RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/142  
 
16 May 2013  
(13-2566)  Page: 1/120  
General Council 
29-31 January 2013    
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 29-31 JANUARY 2013 
Chairperson:  Mrs Elin Johansen (Norway) 
Subject discussed: Appointment of the next Director-General 
– Meeting with the candidates 
 1.1.  The Chairperson recalled that the meetin g had been convened in accordance with the 
Procedures for the Appointment of Directors-General (WT/L/509), and its purpose was to enable 
Members to meet formally with the nine candidates that had been nominated for the post of the 
next Director-General. She also recalled that, on 15 January 2013, she had sent a fax to all delegations setting out the modalities for the cond uct of the meeting. These modalities had also 
been circulated to all Members on 18 January 201 3 in document JOB/GC/28. She noted that these 
modalities were the same as those applied in the appointment process in 2005, when there had 
also been multiple candidates.  Since the modalities had been set out in detail in the document, 
she would not read them all, but rather highlight a few important points. 
1.2.  The scheduled meeting time for each candid ate had been indicated on the Airgram convening 
the meeting (WTO/AIR/4067), as well as in the document containing the modalities. The candidates would appear before the General Council in the order in which their nominations had 
been received. Each candidate would be invited to make a brief presentation lasting no more than 
fifteen minutes. This would be followed by a question-and-answer period of no more than one hour and fifteen minutes. During the last five minutes of the question-and-answer period, each 
candidate would have the opportunity to make a concluding statement if he or she so wished.   
1.3.  Names of speakers for each question-and-answer period would be drawn at random from a 
box at the podium containing the names of all delegations who had indicated their wish to put a 
question to the candidate concerned. In line with the modalities, nine boxes, one for each 
candidate, had been made available the previous day to Members wishing to put questions to one 
or more candidates.  The boxes had since been kept under lock and key by the Secretariat. 
1.4.  In order to make the fairest possible use of the time available, each Member whose name 
was drawn from the box would be allowed to ask one question only, with no follow-up questions 
allowed.  This would be followed by a response from the candidate, followed by the drawing of the 
next speaker, and so on. Questions should last no more than one minute.  Other than questions, 
there should be no statements from delegations.  She intended to exercise strict discipline with 
respect to time management, and would interrupt speakers after one minute.  She urged Members to assist the process by not asking questions that might have already been asked. 
1.5.  If the number of speakers was exhausted befo re the one-hour and fifteen minutes time limit, 
she would ask if any additional delegations wished to put questions, giving priority to those who 
had not previously spoken.  If, at the end of the time limit for the question-and-answer session, there were unfulfilled requests to put questions,  she would indicate to each candidate the number 
of Members remaining on the list of potential speakers. 
1.6.  She noted that each candidate would have the opportunity to meet with the Press in the WTO 
building immediately following his or her meeting with Members in the General Council.  The press 
conference would be broadcast live on the WTO website. In addition, for each candidate, the initial WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 2 - 
 
  presentation and his or her concluding statement - but not the question-and answer session - 
would be filmed, and the video placed on the Members' website. 
1.7.  Following the Chairperson's introductory re marks, Members in General Council met with the 
candidates as follows: 
29 January 
11.15 - 12.45 Mr Alan John Kwadwo Kyerematen (Ghana)  
15.00 - 16.30 Ms Anabel González (Costa Rica) 
16.30 - 18.00 Ms Mari Elka Pangestu (Indonesia) 
 30 January 10.00 - 11.30  Mr Tim Groser (New Zealand) 
11.30 - 13.00 Ms Amina C. Mohamed (Kenya) 
15.00 - 16.30 Mr Ahmad Thougan Hindawi (Jordan) 16.30 - 18.00 Mr Herminio Blanco (Mexico) 
 
31 January 10.00 - 11.30 Mr Taeho Bark (Republic of Korea) 
11.30 - 13.00 Mr Roberto Carvalho de Azevêdo (Brazil) 
 1.8.  The presentations supplied by each candidate
1, as well as the questions and answers at each 
session, are recorded in Annexes A to I. 
                                               
1 At the request of each of the candidates, the presen tations supplied by them were subsequently issued 
in documents JOB/GC/29-37. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 3 - 
 
  ANNEX A 
Meeting with Mr Alan John Kwadwo Kyerematen (Ghana) 
1. Presentation by the Candidate I want to become the next Director-General of the WTO because I believe in this organization, and 
I believe I have the strengths and experience it needs in its Director-General. 
 The WTO needs new energy. The stalemate in negoti ations threatens to weaken the functioning of 
the system as a whole. Governments are increasingly  looking elsewhere. Persistent failure to agree 
erodes confidence in the system. Furthermore, ex isting agreements that do not keep pace with 
changing realities will lose relevance and respect.  
The challenge before us is to revitalize the WTO. We need a New Trade Consensus  – a grand 
bargain built on a comprehensive, coherent and dynamic approach to the full range of issues and the interests of all Members. 
 
What does this mean in practice? On the negotiat ing front, we need first to achieve outcomes in 
line with the guidance from MC8. These outcom es are needed both for their own value and to 
show that the system is still capable of producin g results. They are important for rebuilding trust 
and confidence among negotiators. The more we ca n achieve by the time of the Bali Ministerial the 
better, though we also need to keep our ambitions re alistic. You can be sure that this effort will be 
my immediate priority from my first day on the job.   
 
However, the Round will not end at Bali. We need to maintain our commitment to the DDA. The hopes invested in it, especially by developing Me mbers, cannot just be put aside. Issues such as 
agriculture remain crucially important not only to the negotiations, but also to the lives of people. 
The WTO has an important contribution to make to the global campaign for food security. And the cotton issue must remain a priority. The WTO must deliver on all of our agreed agenda, 
particularly on the development dimension.  
 The New Trade Consensus also means acting in a coherent way to reenergize the whole range of the WTO’s work. To give some important examples: its vital role in resisting protectionism must be 
maintained; the effectiveness of the dispute settlement system must be enhanced; and accessions 
must be advanced with due attention to their systemic benefits.  
Beyond Bali, concluding the Round and charting th e future direction of the multilateral trading 
system are linked. As we conclude the negotiatio ns, we should be opening up other perspectives. 
We need to keep the system moving along with  the world it serves. Members are not short of 
ideas about what issues deserve attention. The poin t is that not all of these issues have to be 
treated in the same way at the same time.    If we are to succeed in breaking the logjam and moving forward, we need to rely on what I regard 
as key strategic drivers of the New Trade Consensus. Let me highlight five of these. 
 First, we must rebuild a solid political consensus based on the core values of our institution. Let us 
focus on the things that unite us, not those that divide us. A solid political consensus will allow us 
to approach decision-making in a flexible and inclusive manner.    
Second, the WTO belongs to all its Members. Every Member’s interests are important and must be 
taken into account in the decision-making process.    Third, we must reach out more actively to busine ss, civil society and other stakeholders. Trade is 
part of a much bigger economic, political and soci al reality. Policy needs to recognize this.   
 Fourth, fostering growth and development is fundamental to the mission of our institution. We 
need a robust and dynamic approach to the deep challenges of development.    
 Fifth, the WTO needs to manage the relationship between multilateralism and regionalism in ways 
that allow trade to benefit from both.  
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 4 - 
 
  Let me now outline how I see the development dimension of the New Trade Consensus. The 
starting point is that Members universally place value on the growth, development and prosperity of all their trading partners.   
Special and differential treatment and preferences remain of great importance to many developing 
countries. These need to be maintained. However, we know that SDT alone cannot bring about the full integration of developing countries into the multilateral trading system. We need a holistic 
approach. Its elements include: 
 
 Improving market access in the leading trading nations, including through the removal 
of tariff peaks, tariff escalation and non-tariff barriers. This is crucial to enabling 
developing countries to participate more fully in global value chains.  
 
 Improving access to trade finance for developing countries.  
  Giving particular priority to the needs of  least-developed countries. My region, West 
Africa, and indeed the whole of Africa, is home to some of the poorest LDCs. Trade 
alone is not the answer to their problems but it is a vital part of the answer.  
 
 Strengthening public-private partnerships. This is a field in which I have experience as 
a Minister and as a business executive, and I know the difference well-targeted partnerships can make. 
 
 Maintaining and improving capacity-building efforts such as the Enhanced Integrated 
Framework for LDCs and the Aid for Trade initiative.     
 
 There is no one-size-fits-all solution. The challenges faced by small and vulnerable 
economies, for example, require targeted responses. 
 
 Adopting national policies that create an enabling environment for trade and 
investment. There is also a need for coherence between trade policies and other policies, such as macroeconomic, fiscal, agricultural and social policies.  
 
My skills and experience make me the right person to help the WTO meet the development 
challenge. My career so far has been concerne d with the integration of developing countries, 
including some of the very poorest, into international trade. In my private sector career, in my 
capacity-building work, and as a Minister I have consistently promoted a positive development 
agenda. I would continue to do so as Director-General.  
The New Trade Consensus also means developing a positive agenda for the relationship between 
the WTO and preferential trade agreements. According to the WTO Secretariat, some 354 PTAs are currently in force and each WTO Member on av erage belongs to 13 separate agreements. This 
proliferation must be seen in part as a response to the lack of progress in the WTO. There are 
obviously also other dimensions to the desire for deeper integration. The debate is not about 
whether these agreements are good or bad. However, we would all accept, I think, that multiple overlapping agreements risk adding complexity an d costs to trade. They also risk excluding the 
poorest. 
 One obvious way for the WTO to reduce these risks is to accelerate its own market opening and 
rule-making efforts. Another is to multilateral ize the results of preferential trade deals. 
 As its name underlines, the New Trade Consensus must be based on inclusiveness. I am committed to the consensus principle. But consensus cannot mean immobility. The challenge is to 
apply it in a dynamic and enabling way. Part of the solution, I suggest, is to take a broader and 
more flexible view of possible negotiating approaches and outcomes.   
We are not tied forever to One Big Round or always to "hard law" solutions. The WTO should be 
able to advance on agreements in individual areas as we did fifteen years ago in financial services and basic telecoms; it should have enough confidence to be able to consider plurilateral 
agreements on their merits as long as the basic multilateral framework of non-discrimination is 
respected; it should be able to allow those members who want to go further or faster to do so, provided that the results are in the common interest and ultimately of benefit to all; and it should WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 5 - 
 
  be able to consider non-binding or "soft law" ag reements where these could help build confidence 
as a basis for something more solid. In this and other ways, we shouldn't hesitate to learn from the best practices of other trade forums such as APEC.  
Finally, why should you choose me for this job? Because I have the right combination of skills, 
background and experience as a practical negotiator, as a business executive, as an Ambassador, as a high-level international official and as a senior Cabinet Minister. I come from an African 
developing country that has made great advances in growth and governance with the support of 
the multilateral trading system. Ghana has been a leader in advancing co-operation regionally as 
well as between North and South. I have been part of that leadership. I bring you hands-on experience of trade at every level. I have negotiated trade and investment agreements with the 
major economies and I have worked with local communities to develop small and medium-scale 
export enterprises.   
I offer the WTO innovation and dynamism anchored in a firm commitment to the core values of the 
system.  
I am very much aware that the DG is also the CEO of the WTO, answerable to you, its 
membership. I take the management aspect of th e job very seriously. My extensive management 
experience in both the public and the private sector makes me well placed to manage the WTO effectively. 
 
I would run the organization on the basis of firm financial and managerial discipline and accountability. I understand the budgetary constraint s of Members and will work to ensure that the 
WTO gives maximum value for money. 
 The Secretariat is deservedly ranked highly among international organizations for its integrity and 
professionalism. I commit myself to sustain and build upon its excellence.  
 I understand the limits of the DG’s role in a Member-driven organization, but I also appreciate its possibilities. Peter Sutherland has described the role as being a facilitator, and I agree completely. 
I believe that by working with the Members at every level on a basis of trust, by listening to them 
and by being the DG of all the Members, I can make a real difference. Building a New Trade Consensus  will take time, effort and commitment. I am  up to the challenge and it would be an 
honour and privilege for me to serve this organization as the next Director-General. 
  
2. Questions and Answers 
Q: It is widely recognized that the failure to conclude the Doha Round has seriously 
impeded the function and credibility of the multilateral trading system. So, if you are 
appointed as the DG, how to safeguard interest s of developing Members, particularly the 
LDCs, in this process?  (China) 
 A: As I mentioned in my statement, the LDCs have S&D treatment under the rules and 
regulations of this Organization. They are relieved of basic commitments in all the negotiating 
areas. Again, in respect of that, they are also ab le to take advantage of various other preferences. 
I think that this goes far. However, what I would hope would happen is that we would be able to 
look for other new and innovative approaches in enhancing the S&D treatment that is available to 
LDCs. And I may offer some suggestions, but the bottom line is that this is a Member-driven 
Organization, and I would like to work with Members particularly within the LDC Group to be able to address very specific interventions that woul d help them over and ab ove whatever preferences 
and benefits under the S&D arrangement that they already enjoy. 
 Q: My question is on the DDA negotiations. What role do you see for the DG in 
multilateral trade negotiations? And could the DG  have a useful role in Members' efforts 
of steering the Doha Round out of its current difficulties?  (Portugal) 
 
A: I see the role of the DG as one of a facilitator, not as an arbitrator. In that context, the role 
of the DG, as Chair of the TNC, I think provides a unique opportunity for the DG to be able to provide strategic guidance and advice to Members, not to dictate to them what his own views are, 
and to what extent this would influence the course of the negotiations. But it is essentially in being WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 6 - 
 
  a facilitator that the DG would be able to bring Members together. In a Member-driven 
Organization of 158 Members with different agendas, the task of reconciling differences is not an easy one. However, if the DG works on the basis of  trust, seeking the interests of each individual 
Member, rich, poor, small, big, vulnerable, not vulnerable, I think that is the bottom line. That is 
how you are able to support the negotiating exercise. In addition to that, the DG also has a role in 
terms of his oversight responsibilities, over the re gular bodies of the institution, and these regular 
bodies have responsibilities in terms of the impl ementation of Agreements, to the extent that the 
implementation has an impact on how the Dispute Settlement Body also works. I think that, going 
beyond the negotiations, he still has a very significant role to play in making sure that all the trade pillars of the Organization – negotiating new trade agreements, making sure that we settle disputes, and also being able to implement existing agreements – I think that they all work in 
harmony and reinforce each other. 
 Q: We are facing the global economic do wnturn and a growing temptation to the 
protectionism and protectionist trend in the world, and the leading international 
organizations are reserved that the standst ill or roll-back to combat protectionism 
should be adopted. I just would like to a ppreciate how the multilateral trading system 
can and should address the proliferation of protectionism, and are there any better ways 
to improve the monitoring mechanisms of  protectionist practices in the world?  (Republic 
of Korea)  
A: I think that the most powerful firewall that we have in the global governance architecture of 
institutions is really the WTO. It is a firewall against protectionism, but at the same time it is an instrument for global economic recovery, which is the only way you can fight against protectionism 
on a sustainable basis. If every country is doing well, if we have global prosperity, the issue of 
protectionism does not become a central issue. And I believe that that is really a major part of what the WTO is supposed to do. However, because the WTO works in consonance and in 
conjunction and in alliance with other organizations, global governance institutions, the World 
Bank, the IMF, and in some cases this is backed by law, and other organizations even apart from 
these two institutions, I think that if we strengthen the strategic alliance between these institutions, we would have a better oversight mechanism over protectionism, which really must be 
discouraged. In terms of how we strengthen the monitoring mechanism, I think that this is a very 
important issue. As DG, I think that mine is not to dictate how the monitoring mechanism is rolled out, but then to be able to work with Members an d to distil very specific suggestions that would be 
able to help us strengthen the monitoring mech anism. In terms of oversight, maybe somewhere 
along the line, by involving other business enti ties, other stakeholders, within the broader 
community, that would also probably make a contribution to how we address the issue of 
protectionism. 
 Q: Over the recent years we have seen a lo ng series of bilateral and regional trade 
agreements appear. Now, what would you do if you were chosen as DG to strengthen 
the role of the WTO in relation to these regional trade agreements?  (Denmark) 
 A: First, let me acknowledge the fact that the pr oliferation of the PTAs is a direct response to 
the lack of progress that we have made on the multilateral platform. But I must also suggest that 
it may not necessarily be undesirable to have PTAs. In actual fact, if you look at the core objective of the multilateral trading system, the WTO, what we are all looking for is increased global trade 
and to reduce barriers. Now, if there are PTAs th at seek, albeit on a limited basis among selected 
Members, to try and advance the cause of more trade, reduce barriers, then it would not necessarily be a disincentive, and they are not mutually exclusive to the efforts in the multilateral trade agenda. However, what I think we need to avoid is a situation where the focus on the PTAs 
would suck the energy and the interests of Me mbers in bringing the core issues into the 
multilateral agenda. And there is also, I think, the danger that we need to avoid is first, in terms of the costs of the PTAs. Costs, in terms of the fact that we all know that the rules of origin can play 
a positive role, but they can also have a distorting effect. That is one. Secondly, the costs of 
administering rules of origin, which I mean are the basis of these PTAs, can also be a cost to trade. And thirdly, there is also the possibility that it may exclude some Members, particularly poorer 
countries. So, on the whole it is positive, and I th ink if I become DG, I would like to work more 
actively with Member states to find a way to en sure that there is alignment, overall alignment, 
between the PTAs and then the multilateral trade agenda.  WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 7 - 
 
  Q: What is your vision for the future of the WTO, and wha t reforms do you believe 
should be made to the Organization?  (Luxembourg) 
 A: As I indicated in my presentation, I believe that the future of the WTO would be more 
appropriately defined by its Members. And I want to go back to this central point: that the role of 
the Director-General is to facilitate and provide strategic advice to Members to help them define the future agenda of the WTO. The WTO exists to serve its Members, as a Member-driven 
Organization. I think that one also needs to recognize that this has to be done from a bottom-up 
approach, and not from a top-down approach. So, th e vision of the future of the WTO must be the 
collective vision of the future of the WTO as seen  by the Members. The DG has to appreciate that, 
and use whatever skills he has to be able to guide and play that role in facilitating consensus on 
what that future agenda and the vision has to be. 
 Q: I would like to ask you about one of th e points you made in your introduction, 
when you mentioned that post-Bali the WTO no t only needs to comple te the rest of the 
DDA, but should also focus on current issues, or pressing issues, of the 21
st century. I 
wonder if you could outline what sort of issues you think the WTO could and should 
undertake in addition to the DDA.  (Hong Kong, China) 
 A: I would say that the real task and responsibility of the DG is to be able to provide strategic support and advice to Members in terms of helping to define some of these new issues. If you 
have a DG who comes in with a perspective and with an orientation that he has the magic wand to 
come and define what new issues have to be tabled by the Organization and negotiated, it might be unfortunate. I think that the Members have the re sponsibility to define these issues. I think the 
principle that I reached is that it is almost a logical truth that, for us to maintain this Organization, 
particularly the responsibility of negotiating new trade agreements, we have to look at issues that are embedded in the dynamics of the environment at any given point in time. I think that has 
been really the principle underpinning the GATT and then the WTO. It has always evolved in 
response to new challenges in global dynamics. So, the principle is clear, that let us not only deal with existing issues that we have been looking at , but look at other issues that have crept up on 
us, either by chance or design, within the context of the environment. But that has to be defined 
not by the DG, but by its Members. 
 Q: CARICOM, like other small vulnerable ec onomies, face inherent challenges and 
constraints that limit our participation in  the multilateral trading system. Moving 
forward, what, in your view, are the key concerns, and how can the WTO effectively 
address them? (Jamaica) 
 
A: I am aware that the key concerns of the SVEs have been defined in detail, and I think in a very constructive, positive way, by the SVEs themselves. You are preaching to the converted. I believe very clearly that you have a group that is  vulnerable on the basis of not necessarily their 
own national policies, but sometimes on account of circumstances that are beyond their control, 
including climatic factors, and to the extent that for some of these SVEs, their economies rest maybe on a number of service-oriented industries, that their vulnerability can only be protected by 
targeted and focused support for these SVEs. So, you are preaching to the converted, but defining 
exactly what needs to be done, I think, has already been done by the SVEs. And I would like, in my facilitating role, to be able to bring this up on the agenda whenever it is possible, and see how 
we can get some consensus from other Member s on addressing the special needs of SVEs. 
 Q: I would like to better understand the tag-line which you used about a new trade consensus. I take this to mean that, in a ne w trade consensus, there is more than just a 
DDA component to it? So, can I invite you to elaborate on the non-DDA aspects of the 
new trade consensus? In particular, do we risk eroding one of the key pillars of our 
institution, that of dispute settlement, if we  move into the realm of soft law instead of 
pressing on to find consensus in the hard law-making? Because, in your introductory 
statement, you do suggest that we do both.  (Singapore) 
 
A: I am happy that in your question, you have highlighted the brand that I have talked about, 
which is the new trade consensus. I would like to suggest that, in fact what I am describing is a new strategic framework for advancing the multilateral trade negotiations. But beyond that, also, in being able to get the Organization to become more efficient and more effective and respond to 
the challenges of our times. So, it goes beyond the DDA. The interesting thing about this is that it WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 8 - 
 
  is a strategy framework, and it talks about building consensus and, in my presentation, what I 
have said is that the new trade consensus also means acting in a coherent way to re-energize the whole range of the WTO's work. So, it goes beyond the DDA negotiations. And I said, to give some important examples, its vital role in resisting protectionism, the effectiveness of the dispute 
settlement mechanism must be enhanced, accessions must be advanced with due attention to the 
systemic benefits. So, it goes beyond that. Late r on, when you receive copies of my statement, 
one thing that I would like to draw your attention to, is what I call the strategic drivers of this new 
trade consensus. I believe that, just to save time I will not go over them, but there are five 
strategic drivers which will provide the context for making us be able to realize the objectives of this new trade consensus, and one of them is to be able to secure political consensus across all Members in committing ourselves to the core values of the Organization and they are formal. 
 
Q: What are the issues that, in your view , should form part of a credible set of 
deliverables for MC9?  (Austria) 
 
A: First, let me underpin what I will say by my earlier statement that I believe it to be the responsibility of Members to come to some consensus in a structured and constructive way about 
the issues that should be put before the Members in  MC9. Now, I am aware, having said that, that 
concretely there are issues related to Trade Facilita tion, there are issues relating to Agriculture, in 
that regard, within the context of Agriculture, I am aware that there are issues relating to TQR - 
Tariff Quota Rates – there are issues relating to food subsidies. These have been put on the floor, 
and I think that, as you work together to come to some consensus on what you put before MC9, 
these should be covered. However, I am also aw are that there are those who view that issues 
related to the LDC package must be part of th e agenda. There are those who believe that there 
are issues related to the monitoring mechanism, which would be part of this. And so, I am not in a 
position, unfortunately, to make very specific su ggestions in respect of this. But these are the 
things on the table, and the DG only comes in three months before Bali, so it would be 
preposterous for the incoming DG when not even selected to be making statements about what 
ought to be put on the agenda, but these are some of the things that I am aware are on the table 
for discussion.  
Q: What is your view on the initiative fo r a services plurilateral agreement, vis-à-vis 
the current context and the need to stre ngthen the multilateral trading system?  
(Dominican Republic) 
 
A: This is a very sensitive issue. I think that different Members have different views of this matter. Again, I will resist the temptation of getti ng into the substance of this discourse, because I 
think it is still something that is being discussed. However, as a matter of principle, my 
understanding is that, if we are following the logic of the fact that Members are in this Organization to advance their individual and collective interests. The ideal situation is to pursue these interests within the context of a multilateral platform. However, in the event that there are 
selected Members who, because of the lack of  consensus in advancing their individual and 
collective interests on some very specific negotiating issues within the multilateral platform, and they are interested in pursuing a plurilateral agreement in respect of that particular issue, my 
understanding is that, to the extent that this wo uld serve the interests of a group of Members of 
the Organization, and, again by logical extension,  even improve trade flows and reduce barriers, 
which is the core objective of what we are all seeking to do, then it may not necessarily be 
undesirable. However, as I have indicated in my presentation, in the event that selected Members 
of this Organization would like to pursue any particular issue in the plurilateral framework, then the understanding must be that this must be co nsistent with the basic principles of the WTO 
multilateral agenda – non-discriminatory and, more importantly, that the benefits of whatever is 
agreed on are extended to the entire membership  of this Organization, similar to some of the 
efforts that were made many years ago in respec t of the negotiations on the financial and the 
telecoms sectors. I think that if we get that und erstanding that this will be pursued within the 
context of abiding by whatever objectives and rule s are set under the multilateral framework, then 
it will not altogether be undesirable. In the long run, I think that we must all pursue such initiatives without abandoning our core responsibilities under the multilateral trading agenda. If 
this is going to be a substitute for living up to our commitments under the multilateral trading 
agenda, that is where some difficulties may arise.  Q: You said in your opening statement that  you wanted to reach out to business. I 
think that's very important. Can you describe a bit more how you intend to do it, and WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 9 - 
 
  how you can help to make the negotiations in  WTO to be felt more relevant by business 
than perhaps what it is today?  (Norway) 
 A: My primary effort would be to try to stimulate discussion amongst the Members of this 
Organization in respect of this particular area. Now, my own experiences as a business executive, 
as a Minister for Trade and Industry, and to a large extent also the work that I have done with international organizations in supporting small and medium enterprises, point very clearly to me 
that the business that we do here in trying to negotiate trade rules and implement existing 
agreements can benefit significantly from a more constructive and direct intimate link with the private sector. The bottom line is that these are really the economic operators, who are the change agents for the kind of work that we do here. This is not to suggest that there have been no 
efforts at establishing such linkages, but my sense is that we can do more. There is scope for 
doing more. This is not only in respect of dealing with the large corporate sector, the multinationals, but probably be more importantly with small and medium scale companies. If we 
negotiate all the market access opportunities, we take advantage of S&D and, in particular, in 
developing countries we don't have entrepreneurs who can produce competitively to take advantage of the markets that are opened, then it would be unfortunate. So, that's the way I 
would look at it. 
 Q: What are the three challenges as DG that you would take up?  (Malaysia) 
 
A: The three challenges, not necessarily in order of priority, would be first to advance, enhance 
the negotiations in the DDA, not necessarily only towards Bali, but more importantly towards Bali and the post-Bali agenda. That would be the first priority that I would look at. I think there is 
absolutely a critical need for us to try and advance the negotiations in the DDA. Secondly, I would 
seek to ensure that we reinforce the strategic alliances that I talked about with the business community, with civil society, and also the alliances that we have with other development 
organizations that are not necessarily trade-related, but impact on the work that we do. And last 
but not least, I think that we still have an Organization to run. One of the things that I would like to do is to build on the work that has been done successfully by predecessors to make sure that indeed this Organization is run on very sound management and financial accountability principles. 
And then also we can get all Members to work within the context of achieving a common objective. 
 Q: Listening closely, not only to the initia l statement, but also to the questions and 
answers, I would still appreciate some greate r precision regarding the balance between 
being the servant of a Member-driven Organi zation on the one hand and the right of 
initiative on the other. On the one hand, you suggested that there is an obligation to 
complete the DDA, on the other you hinted in your statement that we must move beyond 
a single undertaking. On the one hand, you su ggested we must deliver those results, but 
in your new vision and new consensus, there are new issues to be addressed. You talked 
about being a CEO of the Secretariat, but did not elaborate on what initiative you might 
take to lead, rather than follow, the me mbership, as the current DG has done, for 
example, through the value chain study.  (Canada) 
 
A: I think that all the buttons that you hit clearly are reflected in my presentation and in my 
responses. But they are not mutually exclusive, th at is my understanding. Basically, what I am 
saying is that we have to work towards conclusion of the Round. However far we get, Bali is a 
milestone. We have no other objective but to make sure that we move along, because this is a 
very important part of the responsibility of this Organization, that we negotiate new trade agreements. So if we take the position that, be cause of the challenges that we are having in 
pushing forward the DDA, we reduce our appetite to continue, that may be unfortunate. The 
content of what we can harvest is for the Memb ers to decide. But having said that, and quite 
rightly so, I have also indicated that it is a matter of reality that in a changing global dynamic world, our agenda must go beyond the DDA, and also the current issues, to look at other issues 
that are critical and actually impact on trade. This is a dynamic Organization. We have to have a 
forward-looking agenda. So, it is only in that context that we would look at new issues. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they reinforce each other. So, the fact that the CEO also has to run 
this Organization, is also mutually reinforcing. This is all part of one set of responsibilities that the 
DG has to undertake. However, in terms of the balance that you are looking for, whether you are the servant or you are the one who takes the initiative, my understanding is that, unless there is clarity in the mind of any DG, your primary responsibility is to be a facilitator, and not an 
arbitrator, you work for the Members of this Organization, you are seeking to help them to achieve WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 10 - 
 
  consensus on a broad range of issues. And you ought also to appreciate that you cannot substitute 
your ego for that of the Organization and so you have to ensure that a level playing field is created for all Members. But within that context, I think th at you need strong leadership, as a CEO, who in 
his facilitating work would be able to frame the issues. For those of us who are lawyers, the issue 
really is not whether the law is applied, the law is always there, but it is how you are able to help 
parties to come to a consensus by applying the laws to solve a problem, a litigation problem. So, that is the view that I have, that you have to be a facilitator, but you are the strategic advisor and 
counsel to all Members, and it is a balancing act, is the trade-offs and the ability for you to do this 
in a harmonious way is what will bring Members together.  Q: Do you consider that the WTO could move  on to a new agenda without concluding 
the Doha Round?  (Uruguay) 
 A: Just to recall my earlier comments – because I see that the two are not mutually exclusive, 
and actually reinforce each other. My understanding again is this is at the discretion of Member 
states, that they would proceed on parallel tracks in  this respect, that your main core responsibility 
as Members is to make sure that what has been agreed in terms of the Doha mandate is more or 
less pursued, actively, aggressively, ambitiously, ex peditiously, to make sure that we derive the 
benefits, and particularly for those who come from  the developing countries. This is meant to be 
the round of developing countries. So, that is the core objective. However, because this is a dynamic Organization, trade is a dynamic subject matter, it ought not necessarily to be 
i n a p p r o p r i a t e  t o  a l s o  l o o k  a t  n e w  i s s ue s  t h a t  h a v e  c o m e  u p  t ha t  n e e d s  t o b e  r e f l e c t e d  i n  y o u r  
discourse. And even I think both agendas in the wh ole, where issues can be looked at with the 
perspective of being becoming part of either a new round or new negotiations in the future. 
 
Q: As well as spelling out that the needs an d interests of developing countries must 
be put at the very heart of the work pr ogramme in the Doha Declaration, and in 
subsequent documents, objectives were also  specifically established for the effective 
and meaningful integration of LDCs and full integration of small and vulnerable 
economies in the multilateral trading syst em. Given the important differences in 
perspectives between Members, as well as the need to take concrete steps in the fight 
against poverty, it would be necessary that  these objectives become a priority in 
preparatory work for Bali, so that the concre te trading interests of  such Members which 
are already stabilized in the market access modalities and in the commitments agreed 
on tariff reduction and S&D become the core element that would enable the Round to 
finally move towards a conclusion. How would you promote such a strategy?  (Ecuador) 
 
A: Working towards Bali and the issues that must be front-loaded, I would like to r-echo the 
comments that I have made, that there are substantive issues that are on the table for discussion, in respect of Trade Facilitation and Agriculture. There are issues that are on the table in respect of the TQR, in respect of food subsidies. These are being discussed amongst Members. I am also 
aware, as you have alluded to the issues that the LDCs have put on the table for consideration, 
there are issues related to the monitoring mechanism, and my sense is that the task of the existing DG, and I'm absolutely confident that he is already doing this in the processes leading to 
the Bali conference, my understanding is that the in termediate efforts to make sure that you come 
to a consensus on the very specific concrete accounts that can be harvested at Bali. I think that the guidance from MC8 allows the Members of this Or ganization to be able to proceed in respect of 
those very specific outcomes so that there is some traction, and then other areas that do not gain 
traction obviously become the basis for post-Bali dialogue and discussion.  Q: You said that, in a new phase, internationa l trade should be facilitated at all levels. 
Therefore, and on the basis of  your experience, what actions can be taken by the WTO to 
strengthen the participation of small and medium-sized enterprises in international 
trade, and mainly their integration in  regional and global value chains? (Paraguay) 
 
A: My passion and my interest in this subjec t matter may take me beyond the time that I 
believe I am allowed to speak. But having brought this up, let me just say that the first thing that 
I believe that needs to be done, of course this is not the WTO's work, but to the extent that as I've 
alluded to, that we need to ensure that this is being done in support with other institutions. The first thing that I think needs to be done is to be able to ensure that we grow a number of high-growth competitive small and medium enterprises in developing countries. There has to be an 
active programme to nurture high-growth small and medium enterprises because these are the WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 11 - 
 
  ones that have the capacity to be able to expo rt. And once they start exporting, that is the 
medium through which you get integrated into the gl obal market. Obviously, to be able to do that, 
there is a full range of technical assistance that is required, and I have more or less practically been able to do this for a number of SMEs, not only in my own country, but across Africa. Now, 
maybe at a later time, if you make me the DG, I'm sure I will be able to share more experiences in 
this regard. But having said also mentioned the issue of value chains, I think this is a major component of how we get small and medium enterprises to become part of the global market 
infrastructure. It is not just a starting point, but it can become mainstream small and medium 
enterprise activity, so that we are not lookin g at SMEs producing final products, but SMEs 
producing intermediate products that become part of the supply chain for larger companies. I initiated a programme like this in my own country, where we have been able to develop a new 
strategic sector to produce industrial starch with 10,000 farmers who otherwise have no 
connection to the global market and where, just through a new business model that we adopted, Nestlé International was able to buy industrial starch from these poor farmers and to be supplied 
in their worldwide operation, and to think that somebody producing cassava can now become a 
supplier of industrial starch just through value addition and value chain management, become a supplier to a multinational company. These are the kinds of things that we can work with other 
partners to be able to promote. 
 Q: Considering the WTO Director-General need s to have the capacity to operate at a 
political level while mastering the technical detail of on-going negotiation in order to 
facilitate the forging of compromises, how would you rate your capacity to operate in 
both of these functions, the political and the technical one?  (Croatia) 
 
A: If I have understood your question, that's exactly my unique selling proposition to you as 
Members, that I have a combination of skills and experience that goes to the core of, not just the technical work, but also being able to support in a very constructive and strategic way the 
negotiation process. I am an economist, I am a lawyer, and that combination itself lends more or 
less support to the fact that you can look at different aspects of the work that the DG has to be engaged in. But again, more importantly, I think when you combine the skills of a diplomat, the skills of somebody who has experience as a negotiator, a practical negotiator, somebody who has 
the political intuition and sensitivity, because the bottom line is that it is true we are negotiating 
trade agreements, but I am sure you are all aware that you have a very close working relationship with your capitals, and when we meet in these Ministerials, and they become the make-or-break 
for all the work that you do in Geneva, then maybe we must agree that those who are in the 
political field also have a contribution to make in the work that we do. To that extent, with my experience not just as a cabinet minister but somebody who has gone to the extent of the running 
for the presidency of my country, no lesser country than Ghana, my strategic intuition politically 
can be of some value to this Organization. There are other aspects to it, but I think I will end here.  Q: Could you please tell us or give us a po int of view or your understanding of the 
relationship between the WTO and the diffe rent institutions and United Nations 
agreements.  (Honduras) 
 
A: There is a legal arrangement between the WTO, the World Bank, and the IMF. I think we all 
know the history that these are the global governance institutions that were established to ensure coherence and stability in the global governance architecture. So far, I think that the working 
relationship has been good. If I become DG, with the experience that I have working already with 
these organizations, I think that would become a major asset. But these are not the only institutions. I mean, there is a legal framework within which these institutions work, but we also have a working relationship with other institutions that have a very strategic role to play in areas 
that impact on trade. I can only indicate that my  experience over the years, hands-on experience 
with these organizations, and the other components that I have talked about, will help very much contribute to the work that we do in this Organization. 
 
Q: At the beginning of your presentation, you said that you were surprised to see 
more candidates applying for the post, and yo u referred to WTO as a dying organization 
or organization in coma, so how do you see the world economy today without the WTO?  
(Brunei Darussalam)  A: First just to put my response in appropriat e context. It was not my suggestion that the WTO 
is dying, otherwise I would not be sitting here. I was saying that, if you listen to the rhetoric, WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 12 - 
 
  I thought that this was an Organization that nobody was interested in submitting his life to. 
I thought that it was a matter of interest that, in spite of all the rhetoric, so this is not my rhetoric, but the rhetoric that there was such an interest, and I meant it seriously that you have excellent candidates nominated by countries and it's a reflection I think of the continuing interest of all 
these countries. If you look at the diversity, that even makes it more interesting. So, it is rather a 
positive comment. But that I can imagine the world without the WTO, I'm not sure where I would be sleeping to have that dream. It would be catastrophic because, let's face it, the WTO is 
probably the only global governance institution that has managed, with the support of your 
Excellencies and the staff of the Secretariat, to be  able to avoid a crisis in this area of global 
governance. Can you imagine without the WTO, the world getting into a trade crisis, like further financial crisis, economic crisis? Maybe we would not even like to dream about that. I have a very 
optimistic, very proactive, very positive attitude and orientation about this Organization and what 
it can do. This is not to devalue the challenges that have been going on. But if I become the DG, I think that, with a very positive attitude, working on the basis of trust and confidence of the 
Members, that we can even push the frontiers of global trade further. That is how I would look at 
it, not the situation that the WTO does not exist.  
Q: Our question would be relating to the pr inciples of transparency and inclusiveness. 
With a much higher number of Members in WTO, and with the different regional and 
national interests, as a new Director-Gener al, how can you promote the principles of 
transparency and inclusiveness in all states to ensure that any decision will be reached 
and based on the full awareness and partic ipation of all WTO Members, but not too 
burdensome for the WTO to carry out its work?  (Thailand) 
 
A: I think that the principles of full participation, inclusiveness, transparency, are at the core of 
the work that you do here. When I was Minister, at that time from 2003 for some years, I know 
that that was a major part of the agenda of the WTO, that there was lack of transparency, that 
there was lack of participation and inclusiveness. To a large extent, my understanding is that this 
has improved significantly, and that it is not as much of a problem as it was before. Now, I think that the DG in his facilitation role and how he is able to frame that strategic role, facilitation role, would by necessity help to improve full participation and then transparency, because if you are 
actually doing what you are supposed to do, and not to be dictating as to what should be done but 
facilitating consensus, then obviously you can only facilitate consensus if people are participating. 
And so, with the guidance of all Members and th e psychology and the philosophy of a DG who 
understands that every Member of this Organization is important, if you are driven by that 
philosophy, then obviously then you encourage full participation, inclusiveness. But if you are not committed as a DG to these principles, then obviously I think that, but I am fully committed to 
those principles and that's what I think the whole role of facilitation would be anchored on. 
 Q: You told us that you would strive fo r a new trade consensus through which all 
Members reaffirmed their commitment to the core values of the multilateral trading 
system. Could you please summarize which, in your views, are the two/three core 
values WTO stands for?  (Switzerland) 
 
A: There are a number of them. I think that th e most fundamental is the principle of non-
discrimination. The core values of full participation, inclusiveness, transparency – those combined with the non-discriminatory principle, probably underpin the work of this Organization. 
 
Q: What do you think WTO can do for countries whose economy is in transition, given the fact that the WTO has no specific provis ion for such cases, since they are neither 
developing countries nor LDCs?  (Ukraine) 
 
A: Again, this is a very contentious issue. If I start opening this matter, making personal remarks on this particular subject, it may not be that helpful because I know that there are issues 
that are on the table in respect of carve-outs for different groups within existing groups. 
Economies in transition obviously have challenges that may lend themselves to a valid case for targeted support and assistance. My understanding is that these are issues that are being 
discussed. It is not only economies in transition. I am aware that the SVEs also have interests in 
looking at their own group being considered as a special group within the context of developing countries. So, my simple answer would be that this is a very important subject matter which Members have to address and in my facilitation role if I was DG that would be something that I 
would try and facilitate a discussion on, but I am unable to make a judgment on my own as to WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 13 - 
 
  whether this is something that we can agree on without going through that consensus building 
exercise.  Q: What is your vision for the Arab region? And how are you going to enhance 
participation of Arab countries in WTO, kn owing that ten Arab countries are still not 
Members of the WTO? How are you going to assist the Arab acceding countries to 
become WTO Members?  (Oman) 
 
A: I think that the answer to it is embedded in the question itself, that the issue of accession is a very important issue for developing countries that are not yet Members of the Organization. My understanding is that, as a multilateral trade Organization, the ideal thing is to have as many 
Members as possible that are part of this Organization, because that is when we really talk about 
all Members being part of the global trade agenda. So, I would work with Members to see how we can advance work in the area of accession, and I am aware that there are issues relating to 
countries making commitments during the accession period over and above what they are capable 
of fulfilling. These are issues which have been brou ght up. I am only indicating that I am aware of 
that, and that all these outstanding issues, if they are dealt with constructively, can provide a 
basis for accelerating the accession process of those Members developing countries who are not 
yet Members. I indicate that on the basis that I take it that the Arab countries would be part of this group, those who are not yet Members, they would benefit from progress that is made in the 
dialogue now on accession and the improvements that we will be making to accession. The only 
thing that I can add is that when countries start the process of accession, there is an implicit 
understanding that they have to undertake certain reforms at the national level, which then become part of their process of accelerating for themselves their integration into this. So if there is 
any other way that assistance can be provided, in terms of how to undertake those reforms, so 
that the accession process becomes less combative and then more efficient, I, as DG, would like to pursue those initiatives. 
 
Q: Both our countries are actively engaged in  international migration. My question is, 
what role do you see international migration play in the multilateral trading system in 
the future, more particularly as it relates to mode 4 of the Trade in Services Agreement? 
(Philippines) 
 A: That is another sensitive area that I might do well to navigate away from, because the mode 
4 dialogue alone is controversial enough to get us sitting here for another couple of hours. But 
obviously that takes us into a larger discourse on this whole issue of Services. Again, I have some personal ideas about this. I think that it's a very important subject. It is the basis of a plurilateral 
initiative now which, in itself, is a subject of great debate and discourse, and so if you look at the 
initial architecture for services, with a request offer and the issue of mode 4 application, and with due respect, this is a subject matter that, if I became DG, I would like to work with you and other Members to help you advance on that issue. 
 
Q :  W h a t  i s  y o u r  v i e w  o n  t h e  a r g u m e n t  that emerging economies must contribute 
more than other developing countries in the DDA negotiation?  (Argentina) 
 
A: Coming at the end of my presentation, so fa r I thought I'd skilfully navigated myself away, 
but this one coming at the end is going to put me  in more danger than when I started. I didn't 
know I was donating my time to you. For me, frankly, it is one of the major sensitive issues that 
we need to deal with. If you give me the chance to become DG, I can assure you that I will very skilfully work with all of you to make sure that we address this on a permanent basis. 
 
 
3. Summing up by the Candidate
2 
I would like to commend to you a more in-depth reading of my statement in your free time, so 
that you can actually digest exactly what the focus of my presentation has been. But two things 
stand out very clearly. Particularly in respect of  the responses and the questions, which have been 
excellent and really I have enjoyed every bit of th is. Number one, I get a sense that it is evident 
                                               
2 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meetin g communicated by the Chai r to all delegations on 
15 and 18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five 
minutes of the question-and-answer period if he or she so wished. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 14 - 
 
  that Members are deeply concerned about advancin g the multilateral trade negotiations. Secondly, 
in spite of the rhetoric, that there seem to be more that unites the Members of this Organization than divides them. I think that is something that we should focus on.  
I would like to close just by very quickly addressing your attention to the five what I call strategic 
drivers for the new trade consensus. That is where the action and the meat is. The first one, I will just mention the first one, which is making sure that we build a solid political consensus based on 
the core values of our institution. Let us focus on the things that unite us, not those that divide us. 
If we can get this right, it provides the basis,  the psychology, the sentiments, the philosophy, to 
get us to move, to deal with other areas. I do no t pretend to have all the answers, but I do believe 
that, if I have the honour and privilege of becoming the next DG of this Organization, that I can 
make a difference. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 15 - 
 
  ANNEX B 
Meeting with Ms Anabel González (Costa Rica) 
1. Presentation by the Candidate I appreciate this opportunity to share with WTO Members the reasons that have led me to submit 
my candidacy to the post of Director General. It is my hope that at the end of this session you will 
know me better. I want to hear your questions and opinions today and in the future, as to listen and fully understand the views, aspirations and interests of all is a key requirement to lead, under 
the guidance of Members, this great organization.  
 I first came to Geneva in 1989 . A young official, I had the privilege of attending the signing 
ceremony of Costa Rica's protocol of accession to the GATT. Little did I know at the time that this 
would be the first leg of a long and exciting career in trade craft that would result in a continuous 
involvement in multilateral trade diplomacy.    
I address the WTO General Council today with resp ect and humility, but also great pride, aspiring 
to become the Director General of this most precious institution. I do so firm in the conviction that I have the experience and skills-set requ ired to honor such a responsibility.   
 
My involvement with this organization has been multifaceted.  It has included lead 
negotiating roles in the Uruguay and Doha rounds, participation in several ministerial conferences, harnessing the WTO's dispute settlement machinery to defend my country's interests, serving as 
director of a centrally important division of th is house, and delivering trade-related capacity 
building all over the world.   
My experience is not limited to the multilateral level . I have been actively involved in the 
negotiation, approval and implementation of a wide array of trade and investment agreements, with a broad and diversified portfolio of countri es, big and small, developed and developing, in 
Costa Rica's neighborhood and beyond.   
 For the last three years, I have served as Costa Rica's lead trade advocate, at home and abroad, 
in my current capacity as Minister of Foreign Trade . My time and energy are divided between 
formulating trade policy, promoting two-way investment and enhancing competitiveness.  
 My own life span has coincided with the re markable transformation of Costa Rica 
through its closer engagement with the world economy . A country that not long ago 
exported just a few agricultural commodities today sells over 4300 different products - including computer parts, heart valves, embedded software, and yes, coffee and bananas- to 145 nations 
worldwide. Every day we work hard to expand our export network to all WTO Members! In building 
Costa Rica's trade platform, enhancing our economy's efficiency and, most importantly, expanding the opportunities for more of our citizens, our aim is to unleash the power of trade to promote inclusive growth and development.   
 
Since announcing my candidacy, I have begun to listen to and consult with this 
organization's diverse membership.  These discussions, which will intensify in the coming 
weeks, have been highly informative and inspiring. These discussions have revealed a common 
desire for convergence. Should you honor me with the mission, my hope would be to serve that process as an honest broker .  L e t  m e  s h a r e  w i t h  y o u  s o m e  o f  w h a t  I  h a v e  l e a r n e d  f r o m  m y  
discussions to date.  
 Trade is a powerful instrument to foster growth and development . We have been privileged 
to witness, in our lifetime, the ability of trade to lift millions of individuals out of poverty in so 
many parts of the world. But trade is equally key in transforming productive structures, increasing 
productivity, enhancing access to technology and fostering innovation, particularly when firmly embedded in broader national growth and deve lopment strategies. As the Preamble of the 
Marrakesh Agreement clearly states, trade is and should be about "raising standards of living, 
ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand". Let us never forget that trade liberalizat ion is a means to development, not an 
end in itself.  
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 16 - 
 
  As we gather in Geneva today, the world economy still feels the headwinds of continued 
imbalances and uncertainty.  Such uncertainty weighs on global trading volumes, which grew by 
a mere 2.5% last year. We need more robust tr ade growth, not just because such growth will 
bring greater global prosperity but also because trade can help to generate more –and better– 
jobs.   
 We need more trade for all countries . The fact that developing countries account today for 
about one-half of aggregate trade flows is unambiguously good news. Still, the distribution of that 
growth, welcome as it otherwise is, remains concentrated in too few nations. For many in the African continent and elsewhere, LDCs in partic ular, the challenge of integrating in the world 
economy remains daunting. High trade costs and supply-side constraints can durably hamper the 
ability of firms to take advantage of opportunities, sowing frustration and disenchantment towards 
the very idea of market opening. The WTO must be  ready and properly equipped if it is to assume 
a key role in unleashing the potential of trade for all.   
 
This is the house of trade. As such, its core mission is two-fold:  to open markets –including 
through effective monitoring and whistleblowing– and to design and implement the rules to govern 
and pacify trade relations among Members. It is as simple –and complex– as that. The WTO and 
the GATT before it have been carrying out this du al task very successfully for three generations. 
Ours is a precious institution, supplying an array of global public goods that we must protect and 
nurture.  
 
The Chinese proverb "may we live in interesting times" is certainly most appropriate for the world we live in today. Few periods in world history have witnessed such a real-time confluence of 
changes in the political, economic and technological fields, some of which exert influences 
way beyond the WTO and trade governance. Others  are reshaping the geography and very nature 
of production and exchange. These include the gl obal fragmentation of international production, 
the increase in South-South trade and investment activity, and the rise of international trade in 
services to cite just some of the most salient trends, bringing with them new questions and 
challenges that the WTO membership must contend with .   
 
While these changes are taking place at breakneck speed, progress in the Doha Round 
has been painstakingly slow , with negotiations reaching an impasse that could not be resolved 
in its original format, as recognized by Members at MC8.
3 The process that has taken place in 
Geneva in the past few months inspires in me a renewed sense of optimism –cautious to be sure– 
that the Members will be able to produc e concrete deliverables in Bali4, in trade facilitation, 
some issues in agricultural trade, and on special and differential treatment – all topics of particular 
importance for least-developed countries. It is within our collective reach to do so. And this would make for a most welcome, and confidence-promoting, step forward in multilateral cooperation, reinvigorating the WTO as a negotiating forum.   
 
But MC9 is not the end-game and we must continue to chart the best ways of delivering on the Doha mandate . This remains critically important, not least in terms of institutional 
legitimacy. We are all heavily invested in Doha and have put great efforts into it. Resolution of the 
DDA's
5 agenda is long overdue, above all as a re sponse to the trade needs of developing and 
least-developed countries. In listening closely to Members and working tirelessly to promote 
convergent viewpoints, the next Director General must have as a central priority to bring closure 
to the round and ensure that it fulfills its stated aims.    In addressing today's new challenges and thinking about the WTO of tomorrow, we need to 
engage in a candid discussion abou t an immediate and medium-term agenda . Subjects as 
relevant and so closely intertwined as the relationship between trade and investment, climate change, natural resources and global value chains cannot be ignored or left for other institutions or 
agreements. Not all of these deliberations, of co urse, need to morph into a negotiating agenda. 
Still, anchoring the WTO's centrality in the international trading system today requires that no topic of relevance to the world economy be taboo for the house of trade. Let me be clear: I do not 
advocate that we put aside the DDA in favor of new topics, but I do believe that Members can both 
complete the tasks of today while keeping an eye on tomorrow's challenges.   
                                               
3 Eight WTO Ministerial Conference (Geneva, 2011). 
4 The Ninth WTO Ministerial Conference (MC9) will  be held in Bali, Indonesia in December 2013. 
5 Doha Development Agenda. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 17 - 
 
   
In discussing trade in different formats, a di versified portfolio of trade partnerships is 
also useful  in preventing protectionism, exploiting neighborhood effects and boosting growth. 
PTAs6 can play a role in promoting further market opening – and regional markets are sometimes 
easier to access for developing countries. They may allow for useful experimentation with new 
rules in novel trade-related areas. Moreover, in some instances, they may simply be the proper 
locus of trade governance as not everything needs to be defined at the global level.  
 
The fact that each WTO Member is, on average, party to 13 PTAs reflects Members' willingness to integrate with the aim of promoting trade and investment and to explore all useful means to do so. The downside, of course, lies in the dangers p osed by the discrimination that is inherent 
in these agreements and in their potential to exclude others . The trade marginalization of 
countries, particularly lesser developed ones, does not bode well for the system and may all too easily exacerbate frictions among nations. In this context, negotiations of plurilateral or 
critical mass agreements  that are open to all Members and brought within the realm of the 
WTO, can and should provide a multilaterally friendly means for advancing the trade agenda.   
Another question that is vividly debated, particularly in academic and civil society circles, relates to 
whether the WTO needs institutional reform . My own sense is that the WTO system is robust 
and has in fact evolved incrementally in a number of important areas. One example is the excellent study on trade and employment the WTO and ILO
7 jointly produced on a topic that had 
proven deeply divisive at the Seattle Ministerial.  The same can be said about the workings of the 
Green Room, the participation of non-state stakeholders in the WTO dispute-settlement mechanism and the vibrant debates held at the WT O Public Forums which have opened the house 
to the outside world as never before.   
 Still, the world keeps evolving and institutions, like  firms, workers and nations, need to adapt to 
such change. Valid questions confront Members on how best to adapt the WTO . Here again, 
I believe that there may be a number of specific issues which, at the right time, anchored in an adequate level of mutual trust, and based in sound analysis, should not escape a thorough airing among Members.  
 
The WTO is a Member-driven organization and you, the Geneva ambassadors, are key in 
making it work on a day to day basis. In line with this basic principle, the Director General's 
task is to lead the institution under the gu idance of Members so as to make sure it 
delivers on its mandate.  Beyond its key roles in market opening and rule-making, the institution 
also dispenses important responsibilities in di spute settlement, monitoring and surveillance, 
capacity building – now significantly enhanced through the Aid for Trade initiative, research and 
information sharing, interaction with other organizations, and public outreach and advocacy of the values and principles of the organization. The Director General should be ready to work hand-in-hand with Members and the Secretariat in delivering on each of these functions in the best 
tradition of Chief Facilitator.   
 I am proud of the opportunity I recently ha d to work as Director of the Agriculture 
Division.  These were very intense years, bringing us closer than ever to reaching agreement on 
the modalities for agriculture. At the time, Rev. 3 and Rev. 4 were the subject of my dreams – and nightmares!   
 
I was fortunate to get to know first-hand the workings of the Secretariat and, most importantly, to appreciate the professionalism, expertise and dedica tion of this cadre of public servants. It would 
be a great honor to lead this remarkable group of people in a new capacity. Managing the 
Secretariat is a centrally important function of the Director General:  she –or he– is to take 
due account of Members' needs to maximize value for money, particularly in today's resource constrained environment , while making sure that this very high caliber group of professionals 
remains motivated and engaged in serving Members.  
 This brings me to the final point of my presentation, which concerns my own readiness to 
assume the challenge of becoming the Direct or General should this be your decision . 
Throughout my career, my heart has always been with the WTO and the values of fairness and 
                                               
6 Preferential trade agreements. 
7 International Labour Organization. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 18 - 
 
  collective action that are embedded in the DNA of multilateralism. I come from a small country, 
one that has made integration into the world economy a critically important pathway for its development. In so doing, we have shown persistent faith in the multilateral trading system's unique ability to promote and uphold our interests. Costa Rica works hard at being a good 
international citizen and I, as a citizen of this great nation, am ready to assume the position of 
Director General with independence, passion and re sponsibility to care for, lead and strengthen 
this institution for the benefit of its Members and the citizens of the world. 
 
 2. Questions and Answers 
Q: The WTO has long been in a crisis of  lacking credibility and trust after several 
unfortunate attempts to make tangible outc omes of the negotiation. MC9 will be our 
next effort. Do you have any observations on the current negotiating approach? What 
tangible outcomes do you wish to make du ring your four years tenure of office in 
Geneva?  (Thailand) 
 A: I think that delivering on the Doha mandate is crucial for the credibility of the Organization. 
In doing so, I believe that Bali presents us with  a very important opportunity to deliver concrete 
results. These results may be in the area of Trade Facilitation, some issues in Agriculture and S&D treatment. I believe that delivering these results wo uld be a very strong signal to the world about 
the renewed confidence of Members to reach agr eements among themselves of issues of great 
importance. I believe that this would reinvigorate the discussion of other topics in the Doha 
Agenda. Now, I also believe that it is important to re-energize the Organization, to begin a discussion of new topics that are very relevant in the global economy today. In doing so, some of 
these discussions, some of the issues may eventually evolve into a negotiating agenda, some may 
not, but this would also be part of a very important effort to re-energize the Organization and to bring again further credibility to its legislative function, which is the one that it is currently subject 
to, that has been confronting several problems. 
 Q: A major change in management at the to p of an organization means a change in 
management style. Yesterday,  Her Majesty Queen Beatrix a nnounced her abdication in 
favour of her son, Crown Prince Willem-Alex ander. So, our kingdom will have a new 
CEO, and perhaps you will be the new CEO of  the WTO. How do you see your role as 
Chief Executive Officer of the WTO, and ho w would you strive for balance between the 
Director-General's different roles, the managerial role, the negotiating catalyst/ 
facilitator role, and the advocacy role?  (Netherlands) 
 
A: I believe that the WTO is, of course, at a st arting point, a Member-driven Organization and, 
in a way, the WTO is what its Members want it to be. But this, of course, does not mean that the new DG should just sit on the side. On the contra ry, I firmly believe that the DG must actively 
engage with Members to facilitate and move forward any process in a climate of confidence, of 
collaboration, of enhanced dialogue. In doing this, I think it is an important responsibility of the 
DG to make sure that all Members' opinions and needs are taken into account, in particular the views of the poorest Members and those who may not be fully equipped to articulate their position. 
Now, there is a specific responsibility of the DG in each of the functions of the Organization. Some 
of them require a more direct involvement of the DG, some of them are better suited for the 
Secretariat as such, and certainly for Members. In terms of managing the Secretariat, I believe 
that this is a very important role for the DG and in this regard there are a number of areas that I, 
if selected as DG, would put my attention into – areas such as budget, or human resources management, or information management, or others that may be important. In sum, I believe that 
it is important for the DG to maintain a balance and to pay attention to all of these very important 
functions. 
 Q: As former Director of the Agriculture Di vision of the WTO, what is your assessment 
of the impasse in the DDA agricultural  negotiations, and what role can the 
Director-General play in facilitating the be tter functioning of international agriculture 
trade?  (Philippines) 
 
A: As I mentioned in my presentation, for a long time I was deeply involved in Rev. 3, Rev. 4 of the modalities, and I also had the possibility of participating in the discussions that took place in July 2008, where I think we were as close as ever to reaching an agreement on Doha. I believe WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 19 - 
 
  the impasse of the DDA is ultimately, though it may be a combination of issues, Agriculture did not 
play the main role in bringing the impasse to th e negotiations. In the area of Agriculture, of 
course, there were a number of issues that were controversial issues at some point, like the special safeguard mechanism or special products and others that played an important role. Now, in 
terms of the role of the DG in this process, I think it is certainly the role of an honest broker. I 
think the DG needs to listen to Members, engage with Members, promote an environment of confidence and trust, and I'm afraid that if I were to be selected as DG, I do not have a magic 
formula to revive the negotiations of the Doha Round. I would bring in my experience as a 
negotiator, I have had the experience of negotiating agreements with larger Members, with smaller Members, on many different topics, and I have been able to begin negotiations and I have been able to conclude negotiations, and I think this experience may be helpful in supporting 
Members in a process of eventually bringing closure to the Doha negotiations. 
 Q: How do you think the issue of liberalization of tropical goods will develop, bearing 
in mind that some Members are still saying to day that the principles of access to main 
markets will be eroded? (Argentina) 
 
A: The issue of tropical products and prefer ence erosion is one where agreement has been 
reached among countries involved. After many, many years of discussions in this area, those countries most directly involved on this issue reached an agreement that was actually fine in the context of this house. So, I believe that, if this was an issue that divided countries at some point in 
time, it is an issue now where countries are actually  on the same side of the table, and would need 
to defend the results of this agreement in front of others, if eventually others may not agree with these results. But the long-standing dispute among co untries on this issue of tropical products and 
preference erosion among the main group of countries found a solution, a solution which, by the 
way, I believe is a good solution that works for all parties involved.  
Q: What do you think the WTO's place should be in the architecture of world 
governance, and notably what should be the interaction of WTO with the G20 and other 
international organizations, such as the FAO, ILO, WHO, UNEP and UNCTAD?  (France) 
 
A: I think that trade policy is an area that, of course, has a close relationship with many other 
areas of international governance and, in this regard, it is very important for the WTO to keep very close collaboration ties with other key international organizations, as well as with the G20 process. 
In this regard, I believe that the WTO has taken important steps towards greater collaboration 
with UNCTAD, the OECD, the World Bank, the ILO, in producing very important think pieces on the world of tomorrow. I would like to see the Organization continue going along those lines, as well as 
continued presence in the G20 forum and, in part icular, trying to inform the discussions that are 
held at the level of the G20.  Q: How do you see the role of the more ad vanced developing countries in multilateral 
trade negotiations, and how can their emergence be used positively to bring 
development and developed countries closer to gether so as to ensure better progress in 
multilateral negotiations?  (Germany) 
 
A: I would probably address this question at two different levels. One level is, of course, that one important result of the Uruguay Round in this Organization is that basically we have 
recognized three sets of Members – developed countries, developing countries, and Least-
Developed Countries. So, that is one level. The other level, of course, is that I think that a very important question for the work of this Organizati on should be built around the concept of shared 
prosperity. Shared prosperity means that each and every country should be able to participate in 
trade and in the growth that comes with trade. And it also means that each and every country has 
a responsibility to play in continuing to promote trade liberalization and in continuing to construct this Organization. In this regard, I believe that th e responsibility of each Member is related to its 
level of development. So, in this regard, again I think that emerging economies are to play a very 
important role in deciding, in continuing to decide  the future of this Organization, and in working 
towards achieving the main responsibilities of this Organization. 
 
Q: You mentioned plurilaterals in your open ing statement. I should  like to seek your 
views on plurilateral agreements and how such initiatives might be de signed in order to 
best create opportunities for the WTO and the multilateral trading system.  (United 
Kingdom) WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 20 - 
 
   
A: In thinking about plurilaterals, I think one should probably start by asking oneself why are plurilaterals being negotiated? Why are they being considered? This seems to be rooted in the difficulties associated with making progress in the DDA context. If the WTO is not able to deliver in 
the multilateral front, well, Members in a way look for a second-best approach, and try to make 
progress by alternative means, including both ne gotiations within the house and outside of the 
WTO. On this basis, I believe it is positive that Members are trying to make progress within the 
house and not outside its framework. So, to the extent that this plurilaterals are successful, I 
believe that the image of the WTO as an Organization can be reinforced, and it could spark broader interest from the private sector. It may even help to build momentum at the multilateral level. Now, there is, of course, a very important question as regards the implementation of 
plurilateral agreements. I believe that, to the extent that these plurilateral agreements are 
implemented on an MFN basis, which is a very important, of course one of the fundamental 
principles of the Organization, they would no t marginalize the poorest countries. And on the 
contrary, they may serve, as I said, as instruments for re-invigorating the Organization. 
 Q: What is your vision for the Arab region , knowing that ten Arab countries are still 
not Members of the WTO?  (Oman) 
 A: It is important that all countries, of course including Arab countries, that are not part of the WTO be part of the Organization. It is clear that this institution is of a universal nature and 
nevertheless it would not be completed until after all countries are part of it. 
 Q: What opportunities do global value chai ns offer to developing countries, and what 
can WTO do to promote these?  (Honduras) 
 A: Global value chains provide a very important opportunity for developing countries to 
participate in international trade. The fragmentation of international production basically means 
that a country need not have a very long traditio n in the area of manufacturing, need not produce 
all raw materials and inputs that are incorporated into a final product, but rather can specialize in the production, in a specific task, and integrate into the global economy through these supply 
chains. So, if one considers that a very important part of world trade takes place today in the 
format of global value chains, it is important that trade policy and this house pay attention to what are the key determinants of facilitating developing countries' participation in global value chains, 
and moreover in facilitating the operation of global value chains. In this regard, I believe that 
there is one important discussion taking place of course in this house, a negotiation of Trade Facilitation that would be very significant in terms of facilitating again developing countries' 
participation in GVCs and, more broadly, the operation of GVCs. Now, when thinking about a 
GVC-centred trade policy, if you wish, other el ements become relevant as well. Of course, 
liberalization of Trade in Services in certain areas, in particular those relating to logistics, transport, distribution, all of the services that are key for participating in global value chains, is an 
important element to consider. One point, which is not being discussed in this house, but that of 
course has also a lot of relevance as regards GVCs, is investment, as trade and investment are twin motors, if you wish, of global value chains. I come from a country, Costa Rica, that has 
experienced a tremendous growth in participation in global value chains. About half of our trade 
today is related to participation in this kind of production network in areas of medical devices or electronics or services themselves and others. I ha ve seen how they can contribute to the growth 
of a country, and how they can become a very important instrument for integrating smaller and 
medium-sized companies into this production network. So, this is a topic that I believe should be part of the discussion of this institution as well.  
Q: Regardless of your experience, talents and abilities, taking office in September 
means the die may well be cast by then on whether Bali will come together or not. What 
is your plan B, assuming that you arrive  and Bali is shaping up to be a failure?  (Canada) 
 
A: Well, I certainly hope that you work hard before it, so I have to try to avoid or minimize that possibility. In case that that is not the case, well, let me say that I do think it is very important 
that work takes place in the months to come. If  by the summer the contours of the agreement are 
not there, I see it difficult to be able to reach agreement in December. And certainly, I don't see myself as a superwoman or super-person coming here in September and gathering the 157 of you 
and trying to reach agreement in the course of three months. I don't see that as possible. Now, 
that would be a very unfortunate development, as it would further impact the credibility in the WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 21 - 
 
  Members' ability to reach agreement. I think at that point in time, I would begin an immediate sort 
of process of consultations with the Members, liste n to them, explore ways to go forward, if there 
is possibility to try to reach agreement. Within such a short time period, though, it seems difficult, but I would try to do so, I would work very hard to do so. If for one reason or another, it is not 
possible to have an agreement in Bali, I think we should definitely enter a very important 
reflection period about the future of the Organiza tion as regards the agenda and the items to be 
discussed. A failure in Bali would impact the possib i l i t y  o f  d e l i v e r i n g  o n  D D A ,  m o r e  b r o a d l y .  I t  
would impact the credibility of the Organization. And we would need to put in place some kind of 
an emergency plan to try to build with that circumstance. But I am an optimist at heart. I know that you work very hard. I do believe that there is time, and I see the will to do that. I was in Davos last week. It was a good meeting. I sensed that Members want to move forward, and I 
certainly hope that it can be done. 
 Q: In your opinion, what is the relation ship between trade an d investment? Should 
this topic be discussed here at the WTO?  (Paraguay) 
 A: I think the definition of any new topic to be discussed in the Organization is for the Members 
to take. Having said this, I would probably like to share with you some numbers that I think are 
relevant in this discussion. One is that investment flows have grown quite significantly over the years. But nevertheless in particular they have in  the last few years they have not been able to 
reach the levels that they had reached before th e crisis. Moreover, recent numbers from UNCTAD 
suggest that investment flows decreased 18% from  2011 to 2012. In the view of some, and I think 
I share that view, if we were able to increase in vestment flows from about 2% of world GDP, which 
is where they are right now, to about 4% of GDP that would be a tremendous boost for the global 
economy. Second point is that the role of developing countries today in investment is very 
important. Developing countries today are not only recipients of foreign direct investment, they receive about a little less than half of all FDI flows, but they are also sources of origin of 
investment flows. About a third of FDI flows worldwide originate in developing countries. Third 
point is that almost every country in the world has negotiated bilateral investment treaty or a chapter of investment in a regional trade agreem ent. There are about 3,000 agreements of this 
sort, which somehow reflects Members' interest or willingness in negotiating agreements in this 
area. Of course, it provides for very chaotic governance in the area of investment. And then of 
course there is the issue of employment, in the sense that foreign affiliates of multinational companies are creating employment in many parts of the world. In the latest data that I saw in 
2010, there were 69 million jobs that were created by foreign affiliates of multinationals. So, does 
this mean that the WTO needs to go straight ahead and negotiate an agreement in this area? I don't think that is necessarily the case. But I do think that being an area that is so closely linked 
with trade and this being the house of trade, I do think that Members need to engage in 
discussions of this kind of topics. Will this evolve into something else? It is not for me to say. It is for the Members to decide. But it is indeed a ve ry important area in the world economy today. 
 
Q: CARICOM, like other small vulnerable ec onomies, face inherent challenges and 
constraints that limit our participation in  the multilateral trading system. Moving 
forward, what, in your view, are the key concerns of SVEs, and how can the WTO 
effectively address them?  (Dominica) 
 A: I think that the starting point in this area is to recognize that small and vulnerable 
economies have important challenges in integrating into the world economy. It is important for 
this house to recognize those challenges and to provide the means to facilitate the incorporation of small vulnerable economies into the world. Let me say at the outset that I can relate very closely to the limitations or challenges that come from the size of a country or the level of development of 
a country. And that manifests itself in many areas. Let me just say, for instance, that it manifests 
itself in this same process. My country, Costa Rica, for instance, has embassies only in about a quarter of the WTO membership. I have no legion of speech-writers drafting my presentation. So I 
know very well, from my own personal experience, and that of my country, the limitations 
associated as I said with size and level of development. Now, the way to address this, in particular in a context of negotiation, is through concrete and specific proposals. And, in this regard, small 
and vulnerable economies have come together in a very effective way, and have submitted 
proposals in a number of areas of the negotiation that aim in addressing precisely the limitations that are associated with this type of country. I believe that serious thought and serious attention, of course, should be paid to the proposal of this  Group, as well as to the challenges associated 
with other groups in the house. I am thinking, for instance, of landlocked countries, for example, WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 22 - 
 
  that have challenges of their own. It is important at the end that the WTO can promote growth 
that can deliver for all Members of this house. This is important as the growth potential associated with trade should be available to all Members of the house.  
Q: You have mentioned your broad experien ce in trade negotiations. Which was the 
most difficult moment that you have had to face?  (Guatemala) 
 
A: I have faced my good share of difficult moments in negotiations, some of them among our 
own in Central America. But I would say maybe two moments are difficult. One is at the multilateral level, and the other one was at the regional level. At the multilateral level, I had the opportunity to chair the trade and labour group in Seattle. That was very, very difficult. The group 
was established in the middle of the week. Th e discussions and the positions among Members 
were totally opposed, very acrimonious debate. I was in a room like this, everybody was shouting, it was something very, very difficult to do. Fortunately, it lasted only a couple of days. So, in that 
respect it was not that painful. But that was fun. The second one is probably in negotiating a free 
trade agreement between the Central American co untries, the Dominican Republic and the United 
States. We had been in negotiations for about a year, and this was a very broad, all-encompassing 
agreement. We were close to conclusion of the negotiations. Nevertheless, in doing what was 
expected to be the last round of negotiations, Costa Rica, we came to realize that we were not being able to find the balance in that negotiation that was required back home to be able to get our political economy together to get approval of the agreement. So at some point in time, we had 
to separate from the rest of our Central American negotiating partners and leave the negotiation. 
We had to basically stand up from the negotiating table and basically tell the United States "we are going back home". That was a very difficult decision to make – Costa Rica's most important 
trading partner, a very important negotiation. Our friends in Central America concluded the 
negotiation in that particular round. So, we went back home and we gave it a lot of thought and a few months later we were able to come back to the table and conclude the negotiations. But that 
was a very difficult moment for me. I was the chief negotiator at the time, so it was a very difficult 
decision to make.  Q: I have a general question about bilatera l agreements. In your opening statement, 
you talked about bilaterals being an opport unity to experiment with the possibility of 
bringing results into the multilateral system . I was wondering what types of examples 
you would cite in this regard in terms of that potential interplay.  (United States) 
 
A: I think if one looks at bilateral and regional  trade agreements, there are different types of 
agreements of course. There are some that are more politically motivated, if you wish, and do not 
bring a lot of additionality to the table. There are some that are more region-oriented and have 
things that are relevant to the particular region in areas such as infrastructure or the like. But there are others that can in fact become useful laboratory for experimenting on new rules in areas that are not yet part of our WTO toolbox, or that being part of it have not gone beyond what we 
agreed about 20 years ago in the Uruguay Round. One of the areas where I believe this is 
important is in the area of investment. I would like to say that again I am very cognitive of the fact that any decision, of course, is for the Members to take. But I have seen how closely related 
trade and investment are, and the importance of an investment chapter in some of these 
agreements to promote additional trade. In my  view, one of the most important reasons why a 
number of countries enter into this type of agreem ent is to be able to attract investment. And in 
doing so, a chapter in this area is relevant. As I said, one can look at this issue such as regulatory 
conversions on a number of issues, that's an interesting point to look at. If you think about the way in which non-tariff measures are dealt with in some of these agreements, again, this is an area that could be explored. And even in some of the newer agreements, you see that there are 
chapters that aim at promoting trade and sustainable development, and there are a number of 
provisions in this regard which may be of interest as well. So, I do believe that in this great number of bilaterals that are out there, it is important to look at them, to study them, and to 
identify provisions that may be helpful, because, if Members are going to these agreements and 
negotiating this type of provisions, it is because they find the value of these provisions. Moreover, I believe that a number of these agreements are ac tually a response to the governance of global 
value chains. So, in this regard, I do think that studying bilateral agreements, regional 
agreements, is something that is of relevance in thinking about the future for an agenda in this Organization.  WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 23 - 
 
  Q: What do you think about liberalization of trade in services for developing 
countries? What are the challenges, what ar e the benefits of such a liberalization 
process? Particularly we have  an interest in mode 4, and we would like to know your 
opinion on that. (Peru) 
 
A: I should probably start by saying that Trade in Services is very relevant to the world economy, for both developed and developing countries. They account for close to 70% of global 
GDP. This, of course, varies for the different count ries, but there is no question that they play a 
very important role in today's economy. And it's actually the importance of Trade in Services in association with the advances in technology that explain the current momentum of trade in services. Just a number of years ago, they were basically considered non-tradable, whereas today 
services play a very important role in trade. It is difficult to measure services, but estimates from 
the WTO show that Trade in Services accounts for about 22% of global exports. But if you add intermediate services inputs to goods and take ac count of those, Trade in Services reaches about 
50% of global trade. So, this is an important fi gure. And I believe that Trade in Services opens 
very important opportunities for both developed countries, of course, and developing countries. The share of developing countries' participation in world trade in services has been increasing, and 
I can share with you the experience of my own co untry, Costa Rica, which, in 2011, exports of IT 
services and business processing services for the first time in our history equals exports of agricultural products, representing 5.8% of GDP. This is a very important transformation of this 
country, and I believe that Trade in Services has precisely that potential of transforming the 
economies certainly of developed countries, but in particular of developing countries. And I think 
that Trade in Services may help LDCs leap-frog in a way that is much more difficult if you think about it in terms of manufacturing. So, having said this, I think that a number of countries have 
made significant progress in unilateral liberalization of services, and that progress has also taken 
place at the regional level with the negotiation of bilateral and regional trade agreements encompassing trade chapters. There has been a significant consolidation of the status quo in a 
number of these trade agreements, and even in some  of them new liberalization has taken place. 
One important thing about liberalization under RTAs in the case of services is that they tend to be 
more multilateral-friendly, if you wish, because it is difficult, if not impossible, for a country to adopt a particular regime for services in the context of a group of countries, and not for others, 
particularly in certain areas. So, I believe that RTAs in this area may be an important stepping-
stone towards the multilateral system. Having sa id this, unfortunately not much has happened in 
the multilateral system in the area of liberalization  of services after the GATS. Basically, of course, 
with the exception of the accession schedules of new WTO Members that include significant 
commitments in the area of services in the case of many of them, and of course the basic telecom 
and financial services agreements. But anyhow, there has been basically two decades where not 
much has taken place, and precisely this has been the two decades where this great 
transformation of Trade in Services has taken place. As we know, a group of about 20 Members are preparing to launch negotiations of a plurilateral services agreement. This may be an important opportunity to move forward in this regard. I think it is important that this agreement 
be brought, in one way or another, under the umbrella of the multilateral trading system. 
 Q: For many developing countries, the prom ised gains from trade liberalization have 
not materialized. What role can the WTO play in promoting trade as a tool for 
development, and delivering on the promis ed gains for small developing countries?  
(Trinidad and Tobago) 
 
A: I am deeply convinced that the WTO has a very important role to play in making the integration of developing countries effective in the world trading system. I would like to bring in the Aid-for-Trade initiative, as this, I believe, plays a very important role in strengthening 
developing countries', in particular Least-Developed Countries', capacity to integrate into the world 
economy. I believe the Aid-for-Trade initiative has been doing well. In terms of funds that have been committed and funds that have been disbursed the initiative is working well. In terms of 
mainstreaming trade into developing countries' national trade and development strategies, it has 
also moved very positively. I think that we are also moving in the direction of enhancing monitoring of the Aid-for-Trade initiative. I had the opportunity of participating in a dialogue on 
Aid for Trade in Paris a couple of weeks ago, an d I saw significant progress in monitoring of the 
initiative. And I think it has been taking important steps towards improving the effectiveness of the initiative. Having said this, however, I think it is important for Members to continue to commit to this initiative, both donors and recipients, and the international organizations that are working 
as part of this initiative. I think that the initiative can strengthen, assist Members in addressing WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 24 - 
 
  their supply-side constraints and limitations, but also can help them strengthen their participation 
in the system so as to be able to develop proposals that would then crystalize into agreements and rules and disciplines that address these challenges of integrating into the world economy.  
Q: In your view, what are the possible next  steps that the WTO can take to overcome 
the continuing stagnancy of the Doha Round?  (Brunei Darussalam) 
 
A: I think the most important step that Members can take at this point in time is reaching 
agreement on the deliverables for Bali. I cannot stress how important I think this is, in terms of generating this renewed sense of confidence in Members' ability to deliver results. Should we have a positive result in Bali, I think this would pave the way towards coming back to some other issues 
in the DDA, and delivering on its mandate. I think this is very, very important. 
 Q: The needs and interests of developing co untries are at the centre of the DDA. In 
addition, in subsequent decisions, objectives  were also specifically established for the 
effective and meaningful integration of LDCs and full integration of small and vulnerable 
economies in the multilateral trading system . Given the differences in perspectives 
between Members, it would be necessary that  these objectives be come a priority in 
preparatory work for Bali, so that the concre te trading interests of  such Members which 
are already stabilized in the market access modalities and in the commitments agreed 
on tariff reduction and S&D become the core element that would enable the Round to 
finally move towards a conclusion. How would you promote such a strategy?  (Ecuador) 
 A :  I  s e e  t h e  r o l e  o f  t h e  D G  a s  o n e ,  a s  I  h a v e  m e n t i o n e d  i n  m y  i n t e r v e n t i o n ,  o f  a n  h o n e s t  
broker. I see my eventual role as being one of promoting dialogue among Members, listening very 
closely to what they have to say, promoting enga gement among Members. I believe that this role 
of the DG of building enhanced confidence in Members' abilities to talk to each other is a very, 
very important one. I would see myself as a facilitator of these processes. But ultimately, it is clear 
to me as well that it is for Members to agree on particular areas of the negotiations, and in this regard it is for them, based on the political will, to reach agreements, in this area, and in all other areas of the negotiation. 
 
Q: What would be the beneficial effect on  the overall mandate of the Doha Round and 
on the perspective of its resumption in th e immediate future of the conclusion of a 
plurilateral agreement, which is much more ambitious than the mandate already agreed 
for this Round and for the Services Agreemen t, by those who represent two thirds of 
world trade in services?  (Uruguay) 
 
A: I believe that plurilateral agreements are a second-best to the multilateral trading system. Nevertheless, I believe that Members willing to adva nce a trade liberalization agenda resort to this 
type of agreement when they feel that it is diff icult to make progress in the multilateral setting. 
I think that, depending on how the agreement is structured, and ultimately whether the 
agreement is open to all Members and is brought within the umbrella of the Organization, and if 
the negotiations are successful, it may have a positive impact in the negotiating process in this 
house. It may help to bring additional momentum to the negotiations, and it may help to 
strengthen the Organization. Now, as I said, it is important that measures are taken to make sure that any negative impact that a plurilateral agreement may have is minimized through open it to 
the possibility of Members to become part of it, and to bring in the agreement under the umbrella 
of this Organization.  Q: Part of the solution of the Doha Round lies on Members' perception of the delicate 
balance of the small package or the value pa ckage containing several DDA issues which 
are now on the table. While still having wide  differences on the existing negotiations, 
some Members even perceive that current negotiations will not deliver sufficient 
benefits for LDCs and developing countries , that the balance we seek could not be 
achieved from these existing negotiations . We wish to hear your opinion on any 
initiatives that you will undertake in order to breach the differences among Members as 
well as addressing the above-mentioned perception of some developing Members.  
(Indonesia)  A: First of all, in aiming at reaching closure on Doha, I think all countries must be satisfied that 
they have reached a balance that they can bring back home to present to their citizens, to their WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 25 - 
 
  congress or in general to get approval of the agreement. So, it is important that the conditions are 
set for all countries to actually reach that balance. Now, as I said, in my mind, the role of the DG is the role of a broker, of a facilitator, of a promoter of dialogue. In this regard, what I can bring to the table, I think, is my experience in previous negotiations. I have negotiated all types of 
agreement, as I said, with smaller countries such as the Caribbean countries, of course our 
neighbours in Central America, larger countries such as China, the European Union, the United States, other countries in Latin America as well, negotiations at the multilateral level, negotiations 
at home with our members of congress that some times are much more difficult than negotiations 
in this house. So, this is to say that in this experience, in these opportunities that I have had to participate in negotiations, I have learned about the importance of Members having cleared their own needs, but also of course understanding what the needs of the other parties of the negotiation 
are. And in this regard, as I said, I would like to bring in that experience in trying to bring 
Members together to bridge their differences, because ultimately it is for Members to bridge their differences. Just to say that I think this negotiating experience that I have had is relevant, 
because it would permit me, or it would allow me to come and sort of hit the floor running, if you 
wish, which is what I had to do when I came into this position of Minister about three years ago. The day after I took office, I had to take a plane to come to Madrid to participate in the conclusion 
of the negotiations between the Central Amer ican countries and the European Union. The 
negotiations had been going on for over three years and, in my capacity as Minister, I was to close the negotiation in 10 days. So, it was something that I had to do because that was where the negotiations were standing at that point in time, and I think building on previous experience I was 
able to come in at a very advanced stage of the process and bring closure to the process. Now, of 
course, that is probably a much easier task to do than bringing closure to Doha, but nevertheless I think it will inform the way in which I will, I could assist the process in finding agreement. 
 
Q: As we are well aware, in times of econ omic difficulties, the temptation to take 
protectionist measures tends to grow. In this  regard, we would appreciate if you could 
share with us your thoughts on how well the WTO has been responding to the rising tide 
of protectionism since the onset of the global ec onomic crisis, as well as on how, in your 
view, the WTO as the bastion of the multilate ral trading system should best cope with 
the issue of protectionism.  (Republic of Korea) 
 
A: I think that the WTO has played an instrumental role in keeping protectionism at bay in this very difficult period in time. Moreover, I think the institution has more than survived the turmoil of 
this, the worst contraction in economic activity since the 1930s, proving how effective it is at 
preventing destructive beggar-thy-neighbour protectionism. In this regard, I believe a combination of the disciplines that we currently have, plus economic reality, because the fact that many 
countries are part of these global value chains that I was referring to before, also played a part. 
But the disciplines, the rules and disciplines that we currently have, have played a very important 
role. I also think the strengthened monitoring and surveillance function of the Organization has also contributed to keeping protectionism at bay. Its participation in the G20 process, in terms of 
trying to again bring these issues to the table, has also played a significant role. I would see that 
this is a very important function for the WTO today, and a very important function for the WTO in the future, because of course the first point, if you wish, in terms of promoting growth, is avoiding 
the recourse to protectionism. So, this is a very important function that I think the Organization 
has to play.  
Q: Coming in at this late stage, I would like to clarify some of the statements that we 
heard so far, because I am a bit concerned ab out the future of this Organization. You 
have said several times that you regard the Doha Agenda as of critical importance. We 
all agree that it should be concluded. But if  we sit here, or someb ody will sit here eight 
years from now, is it credible that we still will be discussing the Doha Agenda? I doubt 
that. Secondly, you stated in response to an  earlier question that Bali had to produce 
results and, if I was correct in listening, yo u said that the future of the Organization 
would be at stake if it didn't. Could you expand on those statements a bit? (Norway) 
 A: There is no point in denying that the long time that it has taken us to be where we are in the 
Doha Round and not delivering results, has impacted the credibility of the Organization in its 
negotiating function, because of course what we have discussed here in many ways relates to the negotiating function. As we all know there are other functions of the Organization, the dispute settlement, the monitoring and surveillance, the ca pacity building, etc., that, if perfectible, are 
doing relatively well. So, in this regard, the reason why I think Bali is so important is because it is WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 26 - 
 
  probably one of the last chances to restore the cr edibility of the world in the capacity of Members 
of this Organization to reach agreement on Doha. Now, I have been listening very closely to what all Members have been saying, and all Members say that they want to conclude the Doha Round. All Members, without exception. And I have to start from the basis that that is of course the case. 
The role of the DG should be to try to assist Members in delivering on the Doha Mandate, because 
this is what Members say that they want to do. So, in this regard, if it has taken 11 years, or if it will take 12 years or 13 years or at some point, unless Members agree otherwise, I do think that it 
is important to continue working on Doha. Because the thing about Doha is that, of course, it 
includes a number of issues that, you know, its resolution is long overdue. If one can think about areas such as Agriculture and others, these are very important issues. So, not by not reaching agreement, it means that they will go away. They  will still be with us. So, eventually, in one 
format or another, we would n eed to deal with these issues. 
 Q :  W e  w o u l d  l i k e  t o  k n o w  w h a t  y o u r  v i s i on is of WTO's role with respect to the 
challenges of the 21
st century and particularly to ensu re that trade becomes a tool for 
achieving development objectives and not an end in itself?  (Dominican Republic) 
 
A: I think we have witnessed, as I said, or we are witnessing very important changes in the 
world today at the political level, economic level, technological level. A number of these changes are impacting production and trade patterns. A number of them do in fact open a number of opportunities. I think they open opportunities for all Members and in particular for developing 
Members. I am thinking about three of them. I am thinking about global value chains, which I 
have already talked a little bit about. I am also  thinking about South-South trade and investment 
activity. Trade among developing countries has grown tremendously. There is still a lot of potential 
for trade to continue growing among this group of countries. And I think this is something that can 
bring in the development I mentioned in a very important way. And the third development which I think is relevant is, of course, international trade in services. I already referred a little bit to this. 
So, these are three of the most salient changes th at are taking place, or the most, of how the 
changes have impacted trade and production pattern s in the world. I think that in each of these 
areas you can bring in a development dimension that is very relevant. To me, the most important part of all of this is probably strengthening developing countries' capabilities to participate in the 
trade system. Because, as I said, I know very well, and I can relate very well to the challenges 
that are associated with size and level of develo pment. But in the experience of my country, and I 
have been able to participate or to visit many countries and a number of them providing trade 
capacity building, in my experience, the way forward is through integration into the world 
economy. That is true, in particular, for smaller countries that cannot find in their domestic markets the scales that are required to grow. So, rather than closing borders to trade, the 
challenge is how can we continue to support developing countries' integration. I think Aid-for-
Trade initiative is one way. But strengthening developing countries' capacity to actively participate in the system with this important call is very important as well.  
Q: Given the limits and resources of SVEs , how can the WTO address the concerns of 
SVEs relating to participation in the DSU process, and the enforcement of judgments?  
(Saint Lucia) 
 
A: I need to say that a discussion, a review of the DSU is taking place, and part of that discussion of course is around how to enhance the possibility of developing countries, and SVEs in 
particular, in participating in the system. I think again that the way to go about this is to basically 
reach an agreement on some of the proposals if Members are willing to do so. I would like to say, from the experience of a smaller country, that we have used the Dispute Settlement mechanism of the Organization. I remember back then, I think it was in 1996, Costa Rica was one of the 
countries, was certainly the first small country to use the mechanism, in this case against an 
import restriction in the area of underwear that was established by the United States. And it was quite a challenge for Costa Rica to activate the mechanism and to effectively use the mechanism. 
The story is a success story in the end. But I do recognize that smaller Members have a difficulty. 
I must say also that in the experience of Costa Rica, the WTO Trade Advisory Center has been quite instrumental in supporting the country's participation in the system. 
 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 27 - 
 
  3. Summing up by the Candidate8 
In closing, allow me to express my gratitude for this opportunity to share with you my views on 
some of the key challenges facing our Organization, as it ponders the choice of its new leader. The challenges we have identified and discussed today are important issues confronting the world 
economy. They are the key elements which speak in favour of more effective global governance. 
Most of these issues are complex and multi-facete d. Some vastly exceed the boundaries of trade 
diplomacy and require dialogue and mutual understanding going beyond trade. And there certainly 
exists amongst you, Members of the WTO, like in the wider international community, a plurality of 
views on them.  While I do not pretend to have all the answers, my aim today was to share with you my honest 
assessment of some of the most pressing issu es in trade governance that the multilateral 
community must be prepared to address in the coming months and years. I have given copies of my presentation in the three official languages to  the Secretariat, and I understand that they will 
be at the back of the room. 
 While you will have hopefully found some commonality with the views, rooted as they are in 
conversations that I have been having with many of you and with more to come, it would be 
presumptuous to expect the entire Membership of this Organization to agree with every element of 
my diagnosis or proposed cure. I very much welcome the diversity of views and contrasting perceptions that are today before us. Such diversity, combined with the strong sense of common 
purpose I detect, form the basis, the starting point for mapping out the forms of collective action 
required to produce the future of shared prosperity that we all aspire to. In shaping this future, the 
contribution of each and every one of you, of each  and every one of us, will be absolutely essential 
if we are to reinvigorate and strengthen the WTO's ability to promote inclusive growth and 
development.  
I would like to conclude by saying that I believe I am ready to assume the challenge of becoming 
the DG, should this be your decision. Throughout my career, my heart has always been with the WTO and the values of fairness and collective  action that are embedded in the DNA of 
multilateralism. 
 
I come from a small country, one that has made integration into the world economy a critically important pathway for its development. In doing so, we have shown persistent faith in the 
multilateral trading system's unique ability to promote and uphold our interests. Costa Rica works 
hard at being a good international citizen and I, as a citizen of this great nation, am ready to assume the position of DG with independence, with passion, and with responsibility to care for, 
lead and strengthen this institution for the benefi t of its Members and the citizens of the world. 
 
                                               
8 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meetin g communicated by the Chai r to all delegations on 
15 and 18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five 
minutes of the question-and-answer period if he or she so wished. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 28 - 
 
  ANNEX C 
Meeting with Ms Mari Elka Pangestu (Indonesia) 
1. Presentation by the Candidate I am looking forward to exchanging views with you today and in the forthcoming weeks because I 
believe that we all have the same objective and vision. 
 That is trade is the key driver of global economic growth and development and the WTO 
plays a crucial role in preserving confidence  in an open, fair, rule-based and balanced 
multilateral trading system.  In a world of competing interests, the multilateral trading 
system stands as the guardian of an in clusive economic growth and development. After 
all removal of trade barriers under the multilateral trading system has been a key driver of 
economic growth over the past 50 years and that tr ade has led to lifting millions of people out of 
poverty.  
In my presentation this afternoon, I would like to outline the challenges facing us and share my 
vision as to how we should face them.    
What are the challenges? In my view  we are facing four challenges: 
 First is the need to ensure trade remains as an engine of growth and jobs, especially given the 
global uncertainties. This means ensuring that we maintain confidence in an open, rules based, fair 
and balanced multilateral trading system, and keep detrimental protectionism at bay.  
 Second  all of us in each of our countries, I think without exception, face the real or perceived 
notion that greater opening up has not benefitted everyone equally, whether between countries or 
within groups, regions and sectors within a country. We all see it and feel it, from occupy Wall Street in the US to the demonstrations I used to see in front of the Trade Ministry. This is both a 
political and policy problem. 
 We have had a positive experience in Indonesia and other countries in the region as to how trade combined with other reforms and investment, has been key to our growth and development, 
creation of jobs and reducing poverty.  
 At the same time we have also faced issues with regard to how to ensure benefits of opening up 
that is inclusive. We have learned that trade policies need to be combined with complementary 
policies to ensure that the benefits of opening up are widely shared and that the adverse effects are anticipated. Of course we have not gotten it all right yet – it's a process and development 
issues remain a central part of our policy objectives. 
 Third  the world is different place compared to when we started preparing for the Doha round. 
WTO has more members and countries have develo ped at different speeds. We now have a world 
with multipolar engines of growth and a range of levels of development – from least developed to 
emerging economies. The most recent World Bank  Global Economic Prospects notes that imports 
from high growth developing countries have compensated for weak domestic demand in the 
developed countries. Two thirds of increased extr a European trade in the exports of French and 
German companies comes from developing countries , and that trade between developing countries 
are growing faster than between developed and de veloping countries, thus leading to the outcome 
that 50% of developing country trade is with ot her developing countries, compared to only one 
third several years ago.  Moreover within countries there is also a similar divergence of growth and development. As there 
is uneven benefits between regions, sectors and groups.  
 And the way we do trade is also vastly different now compared to ten years ago. The traditional 
way of trade and investment is a process of graduation from primary products to more processed 
products and manufacturing, from low end and labor intensive production to more human capital and technology intensive production. However, no w we are seeing a more complex global value 
chain (GVC) with greater fragmentation due to technology, access to resources and markets, and 
reforms. There is greater role of intermediate im ports of goods and services as well as efficient WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 29 - 
 
  supporting services in ensuring competitive export s and the value added that is enjoyed in any one 
country.    Fourth  the WTO is still the premier forum for multilateral negotiations, and yet we have been 
trying to complete the Doha negotiations for over 10 years. How can we can we reengage and find 
the consensus, optimism and support to complete the comprehensive multilateral round of negotiations which will benefit all members? How can WTO continue to be relevant and credible in 
the midst of bilateral and regional agreements and other pathways to greater opening up? 
Multilateralism is at its lowest point. Yet the WTO is still a premier multilateral institution for the governance of international trade.  
How do we address the above challenges? 
 First the WTO is more than Doha . Any DG must serve its members, as well as serve as 
the guardian of the multilateral trading system.  The rules based framework and dispute 
settlement processes of the WTO has benefited all members, large or small, developed or developing, weak and strong. Small countries can take large countries to dispute settlement if 
perceived unfair. Furthermore it has helped to ensure certainty that new protectionist actions 
during the recession were kept in check and it has played a crucial role in settling disputes and correcting measures taken in violation of the WTO law. Therefore, we must continue to 
strengthen the WTO rules based framework and dispute settlement processes for the 
benefit of all its members. 
 Second we must recognize that  while greater openness has pr oven to be an incredible 
engine for economic growth, it has also crea ted new challenges for countries, companies 
and people around the world . As opportunities have risen, so too have the risks. How do we 
ensure that the WTO remains the premier institution to realize the vision of trade and development 
for the collective benefit of all its members? 
 We should firstly do a better job of selling the trade agenda. It is not enough to tell the story of the potential  gain of billions of dollars of change in GDP that will benefit the country from opening 
up or the Doha package. The story must be made real as to how it affects the people directly. As 
the economist article from a few weeks ago indicated,  only economists really still believe in trade. 
In other words we have to continue to do a better job in explaining and getting outcomes that 
actually can be felt in our countries – whether its growth, creation of jobs and reduction in 
poverty.  
In responding to the different levels of developm ent and the evolution of the global value chain, 
there should be differential policy responses at the national level and in the way we structure our negotiations. This is part of the dynamic that has been holding the multilateral trading system over the past decade. We have not been able to find the right pace. For some it has been moving too 
quickly, for others moving too slow. 
 All countries at different levels of development face structural adjustments to any process of 
opening up. Even the emerging nations that ar e growing rapidly, are also undergoing rapid 
structural change and challenged by distributing the benefits of growth. This implies a more nuanced way of structuring multilateral negotiations which accounts for the continuum of levels of 
development of countries and that countries which are growing faster, should give more whilst at 
the same time recognizing their structural adjustment issues.   It also means that we must always strive for balance between opening up and greater disciplines, 
to ensuring that the development needs of coun tries at different levels of development are 
accounted for in our negotiations and policy recommendations. This means a combination of effective S&D provisions, the Least Developed Country package and ensuring measures are there 
to safeguard food security and the livelihood of poor farmers, as well as effective complementary 
capacity building. For effective aid for trade, there needs to be coherence and cooperation between WTO and other international institutions such as World Bank, regional development banks, IMF 
and UN Agencies. The Indonesian experience points to the need for coherence and complementary 
policies between trade and other policies, between WTO and other international institutions.  Finally regarding the development of GVC, as the OECD-WTO report notes, it highlights the need 
for countries to have an open, predictable and transparent trade and investment regime whether it WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 30 - 
 
  is tariffs, non tariff measures and other measures th at affect domestic and foreign suppliers alike. 
This is an important result that supports negotiations in trade facilitation, but what will be also equally important is to enhance the understanding of this GVC for the lesser and least developed countries who are not yet in the GVC. We need to think about the type of interventions and 
capacity building to bring in these countries into the GVC.  
 Third we must move forward to  complete the current round of multilateral negotiations . 
 
Doha was an idea, an aspiration and an ambition. It attempted to make globalization more inclusive, help the world's poor, further liberalize  trade, design new rules and assist developing 
nations. The goals encompassed in Doha remain as relevant today as ever. And the benefits of a 
multilateral deal is the best stimulus the economy could receive – the estimates vary from $100's 
billions to $2 trillion depending on the components of the package.  But needless to say it is a 
costless stimulus, which will create growth, jobs and reduce poverty. 
 
The WTO is the cornerstone of the multilateral trading system and we should continue to strengthen and improve the effectiveness of the in stitution to effectively respond to the current 
and emerging challenges.   
 After more than a decade of Doha talks we know what the obstacles are and we can use these obstacles as markers as we stake out a new course for the global trading system. As we confront 
the challenge of how to best balance the benefits against the risks of bringing down further 
barriers in the global trading system, we need to find a way forward together.   
 How do we move forward? 
This is the time for change and I do not pretend to have the answers . And it can only be 
done when all members want to reach consensus and move forward with the goodwill spirit of wanting rather than just targeting consensus, and be flexible to have national 
priorities in mind of course, but be willing, especially the major trading nations, to go 
that extra mile for the greater good.  It also means building trust back to want to talk 
with each other rather than at each other.  
I believe with this spirit and the support of me mbers, we can find ways forward and stepping 
stones toward the realization of the full DDA pack age. I have no secret weapon or magic formula 
to ensure that we can move forward, other than lend my leadership, skills, and experience to find 
the consensus, balance and common opportunities that will benefit all members. 
 The DG has to be creative in finding levers and landing zones that benefit all members, and being 
pragmatic about it without losing sight of the final aim of the complete Doha package. Whilst 
taking pragmatic steps we should never lose sight of the grand bargain of an open, fair, rules based, balanced and inclusive trading system. The WTO remains the central forum for multilateral negotiations and must continue to provide the overarching framework for other potential pathways 
to opening up and facilitating trade, as well as addressing trade and development challenges.  
As we all know there are various pragmatic pathwa ys being considered to reach the grand bargain. 
The first is early harvest or stepping stone towards the complete Doha Package. At the informal 
WTO Ministerial Gathering in Davos recently there was a common understanding that there needs 
to be a positive outcome at the next WTO Ministerial in Bali, and it calls for realism and pragmatism. An outcome is deemed necessary to ensure credibility and relevance of the WTO as a 
multilateral negotiating forum, and also to provide confidence to move forward to complete the 
whole package.  I believe this means choosing the issues that can be part of a Bali outcome need to be based on 
the principles of doability, inclusiveness, clear benefits and impact to all members and 
stakeholders, and clear integration of development aspects. As we know some potential issues that have been identified are the Agreement on Trade Fa cilitation, some issues related to Agriculture, 
as well as issues of special interest to developing and in particular least developed members. The 
recent World Bank study on global value chains shows that trade can increase six times more from a trade facilitation package compared with reduction of tariffs and yield $1 trillion gains.   
 
However, we must also be reminded that the outcomes in Bali are "stepping stones" on the way to conclude the comprehensive package and a way to build back credibility and support for moving WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 31 - 
 
  forward. So early harvest should not be the only harvest – we should never lose sight of 
the big harvest and its potential gains.  In all these issues it will be important to strive for balance and inclusiveness so that members who 
are not ready can get time and capacity building. We should never forget inclusiveness and 
capacity building. This means S&D and exemptions, combined with capacity building, for 
Least Developed Countries which are simple , practical, transpar ent and effective. 
 
There are other suggestions and ideas to identify pragmatic pathways forward and to also respond 
to the priority issues of today's trade. One set of  suggestions is the variable geometry agreements 
including plurilaterals, which is an accepted way to negotiate under the GATT. As long as the 
objective is for greater opening up and that it complements and is consistent with the multilateral 
framework, they can be considered as pragmatic ways forward. However, in principle we need to ensure that there is "good design plurilaterals" and this means amongst others, the principles that 
the final objective is to multilateralize the pluril ateral agreement, transparency, inclusiveness and 
best practices and standards. Similar issues of capacity building to prepare those not included in the plurilateral or variable geometry agreements also need to be addressed. 
 
Fourth the reality is that the WTO will ha ve to face emerging  challenges from 
regionalism and bilateral agreements. The reality of today is that most countries have bilateral 
and regional agreements on their national agenda s. Without going into the why's of this trend, 
what will be important is how WTO needs to deal with these ongoing processes. Once again the 
principle is that all pathways to greater opening up in a pragmatic and practical sense be encouraged, as long as we once again maintain the principles of consistency and complementarity 
with the WTO.    
 It is important to keep in mind what constitutes "good design regionalism". The final aim of 
regional agreements is also to have a pathway for increasing multilateralizing the agreements (i.e. 
expanding by issues (comprehensiveness) and/or members). Some basic principles would include open architecture principles such as open a ccession, transparency and best standards and 
practices, which we have adopted in East Asia. The other important principle as in the WTO 
negotiations is how to have differential pathways and capacity building to ensure that different 
levels of development are accounted for.  
Arguably regional agreements could also complement and act as a catalyst to completing the Doha 
negotiations. The existence of more comprehensive regional agreements and their progress, can act as an impetus to completion of negotiations just as one thought the negotiations of NAFTA and 
creation of APEC led to the completion of the Uruguay Round. Furthermore to the extent that these 
agreements addresses "Doha plus" issues would also inform the possible way to shaping future multilateral rounds.  
 
Fifth how should we better manage the WTO as an institution and organization 
 There is always room for changes and reforms since reform and change is a process not an 
outcome. I will focus on being a good manager of the resources of the WTO to ensure that it is 
optimized to best serve the members. The DG is the "General" and he or she has a whole team and army that must effectively utilized to support his or her job to best serve members. 
 
It is important to increase the effectiveness of the secretariat and continuing to provide the right level of service to members. Initiatives undertaken in response to budgetary constraints should be 
continued such as the IT and paperless initiative already in progress. In order for effectiveness of 
the secretariat we can think about improving the result based management system in the 
secretariat as well as conducting a members satisfaction survey.    
I believe the secretariat's role is to support negotiations, legal processes such as panel and dispute 
settlement preparations and deliberations, and analytical capacity to better understand trends, concepts and impact. The Secretariat has excellent expertise which is needed for evidence based 
analysis especially given the greater complexities of trade and how trade is conducted, guarding 
its neutrality to build consensus. What needs to be done is to keep building and strengthen secretariat to support by way of evidence and processes that will help countries define benefits and costs of trade and find common ground amongst members.   
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 32 - 
 
  The secretariat has well qualified human resource s and expertise that can serve members in all 
these support areas and members should also be clear on where there are areas for improvement and effectiveness, which will lead to clear potential benefits for all member especially developing members who need it the most. 
 
There is also room to strengthen and improve the linkages to have more effective capacity building 
and aid for trade, as well as coherence between  trade policies and other policies, between WTO 
and other agencies such as ITC, UNCTAD and other international agencies such as IMF, World 
Bank and UN Agencies.  Other changes that are important to ensure continuing relevancy of the WTO, is to improve 
outreach to all stakeholders. 
 Let me close by saying that with my commitment, experience and skills I would like to 
be able to contribute to ensuring that we  have a functioning and relevant multilateral 
trading system.   
First and foremost, all through my professional career, in and outside of government, I have a 
deep commitment to the multilateral trading system. I believe in the broad vision of an open, rules 
based, inclusive and fair multilateral trading sy stem, which delivers trade, growth and jobs.  
 
Second I have the deep knowledge of the issu es through my academic training and career, 
especially with regard to understanding the policy issues and challenges, as well as the challenges 
and opportunities of trade and development.  
 
Third I have made the transition from an academic to the political and policy experience as trade minister in Indonesia for 7 years. Indonesia is from the region with the fastest growth in trade and 
I have been part of the process as to how trade has contributed to growth, creation of jobs and 
innovation. I have the political experience as a Trade Minister in a large developing country where we have seen the benefits of trade and developm ent. But also faced challenges on the ground. 
 
As the fourth most populous country and 16
th largest economy in the world, Indonesia has stepped 
up do its part in contributing to global economic governance. It has done this in part through its G20 membership, and in the WTO as coordinator of G33, and being part of various groups such as 
Cairns, NAMA 11, WTO's G20 and the Green Room. And it hopes to do more. 
 Fourth I have the skill set and experience to coordinate and bridge differences between countries 
at different levels of development through my ex perience as the coordinator of the G33 and in a 
leadership role in ASEAN. I will do my best to  build trust and be the honest broker between 
members at different levels of development and looking for pragmatic steps that can take us to the final goal where trade makes its proper contribution to growth and jobs. 
 
 2. Questions and Answers 
Q :  O n  b e h a l f  o f  t h e  L D C  G r o u p ,  w e  w o u l d  l i k e  t o  a s k  h o w ,  a s  D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l ,  t h e  
candidate would continue the full implementation  of all of the decisions relating to LDCs, 
as contained in the Hong Kong Ministeria l Declaration and those adopted at MC8 in 
favour of LDCs?  (Haiti) 
 A: I would prioritize to ensure that the issues that have been put on the table in Hong Kong as well as MC8 for LDCs, whether it's the monitoring  of the S&D or the duty-free quota-free package 
that is for the LDC, will be addressed and will be made concrete and real, including all the 
capacity-building that is involved with making sure that the LDCs can be better integrated into the world trading system. I am a great believer in effective Aid for Trade. It must be made simple, 
credible, transparent and effective and obviously real. I think this has been an on-going issue 
whenever we are talking about Aid for Trade in many contexts, and for LDCs this is even more so. I think for the duty-free quota-free package, I know that there is a lot of discussion out there on 
how to make it really beneficial for all Members, and be aware as well as address the possible 
adjustment problems by some LDCs compared to other developed LDCs. I am aware of these issues and I think the way forward is to, I always believe that there is never diverging views that 
are so divergent that you cannot find a solution that will be beneficial for all LDCs as well as WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 33 - 
 
  obviously for the Member countries that are providing the greater market access. In terms of 
providing the effective Aid for Trade for LDCs, once again I would emphasize that we must make sure it's effective, it's real, it's transparent, it's simple, and that it can really help the integration process of LDCs. 
 
Q: The needs and interests of the other deve loping countries are at the centre of the 
DDA. In addition, in subsequent decisions, ob jectives were also specifically established 
for the effective and meaningful integration of LDCs and full integration of small and 
vulnerable economies in the multilateral trading system. Given the differences in 
perspectives between Members, it would be necessary that these objectives become a 
priority in preparatory work for Bali, so th at the concrete trading interests of such 
Members which are already stabilized in the market access modalities and in the 
commitments agreed on tariff reduction an d S&D become the core element that would 
enable the Round to finally move towards a conclusion. How would you promote such a 
strategy?  (Ecuador) 
 A: I agree. I think that whether it's making sure S&D treatment in the agreements and 
monitoring the implementation, as well as the duty-free quota-free market access and how it can 
be really made real for all LDCs, while taking into account the possible adjustment problems faced by some, needs to all be put on the table and ma de sure that they can work. It also requires 
commitment by all to make sure that we can deliver real market access as well as the capacity 
building and the easing of some areas, such as Rules of Origin for instance, to make sure that, you 
know, I always believe that market access alone is never sufficient. You can have zero tariff and no quotas to enter into the market, but if you don't have the capacity to produce or get goods to 
market or you are faced with very complex admi nistrative requirements, you are never going to 
realize that market access. So it has to be combined with a realization as to how do you actually make the market access be realized for LDCs. And this requires, I think, effort from all sides. 
 
Q: What is your vision for the Arab region , knowing that ten Arab countries are still 
not Members of the WTO?  (Oman) 
 
A: My vision is obviously, as a Member-driven Organization and a global trading system, we 
want all countries in the world to be able to accede to the WTO. I think we would do all our utmost to help and prepare the way for all countries, including countries in the Arab region to be able to 
fulfil the requirements, do the consultations, facilitate the consultations as much as possible, be 
there to support the process as much as possible, to ensure that all the remaining ten countries from the Arab region can accede to the WTO. I think this is a very important area, how to ensure 
that we can have more Members be part of the WTO, because I think, once again, the benefits of 
the global trading system. I think, as my country  did not go through an accession process, but I 
have experienced and seen how countries such as China, such as Russia, you can name many countries, or in my own region Cambodia, and now Laos, the process of accession is a very 
important process in really creating a framework for your country's policies, and the reforms as 
well as the complementary policies that you need to make sure that the way forward for your country to integrate into the world economy becomes a smooth process. So, while on the one 
hand, the requirements seem very stringent or very  rigid or a very high standard, but at the same 
time, I think, most countries that go into an accession process should go into that process with the objective that this is to make my country's policies better in line with best practices and so that I 
can be part and be integrated into the world economy. We did not go through an accession 
process, but we have gone through, Indonesia I mean, in my experience both as an academic and as a trade minister, whenever we have had to fulfil, for instance, the commitments under the Uruguay Round, as well as our regional commitments, it has had a tremendous impact on how we, 
as policy-makers, can play the balance between, here is a commitment we have to fulfil, and this 
is actually, you know, the way you play it is very important. You say, we are not doing it because the WTO tells us to do it, we are doing it because this is clearly benefitting our country. Here are 
the benefits. So, you have to use the two very much in line with how it benefits your country. And 
you have to then also prepare a process of capacity building internally to make sure that the adjustment process once you become a Member and once you comply to all the rules and 
regulations and a process of negotiations are there. I think that is why some people, I guess, do 
complain that the process is very long, but I think it is long for a reason, that you do need the time to understand what you are getting into. You need the time to prepare your country for the accession. But in any case, once again, I would be very committed to facilitating, providing WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 34 - 
 
  whatever is needed to ensure that the remaining ten Arab countries can accede to the WTO sooner 
rather than later.  Q: You come from a developing country but certainly also from an emerging economy. 
S&D treatment for developing countries is a key principle to the Doha negotiations. 
Some WTO Members grew fast during the last  decade and improved the competitiveness 
of their economy substantially. How do you believe this change in the international 
landscape should be reflected in the DDA negotiations?  (The Netherlands) 
 A: I already indicated in my presentation that we do have to recognize that the world has changed. We have multi-polar centres of growth. We have countries that are at different levels of 
development because of the speed of development which has been variable in the last decade. A 
decade ago maybe it was much easier to say that you have developed countries or industrial countries, developed countries and LDCs. But now within the range of developing countries, you go 
from least-developed to lesser developed, more developed and perhaps emerging nations. We 
don't have to get into how you define each of thos e categories, but I think, in an Organization with 
157 Members, there are definitely a range of levels of development, which need to be reflected in 
the way we negotiate. What it basically means is that S&D treatment is, basically means you are 
given more time, you are given exemptions, depending on the level of your development. I think you can have variable levels of development depending again on which category of countries you are. It can also mean that you have to give a bit more if you are more developed. But at the end 
of the day, all countries, even large emerging countries, I can say that in the experience of 
Indonesia, but I think a lot, the other large emerging nations also have similar issues, even though we are growing at a rapid rate, we are seeing the benefits of trade and how it has transformed our 
economies. We have become more competitive. We are part of the global value chain, etc. It does 
not mean that we do not have adjustment and structural problems. Because there are within our country really different regions, some which are already very developed, but others which are still 
you could say least-developed. And by the way, this is not just for, I guess, emerging nations. 
Even advanced countries face structural adjustment whenever they have to fulfil a commitment. So I think we just have to be very clear that all countries have structural adjustments, and how do we incorporate that into the negotiations, and make sure that it is balanced. Balanced in the sense 
that we are cognizant, we are aware of the di fferent levels of development, the different 
challenges, whether it is structural adjustment, whet her it is certain sectors, whatever it is, each 
country will have its so-called bottom lines or red lines. And this is what we need to do to 
understand it and to make sure that we can find a consensus that takes into account the red lines 
but also take into account the benefits of greate r opening up. It is, I know, a delicate balance, and 
a delicate line to walk, but this is I think what we have been negotiating in the last ten years and I 
believe that all countries have these adjustment problems, but these countries are also, such as 
my own country, have been willing to give more for the global good, and I think that is really where wanting to reach consensus by giving a bit more for the global good is going to matter when we want to really complete these negotiations. 
 
Q: You mentioned in the introduction the ma ny regional and bilateral agreements that 
we have witnessed over the last few years, and you did say that such agreements could 
complement and they could be a catalyst to  multilateral agreements if the design was 
correct and if the ultimate objective was to get to multilateral agre ements. My question 
is, what would you do to strengthen the role of the WTO in relation to such regional and 
bilateral agreements to the extent that  you would be chosen as the future DG?  (Denmark) 
 A: To answer your question, I think the WTO first of all needs to recognize that these challenges exist. I believe that maybe two or three years ago the WTO actually did quite a 
comprehensive study on the impact of RTAs on tr ade, and I think the finding was that, while there 
was trade increase from RTAs, the large part of increased trade was still happening with global trade. So, in other words, I think there is still a great function for the multilateral trading system 
and global trade to be the framework that underpins global trade that will benefit job creation, 
growth and development in a broader sense. But we  know the reality is that many countries are 
negotiating bilateral and regional agreements, and we must also see that, as a developing country 
that has gone through all these negotiations, you should never underestimate the resources that it 
takes to negotiate these agreements. And that is actually one of the issues for developing countries that we must be conscious of. It does take away the resources for you for negotiating the multilateral deal. So, I think this is something that, in terms of resources, may be something 
the WTO perhaps can play a role in terms of be tter informing us in terms of the negotiating WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 35 - 
 
  processes. But I think I know where your question is going to. Is there a role for the WTO in terms 
of contributing to these better design RTAs? We have been in many discussions on this issue. You do have a Committee on RTAs, which reviews RTAs that are being completed. I think at the moment on the one hand you can see a role for the WTO in terms of, at the minimum, 
documenting a notification process, documenting and reviewing, a greater transparency for what is 
happening in the regional and bilateral agreements. Whether or not it wants to get into more, I think that's really up to all of you Members to de cide on the direction of whether you want to make 
Article 24 Enabling Clause or even Article 5 in GATS be the guiding principles for good regional 
RTAs or even have more principles there. But coming from a region where we have actually thought a lot about this so-called open architectu re and good design regional agreements, there 
are principles out there, and the principles are ve ry simple, actually. It's transparency. It's how 
you make a regional agreement at the end of the day more inclusive by allowing more Members to 
join with some process which is clear, and going for the best standards and practices. Because sometimes people feel that it is easier, it's sometimes our businesses also come to us and say it's 
more real, this is a real benefit, we are seeing our goods going in. How do you do that in a way 
which doesn't create what is famously known as the spaghetti bowl à la Bhagwatti, in other words, if you have regional agreements with very different standards, regulations, rules of origins, 
schedules, for the same good, a company making one product can face different regulations and 
rules, and that will affect its production proces ses and the way the global supply chain works. So, 
that's why you need to go for the best standards and practices. You have to have, you aspire to the best, and hopefully the best actually should be informed, whatever it is. The best standards 
and frameworks should be the WTO. It should be the multilateral framework that defines the 
benchmark from which RTAs or bilaterals are measured. Because otherwise you will get into your, I didn't want to use these words, but you would get into your stumbling block, regional 
agreements stumbling blocks, and spaghetti bowl effect, which is one of the famous ways of 
describing what you don't want in, or what are bad design RTAs maybe, to use that word.  
Q: You know that one of the criteria in the procedures we have is that the DG must 
have proven leadership and managerial ab ility. So, can you go into some more detail 
about your management philosophy, and al so how you see your leadership role?  
(Norway) 
 
A: I have managed from very small institutions, NGOs, all the way to large government bureaucracies. I think my management principle is basically that, while I am the leader, while I am 
the head of that particular organization, I will always work with the team inside that institution. 
You cannot work alone. You have to work with a good team. The good team means that you must be able to choose the right people to work with you, and also recognize what is needed by the 
institution. I think for this institution, as I mentioned, I am not here doing this on my own. I would 
be a good manager of the resources of the WTO to ensure that we can optimize whatever the resources, in terms of budget or people, to best  serve the Members. I mean, that's a very basic 
management principle. And the DG is the General, but he or she has a whole team and army that 
must be effectively utilized to support his or her job, to best serve the Members. I think there is 
always room for improvement, to make sure that the Secretariat can be more effective, and provide the right level of service to all of you Members. I believe the Secretariat's role is to 
support negotiations, legal processes, such as the panel and dispute settlement preparations and 
deliberations, and analytical capacity, to better understand trends, concepts and impacts. I think 
the Secretariat, I myself have a lot of experience  with people from the Secretariat, they have 
excellent expertise. I am a great believer in evidence-based analysis, especially given the 
complexities of the trade world and how trade is conducted these days. I think evidence-based analysis is needed so that we can be on neutral ground when we are talking about sensitive issues, when we are talking about issues which have very divergent opinions. What we need to do is to 
keep strengthening and building the Secretariat to support all of you better,  and especially I think 
the Secretariat's role can definitely help the lesser-developed Members better, because they are in more need of those services. Going back to the evidence-based analysis, even though I am a 
Minister, if you are a Minister, you are in a political position. You have to face challenges. You have 
to face various interests who want different things. I have found that my academic training and policy-based research background very helpful, because what I do normally is, when I have ten 
different groups trying to influence me on a particular policy, I try to do my evidence-based 
analysis first, my objective analysis, the numbers and actually mapping the ten. And that actually helps me when I go into that room with the ten people, I can actually have a feeling of where each one of them are coming from. I can also figure out, most of the time, not always, where is the 
common ground, because you are trying to say, there are 10 of you, you can't all have what you WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 36 - 
 
  want, but I try to make sure that each one of you gets something. That's what consensus building 
is all about, and finding the balance. I have had a lo t of experience of that in the domestic front. In 
the regional negotiations as well as, you know, as you know, Indonesia has been the coordinator of G-33, and we are participating in G20, CAIRNS Group, NAMA-11, as well as being the leader, 
taking the leadership in the ASEAN set-up. And yo u are talking about countries with very different 
levels of development, sometime s very divergent positions, and you have to find that common 
ground. I would like to share with you that my experience is that, while I may not look very tough, 
I am tough. Don't be fooled by this smile. I can be tough when I have to be tough. And when it 
comes to the crunch and we have to deliver an outcome, I will deliver the outcome. I don't give up easily. Maybe that's my final leadership skill.  
Q: What do you think the WTO's place should be in the architecture of world 
governance, and notably what should be the interaction of WTO with the G20 and other 
international organizations, such as the FAO, ILO, WHO, UNEP and UNCTAD?  (France) 
 
A: I think the WTO plays an important role in world governance. Obviously a trade doesn't stand alone. It is not in a vacuum. Other policies impact on trade, and trade impacts on other 
areas of governance. But I think the WTO should maintain its focus on trade and trade-related 
matters, but coordinate and make and build linkag es with the other organizations, so that for 
instance with the G20 obviously the DG is always invited to attend the G20 meetings, and in that meeting the DG will share the issues of world tr ade. I was a trade Minister in 2008 when the G20 
came up with this transparency exercise in an effort to prevent the world from doing beggar-thy-
neighbour policies, rampant protectionism. And that  transparency exercise was decided in the G20 
by all the leaders, and the WTO was asked to come up with this self-notification policies by the 
G20 countries. And I believe it helped to put, on top of the existing WTO rules and framework, I 
believe it helped to make countries conscious that, if you wanted to do things, it would be put on this list, and it would be discussed at the G20 meeting. I certainly used it as a trade Minister when 
I was getting 300 requests for additional measures. I would say do we really want our leader to go 
in to that room and have this long list that he or she has to explain? And I think that, and then you sit down with me. What is your problem? I can find a solution for you that doesn't mean we have to do this. It's a means that it was very important, and that was just an example of how the WTO 
and other global governance institutions can cooperate. There is obviously coherence and 
coordination between the WTO and other agencies. As part of the family which is trade-related such as ITC and UNCTAD, there can be improved strengthening of coordination. There are other 
international agencies such as IMF, World Bank an d UN agencies. I think here the issues of food 
security, environment, climate change, currency, macro policies, and Aid for Trade, would be all 
those issues that are addressed by those institutio ns as well as of clear importance for us. There 
needs to be coherence and coordination with all those other international institutions. But I think 
the role of the WTO is to understand where the nexus is between any of these issues with trade, and what should be done by the WTO and what shou ld be done by other institutions, hopefully in 
coordination and co-operation with the WTO. 
 
Q: If Members succeed in delivering an earl y harvest in Bali by MC9, what would be 
your road-map for the remaining issues?  (China) 
 
A: That was, I think, a pretty hard question. I feel like I'm in an oral exam here. But I appreciate all your questions because they are really showing that you are really committed to 
finding solutions. As I said earlier, I think the early harvest should not be the only harvest. While 
we are focused on the outcomes and deliverables for Bali, we should also be thinking about what is 
the post-Bali mandate. I think we all know that what we really want to have is a mandate to complete the big package, the complete Doha pack age. And then we must outline what needs to 
be done. Obviously it's not going to be my view, it's going to be how we collectively, all of you 
Members, agree. We want to reach consensus on the remaining parts of the Doha package. And to do that, what do we need to do? And I believe still very strongly that Agriculture is a very 
important part of the Doha package that needs to be completed. And it is really one that delivers 
benefits to all, especially developing countries. And it is probably an area where you can't really negotiate that regionally. You can only do it multilaterally. You can't reduce subsidies just for 
certain Members of a regional agreement. It has to be done multilaterally, for instance. So there 
are still all the other components of the Doha. And if we believe that in July 2008 we reached 80% of the way, there was 20% left, maybe four years la ter maybe it's more or less, that's up to you 
Members to figure out where is the remaining last mile that we must walk to complete the 
remaining of the Doha package. But I believe that we do need to address a post-Bali pathway, and WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 37 - 
 
  it should be, at the same time, not making that take away the attention from us to make sure that 
we have an outcome in Bali. So, a lot of people are telling me, they are playing around with the word "harvest" right, so early harvest should not be the only harvest. But if there is no early harvest, then there is no harvest. But I still believe we all can still have the big harvest, which is 
the complete Doha package, if all of you Members want to reach consensus, and all of you will 
work with the DG to find that common ground that will bring us to that big harvest.  
Q: Should we fail at MC9 in our objectives  of delivering a set of DDA issues, despite 
our best efforts, what would you consider crit ical to mitigate the potential negative fall-
out, and how would you try to ensure the co ntinued relevance of the multilateral trading 
system?  (Ireland) 
 
A: We should not dwell on the negatives. At the end of the day it's all up to the Members. If 
you want consensus, if you want an outcome in Bali, then all of you have to work at it, and find 
the common ground, have the national priorities an d red lines there, but be going in there with a 
flexible mind-set that you are here for the greater common good. But having said that, if you say that with all efforts it fails, then I think you have to face the reality that it is not a good outcome, 
in the sense that you will lose the credibility an d the relevance of the WTO, some, I wouldn't say 
you lose it all, but you will lose some credibility and some relevance in the way people view the WTO. So, maybe a better way to put it is, for all of us to be very conscious of the cost of a failure. But if it does fail, I think you still have to have a plan B, in all cases you should have a plan B, 
even though I was famous for writing an article when I was trade Minister that there is no plan B, 
there is only plan A. I still believe that. The cost of failure is really great, so I think we all have to go into Bali with that mind-set. But you know, what is the plan B? The plan B, as I said, WTO is 
more than Doha. There is still a lot of value in the WTO as a rules-based and dispute settlement 
mechanism. But then what do you do with all the negotiations? Then I think all of us have to think about a plan B, which may be, if we did not get it in Bali, was that just a matter of, 80% of the 
way and only 20% left and somehow we didn't have the time, is it just a question of we didn't 
have the time? That we could presumably see a solution given a little bit more time? Or is it more intractable? Is it more fundamental? And that is, I think, an issue that we should face when we get to it. Or maybe it is something that we still need the complete package for it all to fall into place. I 
don't know. I don't know the answer. As I said, I don't have the answers. I don't have a magic 
wand. All I have is my commitment to be able to find whatever solution it takes. I am a great believer that we should avoid failure at all costs. We should always be able to find the solution if 
we can really sit down and find that common ground, and maybe Bali is 100%. Maybe you get 
80% of 100%. But you still need to have some outcomes, and to have a way forward. Maybe that is the best way to look at it, that if you fail to reach the outcome that you set out with, you can 
still get perhaps 80% of the outcome or whatever  percentage of the outcome, and have a way 
forward which is credible to complete the rest of the outcome and to complete the rest of the Doha 
negotiations.  
Q: The WTO has received a lot of negative responses in the past, particularly from 
NGOs and right groups, who fear the weaken ing of national sovereignty. How do you 
intend to change this perception of the WTO, if you are elected as the DG?  (Brunei 
Darussalam) 
 A: I think it goes a little bit to the answer of  the previous question. I think the relevance and 
the credibility of the WTO is in part related to what it can deliver. It is also related to a better 
outreach effort that it must undertake. I think the WTO has improved a lot in the way it has opened up to more stakeholders, whether it is NGOs, whether it is the business sector, whether it is the media. It has become less of a sacred institution. If you want to come into this institution it's 
like going into a fortress. But I think today it has a much friendlier face. We must maintain that. 
Because, as I said to you earlier in my presentation, winning the story of trade in a positive way, instead of seeing trade as a threat to developmen t, to leaving the marginalized behind, leading to 
adjustment problems which are too difficult to deal with. We must try to flip it, and have a good 
story of the outcome and the benefits of trade. And to do that, you need to be open. You need to have very good outreach capacities, whether it is with all those stakeholders. I believe the WTO 
Forum that is held yearly, I have participated in those Forums, is a good opportunity. I think it is a 
three-day event where the WTO basically opens itself up to the public. I have had many 
experiences with WTO, and trade demonstrations. I was in Seattle as an NGO. I wasn't one of the 
ones protesting, though. They said I was too liberal to be an NGO. And so I have seen how the 
lack of understanding is at the root of many of the protests and demonstrations. At the time, our WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 38 - 
 
  Minister of Trade was Jusuf Kalla who was the Vice-President, and he actually went into the 
protestors and said, "what are you guys protesting  about?" "I don't know, it's all those big bad 
guys, you know, the multinationals and whatever, they are taking away our jobs." It was a very simplistic view, and when we go and see the demonstrations in our own respective countries, there 
is also this, a great deal of understanding, so we have to do a lot more work at the multilateral 
level, at the regional level, at the national level,  to de-mystify trade, and make trade, the benefits 
of trade really clear and real to the people who we want these benefits to go to. When I became 
Minister of Trade, one of my academic advisors from when I was a student, he said, I asked him, 
"what is my biggest challenge as a trade Minister?" that was exactly what he said: "Educating the people about trade and the benefits of trade". An d he's right. I don't know how much I succeeded 
in my seven years, but it is, as you all know, not an easy process, but it is something that we also 
have to get right, and it will actually also help in the way we are able to take the positions that we 
need to take in the negotiations. I think I have heard, in the room of negotiations, many Ministers saying, sharing their grievances on this issue: "I can't do this deal, I can't go home and say I 
didn't get this, I didn't get the jobs that I prom ised I would give from this package". How many 
times have you heard Ministers say that? I think it 's about jobs, it's about reduction of poverty, 
but you have to make it real. You have to find the stories and the case studies that make it real for 
the people. And I believe it's there. You also need to think carefully – countries and the way we 
structure negotiations, there will always be losers, there will be adjustment, there will be structural adjustment, there will be losers, there will be those who will be adversely affected. What do you do, what kind of policies do you need to address those issues too? It is whether it is a national 
policy level, or whether the way we structure negotiations with S&D treatment, giving enough 
time, combined with capacity building and so forth.  
Q: You have been travelling far and wide  in your campaign. I have a two-part 
question, which is to ask you to share with us the external perception of the WTO, and 
from that angle, other than completing the DDA, you have been very clear on that, what 
is the one other most important change you feel we should collectively address as a 
Membership?  (Singapore) 
 A: In my travels, talking to governments as well as to people outside of the government, I 
think probably some of it I have already answered here, if you talk to non-government people, 
when you say Doha or WTO – this is why I carefully made the distinction that Doha is not WTO, and all of us should never forget that – but as soon as you mention Doha, I think people do a little 
bit of this rolling of the eyes, saying that just because it has been going on for 10 years, and there 
is a little – you know, we have to be real here in  this room – there is scepticism, there are issues 
out there, when are you ever going to complete th ese negotiations, kind of question, how relevant 
is it for me. If you are talking to a business sector, it's about, what is it going to do for the 
business sector. If you talk to media, you will alwa ys get, oh well, this wi ll never happen, kind of 
scepticism. If you talk to the NGOs, how are you going to address those left behind, how are you going to make sure the benefits are shared equally? And then when you meet governments, I 
think, I would say, by and large, all governments that I have met so far remain committed to the 
multilateral trading system. And I think that is a very important take-away, and that is why we all need to be very clear that this is still the grand bargain, this is still the broad vision of the WTO 
that we must all work hard to achieve. So, having said that, I think there is a disconnect, if you 
like. Government people know, and I think all the economists know, the other people don't necessarily know that what you need is a global trading system. You can have pathways, you can 
have regional agreements, but it will never be as beneficial as a global trade deal. So, I think we 
need to do two things. Obviously, we need to have outcomes, and the outcomes must be made real and beneficial. That is why, in picking the earl y harvest, if you take Doha as a package, I think 
it has been a package that has been crafted to ensure that there is balance in terms of the 
benefits for all. Maybe some Members feel that there should be a little bit more, and some say a 
little bit less, that there is still room there to work at. But how do you make it real for the business people, for the stakeholders? And that is why some of the items picked for early harvest are in 
that direction. I think Trade Facilitation, for instance, can benefit all Members – developed, 
developing – and it benefits the business sector. It resonates with the business sector when you talk about Trade Facilitation. And it should resonate with the small and medium sized enterprises 
in our respective countries, because by reducing these barriers, the ones who get punished the 
most by having to fulfil a lot of the administrative barriers, because it is a fixed cost, is actually the 
SMEs. So if you can reduce the border barriers, the administrative barriers, make it more simple, m a k e  i t  m o r e  e f f i c i e n t ,  i t  w i l l  h e l p  y o u r  S M E s .  B u t  h a v i n g  s a i d  t h a t ,  I  t h i n k  w e  a l l  k n o w ,  t h e  
balance for the Trade Facilitation package is that it will benefit most countries, maybe all countries, WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 39 - 
 
  and it will benefit the business sector, it should benefit SMEs, give opportunities for SMEs to be 
part of the global supply chain. But some countries, which are not yet in the global supply chain, need to have that capacity building and interventions in investment, whether it is infrastructure or to raise their capacity in reducing the supply constraints, so that they can be benefitting from this 
Trade Facilitation agreement. I think we all know this is the balance. So I am just giving you an 
example of how an outcome that needs to happen to make sure that the WTO remains relevant and credible, is there actually in front of us, if we can find the right balance. But, as I also know, 
the Trade Facilitation package as part of the ea rly harvest must also include other development 
aspects to ensure that the development needs in other areas of negotiations, whether it's S&D, 
whether it's in Agriculture, also need to be there, and the LDC package. So, this is the balance that we are looking for. I think, if you ask me, it's related to the answers to the previous two questions. 
I do get a lot of responses that are ranging from being sceptics and pessimists about WTO and 
Doha, and this is something that we have to face as an institution. So, delivering an outcome is the certain way of dispelling all this. Not to mention that we will hopefully see the benefits to our 
people. The second part of the answer is obvi ously what I already answered to the previous 
question. We need to have a better outreach exercise to explain that WTO is more than Doha, that there are other aspects of the WTO apart from Doha, there are benefits to trade that must be 
made real to the people, so that you can sell the trade story better, and therefore get more 
support for the whole notion of "more trade is better", not less trade.  Q: Given your impressive record and long experience, what would be your priorities 
as a new Director-General, if you get elected?  (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) 
 A: I think my short-term priority will be to en sure that we can get back on track to ensure, 
what I believe very strongly, that trade is the engine of growth, and for that we need continued 
confidence in the multilateral trading system, one that is open, rules-based, fair and balanced, and that we must keep protectionism at bay. So, in order for us to achieve that, obviously maintaining, 
continuing to strengthen the rules-based framew ork and dispute settlement framework of the WTO 
will remain and continue to remain important. And second, obviously, to be able to get the outcomes, whether it's early harvest towards the big harvest negotiations of the WTO, the multilateral negotiations, the Doha negotiations, th e big package, and the benefits that it should 
yield to global trade and the global economy. I think that would be my major priorities. And to 
ensure that we have a team in place and that we serve all the Members as best as possible, and in 
all that we do we are conscious that we must ensure that we never forget that trade and 
development is the objective of the vision of a glob al trade deal as well as the functioning of the 
WTO. So how can we make sure that the programmes  we do, whether it's Aid for Trade or capacity 
building, or the integral parts of the negotiations, make sure that the development needs of the 
various levels of development, various groups of developing countries are integrated into the way 
we approach our programmes as well as our negotiations. But at the same time, not losing sight of the benefits of opening up greater market access, and so on. You know, basically we are in a two-speed world, where the more advanced countries, the bigger companies, and people who are in 
the more developed countries, they want to go faster, because they can see the benefits, they can 
see where the greater opening up can happen. And then you have those who are still wondering: is my life going to be better, is the life of my  children going to be better than my life? You still 
have people at that level. So, you have these two groups which want the negotiations and the 
opening up to grow at different speeds. We must be conscious of that and find the middle ground, the speed level and the adjustment levels that will  be balanced between the two ends. And this is 
certainly a job for the DG to find the common ground and the common opportunities. I should say 
that, when you want consensus, it is not about, I am just trying to reach a deal here. You must think about it in terms of the common opportunities and the benefits that it will yield to the people in each of our countries. 
 
Q: What is your understanding of the concept of policy space?  (Chile) 
 
A: My understanding of policy space is that what we can or cannot do, of course, has been 
changed since the Uruguay Round, basically. In the policy space of industrial policy or other sectoral developments, in the past you could use domestic content, you could use trade balancing 
requirements, you could do subsidies, you could do many things. But after the Uruguay Round, 
obviously the so-called policy space to develop certain sectors or have priority development of certain sectors or certain industries has been reduced. Is that good or bad? As someone from a big developing country which has faced this question ov er and over again, I think the answer is yes, 
we want to be as a developing country, we are not quite yet there to be able to say that we are WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 40 - 
 
  competitive in many things. We want to be, for de veloping countries like Indonesia, what we have 
had to go through was, how do you transform yourself from a primary commodity exporter – we were a major oil exporter in the 80s – to increase manufacturing capacity, to increase the processing of primary products, and then to go into more higher, more capital-intensive, more 
technology-intensive and more human capital-intensive types of production. I mean, that is kind of 
the traditional continuum of how countries want to develop their industries and become competitive. I mean, how did we do it? We did use some domestic content policies, as well as 
import substitution policies, but I think the result was not so great in the sense that they did not 
become efficient or effective, and in the mid-80s, what we did was to actually de-regulate everything, and provide more on the incentive side. So  there is still policy space to give incentive, 
to provide a level field, reducing the costs of do ing business was a big thing for Indonesia. One of 
the things we did in the mid-80s, which was very revolutionary, was to close down the customs, 
and then start a totally new institution that can serve our exporters better. That was across the board for all exporters. Things like that, you can do  – provide a level playing field, reduce costs of 
doing business – and there is still room within the WTO rules for you to provide incentives. For 
instance, unfair competition, you can resort to tr ade remedies, you have trade remedies, you have 
safeguards which you can use. This is the way we should approach competitiveness. And then, of 
course, you have this whole Aid-for-Trade programme, because at the end of the day, I think, as a 
large developing country, what we have seen is that what makes our countries competitive is also the infrastructure, the investment that we have to make in physical infrastructure and human infrastructure. In other words, you provide the level playing field, you reduce the costs of doing 
business, and then you provide the human capital and the physical infrastructure support that 
allows various industries and services to grow, not a particular industry or a particular service. If 
you do want to pick a sector or an industry, you can do it, but it must be done, this is a big debate 
we all have, if you pick a certain incentive policy, it could be a tax holiday, it could be providing 
dedicated infrastructure, whatever it is, you have to be clear what is your objective in providing that particular industry or that particular sector. And there must be performance-based measures 
that, after a certain number of years, if that partic ular industry or sector doesn't become efficient 
or doesn't become competitive, you have to be able to reduce it or eliminate it. So, otherwise, we all have these problems, and we all don't have the budget space. You know, policy space sometimes, many times, equals budget space too. And if you don't have the budget space, you 
have to be very selective in what you do, or find ways to ensure that your particular industries or 
particular services that you want to grow can become competitive over some period of time. I'm sorry, I am probably not answering this very systematically, but I think the basic conclusion to the 
policy space answer is basically that you can still use some policies that are not constrained totally 
by the WTO rules, but even if you use it, you ought to use it in a way that is performance-based and has some time period to end it. 
 
Q: Of late, there has been increased focus on the impact of global value chains on 
growth, employment and overall development of participating countries. Do you believe 
that global value chains are necessarily bene ficial for developing countries? And if not, 
what needs to be done to use them positively for developing countries?  (India) 
 A: Global value chains can be beneficial for developing countries if you can be part of it, and 
that you can be continuing to be a changing part of it. Because, I think, global supply, global value 
chain is a very fragmented and complex structure, which is very dynamic actually. And countries and companies move through this global value chain, and what needs to happen is that you have 
to have a kind of a holistic view to it, because what you are talking about is, how do I basically at 
the end of the day, how do I move goods from one point to another point, in the most efficient way? And it actually, in my opinion, also, because I am the Tourism and Creative Economy Minister, facilitating people-to-people movement is also a part of it. How do you facilitate the 
movement of goods and people so that your value chain and the benefits can be as widely spread 
as possible? And that in your part of the value chain, you are receiving the most value added. It 
means two things. If you look at the most recently completed study, it talks about the need to 
reduce the administrative cross-border barriers and the infrastructure needs, which is the 
transportation and logistics component of it. This means that you are not talking about tariff reduction, you are talking about domestic regulations and customs policies and standards and how 
you clear goods and how you can coordinate the institutions inside your country so that it can be 
working more efficiently. And it means investment in infrastructure. And it's not just the hard infrastructure, it's also the soft infrastructure. It is the transportation infrastructure, but it's also the logistics services, the distribution, the wareho use, and the human resources that are involved 
in delivering very good and efficient cross-border services, whether you are in government or WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 41 - 
 
  whether you are in the services sector. So, it's a big objective. And how should developing 
countries be able to catch up to this rather big job? If I can share our own experience, where we have had to face this in real time, because we had a commitment in ASEAN, where we had to have an ASEAN single window. So, we started with a ddressing the administrative, facilitating the 
administrative cross-border regulations. It was decided in 2006 that we, as a government, had to 
have a national single window before you went to an ASEAN single window. It took us three to five 
years, I would say, to come to the point where yo u have all the government agencies involved in 
one way or another on import and export regula tions, to come together, have all the business 
processes be in line, and have a national single window. It's a process. What I am trying to say is that, it's a big goal, but if there is an objective and there is a commitment, we have to go through 
the process. You need to facilitate the lesser developing countries to be able to be part of that 
process. As you can see, there are two issues here. One is actually how do you have systems and 
regulations that can better facilitate the movement of goods? At the moment I am focusing on also people, so visa facilitation issues, for instance, is one of the areas that I am working now on as a 
Tourism Minister, to make sure that, just like yo u have goods, you have green lane, you have less 
risk goods compared to high risk goods, same with  people. There is a lot of capacity building in 
terms of the use of systems, technologies, and training that can be done to make sure that you 
can start to begin to address that. I am talking about how developing countries can be brought 
into the global supply chain. On the other hand, the other big component is the investment in the physical infrastructure as well as in the services sector. That's probably a bigger job, but I would say you should start progressing in both areas if your country wants to be a competitive part of 
the global supply chain, and if you are a LDC or lesser developed country, I think the way to go is 
to identify a niche, which is the part of this glob al supply chain that I, as a small country, or I as a 
LDC, can potentially participate. It doesn't have to  be the all. I think the thing about global supply 
chain is that countries should stop thinking that, I can produce everything in my country. And 
that's a big change in the mind-set. And countries will have to decide which part of it. But countries need time, need capacity building, adju stment problems that are needed in both areas 
should be the homework of all of us, nationally as well as in the way we do the multilateral 
negotiations, the way we design Aid or Trade, and the way we design the programmes that are needed for the lesser developing countries, to be an integral part of this global supply chain, and enjoy the value added. 
 
 3. Summing up by the Candidate
9 
Thank you for all your questions. They indicate to me that you are all very committed to this 
process and are prioritizing a way forward. I look forward to continuing to see as many of you as possible in the coming weeks to continue exchanging views. 
 
I believe you want a DG who has the ability to get the job done – but not alone, together with members. The Director General's job is to guide the organization by continuously reminding us of the greater common good of trade, growth an d jobs; be the guardian of the rules based 
framework and international trade governance; and continuously forging the common ground and 
opportunities to move forward.  
I stand here before you ready to serve the members of this esteemed institution and most of all 
ready to work with all of you to safeguard and continue to build an open, rules based, balanced, fair and inclusive multilateral trading system for the benefit of the global economy.   
 
I come with 25 years of experience and have lived, breathed and experienced trade and development up close. I was a Minister of Trade for Indonesia for 7 years and travelled the world 
discussing global trade. I am a tenacious negotiator as seen in my work with G-33, ASEAN, APEC 
and contentious domestic issues. I can be tough when I have to be and at "crunch time" I can 
focus to get the desired outcome.    
I am from a large developing country and in a part of the world where trade has delivered its 
benefits so I have seen first-hand how trade can transform the economy. I was a child of the 
                                               
9 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meetin g communicated by the Chai r to all delegations on 
15 and 18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five 
minutes of the question-and-answer period if he or she so wished. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 42 - 
 
  1960's and still remember lining up for food ra tions with my mother and have seen how my 
country has transformed up close.    As the Minister of Trade, I have also had to face  the adjustment challenges faced by Indonesia and 
its companies and its people – and be part of the solution. I always told people that I was the 
Trade and Development Minister and if I could make the life of one person better off I would have done some of my job. So I want to make many more people better off. I want to be able bring 
development economics off the pages of the text books and into people's homes, providing jobs, 
opportunities and growth in all your countries.  I would like to put these skills and experience at work to serve the WTO and to make peoples lives 
better off in all parts of the global economy by ensuring we have an open, rules based, balanced 
and inclusive multilateral trading system.  
To conclude should I be entrusted to lead this organization, I would strive for the next four years 
to build a WTO that can continue to provide certainty and predictability, that can deliver trade and development to all, and meet all challenges we face today and tomorrow. I want to build trust and 
be the honest broker between all of you memb ers with different positions and levels of 
development. I will listen carefully and continuously work with all of you toward finding common ground and opportunities.  
And most of all I want to be there for all of you members and the people of your countries whose 
lives we can all collectively make better. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 43 - 
 
  ANNEX D 
Meeting with Mr Tim Groser (New Zealand) 
1. Presentation by the Candidate If someone had suggested to me in 1985 when I came to my first GATT General Council meeting 
that almost 30 years later I would be back in front of the Council taking part in an international 
'beauty contest', I might have been, shall we say, a little confused.   
But here I am – and the metaphor of a 'beauty contest' is an interesting one. However, remember 
what they say – beauty, including political beauty, is skin deep.   This is an extremely difficult job. The Director General is not like the Head of the IMF or the World 
Bank. You don't have billions of dollars, or access to capital markets through conditionality to use 
as leverage to further the objectives of the inst itution. You don't even have important decision-
making powers, other than on matters relating to th e Secretariat. It has been set up as such – the 
WTO is a member-driven organization. 
 We, the Members of the WTO, have to choose a person to lead the WTO. Then we have to live with 
that choice for a full four years. There will  be no opportunity for 'buyers' remorse'.  
 And this is a very important moment in the juncture of the WTO. Are we in a crisis? No. The challenge facing this institution is different. The problem we face is about our relevance. It is a 
deep problem. 
 Central Importance of the WTO and MTS 
 
Let's start by accentuating the positive. The WTO underwrites the multilateral trading system and is thus one of the central pillars of the global economy. As a Trade Minister of an Asian Pacific 
economy I spend most of my time in the Asia Pacific.  
 But when I feel enthusiasm for Asia Pacific is runn ing just a little ahead of the evidence I ask them 
the following question: "who is China's largest trading partner?" 
 
EU-27 is the correct answer.   
So imagine you are someone working in a company in Latin America, the Asia Pacific or Africa 
exporting either commodities or components to Sh enzhen, Chengdu or any of the great industrial 
centres of China. What you are exporting may end up incorporated in Chinese exports to Europe. 
So who does your job actually depend on? Well, it may be European consumers. 
 The fact remains that in spite of all the growth of regionalism, the overwhelming bulk of world 
trade remains non-preferential MFN trade underpinned by WTO rules. 
 
The global value chain is not called 'global' wi thout reason. And as we all deepen our regional 
economic groupings we all depend on this multilateral system to establish coherence amongst 
these regional groupings at a global level.  
 International multilateral institutions rarely cease to exist. Rather, if in trouble, they become less 
and less relevant and eventually become political and diplomatic backwaters. We cannot afford to 
let this happen to this institution.  My Vision for the WTO 
 
I have been asked by many in private discussions to  outline my vision for the WTO. Let me try and 
answer this by highlighting the main roles of the WTO, leaving the most troubling issue – its 
negotiating function – to last. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 44 - 
 
  Advocacy 
 The advocacy function of the WTO is very important. It is ineluctably centered on the office of the Director General. Somebody has to get out there and fight protectionism, defend aggressively the 
case for an open, multilateral rules-based trading system.  
 This institution should be the absolute centre of trade policy thinking – the 'go-to' place for young 
and ambitious trade policy thinkers coming up th rough their systems. Twenty-five years ago we 
were in that space. We are not there today.  We need a DG who is deeply persuasive. And to be persuasive they need a personal track record 
of having put their country position behind them on the political shelf, and delivered negotiated 
results, not just speeches, to support open trade.  
Yes, in the real world material interests matter, but advocacy, provided it is credible, can win the 
day. As a politician I deeply believe that. Never underestimate the power of ideas. It is summed up in my favourite French phrase – ' la puissance d'une idee en marche' ; 'the power of an idea on the 
move' is how I translate it. 
 We are not a small branch office of the international economic institutional machinery. So that advocacy role includes working with, and it has to be on an equal footing, the Heads of other 
major international economic institutions. The Director General must also be able to carry the brief 
for the WTO with senior Ministers, not just Trade or Commerce Ministers. At times, this will involve 
interaction with Heads of Government. 
 
Implementation Function  
Clearly, the WTO has an implementation function. Now I am aware that clever negotiators stretch 
the boundaries of what is 'implementation'. So I suggest you do not try and decode this comment in the way that sophisticated Geneva insiders can do.   
But who amongst us can deny the simple reality that this institution has to oversee and facilitate 
the implementation of agreements made in this House?   
I do want to emphasise the word 'facilitate' here – we can't use the Exocet missile that is the WTO 
Dispute Settlement on every occasion. Every time we see countries falling behind in the implementation of their obligations, we can't just say 'off with their heads'.  
 
This takes my thinking directly into at least one important part of trade-related technical assistance and capacity building.    
Development, Trade-Related Assistance and Capacity Building 
 Clearly we have bits of this puzzle in place that are working well, and bits not quite targeted at the 
real problem.  
 A small island developing country with islands separated by vast expanses of blue ocean faces 
different challenges to land locked small economies. The obligations they face may be the same, 
but the implementation difficulties they face will be  very different. Or to use the usual but entirely 
appropriate cliché, one size does not fit all.  
I have some ideas on how members could better use existing mechanisms to focus attention on 
the needs of partner countries in two main areas – implementation of their obligations and accessing benefits of multilateral trade liberalization.  
 
The Development Dimension remains fundamental in all our work. Every member of the WTO is, or has been, a developing country. In terms of development and poverty eradication, we have made 
enormous, albeit uneven, progress in the last thirty years.  
 But for many, if not all of them, it would be inconceivable that they could have made so much progress without access to the relatively open gl obal market for manufactured goods that the WTO 
system underwrites. Agriculture, is, shall we say delicately, a little further back in the process. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 45 - 
 
   
Leadership and the Secretariat  The Director General's responsibilities as the head of the Secretariat are not at the centre of the 
public debate about the problems facing the WTO; leadership of the Secretariat is certainly part of 
the solution.  
 
I have led a range of institutions – Embassies, a Think Tank, and, as Minister of Conservation, a 
Department of State with a half billion dollar budget, hundreds of employees assisted by thousands of volunteers and which was responsible for one quarter of the land mass of New Zealand. All of these roles involved the setti ng of objectives, monitoring of performance, 
building effective teams and the subtle but crucial matter of setting the leadership tone. 
 Over the 30 years I have been involved with this institution, I have built up immense respect for 
the professional staff of the WTO. The WTO Secretariat is filled with incredibly able people. 
Competition to get into and move up through its professional ranks is intense. We need to empower them and use their capabilities.  
 
To do this, we need the closest working relationship between the office of the DG and the professional staff and the key to that will not be  to develop new formal wiring diagrams – who is 
reporting to whom. It is far more subtle than that. It is finally about leadership tone and 
accessibility. 
 Judicial Function 
 
The closer we integrate our economies, the greater is the scope for disputes. The art in this is to 
channel them into a professional, unimpeachably neutral process.  
 
Our most severe critics cannot make the case that this is of little consequence or not working well. But there are two issues we need to address.   
The first is a resourcing issue. If I do become DG, the first thing I would do post Bali is conduct a 
scan of first order bottlenecks in the Secretariat with a particular focus on its judicial function to give me the information I would need on where the resourcing problems lie.  
 
The second issue is far more fundamental. A rules based system implementing rules effectively is great. But if they are effectively implementing ru les that have been overtaken by events, this is 
not sustainable. This takes me to the core problem: the WTO's negotiating function. 
 The Negotiating Function  
When the Director General takes office on 1 Septem ber, he or she will have an immediate goal: to 
make Bali a success. The broad trajectory for the meeting will already have been set by the end of the Summer Break, for better or worse. There will be no time for the new DG to have a learning 
curve. 
 Assuming we navigate Bali successfully, we should  recall that even a relatively modest result 
would help us. I have learned never to underestimate the power of even modest success to 
generate momentum.  But beyond that, be warned: I am not a 'man with a plan'. Think of me as someone with maybe a 
dozen different working hypotheses that, if we could get buy-in from the membership to at least 
one of them, might eventually fix the near  paralysis in our negotiating function.  
 
The core mandated issues that won't be fixed at Bali are not going to go away. We still have to 
deal with them. But new thinking will be required  to find the right pathway. No Director General 
should assume office with an idee fixe on precisely how to proceed. 
 
Look here to past successful strategists. The gr eat Prussian Field Marshall, von Moltke, did not 
believe in rigid plans. One had, as a leader he thought, fixed strategic objectives to achieve, limited resources, and opportunities. An effective leader would constantly adapt use of those WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 46 - 
 
  resources to the situation as it evolved in order to achieve fixed strategic objectives – hence his 
famous phrase, ' a battle plan does not survive the first encounter with the enemy' . 
 T h i s  i s  w h y ,  w h e n e v e r  I  h a v e  b e e n  a s k e d  t o  f a c i l i t a t e  o r  c h a i r  n e g o t i a t i o n s  I  h a v e  n e v e r  l i k e d  
prescriptive road maps, artificial deadlines that, negotiated today, can be renegotiated tomorrow.  
 Second, you need to understand my operational working methods with respect to Ministers and 
officials. Make no mistake here: the Director General must be able to operate in both worlds – the 
political and the official. The idea that you can take to Ministers hideously complex issues that are completely undercooked at official level and expect Ministers to solve them has been tested to destruction. Effective work with senior officials is absolutely crucial. 
 
Outside the great religious texts, Shakespeare is the most translated author of all times. He said in Henry VI, " How should you govern any Kingdom that know not how to use Ambassadors?"  
 
Ladies and gentlemen, I would be most grateful for your support, however you might express that to our trusted facilitators. 
 
 2. Questions and Answers 
Q: You have a finger on the pulse as a sitt ing trade minister. I want to invite you to 
address the question of development, how you see the present conversation on this 
important topic is going, both in terms of  Bali as well as our broader work as an 
institution on the whole. How do you see a balance being struck between the needs of 
development addressing those concerns, as well as for pressing on with the raison 
d'être of the Organization? (Singapore) 
 
A: I would like to pay tribute to the work Singapore has done in leading discussions on this 
matter. I imagine at least some of you have rese arched the statements I have made and, if you 
look at MC8, you will see a very clear statement from me. We cannot, because it may be inconvenient, airbrush development out of the Doha Development Agenda. We cannot airbrush 
issues that are vital to development from the Si ngle Undertaking. Now, I have flexibility in my 
mind about how we approach issues that we will not be able to resolve at Bali. This is clear. These are not, to use the phrase, under active consideration for the Bali package. But we all know we 
have to come back to them. So, development involves basically two dimensions. It is about policy 
space and it is about addressing imbalances that are fundamentally important to developing countries. With respect to policy space, this is noth ing new. It was in the GATT, at the creation in 
1947 - trade and development. We have added to this progressively as the years have gone by. I 
am aware that there is some interesting work go ing on under three basic headings in terms of 
policy space. They are the Cancún issues, there is a work programme going on to try and make some balanced assessment of priorities there. We still have got a mandate to deliver a review 
mechanism. And then there are agreement-specific issues that we have to attain. And some of 
them, we hope, will be politically mature enough to  be part of any outcome in Bali. The only thing 
I insist on, is that let's agree that there are fund amental issues to development that will be left 
unaddressed in Bali, and we have to come back to them. And naturally I choose the one that I am 
most familiar with, which is in agriculture. Fundamental issues around subsidies, market access are fundamental to many developing countries, and of  course developed countries, too. And that is 
my basic view of this issue. 
 Q: International trade is influenced today more strongly by non-tariff measures than 
by tariffs. How do you think the WTO should ta ckle this problem? And what do you do as 
a Director-General to address it? (Czech Republic)  
 A:  That is absolutely correct, and we have a number of agreements which reflect that growing 
reality of the importance of non-tariff measures. I want to, however, state that one can take this 
rather, I mean, correct view of economists just still a little too far. First of all, with respect to agricultural tariffs, to say that we  have dealt with this is ridiculous. The average bound tariff across 
the membership as a whole is 40.5%. Secondly, I th ink some of the very intriguing work that has 
been done in this house in recent years has shown how, even small tariffs in the context of the global value chain can have quite dramatic effects in terms of the cumulative protective effect. So, let's all agree that, dealing with non-tariff measures, and as a whole set of interesting issues here, WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 47 - 
 
  for example in the trade facilitation area, they are part of our deal. And, in that sense, I 
completely agree with the sentiment in the question. But let's not forget that we haven't done the traditional job yet.  
Q: The question is more a general one abou t the situation of the multilateral trading 
system. What is your assessment on the health  of the multilateral trading system in the 
WTO? And how can you define your preferred realistic scen ario on how the multilateral 
trading system can be re-invigorat ed in the short and long-term? (Italy)  
 A: I think I made a clear position of principle on this. The bulk of world trade is still a non-preferential MFN rates underwritten by the rules of this institution. So, when we talk about the 
multilateral trading system, this is still the base. This still provides, what I call the way to make 
coherent the various regional agreements all of us, or practically all of us, are negotiating. I have never seen this issue about RTAs and the multilater al trading system as a dichotomy, an either-or. 
It has always been clear to me that they both need advancing for a number of reasons. Number 
one: there are certain issues that I think is deeply improbable you will ever be able to raise effectively, with operationally effective rules, outside the multilateral trading system. Yes, I have 
seen various RTAs with some agreements on anti-dumping, and some have even gone to the point 
of reaching bilateral agreement not to apply anti-dumping measures to each other. But fundamentally the rules around contingency prot ection and subsidies have to be negotiated 
multilaterally. So that is the first key point. RTAs cannot do all the job. Or if they attempt to, it will 
not be done well. The second thing comes down to the fundamental question of coherence. My 
example about the workers in Africa, Latin America, Asia Pacific, supplying components or commodities to China for re-export to China's trading partner makes the point. I liken these to 
vessels on the top of the sea, and we need the sea,  which is the multilateral trading system, to be 
b e nig n. Otherwis e  we  wi ll  run into s e rious  roc ks . S o that is  my vis ion . I t is  p art of a cohe re nt approach to trade as a whole. 
 
Q: At the start, you acknowledged how difficu lt the role is, in part because of the 
constraints of being a Member-driven Organiza tion, and yet in your remarks you offered 
a great deal of initiative. Could you describe how you will deal with issues where there is 
no consensus? The new issues of Singapore, now over a decade old,  of investment and 
so on, do not enjoy a consensus. How will you forge a consensus beyond Bali and beyond the Doha Development Agenda?  (Canada) 
 
A: That is a very important question, and I think I understand why there has been so much resistance and reluctance in this house to looking at issues outside the mandated issues. It is 
because people are worried that if you deflect political attention from the core unresolved 
problems to new issues, then you are providing a slippery slope, in which people do not address the problems that must be addressed. And I have always said, and not just in this negotiating context, that we are not going to move over to the new exciting 21
st century agenda by leaving 
the detritus of the 20th century trade agenda aside. So, above all, I understand, given my 
experience as a negotiator for a country like New Zealand, why people are being resistant. But the problem with that approach taken too far is that this institution then confronts one of the aspects 
of the relevancy question. So, if there is too much resistance to even discussion of other issues, 
what do we think we achieve? What is the steam in the kettle? By stopping the valve, you don't stop the steam building up. It will come out somewhere else. So, for a number of issues, this 
should be the "go-to" place in the world for trad e policy. It was when I first came here, decades 
ago. It no longer is, on some of these issues. We have to find a way forward, to have discussions against the background of some very clear understandings that this is not redefining the issues that still need to be addressed. And that is best  done by confidence and quiet discussion, starting 
at all different levels of the Organization. As a small country, I know the sensitivities here. So I 
think that is the way forward.  
Q: CARICOM, like other small vulnerable ec onomies, face inherent challenges and 
constraints that limit our participation in  the multilateral trading system. Moving 
forward, what, in your view, are the key concerns and how can you or would you, as 
Director-General, assist  in addressing them?  (Trinidad and Tobago) 
 A: CARICOM countries share some problems with countries that I am very familiar with in the Pacific. It is sort of the opposite, if you wish, of the landlocked country problem facing many LDCs. 
It is vast logistical problems for small islands. My answer would be two-fold. First of all, and I will WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 48 - 
 
  repeat this again and again, to have a very clear sense of the specific trade problems you face in 
shaping our response to the Single Undertak ing and its mandated agenda. I have already 
elaborated on that. Then I think we logically start to look at trade-related technical assistance and capacity building. I have been into trade ministri es of many developing countries over the years 
and frankly I often see, first of all, very few pe ople, surrounded by WTO documents. Often they do 
not have a lot of personal experience. They are not exactly clear why their country or their economy joined the institution. So, I think we have to use trade-related assistance and capacity 
building to try and help these countries a little more deeply than just saying "here you are, here 
are your obligations, if you don't meet them, see you in court". And this goes down to the heart of what I want to see, a more facilitative approach to implementation. Not at the expense of throwing aside the ultimate point of this, that this is a rules-based Organization. It has to be a little more 
sophisticated than just say "off with their heads" when you see people falling behind. With respect 
to the agenda to help countries, I understand that one of the difficult issues in the TF agenda, for example, is, do we extend this inter-sea logisti cs infrastructure and there is no consensus to do 
that, for reasons I think I understand. But if you are going to identify the problems facing 
CARICOM or small island developing states in the Pacific, whose islands are sometimes separated by hundreds of kilometres of blue ocean, I think that this institution, through its informal links with 
other development assistance institutions, can start to help, to focus on specific development 
needs, and they will be specific, country-by-co untry. One of the ideas in my head, though this 
could be quite sensitive, is to try and use the TPR mechanism in this way, to try to, when we go into a specific LDC or developing country, identify what are the specific problems you face, and not 
just have a discussion here, which tends to be somewhat formulaic and political in its nature, but 
some follow-through. Well, we have analysed this country's problems. Isn't there an agenda of aid assistance, effective aid delivery, that we, the Se cretariat, can now try to influence people with 
serious money, institutions with facilities? I don't think the answer here is to have a whole series 
of formal protocols, but it’s a question of orientation.  
Q: For many developing countries, the prom ised gains from trade liberalization have 
not materialized. What role can the WTO play in promoting trade as a tool for 
development, and delivering on the promis ed gains for small developing countries?  
(Dominica) 
 
A: In one sense there is a very simple and shor t answer to your question, and that is: because 
we have not delivered the Doha Development Agenda. The Uruguay Round agenda, and I was our 
chief negotiator in there, was the first time that developing countries started to play a very active 
role, and we achieved some limited gains. I worked primarily with developing countries, as you would know, in the CAIRNS Group. And the goal there was to see the elimination of the MFA in 
trade and textiles, to see agriculture integrated into the system. And we achieved some, but 
limited, results. And when people say "but where were the benefits of this?" Well, to achieve the 
dramatic structural changes we achieved in the Uruguay Round, we recognize that the actual degree of liberalization on issues of interest to de veloping countries was rather limited. That is the 
origin of the built-in agenda. What is meant to fix that problem? The Doha Development Agenda. 
So, when people legitimately complain about the lack of benefits to developing countries, my first answer is a very straightforward one. We have to finish this Doha Development Agenda as a start, 
and then look to the more sophisticated issues th at we have been discussing this morning, about 
how to facilitate developing countries, through trade-related technical assistance and capacity building, to access the benefits of it. That, to me, is the real agenda. 
 
Q: You are well-acquainted with WTO and the Doha Agenda, and you have been for a long time now. Looking back, from a retrospec tive point of view, could you tell me three 
actions that you could have done differently in order to achieve the success of the Doha 
Round? (Chile) 
 A: No, I couldn't tell you that, because I don't think we did make fundamental errors in the 
Doha and the Uruguay Round. And I think we have established a structure that can carry us 
forward very effectively. I think if there have been  mistakes in the Doha Round, it is all around the 
issue of losing momentum. And the answer to that is very complicated. But if you ask me to 
identify specific mistakes, no, frankly none come to mind specifically.  
 Q: There have been questions in discussion  over the last couple of days about the 
deadlock in Doha. There has been another ma jor international negotiation that has also 
been deadlocked on climate change, and you have had the experience of working on that WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 49 - 
 
  set of issues as well. I am interested if you think that there are lessons, positive or 
negative, from the climate change discussion s that would be relevant to us here in 
Geneva?  (United States) 
 
A: Absolutely, but they are not simple to explain. And they are subtle lessons, rather than 
formal lessons. The underlying issues in climate change are: we have a massive problem, and this problem, just like the trading system, used to be  completely dominated by the industrial countries. 
Emissions are no longer dominated by the Annex 1 countries. And yet we have, in the case of 
major emerging economies, still massive development problems to overcome. So, no developing country, including China, which is now the largest emitter, can look at piquing at this point. What we are trying to do in climate change, is establish a framework within which development 
objectives can be achieved without compromising the underlying poverty elimination goals of those 
countries, which will always trump climate change. I have been particularly focused on one aspect of it, which is, I have actually created, in the last three years, a new international organization. It 
is called the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Emissions. And I proposed it in Poznan at the 
COP in 2008 and at the FAO in Rome. Thirty-odd co untries, including many important countries in 
this room have signed up to it. And I have done this in my classic style, informally, keeping the 
fractured politics of the UNFCCC in its right place, and allowing a si tuation where, for example, in 
crop-lands research, we have Brazil, we have US  leading that negotiation. In rice, we have 
Uruguay and Japan. In livestock, the Netherlands and New Zealand. We have France and Australia 
leading the deeply sophisticated work on metrics because you can't, in science, do anything 
without metrics. But behind all this is a simple proposition, which is, food security will always 
trump climate change for developing countries. So, when I analysed the problem, I said "what we need to do is to produce 70% more food, but do not expect any country to do this at the expense 
of food security". So you can see in quite subtle ways echoes of this debate, for example, in our 
institution here. When we look at the G-33 food security issues that are under consideration as perhaps part of a deal for Bali, again the same underly ing conflicts arise. So, it is pretty difficult to 
express this – maybe some of you have had experience in both domains of this in multilateral 
diplomacy – but it is all about forging new relationships between the developed and the developing world, because it is no longer, either in trade or in climate change, just a matter of the major industrial countries.  But in doing that, anyone formulating either specific approaches, as I have on 
agriculture emissions, or general approaches, that  still loses track of the development dimension, 
will get nowhere.  
Q:  Do you think it is possible to make progress in market access matters in one or 
two of the three pillars of negotiation wi thout irreparably damaging the progress and 
balances achieved during the 10 years of negotiation under the Doha Round?  (Uruguay) 
 
A: At Bali, I think that's not under active consideration. Beyond that, yes, it is possible, but we would then have to address all of the difficult issues around linkages to other issues. And the job of a Director-General is not to declare deus ex machina  what the solutions are, but to build that, 
piece by piece. And it is not just a question of dealing with the largest countries. Of course, we all 
know the underlying reality. We will never move  forward without convergence amongst the largest 
developed and developing country Members, but nor will we ever move forward in this house 
without buy-in from small countries. And there are a number of reasons for this. My own 
experience leads me to this, representing a small country whose voice is not always heard so clearly. Alexander Hamilton, the man normally accr edited with building consensus for drafting the 
US constitution, once famously said: "Men will often oppose a thing simply because they have had 
no hand in its making". This is about ownership. So, the way forward on such a sensitive issue as "could we harvest market access?" - and then thinking about how that is linked into other agenda items - requires a very careful facilitation to make sure that we build consensus at all ends of the 
membership spectrum. By the way, it doesn't have to start amongst the big guys. I have 
experience of this, starting with small, middle- sized countries providing the beginning of what I 
call nodal growth of consensus. That's how the whole Uruguay Round mandate was done. Actually, 
outside this house, when this house fell apart, in the EFTA building, when I was very deeply 
involved in that as the first non-EFTA country to move across from here into that house. So, I know from personal experience, there are different ways of doing this, but at the end of the day, 
we will all have to be on board because of Alexan der Hamilton's point: "People will oppose a thing 
if they feel they have had no hand in its making". That's why we use this phrase, it's a cliché but it's true, "bottom up".  WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 50 - 
 
  Q: Do you think that the WTO legal framework is sufficiently clear with regard to the 
export restriction, or should th ere be a supplementary provision?  (Croatia) 
 A: I think the provisions are reasonably clear, but the underlying sensitivity of this is 
enormous, and I note that I am not sufficiently familiar with the detail of this negotiation on this 
specific point since I left as Chairman. But, if we are looking at perhaps picking bits of the export competition pillar up, I notice that some of our G-10 friends have raised this issue. Let's see where 
we get to. But I think it is not a legal problem. It is a political problem. Maybe there could be 
consensus on providing some further clarification of a legal nature. But at the end of the day, the matter of export restrictions is a fundamental and very difficult political problem. Of course, if I was sitting up here wearing a country hat, I'd give you a somewhat different answer. But I am 
putting my position on the shelf and trying to speak as a candidate for Director-General, and I 
absolutely believe that, if I can make a broader point here, the Director-General should have a very active role in public in defending, in general terms, the multilateral trading system, standing 
up for the values of this Organization, and being able to stand shoulder to shoulder to people 
heading similar institutions. But I have a deeply held personal view that Directors-General should be completely silent on highly sensitive negotiating issues because they are not a decision-maker. 
This is not a point about the Director-General; this is a point about anybody holding a facilitative 
role starting to enter into a public debate. We have a term in Maori, our Polynesian language: "mana". It's bigger than respect or standing, it ha s got a slightly broader context, and it's about 
power, informal power. The "mana" drips away lik e an ice-cream on a hot day. If you start to 
become the person who is dictating the result, you will lose your usefulness as a facilitator. So, my 
concept is that this the right way to solve a problem like this - not to start debating this in public. That is the role for the Members. 
 
Q: I have noticed that you mentioned the principle of a Single Undertaking but we 
know that some Members complained that the principle of Single Undertaking is one of 
the reasons for the stalled Doha Round. Do you share the argument? And if you are 
appointed as the next DG, will you stick to the Single Undertaking principle? If not, what 
kind of principle do you prefer?  (China) 
 
A: I am very tempted to stop with a one-word answer, but I know that that would cause some 
confusion. But the answer is yes. However, at MC8, we have decided not to slice and dice the 
single undertaking, but to explore whether there are bits of it that we can move forward without 
prejudice to other generally more difficult issues. So we have evolved in the concept of the Single 
Undertaking – the French word "assouplir" comes to mind, "made more supple", I suppose, in English. But the core political point you are asking, no, we are not going to, as I said, airbrush this 
out of existence. We have to come back to the mandated issues. How we do it, I have enormous 
flexibility in my head. If I did get your support and become the Director-General, do not expect me, as I said, to lay down a battle plan that will not survive the first encounter with you in a meeting like this. 
 
Q: I would like to ask you why, in the Doha negotiations, special and differential treatment is a key issue for developing countries. Some Member countries of the WTO 
have grown very quickly over the past de cade with major improvements to their 
competitiveness. How do you think this shou ld be reflected in the negotiations since 
there has been this change in the international panorama?  (Spain) 
 
A: I think you are asking me the most difficult question of all - the dreaded G-word: Graduation. Let's just reflect, first of all, before we get into that most sensitive of all issues. The 
underlying point you are making is that there are certain countries sitting in this room which have 
taken advantage of opportunities open to us all, and have done marvellous things to achieve rapid 
economic development. For decades I have believed that, while I admire every country for its own efforts, it would have been impossible for them to have done this without access to a relatively 
open world trading system for manufactured goods.  And agriculture, I insist, though I put it 
delicately, is further behind. So, they have benefitted from the system. Now let me deal with the G-word. My view is that the political and moral base for this is well-established. If you look at the 
1979 Enabling Agreement, I think it is paragraph 7 or 8, it says, in approximate terms: developing 
countries need policy space for all manner of reasons as they develop, particularly at the earlier stages of development, hence the lower level of obligations for least-developed economies. But as developing countries grow – this is my approximately correct rendition of the language – we will 
expect them to participate more fully in the international trading system and take on further WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 51 - 
 
  commitments. Now, we accepted this as a deal in 1979, and I insist that that is still the correct 
moral and political base for us to move forward. But, as we all know, there are two different conceptions on how to do this. And this is probably the most sensitive issue. One is, like a mechanistic mind would say, that we need to elaborate modalities for this. And the other is my 
type of mind, which is "don't even think about it".  This has to be done through negotiation. And we 
will come to resolve this within the framework of the most delicate negotiations, on market access in particular, and subsidies and other issues when and if we are moving more decisively to address 
the underlying weakness of this institution which relates to the negotiating function. So I don't see 
this as sitting up there as some separate universe. This is part of the negotiation process, and I am a deep sceptic that it could be resolv ed in some mechanistic or formulaic way. 
 
Q: Thank you for touching on some of the core issues of LDCs. You are fully aware 
that the LDC issues have been there for lo ng. The real task ahead is to translate 
commitments and decisions into action. Agains t this backdrop, what specific role will 
you play in implementing the key LDC-related decision, in particular those pertaining to 
market access, for the benefit of all LDCs?  (Nepal) 
 
A: I had a discussion with your Minister in Davos on this issue, and you will recall my anecdote 
about your accession to the WTO. I am very please d that finally some sanity has prevailed in this 
house around LDC accessions, because we went from one extreme, which was, we said to developing countries 30 years, "come in, we don't expect you to do anything", to the other 
extreme. I think we have fixed that problem, though maybe some of you would feel "a little too 
late for me". In terms of my personal commitme nt, I think you know perfectly well that I am 
extremely personally committed to developing countries. And I don't say this as rhetoric. You have 
a basis for making this judgement – LDCs have seen me operate. As the first Chair of the Sub-
Committee on Cotton, I was completely dedicated to that particular aspect in the name of development. Secondly, I fully understand the specific problems of developing countries. This is 
not just rhetoric. I have delivered as far as I could, and always been extremely open. I am 
surprised nobody has asked me the elephant-in-the-room question. So, let me use this opportunity, if I may, Madam, to address it. So, I am the only developed country candidate. Well, I could leave this for the peroration, Madam, but with your permission, let me address it fair and 
square. As I have said to many of you going around to see your Ambassadors and your Ministers – 
and I will continue to say exactly the same thing in private as I am about to say in public – if this is a foreign policy question that we are trying to answer in the choice of Director-General, I am not 
going to be the Director-General of the WTO because I cannot tick a box that says "developing 
country". But if that is not the main question, but the question is "we developing countries are worried about this institution and its capacity to adapt to development, its capacity to do the Doha 
Development Agenda, is Tim somebody, not necessar ily the only person, who could do that job?" 
That's a very different question. And you have to answer it yourselves. So, the box-ticking: no, not 
me. The substance behind it? Look at the track record. The issue of country is a very intriguing one. I mean, it is relevant in a border sense, not just a foreign policy sense. If you look at what 
experiences this person who has been the lead ne gotiator for his country has, and if they have 
some understanding, some sympathy for the pr oblems developing countries face, well, New 
Zealand has been described many times as structurally a developing country, with the income 
level of a developed country. All of my campaigns have been working with developing countries. 
This is a statement of fact, not rhetoric.  
Q: The WTO is said to be a rules-based organization dealing primarily with trade 
regimes, however the interplay between public  health, trade and intellectual property is 
a  f a c t  o f  l i f e  a s  c a n  b e  s e e n  i n  m a n y  cigarette disputes being handled by the WTO 
dispute settlement mechanism at the moment. On the one hand, some Members feel that 
their domestic measures are justified as a wa y to protect public health, whereas on the 
other hand, other Members feel that their trade is severely affected by such measures. 
Without prejudice to what is going on in  the dispute settlement process, do you 
envisage any changing role of the WTO to deal with such clashes of priorities, i.e. public 
health over trade or vice versa. Do you think that it is high time to deal with such issue 
in a holistic manner? (Thailand)  
 
A: I lived through this TRIPS and public health issue right in this room and many smaller rooms leading up to this discussion. And I recall, with great pain, that issue. The way we tried to find the balance. By the way, I have to deal with this issue right now in New Zealand in some other 
negotiating contexts that are not multilateral. So, I deeply understand the sensitivity of this issue, WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 52 - 
 
  both to people that make pharmaceuticals and people who consume them. I am not going to make 
any statement ever on an issue under dispute sett lement. I am not even actually aware that there 
was a current dispute on this TRIPS and public health under this mandate. There is no way I am going to comment on a legal issue under dispute. 
 
Q: You said you are the man with a dozen plans. Given that the appointment of the 
new Director-General takes place at a critical  t i m e  i n  t e r m s  o f  p r e p a r a t i o n s  f o r  M C 9 ,  
could you please specifically describe what yo u would do as Director-General to ensure a 
successful Ministerial Conference and, in partic ular, to get a credible set of deliverables 
agreed by the Ministers? What is your plan of action?  (The Netherlands) 
 
A: Well, the plan of action: let's be realistic about this. Whoever the Director-General may be 
on 1 September, there will be no time for a learning curve. I am su re I won't be the only candidate 
making this point. Second realistic observation:  the broad trajectory will already have been 
programmed by the time the new Director-General comes into office, for better or worse. I cannot 
imagine, if I can use the metaphor of trajectory, ar riving in an office saying, "oh, I see, so we're 
going to Mars, I think we should be going to Venus". So, the Director-General has to accept as the 
acquis what you, the negotiators, will have developed by the time of the summer break - this is a 
fundamental reality - and then make it work. No w, there are two problems. One is around the 
organisational and administrative matters: this is a major international conference. And the other is around finishing politically a package. Let me say I am not the slightest bit concerned on the 
first front. This Organization – you know my views on the WTO Secretariat – is outstandingly 
effective at doing this sort of thing. And I also, having lived in Indonesia for a number of years, know how good the Indonesians are. In fact, I said to a few of my Indonesian friends, it may not 
look like that 10 days before the meeting, but I have been to so many ceremonies, and so many 
conferences over the years in Indonesia, and I have never seen a miss. Believe me, this is not a political statement, it is a statement of fact. Th e Indonesian Government and the Secretariat will 
handle this without a problem, but it will be fraught for those who are responsible for it. I 
understand - to our friends from the Indonesian Mission - you are not going to have a great summer break. When it comes to the bigger problem, well, straight into it and start to meet with the parties. We know what the broad areas under ac tive discussion are, and that will evolve over 
the next few months. So, they are self-elected. I ha ve said to a number of you that I don't believe 
we should have some rigid plan to have a final cut-off date, because it won't work. But slowly and surely, if we have some type of stock-taking afte r Easter or thereabouts, people will start to forge 
in their minds a broad idea of the issues that might be moved forward, and then you will have to 
start creating negotiating linkages. That is how this house moves forward. And then the political c o n t o u r s  o f  t h i s  w i l l  b e c o m e  a v a i l a b l e .  A n d  t h en, once September, the Director-General has to 
make an assessment of that package and work like hell to get something useful done. 
 Q: Just as other candidates have referred to this point, I'd like to ask you, what opportunities do global value chains offer to  developing countries, and what can WTO do 
to promote them?  (Paraguay) 
 A: I think it is a very intriguing question, and there are different aspects to it. First of all, let 
me state as a matter of principle that I can see big opportunities for developing countries here, as 
I can see big opportunities for a small economy like mine, which has got no capacity whatsoever to engage in vertically integrated production models. We can't, as a small country, and Paraguay, or 
a small economy, even though we are a develope d economy in New Zealand, build a motor vehicle 
industry in a vertically integrated model. It is not possible for Paraguay, not possible for New Zealand. But without knowing the detail of the structures of your country in this area, given that you are a Member of a region that has many important automotive manufacturers, we can do 
automotive components. And I visit some of our littl e companies that do it, so they are able to get 
into the global value chain. They are usually tiny companies, 100 million dollars or less, a small number of employees, and they compete as much on  the services package as on cost. So, they 
find bits in the value chain that we can do, even from the remoteness of New Zealand, and get 
into the Toyota value chain, into the Daimler Benz Chrysler value chain. We do it. We could not do it in the past. So, from the perspective of a small economy, developed or developing, there are 
opportunities. On the other hand, for developing economies, there are very considerable problems 
that go with it, and they are to do with the integrity of the supply chain. So, there is a huge development challenge, if you want to reach out and do it. You have to be sure that you can deal with the concerns of the people that manage the supply chain at the final end of the process, that 
you can reach quality standards and deliver on time. And I have just had the most fascinating WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 53 - 
 
  conversation with one of the biggest companies in the world, which looked towards this New 
Zealand company as more in design than in manu facturing, but said "we don't trust you, you're 
not big enough to do the step up to the mark". So, I have some answers for the vice-president in charge of supply chain in this particular case, and we will try and explore that, because part of my 
job as Trade Minister is not just a big high theory trade negotiations, but deal with practical 
problems, and I find it very exciting. But in Paraguay, without understanding obviously the structure of your economy, I am sure there are all manner of logistical problems, Paraguay being a 
landlocked country, that you have to surmount if you are to participate in the supply chain in your 
region. So, I think that comes back full circle to the question of a rather more strategic view of capacity building and technical assistance, with a view also to forging these informal links with other development institutions that may be able to  zero-in on Paraguay's problem on this or that 
issue. 
 Q: As Director-General what priority will yo u give to the issue of food security, and 
what type of appropriate mechanisms do you envisage establishing for facilitating 
access to food stuffs in difficult periods?  (Haiti) 
 
A: You have heard my views on the matter of food security. It is of primordial importance, as I 
have said, in the informal organization that I have created on agricultural emissions. It is not negotiable. I understand for a country like yours this is the most fundamental human need. The issue of food security has got to be at the front and centre of the agriculture negotiations, and it is 
an issue that has evolved. I think that we can meet this objective of a 70% increase in food over 
the next 30 or 40 years. People forget the numbers on this. I may not have the greatest mind in the world when it comes to names and faces, but I have a very good memory on numbers, I 
assure you. So, we increased, in the last 45 years, to 2005, total food production by 142%. So, 
can we do 70% in the next 30-odd years? Of course we can. But it has to be done in a somewhat different way. There are environmental constraints. There are issues in hugely populated 
developing countries that have to be addressed. There are all manner of issues around water. And 
I believe that the international trading system can play a vital role in food security. I cannot put my past behind me. You know what my thinking is on this issue. I believe that there is a vital role for the international trading system in food security. This idea that we had in the past that food 
security was just about self-sufficiency, this is not realistic, and will become less realistic as we 
confront environmental and other resource issues facing developing countries, not just LDCs. Some of the more advanced developing countries have got serious environmental issues they need 
to take into account in food production. So, to me, food security is literally the most important 
issue. I hope I don't offend people by prioritizing it as highly as that. But to me it is the most basic thing. If you go hungry, you have nothing. So, this  must be front and centre of our attention, but 
we need to be sophisticated, we need to be subtle about how we approach this. 
 Q: What are your views or comments on the statement made that the deadlock in the 
Doha Round is due to disagreement among a small handful of advanced and emerging 
economies while the rest of us are caught in the middle?  (Malaysia) 
 A: I do not think that is a very sophisticated or accurate way forward. What I know, I have said 
it before and I will say it again today, is that, unless you get convergence – no longer just 
amongst the major developed economies, that date passed long ago – but amongst the major developed and developing countries, we will not have a deal here. But you can't expect them to do 
all the heavy lifting. We small economies have a contribution to make to this process. So, I am not 
going to put China, US, Brazil, India & co. in the do ck and say, "it's all your fault, I'm sorry". I do 
not think that is productive, and I do not think it is accurate.  
Q: Given the limited resources of SVEs, how can the WTO address the concerns of 
SVEs relating to participation in the DS U process and the enforcement of judgments? 
(Saint Lucia) 
 
A: I assume you meant small and vulnerable countries. Well, small and vulnerable countries is an informal concept, and I would imagine that it has very strong crossover with the LDC group. 
The LDC group, of course, is a fixed list of, I think, 49 countries, and many of the smallest and 
most vulnerable countries will be amongst the ranks of the LDCs. So, while I hope I haven't left any small and vulnerable countries out, and I am sure that this is a self-designation category, I think the fundamental thing is to be sensitive to the least-developed country needs, and to do all 
the things that I have been talking about for the last hour to try and listen to their voice, listening WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 54 - 
 
  to their people. I know sometimes how difficult it  is to get heard. Sometimes you may think small 
and vulnerable just describes small and vulnerable developing countries, but you try to represent New Zealand sometimes in these negotiations. You understand what small and vulnerable means, disassociated from income. Although generally the system has been good to us as a small country, 
listening to our voice, not alwa ys delivering what we wanted, I remember once being excluded 
from a meeting going on all night. I was outraged. I found out where they were and I slept on the floor outside. So every time these people in the room had to go for a bathroom stop, they had to 
l i t e r a l l y  w a l k  o v e r  m y  b o d y .  I t  w a s  a  p h y s i c a l  w a y  o f  s a y i n g ,  " d o n ' t  w a l k  o v e r  m y  d e a d  b o d y  
because I am a small country". Literally, I am capable of that. So, you do not have to convince me about the need for small economies to be heard.  We should demand the right to be heard on 
something that is vital to our economy; that is the test. 
 
Q: In order for the WTO to continue to rema in relevant in this fast-growing global 
economy, what do you think are the most pressing needs to be reformed in the WTO?  
(Brunei Darussalam) 
 A:  I understand that a lot of these questions are prepared before we have sat down here, and 
this is interlinked with many of the questions that  have been asked. So, let me just repeat what I 
have said. The Doha Development Agenda is the star ting point of this. There are other issues that 
we have discussed here around trade-related technical assistance and capacity building. There are some more subtle issues around decision-making procedures and, if you want, I can expand on 
that. But those would be my immediate answer to your question, please refer to the answers I 
have given earlier.  
Q: The needs and interests of developing countries are at the centre of the Doha 
Development Agenda. In subsequent decisions,  objectives were set,  including effective 
and significant integration of LDCs and greater integration of  vulnerable economies into 
the MTS. Due to the different perspectives amongst Members, the objectives set will 
now have to become the priority for preparatory work for Bali, so that the concrete trade interests of these countries, which ar e already stabilized in the market access 
modalities and in the agreements regarding tari ff reductions and S&D, will be actually at 
the centre around which the Round can conclude. How would you promote such a 
strategy as Director-General of the WTO?  (Ecuador) 
 
A: If I understand your question, there are basically two parts of it, corresponding to the 
division in most of our minds about pre-Bali and post-Bali. On post-Bali, I think I have already answered that question with respect to a number of earlier questions. With respect to pre-Bali, 
how do we ensure that developing countries' interests are taken into account? Well, in terms of 
this formula – which I think is quite a clever formula that you have evolved, "areas under active discussion", it's sort of supple formula that I instinctively like – I think there is ample scope to achieve the objectives you have put in your question. So, we are looking at TF, and there are 
some very sensitive development issues there. I think it is very intriguing how the concept of 
special and differentiation is being evolved within that framework. But I know how sensitive these issues are to some of you. We are talking about, in agriculture, bits of reform modalities that may 
or may not be right for picking out. Many of them have very important implications for developing 
countries. So, while we can't with confidence say that we will get a result, I think the field is there for us to get a result that will be development-friendly in Bali. 
 
Q: As from the 2008 crisis, WTO has been conducting a monitoring exercise of 
Members' trade measures. Do you believe that  this mechanism is sufficiently reflecting 
the trends that exist, or do you th ink there should be some improvements?  (Argentina) 
 
A: I was there in Paris when your Minister addressed this, in rather more direct terms than your subtle question put. I think, at a formulistic level, the review mechanism is excellent. But of 
course it is reviewing issues which are determined by the acquis  of what is legal, and the issues of 
concern to your country are somewhat broader. Take export subsidies, for example. Actually, my country has suffered more from export subsidies than any country in the world. Because, if you 
look at the past, it is not an issue for us now because of current commodity prices, but if you look 
at the distribution of deepened restitutions over  the past 20 years, it overwhelmingly focused on 
dairy products. So, we suffered more than any. And when, at the heart of the GFC in 2009, our friends in Europe and America went back into using it, can you imagine me, as a politician in New 
Zealand, dealing with this issue? Can I get up there and say, "oh no, they're perfectly legally WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 55 - 
 
  entitled to use these?" Can you imagine how quickly I would have died a political death if I had 
said that? So, I had to stamp my tiny little feet  and say awful things to Europe and the US, but 
knowing perfectly well that they were within their legal rights, and there was no possibility of me mounting an effective attack through the judicial system because the judicial framework, from my 
perspective, is unbalanced, and still allows these measures to exist. And I could make, from an 
Argentinean perspective, some comments around some of your main agricultural exports, in terms of market access. But the reality is, we do a monitoring mechanism based on the acquis of the 
rules as they are negotiated. And if they are in adequate from an Argentinean perspective, and I 
know very well what the answer is, then we have  to advance the negotiation framework and deal 
with the problem at source. But I do not think we would want to throw away the monitoring mechanism as long as we realize that is not enough. 
 
Q: I have been hearing your comments as to how to meet the needs of small and vulnerable economies. I'd like to be a bit more specific. In view of the ministerial 
mandate which was approved by Ministers in meeting the needs of small and vulnerable 
economies which are not Least-developed countri es, what do you think that, as Director-
General, you could do in order to ensure better compliance with this mandate?  
(Dominican Republic) 
 A: In a sentence, more effective use targeted at your country's specific problems in the concept of capacity building and technical trade related assistance. That has to be the way forward, as well 
as listening to your country's concerns. We must be sensitive to the LDCs' status, but of course the 
Director-General must be open to the concerns of small economies that are not LDCs. And you have heard me say, with some passion, I would argu e, that I fully understand this perspective. So, 
without in any way displacing the priority that we  formally agreed for LDCs, the Directors-General 
must have their door open to listen to small economies who are not caught within this formula, listen very carefully to their specific problems, and then work through in a constructive way how 
we can best help them. 
 Q: In light of the various new challenges that the world economy faces today, what 
do you think are the new issues that the WTO should start to address?  (Japan) 
 
A: First of all, we are not starting from ground zero here. I think the work that Pascal has developed on the global value chain is enormously valuable and useful, and will help us across 
future agendas very considerably. I think you cannot simply say, when we know that there is 
discussion going on, say, investment in others ar eas, when we know there is discussion going on 
e-commerce, for us to be the "hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil" approach, and pretend 
that we can be the go-to place, multilaterally, for trade, and do nothing about this, this is a serious 
mistake. So, it really comes down to a question of giving confidence to the membership, that we are not leaving behind the mandated issues, while starting a sophisticated, probably informal discussion on these issues, because they will be done  outside this house if we don't. I do not think 
we are going to slip clumsily into a negotiation on e-commerce, for example, by having a 
discussion on e-commerce. I think that the discussion that I understand took place on mobile roaming rates is an interesting example, to be more specific about the point you made. Now, I 
have suffered from this issue. I have sat up there at the Intercontinental Hotel in the 80s, trying to 
ring my children to wish them goodnight as a father does, and then se en 110 franc bill for the 
phone call. Fortunately, I no longer use the Intercontinental Hotel's phone system. But I now have 
to worry about mobile roaming rates. So, should we discuss this? Well, if we don't, it is being 
discussed elsewhere. This is a little bit crude just to say "ils ne passeront pas ". We need to be 
having a discussion on these issues, and I think there is a rich agenda, but please just remember my fundamental political point. We cannot leap over what I call always the detritus of 20
th century 
trade problems and brush them aside to get to a new agenda. We have to deal with the past as 
well.  
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 56 - 
 
  3. Summing up by the Candidate10 
Well, I do not have a statement to make. I will just make a general observation that flows out of 
that last point, around the future. Anyone that has read my CV knows about my commitment to this institution. That is not under dispute, I believe. And you have heard my perspective on the 
underlying problem I face politically, and why I hope that at this stage in the selection process you 
would see me as at least one candidate who may,  at the end of a very complicated process, 
command support across the house and the confid ence of all Members. That's my underlying 
a d v e r t i s i n g  p i t c h .  I ' d  l i k e  j u s t  t o  f i n i s h  o n  t h i s  p h r a s e  " n e w  t h i n k i n g " .  O f  c o u r s e  w e  n e e d  n e w  
thinking. Anyone that said we do not need new thinking, I'm sorry, they should not be a diplomat representing their country. But we understand the sensitivities around that phrase, which I have just explored. Now, a scientist once said to me that, in the public debate about Darwinianism, the 
real point of our evolution is not survival of the fi ttest, it is survival of those who adapt. So, we 
know these monsters that we see now reconstructed from bones in our museums, fierce giants that were at the top of the food chain, they did no t survive, but they were powerful, they were fit, 
they were strong. But they could not adapt. The danger facing this institution is not, as I said, an 
immediate crisis. It is a question of relevance. And this is a serious problem. We cannot forever expect the acquis. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. They achieved great 
things. But they did not address all the issues, particularly those developing countries are now 
demanding to be addressed. We must advance this Organization. We must adapt. That is the big challenge facing us. And I would like to have the opportunity to make a contribution. 
                                               
10 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meetin g communicated by the Chai r to all delegations on 
15 and 18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five 
minutes of the question-and-answer period if he or she so wished. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 57 - 
 
  ANNEX E 
Meeting with Ms Amina C. Mohamed (Kenya) 
1. Presentation by the Candidate I am delighted to have this opportunity to present my candidature. 
 
Within the next hour and a half, I will provide you with my vision for the World Trade Organization (WTO) for the next 4 years. 
 
In 2005, as Chairperson of the General Council, I managed the selection process of the incumbent 
Director General and I know how demanding it can be. It tests and challenges the system. In the past, the system held. Eight years later, it is an even bigger challenge with 9 candidates. I am 
confident it will hold.  
 The Organization is in search of a Director-General, who will preserve the rules and practices, 
guard the system, facilitate negotiations and lead , when required by Members to do so – in a 
system that is and must remain Member-driven.  
This is the 65
th year of the rules-based Multilateral Trading System.  At this stage in its history, the 
WTO in its 18th year is faced with 4 key questions: 
 
 What is the state-of-health of the Organization? 
 What lessons have we learned since 2001? 
 What challenges confront the Organization? 
 G o i n g  f o r w a r d ,  w h a t  s h o u l d  t h e  v i s i o n  b e  t o  s t r e n g t h e n  a n  O r g a n i z a t i o n  t h a t  i s  M e m b e r -
driven? 
 As a starting point, candidates who seek the position of Director-General of the WTO should have a 
technical grasp of the issues, the mandate and rule s of the WTO. But, there is more. The WTO is 
about being practical, obtaining results and delivering. These are the attributes I will bring into the WTO.  
As a former Chairperson of the General Council, I am convinced that the Multilateral Trading 
System is structurally sound and in good shape. Wo rk in the regular bodies of the Organization is 
on-going .  I am convinced that the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) is the most effective 
in Public International Law.  The WTO remains the sole and undisputed guardian of the rules-based 
trading system. We have a technically competent and professional Secretariat. The WTO is an 
indispensable Organization for rule-setting, implemen tation and adjudication of disputes. If it did 
not exist, we would have to create it. 
 Although handicapped by the deadlock in multilateral trade negotiations, the WTO is credible.  Trade is an engine of global recovery, growth and development. The rules continue to provide 
stability and predictability in global trade governance. The WTO has kept markets open, 
maintained a transparent, rules-based approach to international trade in a rapidly changing world and even in times of crisis and uncertainty. Since the on-set of the global economic and financial 
crisis, WTO reports have provided transparency that has kept protectionism at bay. 
 The Membership of the organization has expanded si nce 2001. This is an area of recent good news 
for the system. And yet, it is also true that these negotiations are as difficult as any in the system.  
And they are fundamentally Member-driven.  No on e can imagine the absence of the WTO in global 
economic governance.  
If you decide to elect me as your next Director-General, I will work to ensure the consolidation and 
preservation of the current acquis  of the rules-based Multilateral Trading System, its procedures 
and practices.  These are of high value.  While working to overcome our handicaps, we must work 
to protect the Organization beyond its proper remit, from negative critics, and from the toxic 
effects of protectionism.  
The WTO faces some challenges that are manifested in different forms.  Let me highlight a few of 
them: WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 58 - 
 
   
 The DDA negotiations – how do we approach these negotiations after almost 12 years of 
effort and tow hat areas should we look for harvest? 
 Non-Trade Barriers (NTBs); 
 Defining the contributions of a rules-based system to development goals and priorities; 
 The proliferation of Free Trade Agreements (FTA); 
 Climate change; 
 Food security; and. 
 Poverty reduction. 
 The DDA and Future Negotiation 
 In the context of development priorities in 2001 in Doha, we launched the most comprehensive 
Trade Round. The overall framework of the nego tiations focused on development priorities. 
Nothing that all-encompassing had ever been contemplated. We have been hard at work on the 
Doha Round for 12 years. Where are we? What have we learnt? Many have taken positions on Doha.  Some consider that the system overreache d. Others think that the development objectives 
are incompatible with a rules-based system with a balance of rights and obligations. There is 
considerable hindsight wisdom. And the jury is still out.  Several positions are per se  academic. In 
all such massive undertakings, where the issues and questions still linger, there must be no rush to judgment, or finger pointing. 
 
Some consider the Doha Round in abeyance, othe rs deadlocked and others that it has failed. 
Factually, what has been obvious for long is that negotiations on the overall agenda are stuck. We 
cannot go backwards and we cannot move forward, unless we come to practical terms regarding 
where we are on the negotiations. This is the moment to do so.    
Parts of the Doha Round are relevant. However it is time to re-structure and update it. We need to 
re-focus it to recovery and growth, targeting issues that can contribute to rapid growth, such as trade facilitation and reduction of non-tariff barriers, to address the recession and weak growth arising from economic crises. 
 
I am convinced that a re-focused Trade Round sh ould also contribute to addressing the major 
global cross-border challenges of climate change, food security, intellectual property rights and 
piracy among others. 
 Trade Facilitation 
 As we prepare for the MC9 in Bali, members must act rapidly to conclude the negotiations on issues of interest to developing countries, particularly LDCs as well as Trade Facilitation. The arguments in favour of Trade Facilitation are overwhelming. The average cost of moving trade 
through boarders worldwide is 10 per cent. The average trade weighted tariff worldwide is 5 per 
cent.  Currently, therefore, one has to pay twice as much in administrative operations, in order to move merchandise through borders, than one has in customs tariffs. It is worse for landlocked 
economies. The solution is to smoothen border crossing, eliminate road blocks and red-tape 
associated with inspections, and streamline customs.  
It is self-defeating for negotiators to engage in hostage-taking in an area of negotiations that 
would be a win-win for all.  Food Security 
 The WTO has a major role to play in achieving gl obal food security. These contributions could be 
made through improved disciplines on subsidies; reductions in tariff peaks and escalation; tighter 
disciplines on export restrictions; and, improved  coherence by the WTO with other Organizations 
working in these areas such as the Food and Agri cultural Organization (FAO) and the International 
Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). However,  the primary responsibility lies with national 
governments to create the right policy environment for improved investments in agriculture for 
greater productivity.  WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 59 - 
 
  Climate Change 
 
Climate change is a major challenge to sustainable development and sustaining life on earth as we know it. The rules-based trading system can contribute to addressing this problem. The Doha 
mandate on trade and environment remains relevant. I believe that WTO Members could build on 
and strengthen the list of environmental goods proposed at the APEC Vladivostok Summit for further liberalization. 
 
Trade in Services 
 I believe that Services Trade is the most dyna mic area of international trade. The speed of 
changes in the global economy is being strongly determined by technology and services inputs into 
the overall processes of production. Commercial services are at the heart of rapid growth in both developed and developing economies, accounting for over 70% of GDP and 50% of GDP in 
developed and developing economies respectively. However in my views we need to focus on 
particular services sectors that I believe are th e drivers of growth and transformation namely, 
financial services, information and communications technology, transport and logistics services, 
and those services sectors that bolster production such as research and development, engineering, 
distribution and marketing.  I recognize a group of Members are providing leadership in this area. It is incumbent upon us to 
support them. 
 Free Trade Agreements 
 Some consider bilateral and regional trade agreements as a challenge to the primacy of the rules-based Multilateral Trading System. There are currently over 300 of such agreements.  
Approximately 90% of WTO Members participate in these agreements, accounting for a substantial 
proportion of global trade. There are many reason s for the formation of FTAs. However, it is also 
clear that there is an inverse relationship between the speed of progress on WTO multilateral negotiations, on the one hand, and the proliferat ion of FTAs, on the other  Although there are 
benefits from FTAs, the real risk of FTAs is the erosion of the WTO disciplines of non-
discrimination, and the reduction of the primacy and effectiveness of trade multilateralism.  
However, the WTO has to co-exist with the reality of FTAs. This will require imagination and 
creativity. The less progress here at the WTO, the stronger the proliferation of FTAs. Those that 
will suffer in the absence of progress at the WTO would be the weak and the vulnerable.  The 
solution is substantial progress here in the WTO. 
 Negotiating Modality 
 
The Single Undertaking principle with its merits has posed a challenge on the WTO with 
158 Members. The Organization is still growing. The membership is diverse and at different levels 
of trade, finance and economic development. I am convinced that more flexible negotiating 
approaches and modalities may be required. We have to change the method of negotiation in light 
of the size and diversity of today’s WTO membersh ip. The political guidance by Ministers during 
the MC8 provides some basis on how to address some of the issues. 
 
Development Dimensions of the Trading System 
 I believe that there is a need to address the question of how a rules-based system can be 
reconciled with development priorities and a de velopment work programme. Like several other 
candidates in this election process, I originate from a developing country. I am aware of core development challenges. However, we need to reflect deeply on the relationship between trade 
and development in a rules-based Multilateral Trading System, with a balance of rights and 
obligations and where Members have specific commitments and obligations.  
Responding to the challenges of development, in a rules-based system, should not unintentionally 
lead to the fragmentation and weakening of the rules and disciplines. The level playing field that is sought in the system is for rules that are non-discriminatory, with exceptions as waivers and on a case-by-case basis. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 60 - 
 
  Specifically, on the development aspects of our rules-based Multilateral Trading System and 
drawing on lessons from the past 12 years, I be lieve that we should build on those areas where 
members have made progress. These include cotton development assistance, technical assistance and capacity building and the WTO coordination of Aid for Trade, delivered by other Organizations 
that have the resources and capacity to do so. 
 Cotton is an item of importance to LDCs. The trade policy aspect will need to be addressed within 
the agriculture negotiations. Important gains have been registered on Cotton Development 
Assistance, within the framework of the Director -General’s Consultative Framework Mechanism on 
Cotton. We should continue to build on these, to which both the donors and developing countries have contributed. 
 
Trade is an engine for growth and development.  Using trade to achieve growth is linked to 
domestic reforms for diversification, modernization and a re-balancing of economies. In the course 
of these reforms, policy space may be required. However, I believe that the grant of policy space 
in a rules-based system can only be on a case-by-case basis.  
Vision and Priorities as WTO Director-General 
 
As Director-General, I will focus on three priorities:  
First, the establishment of a new WTO implementation and trade opening coalition. This will be an 
inclusive and transparent trade coalition that reflects the “enlargement”, of the WTO membership through the recent expansion in the membership of the Organization. The new coalition will entail 
shared commensurate responsibilities in a rules-based system. It is no longer realistic to expect a 
few Members to shoulder the leadership burdens of  driving trade multilateralism. There are duties 
for all. 
 
Second, I intend to focus on an updated agenda for multilateral trade negotiations that is relevant 
to the contemporary challenges of recovery from economic crises, growth and employment, environmental protection, notably climate change, and food security. 
 
Third, in consultation with Members, I intend to establish a WTO Business Advisory Council. The 
absence of a commercial push has been a source of  weakness for the WTO, affecting its credibility 
and relevance as an engine of global economic recovery and growth. Without the support and 
impetus of Business, there will be minimal progre ss in the WTO.  The Accessions of China and the 
Russian Federation bear testimony. I will be a pro-Business Director-General. Concluding the Trade 
Facilitation negotiations would be one of the key interfaces to better engage the private sector and 
global business.  I am a trained lawyer and a career diplomat. I ha ve had the privilege of working on major issues 
on the agenda of global governance and diplomac y. I believe that I am eminently qualified by 
training, experience and a track record of delivery, especially at the WTO. A lifetime of exposure in 
professional diplomacy and negotiations on a wide range of global issues, place me on a sound 
technical footing, to lead the World Trade Organization, if members decide to give me the job. 
 I left Geneva about 7 years ago when I completed my final task as the Chairperson of this Council. 
But, I neither lost sight, nor allowed my attention to stray from the WTO issues. I went on to work 
in other areas of governance: environmental protection; constitution drafting, targeted at domestic conflict and dispute resolution in a multi-ethnic society; poverty reduction; diplomacy and foreign policy. 
 
On this 30 January morning in Geneva, these are platforms on which I ask you the Members to evaluate my candidature. This is the basis on which I ask for your valuable support to serve the 
international community and contribute to the important work of the World Trade Organization. 
 In, closing let me say it again that a strong leadership role, in service to the membership, is vital. I 
borrow from the eloquence of Sir Winston Churchill, who once famously said, “The nation will find 
it very hard to look up to the leaders who are k eeping their ears to the ground.” There will never 
be a substitute for strong leadership. The challe nge and strength of the WTO is that we are all 
“Leaders” at different levels. Members expect thei r Director-General to lead and that is what I 
intend to do.  WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 61 - 
 
   
 2. Questions and Answers 
Q: I was interested in your discussion in pa rticular about trade facilitation, and as we 
h a v e  l o o k e d  a t  B a l i ,  w e  h a v e  t e n d e d  t o  l o o k  a t  t h r e e  c a t e g o r i e s  o f  i s s u e s :  T r a d e  
Facilitation, Agriculture and Development issu es. I am wondering if you consider trade 
facilitation to be a development issue?  (United States) 
 
A: The short answer is yes, I actually consid er Trade Facilitation a development issue. The 
reason is the one that I gave before: the cost of  doing trade decreases tremendously if there is 
trade facilitation. And here I am talking about both the hardware of trade facilitation and the 
software: infrastructure, transport and communications, logistics, as well as smoothening of 
border crossings, removing of bottle-necks, harmonizing customs regulation. I believe very 
strongly in ensuring that in fact the benefits of trade facilitation are shared across the room, both 
by developed and developing countries. For developi ng countries, I do not actually think that there 
is an option away from trade facilitation. I think it is important that we understand that, for many of them, obviously there are resources challeng es. And where these challenges are extremely 
acute, especially within the LDC group, we shou ld actually come to their support and encourage 
them to join and ensure that they take trade facilitation measures. But I know for sure, coming from a developing country, that before we started engaging in improvement in infrastructure across our region – the East African region, and beyond into COMESA – the volume of trade 
between our countries was much less than it is to day. And every time that we engage with the 
private sector and ask them what was the most important issue for them, they say it was trade facilitation, but they also acknowledge that there were challenges for these countries to actually 
implement trade facilitation measures without cons iderable support. The Membership has risen to 
the occasion many times before, in my experience and in the many years that I served in Geneva. 
Members came together to ensure that, where th ere was need for progress, they joined hands, 
they supported those that were less able to carry out and implement these measures, and these 
measures were eventually implemented. But I have no  doubt in my mind that trade facilitation is a 
development issue. And I think that is why it was left on the table, even after the other three new 
issues of Singapore were dropped, competitio n and investment being two of them. But trade 
facilitation was actually left on the table, and it was left on the table with the consent of 
developing countries and LDCs. I was one of them.  
Q: You referred in your opening statement to the plurilateral approach being pursued 
by certain Members in the services negotiations . How do you think this initiative fits in 
with the MC8 political guidance to explore new approaches but in an inclusive manner? 
How do you view such initiatives would be able to resolve some of the Doha issues 
through a plurilateral approach as opp osed to building multilateral consensus?  (India) 
 A: I said on 15 January of this year, when I launched my campaign, that in fact I was in favour 
of the early conclusion of a services agreement. And I was clearly of the mind that services is 
another area where in fact there is potential for very fast growth, and not just for the developed countries, but for the developing countries and LDCs as well. I come from capital. Some of our 
countries are totally liberalized as far as services are concerned. Others are not. But I also saw the 
immense benefits that came from a liberalized services sector, whether it is financial services, telecommunication services, information services, health services, education services, and so on 
and so forth. Obviously, as a multilateralist, it should have been so much better if this was done 
on the basis of multilateralism. And I am still extremely hopeful that in fact those that are negotiating this agreement will keep the doors op en, that they will not do it on the basis of 
discrimination, that they will ensure that this can be moved into the multilateral plane as soon as it 
is feasible. But I also think that there is no option for the WTO that eventually negotiates a 
services agreement that is multilateral. And it doesn't matter whether you are actually talking about value chains or anything else. You still woul d need to make sure that everybody enjoys the 
same rights, takes on the obligations that they can at that time, and keeps the whole system on a 
non-discriminatory level. And so, do I think that we should all go plurilateral in all areas? No. But do I think that countries that are ready to move ahead in some areas, not in all areas, should do 
so and encourage others to come along? I think that there should always be a possibility. And it is 
not going to be the first time that we engaged in plurilateralism at the WTO. I think there were other plurilateral agreements that existed and that still exist, so this is not a new area. We are not starting something that has not been there before. It is not a precedent. But I think again that the WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 62 - 
 
  door should be left open so that others can jo in. That should be done on a non-discriminatory 
manner in as much as possible. Although, one under stands that, if it entails a group of countries, 
then obviously there will be some restrictions that others may be subjected to. But I think it is not a new area, it is not a new precedent. We have been there before, and again, we should just 
encourage Members who are involved to keep the doors open and encourage others to actually sit 
around the table and join them in this effort.  
Q: Can you identify three most difficult prob lems that have resulted in the stalemate 
of the DDA? And how are you going to help change the stalemate situation if you are 
appointed?  (Chinese Taipei) 
 
A: I think the history of the multilateral trad ing system has actually been one of ups and 
downs, of crises and breakdowns. But also it has been one of pragmatic solutions that have strengthened international co-operation. I think we are in one of those places where, in fact, we 
are quite down, and we are faced with, not a crisis, but I think a hiccup. How has that affected the 
WTO? It has affected it by loss of credibility in some quarters, an explosion of FTAs, and of course a search for new avenues of doing business. I think we need to be clear that, if we stall, 
businesses and Members will have to look for ot her ways. Because we must develop progress, we 
must move. And so, if the negotiations are stalled here, I think the net result is that people will look for other avenues of doing business. And that, in itself, is harmful to the multilateral system, as I said in my statement. Apart from the fact that there is an explosion of FTAs, and that there is 
a lot of frustration, the other thing that you hear across the board is that it hurts development, 
because the Round that has stalled was meant to cure some of the development ailments that the international trading system faces. So there you have your three areas. Loss of credibility is one, 
an explosion of FTAs as people search for othe r ways of doing business, and a downturn in the 
development aspirations of developing countries and LDCs.  
Q: Special and differential treatment for deve loping countries is a key principle of the 
Doha negotiations. Some WTO Members grew fa st during the last decade and improved 
the competitiveness of their economy, substantially. How do you believe these changes in the international landscape should be reflected in the DDA negotiations?  (Austria) 
 
A: I think that special and differential treatment must be part of the harvest for Bali. But it's also true that, in the last decade, there has b een a lot of movement, there has been a lot of 
growth in some countries, and we should all be grateful for that growth and for that progress that 
was made. As a result, some of those countries are today the engines of economic development. They are actually what is keeping some of our economies afloat. So, we must be grateful for that. 
These are countries that enjoyed special and differential treatment, and I think that, even if these 
countries were to take on additional responsibilities, it must be in the context of understanding that, within these countries, there also are challeng es that must be addressed. I would also put my 
country amongst them, because in my sub-region, Kenya is considered to be the engine for 
economic growth. In the sub-region, what we did, as Kenya, was that we accepted to take on 
additional responsibilities. We accepted to take on some leadership responsibilities. But those are not responsibilities that were imposed on us. They were responsibilities that we took on because 
we thought we were ready to take them on. So, I think that it is important that the Membership 
discusses these issues and sees how they should be  addressed. But I believe that these countries 
have already taken on a leadership role by providing, as I said before, the engine that has kept 
economies afloat, even in this period of economic crisis and financial crisis. Again, it is something 
that Membership has to sit down - we have ample examples of how this was dealt with in other regions. I think it would be useful that they take on additional leadership, but it is not something that can be imposed in the remit of our rule-making role.  
 
Q: Several wider issues related to trad e that are not part of the Doha Round 
negotiations are becoming increasingly re levant to traders worldwide, and I am 
thinking, for instance, about trade and in vestment, trade and competition policy, 
transparency in government procurement, energy, raw materials, and food security. 
How and when do you believe the WTO should engage or re-engage on these issues?  
(Belgium) 
 A: I think the issues that you refer to – competition, investment – have been on the table before. When they were on the table, I think the Membership agreed that it probably was not the 
right time to start negotiating and discussing them. I think there has been a total shift in how we WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 63 - 
 
  actually do business. It is probably something that  needs to be taken into account in the very near 
future, it can obviously not be something that I would suggest should be put on the table right now. On procurement, you already have a plurilater al agreement, and that is what I was referring 
to before, saying that in fact it was not the first time that we were engaging in agreements that 
did not involve all of us. On food security, on en ergy, I think these are issues that the WTO must 
actually take into consideration. They are not i ssues that the WTO can handle on its own. These 
are issues, as I said in my statement, that WTO must take on board, but it must do so in co-
operation and in coherence with other international organizations that have a clearer mandate to 
h a n d l e  i t ;  F A O ,  I F A D  f o r  f o o d  s e c u r i t y .  O n  e n e r g y ,  I  t h i n k  i t  i s  p r o p e r  t h a t  w e  s t a r t  a c t u a l l y  thinking of rules, and that we start thinking of this as something that can be taken up in the post-Bali period. It is also something that cannot be taken up by the WTO alone. It has to be done in 
co-operation with other organizations. These are all new issues and, especially since the Doha 
Round has stalled, I think it is important that we start thinking of areas that can unleash growth, that can unleash trade, that can provide employ ment and that can provide the impetus that we 
need for economic growth. And therefore these are issues that can be looked at and should be 
considered by the Organization. But I think that the Organization has a clear mandate on what needs to be done currently, and the focus right now has to be on what we should do with the DDA, 
what we can harvest, how much stock we can take  of it, what is relevant, what should be put 
aside, what can be harvested for the Bali conference. I think the other issues are all important, and there are over-arching global objectives to address this, and they must be addressed within 
that context. 
 
Q: Should we fail at MC9 to set a set of DDA issues despite our best efforts, what 
would you consider critical to mitigate the potential negative fall-out, and how would 
you try to ensure the continued releva nce of the multilateral trading system?  (Bulgaria) 
 A: I think that the multilateral trading system is sound. I think it is relevant. And as I said, if 
the WTO didn't exist, we would have to actually create it. Yes, negotiations have stalled. But this 
we have had before, and we have been able to put it behind us and move and forge forward and 
make progress. So, I don't think that in fact that should be an excuse to rethink the multilateral trading system. It is still relevant, it is sound, it is in good health. The regular bodies of the 
Organization continue to work efficiently. The DSU is the most effective in public international law, 
and I chaired it and I know, and it has delivered. So, the WTO has in general done what it was supposed to do. The trade policy review body, we continue to actually upscale it. We now have 
reports that monitor what measures are put in place, whether they are measures that are 
protectionist in nature or measures that facilitate trade. So, I would not be one to even listen to the voice of those that think that the WTO is irrelevant, or because the negotiations have stalled, 
that it has lost meaning. It hasn't. I think it is just as meaningful as when it was founded as GATT 
in 1947. There was a reason that we needed it th en, and that reason I think has just grown much 
stronger, and the fact that, even with all that has happened in the global economic sphere, we still are sitting in this room and talking about what should be done and how we should move forward, 
is a clear evidence for me, that the WTO remains totally completely and absolutely relevant, and 
will remain that way for the longest time.  
Q: What do you believe should be the pl ace of WTO in the structure of global 
governance and, in particular, its interact ions with the G-20 and other international 
organizations such as FAO, ILO, WHO, UNDP and UNCTAD?  (France) 
 
A: I think the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreem ent is quite clear about the relationship that 
the WTO must have with other international organizations, with other international institutions. I think it has to be one of co-operation, it has to be one of creating coherence in the international 
arena. The WTO already has, I think, excellent interaction, co-operation and relationship with the 
IMF, with the World Bank. I think it has an evolving relationship with the ILO and has been dealing with the trade and employment portfolio, with UNEP, where I am Deputy-Executive Director and 
where we have had discussions with the Division on Trade and Environment here in WTO, and we 
were actually convincing everybody that this need s to be enhanced to take on the new issues in 
the environment field, including issues that relate to the green economy and what needs to be 
done about it. I think that it has a relationship with the High Commissioner for Human Rights 
Office, and that's as it should be, because what we do here is intended to ensure the welfare of countries, but more importantly of communities an d individuals. So, the relationship between the 
WTO and other international intergovernmental organizations has to be one of co-operation, has to 
be one of generating greater coherence within their mandates. It cannot be one where any of the WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 64 - 
 
  organizations takes over the mandates of the others. It has to be one that's consultative, that's 
cooperative, including with WIPO on IPRs.  Q: What actions could be taken by the WTO to strengthen the participation of small 
and medium-sized enterprises in world trade,  in particular their integration into the 
world value chain?  (Paraguay) 
 
A: Global value chains have become an ever more prominent feature of global commercial 
interaction. Goods that are processed in one country are moved for value addition to a multiple of other countries. And as that happens, SMEs from different countries are actually engaged in this process. So, what can we do for SMEs? I think fu ndamentally SMEs have to be dealt with at the 
national level. I think policies, with respect to capacity building within SMEs, to ensure that SMEs 
are much more engaged in business, should fundamentally be formulated at the national level. But I also think that, as a result of doing quite a bit of reading on this, if we are able to engage our 
SMEs much more in the global value chain, for count ries, for regions, and for the globe, we will be 
able to generate much more wealth. In fact, I re member that in a report that was written by the 
World Economic Forum and the World Bank, the estimation was that, if we removed the barriers 
that associated with this movement of goods and se rvices, in fact global GDP would rise up to six 
times more than if you completely removed import tariffs. So, it is an area of potential real growth for all of us, and therefore it must receive much more attention from the WTO than it has until now. If it received much more attention than it does currently, you would be able to actually bring 
the issue of SMEs on the table. But currently, at least from the experience of my country and in 
my region, where we are dealing with SMEs that contribute to value addition, or in fact starting the processing, the whole process of the production of  these goods and services, it has mainly been 
something that governments at the national level have dealt with. In the regions, we have created 
mechanisms and measures to deal with them, to encourage them, to ensure that they participated effectively, because we felt strongly that that is where most of the wealth in many of the 
communities could actually be created. 
 Q: The DDA negotiation has been going on now for over 10 years without much s u c c e s s .  I n  y o u r  p r e s e n t a t i o n  y o u  r e f e r r e d  t o  S i n g l e  U n d e r t a k i n g .  D o  y o u  t h i n k  i t  i s  
timely or do you think it is appropriate fo r the WTO and its Members to consider moving 
away from the single undertaking approach and to other new approaches in order to 
move the process of negotiation forward as we prepare for MC9? And in this context, 
what are the new approaches that you may have in mind?  (Brunei Darussalam) 
 A: Actually, it is not even an original thought. The political guidance that the Ministers gave at 
MC8 was the recognition that in fact the stalled Doha talks would not move forward unless we 
were able to come up with innovative ways of dealing with the DDA. And I think they had in mind 
the fact that the Single Undertaking, however excellent it was when it was first put in place in 2001 when we were at Doha negotiating the Doha declaration, had not delivered in 12 years. And 
Ministers deal with national development issues on  a day-to-day basis. They come from countries 
where they have development plans that run for five years, and in the fourth year of the development plan, they go, sit around a table an d discuss whether it works or not, what parts 
work, what parts don't work, how it should be improved, and how you should add value, how it 
should be speeded up, what needs to be done, how has the environment changed, what are the atmospherics, what other issues have come up. And in that fourth year they chart a way forward. 
So, after 12 years of stalled negotiation, I thin k the Ministers were pragmatic enough to give 
political guidance on the need to start to move away from the Single Undertaking. So it is not an original thought. It is something that there was guidance that was provided at MC8, and I think that guidance was taken into account when you started working after MC8 differently from how 
you had worked on the DDA before, and how you started working on different issues and looking 
at where the low-lying fruit hang, and whether that was something that could be harvested in time for Bali. So, is the Single Undertaking relevant? I think the Ministers decided otherwise. They 
decided that it is something that we need to mo ve away from, that has not delivered and they had 
taken stock, they had reviewed it, and they gave you guidance.  
Q: Your professional career has brought you to  a very high position in an organization 
that is trying to respond to one of the major challenges of the 20
th century, now the 21st, 
that is climate change and the environment. How do you think that the WTO and its norms could contribute positively to respond to the challenge of bringing together trade, WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 65 - 
 
  development and the environmental challenges that involve the continuation of life in a 
small and vulnerable country such as my own?  (Dominican Republic) 
 A: I think climate change is one of the areas that we need to pay very close attention to. I 
think it has the potential of, and has actually ha d adverse impacts on development and on growth 
in many countries. It is an area that we should actually seriously consider bringing into the WTO. But again, as I said, it is something that cannot be worked on by the WTO on its own. It would 
have to be something that is worked on in co-o peration with the international organizations that 
have a clear mandate for climate change. But there are vulnerable economies. And I think that, in negotiating trade rules, there would be a definite need to take the vulnerabilities of these countries into account and to ensure that there is enough fl exibility in the trade rules to address some of the 
issues that are linked to climate change and the impact that it can have on development and on 
the way that we live. Actually, it is probably the only threat that is out there, that can completely change the way that we live. It has the potential of doing that. So, it is something that we should 
definitely take into account. But again it is only the membership that can actually decide how 
climate change should be addressed within the WTO. But it is an issue that has acquired a lot of importance. As Director-General, I would provide options to the Membership on how to tackle the 
question of climate change. Members, I think, have to start thinking seriously on how this issue 
should be addressed. Beyond that, I will tell you that for the countries, for instance, that rely heavily on fisheries or that rely heavily on agriculture, climate change has the effect of actually ruining their economic foundation quickly and wi thout warning, as it has happened before for 
especially island states. So, we need to think about the subsidies, the helpful subsidies – some 
refer to them as such – on fisheries that the WTO has to address. When addressing issues of 
agriculture as well, one has to keep that in mind. Basically, what I am saying is that climate 
change is one of the areas where we need much more attention than we had before. 
 Q: The WTO has long been in the crisis of  lacking credibility and trust after several 
unfortunate attempts to make tangible outc ome of the negotiation. MC9 will be our next 
effort. Do you have any observation of th e current negotiating approach and what 
tangible outcome do you wish to make duri ng your four years if you are appointed?  
(Thailand) 
 
A: MC9 takes place in December. For any DG that is appointed in September, I think the hope would be that by that time, the Ambassadors that are seated in this room would have made 
enough progress to allow the Director-General to cl aim credit for any harvest of MC9 at Bali. So, I 
am hoping, because I really do not think that there is an appetite anywhere for a failed ministerial meeting. In any case, it would be discourteous to the Government of Indonesia if we do not work 
hard enough to ensure that there was a result to be harvested in Bali. And therefore I would 
encourage very much the delegations that are seated in this room to make sure that they actually make the best effort to harvest something that would be constructive enough to ensure that Bali is successful. In three months a Director-General coming in could maybe expedite things, maybe get 
consensus on issues that would have almost been concluded, but I do not think that there would 
be so much that one could do. So, obviously the idea would be to encourage everybody to do as much as possible here. There are areas in which a lot of progress has already been made, and I 
think in those areas, with the right political will, you should be able to have a solid outcome. These 
are areas, as somebody referred to earlier, like special and differential treatment, the monitoring mechanism; areas in agriculture, for instance; NTBs; certain areas in the services agreement; 
trade facilitation. So there are areas where you can actually have an adequate harvest to ensure 
that Bali is successful. I think the Director-General who comes in three months to Bali would have to actually look at the bigger picture. Apart from Bali, look at what will happen post-Bali, and encourage then, hoping that by then you would have a solid enough package to take to Bali, to 
start then discussing urgently with the membersh ip about the post-Bali agenda, and what should 
happen immediately after the Ministerial at Bali. I think a Director-General who comes in then would make that his business. I think that would be what his credibility should be derived from – 
what happens after Bali, what he is able to convince governments to agree to do after Bali, and 
that agreement obviously has to be reached at Ba li. So, for Bali, I think that you have already 
done a lot of work. In the next few months, I am convinced that you will be able to get where you 
need to be to ensure that Bali is successful, but if I came in as your Director-General, then my 
work would actually be to focus on the post-Bali agenda, so that we are able together to plan on how to move the multilateral trading system forward. But you have done a lot of work, and I think that there is enough to make Bali a success. Frankly, there have been just too many downs, that 
we need an up in Bali. I want this job, and I want it badly, but it doesn't matter whether I get it or WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 66 - 
 
  not, but I think we really need, as an internat ional community, as a global community, success at 
Bali in order to just give a shot of confidence to the international community. We need that success. So, I am urging you, I am pleading with you, to make sure that Bali is not a failure. I know that the Indonesians are preparing really hard for it, and I know that they hope that you are 
working just as hard as they are to make sure that it is not a wasted five days. So, again, in three 
months, doing something that has not been done in 12 years, it would be expecting too much of somebody who was coming in from the outside. But I think together we could work on Bali, on 
what you'd have already agreed on, and on develo ping a post-Bali agenda that is acceptable to 
everybody, that is doable and that can be delivered.  Q: Could you develop a little further on the issue of agriculture and what are, 
according to your vision, the steps to be take n so as to pursue agricultural reform, which 
was started under the Uruguay Round, in th e short and medium-term before Bali and 
after Bali?  (Argentina) 
 
A: Agriculture was one of the areas that was left over from the Uruguay Round. We have had it on the table for the last 12 years. I think there are areas, as I said, where there is low-hanging 
fruits and where we can reach agreement before Ba li. But I think agriculture is one of the areas 
where we must think of a post-Bali agenda, as well. Until governments and Members are ready to 
handle some of the more controversial issues in the agriculture negotiations, it would be foolhardy for me, as a Director-General, to give you a prescription. I can't do that. I think it is something 
that the Members have to negotiate and have to agree on. But it has been a difficult issue to deal 
with. I fully understand that, and I fully sympathize with the fact that we have not been able to reach conclusion on agriculture until now. But again, as Director-General, I would do what all the 
other Directors-General may have done in the past, but I would probably do it a little bit 
differently. I would put different options on the table, and convince governments that agriculture is one area that we actually need to have conclusion on. So, hopefully, shortly after Bali, that can 
happen. But at Bali, I don't see the possibility of concluding the agriculture negotiations. Again, 
some parts of it, yes, where you have made progress, and you have made that together, and so it will be easy to harvest that. On the other areas, I think you would have to conclude it like we have done many times before. When we went to Doha, we had outstanding issues, we had unfinished 
business. We had the implementation issues that we had included in the Doha Declaration. And I 
think that is going to happen again. Probably, it will not be the last time that it happens, because again, as we have paradigm shifts and as different issues acquire a different level of importance, 
we will give more attention to some issues at a particular time than to others. There are areas 
where there is potential growth, that is massive, and that will need to be given much more attention than areas where you think that there isn't as much growth. So, basically, what I am 
saying is that agriculture has been a difficult i ssue to conclude, that we have made some progress 
on it, that we need to continue making that prog ress. We need to start harvesting what we can, 
and then working on the next set of issues, harv esting those, and working on the next set of 
issues. But to have, I think, the agriculture negotiat ions all concluded at one place, at one time, it 
would be difficult. 
 Q: You have already said quite a bit of what you would see to be doing in the future if 
you are successful in this. I still would like to ask you to provide a bit more of your 
thinking and principle about the role of the Director-General. What is your management 
philosophy? You will have around 600 people to manage, a budget of CHF 200 million I 
think, at same time you will have to relate  to the Ambassadors here and the politicians 
at home. So if you could expand on  that I would be very grateful.  (Norway) 
 A: I think the Director-General of the Organization, just like the Executive Directors in the 
GATT are the guardians of the multilateral trading system. I think their primary focus has to be the 
consolidation and preservation of the acquis  of the rules-based multilateral trading system. The 
other role that they have is to keep focused on trade policy trends that have any impact at all on 
the global economy, and to bring that to the attention of the membership. I think it is also 
important to know that the Director-General is actually expected to lead. And that is why he is Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee. I was Ambassador here for six years, and I think I 
had a wonderful relationship with all the DGs that served as head of this body. Currently, I am the 
Deputy Executive Director of UNEP. We actually have more staff than the WTO. I think managing the human resources and the financial resources that you referred to is not done just by the Director-General, that is why the Director-General has a team that he works with. He needs to 
lead that team. He needs to learn to delegate to  the team. He needs to listen to that team. He WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 67 - 
 
  needs to consult with that team. And he needs, together with that team, to sit down and come up 
with the plans for running the Secretariat. At UNEP, we have developed a strategic plan, a work plan. We have a system of performance contract ing. I think that is something that's being 
introduced in the WTO as well. It is important to be able to manage the Secretariat and to 
continue to give it hope, because I think it is difficult for members of the WTO Secretariat who on 
a daily basis have to continue to work for the membership, to have to cope with these stalled n e g o t i a t i o n s  f o r  s o  m a n y  y e a r s .  S o ,  i t  i s  t h e  r o l e  o f  t h e  D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l  t o  r e a s s u r e  t h e  
Secretariat that the shortcomings in the non-conclusion of the negotiations have nothing to do 
with their day-to-day work and that, in fact, because of their day-to-day work we are able to make the progress that we are making in the areas that we are able to progress on. But the WTO is an Organization that was set up to negotiate and establish trade rules. It was set up to implement 
and adjudicate. And the Director-General must be able to lead that process. He or she must be 
able to put options on the table when things get tough. He or she must be able to carry out consultations on a continuous basis and to ensure that consensus is built around even smaller 
groups of issues, and then try and move that out. He or she must be a leader. I think the 
Directors-General of this Organization have done well in the past. They have set a standard that has to be followed. But I think that we need to ke ep in mind that there is a clear mandate for the 
establishment of multilateral trade rules, the need  to make sure that those rules are implemented, 
and to ensure that the system that adjudicates th ese rules is firmly and properly in place, that 
there is proper facilitation that is provided for a stable consensus-building negotiating platform. And that platform has to be available to the Membership all the time. I hope that I have answered 
your question. That is how I see it. 
 Q: Still to talk a little bit about manageme nt. As new DG, would you foresee changes 
in the management of the WTO Secretariat? And if yes, which ones?  (Switzerland) 
 A: I have to be honest. I worked with the WTO Secretariat as Chairman of the Trade Policy 
Review Body, Chairman of Dispute Settlement Body, and as Chair of the General Council. And I 
found the Secretariat to be extremely professi onal, very supportive. Since I have worked 
elsewhere as well, and in Geneva I worked with ot her organizations as well, I think I can say that 
with a lot of confidence. I think that every organization, every institution, no matter how well it is 
doing, no matter how fundamentally sound it is, needs, from time to time, to be improved. It is a 
very dynamic world we are living in. It needs to be improved. We need to make some adjustments. We need to provide more tools, as  these tools become available and as resources 
become available. So, in areas such as those, I th ink together with the Secretariat, we would look 
at ways of improving them, and we would look at ways of actually deploying the resources, 
whether they are technological resources or otherwise, to ensure that we are much more effective, 
that we can do more, that we can do it better, and that we can serve the interests of the 
Membership much more efficiently and effectively as days and as time goes on. This applies to all organizations. It is not a criticism of the WTO, but I think all organizations, all countries, all entities, need readjustment, they need improvement. They need to use the new technologies and 
tools that become available. As resources become available, we learn to do things differently, we 
learn to do more, we learn to do them much more effectively and much better than we did before. So, I hope this answers your question: better, more. 
 
Q: What will be your action plan to gu arantee market access for LDCs and small and 
vulnerable economies?  (Haiti) 
 
A: I do not know whether the Director-General ever offers anybody market access. I think it is something that the membership does. The Director-General encourages the membership to be much more responsive and much more available to  the more vulnerable economies in their midst. 
So, as it is right now, you already have some flexibilities that have been provided to LDCs. You 
have access and concessions that have been provid ed, some on a quota- and duty-free basis, and 
others on other basis. So, as Director-General what I would do is just encourage Members to be 
much more sensitive to the needs of the more vulnerable Members of the WTO, and that they 
provide the support that these countries need. But it has to be done within the same understanding that this is a rules-based multilater al trading system, and this would be provided in 
the form, obviously, of flexibilities and waivers. Bu t again, it is important that we are sensitive to 
the needs of the more vulnerable Members of our community here. As Director-General, I think all 
you can do is encourage, you can probably help in putting some options on the table, but you really cannot offer concessions to countries. LDCs are a recognized group within our Agreements, 
and the reason why they are a recognized group is because there is acknowledgement that you WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 68 - 
 
  need special consideration and special assistance and support. So I think you should be quite 
comfortable that, since that exists clearly firmly in the Agreement, all that I can do is to support that and to encourage Members to deliver for you.  
Q: In which way the proliferation of intere st groups in the WTO may affect the work 
of the institution itself?  (Chile) 
 
A: I think that any time in an institution like this one you have interest groups that are 
pursuing the interests of a very restricted number of countries, that in fact is harmful to the Organization. So, in what ways is it harmful? It actually allows for a certain level of exclusion, of discrimination, of opaqueness if you like, because the whole principle of transparency is affected. 
So, the way that I would answer that question is that interest groups, especially if they are 
intended to exclude the majority of countries from participation, would be harmful to a multilateral trading system that is intended to be open, transparent and non-discriminatory and for all its 
Members. 
 Q: What do you think the priorities and the role of the WTO should be in the area of 
creation and capacity building of developing countries?  (Uruguay) 
 A: The WTO has been engaged in capacity building  in the area of trade negotiations. And it has 
done this for a while now, for a long time. I remember clearly that, when I was here, we 
established trade policy courses for African countries, and there were three-months trade policy 
courses that were intended for middle-level negotiators, and that was the area where we had the biggest problems, where we had the biggest gaps because we had some trade negotiators who 
were at a very senior level, and then we had those that were actually being trained in our own 
institutions. But there was a gap right there in th e middle and that is what we focused on. And so, 
we established these trade policy courses with the help of the then Director-General, Mike Moore, 
and there were three months trade policy courses in Nairobi for the English-speaking African 
countries, and in Morocco for the French-speaking African countries. I can tell you they were invaluable, because in the period that we had at least the trade policy course in Nairobi, we were able to train a whole cadre of trade negotiators – I think many of them are actually in Geneva 
now. This is something that must be enhanced across the board because it will actually support 
negotiations and it will support progress at the WTO because there will be a clear understanding of the Agreements. When we started, I can tell you for sure that those that came to the courses had 
no idea at all of what was contained in WTO Agreements. So, the WTO was very generous, the 
Secretariat sent trainers to the courses. But also from different institutions, very credible institutions across the globe went to these trade policy courses and trained these trade 
negotiators. I think at the end of it, Africa was much better off for having had these trade policy 
courses. So, I think the WTO must continue to support capacity building and more importantly in the area of actual negotiations, so that countries are better represented here, and they are able to 
communicate much better with the capitals on what is happening here. It is a good area of focus 
for the WTO going forward. 
  
3. Summing up by the Candidate
11 
I am a trained lawyer, and I am a career diplomat. I have had the privilege of working on major 
issues on the agenda of global governance and diplomacy. I believe that I am eminently qualified 
by training, by experience, and a track record of delivery, especially at the WTO. Although I did 
not go into that, I can tell you that I was a very strong delegate here, that I was able to contribute critically, constructively and openly to all the negotiations that took place while I was here, and I have had a lifetime of exposure in professional diplomacy and negotiations on a wide range of 
issues. And I think those place me on a sound technical footing to lead the Organization if you 
decide to give me this job. I left Geneva seven years ago, when I completed my final task as the Chairperson of this Council. But I never lost sight, nor allowed my attention to stray, from the 
issues that you dealt with on a day-to-day basis and, in fact, whenever I had the chance, I 
s u p p o r t e d  y o u  a t  c a p i t a l .  I  w e n t  o n  t o  w o r k  i n  o t h e r  a r e a s  o f  g o v e r n a n c e  –  e n v i r o n m e n t a l  governance, constitution drafting, targeted at domestic and conflict dispute resolution in a multi-
                                               
11 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meetin g communicated by the Chai r to all delegations on 
15 and 18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five 
minutes of the question-and-answer period if he or she so wished. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 69 - 
 
  ethnic society, poverty reduction, diplomacy, and foreign policy. For my country, I delivered a 
constitution that had evaded us for 20 years, a constitution that has allowed us to entrench democracy in the country, to give hope to the aspirations of millions of my countrymen. But it has also provided a model for other countries in the region to follow. On this 30 January morning in 
Geneva, the platforms on which I ask you to evaluate my candidature are open competition, 
rational debate, fairness, and a fair hearing. So, on that basis, I ask for your valuable support. I h a v e  b e e n  a  p u b l i c  s e r v a n t .  I  w o u l d  l i k e  t o  c o n t i n u e  t o  m a k e  m y  c o n t r i b u t i o n ,  a n d  t h i s  t i m e  I  
would like to make it from the Secretariat of the WTO. In closing, let me say it again, that a strong 
leadership role in service to the Membership is vital. And I borrow from the eloquence of Sir Winston Churchill, who once famously said that "the nation will find it very hard to look up to leaders who are keeping their ears to the ground". They will never be a substitute for strong 
leadership. The challenge and the strength of WTO is that we are all, all of us here, leaders. We 
are leaders at different levels. Members expect the Director-General to lead, and that is what I hope I can offer you. I thank you for your attention. 
 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 70 - 
 
  ANNEX F 
Meeting with Mr Ahmad Thougan Hindawi (Jordan) 
1. Presentation by the Candidate Please allow me in the beginning Madam chairperson to express to you how profoundly honored 
and privileged I am to be standing in front of you here today in this meeting aiming at launching 
the process for selecting the new Director General of the World Trade Organization. I am truly humbled by the recognition and nomination, and I genuinely thank you and the members for 
giving my colleagues, my fellow nominees, and I the chance to stand before you to introduce 
ourselves and highlight our vision for this great institution. I would like in the beginning to thank you Madam Chairperson, member states, and Direct or General for your excellent leadership and 
command of the General Council meetings in general and this selection process session in specific. 
I am fully confident that your visionary thinking, wisdom, and methodical approach will result in 
the successful conclusion of the selection process in the matter that would best serve the organization and its members. 
 
Also Ms. Chairwoman, and before I start presenting my vision for the future of WTO, I would like to express how honored I am to be competing am ong such a distinguished group of people. They 
are not here right now, but I just wanted you and the distinguished delegates to know that I feel 
privileged to be competing among such a prominen t group of international officials, experts and 
practitioners who are all committed and have proven records towards the cause of trade liberalization. I am genuinely and deeply honored to be competing with them in the same group. 
Looking at this panel of distinguished nominees, ladies and gentlemen makes me reflect back on 
the debate that has been taking place over the past months on whether we should honor the unwritten desire of rotation between developed an d developing countries for the top WTO position, 
or we should focus on merits, capabilities, competencies, and qualifications.. Looking at this 
distinguished panel of nominees ladies and gentlemen, I tell you with great confidence that the two are not mutually exclusive, they do not contradict with each other; and that we can have both. 
A WTO Director General from a developing country, who is highly capable and competent by virtue 
of his or her education and past experience to lead the organization effectively during the coming years.    
When I started writing my speech reflecting my thou ghts on where we are coming from in terms of 
the profoundly changing global economic enviro nment, the successes and failures of the past; 
where we are standing right now wavering between optimism and pessimism, and most 
importantly where we are heading in the future, in terms of the challenges and opportunities that 
lie ahead, our global common objectives, and how to go about achieving them…. When all these thoughts were going through my mind, I could not but think of Charles Dickens in “A tale of Two 
Cities” when he said: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times… It was the age of 
wisdom, it was the age of foolishness…. It was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch incredulity…. It was the season for light, it was the season for darkness…. It was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair….. We had everything before us, we had nothing before us… we were all going 
direct to heaven, we were all going direct the ot her way.” End of quote. To me, these simple words 
summed up my thought process. At the end of the day, it is all about “Choice” and “Commitment”. 
Our choice, collective choice, whether we genuinely believe in and want to strengthen and 
progress the cause of globalization and free trade; and if so, our commitment, collective 
commitment, to do whatever is necessary and needed to achieve this noble goal.  
We all know, Ladies and gentlemen, that world trade has gone through tremendous and profound 
changes over the past decades. The huge advances in the ICT Sector, the spread of multinationals 
with their globally integrated production lines shifting the concept of competition from one between countries to that between the value chains  of these multinationals and the emergences of 
several regional and bilateral agreements all contributed to world trade. A recent World Bank 
research estimated that world exports of 2011 we re approximately 40% higher than those in 
2001. (in spite of the financial crises) and approximately 150% that it was in 1995. Manufacturing 
products’ exports grew exponentially raw material exports grew steadily, while agriculture exports 
have been largely static During these dynamic and vibrant global economic environment, our 
organization was born in 1995, with a clear mandate to “be the international organization whose 
primary purpose is to open trade for the benefit of all”….. open trade… all trade… for the benefit of 
all. The core and fundamental values of No n Discrimination, fairness, transparency, and WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 71 - 
 
  predictability were sustained from its predecessor, the General Agreement of Trade and Tariff 
(GATT). Yet the WTO was different in so many ways. The “expanded scope” which mandated the WTO to address several new issues that were not addressed in GATT including agriculture, services, IPR, Non-Tariff Barriers to name a few. The “Single undertaking” principle, the “All or 
Nothing” approach was one of the most significant principles that aimed at and was successful in 
integrating the majority of developing countries more fully into the multilateral trading system. The “Dispute Settlement Mechanism (DSM) of th e WTO was another major improvement of the 
GATT system which was stained with overly long delays from establishment to conclusion of panel 
proceedings, ability of disputants to block consen sus, difficulty in securing compliance with panel 
rulings. All that changed with WTO’S DSM operating under strict time limits, no veto to power, new 
Appellate Body and a procedure to promote timely compliance through monitoring compliance 
actions and allowing for proportionate retaliation in case of none compliance. The institutional 
structure is another major difference. Where GATT was a trade accord serviced by a secretariat, the WTO is a serviced organization with a clear mandated and structure, greater legal coherence, 
biennial ministerial meetings which allow political leaders to provide useful direction to the work of 
the WTO. All that in addition to the signific antly higher number of signatories. While GATT 
23 members only, the WTO has now 157 members. 
 
The WTO has been successful inlarge extent. Most of what has been agreed to during the Uruguay Round has been implemented. The overall positive  impact on the global economy in terms of 
worldwide reduction of tariff and non tariff barriers and substantial multiple fold increase of global 
trade has also been profound and notably felt. The road was long and bumpy, full of obstacles and 
challenges, many of which still exist today. Ye t, with a clear vision, un-waivered commitment, 
dedication and perseverance, the WTO was able to overcome the majority of these challenges. The 
two key challenges that I foresee continuing and needing the utmost concern and attention of the 
WTO, its General Council and the Ministerial meetings in the future are: 1. The Doha Round Challenge/ Opportunity and 2. WTO’s Internal Reform.  
 
The Doha Round Challenge / Opportunity:  The Doha Round was launched in 2001 with a fundamental core objective of improving the trade 
prospects of developing countries. Analysts and critics have used several terminologies to describe 
the round. They used words like “deadlock”, “g ridlock”, “impasse”, “s talemate”, “undoable”, 
“collapsed” or even “limbo”,  to describe the round. Some even pronounced it “dead”, calling for “a 
dignified burial for the decade-old trade round”. I do not subscribe to any of these descriptions and 
conclusions. The Doha Round is a process, a negotiating process… A multilateral trade negotiating process that covers a wide range of issues… A process with its highs and lows. Sometimes going 
faster or slower than other times, which is natural and should be completely expected. After all, 
the Kennedy and Tokyo Rounds which involved a significantly fewer number of countries and issues took years of negotiations. The Uruguay Ro und with 133 countries lasted eight years. So, 
looking at this historical benchmark, one can not but wonder, was it really a realistic target to 
expect that the Doha Round, with its expanded scope and membership, will be concluded in 
4 years? When highly motivating unachievable targets are set from the beginning, frustration and disappointment will follow. This does not mean in any way that the process is dead. I fully 
subscribe to Mr. Lamy’s conclusion in a 2010 statement when he said: “The only thing that is 
surprising in the Doha Round is that anyone is surprised”.  
Despite the fact that the The Doha Round is technical in nature… The key challenge facing it is 
political as many correctly perceive it. Should new trade liberalization prioritize market access or prioritize implementation and development. It  i s  a  m a t t e r  o f  “ L e a d e r s h i p ,  C h o i c e  a n d  
Commitment”…  
 
The cost of a failed round is so huge and detrimental that no one developed and developing countries, can afford. A Complete failure will lead to complete loss of credibility and confidence in 
WTO as a whole, hence it will severely impede its ability to progress forward with any new 
multilateral trade rounds in the future. Moreover it will undermine the organization’s legitimacy 
and relevance hence its ability to maintain its current respectful posture with respect to its other 
core, effective, successful, well respected and ad hered to functions including dispute settlement 
and trade policy review.  Can the world afford such detrimental results??!! I un-equivocally, unhesitantly, and 
unapologetically say: “No it cannot….”. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 72 - 
 
   
The Second high priority challenge / opportunity that the organization faces is its ability evolve.. to change.. to reform itself… from within to be able to effectively and efficiently meet the external future challenges that lie ahead. There is a wise saying that goes: “If you do not change…. You will 
change.” I totally subscribe to this point of view. 
 The reform areas that I am proposing are categorized in Five main categories and (22) specific 
areas of reform as follows: 1. WTO Key Functions,  2. WTO support functions/  Institutionalizing the 
Institution, 3. WTO Governance and Structure including DG and Secretariat roles, 4. WTO Key Principles and Approaches including Single undertaking, and consensus voting, and  5. WTO Interaction with Stakeholders. 
 
2  WTO KEY FUNCTIONS 
The dispute Settlement Mechanism 
All agree that the establishment of this highly respected system enables all members to resolve 
trade disputes in a fair predictable and relatively rapid manner. It has been highly successful in fulfilling its main functions of fostering the resolution of trade disputes. The regular use of the 
system by both developed and developing countries gives a strong indication of their confidence in 
a dispute settlement mechanism that many consider to be a role model for the peaceful resolution 
of disputes in other areas of international political or economic relations.  
Some Challenges that face this highly successful sy stem relate to the ability of the Secretariat to 
provide technical assistance to developing countries enabling them to fully understand and utilize the mechanism. Secretariat ability to satisfy this mandate is limited, as it is in other mandates due 
to scarcity of resources. 
 Overall, the system remains to be highly succe ssful. Because DSM helped many developing and 
developed countries already, all are taking care to comply with its rulings. 
 The Trade Policy Review Mechanism, Notifications and Surveillance 
The Trade policy review (TPR) mechanism is invaluable to WTO’s mission and objectives. Over the 
years, it proved to be highly successful. The Secret ariat’s work of providing listing of notification 
requirements and members compliance and circulat e them on semiannual bases, supported by an 
annual report by the DG. A core task of paramount importance for the WTO is to be able to 
generate, compile and publish such information and data. Strengthening this function in addition 
to strengthening WTO’s cooperation with other international organizations such as the World Bank, UNCTAD, and ITC in this resp ect is of high importance. 
 
Building Capacity for Developing Countries 
I strongly believe that this is an issue of great importance and concern to the majority of members 
of the WTO. The over whelming majority of developing countries have made a strong and 
unwavering commitment to liberalize their economies.  Yet many of them still lack the necessary 
knowledge tools that can allow them to make this integration a successful one that will have a noticeable positive impact on global trade. Th e WTO has been successful in organizing numerous 
technical cooperation missions at home countries as well as courses for government officials at 
Geneva every year. Efforts, that are widely recognized and appreciated. The major initiative for conducting these capacity building efforts has been the “Aid for Trade” program. A key challenge 
for the future will be to seek continued and sustained funding through highlighting its importance 
and impact on world trade. I believe that such a challenge should be on the high priority list of WTO members in the future.  
Some propose spinning off that component into a separate entity in order to enhance the 
effectiveness and efficiency of WTO’s technical assistance functions. Such a suggestion can be considered by the General Council in the future in consultations with WTO’s key stakeholders in 
parallel with sustaining and strengthening the “Aid for Trade” program. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 73 - 
 
  Accession Process 
It is of profound importance to have one rule to govern the accession process. Having more than 
one standard will have a detrimental impact on the credibility of the system. At the same time there are many who perceive the accession process as being too long and over complicated. In the 
time when we are steadily moving toward universal membership under the multilateral trading 
system, and focus is made on supporting developing countries globalization efforts, it would be conducive for members to think of innovative ways to streamline the accession process without 
compromising its effectiveness or creditability. 
 3  WTO SUPPORT FUNCTIONS/INSTIT UTIONALIZING THE INSTITUTION 
The second major category of WTO reform deals with institutionalizing the institution. In the 
21
st century, no organization can and should operate without a well defined corporate vision, 
identity and culture and without adopting management practices in accordance with international best practice. Some argue that because the WTO is so unique in so many ways in terms of the 
nature of the organizations, its mandate, global reach and impact, and functions; that such 
uniqueness would justify it not having such as co rporate identity and culture and adopting such 
managerial practices.  
 
While I totally agree and concur with the logic of  WTO’s uniqueness, yet I disagree with the notion 
that such uniqueness should justify and prohibit the organization from implanting and institutionalizing a proper corporate culture, and developing and implementing management 
systems that will excel the organization’s perfor mance. Accordingly, I genuinely believe that the 
WTO should, as a high priority, develop such a corporate culture and structure through:  
1. The development of a comprehensive strategic plan  for the organization that contains proper 
and well defined vision and mission statements, core values, long and short term strategic and operational SMART objectives and KPIs and action plans to be accurately and sustainably 
implemented. 
2. A comprehensive and integrated organizational performance evaluation and assessment 
system. Such a system could be based on monitoring the achievement of the organization’s strategic and operational KPIs in addition to stakeholders perceptions including members, 
business community, partners, employees, public…etc. 
3. A comprehensive human resource management and development system that will insure that 
the most capable staff is recruited and retained. This involves developing and implementing a 
strategic HR plan and systems that covers HR planning, recruitment, career paths, 
performance evaluation, training and capacity building, salary structure, financial and non financial incentive schemes, and internal communications. 
4. Systems, processes, procedures and templates documentation in accordance with 
international standards.  
5. Strengthening WTO’s ICT capability to serve their members in the most effective and efficient 
manner. There are countries who are WTO members but do not have representatives in 
Geneva. There are some who are not able to attend the important meetings of the different 
Council’s, boards, committees, and groups. Some even miss on the General Council and Trade Negotiations Committee. This issue can be resolved by enhancing and strengthening the 
organization’s ICT capabilities to enable them to participate through video conferencing in the 
most effective and cost efficient manner. 
6. The budget of the organization, as its manpow er, is among the lowest compared to other 
international organizations of similar structure and importance. The issue of WTO’s budget is 
always a highly sensitive issue one of distribution of obligations and rights again. Nevertheless, member countries must always keep in mind that the WTO is a crucial instrument for managing an increasingly globalized economy, hence their minuscule share of 
national budgets produces that far outweigh the cost of investment. This high return on 
investment should be reflected in appropri ate annual increases in the budget accompanied 
with enhance internal effectiveness and efficiency of the organization’s performance. 
7. And finally, improvement is a continuous and never ending process. As a wise man once said 
“in the race of excellence, there is no fini sh line…” There is a wealth of knowledge of 
suggestions on how to reform and continuously improve the organization as previously noted. 
The sources for such very valuable suggestions are numerous. From internal councils, 
committees, and board reports, representatives’ comments and reports, Secretariat staff suggestions as well as external partner organiza tions, academics, experts, writers and critics, WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 74 - 
 
  business community, and public at large. In spite of this wealth of knowledge and its 
numerous sources, yet there is no structured and institutionalized system form capturing all of these suggestions in a timely and continuous manner, analysing and studying them, and putting them forward for the General Council an d Ministerial meetings for their actions and 
decisions. This is in my opinion one of the most internal systems to be developed and 
implemented as it will insure the continuous evolution of our organization. 
 
4  WTO GOVERNANCE AND STRUCTURE 
While I totally and fully concur with the principles of a “member driven” organization and the 
“honest broker” role of the DG, yet I genuinely believe that the correct question should be on how to enhance DG’s and Secretariat effectiveness in order to empower and enable them to assume 
their fair, neutral, and transparent honest broker role and serve their “member driven” 
organization more effectively. Article VI (2) of the Marrakesh agreement calls on the ministerial conference to “adopt regulations setting out powers, duties, condition of service and term of office 
for the DG”, a thing which has not been done yet. Some critics argue that due to the uniqueness 
an sensitivity of the organization, a DG does not need a Job Description. I do not concur with this argument. Yes, the DG has to have the necessary high competencies and capabilities to lead and 
manage the organization, but that does not warrant or justify not having a job description, a thing 
that will negatively impact the long term interest of the institution and its members. The same arguments apply for WTO’s secretariat. Approximately (600) highly skilled and qualified staff who are completely devoted to WTO’s mission and are well respected by all. Yet, they are extremely 
spread thin among the organizations functions; administering and servicing the agreements and 
standing committees, dispute settlement, negotiatio ns rounds, trade policy review, Appellate Body, 
Economic Research and Statistics Division, admini stration and finance… etc. They comprise the 
institutional memory for the organization. They provide valuable advice to delegates, business 
groups, NGOs.. etc, and they present the organiza tion to the outside world. Some argue that a 
“Member Driven Organization” would warrant a passive role of the Secretariat where its role 
should be solely for support and not take the initiative. I do not concur with this point of view. Yes, 
the Secretariat has a duty of absolute neutrality wi th respect to rights and obligations of members, 
and it may not take decisions or actions in a manner that prejudices those rights and obligations. However, I believe that a more passive and timi d role will lead to losing effectiveness and 
efficiency on the longer term, hence impeding the Secretariat’s ability to service its members who 
will be the principle losers of such an approach . A “member driven” organization means to me that 
the Secretariat should be proactive in accurate ly and sustainably identifying members’ needs, 
requirements, and aspirations and proactively taking all actions necessary to meet those needs. 
The DG and Secretariat should be proactive in promoting and praising the multilateral trading 
system and its benefits to all stakeholders thro ugh all means available (speeches, publications, 
presentations, outreach to the business community  and NGOs…etc). They should be proactive in 
monitoring trade policy development, alerting members to protectionist trends; similar to what they did during the 2008 financial crises. As for the number of DG deputies, it has been customary to appoint (4) deputies which allows for some geographic balance. Some argue that this is too 
much, and in a “member driven” organization wi th a passive Secretariat, one deputy DG is 
sufficient and will contribute to cutting costs. I see merits in maintaining (3) deputies. One of whom to be the most senior, a CEO equivalent who would run the Secretariat and chair respective 
committees and who would be of opposite development orientation from the DG. The other two to 
lead the technical assistance function and engagement with stakeholders / WTO information dissemination function which I believe of high importance. 
 
Overall, I strongly believe that a comprehensive review of the DG and Secretariat roles and functions should take place by the General Council based on  members’ needs, requirements, and aspirations with the sole objective of enhancing their effectiveness and efficiency and empower 
them to perform their tasks with great competence. 
 There are other ideas that the General Council may consider in the future including stimulating the 
“Consultative Council” as an advisory council wi th members representing different stakeholders. 
Also the frequency of ministerial meetings to be yearly instead of every two years especially in 
light of the political challenges that current negotiations are going through. The same logic is also 
driving suggestions to conduct “Economic Summits”  for world leaders every two years. This will 
have a very positive impact in setting a clear vision for the future of multilateralism, solve political differences relating to distribution of rights and obligations hence it will restore confidence in the system and convey a very positive message to ex ternal stakeholders. The number and roles of the WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 75 - 
 
  DDGs can also be discussed by the General council to enhance effectiveness and efficiency as well 
as put emphasis on areas of importance like Technical assistance to developing countries and stakeholder engagement.    
5  KEY PRINCIPLES AND APPROACHES 
Single Undertaking  The “Single Undertaking” principal was one of the major and noticeable differences and 
improvements over the “a la carte” practices of  GATT. One of the core objectives of the unique 
“take it all, or leave it all” approach has been to incentivize, stimulate, accelerate, and deepen developing countries’ trade liberalization efforts and integration with world economy, and so it did. Another key benefit is that it allowed for a win- win-win situation whereby everybody gets a piece 
of the pie whether developed, emerging or developing and least developed. Market access, 
implementation, and development issues can be negotiated in a comprehensive, integrated and linked manner. Some skeptics of the “Single Undert aking” approach are arguing that the principle 
is complicating the process now with 158 members and counting with numerous issues on the 
table to be negotiated. A genuine and honest debate has to be sustained among members on this core and fundamental issue keeping focus on the long term impact of the adopted approach on the 
well being of global trade liberalization. 
 Consensus Voting 
The “Consensus” principle has a long history in GATT. I fully appreciate the objective and benefits 
of such a principle. First, it ensures full owne rship of the members of the issues being discussed 
and negotiated on, hence there can be no future excuse or justification for lack of compliance. Moreover, the principle prevents the interests of  the “few” whether “weak” or “strong” to be 
stream rollered” by those of the “many”, hence it is an added fairness safeguard measure. HE 
Pascal Lamy indicated that there is “consensus about consensus”. Some argue that the concept of “VETO POWER”, whether put in the hands of the few, the many, or in the hands of all is an 
undemocratic practice. It may have a negative impa ct on the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
system. The key question here is that: is there a system that will allow a higher degree of effectiveness and efficiency yet allows for flexibility and the interests of the few to be recognized, appreciated and preserved. An important issue for the General Council to consider. 
 
6  WTO INTERACTION WITH EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS 
Proactive and continued positive engagement with all stakeholders is of paramount importance to 
enhance transparency and spread WTO’s message to the world especially the part dealing with “to 
the benefit for all”, hence filling the communication  gap with clear and positive messages. Member 
countries have a huge responsibility in this respect. However that does not negate the fact that 
WTO itself has to be more proactive in its engagement and more vocal in spreading the message. 
WTO DG and Secretariat have to intensify their e fforts with the media and with member countries 
to launch national and regional awareness campaigns about the WTO. Other proposed suggestions which may be considered by the General Council include: 1.Opening up WTOs Executive Council 
for more representation from stakeholders, 2.Publishing WTO agreements in “User Friendly” 
language for the business community and the public at large. 3. Establishing suggestions and complaints management systems and satisfaction assessment systems to allow WTO to receive, 
analyze and effectively and promptly respond to  them. 4. Strengthening linkages to higher 
education institutions to develop and deliver trade liberalization courses and extend outreach educational programs to the private sector. 5. Strengthening cooperation with other international 
organizations (WB, UNCTAD, ITC…etc) especially with respect to research and providing technical 
assistance to developing and least developing countries.  After viewing the WTO’s key challenges of the futu re, and the proposed vision and clear plan to 
deal with such challenges and excel our organization into the future, a fair question, distinguished 
delegates, would be: in light of these challenges, vision, and plan what would I be able to bring 
and add to the WTO in the case of my selectio n? What edge would I have over other highly 
competent and capable contenders?  
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 76 - 
 
  The things that I will bring with me to the WTO DG position ladies and gentlemen are in two folds, 
one relating to my country, Jordan, and more importantly what it represents, and the second relating to my own personal merits.   
With respect to the first factor, I will bring with me my country’s neutrality, diplomacy, strong 
political and economic relations with all, developing and developed countries. I will bring my country’s heritage as well as modernization; its history and forward looking; its appreciation for 
the needs of developing countries as well as its strong commitment towards trade liberalization 
and market access. I will bring what Jordan has always stood for, being an honest and fair broker among contending parties; acting as a bridge between the East and the West; the South and the North. 
 
As for my own personal merits, I will bring with me my strong unwavering conviction and commitment to the cause of trade liberalization. I will bring a proven track record of 25 years, 
18 of which were in senior positions in the government devoted to trade liberalization. I will bring 
strong negotiations experience and capabilities that  I utilized as one of Jordan’s key negotiators of 
its WTO accession as well as its key regional and bilateral FTAs including the ones with the Arab 
World, the US, Europe, and numerous developing co untries. I will bring 8 years of robust private 
sector experience with multinationals and a le ading regional consultancy firm that I proudly 
established and lead. A firm that is devoted to organizational reform. Such strong and relevant private sector experience is unique to my fellow contenders, and I believe will be highly conducive 
and of high value to WTO’s future reform efforts. I will bring my academic knowledge devoted at 
and specialized in restructuring sectoral policies for productive sectors in developing countries with the aim of integrating them within global economy. I will bring with me proven leadership and 
management skills recognized nationally and regi onally. I will bring a fresh outside look of 
someone who was not part of or directly involved in the system for the past years, nevertheless one who is fully aware of all its particularities from his experience before. I will bring energy, 
freshness, enthusiasm, innovative out of the box thinking, methodical approach and a clear vision 
for the future of the organization. If I am hono red and privileged to get your confidence, I look 
forward to closely working with you all to delive r on our promise. I believe in what this great 
institution stands for. I will be an impartial, fair, honest broker and partner to all working hard to 
understand all views, increase alignment, narrow the gaps and most importantly continue to move 
forward.  
 
2. Questions and Answers 
Q: What is your assessment of the main re asons behind the difficulties in the Doha 
Round negotiations? And what is, in your vi ew, the possibility of making concessions? 
And by who is it, so to say, possible to make such concessions in order to complete the negotiations?  (Bulgaria) 
 
A:  I strongly believe that the main challenge of  the Doha Round is political, as the issue of 
contribution of rights and obligations. The core issue is: should the new trade liberalization focus on market access issues or implementation issues  or development issues, as the Doha Round was 
established and was kicked off focusing on this notion of development? There are many who argue 
that 80% of the Doha Round has been concluded, yet the remaining 20% is the tough part. Yes, I 
believe that a successful conclusion can take place. Of course, there are many options that are 
currently put on the table. There are some who are calling for an early harvest – or what they call 
a mini-Doha – to be approved. The logic here is: to approve something is much better than to approve nothing and continue in this so-called de adlock. There are others who may argue that the 
Single Undertaking principle was a core fundamen tal principle of the World Trade Organization. 
They would argue that the Single Undertaking process, its main objective, was to fully integrate 
developing countries into the world economy. And it so did over the past years. One other key objective of the Single Undertaking approach is th at it has these linkages between market access, 
implementation, development, trade rules and so on. So, this will enable everybody to win. It will 
be a win-win situation for everybody. Everybody will get a piece of the pie, in a sense. So, whether the Single Undertaking approach, or approving an early harvest, or a mini-Doha, whatever 
approach is selected by the General Council – again, this is a Member-driven Organization – you, 
the Members, you decide on what approach you see as appropriate for the future of this Organization, having the long-term impact on multilateralism in mind. As Director-General in the future, I will provide the forum for continuous negotiations on this issue: shall we stick to the WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 77 - 
 
  Single Undertaking or shall we go for other approaches? I will provide the support, I and the 
Secretariat, who are a group of extremely co mpetent people, will provide the support, the 
assistance, the statistics and analyses in order to serve you, the Members, to decide on whatever 
approach is acceptable. Two things I need to stress are: the benefits of concluding Doha Round 
and the costs of not concluding the Doha Round. There are several World Bank statistics that are 
arguing that concluding the Doha Round with whatever has been agreed upon so far will lead to increases in overall trade growth internationally by $360 billion, out of which 160 billion from new 
market access. So, the opportunity is huge to conclude the Doha Round with whatever has been 
agreed upon. Again, the costs of failure are detrimen tal to everyone. It will impact the credibility of 
the Organization, its ability to move forward to very important new issues, and it will negatively impact the currently very successful operations an d functions of the World Trade Organization, the 
DSB and the trade policy review. Even if the earl y harvest was adopted, the General Council may 
also focus on studying how to go about concluding the remaining sticky issues of the Doha Round, so as to start negotiating the new issues with great confidence and with higher probabilities of 
success.  
 Q: We would like to hear your views on th e role of plurilateral initiatives in the 
context of the multilateral trading system. Ho w should these plurilateral initiatives be 
designed in order to create opportunities  for the WTO and the multilateral trading 
system? (Belgium) 
 
A: There are two points of views. One, supporting the Single Undertaking for the points that I 
just mentioned in my answer to the previous question, i.e. the linkages between the different 
parts, the market access, the implementation, the development component, accelerating the 
integration of developing countries within global ec onomies. So, these are the pros of sticking to a 
Single Undertaking approach. Some are arguing th at the Single Undertaking process might, in 
some cases, complicate the process. It might elonga te the process, especially with so many issues 
on the table, and so many countries negotiating these issues. So, plurilateral agreements are put 
forward as one of the options that some perceive as  being effective, as being an opportunity to get 
a success story in a quicker manner than sticking to the Single Undertaking approach, since you will have a fewer number of countries negotiating such agreements and a relatively narrower 
scope for discussions. There are merits in such arguments. Again, you are the Members of the 
Organization. This is a Member-driven Organization. It is not up to the Director-General to say which is the more appropriate approach. Each argument has a counter-argument, and there are 
merits in all the arguments. So it is up to you to say which one is the more appropriate approach, 
keeping in mind the long-term benefit and prospects of the multilateral system. So, it is in your hands. The role of the DG is to provide the forum for you, the Members, to decide which approach 
you feel is more appropriate.  
 Q: We have seen the proliferation of FTAs ov er the years. With the difficulties in the 
Doha negotiations and the growing numbers  of WTO Members and the difficulty to 
achieve consensus, many Members have started to look at FTAs and have signed a 
number of FTAs. Do you think that the WTO is at risk of becoming less important in the 
near future? (Brunei Darussalam) 
 
A: During the mid-90s, Jordan, my country, as many other countries in the world, developing and developed, pursued this line of bilateral and regional free trade agreements in parallel with its 
pursuit to the multilateral system and its efforts to accede to the World Trade Organization. At the 
time, we did not feel that there was any contradiction between the two. We felt that we could stimulate growth by adopting these bilateral and re gional trade agreements and, at the same time, 
complement our efforts within the multilateral trading system. We just made sure that all of our 
agreements, bilateral and regional, are in full compliance with the WTO rules. Again, when you 
negotiate an agreement with one partner or a limited number of partners, on a limited number of issues, there is a high possibility of a speedy conclusion and of reaping the benefits of such 
bilateral and regional trade agreements. Of course , I do not foresee bilateral and regional free 
trade agreements stopping in the future. Yet, at the same time, I believe that if we ensure that 
such agreements are in harmonization and in full compliance with the transparency mechanism 
that ensures that such agreements do not contradi ct WTO rules, then things can progress. Again, I 
need to stress this: you are the Member countries, it is a Member-driven Organization, it is up to you to decide the approach. The only thing that we need to keep focusing on is the long-term 
benefit and the long-term impact on the multilateral trading system. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 78 - 
 
  Q: Several wider issues related to trad e that are not part of the Doha Round 
negotiations – in other words trade and investment, trade and competition policy, 
transparency in government procurement, etc.  – are becoming increasingly relevant to 
traders worldwide. How and when do you believe that the WTO should or could engage 
or re-engage with these issues?  (Finland) 
 A: As you correctly said, we are living in a dynamic environment. We are living in a vibrant 
economy. Things are continuously changing and will continue to do so in the future. The issues 
that you correctly mentioned – the climate issue, the investment issue, and so many other issues – are of extreme importance and should be dealt wi th within this great Organization. The question 
is, as you correctly said, when to go about negotiating and discussing them, how to go about 
concluding what we have in our hands, the Doha  Round, before we can move very strongly and 
very effectively in discussing newer issues. So, I believe that we need to get a success story. We need to build up the momentum in order to ensure that future negotiations are successful. So, we 
need to set them for success. And we can do that  by ensuring that we are concluding the Doha 
Round with whatever approach that you feel is appropriate so as to enhance the prospects of success for the negotiations of these very important new issues that should be taken seriously as 
soon as possible.  
 Q: Do you think that the WTO legal framew ork is sufficiently clear with regard to 
export restrictions, or should th ere be a supplementary provision? (Estonia) 
 
A: This is a very important point that needs to be discussed further. I think discussions regarding this issue have progressed and there are significant pluses that have been achieved so 
far. But I think continuous discussion has to take place. The Members should take the decision and 
the Secretariat and the DG can provide th e support for such an important issue. 
 
Q: The current trend of global value chains in goods and global supply chains in 
services has challenged the WTO Members to ad just their trade policies, such as tariffs, 
rules of origin and regulation , in order to benefit from in ternational trade. Transparent 
and just global trade rules are increasing ly required. How would the WTO face these 
new challenges and ensure that trade co ntinues to contribute to development? 
(Indonesia)  
 
A: As I noted in my introductory remarks, we are currently living in a very dynamic 
environment and one of the major things that ha ve occurred over the past two decades is the 
emergence of multinationals, with their international value chains, with their international forward 
and backward linkages. So, the notion of competition has dramatically changed. It is now an issue 
of competition among different value chains; not only the North-North co-operation, not only the North-South co-operation, but such value chains are enhancing the forward and backward linkages among the South-South co-operation between developing countries, which will increase and 
enhance the value adding prospects, which will enhance the positive impact on growth in these 
countries, which will contribute significantly and positively to solving many of the core problems that we are facing, such as employment and poverty. The development component is a core 
component of the Doha Round. The aim is to enhance the trade prospects for developing 
countries. I believe this is a very crucial issue for the World Trade Organization. It has focused on this issue of development in the past, and I believe that the Organization should maintain its focus 
on development through the special and differential treatment and the less-than-full-reciprocity 
rules that are embedded in the system. The needs and aspirations of LDCs and small and 
vulnerable economies should be taken into account. I believe that the World Trade Organization has done a lot in terms of technical assistance  and in terms of providing such much-needed 
assistance to developing countries. Technical assistance missions are sent to numerous countries. 
The WTO has received many government officials from many countries in the world in order to attend courses in this respect. The Aid-for-Trade programme has been able to utilize $200 billion 
since 2005. So, great initiatives have been done by the World Trade Organization over the past 
years relating to this issue of development. I believe that the General Council should maintain focus on this very important issue: how to grant assistance and how to actually achieve this 
obligation and this right to developing countries to integrate their economies. I sorely believe with 
great confidence that the majority of developing countries has made a significant commitment to liberalize their economies and to integrate thei r economies within the world market. They just 
need the assistance. Sometimes they lack the tec hnical tools. Sometimes they lack some of the 
awareness components. So, as an Organization, it is the right of the developing countries to get WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 79 - 
 
  such assistance. So, this is an important issue and, as Members of the Organization, this is an 
issue for you to keep focusing on and decide how you want to go about strengthening this development component further in the future.  
Q: I would like to ask the question relating to this Organization's decision-making 
base of full participation, inclusiveness an d transparency. But we  have a green room 
process. What is your balance between th e two processes, and what would be the 
criteria for you to choose Members for the green room? (Chinese Taipei) 
 A: The consensus concept, as you know, is a ve ry fundamental and very core issue of the WTO 
that has its long history from the GATT. I think there are huge benefits of the consensus system. 
One, it ensures the buy-in of all Members to th e questions that are being discussed and that are 
being negotiated. When you have full involvement, when you have full participation, you ensure the ownership. Hence, you ensure minimizing the assistance for the future with respect to the 
implementation. You ensure full engagement in the implementation process. So, the consensus 
leads to full ownership, which facilitates the futu re implementation of the process. The green room 
is a tool whereby the decision-making process builds up gradually in order to reach that 
consensus. I do not see a major contradiction betw een the two processes, as long as we do the 
approach in a fully transparent and a fully participatory manner. And, as for the Member states, if you believe that there should be a sort of guidelines regarding the membership and green rooms, who participate and how, to ensure comprehensive participation representing all the major groups 
within the Organization, you are a Member-driven Organization, and you can decide upon these 
rules. I will provide the forum. I will provide the support as Director-General, as well as the 
statistical support and the analysis support of th e extremely competent and qualified Secretariat. 
But as long as, as you correctly said, transparency and consensus are major issues, the issue for 
you to decide upon is how to ensure that both  do occur and both do complement each other. 
 
Q: In your introductory remarks, you rightly mentioned that the core principle of the 
WTO is the full integration of all Member stat es. Against this background, what specific 
steps will you take to reverse the marginaliz ation of LDCs, to meaningfully integrate 
them into global trading system by ensuring  their fair share, which stands currently 
below 1%?  (Nepal)  
 A: If we are talking about the accession process, if we are talking about how to ensure the 
universality of the Organization, to incorporate all of the other remaining countries who are outside 
the Organization, this is one part, I believe, of your question. And the second part relates to the development component, especially to LDCs and th e SVEs, if I understood your question correctly. 
As for the first part, the accession process, I genuinely believe that there should be a clear and 
well-defined guideline governing the accession proce ss. It is a very risky issue to have a double 
standard that may affect the credibility of the whole process. Yet, at the same time, there are 
many who believe that the accession process can be complicated, can take a long time to 
conclude. An average of 10 to 12 years for a country to acceded to the World Trade Organization is 
perceived by some as being too long, very difficult for the nations to maintain the momentum and maintain the interest in such an approach. So, I believe this is a very important issue for the 
Member countries to keep focusing on: how to ensure that the guidelines are set and are very well 
defined, yet at the same time to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of the system in a manner that will allow for streamlining the process and allow for special and differential treatment, taking 
into account the needs and aspirations of the small and vulnerable as well as the least developed 
countries. The second component, how can we integrate those very small nations in terms of contribution to global trade within the internat ional economy? Again, the Doha Round is based 
upon a development component. I truly appreciate and understand that least developed countries 
have their uniqueness, and such uniqueness has to be taken into account when dealing with such 
nations. The issue of development, the issue of  technical assistance, the issue of special and 
differential treatment, all such tools should enable countries to integrate their economies and 
liberalize their trade. However, I have to say that  everybody has to contribute to the multilateral 
system, whether small or big, all, according to th e level of development, has to contribute to the 
system. Yes, it is the rights of developing countries to get assistance from the WTO to enable it to 
integrate itself more, but at the same time, any country should take its share of contribution based 
on its level of development.  WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 80 - 
 
  Q: I would like to ask how you see the role of the Secretariat, and is it possible to 
enhance its capacity but preserve neutrality and not interference in the Member-driven 
Organization?  (Ukraine) 
 
A: One of the five major categories that I am proposing in my plan relates to the governance 
component, the DG's role and the Secretariat's role, and the other parts of the governance structure of the Organization. I truly concur and totally approve of the concept of a Member-driven 
Organization. The WTO is a Member-driven Organization; Members take the decisions of the 
Organization. Nevertheless, I do not agree totally that a Member-driven Organization would require the Director-General and the Secretariat to take a timid or a passive role. To me, a 
Member-driven Organization means that the Director-General, as well as the extremely and highly 
competent staff of the Organization, should identi fy the needs and requirements and aspirations of 
the Member states and should proactively try to implement initiatives, to implement and to achieve those needs and those aspirations of the Members. This is how we serve Member countries 
best; much better than the passive and timid role . The Director-General and the highly competent 
Secretariat should be much more vocal in spreading the word and the positive message of the World Trade Organization, so as not to leave a communication gap or a communication vacuum. 
Yes, the Member states have a very important role in this respect, but also the DG and the 
Secretariat also have a role, a very positive and proactive role to play in this respect. I'm giving only one example, when the 2008-2009 deep financia l crisis hit, there was an internal mechanism 
to monitor and follow up on the protectionist measures taken by some countries in terms of bail-
outs. That was a proactive measure by the Secretariat that was highly appreciated by the Member 
countries and, I think, was highly beneficial. It prevented, in a sense, the world from spiralling 
back into protectionist measures that we witnessed in the past recessions of the 1930s. So, I think 
the Secretariat have to understand the needs and aspirations of the Members and act proactively 
in serving the Members. The WTO Secretariat is composed of 600-plus staff, extremely spread thin over so many functions: core functions, following up on agreements, the dispute settlement, the 
Appellate Body, the technical assistance component.  I think they deserve from all of us all the 
respect for all of the diligent and hard work that they have been doing so far. We need to keep on incentivizing them to do their best in a manner that will serve Member countries best.  
Q: Regarding the relationship between trad e and the environment, do you think that 
the GATT rules are sufficient or should there be changes in order to meet the needs of 
environmental policies? Do you think that developed countries' environmental measures 
could create trade barriers for developing countries?  (Argentina) 
 A: The issue of environment and climate change is  an issue of high importance. All of us are 
impacted, one way or another, by the environment. On the issue of whether the current 
regulations are sufficient or not, there are many wh o perceive that they are not. That is why they 
are suggesting the issue of trade and environmen t and the issue of climate change to be among 
the high priority list of the new issues to be di scussed in any future round. So, I believe, it is 
crucially important for the WTO and its Members,  at the appropriate time, when we get this 
success story and proceed forward on how we are going to deal with the Doha Round. I think that this issue is a very important issue that should  be discussed by the Member states in order to 
reach a resolution or an agreement that all can agree on. The DG and the Secretariat can provide 
the support, can provide the analysis of whatev er argument, for example on who has the most 
impact, positive or negative, on the environment. The Secretariat can provide the analysis and the 
statistics to Member states so as to equip them to make very informative negotiations on the 
issue. Definitely, this is a high priority issue that should be discussed as a high priority in the future.  
Q: The global economy is not yet out of th e woods. Unemployment will be persistent 
and a problem for all national governments. Hence, there will be political pressure for 
protectionism, which will understandably rema in in the near term, including through 
non-tariff measures. Over and above what is already in place today, what more can or 
should the WTO do to ensure that markets remain open and continue to be open?  
(Singapore) 
 
A: The issue of poverty, the issue of unemploym ent, the issue of growth and how to overcome 
the detrimental impacts of the financial crisis of 2008-2009 that many countries in the world are still recovering from and attempting to recover from , is a core issue. It is a fundamental issue for 
all developed and developing countries. It is a huge challenge that all of us, all Member states, are WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 81 - 
 
  facing. So, the issue is: how to focus on how to continue and maintain trade liberalization. I 
believe, as I said before, that there are several measures that have already been taken by the World Trade Organization that provided a safeguard,  that provided a sort of impediment, that did 
not allow the world to go into the protectionist measures of the past. Yes, there were bail-outs in 
some countries. Yes, there were some measures of protectionism. Yet, they were limited in scope 
and limited in duration. So, I believe that one of the high successes of the Organization is that it was able to achieve that. It was able to prevent the world from spiralling back into protectionism. 
What I would, again, suggest, in order to enhance this very positive achievement of the World 
Trade Organization, is the conclusion of the Doha Round. We need to get a success story. We need to get the wheel running, in a sense. It is an issue of political direction. It is an issue of the contribution of rights and obligations. And where there is a political will, things can progress 
forward. So, maintain what we have done, progress forward to conclude the Doha Round and 
press forward with the new issues.  
Q: In your introductory comments, you refe rred to small and vulnerable economies. 
Could I ask you to speak a bit more about your views concerning these economies, and how the WTO, in its mandate, can help thes e countries achieve growing integration in 
international trade?  (Dominican Republic) 
 A: Again, the development issue is a major issue that the World Trade Organization has been focusing on and should continue focusing on, especially with respect to LDCs and SVEs. I fully 
appreciate, sympathize with and understand the n eeds and requirements and aspirations of least 
developed countries and small and vulnerable economies. Again, I strongly believe that the commitment is there, by those countries, to integr ate their economies within the world market and 
within the global market. Yet, they need assist ance. The WTO Agreements highlighted as a right 
for such countries to get such assistance, to get such special and differential treatment and to get the less than full reciprocity that they need in order to enable them to integrate their economies 
better and to reap the fruits of liberalization . The World Trade Organization can continue and 
maintain doing what it has been doing, and strengthening it. I talked about the issue of technical assistance. I talked about sending missions to assist those countries in a manner that will build the capacity for those countries. I talked about the training courses for government officials and about 
the Aid-for-Trade programme. The Institute for Training and Technical Cooperation (ITTC), as well 
as the Advisory Centre for WTO Law, provide such assistance and such training to such countries, to LDCs. We need to keep the momentum. We need  to strengthen the efforts of the World Trade 
Organization in granting such technical assistance. One of the suggestions that was put forward by 
some in order to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of this technical assistance component was to spin off that function in an autonomous entity, whereby all our partners, the World Bank, 
the UNCTAD, the ITC, and the OECD, might particip ate. That could be a solution to enhance the 
technical assistance operations to developing countries and especially LDCs. So, again, this is a very important issue, a very core and fundamen tal issue, and the Member states themselves 
should discuss and negotiate among themselves how to  strengthen such an activity because of its 
impact. I totally agree with the sentiment that any assistance to those countries is not charity. It is 
a right for those countries to have such assistance. It is a right embedded within the WTO regulations and the WTO rules. As an organization, as Members, we need to always focus on this 
important issue to investigate ways to strengthen this function and make it more effective and 
more beneficial for LDCs.  
Q: Each DG has a strategic view on how nego tiations should be held on a multilateral 
basis, as the DG automatically becomes the Chair of the Trade Negotiation Committee. 
Could you perhaps tell us what your strategy  would be as Chair of the TNC? How would 
you differ from those who have preceded you?  (Honduras) 
 
A: As you correctly said, the DG chairs the TNC Committee and this is a very important role that he or she has to maintain in the future. I think that Mr Pascal Lamy has led that Committee in 
very difficult times. He tried to understand the different points of view and tried to negotiate and 
tried to bring the arguments closer. He achieved the progress, but still we do not have a conclusion for the Doha Round, which is a high priority challenge for the future to conclude. I will 
continue and strengthen my engagement with all Members. I will try to understand more their 
points of view relating to the different issues. As I said in my introductory remarks, all arguments have merits and there are counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments to each argument. If there is the political will, I strongly and genuine ly believe that we can bridge the gap. So, I will 
strengthen my close co-operation and close connect ion with all delegates, with all Members, with WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 82 - 
 
  all political decision-makers, in order to try to get that political consensus on how to move forward. 
There are numerous suggestions about the political dimension of the negotiations and how we can push them forward. There are suggestions, for ex ample, to have the ministerial meetings once 
every year, instead of once every two years. There is a suggestion to have a leadership summit. 
Since we need the political direction and the political vision of the leaders of the countries, why not 
do a summit for political leaders to put this issue of very different contributions of the countries? Of course, there are counter-arguments, and the i ssue of the complexity and the practicality of 
conducting such meetings. But they are suggesti ons, and they are worth the discussion and the 
debate by the Member countries in order to reach a conclusion on what could be an incentiviser in terms of strategy on how to push the negotiations  forward. Of course, I mentioned before that I 
will be much more vocal in terms of spreading th e positive message of the WTO and trying to close 
the gaps and enhance the alignment between the different points of view. 
 Q: I was interested in your introductory remarks and some of your discussion about 
possible internal reforms. One of the issues th at you mentioned on that list of five topics 
was voting. I am interested in a fuller under standing of what you might be thinking 
about in terms of changes to the voting process.  (United States) 
 
A: Again, the consensus voting is a core and fundamental principle of the World Trade Organization that has a long history from the GATT, prior to the WTO era. I think that the consensus approach has tremendous benefits and tremendous objectives – positive objectives – 
that it achieves. The first key objective and the first key and core fundamental benefit is that it 
ensures ownership of all Member states to the issues that are being discussed. When you have 
ownership, full involvement, full integration, full participation in the process, you have 
commitment. And when you have commitment, you have successful implementation, and you 
have less resistance in the implementation phase. Another key very important benefit for the consensus voting is that it prohibits the needs and aspirations of the few to be steam-rolled and to 
be stepped upon by the needs of the many. So, this is an additional safeguard measure that 
ensures that all points of view from all Members are taken into account. Some argue about some possible drawbacks of the system. So me are arguing that giving a veto power to one, or a few, or 
the many, or all is an undemocratic practice and could have a negative impact on the effectiveness 
of the process. Some are arguing that there coul d be an effective approach implemented for non-
DDA issues, non-negotiation issues. All I'm saying is: I fully support the consensus approach; it is a core approach. I believe that many have said that there is consensus about consensus. So, this 
is a very fundamental approach with huge benefits  to all Members. Yet, I think that Members can 
discuss ways to enhance the effectiveness of the approach, to make sure that the approach does preserve the needs and aspirations of the few, but at the same time that it is effective and ensures 
a realistically timely conclusion of the issues that  are under negotiation. But again, it is a very 
fundamental and core issue that everybody has cons ensus on. It is just the issue of enhancing the 
effectiveness of the approach.  
Q: We have been negotiating the Doha De velopment Agenda for over a decade with 
many stops and starts. How do you see th e future of the DDA and the development 
mandate?  (Jamaica) 
 
A: As I noted in my introductory speech, the Doha Round and the conclusion of the Doha Round is a challenge of high and prime importance. There are so many suggestions put on the 
table, as I highlighted in my introductory rema rks and in answering many of the questions that 
were put forward on this issue. The benefits are huge for concluding a Doha with whatever has been agreed upon so far, the Easter package or vis-à-vis concluding the tough remaining 20% as some perceive them, or an early harvest, or a mini-package. If we have an early harvest, what are 
the issues that should be included in such an early harvest? I believe that there should be a 
balanced distribution among all issues. An early harvest should contain market access issues, implementation issues, and should focus primarily on development issues, because the core of the 
Doha Round was on development in addition to trade rule issues. So, this is an extremely 
important issue and the Member states should discuss among themselves how to proceed forward. The DG and the Secretariat will provide all the suppo rt and all the assistance to the Member states 
in order to enable them to reach a conclusion in this aspect. And, again, it is the issue of the 
political direction. We need the Bali Ministerial m eeting late in 2013 to focus on this issue and to 
give the appropriate and correct political decision and political direction to the Organization on how 
to proceed forward vis-à-vis the Doha Round. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 83 - 
 
  Q: As former Head of the SME Developmen t Committee in Amman, do you think the 
WTO has been responsive to the needs of bu sinesses, more particularly the SMEs and 
other vulnerable business enterprises? (Philippines) 
 
A: I believe that lots of things have been delivered by the World Trade Organization to 
developing countries in general in order to enable them to enhance their internal capabilities, to meet the challenges of globalization. Yet, I believe that this is a very important issue that needs to 
be strengthened much further, that needs to be amplified in order to cover the many developing 
countries that there are in the world. There is funding for the Aid-for-Trade programme. As some indicated, there has been approximately $200 billion utilized within such fund. But there is a huge 
challenge to be able to maintain and sustain such funding in order to enable the WTO to perform 
all functions specific to this development component. Out-of-budget funding should be discussed 
and we should envisage and try to find ways to secure such additional funding outside of the regular budget of the Organization. Co-operation with our partners, the international 
organizations, through which we can grant technical assistance to developing countries, is one of 
the issues. I know that the issue of the budget is  highly sensitive, but the issue of reasonable, 
realistic, incremental increases in the budget of the WTO to enable this wonderful Secretariat to 
perform their job is also an issue to be discusse d by the Members to reach a decision about the 
issue of spinning off some of the functions to e nhance effectiveness and efficiency. So, yes, a lot 
has been done. Yet, much more is needed in th e future in order to touch upon the notion of 
development and notion of assistance to developing countries, and I think the Member states 
should focus on this issue as a prime issue for the future. Again, anything that the developing 
countries need is their right. Nevertheless, we need to also focus on the issue that I stressed before, that all countries – small and large – should contribute to the multilateral system. Yes, it is 
the rights of the small and vulnerable as well as LDCs and developing countries, yet at the same 
time, they have to make their contribution based on their level of development to ensure the long-term success of the multilateral system. 
 
Q: If elected Director-General, how would you propose the Membership deal with or 
address the issue of varying le vels of development within the broad group of developing 
countries, and most specifically non-LDCs?  (Saint Lucia) 
 
A: This is a very important issue that, I believe, should be put to the political leaders to answer that question: the linkage between the level of cont ribution of a country – developing or developed 
– with its level of development. Some are arguing that it should be the level of development, as 
the country richer in a sense than other countries, and some arguments are tackling the issue of the rate of growth of that country. Regardless of the decision, it is for the political leaders to 
decide. It is not for the DG to decide what is an appropriate level of contribution of each country to 
the multilateral system. But, again, if the political will exists, I think that that task is not a mission 
impossible. We can have a fair, realistic distri bution of contribution based on the level of 
development that is fair for all countries regardless of their level of development. 
 
Q: I admit to being a bit unclear and I will take you up on your initial invitation 
regarding internal reforms. You identified it as one of your two fundamental priorities. 
You said there is at least 22 areas. There is an old saying in English, of course, if it ain't 
broke, don't fix it. And in many respects, dispute settlement surveillance and so on, I 
think there is a prevailing view that there is not that much broken. So, could you give us 
a better sense of why internal reform is so fundamental to you, and where you think it's 
broken?  (Canada) 
 A: As I mentioned in my introductory remarks, I was hoping for such a question to enable me 
to elaborate on the five main categories and th e 20 areas of development, and hopefully, within 
the circular that I am going to distribute, the details of such a plan will be highlighted. But I will try 
to utilize these minutes to the best of my capability. You are correct. The number one category 
relates to the core business of the Organization. And the core business, in many ways, is highly 
successful. The dispute settlement mechanism is a highly successful and a highly respectful system. Many countries are using it, whether developing or developed countries, which is a strong 
indication of the success of the system and the re spect that the Member countries are putting on 
such a system. Areas of improvement for this issu e are, again, the issue of technical assistance: 
how can we enable developing countries to understand more fully the system to be able to utilize it further? Some are arguing for a fast-track, for example, for disputes, for small cases. Some are 
arguing that the single retaliation is not practical for developing countries. How can a small WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 84 - 
 
  developing country who is winning retaliate against a much larger country? It will have a more 
detrimental impact on the winning country than on the un-adhering country, if there is a case. So, it is a very highly successful system. Yet, there are some suggestions for improvement. The TPR is 
a very successful system, as I highlighted in many areas in my speech. It prevented spiralling back 
to protectionism. We have partnership relationship s with our international organizations. We need 
to strengthen that further. One of the core internal issues for reform, I put it under category 2: the institutionalization of the institution, which relates mainly to the support function, not the core 
function of TPR, dispute settlement, accessi on and the other core functions. In the 21
st century, no 
organization can survive and continue without a clear and well-defined corporate culture, without 
an identity, without a strategic plan. I have a mix between 18 years of public sector and 8 years of private sector, which is, I think, an added value. So, we need to look internally to our 
Organization. We need to develop a strategic plan with well-defined long-term and short-term 
objectives with a performance management system, key performance indicators (KPIs), stakeholders' perceptions of the Organization. We need to have a proper human resources 
development and management system. We need to incentivize the highly competent Secretariat in 
order to be able to perform better. ICT issu es: many of the Member countries don't have 
delegates. We can utilize internet capabilities, video-conferencing, to allow Members to attend very 
important sessions like the General Council or the important committee meetings. During the past 
years and past months, I have encountered numerous suggestions for improving the Organization. From the Sutherland Report to Members' statements, lately, the Talal Abu-Ghazaleh Report just a couple of weeks back, you have food for thought. You have the fruits to capture very beautiful 
suggestions and you, the Members, decide on what the priority is and how to deal with that 
priority. I spoke of the budgets before. So, in conc lusion, with respect to internal reform, yes, I 
started my statement by saying that the Organization has been extremely successful in so many 
ways - the dispute settlement, the TPR, there are so many other factors. Yet, improvement is a 
continuous process. There is no end-line for improvement. We cannot say that we reached the top. No, we should always look at this issue of internal reform and try to identify ways and means to 
improve our situation. So, as they say, there is no  end-line in the race of excellence. You need to 
continuously improve yourself and improve your resources in order to be able to meet very dynamically changing external environmental factors. So, this is, I think, one of the core issues in 
addition to the Doha Round, the issue of intern al reform, keeping the momentum is a highly 
important issue. 
 Q: With your experience in excellence mana gement, how are you going to conduct the 
internal reform in WTO? And what is your vision for the 10 Arab countries that are still 
not WTO Members?  (Oman) 
 
A: I think I started with the question from the Ambassador of Canada touching upon the 
internal excellence issue. I come from a mixed public sector and private sector experience. The 
notion of restructuring and reform is a crucial mandate to an organization. We cannot only focus on one aspect and not relate to the other aspect. I spent the past eight years going into 
multinationals and reforming them and restructur ing them. Whether an organization is big or 
small, government or private, manufacturing or service, NGO or inter-governmental organization, there is no excuse for not improving it continuously. This will be a clear mandate if I am honoured 
and privileged to be selected, in addition to the other very important issues to be discussed. As an 
Arab, I am privileged and honoured, of course. The position of the DG is international. I will be fair and neutral to all Arabs and non-Arabs in a very similar manner. But if you are asking me what is 
the message that can be conveyed to the Arab world – as you know, 11 out of 22 Arab countries 
are not yet Members in the World Trade Organization, most of the 35 remaining non-Members of the Organization are from our part of the world – I think it will give a very positive message of acceptance, of integration, looking at what has been going on in the Arab world for the past two 
years, the Arab revolution. It started, as you know, as an economic issue and not a political issue. 
A Tunisian man, not able to put bread on the table for his children, decided to burn himself, and that is how it started. Then it transformed into dignity and pride and democracy, and then 
discrimination, very much similar to the Organization's core values and principles. So, I think it will 
give a very positive message. It will encourage the remaining non-Member countries to join. It is a sign of acceptance and it will enhance the universality of the Organization. 
 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 85 - 
 
  3. Summing up by the Candidate12 
If I may conclude, I have not read anything in the past one and a half hours, but allow me please 
to quote. When I started preparing my speech a couple of weeks ago, I could not help but 
referring back to Charles Dickens' statement in his novel A Tale of Two Cities . And when I was 
writing the speech, I kept referring back to these statements. Allow me just to share them with 
you as a conclusion of my intervention, as a conc lusion of my speech. Charles Dickens said in his 
novel, and I am quoting: "It was the best of times. It was the worst of times. It was the age of 
wisdom. It was the age of foolishness. It was the season for light. It was the season for darkness. 
It was the Spring of hope and it was the Winter of despair. We had everything before us and we had nothing before us. We were all going direct to Heaven and we were all going direct the other way." To me, this summed up my whole thought proc ess. It is an issue of choice and commitment. 
Choice, our collective choice whether we truly believe in the case of trade liberalization, of 
multilateralism. And – if we do believe in that very justifiable cause – our commitment, collective 
commitment, to do whatever we can to progress this  issue, this very justifiable cause, forward. I 
thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me this chance, and thank you, distinguished Members, for 
giving me this chance to speak to you.  
                                               
12 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meetin g communicated by the Chai r to all delegations on 
15 and 18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five 
minutes of the question-and-answer period if he or she so wished. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 86 - 
 
  ANNEX G 
Meeting with Mr Herminio Blanco (Mexico) 
1. Presentation by the Candidate 
 The WTO: A successful institution 
o Based on legally binding rules, the multilater al trading system as embedded in the World 
Trade Organization, has been key for trade becoming a dynamic engine of world 
economic growth and development of deve loping countries during the past seven 
decades. 
o Maybe its most important success in recent years has been resisting protectionist 
pressures during the financial crisis and its aftermath, avoiding the repetition of the experience during the Great Depression. 
o As the main economies of the world stabilize, trade is becoming again an engine of world 
economic growth. 
 
 We got it right when we established the WTO in Marrakesh: Three pillars, with 
development as its core 
o First pillar: Monitoring the implementation of a vast treaty system. No other international 
organization – not even the other Bretton Woods institutions – has such a wide array of 
functions. 
o Second pillar: Dispute settlement mechanism. It has been more successful than even the 
International Court of Justice. Members have abided in most instances by the panels and 
Appellate Body resolutions. 
o Third pillar: Rule-making and market access negotiations. Unfortunately, the lack of 
progress in Doha has tainted the perception about an otherwise successful performance 
of the Organization.  
o Development at its core: In Marrakech and Doha the development dimension has 
occupied a central stage. Although the WTO has the tools to provide developing 
countries, and particularly the least developed countries, with a powerful lever for 
development and job creation, Members still have  to fully deliver to make this a reality. 
 
 What is missing? 
o The world economy has dramatically changed in the past few years. Not only a financial 
crisis with disastrous consequences to world trade occurred, but also there have been structural changes in the production of goods and services and in the way businesses are 
conducted. 
o While the other Bretton Woods Institutions have been adjusting to the new realities, the 
WTO has, with certain important exceptions, remained stagnant. We have not produced 
any new rules since the Uruguay Round. We have a twelve-year old agenda dealing with 
fifteen-year old issues. 
o New and ever more imaginative behind the border protectionist measures have been 
established by Members. 
o If protectionist pressures do not subside and we do not implement enforceable rules, 
there is a real risk that the Dispute Settlement Mechanism becomes overburdened. 
o One of the responses to the lack of progress in the multilateral front has been an 
exponential increase of regional trade agreemen ts to deal with the new realities in world 
trade. 
o Progress in implementing multilateral measures devoted to help economic development, 
in particular for the neediest amongst Memb ers has been limited. The Organization and 
its Members need to make further efforts to benefit those which need the most. Trade is 
a powerful tool for development and there is an urgent need to provide countries the possibility to reap its benefits. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 87 - 
 
   The way forward  
o If you select me as Director General of the WTO, my main task will be, guided by the 
Members, to rescue the Organization from the perception of being in the cliff of 
irrelevancy. 
o In this road, what I propose in a nutshell is as follows: 
 
i) Short-term horizon: Bali 
 
o It is a must to make the MC9 in Bali a success, with concrete results in 
substantive issues. By the time the new Director General takes office, Members 
have to have progressed enough in setting the basis of an agreement. My commitment is to get involved immediately and fully in whatever remains to be 
done, working closely with the Members.  
 
ii) Medium-term horizon: post-Bali and Doha 
 
o Once that Bali has succeeded, there are two tasks to be performed. The first 
and most urgent is the negotiating pillar. Reaching an agreement in Bali on 
certain issues will not mean that the remaining issues of Doha will disappear.  
o Members have to decide how to deal with them. The Director General is not a 
negotiator but should be an effective bridge-builder. Ten FTAs with 34 countries 
guarantee that I am a bridge-builder. We have to successfully conclude and leave the negotiations behind us as soon as possible. 
o The second task is related to the function ing of the regular bodies. If elected, I 
will consult with Members and the chairs of the different bodies on how to make them more efficient and relevant. This includes not only improving transparency 
issues, but also using the fora we have at our disposal to have in-depth 
discussions of the issues that are part of the WTO's general mandate.  
 
iii) Inclusiveness: integrating RTAs  
 
o The third horizon relates to the integration of the RTAs network in the WTO 
system. It is about how to ingrain within the WTO the solutions those 
agreements are bringing to the new, behind the border measures to trade in goods and services and seek ways to adop t them. I am aware it is not an easy 
task and cannot be done from one day to the next. But it is certainly something 
that requires serious and thorough co nsideration by Members. Successfully 
concluding the Doha negotiations will very much help in this endeavor. 
 
o In all three horizons there is the unavoidable responsibility of Members to ensure the full 
and prompt implementation of all multilateral measures that have been agreed upon to 
help economic development, in particular those benefiting the neediest among Members. It is about effectively implementing special and differential treatment; solving the 
problem of commodities hard-hit by subsidies provided by developed countries; granting 
effective market access to products and services coming from developing countries, specially Duty-free-quota-free treatment to the least-developing-countries, as well as 
giving substance to the services waiver.     
 
 Why me?  
o I am a firm believer in the multilateral trading system and, therefore, I am fully 
committed to the work and objectives of the WTO.  
o I have a long experience as a negotiator. I was the chief negotiator in the Uruguay Round 
from 1988 to its conclusion. As Mexico's Minister of Trade and Industry, I took part in the establishment of this Organization. I witnessed the failures of Montreal and Brussels but I 
took also part in the success of Marrakesh. It is remarkable that this success was due in WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 88 - 
 
  large to the excellent job performed by the th en Director General, Peter Sutherland, who, 
by the way, when elected had not been involved in the day to day negotiations.  
o As Vice-Minister and Minister of Trade and Industry, I led negotiations of ten free trade 
agreements, with much richer countries than mine and also with less developed ones. I 
succeeded because I understood their respective realities. I was capable of building the necessary trust and bridges to conclude the negotiations. 
o I dealt with ambassadors and senior officials and, when necessary, with ministers and 
even heads of state. I will do the same if elected as Director General of this Organization. Problems are solved and solutions should be crafted by ambassadors in Geneva, and I 
plan to work close to you. When required, though, I would not hesitate to support your 
work in capitals at the necessary levels to seek the appropriate flexibilities on the stumbling blocks of negotiations. 
o I am aware of the concerns and views of developed and developing countries and I 
understand their trade needs. I will be an "honest broker". 
o I have worked in the private sector for the last twelve years, dealing with the trade 
challenges faced by small companies and larger corporations when they want to import 
and export goods and services. As such, I ha ve closely followed the WTO work and the 
negotiations during the past years. I am also the Chairman of a company which, on a 
daily basis, analyses all trade measures affe cting the main countries in Latin America. 
o With my experience both in government and in the private sector and with my skills, I 
bring fresh eyes, fresh ears and fresh ideas. I am determined as from September 1
st to 
build a stronger and relevant Organization which contributes to world economic growth and to the development of developing countries! 
 
 
2. Questions and Answers 
Q: Could you give us your views or your  understanding of the relationship and 
implementation between the WTO agreements and the UN agreements within the global 
governance system?  (Honduras) 
 A: I believe that nowadays, especially given the benchmarks of effectiveness and productivity 
to which all organizations have to strive, it is fundamental to work hand in hand, the WTO and all 
other organizations which have any relevance for trade. Especially, I think, that the work that has been done between the WTO and the G20 is of gr eat relevance. It has been seen like that. The 
work that the WTO does with all of the other or ganizations should be intensified and should be 
kept under strict efficiency ways so as to get the most of the resources that are spent on these organizations.  
Q: With regard to the liberalization of trad e in environmental goods, I would like to 
ask you if you believe that the APEC Agreem ent could facilitate the process in WTO on 
liberalization of environmental goods, and how?  (Finland) 
 
A: I do believe that APEC, in their decision to open up the trade on environmental goods, has given a good step. I also understand that here, in WTO, there is a proposal that is under 
discussion; there are some technical issues. The WTO, I think, could at least look into the way in 
which this great step in trade and in protecting the environment has been done and accomplished at APEC. So, in summary, yes, I believe that the step that APEC has taken is useful. It is a very good signal of the importance that we should put into doing everything that we can possibly do to 
promote trade and to promote the betterment of the environment. 
 Q: We have seen special and differential tr eatment for developing countries as a key 
principle of the Doha negotiations. Some WTO Members grew fast during the last decade 
and improved the competitiveness of their economy substantially. How do you believe 
these changes in the international land scape should be reflected in the DDA 
negotiations?  (Germany) 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 89 - 
 
  A: I firmly believe that trade is an effective lever for growth and an effective lever for 
development, and that the special and differential treatment clauses which abound in the multilateral trading system have been of great us e. However, I also believe in the need to have 
specific clauses of graduation for countries – for countries that are progressing and those countries 
that do not such special help – so that the resources and the political efforts are spent on those 
countries that need it the most.  
Q: I want to ask you what you foresee in terms of planning for technical assistance, 
financial support and capacity building for the LDCs, given the constraints that are 
represented by their lim ited infrastructure. (Haiti) 
 
A: I am convinced that opening of markets for least-developed countries that is not supported 
by technical assistance or capacity building and,  at the end, also by investment on the needed 
infrastructure and in the needed productive capacity would not be useful. I do understand that the 
WTO has done quite a good job in putting together its resources with other institutions, both in 
reference to technical assistance and capacity building. I also know that this Organization is working with development banks, with the World Ba nk, more hand in hand, although I think that 
we have to deepen those efforts so that, as you have asked, how can a country that does not have 
the infrastructure build that infrastructure so as  to take advantage of the opening of markets? 
 Q: Thank you for your commitment to LDC i ssues. I greatly apprec iate that. You know 
that the accession to WTO has been painful fo r many LDCs, considering their capacity to 
offer in terms of terms and conditions. We know that the recently adopted guidelines 
would result in expeditious accession. But still we consider that  there are enormous 
challenges for LDCs in meeting certain obligat ions. So, do you think that there is a need 
to build on the accession guidelines to ma ke the process quicker, simple, transparent 
and justifiable?  (Nepal) 
 
A: I understand that you and your country have gone through that exercise recently. I know that it could be demanding for countries that have limited capacity. And, in that sense, I do believe that we should streamline as much as possible the procedures and give the technical assistance 
that may be needed for countries that do not have the capacity to entertain that negotiation. 
Obviously, once a country is in, the commitment of resources from this Organization and other organizations should be there to support their efforts to comply with the commitments that every 
country has taken. 
 Q: Given that you will be appointed, if ch osen to be Director-Gen eral, at a critical 
point of time in terms of preparations of MC9, could you please specifically describe 
what you would do as a Director-General to ensure a successful conference, and, 
moreover, to ensure in particul ar that a credible set of de liverables is agreed at that 
time?  (Netherlands) 
 
A: As I was saying in my introductory comments, by September 1
st, we will certainly need to 
have the technical part of this negotiation pretty much ready. I understand that several topics that 
may require political input may be still pending. So, if indeed the technical elements of the 
negotiation are pretty much solved by 1 September, I will dedicate myself to help you, Ambassadors, get the right mandate and the right flexibilities to finish the package, so that we are 
ready for Bali. 
 Q: Do you consider that the WTO needs any sort of institutional change in order to 
improve its effectiveness, and how would you realistically introduce those changes?  
(Bulgaria) 
 A: I do believe that every organization has to be continuously looking at what are the best 
practices, benchmark practices, so that it can use its resources in the best possible way, both at 
the Secretariat level and also in the organization of the participation of the different Members. At this point in time, I do not have any topic in which I believe that this Organization may have had a 
major failure. I consider that the Organization is working appropriately, that the principles and 
practices that have been used can lead us to good port in the biggest challenge that we are facing as of now, the conclusion of the Doha Round negotiations.  WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 90 - 
 
  Q: What is your assessment of the decisi on-making process of the WTO? And do you 
have any suggestions to improve the proc ess without jeopardizing the rights and 
obligations of WTO Members?  (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) 
 
A: My experience and my participation during the Uruguay Round is that the principle that 
decisions are taken by consensus, although it may take some more time, is an operating principle that has shown its great benefits for the Members of this Organization. I would not consider 
changing that because I believe that any change could introduce potentially damaging elements to 
this Organization.  Q: I think I heard in your introductory st atement that you said that we needed to 
integrate the very large number of regional trading arrangements somehow into the 
multilateral trading system, part icularly as concerns behind the border barriers, and that 
some new rules were needed on this. I wo nder if you could elaborate on those 
introductory remarks.  (Hong Kong, China) 
 A: There are several ways that have been discussed and I am sure that you are aware of some 
academic work in this field. I think the most important element and the most important point that 
I was trying to make is that, at this point in time, the only relation between these agreements, this extended network of agreements, and WTO is through the Articles XXIV of GATT and V of GATS, and that simply looking at the agreements to see if  they comply with the obligations of WTO is not 
enough. There is so much decisions, so much substance, so much energy in many of those 
agreements, some of which have gone beyond th e WTO, that it would be a waste of energy, a 
waste of opportunities to bring them into WTO. I know that that word "bring them into WTO" may 
sound a little empty, but there are many ways to do it and obviously it would be the decision of 
Members to consider some of them, because I understand that some of those proposals that have been done at the academic level may bring some strong opposition from some of the Members of 
this Organization.  
 Q: I just want to follow the question from Hong Kong, China. We heard a lot of debate 
about the relationship between multilatera l trading system and the regional and 
bilateral arrangements. So, I would like to hear your view that, do you think such an 
approach, taking the service plurilateral nego tiation as an example, could pave the way 
for the successful conclusion of the Doha Ro und or strengthen the multilateral trading 
system?  (China) 
 A: I do believe that the services agreement is an exercise that, if successful, could establish a 
way to move in this Organization, especially if it is open, especially if countries can participate in 
this negotiation and obviously especially if least-developed countries are dealt with in the appropriate fashion. I also understand that there is some opposition from some countries to do this type of exercises of plurilateral agreements . However, I also understand that some of these 
agreements respond to different realities in differ ent countries. Given that, and given the fact that 
our Organization is as successful, in many cases, when it establishes rules which are credible, which are permanent, and which lead companies to invest and generate jobs, my answer is that 
this agreement that is being negotiated or could be starting to be negotiated by a group of 
Members could be a successful step in opening trade and potentially in strengthening the multilateral system, if it is done appropriately. 
 
Q: We would like to know your opinion on the mandate of small and vulnerable 
economies and their programme in the WTO, and which treatment these countries should have so as to be fully integrat ed in the multilateral trading system?  (Dominican 
Republic) 
 A: I believe that the fact that the special needs of small and vulnerable economies have been 
identified as a group is very important. I also be lieve that useful work in helping these countries 
integrate in the multilateral system would be most usefully done and most effectively done by identifying the specific needs of the different countries. Most probably, the realities of these 
countries, as we all know, are different, and theref ore I find it quite hard to believe that one 
solution fits all. So, my concrete answer is that the most productive way to proceed is by doing a very open exercise, country by country, identifyin g the specific needs of that country and solving 
them. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 91 - 
 
  Q: I would be very interested to hear your thinking about your role as DG, if you are 
successful. Of course, you all know that the role  of DG is a crucial one. At the same time, 
it is a very sensitive one. And with your  long experience in the GATT and the WTO 
framework, I am quite sure you have some ideas both concerning the leader as the 
leader of the Secretariat and as concerning a presenter of the WTO line and in the 
negotiating framework with the coll eagues here as well as Ministers.  (Norway) 
 
A: Indeed, in my experience with  different DGs both in GATT and in WTO, it is a fascinating job, 
one of keeping a Secretariat that is run as effe ctively as possible, with benchmark standards, 
delegating effectively responsibilities at different levels, especially at the Deputy Director-General level. That work has to be complemented, as you very well said, with the job of being a facilitator, 
being very close to all of you, Ambassadors, in the work that you undertake, to be also a breech-
maker between the different positions. But, at some point in time, I believe that it is also very important, to help you, Ambassadors, with the strict mandates that you receive from capitals. 
H a v i n g  b e e n  a  M i n i s t e r ,  I  r e m e m b e r  t h a t  w e  u s e d  t o  g i v e  v e r y  s p e c i f i c  m a n d a t e s  t o  o u r  
Ambassador, here. And sometimes, as you very well  know, that mandate does not fully reflect the 
position of the interest groups in the country and,  furthermore, the positions of the interest groups 
in many of our countries do not represent the bo ttom line. So, one has to be capable of working 
with you, but then at some point in time saying: look, we have to work with your country, I want t o  w o r k  w i t h  y o u ,  M r  A m b a s s a d o r ,  I  w a n t  t o  g o to  c a p i t a l  w i t h  y o u ,  I  w a n t  t o  w o r k  w i t h  y o u r  Minister, I want to work with your industry, to get the flexibilities that we need here in Geneva. 
That would be the way I would proceed. 
 Q: The implementation of the WTO agreem ents, specifically the S&D provisions, 
remains weak. Do you have ideas, visions on how this matter can be improved if you are 
elected as the DG? (Malaysia) 
 
A: As I also said in my introductory remarks, I believe that it is very important, with respect to 
the different bodies of this Organization, to make them more effective, more efficient. And that is part of the question that you are asking: how can those bodies work better, so that the implementation of agreements and commitments already made can be done really and done 
effectively for the developing countries? That is an important part, I believe, of what has to be 
done. The other one is that, as Director-General, one has to work with countries, with different 
Members, especially those that may be stopping the progress on that dimension of implementation 
of the existing commitments that Members already have. 
 Q: If elected Director-General, how would yo u propose that the Membership deal with 
or address the issue of varying levels of  development within the broad group of 
developing countries, and more specifically non-LDC countries?  (Trinidad and Tobago) 
 A: I do understand, as I said in my initial comments, that the resources and political efforts 
have to be made to help those that need it the most, and in that sense, this division or 
characterization of levels of development as least-developed countries and developing countries is useful. I also understand that within developing countries there are some countries that have been 
quite successful in their development efforts. I know that there is no agreement about how to treat 
those countries that have been more successful – and I am referring to the so-called emerging economies – but I also believe that those that have progressed the most should play a more 
important role in making concessions than those that have the lowest levels of development. 
 Q: I would like to ask a question concerning the relationship, which could mean a concept of connection and networks. If you are selected, how do you develop the right 
relationship with the Members to move  the DDA negotiation and enhance the 
multilateral trading system? (Thailand) 
 
A: I think that I already answered at least part of that question to Norway. I said the amount of 
work and the way that I would work with Am bassadors here, and how, together with the 
Ambassadors, I would go to capitals, when we see the need, to look for further flexibilities that will 
allow us to solve the stumbling blocks in any of the negotiations. That would also be my answer to 
you.  WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 92 - 
 
  Q: Given the limited resources of SVEs, how can the WTO address the concerns of 
SVEs relating to participation in the DSU process and the enforcement of judgements?  
(Saint Lucia)  
A: I also do believe that, in part at least, I answered that question. I do believe that those that 
need support, those that need technical assistance , those that need capacity building, should be 
done on a package that fits that country, specifically in this case that you are questioning: the 
case of the use of the dispute settlement mechanis m of our Organization. I do believe that, even 
in those cases, what we have to have is a clear diagnosis of what is lacking in the different countries, so that they take advantage of this powerful instrument in our Organization.   
Q: I was interested in your opening remarks about the significance of trade for 
promoting growth and developm ent. We have had the impre ssion, in my country, that 
trade opening is taking place through all sorts of methodologies around the world today 
– unilateral opening, bilateral opening, pl urilateral opening, every-lateral except 
multilateral. Why isn't trade liberalizatio n taking place multilaterally right now?  (United 
States)  
 
A: Well, that is the question, as somebody said in the past. I do believe that the most important issue is to look to the future and to look  at what needs to be done. I think that whatever 
has happened during these 12 years, we are really at a crossroads. As I said at the beginning, this 
Organization is at the risk of becoming irrelevant  to the main users, which are the private sector. 
In your country, in mine, I am sure in many of the other countries, they see these 12 years of discussions here, of ineffective discussions and of n o  r e s u l t s ,  a s  a  s i g n  o f  a  f a i l u r e  o f  t h i s  
Organization and as a dark cloud in the future of the Organization. So, I think that it is very 
important to send a message that will change this perception. I am sure that for all of you, also internally, there must be a not-so-optimistic perception, and that perception is also outside 
Geneva, in your country, in my country, in all countries. So I think it is very important to start 
doing something, and that beginning is Bali. Without a positive message sent in Bali that we can do here in Geneva, it will be very hard to have any successful multilateral negotiations, and it would be very hard to rebuild the credibility of this Organization. So, I will start by Bali. If Bali is a 
success, I think we will send a message of credibility to all of the world, to your country, to mine, 
all of the world. And if we send that message, we can then start looking at what is on the table, 
and how we can bring the big spaces between different positions closer, during consultations here 
and, as I said, making our private sectors and different interest groups get interested in the 
process in Geneva, and help us breach the different positions and help us obtain a substantial result to the Doha Round.  
 
Q: What would be your distinctive feature as compared to the other candidates that 
you are competing with? (Chile) 
 
A: I think that I bring several things. I know the other candidates have been in negotiations. 
But I have been the head of really historical negotiations; negotiations that were the first, such as NAFTA or the agreement between Mexico and the Eu ropean Union. And in that sense, we opened 
up quite a bit of field for other countries to go. That  is important. The fact that I was Minister of a 
country like Mexico in a very difficult period, in which we managed to bring the economy back from a very deep crisis and, at the end, we we re growing – and since then we have been growing 
quite effectively – is another one. But I think the complementarity between the experience in the 
public sector and my experience in the private sector: I have experience with large companies, 
where I have been a member of their advisory board, a member of boards, I have been advising large companies, and also have been working with small companies, we have been advising 
developing countries and, as I said before, we ha ve the experience of giving consultancy services 
on trade, on how to open up markets and how to do investments abroad and investments in Mexico. I think that the user viewpoint that I have on agreements is also something that could be 
of great advantage here in Geneva, in WTO. Why? Because, as I said before, those that are feeling 
that this Organization has become irrelevant are the users of this Organization. And the main users of this Organization are the corporations that need new rules, that need to incorporate the 
new realities in the world to this Organization, so that it is useful and so that it sends the right 
signals, the right rules to make investment decisi ons. And, in that sense, I can also be a very 
effective bridge with the private sector, not only in my country, but in many other countries in which we have worked and in which we are working as of now. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 93 - 
 
  Q: In your presentation, you devised three time horizons: Bali, post-Bali and beyond. 
On the "beyond" horizon, you emphasized the issue to integrate the free trade agreements network into WTO. Are there other issues WTO should deal with after the DDA conclusion?  (Switzerland) 
 
A: I do believe, and I mentioned very fast and briefly, that the new, more creative barriers behind border is something of a great challenge for this Organization and, in that sense, 
rule-making that will take into account those new barriers behind the border is a topic that the 
Organization has to undertake. For sure, that is something very important for the "beyond" Doha. We all know that there are many topics that have been mentioned. I do not think that any of the other topics are ready for any substantive work in the sense of application or negotiations here. 
But, as I said, I would be open to consider other topics. I think that one has to be very careful of 
overwhelming the agenda and the work here in Ge neva, and most importantly one has to be very 
careful of introducing any topic that may be the way of bringing protectionism back into the world. 
 
Q: The Single Undertaking is an important concept that was negotiated to address the 
sensitivities of the developing countries, an d to bring a balance in the overall agenda. 
Do you believe that this concept is still rele vant? And do you believe that it can help us 
in achieving a fair outcome of the Doha Round? (India) 
 A: I do believe that the Single Undertaking concept – which in part is not only something that 
is unique to WTO, but is also used in many other agreements where there is a package that is 
agreed to work on, a package that somehow keeps the balance between the parts to the negotiation – is useful. However, realities are realities. And in this Organization, there was in the 
Eighth Ministerial Conference a decision to move forward with other modalities. And I understand 
that, in part, the negotiation of services comes from that. Obviously, it is very important to keep the balances between the interests, so that the private sectors of the different countries keep the 
pressure on governments and keep the interest in  the negotiations. However, there is also this 
trade-off of parts of the whole that may be moving and parts of the whole that, if you take them away, may not potentially break down substantially the equilibrium. I know that the participation 
of certain countries in the services agreement is s een as quite a bit of a concession to especially 
developed countries, but what is interesting, to me at least, is that the composition of the group 
that is negotiating services is not simply developed countries but is a mix of developing and developed countries, a mix from different regions of the world. 
 
Q: How do you think the dispute settlement mechanism can be improved, in particular 
as regards implementation of DSB decisions?  (Ukraine) 
 
A: I know that there is quite a bit of a long lis t of topics that have been discussed in the past 
with respect to ways in which to improve the workings of the dispute settlement mechanism. I also know that there has not been substantial progress there. But I do believe that, in general, the 
mechanism has been quite useful and effective, either by taking countries to reaching an 
agreement, to reaching a settlement, or going al l the way to the Appellate Body and reaching a 
final decision. And very few of those have been not abided by the countries. So, I am a little bit 
lost in the sense of understanding specifically what you, Ambassador, refer to, because my sense 
is that, in general, the dispute settlement mechanism has been effective and their decisions have been abided by. 
 
Q: From your experience as a negotiator, what is your assessment of the present impasse in the negotiations in the agricu ltural DDA sector? And what do you think 
should be done to move over this hump?  (Philippines) 
 
A: My experience in negotiations is that once there is a stumbling block in an important topic, there are mandates given so as to freeze the results of all other important topics. Maybe that is 
what is happening, specifically with respect to agriculture. I understand there is a big stumbling 
block in reference to NAMA and that may have contaminated also the agricultural negotiations. I understand that there are very difficult issues by th emselves in the agricultural negotiations, but it 
seems that, like in many other negotiations that I have participated in, once there is a stumbling 
stone in one group, negotiations in other groups tend to be paralysed.   WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 94 - 
 
  Q: I have decided to change my question th is time. My question is: do you think it's 
time to add Arabic as an official WTO langua ge in order to enhance participation of Arab 
countries in WTO?  (Oman) 
 
A: Thank you for changing the question for me. You made it even harder. The other one I could 
have answered. This one I certainly cannot. Anyway, thank you for the question.  
Q: In your view, what is the role of sp ecial and differential treatment in WTO today?  
(Ecuador)  A: I think it has been an extremely useful concept throughout the history of this Organization. I 
also believe that words sometimes are not enough to help those countries that need most help to 
go beyond their levels of development. So, I am convinced that, at this point in time, the concept is important,  that in many of the chapters that are pending in the Doha negotiations, some of the 
implementation of the Uruguay Round has not been done, probably, as effectively as possible with 
respect to the concept of special and differential treatment. But I think the road is quite clear. The road for effective special and differential treatm ent is one of access to markets combined with 
capacity building, with technical assistance and, very importantly in many cases depending on the 
specific needs of the country, with the help of funding from the public sector or in combination of private and public partnerships. I think that is key to make the opening of markets an effective leverage for development, to have those three elements to help these countries have the capacity 
to use the opening of markets. 
 Q: I have a question on protectionism. We have strong political commitments in 
various international fora, including the G20 summit, and WTO is equipped with a 
relatively well-functioning dispute settl ement body and regular protectionism 
monitoring reports. Nonetheless, we are witnessing that a number of protectionist 
practices are still exercised by many WTO Me mbers. Do you think that the WTO system 
is sufficient in keeping protectionism at bay? If not, what would be the best way for the 
multilateral trading system to addr ess such protectionist measures? (Republic of Korea) 
 
A: I agree with you that the dispute settlement mechanism has been very effective. I also 
b e l i e v e  t h a t  m a n y  o f  t h e s e  b e h i n d  b a r r i e r s  o f  t r a d e ,  o r  w h a t  i s  s o m e t i m e s  c a l l e d  m u r k y  protectionism, may be putting a little bit too much pressure on the dispute settlement procedure. 
We run the risk of many of these cases to be taken to dispute settlement procedures, 
overwhelming this excellent part of the WTO. So, what needs to be done is to negotiate new rules 
which specifically take care of some of the main new barriers to trade. The more specifically 
defined they are, the least temptation it would be for different countries to use those barriers, 
because it would be much easier for the dispute settlement to proceed and to decide if a country is using or not a protectionist measure that does not abide by the rules of WTO. So, we need to work on rules-making to limit these new protectionist measures. 
 
Q: You painted a very stark picture of th e WTO at a crossroads, heading into Bali. 
Were you selected, by the time you take offi ce the die may be cast and, notwithstanding 
political engagement, Bali may not result in a success. What is your Plan B? How would 
you, as Director-General, deal with  the prospect of imminent failure?  (Canada) 
 
A: The Plan B has always had to be there. However, one will have to be at that point in time to 
see what needs to be done to rescue whatever is left. I believe that, if we do not succeed in Bali, my sense and, from the conversations that I have wi th different groups of the private sector of my 
country and other countries, their perception is that something is fundamentally wrong here, in 
Geneva, at the WTO. If, once again, we are no t capable of getting together, even in a small 
balanced package for Bali, I think damage would be terrible. But the only answer that I can give to your question is: one will have to sit at that point in time and work with all of you, visit some 
capitals and try to re-establish credibility with all the efforts that I could make and all the 
connections that I have in different countries. But, for sure, it would be very difficult. 
 
Q: What is your assessment of WTO's image among the business community, civil 
society and media, and what steps would you ta ke to improve it? Wh at would you do to 
ensure re-engagement and greater involvement of the business community in the WTO?  
(Croatia) 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 95 - 
 
  A: I think that, in some way, I have answered your question. It is not what one can do to bring 
back credibility to this Organization, it is what you all, Ambassadors, and your Ministers and your Heads of State can do to bring back credibility to  this great Organization. As I just said a few 
minutes ago, without the commitment of all of you to have a successful Bali, the credibility of this 
Organization in front of the private sectors, in fron t of different groups, in front of the world press, 
would be very difficult to recover.  
Q: Since 2008, this Organization has been working hard against protectionism. What 
are your thoughts about the continuing presen ce of protectionism in agriculture, and in 
particular what would be the impact on the credibility of the Organization if by the end 
of December 2013 we won't have eliminated the subsidies as was called for during the 
Hong Kong Declaration?  (Argentina) 
 A: I think there are different levels of aspiration for Bali. Yours is a little bit, I would say, on the 
high side. We have to be realistic. What we need for Bali is a package that does not break the idea 
of Single Undertaking, a package that advances th e interest of groups of countries – developed, 
developing, least-developed – but a package in which interests may be balanced. I understand 
that subsidies to the export of agricultural products is a tremendously important issue for many 
countries, for your country, and especially for least-developed countries. It is something that has to be solved. But I do believe that, to have a successful Bali, the first thing we have to do is to be realistic, to define a meaningful package that  can be achieved and to work and have the 
commitment of you, Ambassadors, of your people in capital, your political heads in capital, and 
bring this first step so that the credibility of this Organization improves and that the possibility of achieving high objectives like the one you just mentioned can be there. 
 
Q: For many developing countries, promised  gains from trade liberalization have not 
materialized. What role can the WTO play in  promoting trade as a tool for development 
and delivering on the promised gains for small developing countries? (Jamaica) 
 A: In some ways, I do think that that issue has been touched upon by some of the Ambassadors that presented questions before. I do believe that to have effective access to 
markets, least-developed countries and small economies need to have the package that is 
composed by capacity building, by technical assist ance and, depending on the realities of different 
countries, also financial resources to help either promoting investment in productive capacity or 
investment in the different facilities that are needed to effectively be able to export and use trade 
as a lever of development.  
Q: You have very successfully managed to capitalize on the revolving door, moving 
between government and business. Given your broad network, you would have 
encountered lobbyists and industry groups  in your present campaign. I would be 
interested to hear what kinds of messages an d challenges they are trying to impress on 
you? And, in that respect, can I invite you to address what kind of a relationship the 
WTO should have with the global trading community in your view?  (Singapore) 
 
A: At this point in time, I have met here in Geneva, in some other capitals, in some other fora, 
with representatives of governments. But I can certainly tell you that, through the daily work that we do in our businesses and the relations that we have in different countries, we are faced by the 
image that I have mentioned several time, the image of a WTO that is not worth investing on, 
working and trying to make an effort to make more flexible positions. That I have sensed. And I have sensed that for many months now, before  I started touching upon and contacting the 
different countries. I do believe that it is crucial, as I said, to get a successful Bali, so that we can 
start making different groups of the private sector of the main countries – of those countries that 
have the most important differences in positions – aware and involved in these negotiations, and to convince them of the importance for every on e of them, for every one of those countries, for 
those interest groups, to have a successful Doha Round. I think it is fundamental to keep a very 
close communication with the main productive sector, with the main interest groups, so that, not only they realize that this is a relevant institution, but so that they can promote flexibilities in the 
different capitals. 
 Q: If it should happen that parties to a dispute cannot reach an agreement on the 
panellist, the DSU provides that the Director -General should dete rmine the composition 
of the panel by appointing the panellist. In  fact, 60% of panellists in the past were WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 96 - 
 
  appointed by the DG. So, as Director-Gener al, if you are appointed, how would you 
ensure that the process and set of criteria for the appointment of panellists is fair and 
impartial and accommodates the needs of both parties?  (Chinese Taipei) 
 
A: That is a substantial point, especially given the fact that nowadays a great proportion of the 
cases that go through a panel have gone through the Appellate Body and, in many instances, the 
Appellate Body has ruled differently from the special groups that were created for some of these 
cases. So, it signals something, an element that the new DG, together with all of you, has to 
address. Something can be improved in the working of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism. Now, with respect to fair treatment, I do believe that, if one has a list of panellists which fulfils the highest standards of capacity and of no-presence of  potential conflict of interest, then there are 
many different ways in which a Director-General may choose the members of a specific panel. I do 
believe that here doing it as random and as transparent as possible should be part of the solution.   
Q: The report of the Office of the Intern al Audit recommended the WTO Secretariat to 
improve the planning and prioritization of  activities for efficient use and optimal 
allocation of resources. What would be the best  course of action, in your view, to follow 
up this recommendation amidst the growing expectation on the WTO support to enable 
Members taking part in the multila teral trading system effectively?  (Indonesia) 
 A: My perception is that the many successes of this Organization are based on having a 
Secretariat that is highly effective, that works fairly well. Obviously, any organization can be 
improved. That is something that I have done in the past when we ended the administration in the 
year 2000. The ministry which I was heading was under strict benchmark rules. At the time, we 
were ISO 9002 for about 98% of the contacts th at we did with ever ybody, with all the 
stakeholders of the Ministry. I am just saying that because I do believe that, even if an organization is functioning well, even if my sense and what I heard of the Secretariat is that the 
Secretariat has a group of professionals that are excellent in their capacities, everything can be 
improved. And I will make it a very important point, given the limited resources that this Organization and any organization has, to use the resources in the best way. And obviously that goes through having the most effective management system at the Secretariat. 
 
3. Summing up by the Candidate
13 
Let me just make very brief comments. I think I would bring to this Organization some assets that 
I have mentioned, but I will not miss the opportunity to mention them again to you. The first one 
is experience as a Minister of Mexico, a country that has used trade as an important leverage for development. I have experience in negotiating agreements; not any type of agreements, but I 
mentioned two agreements that were unique at the time and that established a way for many 
other countries to negotiate with the big economies of the EU and the US. I have also mentioned, and I believe this is a great asset, the 12 years of experience in the private sector. But I would like to end giving you a quote of Dr Martin Luther King, which I think is highly relevant to the sense of 
urgency that we face in our Organization. He said: "We are faced by the fact that tomorrow is 
today. We are confronted with the fierce urgenc y of now." If you select me as your Director-
General, I will work with you, side by side, to so lve the fierce urgency that  our Organization faces. 
                                               
13 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meetin g communicated by the Chai r to all delegations on 
15 and 18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five 
minutes of the question-and-answer period if he or she so wished. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 97 - 
 
  ANNEX H 
Meeting with Mr Taeho Bark (Republic of Korea) 
1. Presentation by the Candidate 
I. Introduction 
 
It is my great honor and pleasure to be here and meet with you today. Taking the liberty to speak on behalf of the other candidates, I would like to say that all of your time, effort and patience is 
very much appreciated. 
 I would like to start with a brief example of so mething I witnessed personally. On the evening of 
December 6, 1990, we reached an impasse at the Ministerial Meeting in Brussels which was held to 
wrap up the Uruguay Round of negotiations. Th e next morning, a major newspaper mistakenly 
reported that an agreement had been reache d. This was based on the belief that trade 
negotiations would always somehow manage to be finalized.  
 
Today no newspaper would make the same mistake, as stalemates in negotiations are becoming routine.  In spite of the current difficulties, however, history consistently affirms that we can move 
beyond failures. To move forward with your effort s in Geneva, today, I wo uld like to share with 
you my thoughts on first, the Doha Development Agenda, second, the development goal, third, the challenges of the multilateral tradin g system, and finally my candidacy. 
 
II. Open Dialogue for Trust Building 
 Before addressing the first topic, I would like to put forward a fundamental message, which is the 
need to rebuild trust. Whenever we face difficulties, I believe that problem-solving must start from 
going back to the basics. For the WTO, this mean s recreating a vibrant culture of Geneva-centered 
negotiations. To be clear, this does not mean holding meetings for the sake of meetings or 
responding to artificial deadlines. Rather, we must seek to restore the original Geneva-culture, 
whereby we discuss our differences frankly to explore possible solutions. Communication and harmony are the key words. Conflicting positions are inevitable in negotiations. But any disagreements about the means should not obscure  our common goals: promoting trade, reducing 
poverty and enhancing development.  
 As I deeply realize and understand the current difficulties, my starting point is modest: to serve as 
an advocate for open dialogue. My aim as Direct or-General is to help WTO Members continue to 
engage and better understand the positions and rest rictions of others. These actions shall aim at 
higher goals, first of all, to strengthen the trust, between you and the Secretariat, and among 
yourselves. Once we have worked hard towards gene rating this critical level of trust- and you can 
be assured with the highest confidence of my role as an honest broker- there will come the moment when we will be able to move together towards a final agreement of the DDA negotiations. 
 
III. DDA: Bali Ministerial and Thereafter 
 
Now, looking at the DDA, it is without a doubt the mo st important task of the WTO at present. It is 
also clear that 2013 will be challenging as the Ministerial is fast approaching. The Bali Ministerial at the end of the year will need to yield some tang ible outcomes not only to realize the actual 
economic benefits, but to restore the confidence of  Members as well as the broader credibility of 
the WTO. Through the month of August, we need to lay a solid foundation for its success. We should then build upon that groundwork and yield real outcomes, at least, in areas such as trade facilitation as well as some ag ricultural and development issues. 
 
Expectations hinge on whether and how we can seize the momentum to revitalize the remaining agenda of the Doha Round after the MC9. I believe th at all the pieces will be on the table by then. 
What remains is to take a fresh perspective on how to sort them out. It is at this point that we can 
move beyond the past stand-offs and the divisions among the WTO Members. The outcomes from Bali will help foster the right atmosphere to address the remaining issues on the DDA, because 
they shall be considered as a stepping stone toward accomplishing the ultimate single undertaking. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 98 - 
 
  IV. Importance of the WTO in Development 
 Throughout all of these negotiations, development is the core pillar. I have taught international 
trade and development to young government offici als from Africa, the Middle East, South and East 
Asia and Latin America. In communicating with them, I emphasized that development means, first, 
raising standards of living, as set out in the Preamble to the WTO Agreement.  Development must improve the welfare of all people, not just particular sectors or industry groups. To some countries 
development means joining and moving up in the global value chain, and to others, stabilizing 
their financial systems. To many countries, it still means lifting themselves out of poverty. The WTO can contribute to achieving all of these concepts of development through greater trade 
opportunities, capacity building, and predictable rules. 
 
Trade has special meaning for developing countries, as it can be an important tool for economic development. Special and differential treatment must be in keeping with that aim, and should be 
about creating more opportunities for the products of developing countries. 
 However, that does not complete the picture. To benefit from the global market, the supply side 
constraints of developing countries must be addressed through aid for trade. I am convinced that 
it will be useful to strengthen the WTO’s relationship with development agencies as well as multilateral and regional development banks. In  this context, aid for trade can be promoted 
through close cooperation between the WTO and other international financial institutions like the 
World Bank. These are efforts that I plan to strongly emphasize, if honored as the new Director-
General.  
V. Challenges of Multilateral Trading System 
 I would now like to address a number of challenges facing the WTO in its seeking to strengthen 
the multilateral trading system.  
 
1. Keeping up with 21st Century Issues 
 
While the WTO addresses traditional issues, we all recognize that the world is rapidly changing. 
21st century issues, such as green energy, the global value chain, food security, standard and safety, natural resources, and water management, all have direct and indirect effects on trade. To 
keep abreast of such changes, the WTO must also evolve in an organic wa y, while staying within 
the boundaries of its mandate as a trade organization. On this point I would like to emphasize that active communication with the private sector and civil society is of growing importance. This is 
especially true if the WTO is to have the capaci ty to identify their needs and demonstrate that 
international disciplines on trade can help address changing needs.  
2. Outreach and Building Support for Trade 
 
Another more fundamental challenge is the unfavorable sentiment toward trade liberalization among many constituencies. Without question, the interest and support of all levels in Member 
countries are essential for the success of trade negotiations. In this regard, domestic politics 
should be shaped to garner support for trade. Su pport from the multitude of businesses that will 
directly benefit is also indispensable. The ultimate beneficiaries- consumers and the general public- 
need to see these benefits, and not fall victim to misinformation concerning trade. 
 Therefore, a critical role for the Geneva community and the WTO Secretariat is to proactively disseminate practical information on the benefits of trade. The annual Public Forum is a useful 
occasion for this. Further, my recent experience in  dealing with opposition to trade agreements in 
Korea would serve in helping to map the outreach activities of the WTO and Member countries. I 
have done so by utilizing both traditional methods of engaging in a dialogue with sectoral groups 
including farmers, as well as new media such as social network services. 
 
3. Institutional challenges 
 
The other challenge, perhaps most frequently called for from outside the WTO, is the enhancement of the institutional efficiency. On the one hand, I will continue to listen to those suggestions and 
critiques through such channels as the panel of stakeholders. On the other hand, I would fully WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 99 - 
 
  consult with the membership about how to accommodate those items of the reform agenda 
without harming the merits of the WTO’s existing assets.  Although the WTO has not yet brought negotiations to closure, it has made many valuable inroads. 
The recent increase in WTO disputes is actually a sign of growing faith in the WTO system, and 
reaffirms its relevance in a global economy. Importantly, the WTO has been effective in keeping protectionism in check and containing trade disp utes within the system. The consensus method, 
despite its shortcomings, is still the most rational, open-minded way to reach a decision and 
should not be easily forsaken. I believe strongly that the WTO Secretariat is a precious resource for all Members. Remaining careful not to deviate far from proven past practices, as Director-General, I would implement necessary adjustments and weigh possible improvements through full 
consultation with and endorsement of the membership. 
 
4.  Preferential Trade Agreements  
 
Last but not least, Preferential Trade Agreements  present both challenges and opportunities. Many 
experts have argued, and I agree to an extent, th at PTAs do not replace but rather complement 
the WTO. The WTO can, and should do its part to  help PTAs become more  compatible with each 
other and with the WTO framework. This is achievable also through close communication among ourselves, because most of the PTA parties are none other than WTO Members.  
VI. My Candidacy 
 Before concluding, I would like to add a few wo rds with regard to my candidacy for Director-
General. 
 The WTO is about trade and it must retain its ce ntrality within the international trading system. 
The Director-General of the organization theref ore must have a strong, proven background of 
vigorously advocating open trade. In particular, the new Director-General must be able to inject 
new energy and fresh insight into the WTO’s mission. Taking into account my experience and commitment, I believe that I can serve effectively in this capacity. 
 
Specifically, I have worked as an academic and a practitioner of trade, as Trade Minister and as Chairman of a trade remedy agency.  I have expe rienced both the offensive and defensive side of 
trade policy, and have conciliated different interests of exporters, importers, producers and 
consumers. Then and now, I value fairness, transp arency and the trust that is built through open 
dialogue. I would indeed look forward to bringing  these qualities and personal experiences to the 
job of Director-General. 
 Lastly, I am realistic optimist. Part of this stems from my own background. I was born during the Korean War and grew up in a poor and shattere d country. During my lifetime, things changed 
dramatically. I witnessed firsthand what can be achieved. I firmly believe that any country can 
move forward if provided with the right kinds of  help and circumstances. Korea did not reach its 
current level of development on its own. We had help and we had access to world markets. 
 
We also made mistakes along the way. We learned from them, however, that we needed to be more open to trade and investment in our ow n markets. Importantly also, we became an 
enthusiastic supporter of WTO negotiations as well as a participant in a broad range of trade 
agreements with both developed and developing countries.  Having lived through advances and setbacks in economic development, it is with the belief in trade 
and the commitment to development that I offer my candidacy for the post of Director-General of 
the WTO.  
 
2. Questions and Answers 
Q: I would like to raise an issue on specia l and differential treatment for developing 
countries. This is a key principle, of cour se, of the Doha negotiations. However, some 
WTO Members grew fast during the last de cade and improved the competitiveness of 
their economies substantially. How do you be lieve these changes in the international 
landscape should be reflected in the DDA negotiations?  (Sweden) WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 100 - 
 
   
A: This S&D issue in the DDA negotiations is a very important issue. As you mentioned, the treatment of emerging large Member countries – ho w we treat them, do we treat them differently 
or we have to stick to the principle we used to maintain?  – is a very important issue we have to 
discuss because, regarding the developing country status, except the LDC status, we don't have 
any clear criteria. I know that we tried to make some improvement in terms of defining different sub-groups of developing countries at other internat ional organizations, but it is awfully difficult to 
set up the criteria to define or classify differe nt groups of developing countries. However, if 
Members show their concerns and interest in any direction, I think we have to discuss this at the negotiations, because, in some cases, we already tried to reflect some of the concerns of some groups of developing countries. But your questi on has a different aspect, because you are talking 
about the larger, more competitive and capable developing countries. But, still, I think we open 
the discussion among Members and try to make some consensus on how to deal with these cases.  
Q: WTO is not a perfect organization, but if  you are chosen to be the next DG, what 
would be your priority that needs to be reformed to make WTO a better and stronger 
one? (Thailand) 
 
A: I understand your question is regarding the Secretariat, rather than the Geneva community as a whole. And, actually, I have some ideas if I am elected Director-General. But first of all, I have to consult with Members, horizontally and with open mind for an open dialogue, and identify 
what should be the priority to reform this Secretariat. As far as I understand, the qualification and 
professionalism at the WTO Secretariat is excellen t. The only thing is, maybe, we can change the 
environment, so that they work in a more rewa rding kind of atmosphere for the work they are 
doing, because they are professionals. And if I can add a couple more points, in terms of 
representation of the Member countries, particularly developing Member countries, I should look at and review the current situation and I want to do much more fair representation of the Member 
countries, especially in the composition of the Secretariat. And another idea we can think of is to 
review the programme which is at the Secretariat at this moment to provide consultation or training kind of assistance to developing countries. We will see how these are going, if we review this programme and if you have something to improve, then, we will do that with the consultation 
with our Membership. 
 Q: Our question concerns the concept of de velopment. Some academics indicate that 
a big obstacle to the progress of the Doha Ro und has been the ambition of incorporating 
development as an objective of this Round . What is your view on that stance?  (Chile) 
 
A: In my presentation, I said that in the negotiations, especially for the Doha Development 
Agenda negotiations, I think development is a core pi llar of the negotiations. But to be very frank, 
development could be achieved through international trade. That is the kind of mandate that we have at the WTO. So, using all kinds of mechan isms or programmes or even negotiations, we 
should help developing countries to achieve de velopment through increased trade. We provide 
more market access for developing countries, especially for the products produced by least-developed countries. But at the same time, to achieve this goal, I think we have to also address 
the supply side constraints of developing countries. For this, I think we have to use the Aid-for-
Trade programme, which was initiated by the current Director-General, Lamy, in 2005. I think it's going on pretty well. However, we need to enhance the quality of the programme, especially in co-
operation with other international organizations like the World Bank. And I said in my 
presentation, this is the area I want to strengthen if I am elected Director-General. In other words, we have many Aid-for-Trade programmes by advanced countries, donor countries and also through multilateral development agencies like the World Bank and other organizations. But we 
know that the amount of financial assistance is not really increasing rapidly, given the world 
economic condition. Given that kind of constraint, I think we have to enhance the efficiency of the 
programme so that we can focus on more trade promoting areas, so that developing countries can 
utilize this mechanism to update or to strengthen their supply-side infrastructure, especially for 
exporting and, at the same time, importing.  
Q: What are the challenges that you wo uld take up immediately as the WTO DG?  
(Malaysia)  A: In terms of priority, I think, if you look at the timeframe, the new DG will convene his duty 
from 1 September. So, we have to evaluate the situation regarding the DDA at that time. If we WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 101 - 
 
  have a very positive progress, then the new DG's job is to deliver this programme through MC9. 
And, if this is positively developed, then maybe we can think about the remaining agenda of the DDA. Maybe, we can think about, broadly speaking, some kind of roadmap after MC9. But this is 
all contingent on what kind of progress we make until the end of August. So that is the kind of 
thing I think of as an urgent and priority aspect for the new DG. And after that we have to think 
about other issues.  
Q: I am interested in your views regarding the role of the WTO. What should the WTO 
undertake in global governance? And, if appo inted, what measures will you undertake to 
improve the current level of consultation and co-operation between the WTO and non-
governmental organizations?  (Chinese Taipei) 
 
A: First of all, I think the WTO has been serving very effectively in term s of global governance 
in the area of trade. But we have been preoccupied with these current negotiations for so long, we 
feel like we are a little bit outdated. Of course, we do not have any other extra energy to tackle 
other issues. It all depends on the achievement or result of the Bali Ministerial, but if we have some clear idea about this year's Bali deliverables and post-Bali plan for dealing with the DDA as a 
whole, as a Single Undertaking kind of package, if we have some confidence, then in consultation 
with the membership, I would like to suggest that maybe WTO should start to address some of the important issues. I talk about 21
st century issues, but this does not mean only issues which are 
interesting to certain global countries, but it can vary, the cross-cutting kind of interest of many 
different countries. So, we can provide some kind of discussion, a study. It does not mean that we 
have to immediately go to make rules under the WTO mandate. In doing so, I think we can open our interactions more effectively with non-government organizations or civil society or even 
business community to exchange our views and let them know what we are doing and also what 
their interests are for the futuristic kind of situation we have to deal with as a trade organization.  
Q: The impasse of the Doha Development ne gotiations has triggered the proliferation 
of regional trade agreements (RTAs), whic h to a certain extent has created a more 
geographically-concentrated trade. Currentl y there are 357 RTAs, an increase by 400% 
compared to the 1990s. Article XXIV of GA TT 1994 permits the establishment of RTAs 
with the objective of expediting the trade lib eralization process. However, it turns out 
that the proliferation of RTAs stands to undermine the multilatera l trading system and 
create the so-called spaghetti-bowl effect. In  the meantime, the bets on whether the 
Secretariat should undertake results of the impact of RTAs to the multilateral trading 
system continues in related committees. How would you reconcile Members' preference to establish RTAs vis-à-vis  the multilateral trading system?  (Indonesia) 
 
A: That was a long question and also a difficult one for me. Basically, I do not want to explain the current situation where we have the multilateral  trading system and we have a proliferation of 
bilateral FTAs or regional FTAs. How do we explain it? This is the reality. I don't want to say that 
"because of this, this is spreading", "because of  that, we have to worry about it too much". But 
what I want to say is that, from my own subjective view, looking at this kind of phenomena, there is a tendency. The pendulum towards regionalism went too far. Professor Bhagwati mentioned the 
spaghetti-bowl all the time, but I think we went too far in that direction. Probably, it seems to me, 
we see some kind of positive sign. They are returning to a little more multilateralism. I say this is a positive sign because many different bilateral, individual FTAs are now being integrated into 
larger RTAs. It is not the perfect kind of situation, but this is the kind of effort or trend we can see 
is going on at the moment. So, who are the partners or members? They are all WTO Members. So I think we have to discuss about this among ourselves, also with the Director-General and Secretariat. What do we do about this? We have to do some more – "we" means the WTO should 
do its part to help the PTAs be more complementary or in conformity with each other and also 
within the WTO framework. But we do not actually finalize the negotiations on the criteria for substantially all trade and other detailed kind of elements in the negotiations. But without that 
kind of base, we can simply monitor or receive the notification and try to evaluate. But we don't 
have any base to evaluate. In any case, I think they are trying to also achieve more open trade themselves. Of course, they are discriminating against non-Members. I hope that for this kind of 
regional agreement or integration, their final destination must be the multilateral trading system. 
That is the kind of thing we should achieve. The DG and the WTO itself should help those PTAs to be compatible with the WTO system and to each other and hopefully, later on, they can be easily integrated into WTO. That is the basic direction I am seeing regarding these PTAs. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 102 - 
 
  Q: We would like to know, were you to be  Director-General, what elements would 
contribute to the progress and conclusion of the Doha Agenda before and after the Ninth 
Ministerial Conference in Bali?  (Dominican Republic) 
 
A: I must admit that in my contribution for this MC9 deliverables I have some limitation, 
because the new Director-General will come in after August, and you will know around August whether you can deliver something or not. So, it all depends on the situation from now until 
August, how much additionally the DG can do for the success of MC9. But about the post-MC9 and 
the remaining process for Single Undertaking – maybe it sounds a little bit naïve – but I think we h a v e  t o  t a l k  t o  e a c h  o t h e r  i n  a  m o r e  o p e n  f o r m a t .  F o r  e x a m p l e ,  I  d i s c u s s e d  t h i s  i n  m y  presentation, if I gain trust from all Members, then I will encourage them to engage in more 
discussions among different Members so that they can enhance their understanding of the other 
groups' positions and restrictions much better. In that situation, the DG cannot lead them to a certain direction. But as a coordinator, facilitator, we can play some role to make some progress 
on certain issues. So, as the DG, I would like to make some contribution, not by leading them or 
influencing them, but as an honest broker who has gained trust from all Members, then maybe 
using my experiences and my academic background , I can persuade each other's position in a 
much more honest format. Then, maybe, we can reach a more futuristic and forthcoming kind of 
solution. This sounds a bit abstract, but this is how I want to build trust through open dialogue among Members and also between the Secretariat and the Members.   
Q: You talked about the 21
st century of supply chains, energy and so on. Clearly, trade 
and investment follow each other. Will you advocate the WTO dealing with trade and 
investment, or will you put yourself solely in the hands of the Members to decide that for 
you? (Canada) 
 A: If you refer to investment as an area of one of the Singapore issues, then maybe it is a little 
bit difficult to discuss here. However, you know that  the OECD tried to make some kind of rules on 
investment under the name of MAI, Multilateral Agreement on Investment. They were not able to produce anything. But as a person from Korea, I visit many of my trading partner countries. I see 
that investment really promotes trade through, as  you rightly pointed out, the global value chain, 
especially between developing country and advanced or more developed developing countries. I 
think that without investment, a developing country does not want to have input from certain partners as a final good. They invite investment and, then, they create another opportunity for 
trade. So, I think investment and trade should go hand in hand. So, I really emphasize a growth of 
investment in the area of international trade. It does not mean that we should go ahead and do a 
negotiation on investment as rules at the WTO. We should discuss this with the membership. But, 
it seems to me, especially through a global value chain, investment in both ways is very important 
to create many segment of trade in the world.  Q: What are your views on the role of pl urilateral initiatives in the context of the 
multilateral trading system? How should these initiatives be de signed in order to create 
opportunities for the WTO and the multilateral trading system?  (Hungary) 
 
A: On the plurilateral approach, maybe some people say that this is undermining also the 
multilateral trading system, but, as long as we use this intermediate step to help the multilateral trading system, maybe we can admit this kind of approach. I said that we have to have some kind 
of pre-condition to accept this. In other words, you should keep in mind that this plurilateral 
discussion should be progressed with the mind that later it has to be compatible with the WTO system. And also it should be ready to accept or receive more Members from the WTO membership. So if we do this kind of arrangement, then maybe the plurilateral approach could be 
regarded as a fresh and more creative approach to complement the multilateral trading system. 
But it should be based on open membership, and it has to be consistent and compatible with the multilateral trading system, which is very important for this case. 
 
Q: My question relates to dispute settlemen t. The number of disputes is growing in 
the WTO. How do you see this development? Is it a positive sign that the system is 
working, or a worrying sign that trade barr iers are on the rise, or something else? 
Considering that the number of disputes puts  the WTO under particular strain, when it 
comes to increased workload, if you are selected as the Director-General, what 
measures would you take to ensure that the WTO can continue to deliver quality 
services in this crucial area?  (Slovak Republic) WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 103 - 
 
   
A: I will answer your question in reverse or der. Regarding more resources for strengthening 
the WTO dispute settlement system, it is very import ant, but I do not know whether it is going to 
be an easy task even as a new DG. But we have to discuss within the WTO system, in the 
membership, especially the Dispute Settlement Body members. But about the increased number of 
disputes in the WTO I mentioned in my presentation, it could be interpreted in both ways. Maybe we are worrying because the world economy is not doing very well, so maybe disputes are coming 
more and more. So we can see in that direction. Or we can say that the numbers themselves are 
increasing slightly, they have not increased outrageously, but are increasing. That means maybe we have some confidence among ourselves, in  the all membership, in the dispute settlement 
function of the WTO. So we can interpret it in both ways. But one thing which worries me is this: 
we do not have any clear kind of rule. I am talking about the gut feeling, that we have disputes on 
certain issues where WTO does not have even existing agreements, does not have clear criteria or base. Then, maybe we can produce some kind of case law, which may affect the disputes which 
are coming later and we could distort the final results of some kind of cases. So I think, for that 
matter, we have to also discuss effectively throug h the Doha Round negotiations, because this is 
one of the issues we have to tackle through the negotiation. 
 
Q: Do you agree with the perception that sm all economies, such as those in CARICOM, 
have lost their policy space under the WTO rules? (Trinidad and Tobago) 
 
A: You are referring maybe to small and vulnerable economies or just small Member 
economies? Anyway, the policy space could be interpreted in many different ways. If you have, for example, tariff negotiations, your country was a developing country, so your bound tariffs are very 
high, so through the series of multilateral negotiations, it came down, but still your applied rate is 
lower than your bound rate. Then maybe you can consider this as policy space. This is how I interpret it. Not only for small countries, but it can also apply to big emerging developing 
countries, too. I think that for this kind of cases, we do not have any specific rule yet, so we have 
to discuss, hold negotiations. But for the small kind of developing country case, then we are willing to address the specific concerns of those countries in the specific negotiation area. But we cannot, generally speaking, divide or create more sub- groups by clear definition among developing 
countries. So, maybe we should pay attention to specific concerns of some specific Members. I 
think we can still do that through negotiations.  
Q: For three days now we have listened to a certain extent to a similar to-do list. 
Therefore, I am interested in hearing from you your "not-to-do list" if you become the 
next DG. In other words, what are the things that you will make sure you will not do as 
a DG that others might do?  (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) 
 A: The DG is a person who sits by the driver's seat, rather than in the back seat. But he should be a very friendly, honest and trustworthy person to talk to the driver. So, all other things which 
are not applying to that kind of case, I should not do. In other words, as a DG you want to 
influence some Members to lead to certain direction; that I should not do. We all make a decision in consultation with the Members. However, you can play some facilitating or coordinating roles so 
that we can come up with a more positive futuristic kind of outcome. I mean that I should pay 
some attention, but it is not easy to do that unless you gain some trust from Members.  
Q: Despite the answer that you have just given a few seconds ag o, there are Members 
who suggest new ways to move out of the Do ha Round deadlock. We have plurilateral or 
sectoral approaches that move away from the Single Undertaking principle. What is your 
opinion on the impact of such proposals on the multilateral trading system? Because it 
would seem that they would create a WTO à la carte . (Ecuador) 
 A: It also depends upon the views you have towa rd this kind of development or discussions. As 
I said before, I would like to see these kinds of other developments, sectoral or plurilateral kind of 
developments. There is some interest of certain countries, I know that, but we have to accept that these are also creative and intermediate ways to complement, in the long-run, the DDA kind of 
agreement. In other words, this kind of de velopment or discussion can move the current 
negotiation in a more balanced way, so that we can finally reach the Single Undertaking. So I want to emphasize this. No matter what happens at the Bali Conference, we should work all-out to complete the current Single Undertaking mandate,  and then we think about something else. So, I 
think in that context, the Bali Ministerial is very important because of what kind of package we are WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 104 - 
 
  having. I think we should have some meaningful package; then we can actually gain, first of all, 
the economic benefits. I think we have to talk abou t this, otherwise, there is no reason why we are 
doing this. Also by doing so, we can gain and will restore some confidence among ourselves and within the Secretariat, and then we can also restore some credibility for the WTO to the outside 
world, so that we can show them that we can do something. In that case, we can actually try to 
think about the roadmap for the remaining agenda of the DDA. I think that it is very important to finish the Doha Development Round of negotiations as it is. But those kinds of sectoral or 
plurilateral discussions should be consistent with the mandate, otherwise is outside the mandate, it 
should help the progress made toward final destination of the DDA negotiations. That is how I see it.  
Q: Following up to this last answer, I would like to ask you what you think of the 
negative possibility of the Bali Conference. Sh ould we fail at MC9 in our objective of 
delivering a set of DDA issues, despite our best  efforts, what would you consider critical 
to mitigate the potential negative fallout, and how would you try to ensure the 
continued relevance of the multilateral trading system?  (Italy) 
 
A: Before I came to Geneva, I just stopped by one day to attend the trade ministers meeting. 
Many people agree that the failure at MC9 is not our option. This is how we committed to work toward the success of MC9. But if we cannot deliver  anything through MC9, then what will happen? 
We can think about many things. But I think this time we may have a much clearer idea of where 
we are. Even though we cannot deliver somethin g in December, we may move towards a certain 
direction for the successful package. The only thing is the timing is not right, because we may need more time. At least we have to have that ki nd of situation, rather than a complete fail, and 
then the WTO will be drifting in the future. In that case, how can you do, how can you treat, how 
can you cure, how can you revive your spirit or the energy in the Geneva community towards that kind of situation? I do not want to see the comp lete failure of MC9. I really want to see some 
progress in the few months from now on and then we can deliver something. So we will have a 
much clearer idea of what will be going on near August and near December here in Geneva. So I hope that, even though, in the worst case, we cannot meet the MC9 deadline, we can wrap up in a few months up to MC9. I think that is the way we should discuss with you. So, I do not see any 
chance of totally failing at MC9. 
 Q: On the subject of development, how do you think that in the WTO we could 
promote those issues of concern to landlocked  developing countries such as freedom of 
transit, the integration in regional and global  value chains, technical assistance, real and 
effective access to markets? (Paraguay) 
 
A: Global value chain, this sounds like new terminology, but the concept of value added was in the international trade textbooks for a long time. But simply at that time, we want to use value added as a kind of measurement of how much you protect domestic production factor. So, nominal 
tariff does not represent the actual rate of protecting your domestic factors. But now we are using 
it more positively. In other words, to make any goods, you have to go through many different processes, including goods, intermediate goods and parts, and also services, transportation, all 
this kind of things. So, I think it opens up more opportunities for any kind of economy to 
participate in that kind of value chain. So, I think it is good, especially for developing countries. However, I mentioned in my presentation, there are two different aspects to help developing 
countries through international trade. First, we have to offer more market access to them. And 
second, even though we offer market access, if you cannot have the capability to supply things for exports, then you are constrained. So, for these two aspects, WTO can participate in helping developing countries. So, I want to emphasize once more that, as far as trade is concerned, Aid-
for-Trade, a very nice kind of programme, is there. I do not know how effective it is, but the 
programme is there, and what we want to do is to make this programme focus on those kinds of areas for developing countries, so that we can have much better results. In that context, I 
mentioned that maybe in your domestic economy of donor country, trade ministries and finance 
ministries are different. Maybe the finance ministry is in charge of giving donations to other countries. Maybe they are dealing with Aid-for-Trad e in a general aspect. But we have to talk to 
each other, trade ministry and finance ministry, so that we can use the money more efficiently. 
That is one context. The other one is, more externally, WTO should strengthen its relationship with multilateral development agencies like the World Bank. The World Bank is covering the huge programme of Aid-for-Trade. So, maybe if we have a more globally coherent kind of programme, WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 105 - 
 
  which is focusing on using Aid-for-Trade programmes, focusing on relaxing or improving the 
supply side constraints of developing countries, then maybe we can achieve some objectives.  Q: In your statement, you identified among the four challenges facing the WTO the 
need for the WTO to evolve and to address 21
st century issues. How do you reconcile this 
position with the fact that, today, there are still many 20th century development issues 
carried over from Uruguay and which we ar e still trying to be resolved in the Doha 
Round?  (Philippines) 
 A: You are quite right. We are still struggling with the 20
th century trade issues without having 
final solutions or progress. But the world is progressing while we are dealing with this kind of 
negotiations. So I am not saying that we just simply go to address these new 21st century issues 
as of now. But, if we achieve some kind of meaningful progress, then at the same time, we open some window in parallel to address this kind of issues, so that we, as the international governance 
body in the field of trade, should make some discussions in those areas. So, I just want to say that 
we should not just sit there without doing anything and only preoccupied with trade negotiations. We have to make progress. If that is guaranteed or that is observed, then maybe we can open up 
another avenue to address this kind of new issues. And the decision of whether WTO should work 
more closely or in a more systematic manner, it all should be discussed with the Members.  Q: We have been negotiating the DDA for over a decade, and we are all committed to 
a conclusion. However, how long do you thin k we can continue without success before a 
complete loss of interest an d relevance? Would a time come to make an ultimate 
decision?  (Saint Lucia) 
 
A: A very important question, but I cannot give you any specific answer in terms of timing and years. We are in a very critical juncture, almost  at a crossroad, regarding the WTO, because some 
people say we are forgetting ab out the WTO. Some business people say that they are moving far 
ahead of the WTO negotiations in their own businesses. So, we have to think about this in a sequential way. That is why I really underscore th e importance of the Bali Ministerial. If we can 
make some progress by delivering some kind of package, it should be balanced and should be 
reflecting, as much as possible, Members' interest; a nicely balanced kind of result. From then on, 
we can say that we evaluate the remaining agenda of the DDA. Our ultimate goal is to finish everything, but it depends on the outcomes we can achieve through Bali, and then we can think 
about the roadmap from then. So, if we have a bi g package at the Bali Ministerial, then maybe we 
can think about wrapping up in several years or something; or we can still have to wait some more without a definite idea of when we can finish, but we can go ahead and do another instalment, just 
like the Bali Ministerial. So, I think we have to discuss among ourselves what to do from Bali, but 
we  have  to s e e  firs t wha t kind  of out c ome  we  c an d e live r b y De c e mb e r this  ye ar. T h is  is  ve ry important to start.  
Q: OECD and WTO have produced new trade da ta on value added trade. How could, in 
your view, these findings change the work in WTO?  (Switzerland) 
 
A: I attended the G20 Trade Ministers' meeting in Mexico. And at the time, the OECD and WTO 
jointly announced that this kind of work was being done. I think the idea is very good. But to get some credibility out of this kind of study, I think we have to work a little more. In other words, you 
have to include more countries. Of course, central banks are involved by providing input/output 
table, things like that. Korea is also involved. But to give an example of certain things which may show you many different segments of the value chain is very usef ul to understand what is going 
on in the world economy. But to use this kind of statistical base for the purpose of our 
negotiations, I think we should do a little more. But I think this is a fascinating job. So, we have to 
wait a little more, how this kind of study can be deepened.  
Q: My question follows the question put by the Ambassador of the Philippines with 
respect to the 20
th century and 21st century issues. Do you feel that the WTO can 
continue with the process of trade liberaliz ation, excluding the reforms in agriculture 
and ignoring the Hong Kong commitment to eliminate agricultural export subsidies?  
(Uruguay)  A: You ask a very difficult question. This is the issue we have to solve through the negotiations. 
I attended the Uruguay Round negotiations from late 1980s until early 1990s. I came to this place WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 106 - 
 
  very often. At that time, the issues were very comp licated also. But if I learnt what is going on in 
the DDA negotiation, if you look at the subjects, there are very different positions among different 
countries. That is why we are taking too much ti me until we resolve anything. If you ask whether 
we can further liberalize trade in other areas while we cannot resolve anything on agricultural 
issues, I think it is not really plausible. We have to discuss this within the context of the DDA 
negotiations. Until then, we cannot see any other direction because things are now being discussed and negotiated at this moment. But hopefu lly we can make some kind of compromise by 
concessions made by every Member participating in these Doha Round negotiations. 
 Q: As DG, what would be the priority that you would give to food security and what 
types of appropriate mechanisms would you envisage in order to facilitate access to 
food during difficult periods?  (Haiti) 
 A: I do not know whether you are referring to a specific negotiation issue which is now on the 
table on food security. For that, I do not have any specific ideas and it is not appropriate to touch 
upon these issues. But food security in general is an important topic we have to address. So, to be 
very frank, Korea, the country I am representing, is not producing enough food, so we have to be 
concerned about this. But for these general issues, I think we have to open up our discussions as a 
new issue among Members. So, I am very sorry not to give you any specific opinion beyond this.  Q: Do you think that the transparency in notification obligations concerning trade 
measures needs to be strengthened, and how could this be done? (Croatia) 
 A: I think the transparency in notification oblig ation should be strengthened. For example, after 
the financial crisis in 2008, WTO and other organizations were very effective in monitoring the 
newly introduced trade restrictive measures, and we can see the rough idea of what is going on in terms of protectionism. But simply the numbers of newly introduced measures are not giving us a 
correct evaluation. In other words, we do not need any judgement call: which country is doing 
which, or the thing they are doing is wrong. But we want to do a little more impact analysis, so that we can actually have a clear assessment of the current world trading system in the context of increasing or staying or reducing protectionism. So, I think in that context, we have to increase or 
strengthen some of the roles that the WTO can play through a trade policy review process or the 
Committee on Trade and Development, I do not know which department should be tackling this, but I think we have some room for improvement. 
 
Q: S&D treatments have traditionally b een defined in transition periods and 
exemptions. Do you think that S&D could be  provided in other ways to developing 
countries? (Jamaica) 
 A: Traditionally we have mechanism how to apply S&D from the point of implementation obligation so that we will give some flexibility to  them and, on the other hand, we have to give 
some special preferential access to the importing countries for the developing country. Basically, 
these are the two kind of principle we are following through the S&D mechanism. But to develop a new idea about offering additional favours or treatment, I think we have to discuss about this. I do 
not think we have to change the basic fundamenta l principle regarding S&D, but in that category, 
we can certainly open up some discussion regarding Members' concerns in specific negotiation area. But it all has to be decided by Members through negotiations. 
 
Q: What can WTO do for countries with econ omies in transition, given the fact that 
the WTO has no specific provisions for such  cases, since they are neither developing 
countries nor LDCs?  (Ukraine) 
 
A: Certainly you are saying that the countries in transition should belong to a developing country category. Maybe there are some exceptions, but generally speaking, I see that as the 
case. It depends on how much market economy system you introduce in your own economy 
during the transitional period. But basically spea king, I think through these DDA negotiations we 
realize that we have potentially some specific groups under the heading of developing countries: 
small and vulnerable economies, recently acceded Members, and the economies in transition. But I 
said at the outset, it is very difficult to define, based on certain clear criteria, which country belongs where. So, instead of spending much ener gy, I think we should listen to the specific 
concerns of the economies in their negotiation area . If Members agree to treat the case a little bit 
differently, then maybe you can agree. But I do not think the WTO as Organization is to produce WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 107 - 
 
  different classification or sub-groups among de veloping country. Maybe it is not the perfect 
situation, but this is the kind of maximum we can do at the moment.  Q: If you were to become Director-Gen eral, given the increased number of WTO 
Members in recent years, what is your view  with respect to governance within the WTO 
and, on that basis, what would be your  strategy as the Chairman of the TNC? (Honduras) 
 
A: More Members means that our Organization has more legitimacy and that we also represent 
universal participation as a global governance or ganization. So, we welcome this. Some people say 
that because of the increased number of Members, it is hard to make any decision. I do not think that way. We have more diverse Members, which means that we have a more dynamic kind of 
organization. The thing is, if you have more Members, I think transparency is very important. For 
the last many years, this kind of situation has been very much improved. But still we want to see how this works effectively. Especially, we can have some meetings by inviting the representatives 
of each potential group, so that in that kind of context we increase our transparency. They are 
using the word "concentric circle", but this kind of the other way around of transparency, should 
be also improved. I just want to say that at this moment. 
 
 3. Summing up by the Candidate
14 
I thank you very much, Madam Chair, and all the Members for today's opportunity to share my 
views with you for the future of the WTO and the multilateral trading system. It is a great honour 
for me to be part of this DG selection process. We need to go back to basics. We need to resurrect the good faith, mutually trusting Geneva culture. Through today's presentation, I have 
underscored the importance of open dialogue at a ll levels and among all stakeholders to overcome 
the present impasse. Trust among us will then follow. I have underscored the importance of MC9 this December in restoring the global confidence in the multilateral trading system. With the 
success at MC9, we will then move forward to face the bigger challenge: to bring the DDA 
negotiations to a close. I strongly believe that we can still have a chance and the ability to get there. Throughout my professional career, I have  developed diverse experience in the field of 
trade. I have looked into trade from many differ ent angles of the full range of stakeholders. Trade 
and development has been the lifetime theme of my  research and practice. I do not claim that I 
have a magic formula to address the difficult questions we are now facing. But now you have a better glimpse of what my leadership at the WTO Secretariat would look like for the next four 
years. Let's meet and brainstorm together. We will find a solution together. There will be no 
finger-pointing and blaming, only constructive discussions can guide us to final exit. Again, I thank you very much for the time and opportunity today. 
                                               
14 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meetin g communicated by the Chai r to all delegations on 
15 and 18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five 
minutes of the question-and-answer period if he or she so wished. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 108 - 
 
  ANNEX I 
Meeting with Mr Roberto Carv alho de Azevêdo (Brazil) 
1. Presentation by the Candidate All of you know me as the Brazilian ambassador to the WTO. Some of you know me since the days 
when I was a first-secretary posted at the Brazilian Mission here in the late 90’s, and all the way to 
vice-minister for trade and economic issues, coordinator of the G-20, chief-negotiator for Brazil in the Doha Round. I arrived in Geneva when the WT O was only two years old; and frankly I never 
left. Even when posted in Brasilia, most of my time was spent here in Geneva, negotiating in the 
WTO.  Throughout all these years and in all those instances, whenever I was in this building, I was here 
as a representative of my country. You all saw me defending the interests of Brazil.  
 This is the first time that, in this building, I will be sharing with you my personal vision of this 
Organisation, my thoughts about the multilateral trading system, my assessment of where we are 
today, and the path forward.  
So, let me start with my views on trade. 
 I firmly believe that trade is an integral and in dispensable element for growth and development of 
any economy. The ability to compete in global markets is a reliable indicator of the sustainability of 
any economic model. On the other hand, trade cannot be a goal in itself. It must happen in a way 
that improves living conditions of  families in the real world.  
 
As to the WTO, it is my view that a DG must truly believe in the principles that guide this 
institution. The preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement states that WTO members will negotiate mutually advantageous agreements that reduce tariffs and other barriers to trade. I do believe in 
this. 
 The preamble also maintains that our work must aim at raising standards of living and ensuring 
full employment. I also believe in this. 
 
Finally, the preamble stresses that we need to ensure that developing countries, especially the smallest, must secure a share of international trade commensurate with their needs. You know I 
do believe in this. 
 I also believe that the work of this Organisation is most important in uncertain times, like today. 
The WTO disciplines are the best defence we have against protectionism and against the actions 
that aggravate the situation of the poorest and mo st vulnerable economies. What we do in the 
WTO has a direct impact on the quality of millions of lives around the globe. But remember, what we don’t do, also affects them. 
 
We know quite well the three-pillars of the Organisation. The first one monitors the implementation of existing Agreements in the appropriate subsidiary bodies. It works well, 
although it could be improved, especially in the area of notification procedures. 
 The second pillar covers the dispute settlement mechanism. And this is an area that I know 
deeply. I was a direct participant, also serving on and chairing panels. It is, however, extremely 
complex and costly to participate in it. We must find ways to make the mechanism work also for the poorest countries. The Organisation can help with actions from within, but also facilitating arrangements outside its walls in the areas of assistance and training for example.  
 
The third pillar is the one that allows for the ev olution of the system, developing new rules and 
agreements, usually by means of multilateral rounds of negotiations. This is the pillar that 
concerns me most, for it has been effectively paralysed since the WTO was created in 1995. We 
are approaching two full decades of stagnation on  the negotiating front. The system must be 
updated or it will soon become incapable of de aling with the demands of today’s changed world. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 109 - 
 
  We hear many analysts express concern with the proliferation of negotiations of regional 
agreements, free trade areas, or plurilateral under standings. Whatever the reasons behind these 
initiatives, I firmly believe that the countries entering those initiatives would gladly negotiate a much broader and more encompassing multilateral deal. What we must do is ensure that the 
multilateral trading system remains the main tool for trade liberalisation.  
 It is true that we are now attempting to harvest, at the Bali ministerial, some outcomes in selected 
areas of the DDA, including priority development issues, trade facilitation, and some agricultural 
deliverables. This is a critical effort, but the multilateral system needs more than this to remain relevant and credible.   
Then why have we stopped trying to solve the deadlocked issues? And I would suggest two major 
reasons.  
First, the negotiating gaps will remain unbridgeab le if we keep looking at them from the same 
perspective.  
Second, we lack trust. One side does not believe that the other side truly wants to find a solution, 
and vice-versa of course.   So, under these circumstances, the obvious question is surely: where do we go from here? 
 
I see at least three areas that we need to work on.  
First and foremost we must try to achieve a successful negotiated outcome for Bali. Besides the 
very tangible material gains, that success would boost our confidence that we can still talk to each other and that we can do it in a constructive and productive way. 
 
Second, we all need to believe that any Bali outc omes will not be the end of the road. A post-Bali 
process could include DDA and non-DDA elements bu t, whatever the roadmap, it must prioritise 
the issues of interest of the poorest countries.  
 
Finally, we must resume our efforts to breathe life into the Round – and this must happen immediately after Bali. We all know that the WTO is bigger than the DDA, but the reality is that the 
system will remain clogged unless we can find a way to unlock the Round. I would suggest that, 
for a change, we stop avoiding th e most difficult and intractable issues. Above all, we cannot throw 
away the development agenda that was strenuously negotiated to ensure delivery to the poorest 
and most vulnerable members of this Organisation. We can’t turn the page and leave them behind. 
 Most, if not all of you, must be wondering now how I could possibly believe that this is now doable given our track record over the past several years, especially with the lingering effects of the 2008 
international financial crisis. In fact, I do believe that the time is right for a number of reasons. 
 I would start with the fact that we have had enough time to convince ourselves that no one is 
going to change his mind – certainly not anytime soon – about how they see what is on the table 
in the DDA. We have to deal with the gaps, as they exist.  
Furthermore, global conditions will never be perfect for negotiations. When world economic growth 
is strong, some argue that there is no real incent ive to negotiate. When growth is poor, the theory 
is that members will be less inclined to open their markets.  
We cannot wait for all stars to perfectly align in a negotiation that involves over 150 parties. 
Countries will always be in different economic cycles.   
In short, we must work with what we have and I ho nestly that think this is doable. I’ve had private 
and quiet conversations both with Ambassadors here in Geneva, and elsewhere with trade ministers (in Davos just last week) and with other high-level decision makers. It is evident to me 
that they all wish we could revive the Round. And this is not a minor element. 
 This is one of the areas where I’m certain I’ll be a good fit if you trust me with the DG position.   WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 110 - 
 
  Do I have a ready answer on how to unlock the talks? No, I don’t. But most of the times when I 
helped unlock negotiations I didn’t have a pre-conceived solution either.  When a stalemate exists I not only listen carefull y to what all delegations are saying, I also think 
about the motivations driving them, about previous positions they adopted in similar situations or 
similar topics, about their sensitivities, and even  about the characteristics of their negotiators. 
Often a very subtle thread of commonality can be detected if you know the history and the details 
of the negotiation. Then it is a matter of bein g creative and of having the trust of the other 
negotiators. They must truly believe that you are seeking a viable and balanced solution. At this 
point, solutions that were not there at the beginning of the talks suddenly become promising avenues and frequently lead us to a satisfactory solution to all. 
 
Given our circumstances, I don’t believe we have the time to train the next DG on the job. Come September, your DG will have to hit the ground running; and running fast and with the ability to 
engage all of you in this enterprise. 
 I believe my credentials allow me to be optimistic in my belief that I can help you. Over these last 
16 years, I have not only consolidated the technical expertise that any DG should have, I have 
also developed a network that goes from ground  level negotiators all the way up the political 
decision making ladder. At all these levels, in full trust, I have open-minded, constructive, and insightful interactions with a view to finding room for consensus. 
 
I have always used these skills to comply with my instructions and to achieve the negotiating objectives set out for me by my government and my  constituencies in Brazil. I believe these skills 
served them well. As DG, I would put these skills at your service, to achieve the goals you set out 
for me.  
Let me now turn briefly to the fact that the Director General is the chief manager of the 
Organisation and that this aspect of his work also involves significant challenges.  The incoming DG will have to keep and, wherever possible, improve the high-level of quality of the 
staff, always rewarding merit and competence. At the same time, we cannot overlook the fact that 
this is an intergovernmental organisation, where members must shape its structure and culture. In this context, geographical representation is a ke y component. I will look into gradual ways of 
making the composition of the Secretariat reflective of the membership in terms of both nationality 
and gender, always in keeping with two over arching principles of excellence and cost-
effectiveness.  
 
For the benefit of all, including the staff personnel, the DG must insist on full disclosure, so that members have access to any information they require regarding the management and the administration of the Organisation. 
 
The Organisation must help with the development of human resources and technical capacity in members that need such assistance. Aid for Trade must be enhanced, in particular where LDCs are 
concerned. And in this context, we should strive to increase the number of initiatives under the 
Enhanced Integrated Framework.  
In concluding, Madam Chair, most of you know me very well.  In fact, I am proud to say that my 
candidacy was not born in my head. It was not born in Brasilia either. It was born right here in Geneva, when other negotiators felt that I could help this Organisation as Director General and 
insisted that I accept the challenge. I was honoured by this encouragement that actually came 
from all sides of the negotiating table. All this weighed heavily on the decision in Brasilia to launch 
my candidacy.   
If you trust me with the honour to be your next DG, I will use my experience and skills in a 
constant pursuit to reconcile what seems to be  irreconcilable, with fairness, independence, 
transparency, bearing in mind that this is a member-driven Organisation, where all members, 
including the smallest, must be part of the driving force. 
   WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 111 - 
 
  2. Questions and Answers 
Q: Having been a career diplomat and a long-time negotiator, and coming from a 
major emerging economy with strong positi ons in many DDA issues in agriculture, 
services and NAMA, what would your approach  be in serving the en tire Membership as 
Director-General?  (Philippines) 
 A: I think this is a challenge; not for me, this is a challenge for any DG. Anybody who sits here 
has a background, has in other capacities worn other hats. You wear different hats all the time. I 
think the point I am trying to make is: when I sit here, I will be absolutely sure that I am no longer representing Brazil. If I sit on this chair – and when I sit on this chair if you trust me with that position – I will be representing you. The only thing that I would hope is that I would do it in a 
way that would be reflective of all the interests of all the Members around this room. The fact that 
I have been a negotiator for so long, I think helps me with that because I have talked to each one of you before. Sometimes you see a new Ambassado r coming here and sometimes I know what he 
is going to say even before he says it, because I probably know his instructions. I have seen his 
predecessors defending their positions so quickly, so  forcefully, that I know what they think, even 
before they know what they think. But that's the re ality. And I hope that I can use that to help the 
m e m b e r s h i p  t o  m o v e  f o r w a r d ,  t o  m o v e  e x p e d i t i o u s l y ,  a s  q u i c k l y  a s  w e  c a n ,  a s  a  c a t a l y s t ;  n o t  
showing necessarily the way and saying "this is what you have to do and that's what you have to do", but listening and helping you go where you want to go. So, I honestly do not see that as a problem; on the contrary. 
 
Q: I would like to raise the issue of spec ial and differential treatment. Special and 
differential treatment for developing count ries is a key principle of the Doha 
negotiations. Some WTO Member s grew fast during the last decade and improved the 
competitiveness of their economy substantia lly. How do you believe these changes in 
the international landscape should be  reflected in the DDA negotiations?  (Germany) 
 
A: Of course, S&D is a big part of the DDA negotiations and it has been negotiated intensely, or was being negotiated intensely by all of you, until we got stuck. But I think that no-one can deny that the world has changed, and that countries which were at a certain level of development all of 
a sudden have changed and now they are at a level which is much higher, others the same, others 
lower. These things move. And I do not think we can avoid a discussion that some countries can and will certainly do more in terms of negotiations than others will. I do not think that anybody 
expects in negotiations that in the category of developing countries everyone fits there in the same 
way and that everybody contributes in the same way. I remember when, back a couple of years 
ago maybe, we were negotiating the sectorals. We were talking about sectorals that time in NAMA, 
which is a very critical part of this component, and we were not, at that point in time, expecting 
everyone to make the same effort. I do not think anybody did. Even the countries that were sitting 
there, even the emerging economies that were sitting there, were not expecting to make the same effort that everybody else was going to. The question is not how do you uniformly decide what is 
the effort that everybody's going to do. If you real ly want to unlock negotiations, if you really want 
to go forward, what you have to do is: what is that each one of them can do? That is my concern when you try to do something which is absolutely horizontal. It is helpful. And most of the times 
our disciplines begin with an absolutely horizontal approach. It is impossible to do otherwise. We 
have 158-9 Members now. So, we can't have an ab solute perfect uniform approach. You have to, 
during negotiations, recognize that Members will have to make different efforts, depending on 
their capacity. The question is: how do we ensure that we are not raising the ambition to a point 
where Members cannot meet it? How do you ensure that everyone is really doing the best they 
can? That they are not, on the one hand, having free-riders and, on the other hand, that you are not having people who are being asked to do the politically impossible? So I think we have to be 
pragmatic about this. I think if we try to begin to design boxes – this box fits these countries, that 
box fits those countries, that other box fits those other countries – it's going to be impossible, and frankly, in my view, unproductive. 
 
Q: I thought I heard you say that there we re two main reasons why the DDA was at 
an impasse. One was lack of trust and one was what I would put as "new thinking" or 
"lateral thinking", approaching issues from different perspectives, is I think what you 
said. And then you elaborated slightly on your approach at detecting threads. But I 
wonder if you could elaborate a bit more  what you meant by, if I understood you WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 112 - 
 
  correctly, approaching issues from different  perspectives to try and get solutions?  (Hong 
Kong, China)  A: If I am honest with you, any answer I give here will kill me. If I say that we are talking 
about new benchmarks, people will say "he is talking about the modalities, he is going to kill the 
modalities". If I say about different structures, they are going to say "the mandate, he is killing the mandate". I do not know what those new perspectives will be, but there will have to be new 
perspectives. I do not think anyb ody here believes that we can si t down today with what we had 
on the table before and say "alright, now things have changed so much that we now can do it". No, it is not going to happen. It is as simple as that. I do not think at the minimum that the mandates can be changed. Politically, I do not think it is do-able. I think the basic mandate cannot 
be changed. However, there is a lot of room for work within the mandate. How we look at this 
problem, what other perspectives we can put to it would depend largely on you. Not on me. On you. The best that I can do is listen to you, as I said during my presentation, and see whether in 
these conversations I can detect a little bit of something that seems to be common to all of your 
perspectives. The basic thing, from what I have seen so far, is that this Round is only going to be concluded if we ask people to contribute to the ex tent that they can. Nobody is going to make an 
effort which is politically impossible for the good of  the Organization. We all love this Organization, 
I love it, but countries are not going to give up political positions which are really entrenched domestically for the greater good of the Organization or for the greater good of trade. It is not going to happen. So we have to be realistic. Did we, at some point in time, cross the line? Did we, 
at some point in time, begin to ask for things which are really impossible? We have to ask that 
question. I do not know what the answer is. Mayb e not. Maybe we were playing games; I doubt it. 
But we have to ask those questions. And each one of you will probably have a different answer for 
those questions. For a long time we have been avoiding discussions about market access. I think, 
honestly, there are two ways. Either we look at th em seriously and see what it is that we can do. 
Are there different ways of perceiving this, looking at it, or not? If you do not start by asking this 
question, then all talk that you have been having about reviving the Round and concluding the 
Round is just talk; nothing more than talk. So, if you want to do it, if you really are serious about this, you have to sit down and have this conversation.  
Q: As one of the key words of this Organiza tion is "no surprise", I would put the same 
question to you as I put it to the other cand idates, what do you feel WTO's place should 
be within the structure of world governance, and more particularly interactions between 
the WTO and the G-20 and international organizations such as FAO, ILO, WHO, UNEP and 
UNCTAD?  (France) 
 
A: I think that one element that your question po ses is what is the WTO? What is the role of 
the WTO? The WTO is you. It is not the Director-General. So, how do you want to work with these other organizations? As far as, for example, the Bretton Woods institutions are concerned, I think that, almost by constitution, the WTO is part of it. It was supposed to be the ITO, the International 
Trade Organization. It did not materialize and you had the GATT and now you have the WTO. So, I 
think, not only institutionally, you are supposed to be  part of that triad. In terms of substance, for 
example, what we do here is closely linked to things that happen in the IMF and the World Bank. 
So, I think this dialogue has to happen. Clearly, it has to happen at the level of the Director-
General, but it should also happen at the level of the Secretariat. I think the Secretariat has to be there, has to be listening. In many of the meetings we have here in the WTO, more than once I 
have seen situations when delegations say "but what is it that is happening in the World Bank? 
What are people talking there?" And it would be us eful for the Secretariat and the Organization to 
know, at least, what is happening there. The Brazilian Ambassador to the UN is a very close friend of mine and every once in a while we will have a conversation about what is going on. And I know 
that the WTO sits there. The Secretariat is there and is listening. And there are a number of issues 
that we discuss here which have repercussions there as well. That is clearly the case for example of the WHO: medicines and standards of medicine s and safety, intellectual property issues in 
terms of medicines. In WIPO, we have things that we were talking here in the Round, for example, 
traditional knowledge, biopiracy, prior informed consent, benefit sharing, all these things are being discussed in WIPO as well. I can't possibly conceive the WTO to be absent from those discussions. 
For example, UNCTAD is one that I think the WTO could have a closer relationship with in the area, 
for example, of technical co-operation. I think UNCTAD is much better equipped for technical cooperation issues than the WTO for the way it has evolved to begin with. But it does not mean that the WTO can't, together with UNCTAD, figure out ways to help countries that need technical 
co-operation or technical assistance, with expertise and maybe then with other areas of the WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 113 - 
 
  programme that is more amenable to the activities that UNCTAD is ready to develop. So, I think it 
is critical that the WTO is clearly involved; not dictating, not participating actively necessarily, but certainly at the minimum listening and getting information about what is going on in all these other organizations. 
 
Q: We all know you are a gifted diplomat here in Geneva, but, considering that the 
WTO Director-General needs to have the capa city to operate at a political level while 
mastering the technical details of on-going nego tiations in order to facilitate the forging 
of compromises, how would you rate your capaci ty to operate in both of these functions, 
the political and the technical one?  (Netherlands) 
 
A: I can't possibly imagine a DG that will be useful to you, particularly in the circumstances 
that we live now, that can't operate on the two levels. He has to operate on both levels. If he operates only at the political level, he is not going to help you, I guarantee you that. If he 
operates only at the technical level, he is not going to help you, either. I myself have been doing 
this for quite a while, as you all know. I was chief negotiator for a number of years for Brazil, including here. You know that at the technical level I am very hands-on. I know the issues. I study 
the issues. So, I do not think that would be a problem. At the political level, I have done or 
created a network which is absolutely critical if you want to operate at that level. For example, even domestically I had to talk to leaders of the private sector, I had to talk with coordinating agencies, other ministers, not only my minist er but the other ministers in my Government. 
Outside, during negotiations, often I have been ta lking to ministers themselves, ministers of trade, 
other ministers of other issues. Just last week, I think in less than 24 hours I talked to eight ministers, and it was not in a gathering, it was bilateral meetings. I do not know about other 
Ambassadors, but I do not feel that I am talking to any being from outer space; it is essentially 
another negotiator. And some of them I have known for a long time, because these people they c o m e  a n d  t h e y  g o ,  a n d  t h e y  c o m e  b a c k  a g a i n ,  a n d  m a n y  o f  t h e m  w e  k n o w  f r o m  p r e v i o u s  
incarnations in the trade life that we have lived. So I do not think honestly that I would have any 
difficulty whatsoever in operating at either of those levels, and, in that sense, if I did not feel that I 
could do that, I would not be here, I guarantee you that. I would not be even asking you to support me to be the next DG. 
 
Q: Several wider issues related to trade are not part of the Doha Round negotiations, for example, trade and investment, trade and competition policy, transparency in 
government procurement, energy raw material s and food security. But these issues are 
becoming increasingly relevant to traders worldwide. How and when do you believe the 
WTO should engage or re-engage on these issues?  (Poland) 
 
A: The easy answer would be: whenever you, Me mbers, are ready. It is you who decide when 
the WTO is ready to talk about these issues. Not to get away from the question, I would try to give you my personal perception about this. We have been negotiating the Doha Round for almost 12 
years. I do not think we can stop the presses, I do not think we can stop the machine altogether. 
The WTO is an organization that can contribute in many different levels to update the agenda of the multilateral trading system to the realities and demands of the world. And the world changes, 
it doesn't take sometimes five years to notice very significant changes. We are talking about at 
least 20 years without negotiations. So, the world has changed significantly in the last 20 years. Some of those issues are much more pressing now than they were when we started this. Being a 
little bit technical, if I am not mistaken, right after Cancún, when there was the breakdown in 
negotiations there, those three Singapore issues – trade and investment, competition policy and transparency in government procurement – were brought to the General Council. I think there was a decision in the General Council talking about that. Those three issues, they are different from the 
others, because there is a decision from the General Council that mentions, if I am not mistaken, 
about no negotiations on those issues while the Round is going on. People at that time did not know the Round was going to take so long. But clearly there is a decision there. It is a decision of 
the General Council. It is a very important decision, I think. You are the General Council. If you 
feel that that has changed and that we need a new approach, we can do that. But if I am not mistaken, that decision mentions only negotiations, it does not mention anything else. It does not 
mention conversations, exchange of views. The inte rpretation is up to you of what the decision 
means. So, in my view, that differentiates those three issues from the others. I do not think that the WTO should close its doors to any issue that Members want to discuss. At the end of the day, i t  w i l l  b e  y o u ,  t h e  M e m b e r s ,  t h a t ,  b y  c o n s e n s u s, will decide whether you want to discuss any 
particular issue. So, at the end of the day, yo u will decide which issues can be discussed. The WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 114 - 
 
  problem is: how do you discuss? Where do you discu ss? Some of those issues, for example, do not 
have a subsidiary body that is obvious. For ex ample, where are we going to discuss energy? In 
which subsidiary body? Sometimes you don't do that, you don't have that. Sometimes you don't have even a working group to do it. So, you have to think, not only about the issue, but also how 
you are going to discuss it, under what perspective. Is  it environment? Then, is it the CTE? Is that 
the kind of thing that you will be looking at? Or is it a different kind of perspective? For example, sales of energy, services, or goods, depending on what kind of energy input you are talking about. 
So, it is a complex discussion. If I am DG, I will be absolutely open-minded about issues that 
Members want to discuss. But you will have to figure out yourselves. I will help if I am the DG to make things manageable and trying to make the conversation that you want to have happen. But you will have to decide which issues to prioritize, which issues you want to talk about. 
 
Q: For many developing countries, the prom ised gains from trade liberalization have 
not materialized. What role can the WTO play in promoting trade as a tool for 
development and delivering on the promis ed gains for small developing countries?  
(Jamaica)  
A: This question can be answered at so many different levels. Let me start with market access. 
I think one of the critical things that is of importance to many of the smaller delegations are the conditions to enter the obvious consumer markets.  In the Round, many of the smaller developing 
economies would benefit tremendously from the provisions of what we had in the DDA to begin 
with, in terms of, for example, agriculture. So me of the commodity exports would benefit from 
that significantly. Other developing economies, sm aller economies, have problems that range from 
transportation, interconnection, services, tourism, agreements. It depends significantly on what 
they do. So, I think that the rules themselves and the market access commitments, the opening 
for products which are of specific interest to those delegations, to those countries, would in itself be a very important step. I think the other element is understanding the situation of those smaller 
delegations and the challenges that those small countries face. And that goes across the board, 
not only in terms of national interest, but also in terms of even participating in the multilateral trading system. The delegation that I head has about 16 diplomats most of them dealing with 
WTO. And it is not enough. If you want to really cover everything, there is so much work to be 
done. And for most of the LDCs, SVEs, their delegations are a fraction of that. And it is absolutely 
impossible that they will cover everything. And I know from experience that just going to the meetings, just listening to people, is important. You learn things, you hear other perspectives. You 
even see other countries who face the same problems that you do. And sometimes in their 
interventions you see solutions or you see things that you would like to have for yourself. So, even participating in the meetings is very important. But how do you do that when you have very small 
delegations? I think that the WTO can and should tr y to ensure a bigger participation. We have to 
try to ensure, for example, that meetings do not clash. Delegations can't be in two-three different meetings at the same time. So, we try to organize the meetings better so that they do not clash, and smaller delegations can participate when they have issues of their interest happening in three 
or four different rooms in the WTO. So, we have to be sensitive to that. The other thing that we 
can do is train people. Sometimes it is not only  a matter of not having enough people. Sometimes 
you have the space in your delegation, but you do not have people trained at home that can come 
and participate in these meetings. So, I think the WTO could help in offering ways of training 
people, so that you have, even back in capitals, people who can help the mission here, either coming to Geneva or doing the homework in their own capitals. I do not think that there is a magic 
solution for that; it is extremely difficult. But I am absolutely sure that the WTO Secretariat and 
the DG can help in that regard.  Q: We all know your qualifications, so it's very interesting to pose a question. I would 
like to take you up on what you have said in  your introduction about the regional trade 
agreements. We all try to say and live by the fa ct that they should be integrated into the 
multilateral trading framework. But all the in itiatives we see these days pose rather 
fundamental questions about the regional gr oupings. Have you any ideas or thoughts 
about how one could live with that situation in the future?  (Norway) 
 
A: I do not think you have one straightforward answer for that. I think that regional trade 
agreements, free trade areas, plurilateral initiative s, each have their own characteristics, and each 
happen at a particular point in time, and each have justifications or a logic that is explained within the region or within the substantive context that they are taking place. I think you would have to 
take a look at each one of them. For example, ther e are situations – and I saw that in my region – WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 115 - 
 
  where economies that had been closed, with a very closed model of economic development for 
several years, decades sometimes, wanted to open  up. There was a genuine attempt to open up. I 
was a very young diplomat at that time, I remember those discussions almost as a student, I said "this is a stepping stone." If we can't open to the world all of a sudden, maybe we can begin to 
open to the more regional players who have simi lar levels of competitiveness, and maybe after 
that we move on to a next step and so on and so forth. I think in that kind of process, if it is genuine, it is really helpful. However, if you are building a free trade area or a customs union or 
whatever it is, which is essentially designed to protect the markets and to raise barriers, despite 
the disciplines saying that you can't do that, but we know there is always a way of using the rules to our advantage. So, if that is the purpose, then no. Then I think that is negative. I do not think that that is helpful, because you have deviation of trade, you introduce distortions in the 
international trade flows. So, it would depend on how you do that, how you measure that. On 
market access, if you are talking about commitments which only have to do with market access, that is easier. There is obviously an element of trade deviation. But when you begin to have these 
multiple agreements with new disciplines in different areas, that is more complex, because they do 
not always have the same disciplines. They have different standards. If you are an exporter, for example, and you have to meet all those different standards, it is difficult to comply. It is costly to 
produce products that meet different standards in all those different unions and agreements. That 
is more complex. The more you get into rules-making in those agreements, the tougher it is to comply with them all if you are not in it. I sometimes see people mentioning analysts and scholars saying "what we have to do is get all these agre ements and incorporate them into the multilateral 
rules." That, in my view, would be a Herculean exercise, because, as I said, they have different 
rules. It is not like all these regional trade ag reements or free trade areas are developing very 
similar type of disciplines which can then be harmonized and it will be a benchmark. Even if it 
could be harmonized, the moment somebody tries to bring something into here, there will be 
people saying "I didn't negotiate that. I don't have any commitment with that. Why am I going to accept that?" And so the resistance begins even before they look at what is written there. So, it is 
going to be difficult. I do not think it is impossible. I just do not think we should be simplistic about 
it. So, the answer, in my view, is to make sure that the multilateral trading system negotiates, 
that it goes back into a negotiating mood. If we can have these negotiations happening here, particularly in terms of rules and disciplines, then we do not have a problem. Then it will be the 
other way around. It will be those agreements trying to comply with the multilateral disciplines. 
Now, that is much more do-able in my view than  the other way around. That's my feeling anyway. 
 
Q: Concerning the accession process, it st ill takes years for acceding countries to 
become WTO Members. What is your view on  how to improve the accession process in 
an efficient manner?  (Thailand) 
 
A: I think accessions are a problem today. I really do. I don't know, I can't tell, because I haven't participated in each one of them, but clearl y, in some cases, they take much longer than 
necessary, in my view. The question is: how do yo u expedite this? Because at the end of the day 
this is a negotiation also. This is a negotiation between the acceding Member and the existing 
Members on the conditions for accession, the kind of commitments that each one will have to undertake. And it is lengthy. It is difficult. It is sensitive. It does not take long because it is 
something unimportant. It takes long because it is sensitive. Making commitments that there will 
be no "buyer's remorse" or something like that. Once you have signed it, that's it. It is very difficult to then re-negotiate the rebinding, an d we know that because we are having some of 
those processes happening now. It is difficult to then change the conditions. So, it is very 
sensitive, it is very complex. I wish we could have a more standardized approach to this, but it would be extremely difficult to achieve that outc ome. We did have something somewhat like that 
for the LDCs and I think that was a tremendous result. The Members and delegations that worked 
on it worked hard to find something that could provide predictability for the LDCs who want to 
accede to the WTO. And I was hopeful that maybe something like that could be engineered for the other accessions. As a DG, what I would tell you is that I would hope that this Organization would 
be as representative as possible, that it would have as many Members as possible in its rooms, 
representing all types of trends, cultures, economies. And so, if I can in any way help to expedite the accession process, I would do my best to facilitate that. 
 
Q:  What do you understand as policy space within the WTO?  (Chile) 
 A: That's a question that could be answered in very many different ways. Perhaps, the simplest 
way would be to give the technically correct answer. In my view, the technically correct answer is: WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 116 - 
 
  the space that a Member has to develop public policies which are compatible with the multilateral 
disciplines, but which cover space in terms of ag reements on market access, for example, the 
bound tariff, the effectively applied tariff, and there is a space there which can be used. This happens as well in other types of disciplines where the multilateral system would be a ceiling and 
you can use everything below that ceiling in terms of the country's policies. That is the technical 
response. Some people tend to equate policy space with space for protectionism. That is the way t h a t  i t  i s  i n t e r p r e t e d .  A n d ,  a s  I  t o l d  y o u ,  technically, those two things are not the same. 
Sometimes you have disciplines which can't micro-manage everything that a country can do to 
address a particular policy, to address a particular issue. That is very common, for example, in the 
services negotiations. In services, for me, domestic regulation is policy space. Now, how do you, for example, determine what is the exact latitude of policy space if you look at the commitment 
that's undertaken on the schedule and the policies that are actually applied at home? That is the 
area of policy space that I think is less clear, less obvious and does not necessarily mean protectionism. It just means regulating a particular kind of commitment. It could be extremely 
liberal in its regulation, it could be a lot less liberal. Both very liberal and less liberal, they are both 
policy space. It is the space that is left for you in the agreement. So, I think we have to look at this. It is a word or an expression that had a very bad connotation over time, but technically, that 
is not what it means really. 
 Q: We know your career as representative  to the WTO and that you're familiar with 
the issues dealt with in this Organizati on. Looking forward, what are the main 
challenges you feel that the multilateral tr ading system is facing? And, if you were 
Director-General, what would be your vision in order to meet these challenges while at 
the same time promoting trade and development?  (Dominican Republic) 
 
A: In my presentation, I tried to somehow give to you my general views about what I believe are the main challenges for the Organization. Of the three pillars – implementation of the existing 
agreements, dispute settlement and negotiations – I would say that one of the biggest challenges, 
or the biggest challenge by far, is in the negotiating pillar. I think that there you have to make critical decisions in the future months. I do not think that you can escape that. I think that, as a DG, what I would try to do is try to revitalize the negotiating pillar because, at the end of the day, 
that is the pillar that allows the system to evolve. You can't have a stuck system. In time it will 
have to evolve. In the other pillars, dispute settlem ent, for example, I think it is critical that we 
make the system as user-friendly as possible; make sure for example that smaller delegations can 
participate and have access to that mechanism. Easier said than done. It is difficult for a country 
like Brazil – and I headed the dispute settlement unit for a while in Brazil. It is a big country. It has resources that have been dedicated as a priority for this area. And it is still very difficult 
because the economies of scale in terms of di spute settlement are not there. To have, for 
example, a law firm or an in-house dispute settlement team that operates full-time, you would have to have a number of disputes in the WTO that I do not think any of you would wish for. So, you have to rely somehow on private expertise, on the private sectors, on law firms. And they are 
very expensive. The system should change in a way that we can simplify it to the extent that 
Members then will be more easily participating in it. In the Uruguay Round, in the dispute settlement negotiations, the approach that they took was: let's do a system which is very simple, 
very straightforward, so that we keep the lawyers out. We all know how that ended up. You have 
to face it. We are not going to simplify the system. So, what you have to do is make sure that people can use it despite the way that it evolved. Now, on the other area that you mentioned, the 
development aspects of trade, I think the WTO can an d should be looking, for example, at ways to 
intellectually help smaller countries who have particular difficulties in finding a space in international markets. I remember when we started a discussion on global value chains and clearly some small countries found that that was a great way of inserting themselves into the 
international economy. But at the same time, in the same meeting, in the same room, you will see 
some other smaller delegations saying: "but I don't see any of that, none of that is happening to me. Why?" So, this discussion, for example, has to  happen. I think that the WTO Secretariat, for 
example, in touch with other international organizations who also have been doing studies on that, 
can deepen this discussion about how do you ensure that smaller delegations who do not have economies of scale to look only for the domestic market, that necessarily will have to be dealing 
with the global markets, how do you ensure that they have clarity about the necessary steps in 
terms of infrastructure, in terms of personnel, in  terms of development of businesses, in terms of 
investments, to participate and be integrated in this model? And I do not think that many of those smaller countries know what they have to do. They do not even know what it takes. And you have 
to tell them what it takes. Do you want to participate? These are your conditions; these are your WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 117 - 
 
  natural inclinations, economically; and this is how, maybe, you can profit from that. I think there 
is a lot of room that the WTO could use in terms of resources that we have to help these delegations. But this is a very small fraction of th ings that we need to do or could do in answering 
your question. 
 
Q: Given the limited resources of SVEs, how can the WTO address the concerns of 
SVEs, specifically with relation to DSU pa rticipation and the enforcement of judgements?  
(Saint Lucia) 
 A: Let me tell you my personal experience with SVEs. I was here in Geneva the first time around, before Doha was launched, when the SVEs were not even a group yet. But there clearly 
was a group of countries that had very similar difficulties, very similar challenges before them, 
even integrating in the multilateral trading system. And I think I can congratulate the SVEs for the long road that they have already gone. At this moment, I have been participating in meetings 
where they are present and they are more active . They make proposals. They coordinate. They 
participate in meetings. They make their voices heard. And I think that that in itself is already a big plus. It is a big step forward. And that is, fo r example, the kind of thing that I heard somebody 
the other day say "all these groups, there are so ma ny groups now". I think it is healthy, actually, 
because it is one way of getting countries to articulate their positions, to be heard, to learn from each other in these groups, when you talk and you discuss, you learn, you hear different perspectives. I think that one of the best things, fo r example, that happened is the articulation of 
the smaller economies and the smaller delegations in these groups. I think it is a very important 
step. I think that the membership has to be more sensitive to the specificities of these countries, of these economies. And even among groups lik e the SVEs, if you look at each one of the 
members of the SVEs, they have very different chal lenges, very different si tuations, very different 
perspectives and realities. And I think that the best thing to help them is to be able to listen to them, understand what each of them has as challenges and aspirations. If we do that, I think we 
are on the way. I, myself, think, for example, th at you can't have any set of agreements today if 
you do not think about those small delegations first. Beginning with Bali, by the way, if you do not give attention or listen to what these countries would like to get, would like to see as the positive result in Bali and after Bali, I think we would not be conducting a fair process. 
 
Q: In dispute settlement at the WTO and with the constant upraise of new jurisprudence, there is the fear of new crit eria for interpretation and precedence which 
could overwhelm the ability to assimilate and apply the relevant disciplines in the WTO, 
because it complicates the use of trade re medies. As WTO Director-General, how would 
you hope to overcome this problem?  (Honduras) 
 
A: Understanding the disciplines of the WTO today is a task which is a lot more complex than it was when the WTO came into being. I remember that the first time that I was posted in Geneva one of the issues that they gave me was the Rules Committee. So I had to go the Rules 
Committees, anti-dumping, safeguards, and subsidies and countervailing measures. And my boss 
at the time, he got the legal texts and he said "read them". I was a very studious diplomat. So, I went home with that book and I read all three Agreements. I went back to the office and I told 
him, "ok boss, job done, I read everything". And he said "so, did you understand it?" and I said 
"not a word". And he said, "if you had told me otherwise, I would have fired you". So, it's impossible to understand the texts just by reading th em. That is the reality. One thing you need to 
do to begin with, if you are going to read the text, you have to have the manual on how to read 
the text. And the manual on how to read the text is essentially the findings of the panels and the Appellate Body, which is a stack this high. So, forget it. You are not going to understand the text. The only way to do it is working with them. And you will understand one provision at a time if 
there is a very deep discussion about that prov ision in one of the meetings that you go to. 
Otherwise, you are not going to understand it. So, the best thing that people can do, is training, and training on the job. It is something that you will not learn simply by reading. So, if I were the 
DG – and I hope someday I will – the only way that I think you can make this happen is by letting 
people come to the WTO, participate in the meetings, listen to the discussions, see, talk to people, hear things. You are not going to understand the disciplines themselves, but at least you will 
understand where to look. You will understand how to go around the halls, the rooms, who to talk 
to, etc. We ourselves sometimes have a provision and I do not have a clue, and it has never been interpreted. We call the Secretariat and say "does anybody here know the history of the 
negotiation of this thing?" Because if you don't, then what it means is whatever any of you 
believes it means. That's the reality. In the Brazilian Mission, we had a programme for internships WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 118 - 
 
  to train people from the private sector, from the academy. What we tried to do in the Mission – 
and that was precisely to develop capacity – was to  bring people to the WTO, bring them here, let 
them walk the halls, let them go to the cafeteria, talk to people, listen, go to the library, attend meetings. That is the only way that people can do that. I think the best thing that the Director-
General could do is to facilitate the immersion of people who want to be trained in the 
Organization. I do not see any other way, really. Maybe I am missing something, but my experience is that the only way is being here and talking to people. 
 
Q: Since the economic crisis in 2008, we ha ve seen how various forms of protectionist 
measures have been introduced. It would be appreciated if you could provide your views 
on the responses that the multilateral tradin g system, represented by the WTO, should 
take. (Republic of Korea) 
 A: In my presentation, I mentioned briefly that the WTO is the best defence against 
protectionism. I told you before, I do not believe in protectionism. But most of the times 
protectionism is in the eye of the beholder. Some people say "that's a protectionist measure" and another will say "well, not really, that's an adjustment measure" or "that's a police space 
measure". It is very difficult to pass judgement on any particular measure. What I assume is that 
countries behave the way they do because they have domestic constraints, domestic pressures, domestic politics that they have to attend to. So, th e only real effective tool that I believe we have 
to constrain the ability of governments to introduce measures that are negative to trade is the 
WTO disciplines. This is where the line is drawn. And the best way to lower the discretion of 
countries to introduce measures that could be understood to be protectionist is by evolving the disciplines. And to evolve the disciplines, you have to negotiate. And to negotiate, you need a good 
DG. 
 Q: You mentioned in your presentation that  building up of trust and confidence would 
be an important ingredient towards the co nclusion of the Round. There is a growing 
sense of disappointment, especially among th e poorer developing countries, that they 
have already waited a long time, and they do  not know how long they will have to wait 
further. In what way, as DG, will you be able  to facilitate this process and to ensure, or 
to try to build bridges, so that the hopes and aspirations of the poorer developing 
countries are met?  (India) 
 
A: I think that the WTO fortunately has evolved particularly in embracing and taking on new 
Members, Members which have been at the margins or even outside the multilateral trading system for a long time. Some of them are newcomers and some of them have been here for a 
while but they are still newcomers because the ability to participate is also very important. I think 
that, numb e r one : you ne e d to have a s ys te m that works  for the m as wel l. Othe rwis e  it is  an unfair system and honestly I am not a believer of that. So, you have to have a fair system. The second thing is: what is the best way to have these countries benefit from the system? I think the 
best thing is the ability to participate. It is difficult for you to even know what you want from the 
system if you do not know the system, if you do not know what it can offer. I think it is a very fortunate development when I see these smaller delegations articulating themselves among 
groups like the ACPs, the SVEs, the LDCs. That is a very important element of participation in the 
system, because then they participate in the meetings. I, for one, think that any major issue that is being discussed in this Organization has to give an opportunity for these Members to participate 
and to listen, even if they are not at the centre of the decision, at the core of the decision, they 
need at least to understand what is going on, to see what is going on, and to listen and eventually to vocalize their concerns and their aspirations. But if we are not proactive, if the DG is not proactive about that, these delegations, these countries will continue to be marginalized because 
they just will not have an opportunity to participate. So, you can't just sit there and expect. I have 
heard that approach before, "well, they have to do  their job, they have to do their homework". It 
is not that simple. That is not the way it works. In the real world – and we hear, talk a lot about 
the real world – that is not how it happens. So, you have to ensure that they participate, that they 
listen, that they have an opportunity to be a part  of the conversations, a part of the debate, even 
if they are not a major piece in that particular discussion, but at least they will listen, they will 
understand, and that is the way that they will see what the system can offer them. If they do not 
participate, then it will be impossible to even understand what they can derive from the system. 
So, I personally think that participation is one of the big challenges for those countries and delegations. 
 WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 119 - 
 
  Q: Do you intend to bring more profession al staff to the Organization to ensure 
diversity and balance between developed and developing Members, if you are selected 
as the DG? (Indonesia) 
 
A: I mentioned in my presentation that I believe that there should be two overarching 
principles, which are cost-effectiveness and excellence. I think the cost-effectiveness part of the equation will be very important because, in light of the budget constraints that the Organization is 
facing and that the Members are facing at this point in time – a very critical time – it will be very 
difficult to think about expanding the number of pe ople who are in the Secretariat, etc. I think 
efficiency will have to be the name of the game for a while. Nonetheless, my intention would be to gradually – it is not going to be something that ov ernight we are going to do – give the Secretariat 
a face which resembles your face. Looking from here, this is a very diversified face and I think the 
Secretariat would have to have a similar face. But it will be a gradual process and it will have to comply with those two things: excellence, so you can't compromise the quality of the services; and 
cost-efficiency, we have to be realistic ab out what we can do in terms of hiring. 
 Q: The question I had prepared has been answered by Ambassador Azevêdo. 
However, perhaps he could elaborate further on  possible scenarios before us as we look 
towards the Bali Ministerial and the post-Bali.  (Argentina) 
 A: Honestly, I think it is do-able for Bali. I think that it would depend a lot on the ability to, 
again, regain trust and talk to each other in a constructive way, listen to each other. My hope is 
that the next DG, in September, will get a process wh ich will be in its final stages. If that is not the 
case, then a whole new scenario opens up, which is : what happens if we do not have anything, 
and if it is a mess? That is a big problem. I think that we would have to manage that when we get 
to that. If the new DG steps in and sees a big mess, the first question will be: is this mess "un-messable"? I am not sure that it will be. But he would have to immediately, with you, begin to 
figure out a plan B. And that plan B cannot be a destructive plan B. It has to be something that 
really gives hope. And I can't tell you what that plan B will be at this point in time. It would depend on how much of a mess you have made until then. So, let's see what the situation is at that point in time. But this plan B would have to be worked out when the time comes. If plan A 
pans out, I think then we are in good shape, because if you have that, I think that a post-Bali 
scenario does not have to be something really millimetrically planned, but you have to give essentially a credible message of what it is that you want to do. What is the biggest fear for Bali? 
The biggest fear for Bali is that there are a large number of delegations in this room who think that 
Bali will be it and, after that, nothing more. We turn the page; we throw away the development agenda; we throw away the Doha Round; we throw away everything; and we start afresh. That is 
the fear, and you have to handle that. If you can give a message that gives comfort to these 
delegations that this is not going to happen, that this is not the intention, then we are fine, because I believe the new DG will have to move to the Round immediately and see what it is that we can do. And in just doing that, you are already giving a lot of comfort to people who think that 
we have given up. And if we show that we have not given up, that is already the very first small 
but extremely important step into giving confidence  to the Membership that we are going to move 
forward. That's my view. 
 
3. Summing up by the Candidate
15 
You know me, and there is very little that I can say here that will change your views about me. I 
could come here and say all the right things. I could have written a 15-minute presentation, 
concluding remarks, where every one of you will s ee yourselves in a way which is crafted so that 
nobody will be offended. Why take risks, right? But I did not think that that would be what I should do here. I thought that what I should do here was speak to you with an open mind, tell you 
what I think. You may disagree with me. If you disagree with me, you take decisions accordingly. 
But I thought that was the right thing to do. So, let me tell you now very honestly what I believe the selection process is about. It is about what you want for the future of this Organization. It is as 
simple as that. You may want to keep working th e way you have over the past several years or 
you may want to change things. If you want to change things, I think I can help you. The WTO today does not need road shows. It does not need to explain to the world how important and 
                                               
15 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meetin g communicated by the Chai r to all delegations on 
15 and 18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five 
minutes of the question-and-answer period if he or she so wished. WT/GC/M/142 
 
- 120 - 
 
  relevant it is. It does not need to explain or convince the world that trade still matters and that 
trade is a key component for economic growth and social development. It does not need any of that. When the WTO came into being in 1995 with the Dispute Settlement Mechanism fully 
operational, the world took note and a lot of attention was given to the work that we did here in 
Geneva. When the DDA was launched, the world took note and followed the negotiations very 
closely. When we were gathered here in an attempt to give the DDA its final push in July 2008, I remember the halls were teeming with journalists. It was difficult even to walk through the halls. 
Everybody was paying attention to us, the private sector was around, there were a lot of people in 
Geneva. The reason we are outside the radar today is not because the governments, the public or the economic operators forgot what the WTO is, or they suddenly do not believe in trade any 
more. That is not the reason why we are out of the radar. The reason that we do not attract 
attention today is because the WTO is not delivering. It's as simple as that. No amount of 
speeches, no amount of public relations, no amo unt of propaganda, marketing, is going to change 
this reality or make the negotiations advance. That is not the way. For the WTO to matter, it has 
to deliver meaningful outcomes that have an impact on the real world. And we have not done any 
of that for almost 20 years now. In my view, this has to change. I am ready to offer you two hands if you believe and you agree that we need a hands-on Director-General. I will be fair. I will 
be impartial, independent, open-minded and read y to listen. One think I learned in my country 
with all its contrasts and different interests of stake-holders is that, for a process to be legitimate and functional, it has to truly be inclusive and has to take on board the interests of all stake-holders. And those lessons, as your DG, I will not forget. And those principles, I will not abandon. 
 
 
__________