and encourage d the United States to engage with the Membership to address  its concerns.  
4.67.   The representative of Pakistan  echoed China's  concerns on the delay of appo intments in the 
Appellate Body. Pakistan valued the dispute settlement m echani sm which was a touchstone of the 
multilateral trading system  that should be allowed to properly function . Pakistan  advise d against 
linking  the syste mic concerns on  the work of the Appellate Body with the appointment of new AB 
members , and support ed the call to urgentl y fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body. Pakistan  
urged all M embers to discu ss that  matter with an open mind and request ed them to sh ow ut most 
flexibility to ensure that they could keep the continuity of the system as thei r paramount goal.  
4.68.   The representative of the Maldives  associated  with the join t statement delivered on 7 May 
by Switzerland touching upon that topic and support ed the s tatement made by China. It wa s the 
obligation of all Members to ensure that the rules -based multilat eral trading system embodied in 
the WTO endured – that WTO bodies , including the Appellate Body , were not rendered ineffectual 
due to emerging trade  dispute s between M embers.  
4.69.   Protectionist measures threaten ed the multilateral trading system and undermine d global 
development. Members should  ensure that all current and future v acancies on the Appellate Body 
were filled in a t imely manner and without delay.  The Maldives urged  all Members to engage  in 
dialogue to strengthen the multilateral t rading s ystem embodied in the WTO – guaranteeing 
transparent and inc lusive engagement of all its Members.  
4.70.   The representative of Switzerland  was deeply concerned by the delay in the process of filling 
the three vacant A ppellate Body positions . This situation posed a threat to the key role of the WTO 
in the settlement of trade disputes and raised serious systemic concerns.  
4.71.   Switzerland called upon a ll Members, especially the larger ones, to enter into substantive 
discussions aimed at building confidence and breaking the deadlock. This needed to be done 
without delay in view of the urgency of the situation.  
4.72.   The representative of Australia  shared  the s erious concerns expressed by many Members 
regarding the impasse which  had prevented the  appointment of Appellate Body members. 
Australia  underscore d the importance of filling all current and future vacancies on the Appellate WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Body without delay. Australia h ad also heard the concerns raised by the United States on the 
functioning of the dispute settl ement system. It was  time for all Members to commit to efforts to 
find positive, long -term so lutions to the matters before them. W ith good faith engagement backe d 
by political will, Members could  find a way forward.  
4.73.   For its part, Australia was  willing to explore options to  addressing concerns. A  number of 
other Members echo ed their willingness on 7 May  including  through  calls for solution -based 
discussions and con crete ideas and their reassurance that addressing such issues would  unblock 
the Appellate Body selection process. Australia  hoped that all Members would join in that  
endeavour in good faith and with a view to breaking the impasse and ensuring the ongoing 
integrity and effectiveness of the dispute settlement system.  
4.74.   The representative of Myanmar  reaffirmed Myanmar's  strong support to strengthen the 
multilateral trading system and reiterated its  commitment to an open and rules -based framework 
for multilateral  trade and investment to support global ec onomic growth and development. The 
WTO's system was under many challenges. S ome o f the fundamental tenets of the system were 
under the threat  of rising  trade protect ionism and unilateralism – posing danger  to the recovery of 
the global economy. Myanmar recognized  the importance of resisting all forms  of protectionism 
and encouraged M embers to refrain from taking protection ist measures. Myanmar also called  upon 
Members to resolve their differences through di alogue and cooperation under WTO rules  and to 
work together to st rengthen and improve the multilateral trading s ystem.  
4.75.   The representative of Thailand  said that t he dispute settlement mechanism wa s a core pillar 
of the WTO  and its effective functioning was vital. Thailand shared the concerns raised by  
Members on the  Appellate Body vacancies  and reiterate d its willingness to engage in discussion 
with all Members with the view to finding a solution as soon as possible.  
4.76.   The representative of Liberia  associated with the statement made by China under this item . 
4.77.   The representative of Ecuador  thank ed China for requesting that item to be included in the 
General Council's agenda. Ecuador had  stated  at DSB meetings that linking issues on the 
appointment of Appellate Bo dy members with those that pertain ed to procedural issues ran  
counter to the dispute settlement mechanism. Those eleme nts should not be linked and could be 
discussed independently. Although the system was not perfect and Members  should discuss ways 
of impr oving it, the vacancies  should be filled as soon as possible . A rapid nomination would 
address  the concerns of many Members . 
4.78.   The representative of Kazakhstan  was deeply  concerned by the DSB's inability to launch the 
selection of Appellate Body members for more than a year.  The dispute settlement s ystem was 
often referred to as the  "crown jewel" of the WTO. T he current crisis therefore placed  the very 
functioning of the organization in jeopardy . 
4.79.   Kazakhstan had spent almost twenty years on its access ion to the WTO with the hope of 
being  able to defend its trade interests through the dispute settlement system. A fter becoming a 
Member , Kazakhstan found the system in crisis and  share d the view of  other  Members that linking  
the selection process with Rule 15 of the App ellate Review was not helpful. Kazakhstan 
encouraged  other Members to engage in a const ructive dialogue to resolve the  situation without 
further delay and stood  ready to participate in constructive discussions.  
4.80.   The representative of India noted that  the imp asse in the Appellate Body had lasted for 
more than  sixteen months with no re solution in sight. India remained extremely concerned about 
the situation and its effects on the proper fun ctioning and credibility of the organization. With  the 
resurgenc e of unilateral measures and protections, the only appro priate means to ward conflicts 
was to have recourse to an independent and effective dispute settlemen t system such as the one 
that Members had  at the WTO.  
4.81.   It would be a severe blow to the rules -based  trading system if one of its key pillar s would  
lapse into ineffectiveness. The process of filling vacancies in the Appellate Body should be de -
linked from concerns about procedural issues and reforms. More than s ixty Members including 
India had put in a p roposal in the DSB the  launch ing of vacancies of AB m embers and the WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 14 - 
 
  completion of the  selection  process. India  reiterate d its willingness to engage constructively with 
all Members to find a solution to the current impasse.  
4.82.   The representative of Sri Lanka  convey ed its grave concern on  the delay in the appointment 
of Appellate Body  members. The dispute settlement system  was one of the key pillars of the 
WTO's transparency mechanism  and all Members had the obligation to ensure t he effective 
functioning of the  system. Sri Lanka  therefore request ed all parti es to join hands to resolve that 
fundamental issue which had  a bearing on the effectiveness of the institution.  
4.83.   The representative of Guatemala  shared the disappointment and concerns  expressed by 
others. The statements made that day did  not seem to be too different from those made  at the 
DSB over the past year. Guatemala did  not see how repeat ing such concerns and disappointment  
at the DSB and at the General Council would resolve the current impasse.  
4.84.   All Memb ers, including the United States, agree d that they  needed a strong multilateral 
trading system. But a strong rules -based  multilateral trading system could not subsist without a 
binding dispute settlement mechanism. While disagreeing on the link made betwee n the 
appointment of Appellate Body members and solutions to the US concerns as had been conveyed 
at the DSB, most Members had  expressed their willingness to hold constructive discu ssions to 
address such concerns. Members had  not yet however  initiated stru ctured discussions on any 
matter related to the current impas se. It was therefore  time to move from expressions  of concern 
to more solution -oriented discussions. Guatemala remained  committed to work constructively with 
all Members in resolving that  matter.  
4.85.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  joined previous speakers in expressing systemic 
concerns about  the prolonged vacancy in the Appellate Body. If the vacant positions were not filled 
immediately, the entire multilateral trading system would  be we akened and vulne rable. Korea 
therefore reaffirm ed its readiness  to engage in discussion s in good faith to find solutions.  
4.86.   The representative of Egypt  was deeply concerned with the prolonged impasse over the 
Appellate Body selection  process which was  threat ening the proper functioning of the dispute 
settlement system. Vacancies in the Appellate Body should be filled as quickly as po ssible without 
further delay. Egypt was  also prepared to engage with all Members in discussions o n possible ways 
forward that could  address different concerns.  
4.87.   The representative of the United States  appreciated  the opportunity afforded by the  agenda 
item to address concerns surroun ding the functioning of the WTO' s dispu te settlement system in 
general  and of the Appellate Body in  particular.  
4.88.   The United States had  taken note of the expressions of concern on  the part of the sponsor 
of the agenda item and other Members. The United States was  happy to hav e a chance to briefly 
review its  perspectives and looked forward to continue enga ging with Members on tho se important 
questions.  
4.89.   Members we re fond of applauding the WTO as an international paragon of  the rule of law.  
The WTO's rule -book indeed had substantial value  including for the United States  and adhere nce 
to those rules had  gener ally contributed to global economic stability.  
4.90.   But, he noted,  something had gone terribly wrong in the  system when those charg ed with 
adjudicating the rules we re so consistently disregarding those very rules. What Members were 
dealing with  fundamentally wa s a steadily worsening rupture of trust on t he part of the Appellate 
Body putting the political sustainability of the entire dispute settlement system in jeopardy . 
Despite years of warnings from  predecess ors and expressions of co ncern from respected WTO 
voices including former Directors -General, the Appellate Body had not only rewritten Members'  
agreements to impose new substantive rules they had  never negotiated or agreed upon but had  
also been ignoring or rewriting the rules governin g the dispute settleme nt system – expanding its 
own capacity to write and impose new rules.  
4.91.   That unapproved  rule-breaking and rule -making was obvious to anyone who looked  
honestly at how the system operated. Rules that Members had  negotiated and had approved 
domestically stipul ated that the Appellate Body should  render its decisions within 90 days. There WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 15 - 
 
  were no exceptions given. The Appellate Body however currently almost never met that deadline, 
breaking the rules without authorization from its b osses – the Members of the Coun cil and of the 
DSB. Similarly, the Appellate Body had decided t hat it could deem a person who ceased  to be  a 
member of the Appellate Body  to continue to be a member  despite there being no basis 
whatsoever in the DSU for su ch actions. He said that t he United States  could go on with examples.  
4.92.   He further stressed that, b eyond that  flaunting of rules meant to govern its own activity, the 
Appellate Body had  compiled a troubling track record of expansive interpretations that effectively 
create d new WTO law – a function clearly reserved to Members through the process of 
negotiation s. But Members' lack o f progress in negotiations bore a strong relationship to that 
culture in which many of them  consider ed that certain outcomes could  be most easily achieved 
throu gh litigation rather than through the hard work of negotiation.  
4.93.   If the United States was taking actions that some consider ed to be disruptive, it wa s 
important to understand that that came  only after ma ny years of unheeded warnings. A  dispute 
settlement  system that ignored existing rules and wrote new rules undermined  the WTO as a 
forum for negotiation and discussion.  Dispute settlement that went beyond existing rules had  not 
been approved by Members and did  not have dem ocratic legitimacy or support. Their goal was  to 
ensure that any system of dispute settlement could  sustain the support of all Members. The United 
States did  not see how perpetuating the existing dysfunctions through a complacent approach to 
the filling of Appellate Body  vacancies could  advan ce that objective.  
4.94.   As had  been stated at the 7 May informal Heads of Delegat ion meeting, the United States 
was deeply interested in working with those other Members who share d its commitment to a 
better, more politically sustainable  and truly Member -driven World Trade Organization. That 
interest applied  with no greater relevance than with respect to the issue c urrently being discussed 
in the  Council.  
4.95.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
5  UNITED STATES OF AME RICA – SECTION 232 INVESTIG ATIONS AND M EASURES ON 
STEEL AND ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS – STATEMENT BY CHINA  
5.1.  The representative of China  recall ed its statement made at the Gene ral Council meeting on 
7 March and reiterate d its grave concern over the Section 232 meas ures taken by the United 
States . China said that those measures we re distorting trade, lacking transparency, discriminatory 
and would  severely damage the mult ilateral trading system and world trade.  
5.2.  Despite strong object ions from the Membership, the United States had unfortunately issued 
Presidential P roclamations on 8 March  decid ing to impose 25% and 10% of additional import duty 
respectively on certain steel and a luminium products. Tho se measures not only seriously impair ed 
the interests of all the exporting Members to the United State s, but also seriously disrupt ed the 
existing order of international trade in steel and aluminium products.  
5.3.  In order to defend the legitimate rights  under the WTO Agreements and  to safeguard the 
fundament al values and principles of the o rganization, China had request ed for consultations with 
the United States  under the DSU on 5 April.  
5.4.  The purpose of th e Section 232 measures by the United States  against steel and alumi nium 
products according to its understanding wa s not to protect the so-called "national secu rity" of the 
United States. It rather served  to protect  the commercial interests of US domestic industries. S uch 
measure should therefore be considered as safeguard measures un der the Agreement on 
Safeguards  and should  meet the necessary requirements provided in that Agreement.  
5.5.  According to the report by the US Department of Commerce and the statistics provide d by 
the US Department of Defence , it was obvious that the reason of those measures wa s not national 
security . The steel used by the US defence indust ry only accounted  for 3% of the dome stic steel 
consumption of the United States  while the output  of the US steel industry equalled  to 84% of it s 
domestic consumption – roughly 28 times of its defe nce demand.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 16 - 
 
  5.6.  On the other hand, the US import of steel accou nted for around 16% of its consumption  and 
about 70% of its import came from the Members exempted, temporarily or permanently , from the 
Section 232 measure. The imports subject ed to the restriction of the Secti on 232 measure on steel 
consequently accounted  for only 5% of  the steel consumption of the United States. It had not been 
mentioned at all whether those restricted imports were related with the US defenc e industries.  
5.7.  China asked why those imports which a ccounted  for m erely 5% of US consumption and we re 
mostly or dinary mid -and-low end products would  threaten th e national security  of the United 
States. If steel and aluminium products would  affect so -called national security , China asked 
whether  anyone  could  find any group of products – from agricultural products to minerals, from 
textiles to high -tech products – that had no  linkage with national security.  
5.8.  If an import of ordinary steel and  aluminium products amounting to 5% of the d omestic 
market was a threat to national security , China noted that it could only assume that it was  a very 
precarious security for a super power  and asked what proportion of imports could be considered 
safe to national security.  If it was  justifiable to r aise tariffs according to such nation al security  
investigations, China asked whether  the WT O Schedules of Concessions remained binding.  
5.9.  China  had further noticed that the United States wa s seeking quotas  or voluntary export 
restraints which we re explicit ly prohibited by the WTO rules. It wa s reported that Mr  Peter 
Navarro, th e White House Trade Assistant, had said on 1 May that "any country, or entity like the 
EU, which is exempted from the tariffs, will have a quota and other restrictions which are 
necessary to defend the aluminium and steel industries from imports in def ence of our national 
security."  
5.10.   Such a measure wa s obviou sly violating WTO rules and wa s back -tracking t he train of 
history by putting  global trade  back to the old era of quotas. China called on the  membership to 
urge the United States  to honour its obligations under the WTO Agreements and to immediately 
withdraw its Section  232 measures  to restore  the normal order in international trade.  
5.11.   The representative of the United States  found it curious that China had asked to place that 
item on  the agenda . The United States said that Members  would n ot find them selves in the current 
juncture had  it not been for China' s own self -interested policy of contributing to massive global 
overcapacity in steel and alumin ium. That policy had  been carried out over a period of many years  
without regard to global impac ts and China had  responded to mounting concerns with considerable 
talk but not much action.  
5.12.   Against that backdrop, the United States was perplexed that China currently asserted  its 
status as a vic tim. In any event, the United States was happy to have the  opportunity to recall to 
Members'  attention the reaso ns underlying its defenc e of critical national security interests.  
5.13.   The United States had  previously informed Members about the proclamations iss ued by the  
US President pursuant to Section 232 of the Trade Exp ansion Act of 1962, as amended. The United 
States did not wish to repeat its previous intervention on the issue but referred Members to its  
statement at the Council for Trade in Goods meeting on 23 March . That statement was consistent 
with the Decision Concerning Article XXI of the General Agreement taken by the GATT Council on 
30 November 1982.5 Certain Members had  since sought consultations with the United Stat es with 
regard to the US President' s proclamations. Those Members had thei r responses.   
5.14.   The United States noted the attempt by some Members to cast the US President' s actions in 
terms that suit ed their desire to pu rsue a particular WTO recourse. Those attempts we re without 
valid foundation and the United States would  not entertain them.  
5.15.   The United States was however  willing to discuss wi th any Member the questions that they 
could  have about the Pr esident's actions  and the circumstances of pernicious state i ntervention, 
market dist ortion and massive and persistent overcapacity in certain economies that necessitated 
the actions.  
                                                
5 GATT Council, Decision Concerning Article XXI of the General Agre ement – Decision of 
30 November  1982, L/5426 (2 December 1982 ). WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 17 - 
 
  5.16.   The US President had issued the Steel and Alumin ium Pr oclamations pursuant to 
Section  232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 determining that tariffs we re ne cessary to adjust 
imports of steel and alumin ium articles that threaten ed to impair the national security of the 
United States.  
5.17.   The United States had  not take n action pursuant to Secti on 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 
which wa s the law under  which the United  States imposed safeguard measures. As evidenced by 
its recent notifications with respect to solar products and large residenti al washers, the United 
States was  well awar e of what constituted a safeguard and  what its notification obligations we re 
under the  Agreement on Safeguards.  
5.18.   Moreover, Article 12.3 of th e Agreement on Safeguards stated that a " Member proposing to 
apply or extend a safeguard measure shall provide adequate oppo rtunity for prior consultations"  
with Members having a substantial interest in  exports of the product concerned. The United States 
was not  however " proposing to appl y or extend a safeguard measure"  with respect to steel or 
alumin ium. Article 12.3 therefore did not apply. Like China's  initial characterization of the tariffs, 
China' s requests for consult ations pursuant to Article 12.3  had no basis in the Agreement  on 
Safeguards . 
5.19.   Because the steel and alumin ium actions we re not safeguard measu res, the United States 
considered  that Article 8.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards did not justify China' s suspension of 
concessions or other obligations. China had  asserted no other  justification for its measures and the 
United States wa s aware of none.  It therefore appeared that China' s actions  had no basis under 
WTO rules.  
5.20.   The representative of South Africa  said that  the South African Department of Trade and 
Industry had issued a media release on 1 May following the  US imposition of tariffs on its  exports 
of steel and aluminium products in terms of its Section 232.   
5.21.   He noted that t he resor t to tariff protection by the United States  beyond its legal bindings 
using a national security exception clearly took  the WTO to new and untested territory. But even 
on its own term s, the rationale for taking that  action against South Africa  was unclear. Sou th 
Africa posed  no na tional security threat to the United States.  Even on a wider definition of  national 
security that included  economic securi ty, South Africa posed  little or no threat.  
5.22.   South Africa's exports of steel and aluminium products to the United  States  were miniscule 
and, in their aggregate, would have been de minimis  under a normal safeguard measure. Its  
annual  exports of aluminium products we re equivalent to about 1.6% of total US imports. In 2017, 
imports  of steel from South Africa had  approxi mately  been 0.98% of total US steel imports.  
5.23.   The national security reasoning was even more puzzling  consider ing that the countries 
exempted from the duties were much larger exporters of steel and aluminium to the United States.  
According to 2017 data, exempted countries collectively accounted for 58 % of the total US steel 
imports  and 49% of the total US aluminium imports.  
5.24.   South Africa understoo d the p ressure that national governments we re under from thei r 
industries to seek exemptions as it had faced the s ame. However, a ll Members should 
acknowledge that the exemptions would  contribute to a further erosion of core principles that 
underpin ned the entire trading system.  
5.25.   South Africa shared  the concerns a bout the global steel glut as its domestic steel sector had 
been under severe pressure in recent years by very low priced ste el and steel product imports. 
South Africa had  implemented several trade remedy measures to try to address the difficulties 
and, in parallel, had  been active in the ongoing OECD and G20 d iscussions to find a mor e 
comprehensive solution to the  situation. Outside  of a multilateral solution, South Africa saw  the 
growing risks of an escalation of trade frictions where sma ller economies would  suffer further 
collateral damage – as Members had  already seen.  
5.26.   The 232 action would  have a disproportionately negative impact on  the South African 
industry. Its exports of steel to the United States  account ed for 5% of its total steel production. WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 18 - 
 
  South Africa expect ed that around 7 ,500 jobs would be at ri sk. It had an economy where high 
rates of unemployment – approaching 30% – were already a matter of national economic security.  
5.27.   South Africa wa s acutely aware of the vital importance of a dynamic and growing industrial 
base for economic development and for  the well -being and stability of the wider national ec onomy 
and society. Such had been at the heart of its engagements in the WTO. South Africa  detect ed 
elements of a similar  understanding underpinning the  US action and saw in it the echo of a 
frustration with existing WTO rules in so far as they constrain ed national indus trial development 
objectives. South Africa  share d the same sentiment .  
5.28.   However, d urable and legitimate solutions would  not be a chieved by unilateral measures. 
South Africa had  serious doub ts that a simple defence of current rules as they presently  stood 
would  provide an adequ ate or long -term solution to their  current challenges. Constructive 
multilateral cooperation was needed where  the interests of all Members, large and small, were 
fully taken into account. Members should find a proper, more appropriate balance between 
multilateral rules and the policy space to pursue national industrial development objectives.  
5.29.   The representative of the Russian Federation  highlighted Russia's  multiple comm ercial and 
systemic concerns about the unilateral restrictive measures of the United States on imports of 
steel and aluminium. Russia  consider ed those measures falling  within the Agreement on 
Safeguards. The relevant investigations had been  initiated and carried out with significant 
breaches of the r elevant disciplines with the legal standards not being  observed at all.  
5.30.   The duties we re moreover  applied on a di scriminatory basis. Article 2.2 of the Agreement on 
Safeguards prescribed to apply safeguard duties irrespective of the product's origin. Exemptions 
were provided to countries that we re the main steel and aluminium su ppliers to the United States. 
Russia could not understa nd how the United States intended  to reach its goals when leading 
exporters retain ed duty-free access to its market.  
5.31.   Unilateral actions by the United States could  seriously jeopardiz e international  trade. The 
Russian Federation wa s considering all available options o f appropriate response to the US  
measures within the WT O legal framework.  
5.32.   The representative of Brazil  noted that s ince the US Department of Commerce had launched 
Section 232  investigations on steel and alumin ium imports, Brazil had engaged in a dialogue with 
the US government in order to avoid the adoption of  restrictive trade measures.  
5.33.   Without prejudic e to the outcome of their bilateral consultations, from a multilateral 
perspective , Brazil had , on many occasions, stressed its concern about  the systemic impacts of 
restric tive measures under Section 232  particularly the consequences of an elastic interpretation of 
the concept of national security interests. Its  concern remained  unchanged.  
5.34.   From a bilateral perspective, S ection 232 restrictive measures would  not only have a 
negative impact on Brazilian exp orts and bilateral trade flows. Such measures would  also be 
detrimental to the prospects of productive integration between the two countries. The Br azilian 
government still expected the United States  to reconsider the implementation of Section 232 
restrict ions both on steel and alumin ium products.  
5.35.   The General Council meeting wa s a good occasion to reaffirm the view that WTO rules 
provide d appropriate instruments to deal  with unfair trade practices. Brazil reaffirm ed its  support 
to multi lateral processes such as the G -20's Global  Forum on Steel Excess Capacity  as the best 
way to address globa l steel overcapacity – which wa s a collective concern.  
5.36.   The representative of Uganda  recalled that at the previous General Council meeting, his 
delegation had expressed  concern s that the t hen planned measures would  have serious 
ramifications of adverse eff ect on other Members. Much as it had  not export ed steel or aluminium 
products to the American market, Uganda had felt that it would  be affected in one way or another 
as an LDC , especially if a trade war were to start.  
5.37.   There was a saying that when elephants fought, it was the grass that suffered. Uganda 
reiterated  its concerns in light of the fact that the said measures had  taken effect. Uganda was  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 19 - 
 
  particularly worried a bout the implications of such measures on  Article II of the GATT 1994 and on  
what such measures mean t for the multilateral trading system. The rule s-based multilateral 
trading system should be protected and a ll attempts to undermine it should  be shunned.  
5.38.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  reiterate d her delegation's  
systemic concern o n the ongoing application of unilateral measure s by the United States which had  
an effect on the economic and commercial inte rests of other countries. V enezuela's interests on  
the issue involving steel and aluminium exports had  already been expressed on several occasions 
in a numbe r of WTO bodies .  
5.39.   Venezuela was  concerned by  the serious consequences in volved in the application of those 
measures to  the multilateral trading system. Those  measures imposed on the grounds of national 
security and applied in a discretionary manner were  inconsistent  with the obligations underta ken 
by Members including under  the GATT 1994 and the Agreement  on Safeguards . 
5.40.   The representative of Cuba thank ed China for having brought  to the Council's attention that 
very sensitive issue and share d China's concern on the increasing imposition  of unilateral trade 
measures by a  developed Member which ran  counter to the principles a nd the rules of the 
multilateral trading system as had already  been explained in a detailed manner by others.  
5.41.   Cuba continued to be a victim of  more than fifty years of unilateral and coercive measures 
on economic, fin ancial and commercial areas applied by  that Member . Cuba stressed  its ongoing 
rejection of such measure s and those  directly af fecting developing Members. Those measures had  
collateral im pacts on other countries and on the global trade of the  products at issue and could 
increase  the threat of a  trade war with unprecedented consequences on global trade. The system 
should not be affected as such and the situation should stop. Members should ensure that dialogue 
and cooperation un der the multilateral space would prevail since the WTO provided the b est means 
of overcoming  the situa tion that had  arisen.  
5.42.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  express ed his delegation's  systemic 
concern about  the implementation of unilateral measure s which ran counter to WTO rules. That 
kind of measure  could  lead to a trade war with negative effects for  everybody at a global level. 
Bolivia  urged the G overnment of the United S tates to seek a solution to the issue that wa s in line 
with dialogue, cooperation and the rules and provisions of the multilateral  trading system.  
5.43.   The representative of Japan  echoed  the concerns expressed by other Members with respect 
to the trade -restrictive measures imposed by the United States on steel and aluminium p roducts. 
Japan believed that nothing was  more important than  the rules-based trading system for the world 
economy , and any trade measures taken should  be consistent with the WTO Agreement.  
5.44.   Unilateral measures and a spiral of tit -for-tat counter measures pose d a serious threat to the 
multilateral trading  system and the global economy. It wa s regret table that the United States had  
put in place measures which raise d questions about  their con sistency with the WTO Agreement , 
despite repeated expressions of conc ern by Members including Japan. Japan was also concerned 
about Ch ina's immediate imposition of additional ta riffs without complying with  WTO procedure s. 
5.45.   Japan would keep a close eye on the  issue and would take appropriate actions as necessary, 
taking into considera tion the situation as it evolved. It was also important for the WTO to address 
the root caus es of the current circumstances which could include the issue of overcapacity.  
5.46.   The representative of Qatar  was committed to the multilate ral trading system and its rules -
based dispute settlement mechanism. Qatar recogniz ed that defences we re available for certain 
acts and omissions taken bona fide to protect essentia l security interests which should be 
exercise d with  restrai nt. The nature of any defence was subject to multilateral oversight. The 
rules-based framework of t he WTO  therefore  provided the proper forum for settling disputes 
concerning WTO-inconsistent measures said to be justified on grounds of essential security 
interests. And as with any affirmative defence, a party invoking the defence should prove its 
elemen ts. 
5.47.   The representative of Pakistan  express ed its serious concern in relation to the investigations 
and measures on steel and aluminium products imposed by the United States  under Section 232. WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 20 - 
 
  Pakistan wa s cognizant of the threats faced by the global trading system and fe lt that such 
measures we re, in the least, against the spirit of WTO rules even if not the letter. Such actions, 
particularly when targe ting a select few countries, could  create fissures in the system and 
negatively impact glo bal trade.  Pakistan therefore  called on the membership to maintain the 
sanctity of the WTO rules and system and avoid actions that potentially threaten ed all the good 
they had  done in the p ast two and a half decades in the  organiz ation.  
5.48.   The representative of Cambodi a thanked  China for raising the issue under Agenda Item 5 . 
Cambodia shared the concerns on the loss resulting from non -compliant and restrictive measures. 
Any measure  relating to protectionism, restriction and tariff increase above bound rates would 
seriou sly challenge the fundamental principles of the WTO and would distort international trade. 
Economies had been  able to develop in the past as they had profited from trade l iberalization. 
Raising tariff barriers  would lead to global economic slowdown which m eant that Members would 
not be  able to achieve the Sustainable Developme nt Goals by 2030. Cambodia therefore  urged all 
Members to avoid imposing restrictive  measures and to follow the WTO rules accordingly.  
5.49.   The representative of the European Union  reiterat ed his delegation's  concerns with respect 
to the US measures on steel and aluminium. As had already  been said in previous meetings, the 
EU did not believe that the measures could  be justified on t he grounds of national security. 
Seeking to do so could  trigger major systemic risks undermining the multilateral trading system. 
The WTO national security e xception did  not allow import restrictions for supporting domestic 
industry. The European  Union and its m ember States were  very concerned by the direct and 
indirect impact  that the measures cou ld have on the markets of the US , the EU and third 
countr ies.  
5.50.   The EU took note that the US G overnment had decided to prolong the temporary exemption 
for the EU, Canada and Mexico for a period of one month (i.e. until 1 June). That would be a final 
extension of the exemption a ccording to the press relea se issued on that occasion. Such decision 
prolonged market uncertainty which wa s already affecting business decisions.  
5.51.   The EU's final positions would  depend on the out come of ongoing discussions until  the end 
of the month. The EU was nonetheless fully determined to protect its commercial intere sts in a 
WTO-compatible manner and would take the further  steps necessary to preserve its  rebalancing 
rights in the WTO. At the same time, the EU continue d its safeguard investigation on steel diverted 
to the EU  as a result of the US measures and had  also put in place a prior surveillance regime on 
imports of aluminium.  
5.52.   He stressed that t he US measures also distract ed from the importan t challenge of 
addressing the root cause of  the current  problems in the s teel and aluminium sectors  – the reality 
of global overcapacity caused by non -market based production and owing to subsidies.  
Overcapacity did  not originate in the  EU. The EU had  engaged at all possible levels with the US and 
other partners over the past months to find solutions to that problem.  Sector -wide p rotection in 
the United States wa s an inappropriate remedy for the real proble ms of global overcapacity in 
those two sectors.  Tackling those problems required  joint efforts in all relevant fora, working with 
the key countrie s involved including those who were the source of overcapacity. The EU had 
already provided the United States  its fu ll cooperation in multiple for a,  including t hrough  the 
Global Forum.  
5.53.   The representative of Turkey  expressed  his delegation's  deep concern on extra duties  
imposed by the United States  on steel and alumin ium imports under the guise  of national security 
concerns. Apart from their detriment al effects o n global trade, tho se additional duties violate d 
Article II of the GATT  1994 with respect to the WTO schedules of the United States. Imposing su ch 
unilateral tariffs for some Members while exempting other s on the bas is of non -transparent criteria 
was also a clear infringement  of the MFN principle under Article I of the GATT  1994. The violation 
of tho se main WTO principles could  not be justified by the uneven claims of national security.  
Under the WTO framework and rules, Members already had  several leg itimate tools at their 
disposal  to address unfair trade practices. All those tools urge d Members to follow transparent and 
fair investigations and take necessary measures in compliance with the relevant WTO Agreements.   
5.54.   Turkey was particularly concerned with t he US measure because it already ran a deficit with 
the United States  in its o verall trade annually , and in its trade in steel. Turkey  therefore fail ed to WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 21 - 
 
  understand the concern regarding national security and called upon the United States to reconsider 
the practice that clearly put  pressure on the rules based multilateral trading system. Turkey 
considered  that the measure applied by the United States wa s essentially a safeguard measure 
which was not  in conformity with the Agreement on Safeguards  and reques ted to consult  with the 
United States  in that regard . 
5.55.   The representative of Switzerland  shared  the concerns which had  been expressed by the 
delegations who had previously spoken on th e trade restrictions imposed by the United States 
since 23 March under  Section 232. Even if the volume of Swiss exports to the United States was 
modest , Switzerland wa s directly affected by the increase in tariff duties . Those customs duties 
were imposed on significantly small -sized companies exporting highly -specialized, high quality 
niche products which m et the specifications of US clients and for which there wa s no equivalent to 
be found by consumers in the United States.  
5.56.   The global problem of overcapacity in t he steel and aluminium sectors wa s very serious. 
Resorting to  dialogue among the main stakeholders and seeking solutions in accordance  with the 
spirit and the letter of the WTO Agreements  were therefore imperative . Measures currently being 
imposed by the United States appear ed to be ve ry far from such response – throwing  out seri ous 
questions with regard to their consequences to international trade and the WTO . The exemption of 
the United States'  main expo rters meant  that count ries such as Switzerland remained  subject to 
customs duties – calling into question  the measures' conformity with WTO rules due  to their 
discriminatory effects. Switzerland therefore asked  the United States to expeditiously enter into 
dialogue with al l parties concerned and reserved the right to invoke WTO mechanisms and  
agreements which would be relevant to defend its commercial interests.  
5.57.   The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that her delegation was unjustifiably affected 
by the Section 232 tariff measures  since the very small quantities of its steel and aluminium 
exports could not pos sibly threaten or impair the  national security  of the United States. Hong 
Kong, China was frustrated by the United States'  decision -making process and  was disappointed 
with the outcome . 
5.58.   However, t he issue in qu estion was bigger than Hong Kong, China being an aggrieved p arty 
whose commercial interest was at stake. It wa s about how restrictive measures unilaterally taken 
by a Member we re putti ng international trade at risk. The multilateral trading system wa s able to 
provide a transparent, predictable and reliab le framework for international trade because it wa s 
rules-based. Its success depended on Members'  willingness to abi de by those rules as 
commitments were no commitments unless they we re honoured.  As a staunch supporter of the 
multilateral trading system, H ong Kong, China wa s against trade measures that we re inco nsistent 
with WTO Agreements. Her delegation was  particularl y concerned when such measures we re taken  
unilaterally to restrict trade  because they undermine d not only the rule s-based system  but also t he 
tremendous efforts that Members had  made over the ye ars to roll back protectionism. The tariff 
measures o n steel and aluminium products were raising precisely tho se concerns.  
5.59.   Trade issues should best be resolved through  dialogue. Where  issues arose  from the 
application of WTO Agreements, the DSU provided  a clear framework for consultations and dispute 
settlement , and shou ld be relied upon to perform those functions. Taking matters into one's own 
hands wa s not an option. The uncertainties cr eated by unila teral actions would  only result in 
greater uncertainties in other  parties'  reactions. The damage done to bilateral relation ships, to the 
multilateral trading  system and to the global economy would  make everyone a loser.  The tariff 
measures to be di scussed under Agenda Item 6 had a different background. B ut being unilateral 
trade restrictive measures, they ga ve rise to the same systemic concerns. While Section 232 
measures we re putting  international trade at risk, Section 301 measures we re compounding the 
problem.  Hong Kong, China  appreciate d that the United States wa s willing to engage with affected 
trading partners to resolve disputes and  called upon all parties concer ned to find solutions which 
were consistent with WTO rules.  
5.60.   The representative of India expressed  deep concern s on the unilateral trade policy  measures 
applied on steel and aluminium products by th e United States. M easures un der Section 232 we re 
not for pr otecting national security but we re safeguards for the protection of domestic industry. 
Further, e xemptions being negotiated by the United States involve d voluntary  export restraints 
and violated  fundamental WTO rules. Such unilate ral action wa s bound to have a significant 
adverse impact on Indian steel and aluminium exports and  on the rules -based mult ilateral trading WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 22 - 
 
  system and would  prompt other Members to take retal iatory countermeasures. Unless those 
measures we re rolled back , that could spiral  into a trade war. India reserved  its right to use WTO -
authorized measures to protect its commerc ial interests.  
5.61.   The representative of Norway  was deeply concerned about the tariffs imposed by the United 
States on steel and aluminium products following the Section 232 investigation  by the Department 
of Commerce. Aluminium and steel represent ed a signifi cant share of Norwegian exports. Norway 
was therefore full y aware that overcapacity in those sectors wa s a real and pressing concern  and 
stood ready to cooperate closely with all Members in correcting the  situation.  Norway  agree d with 
the United States tha t sources of large overcapacity such as China  needed to do more to  correct 
the current situation. However, p rotectioni sm was  not the answer – particularly not protectionism 
dressed up as national security  which could be truly damaging to the multilateral t rading system.  
That was not a bilateral nor a single Member issue but a multilateral one. How each Member 
respond ed impacted on their multilateral common ground – the wellbeing and the rules of the 
organization that they had  all signed up to.   
5.62.   Norway was  concerned about recent reporting over alleged negotiations aimed at granting 
individ ual country exemptions to steel  and aluminium tariffs  at the cost of agreeing voluntary 
export restraints or similar measure s on the export or import side. Such measures we re not 
merely a violation of WTO rules. They represent ed a fundamental setback and reordering of the 
principles of int ernational trade cooperation  implicitly accepting an order where might equalled 
right. There would  always be a temptat ion for each to do wh at they could  in order to offer respite 
to their people, workers and industries. They  should all  however  beware of the co st. If Members  
would accept  to walk down that path, they would likely find that their reputations in the WTO 
would be the least preciou s thing that would be  lost. 
5.63.   The representative of China  said that on the  nature of Section 232 measures, China found a 
clear inherent logic from the investigation report by the US Department of Commerce and the 
Presidential Proclamation on the steel and al uminium Section 232 measures. T he continued  growth 
of imported products had  allegedly caused seriou s injury to domestic industries . It was therefor e 
necessary to raise tariffs against i mports from all over the world. Such logic complied  with the 
definition  and conditions for implementing safeguard m easures stipulated in Article XIX  of the 
GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards.  
5.64.   Concerning  China's sus pension of concession measures, in accordance with  Article 8 of the 
Agreem ent on Safeguards and Article XI X.3 of the GATT 1994, China notified the Council for Trade 
in Goods on 29 March and implemented the suspension of concessions on 2 April  because a delay 
would cause irreversible damages . In relation to substance, China said that it strictly followed  
Article 8.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards  which provided  that the suspe nsion of concessions 
should be substantially equivalent  to safeguard measures – given that the measures ta ken by 
China we re symmetrical and restrained.  
5.65.   China had raised the issue on S ection 232 measures not for its own interest  but for the 
system's. Someone had  however attempted to sell a flaw ed logic that trade protection was a 
response to overcapacity caused by the intervention of and subsidi es from the Chinese 
Government making it China's responsibility to address that issue . China was generally  at the 
middle and low end of the global value chain. To a lar ge extent, China's production was 
determined by others from  the multinational corporations. China produced and assembled  
products according to the demand in the international market. Since 2008, the Chinese 
Government had  adopted proactive fiscal and monetar y policies and expanded investment in order 
to mitigate the shockwave of  the gl obal financial crisis. China had  made significant  contribution s 
and its efforts had been  praised by many countries.  
5.66.   A decade thereafter , as soon as some countries had stepped on the path to recovery, they 
seemed to have quickly  put that history behind  them. Absorbing increased capacity which was 
essenti ally the product of stimulus policies in response to the financial crisis became China's 
problem . The Chinese G overnment and its people bore tremendous adjustment pains. Despite the 
loss of thousands of jobs,  China continued to do  what it could  to reduce e xcess capacity. China 
stood  ready to discuss with other Members within the WTO framework on how to keep the WTO 
rules more  adaptable to the new situation  and on how to better safeguard a fair and reasonable 
international trade order. China however did  not agree to arbitrarily  throw several hats  onto it  and WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 23 - 
 
  to describe its  strategy  as distorting the world market. This was completely not true and would 
make it  a wrong target in the current scenario where  trade protecti onism was  prevalent.  
5.67.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
6  UNITED STATES OF AME RICA – INVESTIGATIONS AND M EASURES UNDER 
SECTION  301 OF THE TRADE ACT  OF 1974 – STATEMENT BY CHINA  
6.1.  The representative of China  said he assume d that Members were familiar with Section 301 of 
the 1974 Trade Ac t of the United States. S ince it s enactment in 1974, 125 investigations had  been 
launched by the United States against 35 countries and r egions around the world. That was not 
ancient history as many of them still had a fresh memory of the devastations caus ed by tho se 
investigations.  
6.2.  The United States had  "explicitly, officially, repeatedly and unconditionally confirmed" its 
commitments undertaken in its 1994 Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) that it would base 
a Section 301 decisio n only on adopted D SB findings. Otherwise, "the US would incur state 
responsibility since its law would be rendered inconsistent with the obl igation s under DSU 
Article  23." The United States seemed to have forgotten tho se commitments by announcing the 
massive unilat eral tari ffs against China. It wa s a typical unil ateral and protectionist action  which 
manifested  an intentional and gross violation of the WTO's fundamental p rinciple of non -
discrimination. Eighteen  years ago, the DSB had adopted a c lear finding that Section 301 w as 
prima facie incompatible with the mul tilateral trading system. It had been  the 1994 SAA that had 
saved the US law from being ruled a s a violation of the WTO rules . Eighteen years later, 
Section  301 was coming back. Although China was picked as the first  target, it was fortunate 
enough to be big and strong  – making it wonder  who the next target could be.  
6.3.  History taught them that if unilateralism wa s unrestrained, it would bring destruction to the 
world economy and would rip all Members  apart  – especially the developing countries. Anybody at 
any time could be its target. Nobody  could  defend themselves on their own  – especially the small 
and medium economies. The unilateral tendency of the United States' trade policy should therefore 
be of serious concern to  all Members and should  be fir mly rejected. It was not only their 
responsibility  but was also the only right way to cope with it.  
6.4.  Globalization had made Members  increas ingly interdependent – forming  a community of 
shared interests. Any unilateral action would injure others and would ruin itself. China said that 
President Xi Jinping had rightly pointed out in Davos that , "pursuing protectionism is just like 
locking o neself in a dark room: wind and  rain might be kept out side but so are light and air". China 
was expecting all Members to join hands in  collectively safeguard ing the rules -based multilateral 
trading system and urged the United States  to change its course of unilateral practice and avoid 
dragging the world into a trade war.  
6.5.  The representative of the United States  said that Members had entered t he realm of Alice in 
Wonderland where white was black and up was down. The United States wa s amazed to watch a 
country that was the world' s most protect ionist, mercantilist economy position itself as the self -
proclaimed defender of free trade and the global trading system. His delegation said that the WTO 
should avoid falling down that  rabbit hole into a fantasy world,  lest it lose all credibility.  
6.6.  The Un ited States said that the truth was that China wa s the unilateralist, consistently acting 
in ways that undermine d the global system of open a nd fair trade.  Market access barriers too 
numerous to mention; forced technology transfers; intellectual property t heft on an unprecedented 
scale; indigenous innovation policies and the "Made in China 2025 " program; discriminatory use of 
technical standards; massiv e government subsidies that had  led to chronic overcapacity in key 
industrial sectors; and a highly restri ctive foreign investment regime were the issues that should 
be on the General Council's agenda. If the WTO wished to remain relevant, the United States said 
that it should  confront the havoc created by China' s state capitalism  with urgency . 
6.7.  Concerning the Section 301 report, the United States had  issued a detailed factual report 
running nearly 200 pages with more than 1,100  footnotes that detailed China' s distortive p olicies 
on technology transfer. China had  not provided an y evidence to refute the report's facts or WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 24 - 
 
  conclusions – only mere denials. The report, containing exten sive evidence, wa s available on the 
USTR website.  
6.8.  The United States noted that there we re four types of practice s involving technology transfer. 
First, China used  foreign ownership restr ictions, such as joint venture requirements and foreign 
equity limitations, and various administrative review and licensing processes, to require or 
pressure technology transfer from foreign companies.  Those foreign ownership restrictions 
prohibit ed foreign investors from operating in certain industries unless they partner ed with a 
Chinese company,  and in some cas es, unless the Chinese partner was the controlling shareholder. 
Those requirements preclude d foreign companies from enterin g the market on their own terms and 
laid the foundation for China to require or press ure the transfer of technology.  
6.9.  China also used  its administrative licensing and approvals processes to force technology 
transfer in exchange for the numerous approvals needed to establi sh and to operate a business in 
China. Vague provisions and uncertainty about the applicable rules provide d Chinese authorities 
with wide discretion to use administrative processes to pressure technology transfer or otherw ise 
act in furtherance of China' s trade -distortin g industrial policy objectives. The United States was 
therefore compelled to ask whether that  unilateralism was designed to benefit China at the 
expense of its trading partners.  
6.10.   Second, China' s regime of technology regulations forced US  comp anies seeking to license 
technologies to Chinese entities to do so on n on-market -based terms that favoured Chinese 
recipients. China imposed  a different set of rules for imported technology transfers  originating 
from outside China  such as from foreign enti ties attempting to do business in China.  Those rules 
did not apply to technology transfers occurring between two domestic Chinese companies.  China' s 
mandatory requirements for imp ortation of foreign technology we re discriminatory and clearly 
more burdensom e than the requirements applicable to domestic Chinese companies.   
6.11.   China mandated  that all indemnity risks be borne by the foreign tec hnology transferor.  
Parties could not negotiate the allocation of that risk  even if the transferee would be willing to b ear 
the risk under the contra ct. China also mandated  that all improvements belong ed to the party 
making the improvement  and that a foreign licensor could not stop the Chinese licensee from 
making i mprovements to the technology. China further required that joint ventures, mandated 
under Chinese law, could  continue to use transferred technology after the conclu sion of any 
licensing contract. Those restrictions tip ped the technology transfer regime in favo ur of Chinese 
entities before  a foreign company even at tempted  to enter the market in China. The United States 
was therefore compelled to ask whether that unilateralism was designed to benefit China at the 
expense of its trading partners.  
6.12.   Third, China directed and unfairly facilitated the systematic investment  in, and acquisition 
of, foreign companies and assets by Chinese companies to obtain cutting -edge technologies and 
intellectual property and to generate the transfer of t echnology to Chinese companies. The role of 
the state in directing and supporting that  outbound investment strategy was pervasive  and evident 
at multiple levels of government – central, regiona l and local.  
6.13.   China had  devoted massive amounts of financing to encourage and to facilitate outbo und 
investment in areas it deemed strategic. To implement those policies, China employed  tools such 
as investment approval  mechanisms and a system of "encouraged"  sectors to channel an d support 
outbound investment. Tho se investments and acquisitions align ed with state objectives and 
policies and we re often undertaken b y state -owned enterprises that we re owned and controlled by 
the government by definition. Even when undertaken by compan ies in which the government did  
not own an o bservable controlling stake, those transactions we re frequently guided and d irected 
by the state.  
6.14.   In addition, many of those transactions we re funded by state -owned entities or banks, often 
in situations where comparable commercial financing would have been unavailable. The United 
States was therefore compelled to ask whether tha t unilateralism was designed to benefit China at 
the expense of its trading partners.  
6.15.   Fourth, China c onducted and supported unauthorized intrusions into and theft from  the 
computer networks of foreign companies to access their sensitive commercial  informat ion and WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 25 - 
 
  trade secrets. For over a decade, China had  conducted and su pported cyber intrusions into U S 
commercial networks  targeting confidential  business information held by US firms. Through those 
cyber intrusions, China had  gained unauthorized access to a  wide range of commerciall y-valuable 
business information  including trade secrets, technical da ta, negotiating positions  and sensitive 
and proprietary internal communications.  
6.16.   China had  used cyber -enabled theft and cyber intrusions to serve its strategic e conomic 
objectives. Documented incidents of China's cyber intrusions against US  commercial en tities 
aligned closely with China' s industrial policy objectives. The United States was therefore compelled 
to ask whether that unilateralism was designed to benef it China at the expense of its trading 
partners.  
6.17.   Those four technology transfer policies harm ed every Member  and each of their industries 
that relied  on technology for maintaining competitiveness in world ma rkets and increasing its 
people' s standard of liv ing.   
6.18.   Instead of addressing its damaging and discri minatory policies, Chin a accused the United 
States of unilate ralism.  The United States said that the criticism had absolutely no validity. To the 
contrary, the fo ur policies and practices  his delegation h ad outlined we re exa mples of unilateralism 
by China – advancing its own inter ests at the expense of all of th eirs and causing economic harm 
worth tens of billions of dollars annually to the United State s and multiples of that to Members 
collectively.  
6.19.   The W TO system was not threatened, as China claimed, where a Member took  steps to 
address harmful, trade distorting policies not directly covered by WTO  rules. To the contrary, what 
threaten ed the WTO was that China wa s asserting that the m ere existence of the WTO prevented  
any action by any Member to address its unfair, trade -distorting practices and po licies – unless 
those policies we re currently subjec ted to WTO dispute settlement. If the WTO wa s seen as a 
shield prot ecting those Members that chose to adopt p olicies that could  be shown to undermine 
the fairness and balance of t he international trading system  then the WTO and the international 
trading sys tem would  lose all c redibility and support among its  citizens.  
6.20.   The representative of the Russian Federation  was seriously concerned by actions planned by 
the United States under Section  301 of the Trade Act of 1974 and  stress ed that unilateral 
application of trade -restrictive measures in violation of WTO obligations without an authorising 
decision by the Dispute  Settlement Body wa s unacceptable.  
6.21.   The representative of the European Union  did not support the threat or application of tariffs  
in breach of WTO commitments and noted that Members should not take the  WTO law into their 
own hands. However, t he entire WTO membership needed to reflect on the deeper root causes of 
the current tensions i n the trading system which had  to do with forced technology transfer, 
subsidies, and the role o f state -owned enterprises that were brought up in part by the Section 301 
measures . If Members  wanted to defend and sustain the mult ilateral trading system, all of them 
should recogniz e the need for new rules to fill the gaps in the current rulebook.  
6.22.   The representative of Japan  share d the United States' views that stronger protection o f 
intellectual property rights a nd their effective enforcement we re imp ortant. Japan also shared the 
United States' concerns regarding the requirement for disclosure of technological information and 
discriminatory licensing practices. Any trade measure tak en should be consistent with the WTO 
Agreement including its procedures. In that regard, Japan was concerned about the consistency 
with the WTO Agreement of the additional tariff measures announced by both the United States 
and China successively. No one w ould benefit from unilateral measures an d tit-for-tat counter -
measures. Japan would keep a close eye on that  issue and would take ap propriate actions as 
necessary taking into considera tion the situation as it evolved . 
6.23.   The representative of Pakistan  believed in the virtues of the mul tilateral system. A ny 
underlyi ng systemic concerns within the system should  be addressed  whenever they were raised. 
Pakistan express ed its systemic concerns on the measures taken by the United States  under 
Section 301 of the  US Trade Act. Such unilateral measures had  a propensity to greatly impact the 
global  trading environment in general  and the interests of developing countries in particular. That 
action had  the potential to set a negative precedent and incite a wave of glo bal pro tectionist WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 26 - 
 
  reaction s from other M embers which would  not only lead to grave consequences f or developing 
countries but would  also jeopardiz e the entire value system and principle s of the global trading 
system. The multilateral trading system was at a crossroads and did  not n eed to face more 
challenges. Pakistan  therefore urge d all M embers to continue to work towards p reserving trade 
multilateralism as that wa s the only way for economies to develop.  
6.24.   The representative of Tanzania  was seriously concerned  with the recently exhibited 
unilatera lism and protectionism by some Members. Tho se measure s were against WTO multilateral 
trade rules. Those rules we re negotiated agreements and ratified in parliaments of the bulk of the 
world's trading nations to ensure that trade flowed between M embers as smoothly, predictably and 
freely as possible.  Tanzania believed in multilateralism  and in development through fair 
international trade. The WTO should therefore be afforded the space to be the international 
organization  dealing with trade rules between Members.  
6.25.   Tanzania remained committed to the goals and procedures of the WTO since the WTO rules 
should be upheld by each Member. Tanzania was consequently opposed to the unilateral and 
protectio nist measures taken by any Member. Unilateralism and protectionism we re inherently 
detrimental to the international trade system as they negatively impact ed on exports of other 
Members. The well -functioning WTO rules had facilitated t he international trade growth 
experienced prior t o the 2008 economic crisis . It was therefore important to urge M embers to 
refrain from protectionism to allow international trade to continue to recover . If the beneficiaries of 
the multilateral trading system including the big players were allowed to impo se protectionist 
measures  as they wish ed, there would  be a danger of having serious retal iatory measures from 
other Members adversely affect ing the current recovery of international trade and ultimately 
leading  to another economic crisis. Tanzania therefor e called upon all M embers to abide by 
Article  23 of the DSU in their p ursuit of any impaired benefits  as they deem ed necessary.  
6.26.   The representative of Cambodia  thanked China for raising the matter under Agenda Item 6. 
Unilateralism was  fundamentally incompatible with WTO rules as it could negatively i mpact the 
functioning of the multilateral trading system. As Members had the responsibility to safeguard the 
multilateral trading system, Cambodia  called on all  of those concerned to resolve the  matter  
through friendly negotiations in line with WTO rules with a view to maintaining and strengthenin g 
the system for the benefit of the entire M embers hip. 
6.27.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  referred to Venezuela's 
statement unde r Agenda Item 5 as it could also apply to the current  measure that tended  to bring 
pressure on the implementation of national policies on intellectual property. Venezuela could not 
accept the application of unilateral measures  that were based on  a report under Section 301 of the  
1974 Trade Law for  identifying  countries that did  not properly protect their intellectual property 
rights without taking into consideration  the dispute settlement system 's multilateral procedures . 
6.28.   The representative of Cuba reiterat ed that nothing would justify  the use of unilateral force 
over a develop ing country and any measure of that type should be prevented . The mult ilateral 
trading system provided for tools to  deal with all  issues and  respectful dialogue and constructi ve 
cooper ation between Members provided  the way to resolve any matter . Cuba firmly supported  
multilateralism, advocate d for respect and conformity to  the rules and principles of the  multilateral 
trading system and  deplore d any unilateral measure that went against the system.  
6.29.   The representative of the Plurinational State of Bolivia  said that  his delegation had  systemic 
concerns about  the use of unilateral measures.  He noted that t he provisions of Sec tion 301 of the 
US Trade Law were  incompatible with WTO rules. Acco rding to the GATT 1994, a Member could 
only impose unilateral measures if the relevant criteria we re met. Sect ion 301 of the US Trade Law 
went against Article 3. 2 (a) of the DSU which prohibited any unilateral action and which provided 
that Members should  not take a ny measures which could  infringe or c onflict with their compliance 
to the cove red agreements except if there was recourse to the DSB under that  understan ding. 
Bolivia firmly rejected any unilateral measure which would  affect  all Members  in the lo ng-run. 
Through c ooperation and compliance with WTO rules , a solution  could be found  that would be  
acceptable  to all.  
6.30.   The representative of Brazil  noted that his delegation  had been following with close 
attention the recent actions under Section 301 of the  Trade Act of 1974 . While Members we re WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 27 - 
 
  entitled to implement their trade policies according  to their national legislation, including by 
promoting investigations into alleged  unlawful practices, any action to remedy such practices  
should be fully consistent  with WTO obligations.  
6.31.   The representative of China  noted that the United States had raised a good question on 
unilateralism which  had been  repeated four times.  China understood  unilateralis m to mean taking 
actions that went against the multilateral rules a t the expense of other Members.  Not every 
measure by a single M ember could  therefore be labelled as  "unilateral". Every country had its own 
economic policies. The multilateral rules Members had agreed upon drew the  line between 
legitimate policy space an d unilateral action. The policy would be legitimate i f a measure was 
consistent with WTO rules. Otherwise, it would be unilateral.  
6.32.   According to China's understanding  of the Section 301 investigations, the United States was 
asking China for free market acces s – a matter that  should be the subject of bilateral investment 
negotiation s rather than blatant coercion. The United States had also used the term shield . The 
WTO wa s indeed  a shield for M embers to defend themselves ag ainst trade protectionism and not 
one to hide any measure that went against WTO rules. The WTO had  clear, established rules on 
trade. The actions by the United States  in the Section 301 investigations violated  those rules since 
the retaliatory measure clearly fell  within the scope of the WTO.  
6.33.   New rules in some areas  could be developed to  address new challenges , but those should  be 
negotiated and adopted through consensus – not un ilaterally imposed by a single Member. China 
was prepared to discuss with other M embers within the WTO framew ork on how to keep the WTO 
rulebook updated and how to better safeguard Members' fair and reasonable interests . 
6.34.   On China's development strategy, the United States had given  China a few hats  such as 
state capitalism and mercantilism which were too large to fit on its head. In its fo rty years of 
reform and opening up, China had achieved rapid economic development with different opinions 
about the reasons behind it.  
6.35.   There we re two fundamental reasons for China's development: implementing market -
oriented reforms to release the vitality of economic entities and opening up its markets , and 
adhering to international rules to incorporate globalization. China's Constitution al Law provided in 
Article 15 that the state had  put into prac tice a socialist market economy  and in A rticle 16 t hat 
state-owned enterprises had  decision -making power in  operation and management within t he 
limits prescribed by law. Those we re the legal achiev ements of reform and opening up  and the 
institutional guarantee for China's future development.  
6.36.   To achieve sustainable  and inclusive development, China's market economy system required 
further improvement. Its  state-owned enterprises need ed further reforms. Its domestic market 
should be further opened and its  protection of intellectual property rights should be further 
strengthened. The remaining work on further improving government regulations, eliminating 
malpractice in the operation of state -owned enterprises, further removing market access barriers  
and offering better protection o f intellectual prope rty rights we re therefore the targets of its  future 
reform and opening , rather than the secret weapon  of the development of China.  
6.37.   On protection of intellectual property, the United States had  cited its Section 30 1 reports as 
the basis for its  unilateral actions. The  report contained 183 pages, 1 ,139 footnot es and 5 annexes 
demonstrating that the USTR's legal team had  invested a lot of time in it.  China  advise d Members 
to rea d the report but not as a bedtime reading , even if it was long enough to put one t o sleep. 
The distortion of facts and selective assertions, allegations and speculations in the report could 
keep one  awake throughout the reading.  
6.38.   China had a lot  of data to illustrat e the great progress that it had  made in the protection of 
intellectual p roperty rights and the Permanent Representative of China wished to  some of his  
personal experiences  in that regard . When he had been the Assistant Minister at the Ministry of 
Commerce in charge of intellectual property rights issues five years ago, he had led a State 
Council inspection team to Gansu and Shaanxi province to inspect the wor k on authentic software. 
Gansu wa s a remote and underdeveloped province in North Western China where they had  
randomly checked six comput ers in an agency. Five of them we re installed with authentic WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 28 - 
 
  software. The sixth computer also had authentic s oftware installed in it but  had a misplaced label 
on the outside.  
6.39.   The head of the agency had told them that Gansu had  just suffered a se vere earthquake  
which  had depleted the provi nce's financial resources. Despite the difficulties, his agency had 
spent 300,000 Yuan on  its purchase of authentic software. That seemed like an unwise decision in 
the short run since the money could have been spent on more urge nt things like disaster rel ief. 
They had however kno wn that that spending had  to be made to ensure the ir development 
objectives  in the long run. And there were many other examples like that. Despite the  
disproportional burdens on developing countries  imposed by the TRIPS Agreement, China still 
made its best efforts to meet those requirements since  all Members had agreed to it . 
6.40.   On tra nsfer of technology, China noted that it had no law that forced  companies to do the 
same. If someone claimed that there were  such legal requiremen ts, the y should show the 
evidence. No external factor, including the government, could force the owners of technologies to 
give up what they treasure d the most  on terms not acceptable to them. He and his wife  sometimes 
played a video game i n their spare time. She  was much better than him  in mastering the game 
and she knew  some special tricks to accomplish the difficult missions in the game. He had  asked 
her for those tips b ut she would never give them  to him . But she had said that she could help him 
accomplish tho se difficult missions if he bought her a new present  or help ed her with some 
housework. Sometimes he thought that was a fair deal so he had accepted her terms. O ther times 
he told her that he would prefer to count on his own efforts. That wa s how market s functio ned. 
Similar cases happened  every day in China and in other markets.  
6.41.   Mr. Stephen Roach, former Chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, US and other multinational 
corporations willingly enter ed into  legally -negotiated arrangements for  commercially sound 
reasons not only to establish a foothold in China's r apidly growing domestic markets , but also as a 
means to improve operating efficiency with a low -cost offshore Chinese platform. It was natural for 
developing countries , including  China,  to desire  technologic al advancements and for  the owners of 
technologies in the developed countries to want to get maximu m returns on their technologies. 
They had all the right to do so. The frontrunners had their rights  and those who were catching up 
had their freedom. But tho se rights and freedoms had boundaries and limits enshrined in the WTO 
rulebooks . China still had  room to improve in terms of protection of intellectual property right s and 
needed to make further progress in that  area. In that regard, companies could go to China's 
Intellectual Property Court and governments could go to the DSB if they faced problems or had 
systemic concerns. N o one should  however  take unilateral sanctions prohibited by the WTO rules.  
6.42.   The use of the word theft  in a previous intervention remin ded him of a story in ancient 
China about a villager who had lost a hatchet. The villager  had suspected that his neighbour 's son 
had stolen it. Thereupon,  he had watched the neighbour's son's every move . He had felt that the 
gait, voice  and facial expressi ons of his neighbour's son had not been the same . It had seemed 
that the hatchet had been stolen by him. A fter a few days, the hatchet had been  found. It turned 
out that he had left his hatchet on the hill when he had gone  up there  to cut firewood a few da ys 
ago. The following day , when he  had met the neighbour's son again, he had noticed that his gait, 
voice and facial expressions had  not been l ike those of a hatchet -stealer at all.  
6.43.   Sometimes,  the thief was in their eyes and heart . Such could block them from seeing the 
truth including the need to respect the rule of law, the efforts made by others to constantly 
improve and the absence of courag e to inspect one for problems. China  hoped that the  thief in 
their eyes and heart would b e gone soon for them to  look at each other  again  like normal pe ople. 
6.44.   The representative of the United States  thank ed China for mentioning him  three times in his 
remarks. That meant  that he had listened to what he had to say which he consider ed as progress.  
He appreciate d the hatchet story at the end but had to say  that the United States respected the 
rule of law. The United States was  founded on the rule of law which wa s not always the case  in 
other parts of the world. Members would  have much more to talk a bout with  respect to what 
unilateralism wa s in the coming weeks and months. The United States  looked forward to engaging 
with Members , including China.  
6.45.   The United States had  taken good note of the  statements delivered at the meeting on 7 May 
by various Mem bers including the joint statement delivered on behalf of the Informal  Group of WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 29 - 
 
  Developing Countries.  As the membe rship composition of the IGDC was  not refl ected on the 
website of the WTO and in order for his  delegation to take fully into account the views  expressed 
in that statement, the United States would b e grateful if the record of the  meeting could reflect 
clearly the  individual WTO Members who had  associated themselves with the IGDC statement . 
6.46.   The representative of China  said that their discussion proved to be important and useful 
since t he debate on trade policy was exactly the function of the organization. In his book "The 
Wealth of Nations", Adam Smith said that  "Man is animal that makes bargains: no other animal 
does this – no dog exchanges bone s with anoth er". As trade negotiato rs, he called on Members  to 
bargain with each other  instead of biting each other.  
6.47.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
7  COMMITTEE ON BUDGET,  FINANCE AND ADMINIST RATION – REPORT ON MEETING OF  
MARCH 2018 (WT/BFA/ 171)  
7.1.  The Chairman  drew attention to the report of t he Budget Committee in document  
WT/BFA/171 and invite d Ambassador Juan Aguirre (Paraguay), Chairman of the Budget 
Committee, to introduce the report.  
7.2.  Ambassador Juan Aguirre (Paraguay), Chairman of the CBF A, reported that since the 
beginning of 2018, the Committee on Budget, F inance and Administration had had two meetings: 
the first one  on 12 March and the second one on 26  April. The agenda  for the two meetings had 
encompassed a wide array of subjects which  fell under the mandate of the  Committee.  The report 
of the 12 March meeting was included on the agenda  of the current meeting while the report of the 
26 April meeting would be presented at the Gene ral Council meeting in July . 
7.3.  He noted that most of the top ics discussed were for information only and  while a few resulted 
in specific recommendations to be made to the General Council, the update provided was limited 
to the items that had d istinct decision points.  
7.4.  The rate of Member contributions for the year 2017 had been lower than that for 2016. In 
2017, the total amount received had been CHF 169.7 million, representing 87% of the assessed 
contribution. The outstanding Members' contributions had amounted to CHF 3 3.8 million, 
pertaining to 48 Members. 10 Observers had had an outstanding balance at the end of 2017. The 
total amount outstanding had been CHF 590,219. The issue of arrears in contribution was still 
persisting. 13 Members had been subject ed to Administra tive Measures, for a total amount 
outstanding of 6.9 MCHF, representing 21% of the total amount outstanding; and 5 Observers had 
been subject ed to Administrative Measures for a total amou nt outstanding of CHF 629,693. The 
recommendation of the CBFA to the General Council read  as followed : "The Committee invites the 
General Council to urge Members and Observers under Administrative Measures to liquidate their 
arrears."  
7.5.  The CBFA had considered a request from the Central African Republic to have a payment plan  
to settle its arrears over 30 years and to have the Administrative Measures levie d against it to be 
suspended.  The CBFA had endorsed that  request and had made the following recommendation to 
the General Council: "In accordance with the decision of the Ge neral Council of 15 November 
2012, the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration recommends that the General Council 
suspend the application of Administrative Measures for the Central African Republic with the 
proviso that the Central African Republi c undertakes, in writing, to abide by the schedule of 
instalment payments for liquidating all its arrears over a period of 30 years. In addition, the 
Central African Republic should pay its annual contributions for each year henceforth. The 
payments must b e received no later than 31 December of each year, starting in 2018, failing 
which the administrative measures will be reinstated."  
7.6.  The representative of the Central African Republic  thank ed the General Council for granting 
its request and noted that it  was one of the founding Members of the WTO. Countries sometimes 
did not do so well and unlike  human beings, they did  not die. The Central African Republic  was 
going through a difficult period but it was  not the end . The Central African Republi c had made a 
commitment and Members could count on it . Although his delegation  had been  somewhat ill, it had  
something to say as it was still very much attached to multilateralism . History had taught them  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 30 - 
 
  many lessons . During the  GATT , there were 22 Members. The WTO curr ently had  over a hundred. 
They had inherited many things  and despite  differences of opinion , it would be possible  to find a 
solution through dialogue . It was  useless for countries that  belong ed in the same category as the 
Central African Republic to be taken hostage by the larger ones  since they all belong ed to the 
same WTO family. The Central African Republic therefore urged all Members  to work above and 
beyond their differences in opinions to find  a soluti on for  the wellbeing of humanity. The 
Membershi p had created a GATT to abide  by international trade rules and the same applied to the 
WTO. Although at times  one could  leave the right path , one  should always come back to it. By 
working t ogether , Members would  solve the ir problem.  
7.7.  The General Council took note  of the statements, approved  the Budget Committee's specific 
recommendations in paragraphs 4.7 a nd 5.2 of WT/BFA/171,  and adopted  the report.  
8  WTO PENSION PLAN MAN AGEMENT BOARD – ELECTION OF A MEMBER  AND AN 
ALTERNATE – PROPOSAL BY THE CHAI RMAN OF THE GENERAL COUNCIL 
(WT/GC/W/743)  
8.1.  The Chairman  noted that in relation to the Election of a Member and an Alternate of the WTO 
Pension Plan Management Board, Article 4(a) of the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan provided, 
inter alia, for the election by the G eneral Council of a Chairperson, four members and four 
alternates to the Management Board of the WTO Pension Plan.  
8.2.  The Chairman recalled that an improved system for consultations about appointments to the 
Management Board had been put in place  in 2017 to ensure transparency and to provide sufficient 
opportunities for consultations with Members int erested in that process. On that basis  and with a 
view to fill in two announced vacancies  the Chairman of the Management Board had sent out  a 
communication in ear ly April  inviting Members to communicate expressions of interest in serving 
on the Management Board.   
8.3.  The WTOPP Chairman had then conducted consultations on the potential can didates and, as a 
result of the  process, document WT/GC/W/743 had been circulated on 27 April, which described 
the overall process and listed the two candidates identified.  
8.4.  As of the 2 May deadline, the Chairman had not received comments or questions. Therefore, 
he suggested that the c andidates proposed in document WT/GC/W/7 43 be elected to the 
Management Board. The Chairman understood that Ms. Darija Sinjeri (Croatia) would act as a 
Member  and Ms. Paula Chiung -Fang Hsu (Chinese Taipei) had agreed to act as an Alternate.   
8.5.   The General Council so agreed . 
9  DATE AND VENUE OF TH E TWELFTH SESSION OF  THE MINISTERIAL CONF ERENCE – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  
9.1.  The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business" , noted  that Article IV of the Marrakesh 
Agreement provided that there should  be a Ministerial C onference of representat ives of all 
Members which should  meet at l east once every two years. In that regard, he recalled that  in 
Buenos Aires, under item 3 of the MC11 Agenda, Ministers had instructed the General Council to 
hold consultations regarding the  date and venue of the Twelfth Session of the Ministerial 
Conference – MC12.   
9.2.  The Chairman noted that he intended  to start those consultations shortly  with a view to 
taking a decision on the date and venue of the next Ministerial Conference at the July Ge neral 
Council meeting,  if possible. Furthermore, since MC11 had been held in 2017, MC12 should 
normally be held in 2019. As the previous hosts could confirm, the organization of an event of that 
magnitude required a considerable amount of work, time and a lot of advance planning – it was 
therefore important to be in a position to take that  decision before the summer break.  
9.3.  The Chairman invite d any Member which was considering hosting MC12 to come forward with 
their form al proposal as soon as possible  so tha t he could  consult accordingly.  Should there be no 
offer from Members forthcoming in the next few weeks, the membership should  think about a WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 31 - 
 
  possible venue and a decision should still be made as soon as possible  so that any necessary 
reservations could be arranged and that the organizing machine could be set in motion.  
9.4.  The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement.  
10  CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE WORKING PARTIES ON T HE ACCESSION OF ALGE RIA AND 
THE BAHAMAS – STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  
10.1.   The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", recalled that  Deputy Director -General Alan 
Wolff had conducted consultations on his behalf regarding the Chairmanships of the Accession 
Working Parties of Algeria and of the Bahamas. In that respect, he  referred to the communication  
from October 2017 for the consultations on the Working Pa rty on the Accession of Algeria  and to 
the more recent communication dated 19 January 2018 for the Wor king Party on the Accession of 
the Bahamas.  
10.2.   Following tho se consultations and in keeping with usual WTO practice, the Chairman 
understood that there was consensus on Ambassador Luis C ancela  of Urug uay to serve as 
Chairman of the  Working Party on the Accession of Algeria, and on Mr. Andrew S taines , Deputy 
Permanent Representative of the United Kingd om to the WTO, to serve as Chairman of the 
Working Party on the Accession of the Bahamas. He wished them both success in their  new 
endeavour s. 
10.3.   The representative of the Bahamas , speaking as an Observer , considered  Membership in the 
WTO to be an important i nstrument to diversify the Bahamian economy and to reform  domestic 
laws and institutions  while creating greater opportunities for the Bahamian people. Membership in 
the WTO provided the best framework to ensure access to foreign markets and the creation of  a 
more stable and predictable environment conducive to foreign direct investment.  
10.4.   While much time had elapsed sinc e the submission of the Bahamas'  applicat ion to join the 
WTO in 2001, its  Government remained  committed at the highest political level  to the  accession 
process.  The Bahamas was pleased that the General Council had confirm ed the appointment of Mr.  
Andrew Staines as Chairperson of the Working Party on the Accession of the Bahamas. The 
Bahamas  looked forward to working with him, the Membership at large and the Secretariat to 
bring its accession  process to a timely conclusion thereby cementing the Bahamas firmly in the 
international trading system.  
10.5.   The Bahamas also thanked the former Chairperson of the Working Party, Ambassador 
Wayne McCook, for his  very able lea dership,  and wished him every success.  
10.6.   The Representative of Algeria , speaking as an Observer , stated that his delegation  
welcome d the nomination of Ambassador Cancela as C hair of the Working Group for the Accession 
of Algeria to th e WTO repl acing his predecessor  Ambassador Vanerio who Algeria  paid tribute to. 
Algeria thanked the Chairman and the Deputy Director -General for Accessions for their work  on 
the consultations; the Member s for their support to the candidacy and  the Secretariat for 
facilitating  the process . Algeria  also thank ed Ambassador Cancela for his candidacy and assistance . 
It was a great pleasure to have Ambassador Cancela as  the Chair  of the Working Group on the 
Accession of Algeria to the WTO considering  his vast exp erience and knowledge and  with 
Uruguay's  position with regard to its accession . Uruguay had  chaired the Working Group on the 
Accession of Algeria to the WTO three times and a bilateral agreement ha d been signed between 
the two countries. Algeria reaffirmed the imp ortance of the process of its accession to the WTO 
and count ed on Members' support for that process to be finaliz ed successfully as soon as possible.  
10.7.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statements and of the other statements.  
11  STATEMENT BY THE C HAIRMAN IN CONNECTIO N WITH ADMINISTRATIV E MEASURES 
FOR MEMBERS IN ARREA RS 
11.1.   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 Budget, Finance and Administration should provide information with regard to which WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 32 - 
 
  Members and Observers we re under Administrative Measures. He invited the Chair  of the Budget 
Committee , Amba ssador Juan Aguirre (Paraguay),  to provide the Coun cil with that  information.  
11.2.   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 r equired by the decision of the General 
Council, the Chairman of the CBFA would state  all Members and Observers under all categories of 
Administrative Measures as of 7 May 2018. Prior to reading the list, he recalled that on 
30 November 2017, letters had been sent to Members and Observers detailing their respective 
contributio ns to the WTO budget for 2018. As a follow up, the Director -General had notified 
Members with arrears  of their status of contributions  through a letter dated 20 February 2018.  
11.3.   There were 28 Members and 4 Observers under Administrative Measures.  There were 
12 Members in Category I: Angola, Belize, Burkina Faso, Congo, St Vincent and the Grenadines, 
Senegal, Solomon Islands, Suriname, Tanzania, Togo, 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 Barbuda, Cameroon, Guinea and Rwanda. There were 9 Members under 
Category III: Burundi, Chad, Djibouti, The Gambia, Guinea -Bissau, Mauritania, Ni ger, Sierra Leone 
and Bolivarian  Republic of Venezuela. There were 2 Observers in Category III: Libya and Sao 
Tomé & Principe.  
11.4.   The Chairman  said that he was required at each Council meeting to request Members and 
Observers in Categories II and III of the M easures to inform the Secretariat as to when their 
payment of arrears could be expected. Likewise, following the Budget Committee's 
recommendation adopted that day, the General Council urged Members and Observers under 
Administrative Measures to liquidate their arrears.  
11.5.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
 
_______________  
 
 
  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 33 - 
 
  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 HOD s MEETING HELD ON 7 MA Y 2018  
Report by the Director -General1 
We last met in this format on 5 March. Since then I have conducted bilateral visits to Brazil, 
Portugal, the UK and the US, in each case meeting with se nior government representatives.  
 
I also visited India for bilateral meetings and to t ake part in the informal ministerial meeting in 
New Delhi. It was a very constructive meeting. I would like to take this opportunity once again to 
extend my thanks to India for organizing the meeting and for taking the initiative so soon after 
MC11. I will  leave it to Ambassador Deepak to report in more detail if he so wishes.  
 
In recent weeks I have also attended the UN Chief Executives' Board for Coordination meeting and 
the Commonwealth Business Forum – both of which took place in London. And I attended the 
spring meetings of the IMF in Washington DC.  
 
In addition, I met with the Secretary -General of the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Dame Meg 
Taylor, and I conducted various bilateral meetings with ministers and ambassadors in Geneva, and 
on the sidel ines of other events.  
 
As ever, I have also maintained close contact with General Council Chair and the Negotiating 
Group Chairs. I convened a meeting with all of the Chairs on Monday last week.  
Over recent weeks I have participated in a range of other events, including:  
 
 A session to mark International Women's Day at the WTO on 8 March.  
 The open -ended meeting of the Informal Dialogue on Investment Facilitation for 
Development on 23 April, at the invitation of the organisers.  
 And the symposium on Trade a nd Natural Disasters on 26 April.  
I'd also like to highlight briefly another event which is actually yet to happen.  
 
You will recall that in 2016 we were approached by the B20 and the ICC to facilitate a private 
sector discussion here at the WTO. We have  now been approached to facilitate a follow -up event, 
which is going to take place at the WTO on 7 June.  
 
The organizers intend to offer an opportunity for Members to engage and to hear the outcomes of 
these discussions. They will soon provide you further  details on all of this.  
 
Turning to the substance of my engagements, the predominant themes in my bilateral discussions 
have been:  
 
• First, strong support for the WTO.  
• Second, a desire to re -energize our discussions and negotiating work.  
• And, third, seri ous concerns on issues of major economic and systemic importance – 
specifically, rising trade tensions and the blockage in appointments to the Appellate 
Body.  
From my conversations it is clear that these concerns are very widely shared among the 
Membershi p. 
 
As long as tensions persist between major trading partners, the risk of a serious escalation 
remains very real. This poses a significant threat to the global economy.  
 
I announced our latest trade data and forecasts on 14 April, and looking purely at the economic 
factors the outlook is quite positive. Trade is growing in every region around the world. In 2017, 
world merchandise trade grew by 4.7%. In 2018, we are forecasting growth of 4.4%. And in 2019, 
                                                
1 Also issued as JOB/GC/186.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 34 - 
 
  we expect that it will be around 4.0%. This would  be the strongest sustained period of trade 
growth since the 2008 crisis.  
 
But all of this could easily be undermined by an escalation in the current situation.  
 
We must do all we can to avoid going down this path, and taking measures that are difficult t o 
reverse.  
 
When trade restrictions are pursued in this way it can threaten growth and job creation 
everywhere. Today two thirds of global trade takes place through global value chains - and this 
clearly illustrates the potential for knock -on effects. And  in these situations it is often the smaller 
players and the poorest communities that stand to lose the most. Resolving these issues is in 
everyone's urgent interest.  
 
I am continuing to talk to Members, and urge all sides to be very cautious in how they p roceed.  
 
It is positive that these matters are being taken up in the regular bodies of the WTO. The issues 
have been discussed in the Safeguards committee and in the Council on Trade in Goods, for 
example, as well as in the General Council. In addition, M embers continue to bring their disputes 
to the WTO.  
 
The system was built to resolve these problems in a way that prevents further escalation – and so 
it is right that Members are using it. I believe that the WTO has a crucial role to play here – as we 
have done many times before.  
 
I also encourage Members to continue pursuing their bilateral contacts, to complement multilateral 
processes. The important thing is that conversations are taking place, and that Members are trying 
to find solutions.  
 
It is als o of utmost importance that Members work to resolve the impasse regarding nominations 
for the Appellate Body.  
 
If we do not find a solution here – whatever shape that solution may take – we could severely 
compromise the whole multilateral trading system.  
 
I can't emphasize enough the systemic importance of this point.  
 
So again I urge Members to engage and talk to each other in a solution -finding mode.  
 
I've been conducting my own conversations with Members – in Geneva and in capitals. But I regret 
to rep ort that I have no new information indicating that we could see changes to the current 
scenario in the foreseeable future. We are no closer to a solution than before. And as yet I do not 
see a promising path forward.  
 
Of course this doesn't mean we stop wo rking. On the contrary we must redouble our efforts here. 
This should be of great concern to anyone who values the system. And therefore I call on all 
Members to play their part in resolving the situation.  
 
Now, let me turn to our negotiating work.  
 
I am pleased that all negotiating group chairs have been appointed and are now in place. I will 
refrain from commenting further on each area of work, as the Chairs will shortly be reporting 
themselves.  
 
We are still in early stages of our work after Buenos Aire s, but I think it is very positive to see 
Members meeting and engaging. And I think that we need to maintain a sense of urgency. This 
applies particularly in areas where we have specific deadlines, such as in fisheries subsidies – but 
also in areas where w e are already behind the schedule that Members set themselves, for example 
on Public Stockholding.  
 
I will remain closely involved in this work, and am ready to assist the Chairs in any way that I can.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 35 - 
 
  I expect that today Members may want to report on t hese areas and also on any of their own 
initiatives, which may be happening outside the Negotiating Groups.  
 
I have heard a few questions raised about how the processes around the various Joint Initiatives 
are going to develop – and what role the secretar iat is going to play.  
 
I'm in touch with Members on this and have been explaining my perspective.  
 
In terms of how the initiatives evolve, that is a matter for the proponents to determine. It is truly 
Member -driven. I have simply urged those Members invo lved to be as open, transparent and 
inclusive as possible, and to be as respectful of other Members' positions as possible.  
  
Ultimately, how open, how transparent and how the work in those groups will be conducted is 
entirely in the hands of proponents. I  do believe however that inclusivity and transparency should 
be pursued to the extent possible.  
 
In terms of the Secretariat, my instruction has been to treat these initiatives in precisely the same 
way as any other request from Members. What is fundamental is that this support should be 
entirely on a demand basis.  
 
So, as you can see, there are many challenges before us and we all need to respond in the best 
way we can. What it important is to keep engaged in a solution -finding mode.  
 
That concl udes my report.  
 
Reports by the Negotiating Group Chairs  
1. Committee on Agriculture  – Special Session  
I would like to make a brief report on the consultations I have held since my appointment as CoA  
SS Chair on 9 April 2018.  I have thus far held 31 meetings  with Members and group coordinators 
to hear their views regarding lessons from past experience and the way forward in the agriculture 
negotiations.  
 
Let me say at the outset, that despite the wide recognition of the clouds that hang over the 
negotiating environment, based on what I have heard thus far, I am tremendously encouraged by 
the convergence of views among the Membership on the importance of agriculture and the need 
for full engagement to achieve results which would accommodate the interests of al l Members. My 
considered view is that all and I mean all Members are engaged and all Members are committed to 
agriculture reform that will strengthen WTO disciplines promoting a more open rules -based system 
governing this sector.  
 
That said, Chair, it is a lso clear that as we go forward we need to better understand where we are 
coming from and where we are now. This requires filling information gaps in a way that enhances 
greater understanding and that facilitates negotiations.   
 
With this very positive ou tcome from the initial consultations, I have therefore decided to convene 
a CoA SS meeting on 24 May to report fully on my consultations to the whole membership and to 
give Members an opportunity to express their views on both process and substance.  I env isage 
holding at least one more CoA SS meeting before the summer break.  
 
Main issues addressed in my consultations : 
 
I will now briefly report on my consultations thus far. I asked Members to consider six questions to 
frame our discussions . I will report on this basis. Members will hear their words, that is as it should 
be.  
 
The first two questions pertained to lessons learnt from pre -MC11 process and the best way to 
proceed with work. The one view that came  up more frequently was the need for the nature  of 
engagement to be changed – we need more focused, agenda -based negotiations, as well as more 
dialogue among Members in a spirit of compromise and flexibility; need for inclusiveness, 
transparency, more active participation and more realistic expectation s have also been stressed by WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 36 - 
 
  many Members. Members also considered that an outcome in agriculture is expected as an 
important input to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals and drew attention SDG 2b 
and 2c and SDG 17.10 and 17.11. The new recently  released publication by the WTO entitled 
"Mainstreaming trade to attain the SDGs " is an important input to our process and demonstrates 
how trade and trade policies can contribute to achieving these important goals.  
 
The third question pertained to timelines. While Members in general recognize that some reflection 
is needed, they feel that the reflection period should not be too long nor should it delay 
negotiations – one Member aptly said tha t there was a habit of Members " taking their feet off the 
gas" after Ministerials; maybe changed concepts of time and timelines are needed. A message I 
heard clearly from many is "Time ran out at MC11, and this should not be allowed to happen 
again". This is a call for early and thorough preparations and Members working collectively and 
intensively together. Some also pointed out that while deadlines may be important, they have not 
always served Members well. The conclusion here seemed to be – "we must go not as fast as the 
fastest, but also not as slow as the slo west".  
 
The fourth question was with regard to work undertaken before MC11, several Members 
highlighted the importance of previous work and past decisions. The general sense seems to be 
that it is up to the proponents to decide what they wished to do with their proposals and how they 
should be handled and addressed in the negotiations;  
 
The fifth question related to priorities. Priorities remain broadly the same as before MC11 - most 
Members still see Domestic Support as the central, in a sense integrated p riority; some expressed 
their wish to see Market Access taken forward in parallel; cotton is also a high priority and was 
identified by several delegations as an area where an incremental output may be feasible; PSH and 
SSM also remain high on the agenda, notably for the proponents of these issues.  Many Members 
conveyed the message that the negotiations should advance on all issues in parallel, that there still 
needs to be a package that has something for everyone, given that different Members have 
differe nt priorities.  
 
The sixth question was regarding increased information development and information sharing, and 
possible workshops on issues relevant to negotiations, Members broadly agree that having more 
technical information would be useful, with many o f them expressing the view that work aimed at 
improving information available should be addressed simultaneously and in parallel to the 
negotiations. Here I would like to take the opportunity to inform Members about a seminar being 
organised by the FAO and  ICTSD on “Rethinking food and agricultural trade negotiations: 
Identifying options for progress”. It will be held on Wednesday, 9 May 2018 at the Maison de la 
Paix. 
 
Several Members raised the possibility of the Secretariat and other international organis ations 
preparing documents which could inform the negotiations.  Nevertheless, some Members 
highlighted the sensitiveness of such information dissemination exercises and the need for a 
balanced choice of topics and for objective data. In my personal opinio n, having more analysis and 
information would be very valuable and can be a cloud remover. I hope that together with all 
Members we can find a way to do useful work, while at the same time respecting different views 
and sensitivities. This matter will rece ive some collective attention in our upcoming CoASS 
meeting.  
 
In conclusion, we all agree with you it cannot be business as usual and we are working towards 
doing business unusually – we plan to:  
 
• Engage differently, much more interactively.  
• To use time di fferently, to engage sooner rather than later  
• To provide, share, and try to understand information differently, more openly, 
completely and even maybe less sensitively.   
 
Finally, to this end, I have invited Members to be as proactive as possible and to t able documents, 
information products with new angles and new options, as well as new factual evidence when 
possible, to try to understand the imbalances, the gaps, the contributions and to focus on fault 
lines and hard lines - all towards breaking any stal emate in the negotiations and work towards 
convergence on possibilities on the negotiating issues.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 37 - 
 
  I also made it clear that the overall negotiating environment is what it is, we have to be positive so 
that we can make progress and I will be counting on t heir support throughout the coming months 
to identify the ways forward and to working together to make the progress we all want.   
 
I will provide a more complete report to the CoA SS on the 24 May.  The agenda for the meeting 
will be sent out by the Secre tariat today.  
 
There is a lot of goodwill in this house.  
 
This concludes my report for the TNC.  
 
2. Committee on Services – Special Session  
The first meeting of the Special Session of the CTS since MC11 took place on 9 April.  Delegations 
then had a first discussion on future work, which I summarized in JOB/SERV/281.  
 
Subsequently, I held small -group consultations with those delegations that intervened in the open -
ended meeting so as to better understand views and suggestions expressed.  
 
I would summarize t he current situation as follows:  
 
Regarding the two negotiating proposals discussed last year - on services trade facilitation and 
online services transactions -, proponents have signalled that further discussion in the Special 
Session should not be expect ed in the short term.  
 
A number of Members attach importance to 'joint statement' discussions on e -commerce, which 
are ta king place outside WTO bodies. Interlinkages with services were noted.   
 
A number of delegations see negotiations on domestic regulati on as a priority.  The Working Party 
on Domestic Regulation has not yet met this year, but a group of Members have held open -ended 
meetings to work on text of disciplines.   
 
In terms of work in the Special Session itself, some delegations expressed intere st in engaging in  
discussions on market access. MSMEs and environmental services were also mentioned in that 
context as possible areas of focus.    
 
In meetings with delegations, I asked them to further reflect on how they wished to use the 
Special Session  to have meaningful exchanges that could help build better foundations for 
negot iations further down the road. I suggested that interested delegations put on paper their 
suggestions for future discussions, so that they can be considered by the broader memb ership.  
   
Naturally, I remain open for consultations with all interested delegations.  
 
3. Negotiating Group on Market Access2 
This report covers the period since my last report to the TNC dated 27 November 2017 
(TN/MA/31)  
 
It will be recalled that in late O ctober 2017, Australia; Canada; the European Union; Hong Kong, 
China; Japan; the Republic of Korea; Singapore and the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, 
Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu ("Chinese Taipei"), had circulated a proposal entitled "Ministerial 
Decisio n on Facilitating SME Trade: Transparency of Regulatory Measures for Trade in Goods" 
(TN/MA/W/144/Rev.3). Subsequently they circulated in document WT/MIN(17)/14 a "Ministerial 
Decision on Transparency of Regulatory Measures for Trade in Goods" which called  on Members to 
commit to discussions which aimed at enhancing transparency of regulatory measures falling 
within the SPS and TBT Agreements. Examples of how such enhancement could take place 
included the electronic publication of regulatory measures, the n otification of the final text of 
regulatory measures, and the carrying out of public consultations when prepari ng major regulatory 
measures. The objective was to report progres s of such discussions at MC12. This draft Ministerial 
decision was forwarded to MC11.  
                                                
2 Also issued as TN/MA/32.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 38 - 
 
   
This decision which was subsequently supported by New Zealand (WT/MIN(17)/14/Rev.1) was 
taken up by the Minister Facilitator assigned at MC11 to Services/NAMA – H.E. Minister Eladio 
Loizaga Caballero (Paraguay) (see  document WT/MIN(17)/INF/27). The Facilitator convened an 
informal meeting to discuss this proposa l on Monday, 11 December 2017. His conclusion following 
the statements made at that meeting was that positions were polarized on the decision and that it 
would be difficult to make progress on  it in the short time available. He reported the same to the 
informal Heads of Delegations meeting held later that day.  
 
I held a consultation on 13 April 2018 with the proponents to discuss what further steps may be 
taken regarding their proposal(s). My assessment after the interventions at that consultation is 
that, in the current circumstances, the proponents have come to the conclusion that it would be 
preferable to pursue the issue of transparency in regulatory measures, which they still consider 
important, in other venues or contexts.  
 
4. Council for TRIPS – Special Session  
In my last report to this meeting on 27 November 2017 I shared with Members my assessment 
that the work of the TRIPS Special Session was not currently a priority for Members, and I 
reported that there had been no proposals for ministerial action in this area in the run -up to 
Buenos Aires. Although, in the preceding formal meeting of the TRIPS Special Session, the 
demandeurs in the GI negotiations had reaffirmed their commitment to ke eping the TRIPS issues 
on the table after MC11, this did not translate into any specific initiative or declaration at Buenos 
Aires.  
  
In the informal exchanges with some delegations since the Ministerial Conference, I have not 
detected any appetite among M embers to resume activities in the context of the TRIPS Special 
Session. While GIs continue to be an area of considerable activity in bilateral and regional contexts 
in recent years and months, that 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.  
  
Therefore, my last written report TN/IP/25 of 29 November 2018 still reflects my assessment of 
the curre nt situation in the TRIPS Special Session.  
 
Over the coming weeks, I am therefore planning to intensify my contacts with delegations with a 
view to resuming activity in the GI negotiations, including by exploring developments outside the 
WTO which could i nform and lend new impetus to the TRIPS Special Session. As always, my door 
is open, and I stand ready to assist Members to pursue the mandated work towards a multilateral 
register of wine and spirit GIs.  
 
This concludes my intervention for today.  
 
5. Negotia ting Group on Rules  
As you know, this is my first report to the Heads of Delegation and Trade Negotiations Committee, 
having been formally elected as Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules on the 28th of March.  
 
Since my election, I have been engaged in an extensive range of activities regarding the work of 
the Group, particularly on the issue of fisheries subsidies.  
 
I began with a series of bilateral consultations immediately after my election, concerning how to 
move the Group's fisheries subsidies wor k forward, taking into account the Ministerial Decision 
from MC11 as well as the points raised in the Group's 30 January meeting which was chaired by 
my predecessor. I also invited comments on any other issues that delegations might wish to raise.  
 
On the basis of my consultations, in which a large number and broad range of individual 
delegations and groups shared their views with me, I proposed to the Group a fisheries subsidies 
work programme covering the months of May, June and July. This proposal was di scussed at an 
informal meeting of the Negotiating Group on 11 April. Following that meeting, on the basis of the 
comments presented there, as well as some further consultations with a few delegations, on 18 
April I circulated a revised work programme, whic h was agreed by the Group.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 39 - 
 
   
The fisheries subsidies work programme reflects the elements that were identified in my 
consultations by the vast majority of delegations expressing views. One element is the need for an 
intensive schedule of sufficiently long meetings to attract participation by capital -based officials. To 
this end, the Group will meet every month for a three -to-four day cluster, each with a particular 
theme, with issues relating to developing Members' concerns, including special and differenti al 
treatment, taken up in each cluster in an integrated manner. Another element is that each cluster 
will involve a mix of activities: first, technical discussions, information exchange among Members, 
and workshops involving outside experts; second, time f or bilateral meetings among delegations; 
third, focused thematic discussions of negotiating issues, without a return to text -based 
negotiations in this initial stage; and fourth, continuation of the process of streamlining the 
negotiating texts that were d eveloped last fall, not all of which have yet been streamlined.  
 
As a complement to the work programme as such, at the request of the Group the Secretariat is 
preparing a series of purely factual papers on certain topics. The intention of the papers is to  
provide background information that may be of use to delegations in their various discussions. The 
papers are entirely factual rather than analytical, simply compiling information from various 
published sources. In addition, a technical expert from the FA O will be present at each meeting 
cluster as a resource person.  
 
As I mentioned, the fisheries subsidies work programme as agreed covers the period May through 
July. It is my hope and expectation, before the summer break, to develop in consultation with 
Members a further work programme covering the remainder of this yea r.  
 
While fisheries subsidies was the main focus of my consultations and other work since being 
elected, I am well aware that the Rules agenda also has other elements. In this regard, during my 
consultations and at the Group's 11 April meeting, specific i nterest was expressed in also taking up 
work on trade remedies. I indicated that any Member who desires further work in respect of any 
other element of the Rules agenda only needs to express that desire and indicate the basis on 
which it wants the work to be conducted. I will provide the opportunities for such issues and 
proposals to be fully aired in the Group.  
 
As the first of the fisheries subsidies meeting clusters will take place only next week, I am not yet 
in a position to provide a report on any sub stantive progress in the Group's fisheries subsidies 
work. There also has been no activity on any other Rules issues. As the Negotiating Group 
proceeds with its work over the coming weeks and months, I will be providing updates at future 
meetings of the He ads of Delegation and Trade Negotiations Committee.  
 
6. Committee on Development – Special Session3 
I am making this report as Chairperson of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development (Special Session) on the work undertaken in the Committ ee so far this year. The 
report is factual and is being made under my responsibility.  
 
Members will recall that despite our best efforts and constructive engagement in Geneva in 2017, 
we could not bridge fundamental differences on the G90's 10 Agreement -specific proposals before 
leaving for Buenos Aires. At MC11, Ministers had an opportunity to engage in frank, open -ended 
discussions, held over two sessions, on broader trade and development issues under the 
Facilitator, Foreign Minister of Norway Ine Erikse n Søreide. Although no specific outcome was 
reached, a number of ideas and suggestions were made, including calls for fresh approaches that 
Members felt could help make progress.  
 
At a subsequent informal Ministerial gathering, held in Delhi in March this year, there was 
significant discussion on the issue of development and special and differential treatment (S&D). In 
my view, the Delhi meeting had built on the MC11 Facilitator -led discussions, and elevated the 
discussion on development.  
 
Against this bac kdrop, and in order to restart discussions in Geneva, I sent a fax to Members on 
22 March 2018 informing them of my intention to begin a process of informal consultations. Fifty -
two delegations signalled their interest. In the end, about 40 delegations sho wed up over the 
                                                
3 Also issued as TN/CTD/33.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 40 - 
 
  course of the three small -group informal consultation meetings I held from 9 to 11 April. In these 
consultations I sought Members' views on three guiding questions which I had earlier sent to 
Members.  
 
1. What were Members' main take -aways fr om the Ministerial discussion on trade and 
development in Buenos Aires?  
2. What were their suggestions on how we could take forward the work in the Special 
Session?  
3. What were their views on the broader trade and development discussion, and how it could 
bear o n work in the Special Session?  
 
During the informal consultations, I had recalled the Facilitator's assessment at MC11 that a fresh 
look was required to break the deadlock and take things forward; and that alternative approaches 
should be adopted with the  specific objective of finding ways and means of making progress on the 
G90 proposals.  
 
Each of the three small -group discussions had its own dynamics. Overall, the discussions were 
useful. Although the respective positions of Members remained divergent a nd basically unchanged 
from the past, I found that the engagement, frankness and open -mindedness demonstrated in the 
consultations was at a higher level than I had observed in the past two years.  
 
Several points emerged from these consultations:  
 
• There was a general recognition among Members that development is central to the 
WTO’s work and that S&D is integral to it, though views continue to differ on how best to 
achieve development.  
 
• On the question of whether or not to engage in a broader trade  and development 
discussion, some Members believed that it would be useful. Other Members differed with 
this view and felt that such a discussion would not be helpful. Yet there were other 
Members who expressed willingness to go along with whatever could g ain consensus. In 
any case there seemed to be a general sense that if any such discussion should be held, 
it should not be at the Special Session whose work should remain focused and aimed at 
achieving concrete S&D outcomes.  
 
• Many cautioned against a "one -size-fits-all" approach to S&D. However, the contexts in 
which this was said were vastly different. On the one hand, to some Members it meant 
that S&D could not be applied in a "one -size-fits-all" manner for a heterogeneous group 
of self -declared developin g countries, which now also included, among them, major 
players in global trade. On the other hand, for some Members it meant that as 
developing country Members had different levels of capacities, a "one -size-fits-all" set of 
rules would not work and appro priate S&D responding to specific needs would have to 
be tailored.  
 
• Some believed that the discussions on the G90 proposals had been exhausted and that it 
would not be advisable to continue doing what Members had been unproductively doing 
for the past 16 years. Some others continued to stress the importance of resuming work 
on the basis of the G90 S&D proposals in line with paragraph 44 of the Doha 
Declaration. Having said this, I also detected a cautious willingness to look at fresh 
approaches being propo sed and of what that could comprise.  
 
• There was a view expressed that developing a common understanding on the mandate 
would help achieve progress. However, some others reminded that this was something 
which Members had attempted on several occasions, but  had failed.   
 
• Throughout the discussions, repeated calls, by some Members, were made for exploring 
more creative and constructive approaches (including, among others, case -by-case 
approach, case studies, country -specific issue -based approach, possible op t-outs etc.) 
with the aim of putting the Special Session's work on a more workable, realistic and 
result oriented track. If any such fresh approach should be embarked upon, it should be 
with the understanding that it was without prejudice to Members' respe ctive positions on 
this portfolio.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 41 - 
 
   
• From the suggestions which have been made thus far in respect of possible fresh 
approaches, I discerned the following two broad groups of ideas that I believe could 
benefit from further exploration:  
 
a) To consider a metho dology of work at the Special Session based on a case study 
approach.  
b) To consider suggestions aimed at addressing the basic concern of heterogeneity 
amongst the group of developing countries, such as by looking at S&D provisions 
on a case -by-case basis inc luding a possible voluntary opt out by some developing 
countries from some provisions.  
 
• Views differed on how these ideas could translate into concrete progress in the Special 
Session. The calls for case studies and case -by-case assessments entailed that t he 
requesting Member(s) present specific cases backed by the relevant evidence and facts 
in order for the Membership to assess the merits of either the proposals for improving 
on the current S&D provisions, or to support developing Members’ invocation of S &D.   
 
• The dissenting views which were expressed included that the premise of the WTO's S&D 
regime was for general application to all developing country Members and this right to 
claim or forego a particular S&D provision could not be challenged. It was fo r each 
developing country Member to decide which particular S&D provision it wished to benefit 
from or to forego its right in doing so. No developing country Member could be forced to 
make a particular choice.  
 
• Concerns were also expressed that what was b eing suggested would be tantamount to 
seeking a waiver which, in their opinion, was cumbersome, time consuming, 
unnecessarily invasive and difficult to pursue. They also felt such an approach would put 
developing country Members under unnecessary scrutiny and force them to prove their 
otherwise evident development needs.  
 
The richness of the discussions prompted me to pose a number of additional questions for 
Members to reflect upon:  
 
• How does the envisaged case study methodology of work differ from what the G90 had 
been doing in providing examples in the detailed elaborations on the 10 S&D proposals 
in the run up to MC11?  
 
• Since the case study methodology would require facts, data and other kinds of detailed 
preparation and engagement, will there be Membe rs who would volunteer to be the 
subject of such case studies?  
 
Here, I should report that several ideas had been flagged, including (i) that a country 
specific issue -based approach could benefit from the concrete examples that might be 
available in the T rade Policy Review (TPR) knowledge base; (ii) that the dispute 
settlement jurisprudence could be another source; and (iii) that lessons could be learnt 
from the work and experience of other intergovernmental organizations such as the 
World Bank, the IMF an d other WTO Committees' work on development.  
 
• In respect of the suggestions aimed at addressing concerns over the heterogeneity of 
the group of developing country Members, the question is that while there could possibly 
be scope for creative S&D to be nego tiated in future WTO trade rules, how could the 
suggestions for according S&D on a case -by-case basis and voluntary opt -out basis 
apply to current WTO trade rules? In the latter case, what could be the possible 
modalities/options that would allow such an a pproach to be considered?  
 
In order to share the results of these consultations with the wider Membership, I convened an 
informal open -ended meeting of the Special Session on 23 April 2018. Though it was primarily a 
transparency exercise, I encouraged Memb ers to share additional views that they might have. 
Several delegations took the floor to basically reaffirm the views they had earlier expressed in the 
small -groups' consultations.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 42 - 
 
  Members of the G90 and some other developing countries reiterated the ne ed for WTO rules to be 
development -friendly. They stressed that the rules must facilitate an increase in the beneficiaries’ 
trade capacity and share in global market. They also called for focusing the Special Session's work 
on the S&D proposals in line wit h paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration and in this context on the 
need to develop an understanding of the mandate.  
 
Some Members expressed their willingness to follow any methodology, including the holding of a 
broader debate on trade and development in w orkshops/symposia outside the Special Session.  
 
There were some who rejected a case -by-case approach as a possible modality of work and voiced 
strong views against any discussion on differentiation in the context of Special Session.  
 
Views were also expr essed that in the run up to MC11, the proponents had provided concrete 
examples, requisite data and rationale of each proposal. They questioned as to how this was any 
different from case study, case -by-case or issue -by-issue approach.  
 
While recognizing t hat development was central to WTO, some other Members said that 
development did not mean that two thirds of the Membership should be excluded from the 
fundamental disciplines of the multilaterally agreed rules. They believed that the G90 proposals 
would n ot be conducive to a positive result on trade led development.  
 
In their view, a succession of S&D proposals in the past 16 years had not resulted in meeting of 
minds. Members had exhausted discussions on them. There was hardly any usefulness in 
continuin g with the way of work that Members had been doing in the past.  
 
Some Members advocated the need for exploring fresh approaches in the quest for identifying 
concrete solutions to the underlying issues.  
 
Some felt that at this stage a broader discussion o n trade and development was warranted. They 
generally agreed that it could take place outside the purview of the Special Session.   
 
More generally, the speakers shared the view that development and S&D were key components of 
WTO rules. The discussion revealed that a diversity of perspectives remained on the relationship 
between trade rules and development, the rationale of S&D, the usefulness of a broader trade and 
development debate and on ideas such as case study, case -by-case or issue specific appro aches. 
In addition, there remains a dichotomy of views between Members that want to restart the Special 
Session's work on the basis of the G90 proposals and those who continue to oppose this way of 
working.  
 
I intend to soon begin another round of consulta tions in variable geometry that would focus on 
some of the points highlighted in my report and that in my view need further exploration. In the 
meanwhile, I remain available should Members wish to share any ideas that can help us move 
forward in our work.  
 
This concludes my report.  
 
7. Committee on Environment – Special Session  
Before the Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference, I reported that several delegations reiterated the 
importance of environmental issues and of discussing trade and environment issues in t he WTO 
and renewed their interest in this subject matter. It was also made clear by several delegations 
that environment should feature in any ministerial declaration or text that might emerge from 
Buenos Aires.   
 
In following -up on these discussions and the Ministerial, I recently invited interested delegations to 
meet bilaterally to exchange views on how they see the work of the CTE -SS post -Buenos Aires.  I 
will be undertaking these consultations in due course.  In the meantime, I would like to encourage  
delegations to continue to keep in mind the importance of environmental issues under the CTE -SS 
mandate, as they intensify their discussions and reflect on next steps in the months ahead.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 43 - 
 
  8. Dispute Settlement Body – Special Session  
 
• Ongoing work  
 
We are no w half -way through our focused work on Transparency and Amicus Curiae Briefs. We 
have further informal Chair's consultations coming up tomorrow (Tuesday) and will conclude our 
work on this issue on 30 May.  
 
• Upcoming work  
 
Looking beyond the current issue,  I circulated a timetable with specific meeting dates for the 
negotiating group's work until the summer break.  
 
On 30 May, we will begin work on the next issue, Timeframes. That issue is directly relevant to the 
overall issue of "efficiency" in dispute settlement.  
 
Finally, let me note that I am planning to circulate in the near future a Chair report – a TN/DS 
document – covering the last three issues that we covered in our group (SCI, Sequencing and 
Post-retaliation).  
 
_______________  
 
 
  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 44 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMA L TNC AND INFORMAL H ODs MEETING HELD 
ON 7 MAY 2018  
Following the Director -General's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements made 
by Switzerland (on behalf of Argentina;  Australia; Bangladesh; Benin; Brazil;  Burkina Faso;  
Canada; Chile; Colombia; Costa Rica; Côte d'Ivoire;  Dominican Republic; El Salvador; Guatemala;  
Hong K ong, China; Iceland; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Republic of Korea; Lao People' s Democratic 
Republic; Liechtenstein; Malaysia;  Mali; Mexico; Republic of Moldova; Myanmar; New Zealand; 
Nigeria; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Paraguay; Peru; Qatar; Singapore; Switzerland;  Thailand;  
the former Yugoslav  Republic of Macedonia; Turkey; Ukraine; Uruguay  and Viet Nam); South 
Africa (African Group); United States; Central African Republic (LDCs); Colombia (Informal 
Dialogue on Investment Facilitation for Development); Malawi (ACP ); Australia (Joint Statement 
Initiative on E -Commerce); Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Indonesia (G -33); China; Benin (C -4); 
Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs); European Union; Honduras (IGDC except Israel);  
Zimbabwe; Panama (Article XII Members); Singap ore; Mexico; Trinidad and Tobago; Egypt; India; 
Ecuador; Norway; Russian Federation; Cuba; Canada; Brazil; Iceland; Hong Kong, China; Turkey; 
Peru; Ghana; Costa Rica; Plurinational State of Bolivia; Uganda; Tonga (Pacific Group); Republic of 
Moldova; Parag uay; Chinese Taipei; Haiti (CARICOM); Tanzania; Thailand; Nepal; Dominica 
(OECS); Chile; Japan; Jamaica; Kenya; New Zealand; Cambodia; Pakistan; Bolivarian Republic of 
Venezuela; Malaysia and Republic of Korea  are included below as part of the Minutes of t he 
General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. Switzerland (on behalf of Argentina; Australia; Benin; Brazil; Canada; Chile; 
Colombia; Costa Rica; Côte d'Ivoire; El Salvador; Guatemala; Hong Kong, China; 
Iceland; Kazakhstan; Kenya; Republic of Korea; Lao P eople's Democratic Republic; 
Liechtenstein; Malaysia; Mexico; Republic of Moldova; Myanmar; New Zealand; 
Nigeria; Norway; Pakistan; Panama; Paraguay; Peru; Qatar; Singapore; 
Switzerland; Thailand; the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia; Turkey; 
Ukraine;  Uruguay and Viet Nam)  
 
We, 38 developing and developed Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), 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 welcome the marked recovery of world merchandise trade in 2017, to which all regions 
contributed, and are encouraged by the WTO's positive forecast for 2018 and 2019.  
 
However, we are concerned about incr eased trade tensions and related risks for the multilateral 
trading system and world trade. We encourage WTO Members to refrain from taking protectionist 
measures and to avoid risks of escalation. We call on Members to resolve their differences through 
dialogue and cooperation, including through WTO bodies and, as appropriate, recourse to WTO 
dispute settlement.  
 
We consider that action is needed to address major challenges facing the WTO. We particularly 
note difficulties in concluding negotiations and div ergent positions on trade and development. With 
respect to the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism, we emphasize the importance of filling all 
current and future vacancies on the Appellate Body without delay. We underline the necessity for 
Members to contri bute to keeping the WTO effective, relevant and responsive to all Members’ 
needs, and we commit to continue working with all Members to improve the WTO.  
 
For the time being, the communication is available as a room document. The document that has 
been dist ributed this morning does not reflect the current co -sponsorship since Peru and Côte 
d'Ivoire have announced their support after it has been issued. The list of co -sponsors is not closed WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 45 - 
 
  yet. The joint communication will be issued as a General Council docu ment tomorrow morning 
containing the final list of co -sponsors.1 
 
2. South Africa (African Group)  
 
It is apparent that – overall – our work has picked up steadily since our last TNC meeting in March. 
But it is also clear that the state of readiness amongst th e issues is uneven, and there is still some 
way to go before we will be able to state clearly that we are positioned to re -start negotiations on 
the Doha issues. Given this state of affairs, the African Group's statement today is broadly framed 
and it larg ely reiterates the Group's longstanding priorities and perspectives.  
 
I should start by saying that in our preparations for this meeting, I detected a strong degree of 
frustration amongst our Members that despite considerable time and effort expended by ou r 
severely resource -constrained delegations, there are no gains to show in any of the issues of 
importance to the Group. I thought it is important to register this frustration. In our preparatory 
meeting, we also took note of the range of more recent syste mic challenges confronting the WTO, 
particularly the dispute settlement function, and we reiterate our commitment to a fair, 
transparent and inclusive multilateralism that supports our developmental objectives.    
 
Turning to the issues, the African Group is of the view that previous Ministerial mandates and 
Members' submissions prior to MC11, including submissions by the Group, should continue to 
guide the negotiations.  
 
We have a clearer plan of work for fishery subsidies on the basis of the solid efforts  undertaken by 
the former chair of the Rules Negotiating Group, Ambassador McCook, the fact that Ministers were 
able to take a decision on the matter at MC 11, and on the basis of the work Ambassador Zapata 
has pursued since he took over the file.  
 
While fishery subsidies negotiations appear to have the traction lacking in other areas, none of us 
are under any illusion that this process will be straightforward or easy. Our Group intends to be 
constructive and we are clear that progress will depend on a bal anced process, clarity of the scope 
of commitments that we are able to implement, alongside provisions for special and differential 
treatment.  
 
Turning to agriculture, we have participated in the consultations called by Ambassador Ford and 
we are comfortab le with the broad approach he has outlined to build towards re -starting 
substantive engagement on the core developmental issues in this file. The African Group will 
continue to press for substantial reform of Trade Distorting Domestic Support; notably Cott on; a 
permanent solution for Public Stockholding; and advancing the discussions on a Special Safeguard 
Mechanism. We underscore that special and differential treatment must be integral to any outcome 
on agriculture, and we would seek to ensure that LDCs an d NFIDCs are exempted from further 
commitments.  
 
Regarding the Development file, we would make three points. First, the African Group remains 
committed to advancing the G90 proposals on special and differential treatment in accordance with 
the mandate esta blishing the CTD SS. We may consider, in consultation with the G90, refining the 
proposals and exploring ways to finally deliver outcomes on these issues so long as those are 
consistent with the mandate.   
 
Second, the African Group would have great sensitivities to any idea or proposal that would limit 
the scope and application of the principle of Special and Differential Treatment or that alter the 
architecture of development as set out in the Marrakech Agreement.  
 
Third, for our Group, Africa's dev elopment requires policies for industrial development, upgrading 
and innovation. We therefore judge multilateral rules – past and future – by whether they enable 
or constrain our industrial development objectives.  
 
                                                
1 After the 7 May Informal TNC and Informal HODs meeting, the delegations of Bangladesh, Burkina 
Faso, Dominican Republic and Mali joined the list of co -sponsors of the joint communication which was 
subsequently circulated in WT/GC/192/Rev.1.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 46 - 
 
  We take this opportunity to express our s upport to Ambassador Seck of Senegal in his efforts to 
advance the discussions under the DSU Review negotiations. In addition, we underscore the 
responsibility of the entire Membership, to ensure the proper functioning of the dispute settlement 
system.  
 
Africa's overriding economic objectives are to advance integration and industrialization across the 
continent in line with Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want. We seek the policy space to pursue these 
objectives, and we will insist that WTO rules enable those ob jectives but – at a minimum – they 
should not act as impediments.  
 
Finally, we reiterate that the African Group continues to support the development objectives 
embedded in the DDA, particularly in respect of placing the needs of developing countries at th e 
heart of the work program.  
 
3. South Africa  
 
Speaking for South Africa, I would like to pick up on one point made by the Director -General in his 
opening remarks regarding the processes under the so -called Joint Statements.  
 
First, we all know this work is n ot part of our multilateral process. They are informal processes and 
at this stage, it is not clear where they will end up. The Director -General said as much in his 
remarks earlier.  
 
Second, questions have indeed been raised about the role of the Secretar iat in these processes. To 
be fully transparent and to ensure impartiality on what is a divisive issue, we would welcome a 
focused discussion on the extent of the Secretariat's support in these processes under the Joint 
Statements.  
 
4. United States  
 
As a newcomer, I especially welcome today's meeting as an opportunity to hear the Director -
General's perspectives and to listen carefully to the views of my new colleagues around this room.  
 
In my initial weeks here in Geneva, I have been struck by how often I have heard about the 
importance fellow Members attach to US leadership in the work of the WTO. I take this seriously, 
and I am humbled by the desire of many other Members for constructive US leadership. On behalf 
of the United States Government, I am commi tted to engaging with each of you in a constructive 
spirit that always aims to make the WTO better and more effective. I look forward to the 
friendships that will develop among us as we pursue that work.  
 
I have also been struck by the emphasis many collea gues have placed on the notion of the WTO as 
being, in the words of one colleague, in a "pretty critical state". The Director -General has also 
alluded eloquently this morning to some of the challenges facing our work.  
 
With the indulgence of Members, I would like to reflect a bit on these introductory impressions.  
 
I certainly agree, as does Ambassador Lighthizer, with the general assessment that the WTO is 
struggling with some big challenges – challenges that are complex, multi -faceted, and which have 
been in the making for a long time, and certainly not just in the past 15 months.  
 
The depth of our internal divisions surrounding development is particularly striking, and 
distressing.   
 
Let me be clear: the United States does not contest that development  constitutes an extremely 
important element in the work of the WTO, one that is relevant to all Members.   
 
We continue to believe that the economic growth necessary to drive development can only be 
accrued through Members' responsible participation in int ernational trade.  
 
But clearly something has gotten terribly contorted when our discussions are dominated by a focus 
on how the majority of WTO Members can remain outside WTO rules, rather than increase their 
participation in international trade based on h igh standards.   WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 47 - 
 
  Over 20 years after the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, we see continued attempts to unravel 
existing commitments and demands that all self -declared developing countries, regardless of their 
level of development, have full access to all S &D in any new outcomes.   
 
We have unfortunately allowed some clumsy and blunt structures – notably, self -designation of 
development status, and an apparent inability to distinguish among different kinds of developing 
countries – to get in the way of our c ollective progress.  
 
I’m encouraged to perceive that a meaningful discussion of these challenges is beginning to 
happen. It strikes me as urgent that we all look for ways to break out of old patterns, as we see 
little likelihood of any future multilateral outcomes if the issue of development status is not fully 
addressed.  
 
Another area of enormous challenge is, perhaps obviously, dispute settlement.  
 
This organization has been living off the fruits of a previous generation's negotiations for too long, 
and Members have over the years turned to litigation to impose new rules where none had been 
agreed. Did our dispute settlement system take care to avoid writing new rules? Sadly, it did not.  
And the Appellate Body has even been reshaping the system without M embers' consent to expand 
its own authority.   
 
When a supposedly rules -based organization fails to ensure that its own dispute settlement system 
follows the rules, we clearly have reached a bizarre and disturbing juncture. The United States will 
not shy a way from continuing to shine a spotlight on these shortcomings, and if this organization 
is to be restored to health, other Members must contribute to finding ways to correct them.  
 
The United States is also extremely concerned about the increasingly obvio us shortcomings in the 
WTO rule book, particularly as it concerns our ability to ensure fair play by WTO Members whose 
economies are extensively driven by state -controlled activity.   
 
And we even see some Members seeking to use WTO dispute settlement as a  shield to promote 
their unfair, trade -distorting behaviour. If this situation persists, the relevance and sustainability of 
the WTO and the international system it seeks to promote will be in grave jeopardy.  
 
The United States is determined to work with those WTO Members who are committed to 
addressing these and other problems, and to building a better WTO for the future.  
 
And we acknowledge, and welcome, that US leadership will be part of bringing that about.  
 
But let me be clear: leadership and complace ncy don't often mix well. And what I have sometimes 
perceived in the comments of welcoming colleagues is a yearning to leave everything alone – to 
avoid disruptions – to be complacent in the WTO that we have, rather than in a WTO that could be 
more effecti ve as a driver of fairness in global trade and as an engine for economic growth and 
development of all our economies.  
 
The United States is not content to be complacent about this institution. And the leadership that 
the United States will bring to the WTO  in the coming months and years will consequently involve 
a good deal of straight talk and a willingness to be disruptive, where necessary, in the interest of 
contributing to a stronger, more effective, and more politically sustainable organization.  
 
I've been pleased to see, in my early weeks here, that the United States is in fact engaged in 
leadership in some quite tangible ways.  
 
We are calling attention to the urgent need to improve performance in connection with our most 
basic obligations to notify ou r trade policies and practices, and we are engaging constructively with 
other Members to share ideas in this area.  
 
We are bringing to the table some fresh and constructive ideas to break away from a discouraging 
recent track record on agriculture, and to build a more sustainable foundation for negotiations to 
reform global agricultural trade.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 48 - 
 
  We are bringing leadership to our newest committee, the Trade Facilitation Committee, to cultivate 
effective implementation of the TFA and to encourage serious discu ssions about how trade reforms 
support and deliver tangible development results. For the first time in quite a while, the WTO is 
delivering new benefits to our private sectors. We need to ensure the momentum we worked hard 
to achieve is maintained, and for  us that means meeting again before October.  
 
We are quite often the only Member substantively engaging with acceding countries to help them 
successfully integrate into the WTO.  
 
And we are participating with enthusiasm with like -minded Members seeking to  keep the WTO 
relevant in the critical area of digital trade, even as we follow with interest other "joint statement" 
initiatives arising from our last Ministerial Conference.  
 
In these and other areas, my pledge is to work with all of you as partners in t he endeavour of 
building a more open and fairer global trading system. I promise to listen carefully to all of you, 
just as I hope you accept that my government's occasionally tough -minded approach to the WTO 
is motivated by a determination to make it bett er. 
 
Thank you again for making me feel welcome, and I look forward to working with you all.  
 
5. Central African Republic (LDCs)  
 
We are encouraged to note that discussions are gradually resuming on the various topics that are 
of importance to us, following the appointment of new Negotiating Group Chairs.  
 
We are currently still at the consultation stage, in an effort to establish a good foundation for the 
resumption of negotiations this year in a way that places LDC interests at the forefront. We recall 
that the issues of specific interest to LDCs must be given priority in accordance with all the 
declarations, in particular paragraph 24 of the Nairobi Declaration.  
 
Our concerns and priorities are well known, and were confirmed by the trade ministers of the LD Cs 
in the Ministerial Declaration they adopted in Buenos Aires. Our concerns and positions are based 
on the difficult economic and social realities faced by the LDCs, as well as on our countries' virtual 
lack of integration into world trade.  
 
With regard m ore specifically to the subjects we have been discussing since we resumed our post 
Buenos Aires activities:  
 
With regard to fisheries subsidies, the most promising area of negotiation since the beginning of 
the year, with a clear programme of topics to be addressed, the LDC Group stresses in particular 
the importance of prohibiting subsidies that contribute to overfishing, while taking into account the 
circumstances of LDCs that do not contribute to this situation and should not therefore be subject 
to the same disciplines – by way of special and differential treatment. The WTO disciplines should 
also respect the international and national rights and obligations of coastal states in respect of the 
waters under their jurisdiction, including the rights of land locked states in international law.  
 
As regards agriculture, a sector of fundamental importance for our economies and for employment 
in our countries, the issue of reducing domestic support for agricultural production remains a 
priority, as does the elimin ation of domestic support for cotton production. This is essential to 
rebalancing the play of market forces and ensuring that our products have enhanced potential for 
export and integration in world markets. In the area of public stockholding for food secu rity 
purposes, in many cases the LDCs do not yet have a programme. That must be taken into account 
in the negotiations on a sustainable solution. We also need an agreement on the special safeguard 
mechanism.  
 
Regarding the remaining proposals on special an d differential treatment under the DDA, the 
discussions under the auspices of the Committee on Trade and Development (Dedicated Sessions) 
should resume from the point reached before Buenos Aires. The G90 proposal that has been put 
forward represents the ba sis for these discussions. Its sole purpose is to give a genuine boost to 
industrialization and structural transformation for the countries in need thereof. The LDCs must be 
able to develop and to emerge from situations of sometimes extreme poverty. In thi s context, 
paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration takes on its full significance, by stipulating that provisions WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 49 - 
 
  for special and differential treatment in the WTO Agreements should be reviewed with a view to 
strengthening them and making them more precise, e ffective and operational, for the benefit of 
developing countries, and the LDCs in particular, which are faced with constraints on their 
economic and social development.  
 
We have set forth our views on the main subjects under discussion. For the remainder,  the LDC 
Group will make the necessary statements at the appropriate time.  
 
Before concluding this statement, I would like to remind you that the LDC Group counts on 
Members to fully implement the Decisions adopted in the past, at the Ministerial Conferenc es in 
Hong Kong, Bali and Nairobi, with respect to duty -free and quota -free market access, the services 
waiver for LDC suppliers, and rules of origin. We also wish to see the implementation of key 
decisions specific to the LDCs, as contained in the WTO Agr eements. In this connection, we have 
recently tabled a proposal in the TRIPS Council, containing ideas on ways of enhancing the 
practical application of Article 66.2. This is one of the elements essential to facilitating the 
integration of the LDCs in worl d trade.  
 
Lastly, the LDC Group reiterates the important need for the WTO to remain a forum for 
multilateralism. Any other approach to negotiations represents a serious threat to a rules based 
system, as set out in the founding Marrakesh Agreement.  
 
6. Colomb ia (Informal Dialogue on Investment  Facilitation for Development)  
 
It is my intention as new Coordinator of the Informal Dialogue on Investment Facilitation for 
Development, and keeping with the open -ended, transparent and inclusive nature of this initiati ve, 
to ensure that all WTO Members are regularly informed about its state of play. To this end, I wish 
to follow the practice of my predecessor, Ambassador Marcelo Cima of Argentina, to regularly 
update Heads of Delegations. Today, I intend to inform about  the two meetings held since the last 
report to the HODs on March 5.  
 
Post-MC11 'Organizational' Meeting – 13 March 2018  
 
The Informal Dialogue's first 'organizational' meeting post -MC11, held on 13 March, was attended 
by 86 delegations. A large number of them expressed their willingness to advance the initiative on 
a step -by-step basis with a view to building confidence in t he process amongst the broader 
Membership. The need to remain mindful of the views and concerns of Members not present was 
also stressed. Many delegations supported the 'structured discussions' on developing a possible 
multilateral framework on investment facilitation to advance hand -in-hand – in a mutually 
supportive manner – with outreach to all WTO Members, and in particular to developing and least -
developed Members.   
 
Pursuant to the request of many delegations attending the meeting, the Coordinator ci rculated a 
preliminary schedule of meetings – to help delegations plan ahead and facilitate the participation 
of capital -based officials.   
 
Second Meeting – 23 April  2018  
 
The second meeting, held on 23 April, was the first substantive meeting this year,  and it fulfilled 
two objectives. First, it marked the beginning of the work to identify possible elements of a 
multilateral investment facilitation framework – starting with "improving transparency and 
predictability of investment measures", which was the  first topic identified in the Joint Ministerial 
Statement.  Second, it was the starting point of a comprehensive 'mapping exercise' to clarify the 
relationship between a multilateral framework and existing WTO provisions, current investment 
commitments by  Members, and the investment facilitation work of other international 
organizations.  
 
During the meeting, delegations also engaged in technical discussions on the different types of 
transparency and predictability provisions relevant to investment facilit ation. Many delegations 
emphasized the need to address the challenges faced by developing and LDC Members – notably 
regarding the implementation of more advanced transparency tools.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Next Meeting a nd Concluding Remarks  
 
The Informal Dialogue's next meeti ng, to be held on 23 July, will focus on the second topic 
identified in the Joint Ministerial Statement, namely 'streamlining and speeding up administrative 
procedures and requirements'. Prior to that, an inter -sessional meeting to allow Members to 
further  elaborate on the topic of 'improving transparency and predictability' is under consideration.  
 
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 bette r 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 delegations to get involved in co -shaping this new stimulating phase of 
the Informal Dialogue.     
 
7. Colombia  
 
Colombia joins the call to defend and strengthen multilateralism and to act within the WTO 
framework. We have argued that the WTO is a global public good. We invite everyone to calmly 
address challenges through negotiations and the use of institution al channels. It is urgent, for 
example, to review what is happening in dispute settlement, resuming as soon as possible the 
launch of the processes to fill the vacancies of the Appellate Body. On this and other topics 
concerning the WTO's operation, we wan t to reaffirm that we are open to discussing all of them in 
a pragmatic and constructive manner.  
 
Regarding the negotiations, we would like to highlight two topics.  
 
First, we welcome the new Chair of the Committee of Agriculture in Special Session, an ar ea of 
priority interest to Colombia. We support the consultations that the new Chair has been carrying 
out and we encourage all Members to contribute and to move quickly from reflection to action by 
initiating constructive dialogues with a view to the next  Ministerial Conference. Colombia will 
continue to participate actively to boost the reform process especially in the domestic support 
pillar.  
 
Second, we would like to emphasize that in fisheries subsidies, Colombia, as part of the group of 
Latin American  proponents, will continue working to implement the Ministerial Decision of Buenos 
Aires and achieve a comprehensive agreement at MC12. In this regard, we support the ambitious 
agenda that the new Chair of the Rules Negotiating Group has designed with Memb ers' help in 
order to achieve those objectives.  
 
8. Malawi (ACP)  
 
In March this year, we registered the sentiments of the Group reflecting on the setting in the 
house before and after the conclusion of the WTO Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. We 
noted the challenges that the Membership faced that remained difficul t for the institution to 
surmount.     
 
Now, nearing the halfway mark in the year, we have seen much activity in the building in certain 
areas of our remaining work for example consultations held by our esteemed Chairman of the 
Committee on Agriculture in Special Session, the Chair of the Committee on Trade and 
Development in Special Session regarding the outstanding G -90 agreement specific proposals, and 
the Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules on the fisheries subsidies negotiations. These are 
key D DA m andated areas for our Group.  
 
Regular bodies have continued to meet to monitor the implementation of the agreements under 
their remit. Chairs of the WTO bodies have changed guard as well. The Director -General and the 
WTO Secretariat have also redouble d efforts to deliver on the various consultations and technical 
assistance and capacity building activities. At the same time, we noticed quite a bit of activity of 
those who have launched a new informal, open -ended process in parallel. While some of them 
declared that they are following open and transparent working methods, we wonder if the process 
is genuinely consistent with the multilateral arc hitecture of the institution.  
 
Moreover, we take note of the escalation of trade tensions among major Members which is spilling 
over to directly affect smaller Members. We are concerned about the flagrant resort to WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 51 - 
 
  unilateralism and protectionism as a first option which is inconsistent with the foundation of the 
GATT and WTO rules, multilateral process and framewo rk. This jeopardizes the global trading 
system and commitment of Members to abide to WTO rules.  
 
We urge Members to behave in a spirit of cooperation and refrain from taking unilateral 
protectionist actions outside of  WTO rules, which are multilateral tr ading system rules we all 
agreed to, as these maintain the cardinal principles of transparency, predictability and non -
discrimination.    
 
In March, the ACP Group indicated that we were already facing difficult issues of trust that need to 
be addressed. We  do not think much progress has been made in that regard. We urge the 
Chairman of the TNC to consider ways to help us rebuild our relations to conduct business in a 
multilateral, consensus -based manner. This begins with clear implementation of all decision s and 
declarations agreed by Ministers in good faith – not just the ones that favour unilateral interests.   
 
The ACP Group has been working diligently to prepare for the fisheries cluster this month, in order 
to contribute to the work that should allow us  to fulfil the instruction of our Ministers on fisheries 
subsidies rules to conclude by 2019, which would place us in alignment to meet the sustainable 
development goal 14.6 deadline of 2020.    
 
This year is not a year to be squandered in terms of our imp erative to conclude the agriculture 
negotiations, especially on cotton, to eliminate all forms of trade distorting supports. This is a core 
area of the DDA and unfinished business from the Uruguay Round commitments. It will just not be 
sustainable to attem pt to build trust and strengthen the multilateral system by turning away from 
the mandate to deliver on agriculture for the poorest and vulnerable Members and for the 
objectives of the institution as a whole.     
 
The ACP Group interests, as stated many ti mes before, remain firmly rooted in results in fisheries, 
agriculture and special and differential treatment.  
 
9. Australia (Joint Statement Initiative on E-Commerce)  
 
As one of the co -conveners of the Joint Statement on Electronic Commerce initiative, along with 
Japan and Singapore, I will first provide a brief report on the progress of our exploratory work on 
E-Commerce.  
 
We have now held two meetings of the Electronic Commerce Joint Statement initiative – the first 
on 14 March and the second on 18 April. In  the interests of transparency, reports of these 
meetings were circulated to all WTO Members and I refer Members to those reports for further 
details.  
 
We have now received nine written submissions from WTO Members. These submissions, together 
with any new  submissions received, will form the basis of our exploratory work over the next few 
meetings. These submissions have also been made available to all WTO Members.  
 
In general, discussions under the initiative have been positive, interactive and productive and have 
demonstrated a keen interest amongst participants in taking exploratory work forward. Additional 
meetings are planned for May, June and July. A thematic framework document has been circulated 
to all WTO Members to help organise our exploratory wor k for these coming meetings.  
  
I would like to emphasise that this initiative remains open to participation by any WTO Member 
that shares the objective of conducting exploratory work toward future WTO negotiations on trade -
related aspects of electronic com merce.  
 
10. Australia  
 
We join Switzerland and 36 other Members in expressing concern about increased trade tensions 
and the related risk for the multilateral trading system and world trade. This reflects our strong 
interest in protecting and preserving the multilateral trading system, with the WTO at its core.  
 
Australia is a strong supporter of free trade, and the role of the WTO. We want to ensure the WTO 
continues to be as effective, relevant and responsive to all Members' needs as we can make it.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 52 - 
 
  All int ernational organisations need to be constantly renewed and there is always scope for 
improvement – the WTO is no different – and for that reason we are supportive of discussions on 
improving WTO rules.  
 
We were pleased, for example, that many WTO Members d ecided at Buenos Aires to launch 
discussions with a view to negotiating new rules on e -commerce – to deal with the changes to the 
way international trade is occurring, and to what is being traded.  
 
But it is also timely to look across the existing range of  activities in the WTO to see where and how 
we can improve what we collectively do here. It is important that we look at all the issues that 
Members have frequently raised.  
 
For its part, Australia is open to addressing all issues – old and new, sensitive or not. This includes 
but is not limited to how and what Members notify; how we address the critically important issue 
of development; how we assess RTAs; and how we can negotiate better including through 
plurilaterals.   
 
As regards notification and trans parency obligations, we are interested in exploring how to 
increase compliance with WTO rules and look forward to further discussions on this important 
issue.  
 
We urge all Members to work within existing WTO frameworks to resolve disagreements – 
including through the use of the dispute settlement mechanism where appropriate.  
   
In Australia's view, a strong and effective WTO dispute settlement system remains vital to 
underpin the multilateral trading system. We underscore the importance of filling all current and 
future vacancies on the Appellate Body without delay.  
 
We are ready to explore options to address concerns that have been identified concerning the 
functioning of the dispute settlement system. It is time to commit to efforts to find positive, long-
term solutions to the matters before us.  
 
11. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  
 
At the outset, I would like to underline two important points that should be taken into account 
while we move forward in our work:  
 
First, the flow of trade was one of the main factors  that helped us to overcome the 2008 financial 
crises. A strong, healthy and dynamic multilateral trading system that is away from tensions will 
definitely strengthen certainty. This will help in increasing the flow of investments, promoting 
economic growt h, increasing employment, helping the stabilization of the capital market and the 
debt market and vice versa.  
 
Second, multilateral trade agreements are solid tools to attain more prosperity and sustainable 
development as far as they respond to changes an d development in the global trading system.  
 
The 11th Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires ended with modest outcomes. This was not 
surprising. The changes to the landscape and new geopolitical dynamics led to evolutions in 
Members' interests and positio ns on traditional negotiating issues, making it extremely difficult to 
make meaningful progress on them. To add to the complexities, a host of contemporary issues 
with impacts on global trade have emerged such as the rapid growth in e -commerce, the rise of  
global value chains, enhancing micro, small and medium -sized enterprises and investment 
facilitation which all pose new challenges to the world economy.  
 
However, more remains to be done to ensure that the WTO and its Members continue to engage to 
sustain  the momentum created by the Trade Facilitation Agreement and to build confidence in the 
multilateral trading system to bring global prosperity. The multilateral trading system is important 
for all Members.  
 
In this context, what is more worrying is not on ly the stalemate in the multilateral negotiation 
processes or the outcome of the Ministerial Conference but the credibility of the WTO as a WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 53 - 
 
  negotiating forum for trade agreements and as the only global international organization dealing 
with the rules of t rade between nations.  
 
We need to question ourselves about the capacity of the actual structures and procedures to fulfil 
the substantive goals of the organization and about the capability of the rule -making system to 
respond to the need for transparency, accountability and legitimacy. We also need to examine the 
readiness of the system to cope with new challenges such as technological innovation and new 
trade patterns.  
 
Moreover, we have to bear in mind that the coherence and the consistency of the WTO rel y on its 
capacity to adapt with the contemporary issues and challenges without neglecting the 
development dimension. These contemporary issues are closely linked to trade and development 
in today's global economy. They provide opportunities for businesses especially for developing and 
least developed countries to engage in global trade in a structured and meaningful way. We need 
to engage in further structured exploratory discussions with the aim of developing a multilateral 
framework on trade -related aspec ts of all these issues.  
 
In conclusion, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia stands ready to work constructively with WTO 
Members to guide the process of the multilateral trading system towards a more open, inclusive, 
balanced direction.  
 
12. Indonesia (G -33) 
 
I fully share the views that Members have to immediately resume post Buenos Aires Ministerial 
Conference work.  
 
I wish to reiterate the G -33's statement delivered in the previous informal TNC and HoDs meeting 
held on 5 March. It is the view of the Group t hat Members must continue their work based on 
Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture and existing mandates given by the Nairobi and 
preceding Ministerial Conferences.  
 
We would also like to reiterate 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 G -33. 
 
In this respect, the G -33 has taken good note of the statement of the CoA SS Chair delivered 
during the Formal CoA SS meeting held on  9 April to resume the work in CoA SS including to 
continue the Dedicated Sessions on Public Stockholding for Food Security Purposes and on the 
Special Safeguard Mechanism.  
 
In the consultations with the CoA SS Chair, the G -33 has given inputs on how thei r work needs to 
be done as well as the Group's priorities. In this connection, the G -33 would like to assure its 
readiness to be constructively engaged in this work.  
 
13. Indonesia  
 
Indonesia shares the views that despite the failure of the Buenos Aires Minist erial Conference to 
deliver concrete outcomes, the insufficient political guidance and the current political environment 
in this House, work in Geneva should immediately resume. Our efforts to do so will be of great 
contribution to the strengthening of an open, predictable and rules -based multilateral trading 
system embedded in the WTO.  
 
As we have stated in the last informal HODs meeting, we shall continue all of our work in Geneva 
based on the progress achieved so far. Members shall immediately take up u nfinished work from 
Bali, Nairobi and Buenos Aires based on the existing mandates given by Ministers.   
 
In this connection, allow me to commend the efforts initiated by the Chairman of the Negotiating 
Group on Rules to immediately start their work on the issue of Fisheries Subsidies. We understand 
the challenge to substantiate the Buenos Aires Ministerial Decision by adopting at the next 
Ministerial Conference an agreement on comprehensive and effective disciplines that prohibit 
certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to overcapacity and overfishing, and eliminate 
subsidies that contribute to illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 54 - 
 
  Based on the revised Work Programme that has been circulated to Members last month, Indonesia 
stands ready t o be constructively engaged in the discussion.  
 
For the new initiatives, Indonesia is of the view that Members should be open -minded in 
continuing the conversation with a view to deepen understanding. These initiatives should not be a 
departure from multi lateralism but a way to help and support it. In those efforts, development and 
special and differential treatment principles must remain at the centre of our work.  
 
On development, Indonesia is of the view that developmental elements have been integral par ts of 
various WTO Agreements with a view to, among others, assisting developing and LDC Members to 
reap equitable benefits from the multilateral trading system. Recognizing this issue has been 
currently perceived by some Members as a hurdle in many areas o f the negotiations. Indonesia 
suggests that Members need to intensify interaction to strike the right balance.  
 
In continuing their work, Indonesia believes that we shall continue to use an incremental and 
pragmatic approach in addressing various issues that Members, particularly developing and least -
developed ones, are confronting.  
 
Finally, please rest assured of  Indonesia's readiness to be actively and constructively engaged in 
the work of this House particularly in finding acceptable solutions that will be able to address 
everybody's interest and concerns.  
 
14. China  
 
During the past two months since the last TNC me eting, we have heard some news – good and 
bad. The good news is that trade growth in 2017 was very strong making the world merchandise 
trade the fastest trade expansion since 2011. Meanwhile, the forecast for the following two years 
is optimistic as well. In this regard, China will continue to play the role of the "bedrock" by 
promoting high standard liberalization and facilitation of trade and investment. We are ready to 
contribute more to the global trade and world economy.   
 
Nevertheless, there is bad n ews. Unilateralists and the protectionist measures taken by one major 
WTO Member are putting unprecedented stress to the rules -based multilateral trading system. 
Responding collectively to ensure the functional and effective operation of the organization 
becomes a pressing and most urgent matter for the moment. I will elaborate further tomorrow.  
 
Today, I would touch upon some of our regular work.  
 
On development, as far as I am concerned, the fundamental question for development is capacity 
divide. Devel oping countries should not be forced to follow the requirements of absolute reciprocity 
or disproportionate fairness but there is a huge capacity gap between developing and developed 
countries.  
 
Special and differential treatment provisions are written in  black and white in the WTO rulebook.  
They are not so -called "perks and advantages". They are rather the limited tools to fill the capacity 
gap and the necessary means for developing countries to exercise the right to develop the 
economy.  
 
As a fundamenta l right granted to all developing countries, each developing country should, based 
upon its own practical situation, make the decision by itself on whether, when, where and how to 
use special and differential treatment and to what extent as well. It is not  the right option that 
developing countries have to prove the case by themselves from the very beginning of 
negotiations through "case by case" method. The special and differential treatment right for 
developing countries will be watered down and diminishe d otherwise.  
 
On other Doha remaining issues, China's position stays unchanged.  
 
Regarding Agriculture, China calls upon Members to earnestly implement existing Ministerial 
instructions and mandates. Simply, it relates to the credibility of the WTO. Besid es, we echo the 
statement made by Indonesia on behalf of the G -33.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 55 - 
 
  A Work Programme for fishery subsidies has been worked out and what Members should do is to 
implement it in a pragmatic manner. In this regard, China's core interest is the prohibitive 
disciplines on IUU. Meanwhile, the negotiations should not lead to any implications on sovereignty, 
territoriality or maritime jurisdiction. And, two balances should be properly addressed during 
negotiations: one is between the sustainable development of fis hery resources and the economic 
development for developing countries while the other is between the level of ambition and 
implementing capacity for developing countries.  
 
At the same time, negotiations on trade remedies and the rules pillar will help to r esist 
protectionism particularly imperative against the current backdrop.  
 
In addition, domestic regulation is an important topic which has a clear multilateral mandate. We 
are open to the various forms of discussions and outreach with the aim of reaching  a multilateral 
outcome including the reinvigoration of discussions in the WPDR.  
 
On investment facilitation, e -commerce and MSMEs, the discussion should be a pro -multilateral 
process and developing countries' concerns should be fully taken into considerat ion at the 
beginning.  
 
We have had two open -ended meetings on investment facilitation recently and will continue the 
discussions in an open, transparent and inclusive manner throughout the year. I would like to take 
this opportunity to express our apprecia tion to the Secretariat's professional services and I 
encourage the Secretariat to continue to provide technical assistance to developing countries 
individually and collectively. On behalf of the Friends of Investment Facilitation for Development, I 
hereby  welcome Amb. Gonzalez of Colombia as the new coordinator of the Informal Dialogue on 
"Investment Facilitation for Development". I expect the discussion could make further progress 
with His Excellency's coordination and encourage more Members to participat e in this process.  
 
Regarding e -commerce, the discussion should focus on the facilitation of cross border e -commerce 
while properly addressing the challenges of digital divide and capacity building for developing 
countries. Tomorrow, the "Workshop on E -commerce for Development under the Multilateral 
Trading System" organized by the Chinese Government will open in Beijing. This workshop will 
explore how to advance economic and trade development for developing countries through 
electronic commerce within the framework of the multilateral trading system. We welcome senior 
diplomats and the capital officials attending this workshop. I believe they will gain a lot through 
the two -week seminars, study tours and the interactive activities among them, which, hopeful ly, 
will facilitate our development -orientated e -commerce discussion in Geneva.  
 
15. Benin (C -4) 
 
The C -4 associates itself with the statements made by the Central African Republic on behalf of the 
LDC Group, South Africa on behalf of the African Group, Malawi  on behalf of the ACP Group, and 
Indonesia on behalf of the G -33. 
 
The C -4 also thanks the Chairpersons of the Negotiating Bodies for their reports.  
 
The C -4 welcomes the appointment of Ambassador Ford as Chair of the Committee on Agriculture 
in Special Se ssion. We would like to congratulate Ambassador Ford and assure him of the C -4's 
cooperation in accomplishing his mission.  
 
The C -4 has taken good note of the recommendation made by the Director -General this morning 
on inviting WTO Members to take up the t ask and to redouble their efforts.  
 
In this regard and in anticipation of achieving results that will help millions of producers facing 
difficulties in several low -income countries, we would like to inform Members that the C -4 has 
initiated consultations w ith several negotiating partners on the Cotton issue upon returning from 
Buenos Aires. Good exchange was noted among the various delegations concerning the impact of 
subsidies and domestic support on the production and marketing of cotton and on the need t o 
work towards obtaining concrete, substantial and measurable results by MC12. The C -4 thanks all 
the partners for the cordial and fruitful exchanges we have had with them.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 56 - 
 
  The C -4 would like to stress that our post -Buenos Aires work on cotton will have t o achieve 
objectively and on a consensual basis the substantial reduction of domestic support that distorts 
the international trade in cotton, the scope of the application, the level of reduction and the timing 
of implementation of the commitments.  
 
Propos als should be based on statistical and commercial data updated through regular 
notifications.  
 
The social and economic importance of the cotton sector in the C -4 countries in particular and the 
cotton producing and exporting countries in Africa and the LDC s is well established. That is why 
the C -4 strongly hopes that the momentum that the Chair of the CoA  SS intends to bring to our 
negotiations will lead to positive results by the end of 2018. This is possible and we will have to 
work on it in accordance wi th the Hong Kong Ministerial Decision of 2005 to address the Cotton 
issue in a "specific, ambitious and timely manner".  
  
Under the development aspect of Cotton, the C -4 would like to recall that it has elaborated, with 
the support of the International Trade Centre, the "Cotton Route" Programme, which is a regional 
programme on value chain development in the cotton/textiles and other derivative sectors.  
 
The C -4 thanks the technical and financial partners who have announced their willingness to 
support t he implementation of the programme.  
 
We urge other partners to make known, as soon as possible, the type of assistance they plan to 
provide to the C -4. In this context, the Cotton Road Programme has an interesting potential for 
developing value chains and  job creation and the fight against poverty.  
 
I would like to take this opportunity to inform WTO Members that, at the invitation of the 
Government of Pakistan, a delegation composed of Ambassadors to Geneva and Experts from the 
C-4 Capitals, visited Pakis tan from 23 April to 6 May as part of a visit to exchange experiences 
with Pakistani technical structures in the cotton sector and textile production. It was a beneficial 
experience. The results of which will provide useful support for the efforts of the C -4 countries in 
the area of productivity improvement and cotton processing. The C -4 expresses its deep gratitude 
to the Government of Pakistan for this generous assistance and the spirit of partnership it had 
demonstrated.  
 
In conclusion, the C -4 wishes th e success of our work under the coordination of Ambassador Ford.  
 
16. Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs)  
 
I am making this statement in my capacity as General Coordinator of the Informal Working Group 
on MSMEs, made up 88 Members but open to participati on by the entire WTO Membership.  
 
At our last Heads of Delegation meeting in March, we announced that we were working on the 
preparation of a roadmap for 2018. As many of you will have learned, this work plan has already 
been approved. For this year, it is  planned to hold open working sessions on topics aimed at 
strengthening the participation of MSMEs in regional and world trade. A further objective is to 
explore possible areas of multilateral work of relevance to the WTO's competencies. In the next 
few da ys, the 2018 work plan will be available on an Internet page we are working on to 
disseminate, promote and increase the transparency of the Informal Working Group's activities.  
 
The first open working session on 27 March was devoted to transparency and acc ess to 
information. The results of the first session are reflected in two documents that have been 
circulated with the symbols JOB/GC/183 and JOB/GC/184.  
 
It is important to note that we shall be holding a technical meeting at the end of May on follow up 
to the interesting comments, observations and proposals made by Members at the above 
mentioned March meeting.  
 
I also wish to take the opportunity to inform Members that on 8 June we shall be holding a 
working session devoted to promoting access to trade fi nancing for MSMEs. The working session is 
being organized by Côte d'Ivoire, a member country of our Coordinating Committee.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 57 - 
 
  And lastly, before the summer recess, we shall also be holding a working session on reducing the 
costs of trade, logistics and orig in related procedures and requirements. This working session is 
being organized by Pakistan, another member of our Coordinating Committee.  
 
This last session of the half year will be held on 27 June to coincide with the United Nations 
International Day for  Micro, Small and Medium -Sized Enterprises.  
 
In conclusion, I would like to remind all those present that we have a Coordinating Committee for 
MSMEs made up of the following Members: Kingdom of Bahrain; El Salvador; Hong Kong, China; 
Côte d'Ivoire; Nigeria; Pakistan; Philippines; and Switzerland. All the Members I have mentioned 
are available to deal with queries on the work of our Informal Group and also to receive proposals, 
comments and observations, among others.  
 
Transparency is a basic principl e of the operating methods of the Informal Working Group on 
MSMEs. Let me repeat that our group is fully open to receiving new members and proposals for 
work and/or comments both from members of the Group and non -members.  
 
To conclude, allow me to express our agreement with what the Director -General said about the 
work of the informal working groups.  
 
In the case of MSMEs, the services that have been requested of the Secretariat have been 
provided in our capacity as Members, as was done in the past, either individually or by groups of 
Members. MSMEs are central to the economies of the developing countries, accounting for some 
90% of the units operating in these economies.  
 
Our Informal Group has two basic objectives: to inform Members and identify aspects th at could 
be the subject of future multilateral discussions in this Organization, if Members so decide.  
 
17. Uruguay  
 
I wish to express Uruguay's support for the statement made by the Ambassador of Switzerland, in 
his capacity as coordinator of the Friends of t he System Group. In this connection, Uruguay 
reiterates its commitment to the multilateral trading system and the dispute settlement system, in 
conformity with the multilateral rules that we have ourselves negotiated and approved.  
 
18. European Union  
 
First, a nd ahead of the discussion that we will have tomorrow at the General Council meeting, I 
would like to repeat the EU's grave concern about the recent trade actions of a WTO Member. 
Measures taken to protect domestic industries under the guise of a national security justification 
pose a major risk to the WTO and the multilateral trading system.  
 
The EU strongly believes in the need for all Members to comply with their commitments and to 
undertake actions strictly within the framework set up by the WTO agreem ent. The WTO 
agreement provides ample room to take justified measures in a legal and coherent manner as well 
as tools to resolve our differences.  
 
These developments add to the persisting crisis in the Appellate Body. The EU continues to attach 
the highes t priority to ensuring the smooth functioning of the WTO's dispute settlement system 
which is now being undermined by the blockage of new appointments to the Appellate Body.  
 
We are ready to have a conversation about the concerns about the Appellate Body,  but we first 
need clarity on what the issues are. And we also need to have clarity that this will lead to 
unblocking the appointments.  
 
In these tough circumstances, it is of utmost importance that we make progress in negotiations 
and work towards substan tive negotiated outcomes. In that regard, the EU would like to express 
its appreciation of the ongoing constructive discussions on various issues that groups of Members 
have placed more firmly on the agenda in Buenos Aires.  
 
It is indeed encouraging to see the broad participation of Members actively engaging in 
preparatory work as well as in actual negotiations under different formats. The willingness of WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 58 - 
 
  Members to take new approaches to advance negotiations shows the interest  of Members to 
develop new rules addressing today's trade issues.  
 
After the failure of MC11, the EU has been supportive of introducing further flexibility in the 
approach to negotiations to unblock the stalemate. The EU endorsed the joint statements in 
Buenos Aires and we will continue actively contributing to their implementation. We welcome the 
recent substantive discussions on e -commerce, domestic regulation in services and investment 
facilitation.  
 
We will be attentive that this plurilateral process remains open and supports the development of 
multilateral outcomes. In that respect, the broad participation of both developing and developed 
Members, including Members who had not initially endorsed the joint statements, is very positive 
and shows the leg itimacy of this approach.  
 
At the same time, the EU will continue to prioritise the traditional multilateral approach whenever 
this is possible. Work has now re -started on fisheries subsidies. The EU remains highly committed 
to an ambitious multilateral o utcome on fisheries subsidies. However, we should be mindful of the 
challenge ahead of us. If an outcome is to be achieved by MC12 as agreed in Buenos Aires, we 
need to focus and accelerate work in the coming weeks.   
 
Besides the negotiating and dispute s ettlement functions of the WTO, it is also critical for the 
future of the organization to reshape its monitoring, surveillance and deliberative function. The EU 
is willing to look into areas where we could improve the situation. While work on transparency is 
an obvious priority and we should endeavour that notifications are timely and contain the 
necessary information, we would also want to better tap the underutilised potential of WTO's 
regular councils and committees to address trade concerns.  
 
19. Honduras (IGDC except Israel)  
 
The IGDC notes with concern the recent rise in trade tensions. We expect that dialogue will prevail 
among WTO Members and we reiterate the importance of keeping markets open to achieve global 
growth.  
 
Within the current global trade e nvironment and the various challenges it entails, the need to 
demonstrate the importance of trade and the positive contribution it can make to economic 
growth, industrial development and global welfare has never been more pressing. Increasing trade 
protect ionism among trading partners will not help to restore the credibility of the WTO as the 
cornerstone of the multilateral trading system. We emphasize the importance of the contribution 
made by the multilateral trading system which has brought stability to the world economy. 
Likewise, we highlight the value of continuing the practice of making decisions through a 
transparent, inclusive and consensus -based process.  
 
The IGDC calls upon Members to work together to solve their differences while persevering and 
strengthening the multilateral trade system which is of particular value to the developing 
countries.  
 
20. Zimbabwe  
 
My delegation associates itself with the statements made by all the Groups to which it is a 
member.  
 
Today I will not elaborate on our prioriti es in the DDA negotiations as these are well -known. I will, 
however, make some remarks on three issues:  
 
Firstly, that development must remain central and should be an integral part of our negotiations 
and all future outcomes. To this end, negotiations on SDT should continue in line with the Doha 
mandate and Members should not attempt to dilute this nor re -define development in the WTO. 
Our work on development should translate to the promotion of industrialization and uplifting the 
standard of living in dev eloping countries such as our own.  
 
Secondly, we want to underscore that we should preserve a well -functioning, fair, transparent, 
inclusive and rules -based multilateral trading system. Members should respect the principles and WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 59 - 
 
  values of this multilateral trading system and avoid any attempt to erode its credibility. In that 
vein, delays in the selection of the Appellate Body members will weaken the dispute settlement 
system and thus destroy this credibility. I therefore call upon members to work towards co nsensus 
on the Appellate Body member selection.  
 
Finally, I would like to encourage Members to maintain the momentum that we have started to 
gather in our work in line with the previous mandates and Members' proposals.  
 
My delegation stands ready to play a  positive and inclusive role in the negotiations.  
 
21. Panama (Article XII Members)  
 
The Article 12 Group Members would like to thank the Director -General and the Chairs of 
Negotiating Groups for their efforts on revitalizing negotiations after the Ministerial  meeting. We 
envision 2018 as a year of dialogue and compromises amongst the entire WTO Membership to 
clarify our priorities and goals with the objective of strengthening the multilateral trading system.  
 
In this spirit, we would like to remind Members tha t during our accessions, the Article 12 Members 
made extensive commitments, significantly greater than those of the original WTO Members. For 
trade negotiations to result on a fairer, more balanced and inclusive trading system the original 
Members must und ertake trade commitments that will result in a level playing field vis-à-vis 
Article  12 Members.  
 
I take this opportunity to reiterate our group's commitment to a successful outcome in the ongoing 
negotiations.  
 
22. Singapore  
 
Multilateral Trading System  
 
Singapore is deeply concerned that emerging trade tensions have raised the spectre of a trade 
war. As a small economy heavily reliant on trade, Singapore emphasises the importance of 
maintaining an open, rules -based multilateral trading system. The imposition  of unilateral tariffs is 
not the solution for resolving trade disputes nor is a spiral into "tit -for-tat" measures. A trade war 
would gravely undermine the multilateral trading system that has underpinned global economic 
growth and development. All Member s, big and small, will be hurt. We urge that an 
accommodation be found to head off an escalation and for trade disputes to be resolved within the 
WTO framework.  
 
No system is perfect. We should redouble our collective efforts to build an even stronger and more 
effective multilateral trading system. Naturally, Members will also have to adjust with the times, 
and bring their respective national policies up to date to account for changing circumstances. The 
majors have greater responsibility to contribute towa rds the strengthening of the multilateral 
trading system. It also behoves the rest of the Membership to play their part.   
 
We welcome recent efforts by major economies to resolve their differences through dialogue and 
negotiations. We hope that these disc ussions will be constructive and lead to a lowering of 
tensions, greater stability, predictability, openness and freer trade.  
 
WTO Work  
 
We welcome the schedules of work for the upcoming months that were put forward recently in 
various areas such as fisheries, e -commerce and MSMEs. We will continue to engage in discussions 
of key interest to many Members, in particular, development, as well as on work in the WTO's 
regular committees including ongoing efforts to improve transparency and the notificatio ns record 
of Members. The impasse in the appointment of Appellate Body members is an issue of systemic 
concern that adversely affects the credibility and functioning of the WTO, and needs to be resolved 
expeditiously.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 60 - 
 
  23. Mexico  
 
We are very pleased to see th e broad level of participation in the meetings of the Joint Statement 
initiatives, not only by the signatory Members but also by some of the non -proponents. This is a 
clear demonstration of the Membership's interest in discussing and moving forward on thes e 
issues.  
 
As regards the negotiations to curb fisheries subsidies, we welcome the resumption of work aimed 
at meeting the commitment undertaken in Buenos Aires.  
 
The enthusiasm shown by Members must also be reflected in other spheres such as Agriculture, 
where there remains a substantial amount of work to be done on the reduction of domestic 
support and other matters concerning export competition not to mention that the last reduction of 
bound tariffs took place in 2005.  
 
We must be creative and must not r epeat, once again, the errors that we have been making in the 
last 15 years. What we need is new approaches that enable us to overcome our differences.  
 
The recent discussions in the General Council and in the informal Heads of Delegation meetings 
have bee n marked by red flags and constant calls to engage in dialogue and refrain from 
implementing protectionist measures. Time and time again, we have listened to a significant 
number of Members point out the risks of rising trade tensions for the multilateral trading system 
as a whole.  
 
While we recognize the legitimate interest of Members to defend their rights, the rules of this 
Organization, upon which we have all agreed, specify that it is solely and exclusively through the 
dispute settlement system that a measure can be found to be inconsistent with those same rules. 
It is the system itself that establishes in what form and in what amount any retaliation may occur.  
 
No one will benefit from a situation in which failure to respect the multilateral rules or a contrived 
interpretation of those rules becomes the natural way to act.  
 
In light of these circumstances, it is even more important to have a sound and functional dispute 
settlement system. The warnings repeatedly voiced by an increasingly large group of  Members at 
each Dispute Settlement Body meeting have now become a reality, as today we have only four out 
of the seven Appellate Body members. However, the situation may become even worse, 
considering the increase in appeals and hence the delays in the re ports, if we are unable to renew 
Mr Shree Servansing's mandate, which will expire at the end of next September.  
 
We call for the creation of conditions to restore the Appellate Body to operation and thereby 
ensure a healthy Dispute Settlement Body, which s hould be the priority for all of us. It is our 
collective responsibility to safeguard the integrity, functionality and relevance of our organization. 
Mexico once again reiterates its willingness to work on finding common areas that can facilitate our 
dialogue as trading partners.  
 
24. Trinidad and Tobago  
 
Trinidad and Tobago aligns itself with the statements made by Haiti on behalf of the Caribbean 
Community and Malawi on behalf of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States.  
 
We thank the Director -General for convening this meeting and his report. The delegation of 
Trinidad and Tobago also takes this opportunity to express our gratitude to the Chairpersons of the 
Negotiating Groups for their various report and their assessments of where we are in advancing 
the work of this Organization. Since we last met in this format, Members have been engaging in 
robust discussions in the various bodies of the World Trade Organization, and we urge all Members 
to continue forging ahead to ensure that we re alise our objectives and thereby secure gains for all 
our economies and peoples. As we stated in March of this year, the development dimension of 
work at the WTO remains of paramount importance to Trinidad and Tobago.  
 
In agriculture, my delegation is hear tened by the appointment of Ambassador John Deep Ford to 
Chair the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. We look forward to Members engaging WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 61 - 
 
  productively on this important area. Trinidad and Tobago particularly supports the continuation of 
agricultu re negotiations in the context of addressing the needs of Small, Vulnerable Economies.  
 
In the area of our Fisheries Subsidies negotiations, we have noted the tremendous work 
undertaken by the Chair, Ambassador Roberto Zapata, in the organization of a work  programme. 
We are optimistic that adherence to the approach outlined by the Chair combined with the positive 
efforts of all Members, will redound to our negotiations ending in a comprehensive agreement. My 
delegation reiterates that appropriate and effect ive special and differential treatment for 
developing country Members and least -developed country Members should be an integral part of 
the negotiations.  
 
Following the decision of Ministers in Buenos Aires to reaffirm their commitment to the Work  
Programm e on Small Economies, we look forward to participating in the next meeting of the 
Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade and Development. The Dedicated Session on 
"Reducing Trade Costs" will allow for a deeper exploration of the national experiences o f SVEs and 
the causes of trade costs. Trinidad and Tobago fully supports the continuation of work to address 
challenges small economies experience in their efforts to reduce trade costs, particularly in the 
area of trade facilitation.  
 
Trinidad and Tobago supports the view that the Doha Development Agenda should be completed 
before new issues are negotiated. It should be noted however that we view the nurturing of Micro, 
Small and Medium -sized Enterprises in the context of the multilateral system as being i mportant 
and therefore issues affecting the participation of MSMEs in the global economy should form some 
part of the WTO work programme. At this time, my delegation can commit to engaging in 
discussion on the issue. Similarly, on the issue of electronic c ommerce, Trinidad and Tobago can 
support initiatives that speak generally to the need to continue discussions on the work 
programme of E -Commerce.  
 
The Director -General can rest assured of my delegation's full cooperation and commitment to work 
constructiv ely with him and all Members to achieve further progress.  
 
25. Egypt  
 
At the outset Egypt would like to associate itself with the statement of the African Group.  
 
I would like to share the previous speakers in thanking the Director -General for his insightful 
report and the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups on the informative updates on the work 
undertaken and the current state of play in their respective areas of responsibility.  
 
Within the current pressing environment and the challenges and concerns that we ma y share, I 
believe it is timely crucial to reiterate the importance Egypt attaches to the multilateral trading 
system as a tool for developing countries to pursue their developmental goals and aspirations.  
 
In this vein, I would like to briefly address the  following issues:  
 
On Agriculture, we share the Membership's wide convergence on resuming negotiations with the 
mandate our Ministers gave in Nairobi on advancing the negotiations on all the remaining Doha 
issues including the three pillars of agriculture . 
 
A real reform is needed if we are to pursue the long term goal of "establishing a fair and market -
oriented agricultural trading system", in this regard, an outcome on domestic support that 
addresses the systemic imbalances between developing and developed countries should be a 
priority along with a permanent solution for public stockholding for food security purposes that 
covers current and new programs undertaken by developing countries as well as an effective easily 
applied special safeguard mec hanism that would enable developing countries to protect their small 
farmers from import surges and international price volatility.  
 
And above all, S&D shall be an integral part of any outcome on agriculture. LDCs and NFIDCs 
should be exempt from any furth er commitments given the sensitivity of food security issues for 
these countries.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 62 - 
 
  On fisheries subsidies, Egypt is committed to implementing Sustainable Development Goal 14.6 to 
prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies which contribute to overcapacit y and overfishing and 
eliminate subsidies that contribute to IUU fishing.  
 
We believe that the ongoing and future negotiations shall identify the scope of applying the 
targeted provisions. The scope should be clearly determined to ensure that subsidy prohi bitions do 
not apply to aquaculture fisheries activities and waters under national jurisdiction.  
 
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; the 
institutional and financial constrains confronting most developing countries; flexibility to implement 
any outcome; and preservation of policy space to develop fisheries sector and industries in future.  
 
On development, we nee d to maintain the centrality of development in our work at the WTO to 
achieve the integration of the developing country Members and the LDCs in the multilateral trading 
system. We have Members at very different levels of development. The rules therefore ne ed to 
provide policy space with a view to enabling each developing country to formulate adequate 
policies that help in realizing the desired development.  
 
Completing the Doha Development Agenda would help restore confidence in markets as well as 
represent a powerful statement by Members of the world trading system of their commitment to 
an open global economy and to achieve sustainable development. We need to exert more 
collective efforts in good faith to achieve progress at the CTD SS.  
 
To conclude, we str ess once again our full readiness to engage with all Members to move the 
negotiations forward towards an outcome that would address our developmental needs and 
aspirations.  
 
26. India  
 
India associates itself with the statement of Indonesia on behalf of the G -33. We also support the 
statement of Switzerland on behalf of 38 countries in support of the multilateral trading system.  
 
Mini Ministerial  
 
India organized an Informal WTO Ministerial Meeting in New Delhi on 19 -20 March 2018 which was 
attended by 52 deleg ations and the Director -General of the WTO. The objective of the meeting 
was to facilitate a candid discussion to chart a way forward for the WTO. The concluding remarks 
issued by the Chair, the Indian Commerce and Industry Minister, on his own responsibil ity are on 
the WTO website. Let me, however, in the interest of transparency, briefly summarise the 
discussions at the meeting for the benefit of the larger Membership.  
 
• In almost all interventions Members emphasised the need to preserve and enhance the 
functioning and credibility of the rules based multilateral trading system as embodied in 
the WTO.  
 
• Almost all participants sought expeditious and immediate resolution of the impasse in 
the appointment of Appellate Body members – an issue which was viewed as adversely 
affecting the credibility and functioning of the organization.  
 
• Many Members expressed deep concern at the serious threat posed to the credibility of 
the WTO and some of its cardinal principles by the recent cycle of unilateral trade 
measures and proposed counter measures.  
 
• A need for preserving the Special and Differential Treatment for all developing countries 
and LDCs in future trade negotiations was emphasised by many, while others suggested 
new ways forward.  
 
• In many interventions Members  emphasised the importance of achieving progress on the 
Doha issues especially agriculture, fisheries subsidies and domestic regulation in services 
while seeking to address the differences on the basis of pragmatic and flexible options.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 63 - 
 
  • In many interventio ns it was emphasised that open, transparent and inclusive 
discussions within the joint initiatives by the proponents of issues such as Electronic 
Commerce, Investment Facilitation, Gender, MSME etc., would deepen the 
understanding of issues and benefit all  Members. However, this was questioned in some 
other interventions, wherein it was reiterated that all negotiations at the WTO must 
follow the fundamental principle of multilateralism and that any other approach 
represents a threat to the multilateral trad ing system.   
• The meeting recognized that greater engagement was the only way forward and almost 
all participants recognized the collective responsibility of the Membership to address the 
challenges facing the system.  
 
Let me now put forward our views on s ome of the important issues before us.  
 
Agriculture  
  
Agriculture is an issue of core interest to a large part of the Membership. We hope that agriculture 
negotiations on disciplining the most trade distorting form of domestic support, namely, the 
complete  flexibility on applying the AMS beyond de minimis  will soon begin. However, proposals 
treating the trade distorting subsidies of developed countries at par with the subsistence subsidies 
of developing countries, including those with zero AMS beyond de min imis, will be a non -starter.  
 
Similarly, the work on obtaining a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security for 
all developing countries and LDCs has been mandated by the Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial 
decisions and the GC Decision of N ovember 2014 and should there fore remain a priority in our 
agriculture work programme. It will signal WTO's commitment to the UN Sustainable Development 
Goals 1 and 2, and the fight against hunger and malnourishment across the globe.  
 
Market access issues are unlikely to make headway on their own if the DS negotiations are not 
moving in a meaningful manner. There has always been a 'sequencing' even within the Agriculture 
pillars. The farmers of developing countries can compete with farmers in developed coun tries but 
they cannot compete with the might of their treasuries.  
 
There should be regular meetings of the CoA SS and dedicated sessions on PSH & SSM with at 
least two meetings before the summer break.  
 
E-Commerce  
 
India welcomes the MC11 decision reaffirming the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic 
Commerce. As per the decision, let us endeavour to reinvigorate the Work Programme.  
 
While e -commerce has created new and exciting trade and investment opportunities, it also poses 
new infrastructure and re gulatory challenges which need to be addressed first. These include: 
classification issue as to whether e -commerce should be treated as trade in goods or services; to 
what extent the existing WTO rules apply to the digital economy; fiscal implications of e -
commerce; the moratorium and definition of electronic transmissions; impact of e -commerce on 
competition and market structures; need for bridging the digital divide.  
 
We therefore need to understand first the exact nature of electronic trade by discussing  these 
issues in the regular bodies. We are convinced that at this juncture when these technologies are 
still evolving, we must refrain from endeavouring to arrive at legally binding disciplines.  
 
It is the common responsibility of all Members to reinvigo rate the 1998 multilateral work 
programme on e -commerce. In case the work programme is abandoned, the e -commerce 
moratorium will die as well.  
 
Services  
 
In the area of services, in the run up to MC11, India has constructively engaged on domestic 
regulation s. We offered textual suggestions which factored in the concerns of many developing 
countries. Going forward, we will continue to engage with Members to develop rules on domestic 
regulations in services as per the mandate of GATS Article VI:4. However, for  this, the WPDR WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 64 - 
 
  should be the forum as it is the only mandated body to negotiate such disciplines. We do not 
support discussions on domestic regulations elsewhere.  
 
It is also of vital importance to simultaneously address entry related measures for moveme nt of 
professionals. In this context, we would like the Membership to seriously consider measures for 
trade facilitation in services focused primarily on Mode IV alongside the negotiations for disciplines 
on domestic regulations.   
 
Joint Ministerial State ments  
 
We are witnessing a new trend in Geneva in the form of the joint initiatives in some areas.  
Though proponents say these plurilateral discussions are a stepping stone to multilateral 
agreements, we do not see the logic of having such discussions out side the WTO for e -commerce 
and domestic regulations in services where a multilateral mandate exists.   
 
India has also, on several occasions, explained its reservations on the introduction of new issues 
such as Investment Facilitation and MSME in the WTO until issues under the Doha Work 
Programme are addressed.   
 
Role of the Secretariat  
 
Let me also mention that as laid down in the Marrakesh Agreement, the primary role of the WTO 
Secretariat is to support and strengthen the multilateral track. Therefore, the limited resources of 
the Secretariat should remain focused on mandated issues and exis ting areas of work in the WTO. 
We urge the Secretariat to accord priority to the work of the regular bodies and negotiating groups 
over the Joint Statement Groups whi ch are only informal groupings. In this spirit India reiterates 
its request to the Secretariat to update the Mode 4 submission before the CTS.   
 
DSB  
 
India remains extremely concerned about the current impasse in filling vacancies in the AB, its 
effect on the credibility of the WTO and, more fundamentally, the multilateral trading system. If 
this is not resolved we all know what the end result will be. The AB will wither away and the 
dispute settlement system will be rendered weak and ineffective so that trade rules can be violated 
with impunity through unilateral measures.   
 
We agree that there is a need for filling gaps and reforming the DSU and we ha ve pointed this out.  
Therefore, if Members explain the problems they perceive and offer specific solutions to address 
them, we are willing to engage constructively. However, filling vacancies in the AB cannot be held 
hostage to such reforms.  
 
Unilateral M easures  
 
India expresses its deep concern on the unilateral trade policy measures applied on steel and 
aluminium products by one Member. We strongly believe that this raises a systemic issue. Such 
unilateral measures, on the grounds of security exceptions,  are an open and blatant abuse of the 
WTO provisions. The security exception clause should not become a proxy instrument for applying 
a global safeguard in an opaque manner, and breaching bound tariff commitments made at the 
WTO.   
 
Such unilateral action is bound to have a significant adverse impact on the rules -based multilateral 
system and will prompt other Members to take retaliatory and counter measures. This has a clear 
risk of spiralling into a trade war. There are other, legitimate ways for Members to obtain 
concessions from their trading partners.  
 
Development  
 
On the critical issue of trade and development, we are of the firm view that the special and 
differential treatment provisions for all developing countries and LDCs are an integral part of t he 
WTO Agreement and this principle would need to be protected in all future agreements as well. 
Therefore, any approach based on selection, like the so -called 'case -by-case' approach to granting 
special and differential treatment to developing countries i s unacceptable.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 65 - 
 
  Conclusion  
 
To conclude, India believes that the WTO is in a crisis. The principles of multilateralism and non -
discrimination are under attack and Members are reneging from their commitments. Each new 
day, the system suffers a fresh blow. W e believe the WTO and the rules based system is like 
oxygen. When it is there, you take it for granted, but once it is gone, we will all struggle to 
survive. We therefore need to urgently re -establish mutual trust and work to restore the primacy 
of the rul es-based system before it is too late.   
 
27. Ecuador  
 
This meeting takes place at a time when we are witnessing measures recently adopted by 
Members of this organization which could adversely affect the global economy. We firmly believe 
that the measures anno unced should be lifted and, through frank discussions and transparent 
negotiations, abandoned because of their potential impact on a great many actors, chiefly small 
and vulnerable economies.  
 
We continuously refer to the link between development and trade , and in this connection it should 
be recalled that Target 2 of the Sustainable Development Goals, a set of objectives to which all 
countries have committed, explicitly mentions the elimination of agricultural subsidies, in 
accordance with the mandate of t he Doha Development Round.  
 
Reform of the agricultural sector has been one of the multilateral trading system's pledges to the 
developing countries since before the Uruguay Round, but it has failed to materialize.  
 
Our commitments in a variety of areas suc h as services and intellectual property were undertaken 
in the hope of achieving agricultural reform, but the scope of the Uruguay Round outcomes did not 
meet expectations.  
 
Turning to the negotiations on fisheries subsidies, we welcome the efforts made to  initiate and 
adopt the work programme up to this coming July, which already provides a good basis for 
pursuing our work over the second half of this year. Pursuant to the mandate set forth in the 
Buenos Aires Decision, discussions will take into account s pecial and differential treatment in the 
establishment of an agreement on comprehensive and effective disciplines aimed at eliminating 
subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, as well as overfishing and overcapacity. 
We should however add  that it is our hope that the interest shown in addressing these areas will 
extend to the agriculture negotiations.  
 
Ecuador believes that the paragraph 44 mandate of the Doha Development Agenda, which 
provides for the strengthening of special and differen tial treatment provisions in such a way as to 
make them more precise, effective and operational, remains entirely valid and should be observed. 
S&D treatment is central to the multilateral trading system and part of its very conception; it is not 
something  incidental or that may be applied selectively. In this connection, it is worth recalling an 
important precedent, namely the Havana Charter, which 70 years ago stipulated that international 
action should "foster and assist industrial and general economic d evelopment, particularly of those 
countries which are still in the early stages of industrial development".  
 
Furthermore, the multilateral trading system is based both on compliance with the rules governing 
this Organization and on an efficient dispute set tlement system. The dispute settlement system is 
a central element in providing security and predictability, and we therefore reiterate our position 
that it is the responsibility of the Membership to initiate, as soon as possible, the appointment 
process t o fill the vacancies that have arisen in the Appellate Body. This is an obligation that has 
been outstanding for several months now, which may cost us dearly in terms of its repercussions. 
We must not forget that my country bore first hand witness to the i mportance of the system in the 
memorable bananas dispute.  
 
With regard to e -commerce, at the last Ministerial Conference, Members agreed to reinvigorate our 
work on the basis of the 1998 Work Programme and the reports submitted by existing bodies. This 
decision should be observed and applied without any need to change the current system or create 
new institutions. It should be recalled that the Marrakesh Agreement requires consensus among 
Members to add a plurilateral agreement to Annex 4.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 66 - 
 
  28. Norway  
 
As highl ighted by Switzerland in the joint statement, which Norway co -sponsors, and by most 
delegations this morning, this is a challenging time for international trade and the multilateral 
trading system. Trade tensions are on the rise. There is an increase in tr ade measures. Further 
escalation in an uncontrolled manner is a risk, which the Director -General also pointed out this 
morning.  
 
Norway’s primary concern is that increased protectionism would have a damaging effect on the 
multilateral trading system. Norw ay is also worried about risks of increased instability in the world 
economy, which may hamper the prospects for global economic growth.  
 
We are concerned about recent reporting over alleged negotiations aimed at granting individual 
country exemptions to steel and aluminium tariffs, at the cost of agreeing to voluntary export 
restraints or similar measures on the export or import side.  
 
It is of crucial importance that all WTO Members respect their rights and obligations according to 
the multilateral trad ing system.  
 
The principles of non -discrimination, bound commitments and a rules based system of dispute 
settlement are timeless. The WTO is not perfect, but it is an irreplaceable cornerstone of the rules 
based global economic architecture.   
 
All WTO Me mbers need to continue to work together to improve the organization and tackle the 
different challenges facing the WTO today, including the need to fill all current and future 
vacancies on the Appellate Body without delay.   
 
WTO Members should also engage  in open discussions on trade and development, which is a 
crosscutting gateway issue. To look more closely at country -specific challenges to assess whether 
trade rules have contributed to or hindered development, could help us find a way forward 
together. As the Chair of the Negotiating Group stressed this morning we need fresh approaches.  
 
Norway looks forward to next week's meetings on fisheries subsidies. Overcapacity and overfishing 
are important parts of SDG 14.6 and we appreciate that substantive wor k picks up from here.   
 
We also look forward to discussing the way forward in other areas of work such as agriculture, 
services, NAMA as well as trade and environment.  
 
Norway has taken part in different meetings under the joint initiatives from Buenos Aires. We 
believe useful work has started under the initiatives and appreciate their open, inclusive and 
transparent nature. Norway encourages all interested Members to tak e part in these discussions.   
 
Finally, commenting a bit on what the Director -General mentioned this morning, we appreciate the 
technical and analytical support we all receive from the Secretariat. Each Member or group of 
Members has a right to request as sistance from the Secretariat be it in the form of background 
papers or facilitation of meetings. No one should prevent others from getting help from the 
Secretariat, which clearly fulfils its role in a neutral and impartial way. We have full confidence in  
the Director -General and the Secretariat in this respect.   
 
29. Russian Federation  
 
During the informal WTO Ministerial gathering in New Delhi, a need to preserve and enhance the 
functioning and credibility of the rules -based multilateral trading system, as embodied in the WTO, 
was strongly emphasized. But if we really want the WTO to stay relevant and maintain its 
centrality in the world trade, we need to face up the problems before us.  
 
In recent weeks, we have witnessed the adoption of unilateral trade me asures by a major WTO 
Member. We consider such actions to be an utmost aggressive form of protectionism. We urge the 
US Administration to abide by the WTO rules.  
 
Russia believes that the organization needs to respond adequately to the negative phenomena i n 
the global trade environment. I reiterate that it is our task to provide predictability and security.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 67 - 
 
  In these circumstances, it will not be an easy task to advance in multilateral negotiations. 
However, we should not remain contemplators. We need to pri oritize the important issues, place 
them on parallel tracks with clear output parameters, set timelines and dedicate resources. The 
Russian Federation is ready to explore, together with other Members, those areas that have a high 
potential of reaching cons ensus. In my personal assessment of negotiations, I would like to make 
the following comments.  
 
The first moves within fisheries subsidies negotiations under the leadership of Ambassador Zapata 
and the adoption of the detailed Group's Work Programme raise hopes that Members are ready to 
get into substantive and constructive discussions without further delay. Much has to be done, and 
a lot of flexibility will be required. In parallel, we remind about the importance of other Rules 
pillars, such as trade remed ies. 
 
Russia welcomes the appointment of Ambassador Ford as CoA SS Chair. We call for a prompt 
resumption of substantial negotiations on agriculture. In our view, the first thing to do should be 
to establish a clear roadmap and calendar of meetings. While recognizing the importance of 
regular work, we strongly believe that it cannot substitute negotiations on this track. In this 
respect, we welcome technical discussions on different issues related to agriculture.  
 
The issue of MSMEs needs more analysis with in the WTO framework in order to seek the best way 
forward. In this respect, we praise the first thematic session on a ccess to information held on 
27 March.  
 
On the investment facilitation process, we would like to welcome a new coordinator, Ambassador 
Juan Carlos Gonzalez. This is a challenging yet rewarding role, since the joint initiative that was 
launched at MC -11 would be beneficial for all of us. The last meeting of the structured discussions 
reaffirmed Members’ interest in this topic. From Russia's p erspective, let me confirm our 
willingness to explore the issue further and to move the work towards substance.  
 
We welcome the resumption of text -based discussions on disciplines on domestic regulation in 
services. We highly appreciate that the negotiatio ns are being conducted in an open, transparent 
and inclusive manner. Russia expects that other Members will join the process and that a 
multilateral agreement in this area will be reached.  
 
On e-commerce, we take note of a successful meeting organized jointly by Australia, Singapore 
and Japan. We welcome Members’ participation and engagement. The Russian Federation has also 
contributed to the discussion by circulating our proposals on structuring the process. We 
understand that it is a challenging task yet we believe that through open -minded approach we will 
be able to reach common understanding on the issue.  
 
To conclude, Russia is ready to work to find common ground in order to facilitate a dialogue as 
between partners rather than trade enemies and to ensure the integrity and relevance of our 
organization and the multilateral trading system.  
 
30. Cuba  
 
Inasmuch as the statement we made on 5 March of this year remains wholly valid today, we will 
not be repeating the positions it reflected. I would, however, like to expand on some of the ideas it 
contained in light of recent developments and of today's discussions.  
 
To begin with, we would highlight the S&D negotiations within the Committee on Trade and 
Development. The S&D principle forms an integral part of the organization's multilateral 
agreements and cannot be subject to reinterpretation. On the contrary, it must always form part 
of each outcome we achieve through specific provisions. Mention has been made of the case by 
case approach, which, from what we know about it thus far, we do not consider acceptable. We 
wish to give early warning of the fact that we will not subject ourselves to scrutiny or to a process 
similar to that of granting an exemption. Development inequalities exist between developing and 
developed countries. They are to be found at many levels and are highlighted by specific 
indicators. A process whereby we would have to justify our situation would be unfair, and a far cry 
from the development dimension that forms part of the organization' s multilateral rules.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 68 - 
 
  Another thing we have been observing in recent months is that we are far from focusing on 
consensual, multilateral negotiation, which is one of our organization's main purposes pursuant to 
the Marrakesh Agreement. What we are seeing,  on the contrary, is a proliferation of plurilateral 
meetings, some clearly at odds with the established multilateral mandate, and others taking place 
outside the agreed forum. In our view, such an approach cannot lead to multilateralism or uphold 
the prin ciple of consensus when, from the outset and by its very nature, it is taking us in a 
different direction. We consider it appropriate – and in this we support the proposal by South 
Africa – to initiate a discussion on the scope of the support being provide d by the Secretariat in 
this regard.  
 
We would reiterate that we are in a multilateral organization, whose work, no matter how complex 
and challenging, needs to be focused on the mandates collectively agreed upon by consensus. We 
are not in favour of pluri lateralism, particularly within this organization. As if this were not enough, 
we are going through a negative period with the application of unilateral trade measures that are 
opposed by a large number of Members including my delegation.  
 
The Doha mandate s, as the negotiating path chosen by consensus, remain valid. The bodies 
entrusted with those mandates must resume their work as soon as possible, basing themselves on 
the technical expertise acquired over all the previous years. We are not looking for new  mandates 
or suggestions that deviate from what is already in place, particularly in the areas of Agriculture 
and S&D, where we observe a number of incipient attempts to that end.  
 
The principle of consensus must remain a pillar of the multilateral process es under way within the 
organization and we need to recognize that the so called new topics or plurilateral initiatives do not 
follow that principle.  
 
In conclusion, we endorse the statements made by Malawi on behalf of the ACP Group, and by 
Indonesia on b ehalf of the G -33. 
 
31. Canada  
 
We support the joint statement made by Switzerland on behalf of Canada and 36 other Members. 
We echo the concerns about the recent rise in trade tensions and encourage Members to take 
advantage of the WTO as a forum for construc tive dialogue and avoid escalation of protectionist 
measures.  
 
We are encouraged that work has picked up after MC11 across a wide range of areas. However, 
while encouraged by the scope and pace of work, we will not be judged by how busy we are but 
rather by what we accomplish – and we have a lot to do.   
 
I would like to take the opportunity today to share with you what Canada sees as the key areas 
and issues moving forward:   
 
First, agriculture has been, and will continue to be, Canada's number one priority at the WTO. 
Reform in this area would not only address long -standing interests of agricultural producers 
around the world, but would contribute to the overall functioning of  this organization. I encourage 
all Members to support the new Chair in moving work forward in this area.   
 
We also remain committed to negotiating disciplines on harmful fisheries subsidies. We must fulfil 
the reaffirmed mandate from our Ministers at MC1 1 and our Leaders in Agenda 2030.  
 
However, Canada, like other Members, recognizes that we must look beyond traditional areas of 
trade policy if we are to ensure the continued relevance and credibility of this organization. In this 
respect, we are very en couraged by the progress made in support of the joint initiatives from 
MC11 in recent months. Canada has been an active participant in discussions on women's 
economic empowerment, e -commerce, MSMEs, services domestic regulation and investment 
facilitation.   
 
In particular, I am pleased to note that Canada hosted the first event in support of the Joint 
Declaration on Women and Trade, on the topic of trade and gender based analysis, on 16 March.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 69 - 
 
  All of these initiatives have been held in an open and transpa rent manner and are consistent with 
the overall goals of the WTO: a predictable, open, and transparent rules -based system.  
 
It is worth reminding ourselves that the GATT has a long history of such approaches; building 
gradual support for new rules ultimat ely led to the successful formation of the WTO. We have 
continued with this tradition with the WTO's plurilateral agreements. It would be a detriment to 
this organization to lose the flexibility to address the interests of its Members and their 
stakeholder s. 
 
We agree with the statement made by Norway with respect to the Secretariat's function as an 
unbiased resource for all Members.  
 
On the topic of addressing modern trade policy issues, we believe that it is past time for us, as 
Members of the WTO, to tak e stock of what this organization does and what we collectively want it 
to do. We need to closely examine all aspects of our work.   
 
First, we need to ensure that our regular committee work is relevant and well informed. Most 
notably, we need to be better  at meeting our notification obligations to allow the committees to be 
effective.   
 
On the negotiating front, I have already touched on the subject matter – while Canada continues 
to believe that there are some longstanding issues that need to be addresse d – for Canada the 
most important of these are disciplines on domestic support for agriculture and disciplines on 
subsidies to the fisheries sector. But, just as important, there are more recent issues that we need 
to address. But we have to be innovative – if we return to the negotiating room and try to 
negotiate solutions using the same methods and positions as we have used for the last 20 years, 
we are doomed to fail. This will mean fresh approaches and, importantly, this will require 
compromises by all Members.  
 
With respect to dispute settlement, there are many issues that need to be addressed. These issues 
did not suddenly appear but rather have built -up over the last 24 years and we need to address 
them if we are to maintain a functioning dispute set tlement process and we need to start 
addressing these issues now.   
 
However, we are concerned that the Appellate Body selection process remains at a stalemate. We 
are disappointed that the United States has linked the start of the Appellate Body selection  
processes to the resolution of concerns that it has raised in respect of rule 15 of the Procedures for 
Appellate Review and other concerns with the dispute settlement process.  
 
Many Members, including Canada, have expressed a willingness to work to addre ss the concerns 
that the United States has conveyed and we encourage the United States to bring forward ideas to 
resolve these issues and engage with the Membership on a solutions -based discussion. We have 
heard what the US views the problems to be. We nee d to know how it thinks these problems can 
be addressed.  
 
Lastly, but most importantly, is the issue of trade and development. Members started an important 
conversation at MC11 on this issue and we are encouraged that informal discussions on this have 
continued, with a diversity of views expressed. The way forwar d may be unclear, but it is 
important that we continue to work together to come to a clear understanding of this key 
fundamental issue for the WTO. We encourage all Members to consider with an open mind how to 
address fundamental questions around the impac t of trade rules on development and the 
appropriate role of special and differential treatment in the development and the application of 
trade rules.  
  
In conclusion, Canada remains committed to upholding the rules -based multilateral trading system 
and wi ll engage constructively with Members on these and other issues.  
 
32. Brazil  
 
The usual focus of statements at the TNC/HoDs is the negotiating agenda. Today, however, as we 
have seen in a number of statements, other issues seem to demand our attention.  
  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 70 - 
 
  We al l know the facts. The multilateral trading system is facing existential challenges.  
 
In Brazil's statement at the TNC/HoDs in March, we highlighted that these are not normal times 
and that the preservation and strengthening of the system should be our imme diate priority.  
 
Developments since March have only reinforced this perception. Therefore, Brazil wishes to 
suggest four elements for us to respond to the present crisis.  
 
First, we should all support the Director -General's repeated call, on all of us, to  refrain from 
additional actions that are WTO -incompatible and might lead to an escalation in trade frictions and 
further damage to the system.  
 
Second, we must address the urgent crisis in the Appellate Body. It is crucial to launch the 
selection process to fill the vacancies without delay.  
 
In parallel, Brazil is ready to engage in discussions on any specific concerns about its functioning. 
But we invite interested Members to present concrete ideas on how to address such concerns.  
 
Brazil also believes t hat as long as a systemic, permanent solution to the present crisis remains 
elusive it will be necessary to explore temporary, alternative options within the DSU framework to 
deal with the risk of a paralysis in the AB.  
 
Third, there is no escaping the fa ct that some Members have critical views on our current rules. 
One major developed Member has been more vocal in this regard. Also, many developing 
countries have been critical of the Uruguay Round.  
 
We cannot ignore these facts. This is why we suggest th at Members should be open to engage in 
frank discussions, in the appropriate bodies and committees, about any specific proposals that 
have been, or may be presented regarding the rules -based system.  
 
However, such discussions are only going to be meaningful and productive if we see, on the part of 
all Members, a continuous recommitment to this organization and to its foundational principles.  
 
Fourth and lastly, despite all the unfavourable circumstances, we must re -launch the negotiating 
pillar.  
 
Realistically, we do not anticipate ground -breaking outcomes in the near future. But even modest 
and incremental results would once again demonstrate how much this organization can continue to 
contribute to global prosperity.  
 
Also, engagement in negotiati ons has a value in itself.  
 
Brazil has three immediate priorities: agriculture particularly cotton and domestic support, 
fisheries subsidies and development issues particularly the concerns of LDCs.  
 
On agriculture, the least we expect at this moment is th at all Members support the new CoA SS 
Chair in his efforts to relaunch discussions. We still regret that Members never really engaged in 
real discussions on domestic support and cotton in the run -up to MC11 despite all the efforts by 
the previous CoA SS Ch air and many delegations.  
 
In fisheries subsidies, we must fulfil the only substantive multilateral mandate adopted in Buenos 
Aires.  
 
Regarding development, we take good note of the view of a number of developed Members that 
new approaches on the scope of S&D treatment in WTO disciplines are indispensable to unlock the 
doors to future agreements.  
 
Brazil is open to discussions. But we are sceptical that this issue can be dealt with in isolation 
from, or in any kind of sequencing in relation to other areas of negotiation. In any case, and 
without prejudice to the possibility of considering new approaches, S&D should continue to be part 
of negotiating balances.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 71 - 
 
  Finally, Brazil is also engaged in the discussions launched by the Buenos Aires Joint Ministerial 
Declarations. Even though we approach each one of the four processes with different levels of 
priority, we do believe that they all are important for the future of this organization.  
 
33. Iceland  
 
We note with appreciation their efforts in moving our important  negotiations forward and we look 
forward to participate in upcoming meetings.  
 
Iceland is one of the co -sponsors of the communication introduced by Switzerland regarding the 
importance of well -functioning, rules based multilateral trading system.  
 
Iceland  is a long -standing strong supporter of the international trade regime, embodied in the 
WTO. A well -functioning system is a common good, one we must actively care for and nourish if 
we are to continue reaping its benefits.  
 
It is of considerable concern to  witness protectionist tendencies, undermining the system and we 
urge Members to continue to respect and protect our common trade regime.  
 
An integral part of the system is the WTO dispute settlement mechanism. In order for this 
important tool to function  effectively, all its vacancies must be filled, and we encourage Members 
to contribute effectively to this end.  
 
We look forward to continue working with Members in ensuring a well -functioning, rules -based 
multilateral trading system.  
 
34. Hong Kong, China  
 
If the first quarter of 2018 – marked by two Informal Ministerial Gatherings – was predominantly a 
period of reflection, then I would say the second quarter is a period of renewed ambition.  
 
Since March, consultations and meetings have been driving negotiati ons in fisheries and 
agriculture while frank exchanges have been made to address the important issue of development. 
At the same time, like -minded Members have started substantive discussions to turn their Buenos 
Aires joint statements into concrete action s. 
 
Hong Kong, China is encouraged by this development. We are constructively engaged, in particular 
in our priority areas such as domestic regulation, e -commerce, investment facilitation and MSMEs.  
 
MC11 might be a disappointment for many Members but acti on did not stop at there. A couple of 
months on, here we are again, paving the way for more tangible achievements, and steadily 
building up the momentum.  
 
I believe that one crucial factor which keeps Members going is their trust in, and commitment to, 
the multilateral trading system.  
 
Hong Kong, China, as a free trader, never doubted the value of this system because we have seen 
for ourselves how it has helped create a more open, transparent and predictable trading 
environment and how it has brought about economic benefits that everyone could share.  
 
If we want the multilateral trading system to continue to deliver, we must preserve and strengthen 
it. 
 
It will be self -defeating to try to forge new agreements, but at the same time undermine the 
existing ones. That would be like trying to build on a platform while pulling at the pilings below.  
That would not work.  
 
For the integrity of the multilateral trading system, Members must stand firm against trade 
measures that are inconsistent with WTO agreements . We must keep unilateralism and 
protectionism at bay.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 72 - 
 
  Also, one cannot expect the system to function as normal if a key component of it is becoming 
paralysed. Immediate action must therefore be taken to fill the vacancies in the Appellate Body.  
 
Supporti ng the multilateral trading system is the shared responsibility of all WTO Members. We 
can only do so if we work together in good faith. At a time when the WTO is facing major 
challenges, the need for cooperation is even stronger. It does not help if trade  wars are looming in 
the background.  
 
Along with almost 40 other Members, Hong Kong, China has co -sponsored the communication read 
out by Switzerland this morning expressing concern about the current situation.  
 
Hong Kong, China appeals to all the parties concerned to exercise restraint, avoid risks of 
escalating trade tensions, resolve differences through dialogue and act strictly in accordance with 
WTO rules.  
 
Before passing on the floor, I would like to speak briefly on an issue raised by some Members 
today about the involvement of the Secretariat in joint statement initiatives.  
 
Hong Kong, China has signed up to a number of these initiatives. They are open to all Members 
and aim at producing multilateral outcomes. As such, it is useful for Members to hav e access to 
the relevant information and to be able to follow the deliberations.  
 
Hong Kong, China appreciates the impartial technical support provided by the Secretariat at 
Members' request. We also appreciate the administrative arrangements which are the re for the 
sake of transparency and inclusiveness. I would encourage Members to be more open -minded 
about them.  
 
35. Turkey  
 
We associate ourselves with the statement of the G -33 made by Indonesia and support the 
statement made by Switzerland as co -sponsor.   
  
I hope this meeting would give us a valuable opportunity to discuss thoroughly the recent progress 
in our work, and more importantly, the way forward following MC11.  
  
As the Secretariat recently published, following several years of sluggish growth, wor ld trade has 
just started to expand. Estimate shows that trade will grow around 4.4% in 2018. This is a good 
signal for the world economy and will be a strong boost for economic development and job 
creation around the globe.  
  
However, as we discussed in our earlier meetings, there are several challenges before us that 
could hamper this positive trend in global trade.  
  
First and foremost, increased trade tensions display themselves as protectionist measures and 
unilateral acti ons are the most pressing issues. Amplifying the risk of escalation, those actions 
would harm international cooperation and threaten ongoing recovery in global economy.  
   
Second, Turkey, along with many Members, is concerned with the current impasse in th e selection 
process for the Appellate Body members. Turkey considers that a well -functioning dispute 
settlement mechanism is a key element for the multilateral trading system and the current 
impasse puts the whole multilateral rules -based system in danger.  I therefore urge all Members to 
review their positions and constructively engage to solve this issue.  
  
After this sombre picture, I would like to touch upon some encouraging points.  
  
On Trade Facilitation, as of last week, almost 83% of the Members hav e ratified the TF Agreement. 
In the Committee meeting last week, we observed that many countries have already established 
their national committees and made their notifications. So now, we have a functioning Trade 
Facilitation Agreement.  
  
With regard to f isheries subsidies, Turkey sees these negotiations as one of the most important 
topics on the current agenda of the WTO. We are glad that the Negotiating Group on Rules will WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 73 - 
 
  resume the negotiations soon. We believe that the Membership has to deliver a mean ingful and 
credible outcome on fisheries at MC12. For this aim, here, we think it is important, at least at the 
beginning, to refrain from focusing on controversial topics. We should also try to understand the 
different needs of Members, especially develop ing countries and try to find ways to address those 
needs.  
  
We also see good work done in some areas, such as e -commerce and MSMEs, which have been 
initiated by like -minded Members. Turkey will continue to constructively engage in the works of 
those group s to register further and substantive progress until the next Ministerial.  
 
With those in mind, we also believe that the pending issues within the framework of the WTO 
negotiations are not less urgent and they should be addressed effectively for broad -based welfare 
gains from international trade. Within this perspective, development should continue to be at the 
centre of our work.  
  
We should also acknowledge that we have fallen well behind the expectations and requirements of 
current developments in globa l trade. These developments evolve at an impressive speed. We 
therefore should all admit that the WTO and its agenda have to evolve to adapt to these new 
developments while keeping a balance between our existing and new endeavours.  
  
Turkey is open to cons tructively engage in all areas for exploring ways to achieve multilateral 
outcomes.  
 
36. Peru  
 
On 5 March, my delegation made some comments and observations on the path to be followed 
after the Eleventh Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. On this occasion,  in addition to pointing 
out that Peru shares the views expressed by the Informal Group of Friends of the System and the 
Informal Group of Developing Countries, I should like to emphasize some additional points:  
 
For a country like Peru, which has one of t he most open economies and a consistent policy of 
openness, trade is one of the engines of economic growth, generating employment and having a 
major impact on poverty reduction.  
 
In this context, Peru recognizes the WTO's essential role in guaranteeing the  stability, 
predictability and transparency of the multilateral trading system. For this reason, we reiterate our 
commitment to continue working for the full implementation and proper administration of the WTO 
Agreements. We are also actively involved in t he multilateral trade negotiations.  
 
Peru is firmly committed to strengthening the multilateral trade framework. At the same time, we 
promote free trade as a means of achieving higher levels of development. Accordingly, in the 
current international situati on, we call on Members to implement their trade measures with strict 
adherence to WTO rules and commitments, avoiding protectionist practices that could undermine 
the important achievements made in the multilateral trading system. We also encourage Members  
to evaluate seriously the best options for levelling the playing field in international trade.  
 
Despite the complexity of the task of harmonizing highly divergent trade interests among a large 
number of Members, the most recent WTO Ministerial Conferences  have achieved substantial 
results, such as the Trade Facilitation Agreement, in force since 22 February 2017, the Ministerial 
Decision on the elimination of agricultural export subsidies and the mandate to continue 
negotiating a multilateral agreement on fisheries subsidies.  
 
Without ceasing to monitor compliance with the decisions we reached in Bali (TFA) and Nairobi 
(agricultural subsidies), it is important to continue moving forward in the negotiations on fisheries 
subsidies.  
 
For this reason, Peru view s with satisfaction and optimism the signs of good will reflected in the 
continuity and impetus of work in the context of the Negotiating Group on Standards, which has 
been meeting since January to frame a structured timetable. During the first half of thi s year, we 
will continue working on the preparation of skeleton documents in order to have shorter texts that 
will help us to achieve consensus. We call for the continuation of constructive and pragmatic WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 74 - 
 
  efforts aimed at achieving concrete results that wil l be reflected in a broad and comprehensive 
agreement at the Twelfth Ministerial Conference.  
 
Similarly, Peru considers it important to address the issues currently affecting international trade 
which are reflected in the Ministerial Declarations that many  of our countries support. In this 
connection, we underscore the need to pursue the negotiations on domestic regulation of services, 
electronic commerce, integration of micro, small and medium enterprises in international trade, 
and trade and economic empo werment of women.  
 
Notwithstanding our failure in Buenos Aires to achieve a concrete result in agriculture, Peru 
maintains its interest in the process of reforming agricultural trade. We already have proposals on 
the table concerning the three pillars of t he agriculture negotiations for which reason we should 
resume the work as soon as possible in order to find common ground with a view to achieving a 
substantial and viable outcome for the 164 Members by the time of the next Conference.  
 
At the same time, P eru supports any initiative for transparent and constructive dialogue in order to 
resolve systemic issues in the WTO. In that connection, we once again highlight the urgent need to 
initiate the process for selecting new Appellate Body members in order to f ill the three existing 
vacancies as quickly as possible and thereby ensure the operational continuity and proper 
functioning of the Appellate Body. Peru has participated constructively and actively in the 
discussions on this matter as reflected in proposal  WT/DSB/W/609/Rev.3 co -sponsored by 62 
Members.  
 
37. Ghana  
 
In Buenos Aires and at the last Informal TNC/HoDs meeting, my delegation bemoaned the slow 
pace at which negotiations in the WTO proceed and the limited gains that have accrued to us as a 
developing c ountry. The Director -General's report today has confirmed that there is no apparent 
breakthrough in sight for issues of interest to us.  
 
Ghana's industrial development and economic transformation objectives, predicated on the very 
ambitious and comprehensi ve ten point agenda for industrialization which will shift our 
development focus from aid to trade and investment, a Ghana Beyond Aid, support the African 
Union's integration and industrialisation objectives, the Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want, and the 
AfCFTA, for which appropriate S&DT will be required.  
 
We therefore affirm the development principles of the Doha Development Agenda for the pursuit of 
stronger, more precise, effective and operational special and differential provisions for developing 
count ries rather than attempts to dilute the G -90 proposals on S&DT presented within the 
mandate of the Committee on Trade and Development in Special Session in line with paragraph 44 
of the DDA or any proposals that will alter the development architecture as s et out in the 
Marrakesh Agreement.  
 
As regards agriculture, the systemic imbalances in the sector continue to undermine Africa's 
progress and effort to overcome its food insecurity. Agriculture therefore remains a priority for 
Ghana and we will continue to support decisions to reform trade d istorting domestic support, 
cotton subsidies, and in obtaining a permanent solution for public stockholding for food security. 
We desire that the discussions already started will secure positive outcomes in these areas.  
 
Subsidized industrial fishing prac tices have contributed to overfishing the world over. Thankfully, 
Ministers provided us with the direction at MC11 for the Rules Negotiating Group to address issues 
relating to the elimination of subsidies to IUU fishing and discipline subsidies that contr ibute to 
overfishing and overcapacity. We welcome the programme developed for discussions in this area 
under the guidance of the current Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules. And I pay tribute to 
Ambassador McCook – the immediate past Chair for efforts in this regard.  
 
On e -commerce, my delegation welcomes the continuation of discussions based on the long 
established work programme as endorsed by Ministers at MC11 to deepen the understanding of 
the subject by developing and least developed countries to p osition us to benefit fully from digital 
trade.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 75 - 
 
  We reiterate our concern about the rising protectionism and plurilateralism which are real threats 
to the multilateral trading system. We are also hopeful that the current apparent trade tensions 
among some  developed Members will not escalate into a trade war to derail the little recent trade 
growth gains and prospects for 2018 and beyond.  
 
We also repeat our concern for the inability of the WTO to resolve the current impasse of the 
dispute settlement syste m, particularly as yet another Appellate Body member's end of term 
becomes eminent and call on the concerned Members to review their positions to resolve this 
outstanding issue of Appellate Body appointments – to restore the organization's much touted 
'jewel in the crown' accolade.  
 
Finally, Ghana aligns with the statement delivered by South Africa on behalf of the African Group 
and Malawi on behalf of the ACP.  
 
38. Costa Rica  
 
Today seems timely to remember that the WTO is a public and common good that generat es 
countless options for economic growth and development, consumer satisfaction and opportunities 
for producers, job creation and poverty alleviation, greater environmental standards and lower 
transaction costs to buy, sell and transfer goods across border s. It seems also important to recall 
that the multilateral nature of this system implies, on one hand, that we are all in this together. 
On the other, it implies that its robustness depends on the actions we the Members take in support 
– or to the detrimen t – of the rule of law.  
 
Today, this House faces greater uncertainty and a cloudy sky. However, it is also important to 
remember that this is not the first and may not be the last time that we face serious challenges. 
On 16 October 1995 Director -General R enato Ruggiero said "from the perspective of the 
multilateral trading system, we now face a dual task of extending the reach of the system 
geographically to make it truly global, and of ensuring that it remains effective in the face of 
growing complexity i n international economic relations." We can say that the WTO today covers 
almost the entire world, but we must deal with an unresolved agenda, and adapt to more complex 
economic relations. It therefore seems timely to realize that we are at the dawn of a f ast-evolving 
Fourth Industrial Revolution and our engagement should seek adaptation, facilitation and 
coherence with this new reality.  
 
At times, advancing this agenda may be frustrating, but when we reach agreements their impact is 
so positive and far re aching, that their value cannot be contested. Yes, sometimes we need to 
reflect on our process, but this calls for more dialogue, more reform and more multilateral 
engagement.  
 
We call on all Members to work towards strengthening the multilateral trading system and engage 
in a constant dialogue under the rules of this House.  
 
To conclude, it seems pertinent, given the historical moment we are going through, to remember 
the three elemental rules for survival in any situation: to stay optimistic, to priorit ize, and to be 
creative.  
 
39. Plurinational State of Bolivia  
 
We endorse Indonesia's statement on behalf of the G -33. 
 
Bolivia is closely following the complex international situation in which we now find ourselves, with 
issues that are highly sensitive for this organization. I will return to these a little later on. We 
would first like to reiterate our priorities and those of many developing countries that belong to the 
multilateral trading system.  
 
In Bolivia's view, one of the outstanding issues in the mul tilateral trading system is agricultural 
trade and agricultural reform. As we all know, the agricultural subsidies provided mainly by the 
developed countries completely distort the market for agricultural products, generating artificial 
demand, while overp roduction causes price distortions that primarily affect developing country 
producers. Therefore one of the priorities, if we want to talk about development, is to reduce 
subsidies in the form of domestic support by countries with AMS.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 76 - 
 
  The market distortio ns caused by subsidies also call for the adoption of a special agricultural 
safeguard for developing countries. Food security is another outstanding component of agricultural 
reform, whose outcome will contribute to Sustainable Developm ent Goal 2 of the 20 30 Agenda 
hence the importance of pursuing the work on public stockholding for food security purposes.  
 
A second matter of importance to my country is the issue of development, for which there is a 
clear mandate in paragraph 44 of the Doha Development Agen da. The Committee on Trade and 
Development in Special Session needs to focus on how to give effect to this mandate. We do not 
agree that the CTD in Special Session is the forum for discussing fresh approaches, whether or not 
entirely new, on development th at go beyond its mandate. It is advisable for the CTD to focus its 
discussions on the mandate for which it was created. In this connection, a series of proposals put 
forward by the G -90 should be further developed in the Committee, and though not a member of 
the G -90, Bolivia supports these proposals.  
 
The work of this organization does not take place in a vacuum and it is not necessary to reinvent 
the wheel. There are clear mandates for agriculture, development, services and other areas of the 
Doha Develop ment Agenda which should serve as a basis for resuming our WTO work taking into 
account all the developments that have occurred in these spheres in recent years.  
 
Bolivia does not agree with the plurilateral initiatives known as the Joint Initiatives. It m akes no 
sense to aim to strengthen the multilateral trading system by means of initiatives for which there 
is no consensus, no mandate and which undermine the very principle of multilateralism. This 
makes absolutely no sense. We share South Africa's concer ns about the Secretariat's role in this 
regard.  
 
Turning to the paralysis that has struck the selection process for AB members, we encourage those 
Members that have blocked the process to seek solutions as soon as possible.  
 
Lastly, I wish to refer to the unilateral measures that affect the integrity of the multilateral trading 
system and that could be leading, irresponsibly, to a trade war that would impact us all.  
 
Unilateral measures are contrary to the WTO rules, and in situations such as this, the most  
advisable course would be to take dialogue and cooperation further in order to find solutions to the 
problems that are besetting certain economies – but this does not appear to be working. In any 
event, a joint and coordinated response on the part of the international community would be the 
best way to address this type of measure.  
 
40. Uganda  
 
It is our hope that the Director -General's global trips and consultations with very high -ranking 
Officials of various World Governments and International Organizations will give us the impetus to 
improve on the events in the WTO to ensure its sustenance and existence.  
 
At the outset, my delegation aligns itself with the statements made by South Africa on behalf of 
the Africa Group, Central African Republic on behalf of the LDC Group and Malawi on behalf of the 
Africa, Caribbean and Pacific Group.  
 
Mandates and Principles guiding the Work at WTO  
 
The importance of the multilateral trading system in advancing development in a country like 
Uganda is what we place great emph asis on. At the core of the multilateral trading system and the 
WTO is the principle of consensus enshrined in Article IX of the Marrakesh Agreement. It is 
precisely because of this principle that we have the Doha Development Agenda and all other 
subsequen t mandates at the Ministerial Conference and the General Council. This remains the 
basis upon which we shall conduct our business. It is for this reason that we view paragraphs 30, 
31 and 34 of the Nairobi Ministerial Conference under the DDA as still very  valid. The DDA must be 
concluded.  
 
We are bowled -over by the actions of some Members seeking to circumvent the Doha mandates 
and create new approaches or no approaches to DDA issues, hence closing their eyes to the very 
important basic principle. These ac tions seem to us like a degrading attempt at amending the well 
ingrained decision -making process of this organization. We strongly believe that consensus means WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 77 - 
 
  all must agree or be in consonance on the matter of concern. All Members signed up to these rule s 
and it is extremely important for the preservation and integrity of this great institution that those 
rules are fully and wholly respected by all of us. Members must desist from being promoters of 
selectivity about the situations in which to sing 'Kumbay a' in the praise of the wonders of the 
multilateral trading system and those in which to shamelessly undermine the system through 
dubious actions. Members must show respect for each other and, more so, respect the decisions 
that are taken in line with the rules of this organization.  
 
Joint Initiatives and efforts  
 
We are gravely concerned and disheartened by the kind of behaviour exhibited from certain 
quarters. This sort of behaviour has caused situations of disagreement such as the one in which 
this organ ization currently finds itself. It is for the avoidance of this that our forefathers thought i t 
wise to introduce Article VI: 4 of the Marrakesh Agreement in the rules of this organization which 
stipulated the responsibilities of the Director -General and of  the staff of the Secretariat to be 
exclusively international in character. It specifically says that they shall refrain from any action 
which might adversely reflect on their position as international officials. The Marrakesh Agreement 
does not provide fo r the undermining of the decisions of Ministerial Conferences especially where 
there is diametric opposition. It is the principle of consensus on multilaterally agreed issues by all 
Members that should play a role here. Members carefully put in place a sep arate mechanism for 
arbitration. We strongly feel and are deeply concerned that the object and purpose of Article VI:4 
is not violated. To witness a section of a multilateral organization so heavily invested in processes 
outside of the DDA mandates to the extent of according General Council reference numbers to 
documents is totally unacceptable.  
 
Agriculture  
 
The matter of Agriculture is a thorny one. Members must acknowledge that there are great 
imbalances flowing from the Uruguay Round that must be addr essed. We want to reaffirm that 
Rev.4 continues to be the acceptable basis for discussions as well as the natural sequencing of 
domestic supports to market access negotiations. Similarly, discussions must continue in the CoA 
SS aiming at a permanent soluti on on public stockholding for food security purposes and the 
Special Safeguard Mechanism.  
 
Development  
 
We have said over and over before that development is central to our being Members to the 
multilateral trading system, and in line with the Agenda 2063  of the Africa we want. Unfortunately, 
the progress in the CTD SS with regard to development is extremely disappointing. While Members 
claim to be very interested in the better integration of developing Members and especially the least 
developed among them  into the multilateral trading system, they must realize that it is not simply 
a question of integration for the sake of it. It is rather one of the quality of integration. Members 
may be surprised to hear that in 2016, trade in goods and services as a sha re of GDP (in 
percentage terms), and as a measurement for integration in world trade, reached 51% for LDCs 
and 60% for Sub Saharan African countries. In spite of such levels of integration, we are still 
placed in the part of the production chain which hold s the least value. Special and differential 
treatment is intended to assist countries like mine in their capacity to increase production. Only 
with increased domestic and regional production can we integrate in a more beneficial manner.  
 
Members must reaff irm their commitment to meaningfully engage in the discussions in the CTD SS 
to work towards the fulfilment of the very clear mandate in paragraph 44 of the Doha Agenda. 
They should review the provisions on special and differential treatment with a view to  making 
them more precise, effective and operational. Any discussion outside of this mandate in the guise 
of methodology is ultra -vires to the mandate and defeats our purpose. Trade instruments should 
be used to promote structural transformation and indust rialisation for development and not to 
undermine it.  
 
41. Tonga (Pacific Group)  
 
The Pacific Group supports the statements made by the ACP and the LDC Groups.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 78 - 
 
  The Pacific Group welcomes in particular the process made so far in the rules negotiations on 
fisheries subsidies with the adoption of a clear work plan for the next three months up to the 
summer break and that Members are preparing for the first Negotiati ng Group on Rules cluster 
meeting next week.  
 
The Pacific Group stresses the importance of working consistently over the next two years to 
deliver on the MC11 mandate which requires Members to conclude an Agreement on Fisheries 
Subsidies by 2019 in order to meet the SDG 14.6 deadline of 2020. This Agreement should also 
include appropriate special and differential treatment for developing countries in line with the SDG 
14.6 mandate.  
 
On Agriculture, the Group also welcomes the Chair's process of reflection s based on the Chair's 
question to reassess the approaches we have been taking and to identify the areas that Members 
can take forward together. We hope to see a clear work plan soon.  
 
On development, the Pacific Group notes the concern regarding the wide  differences among 
Members on this issue. The differences in perspective on the role of development in the WTO and 
in the application of S&D could halt the process in the G -90 proposal in the CTD SS and possibly 
derail discussions in the other negotiation where the S&D proposal will be put forward.  
 
WTO Members have always maintained the centrality of development. S&D remained an integral 
part of the WTO Negotiations and Agreements. The Pacific Group underlines the importance of 
effective S&D provisions to  overcome our structural and geographical characteristics as small 
island developing countries. We therefore urge Members to find new ways including through 
technical sessions to deepen the discussions, develop shared understandings and find solutions to 
progress this issue.  
 
Finally, we welcome the launching of the discussions in the WTO in 26 April on trade and natural 
disasters. The Pacific countries are some of the most vulnerable and are always in the virtuous 
cycle of rebuilding their economies given  the frequency and severity of natural disasters in our 
region. We therefore welcome this initiative to find a solution in the multilateral rules to promote 
resilience and the recovery efforts of our members.  
 
42. Republic of Moldova  
 
I would like to underline  that the Republic of Moldova, as a co -sponsor of the statement presented 
today by Switzerland on behalf of the informal group of Friends of the System, seizes the 
opportunity to express once again its support towards a well -functioning, rules -based multil ateral 
trading system.  
 
Strong trade growth is vital for continued economic growth and recovery as well as job creation. 
We are encouraged by the trade forecast for 2018 as well as the synchronized economic growth 
across regions while remaining fully awar e that sustaining these developments will depend on our 
capacity to ensure an open and honest dialogue among Members to identify new and innovative 
approaches to reinvigorate the main principles of our system: inclusiveness and transparency.  
 
In this respe ct, we urge all Members to engage constructively with the view of ensuring an 
effective, relevant and responsive World Trade Organization for all Members. We need to tackle 
the challenges before us and the differences through dialogue and serious engagemen t in order to 
avoid market uncertainty and increase consumer and business confidence in international trade.   
 
There have always been challenges in the WTO but it seems like these challenges have increased 
in the last years since Members have different pr iorities. As in any international organization, there 
are moments when we have to adjust the ways of work through negotiation and open process 
where the voice of every Member will be heard.  
  
Regarding the recent developments in the negotiations and update s mentioned today by the 
Chairs of the Negotiating Bodies, I would like to underline that as a signatory of a number of joint 
Ministerial Declarations in Buenos Aires, during the period following the last General Council, the 
Republic of Moldova continued to participate in the work of the joint initiatives.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 79 - 
 
  In this sense, on the 27  March, we have had the occasion to further reflect on the main obstacles 
faced by MSMEs in their integration into global markets. More specifically, at the open -ended 
thematic session on improving access to information for MSMEs, the importance of nationa l and 
regional information portals to facilitate MSMEs trade has been emphasized as well as the need to 
reach out to the business community in order to hear the challenges they face and to find 
solutions.  
 
We have been encouraged to learn more in depth ab out the Global Trade Helpdesk initiative from 
WTO, UNCTAD and ITC and believe that a one -stop shop is a good and efficient approach, but we 
need to ensure that such information portals are being designed to cater to MSMEs and in a user -
friendly manner. We also recognize that all Members have a collective role in ensuring that they 
provide accurate, complete and up -to-date information through our notifications which will be 
beneficial for MSMEs' cross -border activities. We look forward to continue our dialog ue on this 
important topic in view of making trade an inclusive development tool.  
 
On the Joint Initiative on Electronic Commerce, discussions have been based on recent Members' 
proposals and we believe there is a lot of material for future exploration. We  believe our 
discussions should be Member -driven and open to any particular sub -topic of interest. We stand 
ready to work according to the collectively defined framework while being open to any adjustments 
as the exploratory work advances. E -commerce is a broad topic which in the end means that we 
are talking about new modalities of trade and will need to address specific issues related to its 
particularities. We believe the digitization of economic activity will bring our countries closer and 
can serve as a pre-requisite to boost trade.  
 
Regarding the dispute settlement system, we need to thoroughly discuss all the aspects and keep 
all the elements on the table during the discussion and identify areas where WTO rules are needed 
and respected in order to fi nd a long -term solution.  
 
Regarding the implementation of the Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Declarations, the Republic of 
Moldova highly appreciates the work of the TFA Committee. The working strategy adopted for the 
last session of the Committee allow for  a clear analysis of trade development and facilitation of 
import, export and transit procedures. This assessment should be done by every country not only 
through the submission of notifications but also by presenting the National Action Plan and the 
roadm ap regarding the commitments undertaken for the implementation of the TFA. This will allow 
for a balance among the priorities of all the Members in the implementation of the TFA regardless 
of their economic development or official level of development in t he WTO.   
 
On these and other issues launched in Buenos Aires, Nairobi and Bali, the Republic of Moldova will 
continue to engage actively. We reiterate that all the constructive discussions launched in Buenos 
Aires are open to the whole Membership and we a re looking forward to hearing the views of all 
Members in order to ensure a transparent and Member -driven process based on inclusiveness, 
non-presumption, parallelism especially in the approach of the regional groups and transparency.  
 
43. Paraguay  
 
It might n ot be the best of political times but we do believe that we need to continue working and 
trying hard to keep all the WTO pillars functioning.  
 
It is time for us to re -invent ourselves so that we keep our multilateral system robust and working 
fluidly. We m ust also do everything in our reach to allow all WTO bodies to function efficiently and 
effectively.  
 
In this regard, we support the GRULAC initiative calling for the DSB to promptly launch the 
selection process for the Appellate Body. A paralysis in this body will constitute a denial of right to 
Members.  
 
Another political threat is the rising of trade tensions and the recurrence of protectionist measures. 
As stated by the communication of the Friends of the System, we urge Members to refrain from 
taking t hese measures and avoid risks of escalation. Dialogue and cooperation should be the path 
conducive to solution. We also agreed that protectionist unilateral measures ignore WTO rules, 
values and principles. They should therefore be avoided at all cost.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 80 - 
 
  We have to work in parallel to strengthen the three pillars of the WTO. It is of utmost importance 
that the negotiating pillar continue on a 24/7 non -stop basis. We look forward to working with all 
and each of you to promote reforms in the agreements and on Members' commitments. Most 
particularly, rules and commitments in agriculture need to be updated.  
 
Multilateral negotiations normally take longer and outcomes not often match expectations. That is 
why this negotiating exercise must be sustained and preserved constantly.  
 
In agriculture, we also put great interest in further disciplining domestic support and market 
access. On market access, the broader narrative is one of strong sensitivity and this despite the 
act that current practices go beyond the  Uruguay Round commitments. We need to lock in these 
current practices to avoid rolling back. Putting in a great deal of work is needed to continue 
moving forward.  
 
We share the views on the need to re -start the negotiation from where we left of in Buenos Aires. 
With more time in our hands we can establish a new level of ambition and to better define what 
would be the goals of the negotiation.  
 
We also believe that an updated commitment, closer to reality, will re -invigorate the work in the 
regular sessions .  
 
Members seem to have lost interest in the regular committees because they have a lot of 
manoeuvring space within the policy space granted back in the Uruguay Round.  
 
Finally, we are very glad to see that work has started on fisheries, MSMEs, e -commerce , 
investment facilitation and women empowerment. We find these meetings have been most 
productive and forward looking especially in terms of the WTO's relevance in the evolving context 
of the world economy and trade context. We believe this to be real prog ress and look forward to 
contributing in these processes.  
 
44. Chinese Taipei  
 
My delegation is pleased to see active engagement by like -minded Members in many areas 
demonstrating Members' strong interests and priorities. My delegation will continue to partici pate 
in the discussions aiming to making positive and substantive progress in the future.  
 
We thank the Secretariat for their assistance in those activities. The background papers and the 
consolidated list of WTO relevant provisions are very helpful and en hance our understanding on 
the issues. While the initiatives are open, transparent, and inclusive, we believe those 
contributions are beneficial to the whole Membership.  
 
We also notice that there seem to be trade tensions among some Members. My delegation  holds 
the view that the WTO is a multilateral system of rules dedicated to open, fair and undistorted 
competition. We share some Members' concerns on intellectual property issues and forced 
technology transfers. In the meantime, we listen carefully to the  concerns by many Members on 
the stability of the multilateral trading system as the FoS announcement just stated. My delegation 
calls upon all Members to work together and actively engage in relevant discussions so as to 
promote a fair and balanced intern ational trading system.  
 
45. Haiti (CARICOM)  
 
It emerges from the Director -General's and the Negotiating Group Chairs' reports that we are still 
in "exploratory mode" particularly when looking at how to take work forward following MC11.  
 
The CARICOM Group is c oncerned by the recent tensions within the multilateral trading system 
and their unforeseen consequences for the CARICOM member States. Such tensions are liable to 
undermine the structure of that system which is founded on rules that are predictable and fa ir. The 
CARICOM Group therefore reiterates its commitment to multilateralism.  
 
The CARICOM Group calls on Members to work hard towards finding a balanced solution.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 81 - 
 
  The CARICOM Group emphasizes that development must remain at the heart of the WTO's work, 
to which end we encourage all Members to redouble their efforts to achieve a significant outcome 
that will allow for the establishment of fisheries subsidies disciplines in accordance with the 
Decision adopted by Ministers at MC11 in Buenos Aires.  
 
The CAR ICOM Group would like to see real commitment where special and differential treatment 
pursuant to paragraph 44 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration is concerned. The Group does not 
share the view of those who consider that the notion of S&DT should be redef ined. It must reflect 
the levels of development and trade realities that are specific to each Member.  
 
The CARICOM Group is particularly attentive to the negotiations on agriculture which represents a 
strategic sector for the region in terms of food securi ty and job creation for some of its Members. 
With this in mind, the Group's wish is for the ongoing resumption of negotiations in the three 
pillars on the basis of the existing mandates (the Doha Declaration, July Framework and Hong 
Kong Declaration). It i s particularly keen to see outcomes in the areas of, among others, domestic 
support, safeguard mechanism and public stockholding for food security purposes.  
 
Services account for over 50% of the gross domestic product of each CARICOM Member, making it 
a key sector for the region. In addition to movements in the area of domestic regulation, the 
Group would like to see movements in other pillars of the negotiations, particularly the market 
access pillar.  
 
Regarding new topics, the CARICOM Group is of the view  that Members should, in the interest of 
better mutual understanding and on the basis of the existing mandates, continue to speak to one 
another in the interest of coming to a shared vision of the way ahead.  
 
The CARICOM Group associates itself with the st atement made by the ACP Group.  
 
46. Tanzania  
 
From the outset, my delegation associates itself with the statements made by the delegation of 
Central Africa Republic on behalf of the LDC Group, the delegation of the Republic of South Africa 
for the African Group and the delegation of Malawi for the ACP  Group.  
 
We are pleased to see discussions are picking up on a wide range of issues since MC11. This is a 
good start and a positive sign towards our next Ministerial Conference for results. We urge 
Members to maintain the same momentum across all areas ma ndated for discussions and 
negotiations. Therefore, we are looking forward to see work advancing in the areas of fisheries, 
special and differential treatment, domestic support, cotton, public stockholding and special 
safeguard mechanism.   
 
On fisheries, we are cognizant of the importance of the remaining part of work that must be 
finalised as mandated in Buenos Aires. Nevertheless, we are pleased with the ongoing work and 
particularly the recently developed work programme. We call upon Members to continue  to 
demonstrate their commitment for a credible outcome particularly to undertake meaningful 
disciplines on fisheries subsidies leading to overcapacity and hence overfishing.  
   
On special and differential treatment, paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration sh ould remain the 
basis of our work. In our view, the starting point of discussions on this matter should be the last 
presented G -90 proposals. Seemingly, some of the advocated fresh approaches are already 
embodied in the G -90 proposals but will only be unde rstood to Members in a "provision by 
provision" discussion.  
 
With regard to the call by some Members to undertake broad discussions on the concept of 
development, our delegation finds the idea contradictory to the spirit of the existing mandate. It is 
also difficult for us to go along with the proposal of holding such discussions in the CTD SS.  
 
On e-commerce, we support the continuation of discussions on an exploratory basis within the 
proposed structures as mandated. We would like to register our conc erns with the moratorium on 
electronically transmitted products for its underlying implication on revenues by exempting 
electronically transmitted products from duties. Currently, we are exploring the possibilities of 
expanding revenue collections to compl ement the current diminished Official Development WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 82 - 
 
  Assistance. Moreover, we believe that electronically transmitted products should be treated the 
same way as physical products particularly in the LDCs.  
 
I would like to conclude by urging Members to accele rate the implementation of decisions related 
to LDCs in order to support their efforts to meaningfully integrate into the multilateral trading 
system. Recently, we have noted with concern the lack of commitment by some Members to fully 
implement LDC specif ic decisions such as the one on DFQF, on the WTO preferential rules of origin 
and on the services waiver. In our view, the implementation of past decisions is equally important 
as undertaking commitments.  
 
47. Thailand  
 
Thailand is pleased to note the strong g rowth in merchandise trade in 2017 and the positive trend 
forecasted for the next two years. With this projection in mind, we must do everything to ensure 
that these forecasts remain on course.  
 
We share Members' concerns regarding the growing trade tensi ons and join others in expressing 
our full support to the multilateral trading system and the rules -based WTO which is the 
foundation for stability and predictability in global trade. We would like to also urge all Members to 
resolve trade issues with all mechanisms provided under the WTO.  
 
Thailand also reiterates the importance of the dispute settlement mechanism and shares concerns 
of Members on the vacancies in the Appellate Body.   
 
Further, we believe that to strengthen the multilateral trading system , Members must cooperate to 
drive forward all negotiating issues and reach substantial results as we are mandated in order to 
maintain the centrality and relevance of the WTO.  
 
Agriculture continues to be Thailand's priority and we believe that it is an a rea that we can start 
work immediately to achieve agriculture reforms as mandated under Article 20 of the AoA.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we are committed to conclude the Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies by 
2019 as mandated at MC11. We will continue our acti ve engagement in this area as we move 
forward.  
 
We are also supportive of continued information exchanges and exploratory discussions on issues 
such as e -commerce and MSMEs.  
 
In this regard, we take note of the activities put forward by the coordinator a nd the proponents of 
the e -commerce and MSMEs initiatives. Thailand will continue to constructively engage in both 
issues to ensure that discussions in the WTO will enable greater participation and benefits for 
stakeholders in developing countries in e -commerce as well as the integration of MSMEs into the 
global value chains and world trade.  
 
48. Nepal  
 
My delegation associates itself with the statement delivered by the Central African Republic on 
behalf of the LDC Group.  
 
At a time of uncertainty, our prime responsibility becomes upholding the fundamental principles 
and purposes of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO to resolve any problems and 
challenges, and serve the common interests of all Members. In the same manner, ensuring 
effective functioni ng of all the pillars of the WTO system, including the trade policy review pillar, 
negotiation pillar and dispute settlement pillar, is critical.  
 
Looking at the current scenario, Nepal views that there is a strong need to give momentum to 
outcome -oriented  negotiations under the existing mandates and focus on the implementation of 
the past decisions in letter and in spirit.  
 
The least -developed countries, including Nepal, face several structural and productive capacity 
constraints to meaningfully integrate  their economies into the multilateral trading system. Trade -
distorting subsidies in the agricultural sector, which is a fundamental sector for sustainable WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 83 - 
 
  livelihood and trade, and imposition of non -tariff measures, including stringent rules of origin, SP S 
and TBT have paralyzed the competitive capacity of the weaker economies. Because of such 
structural challenges, the export performance of the LDCs in the global trade is on a downward 
trend, pushing the figure to less than one percent, as against our sha red commitment to doubling 
export of LDCs by 2020, which remains so clearly expressed in the Istanbul Programme of Action 
for LDCs and reiterated in the 2030 Agenda for SDGs.  
 
Nepal is a strong supporter of a rules -based, strengthened and revitalized mult ilateral trading 
system. We are of the view that protectionist tendencies not only hamper the functioning of the 
WTO system but also prove counter -productive to the longer -term business interests of all 
Members. Similarly, plurilaterlism is not a solution to the current problems seen in the multilateral 
trading system as it does not support the global economic integration of a large number of 
developing Members. In this context, my delegation believes that the Mini -Ministerial held in New 
Delhi gave an impo rtant message for the revitalization of the rules -based multilateral system.  
 
We emphasize making S&DT provisions more effective and operational to create a level playing 
field for weaker developing countries, particularly LDCs, to integrate them into the  multilateral 
trading system in a meaningful manner. The S&DT provisions are an integral part of the WTO 
Agreements. More flexibility, creative approaches and generous support from Members are 
expected for leading this development -centric agenda to a succe ssful multilateral outcome.  
 
We are aware of the advancement in information and communication technologies and increasing 
digitization of the world economy. We believe that the formal conclusion of the current round of 
negotiations will pave our way to the  new emerging issues.  
 
Full implementation of the Trade Facilitation Agreement is expected to lower the cost of doing 
cross-border trade and raise trade efficiency through simplification, standardization, harmonization 
and modernization of customs and rel ated procedures. The LDC members are responding to 
implementation measures of the TFA and are looking for financial and technical support to 
implement category C notifications. We call for the full operationalization of all support measures 
designed to sup port the trade facilitation process.  
 
My delegation wishes to thank the TFAF for co -hosting a workshop on trade facilitation recently for 
the mission -based delegations of LDC members and observers.  
 
The Aid for Trade and Enhanced Integrated Framework are  important tools to enhance supply -side 
capacity, building trade related infrastructure and mainstreaming trade in the development policy 
and strategy. We look forward to leveraging adequate resources for AfT and EIF implementation.  
 
My delegation wishes t o thank the Director -General for his initiative to organize a symposium on 
trade and natural disaster on 26 April. Since the post -disaster recovery and reconstruction may 
take several years for hard hit countries like Nepal, all possible flexibility from t he WTO rules is 
desirable to the vulnerable LDCs and SVE Members.  
 
Finally, Nepal emphasizes the dire need to preserve and promote the values of the rule -based 
trading system to make the WTO effective and relevant in a time when the world economy is 
facing challenges.   
 
49. Dominica (OECS)  
 
The OECS did not make a statement at the first TNC -HODs meeting after MC11 but we certainly 
would have joined all in commending the Director -General, the MC11 Chairperson Hon. Susana 
Malcorra and the Government of Argentina for the organization and impleme ntation of MC11.  
 
MC11 did not deliver to the full extent of the OECS' goals and expectations but we are pleased 
with the decisions that were achieved particularly on fisheries subsidies and on the work 
programme on small economies and also the decisions on TRIPS non -violation and situation 
complaints and the work programme on electronic commerce.  
 
The OECS WTO Members are very small island developing States and economies which are also 
vulnerable to a number of external threats both natural and manmade. W ith few natural WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 84 - 
 
  resources, small populations and domestic markets and narrow and comparatively shallow 
production bases, our economies are by definition and demonstrably very open in terms of trade.   
 
It is for this reason that we have always reiterated o ur support for the WTO and the multilateral 
rules-based system. More than most, the OECS needs a well -functioning open, transparent, 
predictable, equitable and inclusive multilateral trading system which represents the needs and 
concerns of all Members inc luding 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 areas of its work . 
 
We take note of the reports of the Negotiating Group Chairs and we welcome the resumption of 
work in the negotiating groups. On fisheries subsidies, we welcome the appointment of a new 
Chair and the work which he has already undertaken to move to the fu ll resumption of work 
towards fulfilling the mandate set by our Ministers in Buenos Aires. We welcome the detailed work 
programme which will guide our work over the next three months.  
 
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 would not be problem.  
 
Of course, the OECS also attaches importance to the problem of dwindling global fish stocks and 
the role t hat subsidized overfishing, overcapacity and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing 
plays in that crisis.   
 
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 susta inable development objectives. We also attached 
significant importance to the provision of appropriate and effective special and differential 
treatment for developing country Members and least -developed country Members which should be 
an integral part of t hese negotiations.  
 
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 as Agriculture, NAMA, Services, and TRIPS, the OECS has 
taken note of the commitment to continue work in these areas in line with paragraph 30 and 31 of 
the Nairobi Declaration as reflected in the MC11 Chair's Closing Statement. The OECS has interests 
and concerns which are reflected in the progress of work  of these various negotiating areas.  
These include specifically modalities, flexibilities and special and differential treatment for small, 
vulnerable economies, net food importing developing countries and developing countries generally.  
 
On development and the mandate to improve and make more operational the special and 
differential treatment provisions of the WTO, the OECS of course attaches great importance to 
development and S&DT. We support the resumption of work that would lead to a m eaningful 
outcome.  Recognizing the wide gaps that existed among Members on the proposals discussed at 
MC10 and MC11, we may need to look at a new approach and strategy. There are clearly 
differences in the perspectives of Members on the relationship betwe en trade and development 
and the role of S&DT. Those need to be addressed. What must not be undermined is the central 
pillar if not a foundational element of special and differential treatment within this House.   
Development is a broader goal of trade and  the WTO and its agreements and rules must contribute 
to that broader goal.    
 
The OECS WTO Members are also proponents of the Joint Statement on MSMEs issued at MC11 
and have been engaged in the informal working group on MSMEs at the WTO. As very small 
economies, all domestic private sector players of the OECS are MSMEs. The OECS is therefore WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 85 - 
 
  engaged in the exploration of how to facilitate greater integration of MSMEs into the global trading 
system.  
 
Finally, we would like to thank the Secretariat specifi cally the Development Division for the 
organization of the symposium on trade and natural disasters held on 26 April. The OECS WTO 
Members greatly welcomed that initiative and looks forward to the proposed research work which 
is to be undertaken. The damag e caused to the wider Caribbean region and including specifically 
the eastern Caribbean countries of Dominica and Barbuda is a clear demonstration of the 
increasing threat and impact of climate change, the acute vulnerability of small island developing 
States in certain geographic locations to these threats and the need for comprehensive, 
coordinated and meaningful response at all levels including the multilateral level. As stated in our 
proposal at MC11, the OECS WTO Members believe that there is a role fo r the WTO and the 
multilateral trading 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 be tween trade and natural disasters. The OECS WTO 
Members are engaged in seeking that deeper understanding and we thank the Secretariat for 
moving in that direction. We hope to make meaningful contribution to this work and search for 
deeper understanding and  the identification of response measures consistent with the WTO's 
goals, rules and mandates. This is a very important issue for the OECS and a priority for its 
engagement in the coming year. We look forward to working constructively with all Members.  
 
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 and previously. The 
OECS will play its part in that process.   
 
The OECS WTO Members supports  the statements made on behalf of the ACP and the CARICOM.  
 
50. Chile  
 
I would like to take this opportunity to reaffirm Chile's firm commitment to the multilateral trading 
system and to express our utmost willingness to contribute to the proper functioning of  this 
organization. In this regard, we acknowledge the technical work carried out by the Secretariat, 
whose efforts are fundamental in addressing key global trade issues.  
 
Concerning the current negotiations, Chile is optimistic about the agreement on a wo rk 
programme on fisheries subsidies which outlines the organization of the next three meetings 
scheduled for May, June and July. We hope that these meetings will enable us to make satisfactory 
progress in the negotiations and ultimately to fulfil the manda te of SDG Target 14.6 and the 
relevant Buenos Aires Decision.  
 
I also wish to reaffirm our interest in resuming the negotiations on agriculture and establishing 
disciplines aimed at limiting the use of the most trade distorting forms of domestic support. W e 
are pleased that the process of selecting a new Chair for the CoA SS has at last been completed. 
We can assure Ambassador John Ford that he will have Chile's full support and wish him every 
success in conducting the negotiations.  
 
Chile also welcomes the  achievement at MC11 of joint statements on MSMEs, e -commerce,  
investment facilitation and domestic regulation for services as well as the broad participation this 
year in those initiatives and in the areas of trade and women's empowerment. We encourage al l 
Members to participate actively in the open, transparent and inclusive processes initiated on the 
basis of the joint statements. This is a good opportunity to achieve multilateral results in such 
areas of key significance for development and trade in the  21st century.  
 
Unfortunately, progress, or the absence thereof, in the negotiations is not the only problem we are 
currently up against. We are very concerned about the growing incidence of systemic issues that 
are increasingly threatening to paralyse our  organization.  
 
In view of this systemic concern, we subscribe to the statements made by Switzerland and the 
Informal Group of Developing Countries. In this regard, we reiterate our steadfast commitment to 
the multilateral trading system while at the same time urging Members to refrain from taking 
protectionist and unilateral measures and to avoid an escalation of tensions that may ultimately 
cause serious damage to all. We emphasize the importance and value of the ability to settle WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 86 - 
 
  disputes through dialogu e and cooperation, and, where necessary, through WTO bodies and their 
respective instruments.  
 
Concerning the situation affecting the Appellate Body, we reiterate Chile's profound concern about 
the serious systemic repercussions resulting from the impasse in the processes for selecting new 
members. In this regard, I reiterate that Chile stands ready to work on addressing the concerns of 
any Member in relation to the dispute settlement system. However, no such concern can justify 
non-compliance with the lega l obligation to fill vacancies as and when they arise.  
 
We consider it appropriate to recall that the WTO is a global public good. Despite the difficulties we 
are experiencing, it has been a useful instrument for boosting international trade and fostering the 
prosperity of our peoples. It is something we need to preserve.  
51. Japan  
 
Japan welcomes and supports the initiative by Switzerland and many other co -sponsors and 
echoes all the views expressed in their communication.  
 
It is encouraging to see the re -launching of discussions on each area under th e leadership of the 
respective C hairs. Members must address each of the issues in a pragmatic manner bearing in 
mind that different issues require different approaches.  
 
While we have heard some good news on the re covery of world trade in 2017, it is regrettable that 
during the last few months the multilateral trading system has been faced with even greater 
challenges of increased trade tensions triggered by the unilateral measure s of one Member and the 
counter measu re of another Member. Japan expresses its grave concerns about the current 
situation. No one will benefit from unilateral m easures and tit -for-tat counter measures. In any 
case, all measures must be taken in compliance with the WTO Agreement.  
 
At the same t ime, we should be aware of the root causes of the challenges we face today; the 
WTO has not been able to respond adequately to the dynamic structural changes to the global 
economy over the past 20 years. We need comprehensive actions to ensure the effectiv e 
functioning of the WTO in the face of the challenges posed by such changes. It is therefore 
indispensable not only to make full use of the tools in all three pillars of negotiation, mon itoring, 
and dispute settlement  but also to continue necessary reform s to improve these tools.  
  
First, it is important to take advantage of the existing regular committees to address current 
important issues. In this context, Japan supports the initiative for the enhancement of 
transparency and strengthening of notificati on. Also, Japan and some other Members together 
submitted a paper on subsidies and overcapacity to the Committee on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures in April.  
 
In terms of negotiations, the initiatives by like -minded Members are indicative of the fut ure 
direction of WTO negotiations. As reported by Australia earlier today, we had the second meeting 
of the  e-commerce initiative in April  where active discussions took place based on concrete 
proposals submitted by Members. We hope to further deepen these  discussions in the coming 
months with the participation of even more Members.  
 
On dispute settlement, the Appellate Body matter must be resolved as soon as possible from the 
perspective of maintaining the whole system. It will be necessary to address not only the 
procedural matters including the selection process for Appellate Body members but also more 
fundamental questions with respect to the role of the Appellate Body itself.  
 
In addition to these points, Japan will contribute to promoting conversation s on the  issue of trade 
and development  both within and outside of the formal WTO framework so that we can address 
the real challenges face d by developing country Members  particularly LDCs.  
 
To address these challenges, real political engagement is definit ely necessary. Our Foreign 
Minister, Taro Kono, who met the Director -General two weeks ago, expressed his commitment to 
spare no effort in this regard.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 87 - 
 
  Japan firmly believes that reinforcing the rule -based multilateral trading system embodied in the 
WTO p rovides the fundamental basis for global trade. We look forward to tackling all issues facing 
the WTO in collaboration with the entire Membership.  
 
52. Jamaica  
 
Permit me to also say that it is good to be back working within this o rganization, having spent six 
years here previously de fending the interest of Jamaica  and to express my appreciation to all of 
you who have welcomed me back to Geneva.  
 
It is because of the burden of that institutional memory that I am acutely aware that de spite the 
need to strengthen it, the WTO has the required framework and ability to resolve trade related 
issues  of concern to the m ultilateral trading system.  
 
In that context, Jamaica notes with concern  the significant diverge nces on key elements of the 
WTO's mandate and recent meas ures by a number of WTO Members  which have posed serious 
systemic risk to the sustain ability and operability of the multilateral trading s ystem.  
 
We have often heard here in this H ouse that trade is one of the key pathways to economic grow th 
and sustainable development. And indeed it is.  We also know from experience that the impact of 
trade m easures on an unintended target  can erase decades of progress made by a country in the 
area of trade and development.  
 
Jamaica is particul arly concerned that apart from the direct impact on the Members and entities 
concerned, these measures have indirect and often unintended consequences on other Parties  with 
devastating consequences.  For example, some of the recently adopted trade -related m easures 
have begun to affect the Jamaican economy.  
 
We speak from the perspective of a small, developing vulnerable economy, whose mining sector 
contributes significantly to its GDP, primarily through  bauxite and alumina production – the 
foundation of alum inium. This sec tor accounts for 52% of Jamaica' s exports.  
 
Decades of multinational partnerships with companies from several countries represented here 
have positively impacted the national economy and triggered the parallel development of many 
other form s of economic activity and economic and social development at community and national 
levels.  
   
Any resulting social and economic upheaval does not only threaten the stability of the unintended 
target economy – but mushrooms outward into impacting neighbo uring relationships, creating 
unwanted pressures.  
 
Jamaica supports the call for restraint and reason within the WTO and across the global trading 
system as we recognize that any escalation will undoubtedly have a de -stabilizing effect on global 
trade and  economic outlook.  
 
The multilateral trading system remains particularly valuable to small, vulnerable deve loping 
economies  like Jamaica.   
 
In that context, the established mechanisms for dispute settlement and for dialogue to address 
issues of concern re main the best approach.  
 
In respect of the Doha Round, we are pleased with the decisions which were taken at MC11, 
including on fisheries s ubsidies and it would be remiss not to mention the role of Jamaica through 
my predecessor, Ambassador Wayne McCook.  We are also encouraged that the Negotiating 
Groups have resumed their work.  
   
The M embership should redouble its efforts to find creative approaches to advance discussions.  
   
Agriculture, services, rules, trade capacity -building and special and differential treatment are area s 
of vital interest to Jamaica.  We also attach importance to the continuation of the work programme 
on e-commerce.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 88 - 
 
  We must show flexibility and a willingness to engage in transparent and inclusive manner, and to 
find soluti ons to the concerns of Members  particularly developing countries and LDCs.  
  
In addition, we must build upon the d ecades of achievements of this organiz ation and 
constructively engage to move the goals and objectives of the WTO forward, for the benefit of all, 
especially the most vulnerable among us.  
   
My ins titutional memory is that this o rganization is not for dreamers. But it is one of ho pe to many 
developing and least -developed countries  as regards trade and development.  
 
In closing, Jamaica would lik e to express its support for the statements made by Haiti on behalf of 
the CARICOM, Malawi on behalf of the ACP Group, Guatemala on behalf on the SVEs Group, 
Indonesia on behalf the G -33 and Switzerland on behalf of the Group of Developed and Developing 
Countries.  
 
53. Kenya  
 
Kenya associates itself with the s tatements made by Malawi, South Africa and Indonesia on behalf 
of the ACP, the African Group and the G -33 respectively.  
 
At Buenos Aires, we took note of the wide support by the Ministers for the multilate ral trading 
system. This was also the case during the recent informal Ministerial gathering held in New Delhi, 
India, in March this year. We therefore have the responsibility to ensure that the wide support for 
the multilateral trading s ystem translates in to tangible results particularly in areas under 
negotiations. Consequently, we need to adv ance technical work in various n egotia ting g roups as 
soon as possible. This is critical in ensuring that the WTO remains relevant in its central role of 
promotin g international trade as a key instrument  for economic growth and development.  
 
We welcome the optimistic forecast by the WTO on the growth of global merchandise trade. 
However, the main challenge remains that of ensuring that the net benefits arising from the  
growth of world trade are shared equitably among the various regions. Although the current 
picture of global trade looks bright, we can also see darker clouds looming large on the horizon in  
the form of increased trade tensions  which could compromise this  outlook. We therefore encourage 
Members to address their trade concerns amicably through dialogue including the use of relevant 
WTO bodies. In this regard we associate ourselves with the statements made by Switzerland on 
behalf of a group of almost 40 Mem bers. 
 
On the specific subject of negotiations, agriculture is of key interest to Kenya. We fully support the 
current consultations by the new Chair of CoA SS, Ambassador Ford and we look forward to having 
a clear work programme in a griculture negotiations  soon. Domestic support in agriculture is a 
priority for Kenya and therefore we expect concrete result s in this area. The concerns of the 
NFIDCs  should be fully taken into account.  We are also looking forward to  construct ive 
engagement on the issue of publ ic stockholding for food s ecurity in the dedicated sessions of the 
CoA SS in order to reach an agreement on a permanent solution without any further delay.    
 
On fisheries subsidies, Kenya welcome s the report by Ambassador Zapata on the prog ress made. 
We support the Chair's work programme  which is partly expected to guide discussions with a view 
of concluding negotiations on fisheries subsidies by 2019 in order to help achieve the UN 
Sustainable Development Goal 14.6. We therefore commit to engage construc tively in the 
negotiations in order to achieve a concrete outcome on fisheries subsidies.  
 
An outcome on fisheries should  contain concrete special and di fferential provisions that wi ll support 
and facilitate Kenya' s current efforts towards exploiting the blue economy for jobs and wealth 
creation.  
 
On development , we note with concern that the discussions in the CTD in Special Session aimed at 
strengthening the S& D provisions have not delivered the desired results. This is an important area 
of interest to Kenya. We therefore appeal for understanding and flexibility on the part of the 
Membership in order to realise real progress on S&D. Kenya is therefore open to an y proposals 
that might signal progress in line with the mandate on S&D.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 89 - 
 
  Besides these areas of negotiations, we have also witnessed great interest and intensive activities 
by some Members on other issues  such as e -commerce, investment facilitation, and MS MEs. There 
is no  doubt that sharing experiences  and best practices as well as fostering more in -depth 
understanding are critical in addressing knowledge gaps as well as the legit imate concerns of some 
Members.  Members should therefore demonstrate flexibili ty and constructive engagement on these 
issues.  
 
Finally, we join many Members who have expressed concern on the lack of prog ress in the 
appointment of A ppellate Body  members . It is important that the current stalemate regarding the 
appointment of members  of the Appellate Body is resolved as quickly as possible.  
 
54. New Zealand  
 
We are pleased to be associated with the statement of Switzerland on behalf a range of developing 
and developed Members. Discussion today has rightly focused not only on the opportuni ties but 
also the c hallenges facing the Membership and the WTO as an organiz ation itself. T hese challenges 
are significant  and have fundamental i mplications for us all. Like others, we too are deepl y 
concerned at the move by one M ember to introduce unilate ral tariff measures. Our concerns stem 
not only from a systemic perspective, where unilateral measures run the risk of escalation and 
retaliation, but also from a domestic commercial perspective where New Zeal and industry will be 
affected – even though New  Zealand' s exp orts do not pose a risk to any Member's  national 
security. If we do not resolve this, there will be no winners, only losers . As the Director -General  
said recently, " an eye for  an eye will leave us all blind" . 
 
We also continue to be troubled  about the delay in filling the vacancies on the Appellate Body.  If 
not resolved soon, this will result in the AB process not being ab le to function effectively. If 
Members cannot have recourse to the mechanism which enables us to enforce our rights 
effectively under the WTO, the entire basis of the system will be in question.   
 
At the same time, there has been discussion about aspects of the dispute settlement system not 
working as originally intended.  We are committed to work with other Members on impro ving how 
we operate at the WTO. It is important therefore that we engage frankly and constr uctively on 
these questions. For New Zealand, the WTO is the linchpin of the multilateral trading system and 
the stakes are extremely high.   
 
It is precisely becaus e the WTO rules based system is s o very important to us all that,  at the same 
time as addressing pressing challenges which we a re confronted with today,  we also need to be 
working equally hard in parallel on our core business of achieving the outcomes whic h the WTO 
was designed to deliver.  
 
This includes the critical issue of agriculture. In 2016 major Members implemented distortive 
policies equalling roughly US$500bn. Our current settings aren' t reining in that spending – in fact 
the existing Uruguay Roun d settings would allow for significant growth in that number.  At a time 
when we need investment in long term non -distortive measures that would bring abo ut real 
improvements in farmers'  access to technology, productivity and resilience, we need to talk ab out 
concrete measures to bring these expensive short -term distortion under control.   
  
Fisheries subsidies is an area where we have clear guidance coming out of MC 11 to implement 
comprehensive disciplines and fulfil SDG 14. 6 by 2020. Thanks to the new Rul es Negotiating Group  
Chair, we now have a roadmap to take us through th e summer on fisheries subsidies  with several 
intensive clusters before August. Members must now do what is required to achieve the outcome.  
Memb ers need to work pragmatically but with the requirements of SDG 14.6 firmly in mind.  
 
The Joint I nitiatives agreed by Ministers at MC11 are also a critical component in ensuring tha t the 
WTO remains relevant  by addressing the pressing t rade issues of the 21st century  and ensuring 
that the WTO  is seen as an inclusive organiz ation through which Members are working in a 
transparent manner for the benefit of all groups within their soc ieties.  We strongly support  the 
focus on e -commerce, women's economic empowerment, MSMEs  and domestic regulation.  
Members'  constructive participation in discussion of these issues demonstrates that they are well 
aware of the changing global environment and of the need to rise to meet these challenges.   
These initiatives are open and transparent processes and we encour age all Members to engage 
actively and to contribute constructively.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 90 - 
 
  We would reiterate that while there are challenges before us which must be addressed, we must 
rise to the occasion and seize the opportunities.  
 
55. Cambodia  
 
Cambodia associates itself with the statements made by the Central African  Republic on behalf of 
the LDC G roup.  
 
Even though  we could not achieve our desired outcomes at MC 11, the four decisions and some 
joint initiatives provide a predictable and instruc tive framework set to guide us in continuing  our 
negotiations o n the way forward.  
 
For this important stage of the consultat ions, my delegation encourages M embers to speed up 
discussions to address the concer ns and interests of developing M embers especiall y of LDCs on  the 
priority issues including special and differential treatment, fisheries, and agriculture, among 
others,  for possible outcomes at the next Ministerial Conference to be held in 2019.  
 
My delegation reaffirms the importance of fulfilling the  commi tments from each member to fully  
implement the Hong Kong, Bali and Nairobi decisions in particular the decisions on DFQF, Rules of 
Origin and Services Waiver.  
 
We take this opportunity to  express our sincere thanks to M embers who have improved their  Duty 
Free Quota Free schemes as per the Bali Decision. We also thank M embers fo r the notifications of 
their Rules of Origin  using the adopted template and to those who submitted notifications of the 
services waiver mandated by  MC10 to improve Market Acces s for LDCs, goods and services.   
 
Cambodia is not the co -sponsor of the joint statement made by Switzerland this morning but we 
support the joint statement.  
 
Like other  open economies, Cambodia is not  in a position to support protectionism. The 
protection ism on the global scale will have a negative impact on the global growth, hurting mostly 
those who are small and unprotected. Cambodia therefore urges M embers to respect  the 
multilateral rules -based system and avoid protectionist measures including tit -for-tat measures.  
 
My delegation is committed to working closely with all on a constructive and inclusive basis  for the 
benefit of the entire M embers hip. 
 
56. Pakistan  
 
We appreciate the Director -General's robust defence and advocacy for the multilateral trading  
system as well as highlighting the role of trade in inclusive and sustainable development.  
 
Pakistan notes with concern  the continuing rise of anti -trade rhetoric in global trade deliberations. 
These developments do not bode well for the multilateral tra ding system  and particularly for 
developing countries. As protectionist sentiment is gaining currency, the issue of development and 
trade is also being questioned.  
 
Pakistan has always advocated that multilateralism and development are the  two pillars keep ing 
the WTO afloat . The only way to counter the threat to global trade expansion is to adhere to these 
ideals and deliver on inclusive development for the M embership. Questioning the value or 
relevance of the development dimension wil l widen the cracks bet ween the M embership and 
further weaken the multilateral system.  
 
Pakistan remains  committed to working with the M embership to realise the objective of sustainable 
and inclusive economic development for developing countries through multilateral cooperation.  
 
Agriculture reform is a priority for Pakistan. We have to come out of our dissatisfaction with MC11 
and immediately start our work to achieve some meaningful outcomes in order to address the 
problems and issues in agriculture which affect bil lions of people in developing countries across the 
globe.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 91 - 
 
  We would also like to express our disappointment at the demands for equal contributions by all 
Members irrespective of their  level of development. W e cannot simply ignore the principle of 
special and differential t reatment for all developing countr ies. It is a global reality – one that 
symbolises the WTO.  
 
We welcome Ambassador Ford as the new Chair of  the CoA SS and look forward to working with 
him. Our priority will be to keep the reflection pha se as short as possible and the process to be 
fully inclusive so that all M embers can participate in the discussions. We assure the Membership  of 
our constructive engagement in the future work on agriculture reform.  
 
Cotton remains one of the major sector s of the economy and a key issue for Pakistan. The C -4 has  
been pushing for refor m in this sector for the last twenty  years. Unfortunately , we have not been 
able to deliver on their genuine demands. Pakistan has always supported the C -4 in their efforts 
and will continue to provide them with all the technical and political support in the future.  
 
Last month, Pakistan organised a visit to Pakistan for C -4 members. The  visit focused on cot ton 
production and value chain. C -4 Ambassadors  and experts from C -4 countries participated in this 
initiative. It was mutually agreed to continue this programme and fu rther deepen this cooperation.  
 
We welcome Ambassador Z apata on his appointment as C hair of the Negotiating Group on Rules. 
We are confident tha t he will be a ble to rally the M embership to fulfil the mandate on fisheries 
subsidies we have been given by our Ministers. We are satisfied with the work program me adopted 
and assure our constructive engagement in any future work.  
 
On the emerging issues of e -commerce,  MSMEs and investment f acilitation, Pakistan continues to 
view them together as potential areas for creating positive synergies for our economies.  
  
On e-commerce, Pakistan will contin ue to engage positively on the work programme man dated by 
the M inisterial Decision again at MC 11. We look forward to discussing all issues under various 
bodies including the General Council and any dedicated discussion for this purpose. Pakistan 
believes that only a multilateral outcome will give tr ue dividends in thi s area and a member of the 
Friends of E -Commerce for Development, we will continue to make contributions on the 
development dimension of E -Commerce.  
 
On MSMEs, Pakistan is a member of the Coordination Committee for the initiative on MSMEs and 
we intend to  contribute fully as part of the activities on the roadmap we have chalked out under 
the leadership of Uruguay for 2018.  
 
Pakistan would also like to commend the efforts of the convenors of the three like -minded joint 
initiatives on e -commerce, i nvestment  facilitation and MSMEs  and appreciate the decision to keep 
the discussions open -ended, transparent and inclusive. Pakistan looks forward to contributing 
positively and constructively in these endeavours and will hope that these in itiatives  feed back 
positi vely into the multilate ral system.  
 
On investment f acilitation, Pakistan continues to work with FIFD and other like -minded M embers to 
carry forward the work on investment facilitation as envisaged in the MC11 joint statement. The 
last session on "Improvin g the transparency and predictability of investment measures" was very 
well attended and shed light on experiences and practices already undertak en by Members in this 
realm. We once again encourage other M embers to engage actively and substantively in the 
structured discussions.  
 
The exponential increase in the num ber of trade remedy actions by M embers in recent years 
highlights the critical importance of the dispute settlement m echanism in the WTO. The DSB is th e 
only recourse for affected Members and for Pakistan  forms a key pillar on which the WTO stands. 
We express concern that the DSB has been unable to fulfil its obligation under Article 17.2 of the 
DSU to fill v acancies in the Appellate Body M embership.  
 
We recognise some Members'  concerns regarding the DSB. However, the solution lies in dialogue, 
positive engagement and flexibi lity. Unfortunately, continued vacu um in the Appellate Body can 
impede the work of the institution without any chance of reform. We  urge M embers to commence  
work on the appointment of Appellate Body members and also discuss solutions to address the 
outstanding concerns.  WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 92 - 
 
  To conclude, Pakistan wishes to underscore the importance of constructive engagement to ensure 
that we keep the WTO system alive particularly  for the deve lopment and inclusive growth of  all. 
 
57. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
I would like to refer  to the day to day work of the o rganization and to our systemic concerns.  
 
As regar ds the day to day work of this o rganization, we acknowledge the goo d progress made on 
the issue of fisheries subsidies in terms of the organization of work. We support the agenda put 
forward by the Chair of the Negotiating Group for this quarter, comprising technical sessions, 
thematic sessions and bilateral meetings, whi ch we trust will converge and lead to the streamlining 
of proposals.  
 
However, this progr ess is hardly being matched in agriculture and trade and d evelopment – two 
other areas of particular concern to my delegation. While we commend the efforts made by the  
Chairs of the two Committees in convening consultations aimed at shaping the way forward in both 
areas, we share the frustration expressed by other Members. My delegation believes that the time 
has now come, in both cases, to resume the negotiations on th e basis of the existing mandates.  
 
In endorsing Indonesia's statement on behalf of the G -33, we give priority to food security related 
issues and request S&D for NFIDCs. In this respect, we believe that the Doha mandate, the July 
2004 Package, the Hong Kon g Declaration, and the fourth revision of the modalities document 
provide a more than adequate basis for resuming our work.  
 
As regards trade and d evelopment, the Committee needs to revert to its mandate and focus its 
endeavours on how to put into practice  what our Ministers agreed and instructed us to do in 2001, 
that is, to strengthen the S&D provisions by making them more precise, effective and operational. 
Trade should not be an end in itself but rather a means to foster economic growth and 
development for all Members. To achieve this, it is essential to correct the existing imbalances in 
international markets. We must put an end to historical debts that affect the healthy development 
of multilateralism. The question  we have to ask ourselves is  how to ba lance tra de opportunities so 
that all  developing countries can achieve the requisite industrial development to meet their 
peoples' needs.  
 
Our systemic concerns lie in the following three areas:  
 
 Escalation of tensions due to unilateral coercive measures a nd protectionist measures  
applied by one Member of this o rganization. It is a matt er of concern that the world is 
having to reli ve the experience of trade wars along with their well -known consequences.  
 
 Lack of consensus to approve the procedural formaliti es required to fill the current 
vacancies in the Appellate Body  as a result of one single Member blocking the launching of 
the process.  
 
 Weakening 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, 
these are informal processes under the sole responsibility of their proponents. Any 
intention to go beyond that would undermine the multilateral nature of the o rganization 
and jeopardize the principle of consensus. We therefore support the proposal tabled by 
South Africa  stating the need to discuss the scope of the Secretariat's role.  
 
In closing, I would like to reaffirm our commitment to build a robust, mutually supportive, fair and 
predicta ble multilateral trading system  based on common and transparent rules  that meets the 
interests of all the world's peoples.  
 
58. Malaysia  
 
On the outset, Malaysia associates herself with the statement delivered by Switzerland on behalf of 
38 Members on strengthening the multilateral trading system.  
 WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 93 - 
 
  We note the positive forecast by the WTO on the expansion and growth of merchandise trade 
volume in 2018, resulting from the 2017 trade growth. However, while the global trade is moving 
upwards, we are concerned by the signs of escalating trade tensions that could aff ect businesses 
and trade outlook in  the coming times. As a developing trading nation, Malaysia would not escape 
the possible impact derived from sig nificant measures undertaken by  Members.  
 
Following thi s, we urge Members to restrain themselves from takin g protectionist measures that 
could have a spiral effect on the global trading system.  
 
Malaysia would like to express support on calls to uphold the multilateral trading system to govern 
international trade. As such, it is important that the multilateral trading system and the WTO 
remain relevant by being inclusive and equitable.  
 
The WTO i s a Member -driven organiz ation and its direction for a balanced gain and inclusivity of all 
Members relies on each Members ' responsibilities. The WTO has an important ro le to play where 
its effective rules have provided stability, security and predictability to conduct trade . 
 
As we gear to wards the second half of 2018, five  months post MC11, we should ensure that the 
momentum we have created running u p to MC11 does not g o to waste.  We appreciate the efforts 
undertaken by Switzerland and India on convening two important Ministerial Meetings early this 
year which have provided significant impetus to the process and calls on us to continue to  engage 
on the issues at hand. Malaysia will continue to support efforts to intensify negotiations and 
contribute positively to bridge the gaps in the negotiations for a successful conclusion of the Doha 
Round.  
 
We also welcome the active engagement on the emerging issues such as e -commer ce, MSMEs and 
investment facilitation for development as they are deemed to reflect the reality in the global 
economic scenario. Engagement on these issues would indicate the capability and the ability for 
the WTO to adapt to the changing landscape in orde r to remain relevant. We welcome the efforts 
of these like -minded initiatives  to have the discussions in an open -ended and transparent manner 
to ensure inclusiveness of all Members. We encourage other M embers to partake in these 
discussions which we believ e would benefit M embers in fostering a better understanding of the 
common goal of such t hemes at the multilateral trading system.  
 
On the selection process of the Appellate Body, Malaysia joins others in the need for flexibility to 
resolve the pending issu e to ensure that the credibility of the multilateral trading system is not 
undermined.  
 
Malaysia is committed to  working together with all M embers in moving the negotiations forward as 
well as strengthening the multilateral trading system.  
 
59. Republic of Korea 
 
Regardless of the deadlock in the WTO, the outside world has been changing very rapidly and 
significantly. Just as many of my colleagues are, I am also dubious about whether the WTO is 
appropriately catching up with this fast changing reality. For example, we spend too much time in 
distingu ishing new issues from old ones which ha s nothing to do with real world business.  
 
In this context, we are pleased to see active discussions on e -commerce, MSMEs and investment 
facilitation, and we welcome the new  proposals in the Joint Statement track. Korea will make its 
utmost efforts to make contribution to the progress of these discussions.  
 
Secondly, we are pleas ed to adopt the new work plan on  fisheries subsides. Given the unique and 
complex nature of this issue, negotiators may feel the need to rely on knowledge and experience 
of relevant organizations such as FAO and RFMOs. We thus believe that it is an appropriate 
approach for us to aim final outcomes which are doable for the WTO. In this vein, Korea will  
continue to participate in the  negotiations in order to fulfi l the UN SDG as well as the Ministerial 
Decision in Buenos Aires .  
 
Before concluding my statement, I would like to touch upon the most importa nt issue for the 
future of the multilateral trading  system. As previous speakers pointed out, the prolonged vacancy 
in the Appellate Body is seriously detrimental to the c ore function of the WTO especially  given the WT/GC/M/172  
 
- 94 - 
 
  proliferation of trade restrictive measures in various forms and reasoning and given the po tential 
for the abuse or misuse of such measures as d isguised protectionist policies. The importan ce of the 
dispute set tlement system cannot be over -emphasized. With the great sense of urgency, we  
therefore  urge all Members to start the selection process w ithout further delay.  
 
__________