RESTRICTED  
  
WT/GC/M/171  
 
24 April 2018  
(18-2603) Page: 1/69 
General  Council  
7 March 2018    
 
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETI NG 
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 7 MARCH 2018  
Chairpersons: H.E.  Mr Xavier Ca rim (South Africa)  
At the outset, the Chairman and the Director -General bade farewell to Amb.  Héctor  Casanueva 
(Chile ), Amb. Choi  Kyonglim (Republic of Korea) and Amb. Zorica Marić -Đorđević (Montenegro) 
who were leaving their  posts at the WTO, an d expressed appreciation  for their  valuable 
contribution during their time as Permanent Representative s. 
 
Subjects discussed1: 
 
1   REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE A ND 
REPORT BY THE DIRECT OR-GENERAL  ................................ ................................ ..............  2 
2   IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOME S – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  ................................ ................................ .......................  3 
3   WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF 
THE DEDICATED SESSIO N OF THE COMMITTEE O N TRADE AND DEVELOPM ENT ...............  4 
4   AID FOR TRADE WORK P ROGRAMME – STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN OF 
THE COMMITTEE ON TRA DE AND DEVELOPMENT  ................................ ..............................  6 
5   APPOINTMENT OF OFFIC ERS TO WTO BODIES  ................................ ............................  6 
6   POSSIBLE TRADE RESTR ICTIVE MEASURES BY A  MEMBER – STATEMENT BY 
CHINA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  11 
7   WORKSHOP ON GENDER B ASED ANALYSIS ON TRA DE POLICY – STATEMENT 
BY CANADA  ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................  15 
8   STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE 
MEASURES FOR MEMBERS  IN ARREARS – STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  ....................  16 
9   ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON ................................ ................................ .....................  16 
ANNEX 1 – THE REPORT BY THE DI RECTOR -GENERAL AT THE INFOR MAL TNC 
AND INFORMAL HODS ME ETING HELD ON 5 MARC H 2018 ................................ ..............  20 
ANNEX 2 – STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMAL TN C AND INFORMAL 
HODS MEETING HELD ON  5 MARCH 2018  ................................ ................................ ....... 23 
ANNEX 3 – STATEMENT BY THE GEN ERAL COU NCIL CHAIRMAN AT THE  
INFORMAL GENERAL COU NCIL MEETING AT THE LEVEL OF HEADS OF 
DELEGATION HELD ON 2  MARCH 2018  ................................ ................................ ...........  67 
 
  
                                                
1 The proposed agenda was ci rculated in document WT/GC/W/741 . WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE TRADE NEGO TIATIONS COMMITTEE AND REPORT 
BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL  
1.1.  The Chairman  recalled that the Director -General had convened an Informal TNC and Heads of 
Delegation meeting on 5 March where he had provided a briefing of his recent activities and 
consultations. Forty-five delegations had taken the floor.  
1.2.  As had been announced at that meeting, the Director -General's report would be included in 
the minutes of the General Council meeting under th e first agenda item.2 Statements delivered by 
delegations would also be included in the minutes under th e same  item, unless indicated 
otherwise.3 
1.3.  The representative of Burkina Faso , on behalf of the C -4, said that the C –4 had gone to 
Buenos Aires hoping that after fourteen yea rs of cotton negotiations, the time had come for results 
to be achieved on the domestic support pillar. The Prime Minister of the Republic of Mali had  made 
this appeal in person to the General Council in November on behalf of the Heads of State and 
Governm ent of the C -4 countries.  
1.4.  The C -4 had done its work by calling on Members to examine negotiating text proposals on 
the basis of trade data and statistics in order to define the scope of the problem and to come up 
with a fair and equitable solution to the i ssue of domestic support for cotton. The C -4's 
determination and good faith had not however been reciprocated with constructive engagement on 
the part of its negotiating partners. The C -4 therefore called on all those involved in finding a 
solution to the cotton issue to comply with their notification obligations and thereby c ontribute to 
the resumption of the negotiations based on updated trade data and statistics.  
1.5.  As regards the conduct of the Ministerial Conference, the C -4 expressed the disappointment 
of its Trade Ministers for not having the opportunity within the Quad+ to discuss the proposals on 
the negotiating table and to make recommendations aimed at finding a solution on the issue. This 
had also been the case at previous WTO Ministerial Conference s. From that standpoint, the 
consultation process insofar as cotton was concerned had been flawed.  
1.6.  The C -4 also expressed the frustration of the competent authorities and of the cotton 
producing populations in the C -4 countries on the lack of any substanti ve outcome on cotton. 
MC11 would have been a good opportunity to show that trade could make a genuine contribution 
to foster poverty reduction and to achieve the SDGs – but Members had missed that chance.  
1.7.  Against that backdrop and having always favoured a negotiated solution, the C -4 
Ambassadors had initiated consultations with their negotiating partners to evaluate the MC11 
preparatory process and outcomes and to their prospects for reviving the cotton negotiations. In 
that regard, the C -4 informed Members  of its upcoming Fifth Ministerial Coordination Mee ting to be 
held on 9 -12 April  in N'Djamena. A summary of those consultations would be presented to C -4 
Ministers at that meeting with a view to seeking their guidance and to resume work on  cotton . 
1.8.  In concl usion, the C -4 conveyed its request for the new Chairperson of the CoA SS to be 
appointed as soon as possible so that the cotton negotiations could immediately resume.  
1.9.  The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the TNC and of the Direct or-
General's report, and of the statements delivered  at the current meeting and  at the Informal  TNC 
and Informal HODs  meeting  on 5 March . 
                                                
2 The Director -General's report at the 5 March  Informal  TNC and HODs Meeting  (also circulated in 
JOB/GC/172) is  incorporated in the minutes of this meet ing and is  reproduced in Annex 1  of this document.  
3 The statements at the 5 March  Informal TNC and HODs Meeting by the following delegations  are 
incorporated in the minutes of this mee ting and can be found in Annex 2  of this document:  Switzerland; 
Nigeria; New Zeal and; Rwanda (African Group); Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs); European 
Union; Guyana (ACP); Turkey; Mexico; Colombia; Central African Republic (LDCs); China (FIFD); Uganda; 
Ecuador; Nepal; Japan; Singapore (ASEAN); Australia; Thailand; Plurinatio nal State of Bolivia; Peru; Cuba; 
Republic of Korea; Brazil; South Africa; Indonesia (G -33); Norway; Pakistan; Russian Federation; Hong Kong, 
China; Trinidad and Tobago; Canada; Panama (Article XII Members); India; Papua New Guinea (Pacific 
Group); United States; Senegal; Zimbabwe; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Argentina (Informal Group on 
Investment Facilitation); Sri Lanka; Ghana; Philippines; Kenya and Paraguay.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 3 - 
 
  2  IMPLEMENTATION OF TH E BALI, NAIROBI AND BUENOS AIRES OUTCOME S – 
STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  
2.1.  The Chairman4 recalled that the item remained on the agenda to allow Members  to continue 
to follow up on the  decisions adopted in Bali and Nai robi – and to do so in an inclusive  and 
transparent manner. He further note d that Ministers  had also agreed on other decisions at the 
Eleventh  Ministerial Conference – some of which had been  an "evolution" of the Bali and Nairobi 
Decisions . As such, he had also included under that  item a report on the implementati on of the 
Buenos Aires outcomes  where applicable.  
2.2.  On 1 March, he had  held a meeting  with the Chairs of Regular Bodies where they had  
updated each other  on the work taking place in their respective bodies  including – but not only – 
with respect to the implementation of the Ministerial mandates . A number of WTO bodies had  not 
yet met since the sta rt of the year. His statement would therefore  focus on matters where there 
had been developments since his  last report to the Gener al Council in November. T he Work 
Programme s on Small Economies and Aid for Tr ade would be dealt wit h in separate Agenda items.  
2.3.  Concerning  TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints, Ministers  at MC11 had  directed the 
TRIPS Council to continue its examination of the scope and modalities for complaints of the types 
provided for under subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, and to make 
recommendations t o their next Session. It had been agreed that Members would  not initiate such 
complaints under the TRIPS Agreement  in the meantime . Pursuant  to this, the TRIPS Council had 
taken up it s continued work on that  matter at its meeting on 27 February with a view to findi ng a 
solution to that  long-standing issue.  
2.4.  In Buenos Aires, Ministers  had also agreed to continue and reinvigorate work under the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce. In li ne with that De cision, the General Council would  conduct 
its first review of progress a t its meeting in July. As Members would  have noted, t wo papers by 
Chinese Taipei had been  circulated in the relevant bodies. He  hoped that those would stimulate 
engageme nt in that  area. 
2.5.  Regarding  Agriculture, at the most recent meeting of the  Committee on Agriculture on 
20 February, Members had agreed to a timetable for a review of the Bali decision on T ariff Rate 
Quota Administration  in line with its provisions. The objective of the review, which wa s expected t o 
be completed in June 2018, wa s to promote improvements in the utilization of TRQs and to enable 
Members to make recommendations to the Twelfth  Ministerial Conference.  
2.6.  Members had also initiated discussions on the process to be followed for the review of the 
Nairobi  Decision on Export Competition and on how its outcome should be reflected. He recall ed 
that the goal of the review, which should  take place every three years, wa s "to ensure that no 
circumvention threate ns export subsidy elimination commitments and to prevent non -commercial 
transactions from being used to circumvent such commitments".  
2.7.  Still on export co mpetition, since the last time he had reported, more Members had  circulated 
their revised draft schedule s on export sub sidies for agricultural products  in line with the 
provisions of the Nairobi Dec ision. Additionally, Norway was the second WTO Member after 
Australia  to have  its new export subsidies schedule to be certified. At the recent CoA meeting, 
other Members with scheduled export subsidy commitments had also provided updates on the 
steps taken to implement the Decision.  
2.8.  Turning to the LDC Services waiver, at the recent meeting of the Council for Trade in 
Services held on 2 March, the LDC Group had comm ended the preferential trea tment notified 
under the Waiver  but had stressed the need for capacity building measures to enable LDC 
suppliers to take advantage of those preferences. The Group had called on notifying Members to 
provide technical assistance an d to build supply capacity in LDCs  and had also encouraged them to 
increase awareness of the Waiver domestically. Recalling paragraph 1.6 of the Nairobi Waiver 
Decision, LDCs had also advocated for  Members to explore what r ecommendations the Council 
could  make "on steps that could be taken towards enhancing the operationali zation of the Waiver". 
There had  also been a call to take action in line with paragra ph 1.5 of the Nairobi Decision. The 
                                                
4 The Chairman's statem ent was circulated in JOB/GC/173 . WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 4 - 
 
  Council had  received a total of 24 notifications of preferences i n favour of LDC  services and service 
suppliers  on the part of 51 Members.  
2.9.  On Trade Facilitation, nine more Members had  deposited their instrument of acceptance of 
the Trade Facilitation Agreement  since his last report – bringing the total number to 132 – with 
another one soon to be deposited, covering 81% of the M embership.  
2.10.   The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement.  
3  WORK PROGRAMME ON SM ALL ECONOMIES – REPORT BY THE CHAIRM AN OF THE 
DEDICATED SESSION OF  THE COMMITTEE ON TRA DE AND DEVELOPMENT  
3.1.  The Chairman  recalled that i n line  with the agreement in the General Council in 2002, the 
Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the  agenda and the Committee on 
Trade and Development reported  regularly to the Council on the progress of wor k in its Dedicated 
Sessions. In Buenos Aires, Ministers had adopted a Decision reaffirming their commitment to the 
Work Programme and instructing the CTD to continue its work in Dedicated Sessions under the 
overall responsibility of the General  Council. He  invited Ambassador Mushayavanhu, Chairman of 
the CTD, t o report on developments in that  area. 
3.2.  Ambassador Taonga Mushayavanhu (Zimbabwe) , Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
CTD, said that since his last intervention under that item, Ministers at the Eleventh Session of the 
Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires  had adopted a Decision that had been drafted by the SVE 
Group and approved by the Dedica ted Session on Small Economies. In their Decision, Ministers 
had instructed the Secretariat to continue i ts work on the challenges small economies experience d 
in thei r efforts to reduce trade costs  particularly in the area of trade facilitation.  
3.3.  That topic had been agreed at  the 2015 Ministerial Conference  in Nairobi. The Secretariat had 
prepared a factual document on the topic and the Dedicated Session had already had a first 
meeting to discuss it and to express initial reactions. Unfortunately, Members had  not been able to 
conclude discussions in the past two years. Later in the y ear, th e Dedicated Session planned  to 
hold two meetings based on that document – the first one to identify challenges and the second 
one to pr esent possible solutions in that  area. 
3.4.  The representative of Guatemala , on behalf of the SVEs , thank ed the CTD Chair for his report 
on the Work P rogramme on Small Economies. Ministers had adopted a Decision on  
13 December  2017 contained in  document WT/MIN(17)/63. In that  decision, Ministers had 
reaffirmed their commitment to the Work Programme on Small Eco nomies and had instructed the 
continuation of work on the challenges small economies experience d in their effort to reduce trade 
cost particularly in the area of trade facilitation.  
3.5.  The CTD had already approved the orga nization of two meetings on the topi c – the first one 
to identify the challenges faced by small economies in their effort to reduce trade cost and the 
second meeting to provide solutions and recommendations on how to overco me such challenges. 
The Group was  working together with the Secretari at to schedule and to organize tho se meetings 
hoping that the first meeting would  take place i n the first semester of the  year and th e second 
meeting in the fall. The SVEs would  keep Members informed of any advances.  
3.6.  The representative of the Republic of M oldova  joined all Members in extending  gratitude to 
the Government of Argentina, to Ambassador Cima who had led the organization process  and to 
his team for their hospitality in Buenos Aires.   
3.7.  While not  every Ministerial Conference  could  bring forward subs tantial multilateral decisions 
for the international trading system, it remained  essential  for Members to remain  focused on their 
work on the most important s ectors for the development of thei r economies.  
3.8.  In that respect, Moldova  regret ted that it had  not been possible to achieve a multilateral 
outcome in all the desired areas  such as domestic support and public stockholding for food security 
purposes, domestic regulation in services and other important Member -driven initiatives . WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 5 - 
 
  3.9.  Despite that, Moldova had  been enc ouraged by the statements of Ministers recognizing the 
important role played by the WTO in promoting economic growth, employment and d evelopment, 
reaffirming Members'  support for  the multilateral trading system and commitment to work towards 
its en hancement.  
3.10.   Tensions between M embers regarding the road ahead remained – which, if sustained, would 
prevent further progress. Members  needed to rethink  the concept of the negotiating  process 
before and during a Ministerial Confe rence. If some of the issues  could not be negotiated in 
Geneva and require d a political approach they should then concentrate only on two to three  
disciplines to offer enough time for negotiations on those issues during the Ministerial Conference.  
3.11.   A wait and see approach was clearly not the solution. The trading system wa s not waiting 
for the WTO to develop. S tagnan t multilateral negotiations would  only strengthen those who 
believe d that WTO negotiations we re ineffective and need ed to be abandoned in favour o f other 
negotiating fora. An open  and honest dialogue among Members identify ing new and innovative 
approaches was needed to reinvigorate the inclusive  multilateral system on which they  all 
depend ed. In that respect, Moldova  urged all Members to engage constructively  drawing on the 
progress that had  been achieved prior to MC11 and  bearing in mind that they  should not regress . 
Moving  forward was their  only option.  
3.12.   The Republic of Moldova had  a pragmatic, holistic and multilateral approach in the 
liberalization of the international tra ding system. Being de facto a developing coun try, the Republic 
of Moldova had  been undertaking  extensive commitments of a develop ed country since it became 
a WTO Member seventeen years ago. Moldova had  also duly implemented all of the legal 
provisions stip ulated in the Bali and the Nairobi Ministerial Declarations.  
3.13.   At the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires, in addition to the  multilateral decisions, the 
Republic of Moldova had  joined a n umber of milestone declarations  including the Joint Ministerial 
Declaration on the Establishment of a WTO Informal Work Programme for MSMEs, the Joint 
Ministerial Statement on Investment Facilitation for Development, the Joint Statement on 
Electronic Commerce, the Joint Ministerial Stat ement on Services Domestic Regulation and the 
Declaration on Women Empowerment.  
3.14.   The Republic of Moldova stood  ready to work toward s MC12 in a pragmatic way. More 
flexibility  would be necessary to address  the needs of the s mall and vulnerable countries in  
reinforcing the SMEs' role in the global value chains.  
3.15.   Moldova recognized  the WTO's important role in promoting open, transparent, non -
discriminatory and predictable regulatory environments in fa cilitating e -commerce and  looked 
forward to the exploratory work on WTO negotiations on trade -related a spects of e -commerce.  
3.16.   Similarly, Moldova stood  ready to begin structured discussions with the aim of developing a 
multilateral framework on investment facilitation.  
3.17.   On domestic regulation, pursuant to the mandate  contained in Article VI:4 of the General 
Agreement on Trade in Services, Moldova would  work towards concluding the negotiation s of such 
disciplines and encourage d Members to engage in an open and constructive manner.  
3.18.   As Members had  already en tered the pos t-Buenos Aires period, Moldova was ready to 
continue their  work which had begun prior to MC11 – but in an even more vibrant and profound 
manner. Moldova  encourage d Members not to stop at only defining what they should do as they  
had done in Buenos Aires.  They should also  start to work and build on the important progress 
obtained in Argentina in all the vital areas of the international trading system. They should 
maintain the flame they had lit  at MC11 and be driven by the same desire to reach consensus on a  
minimum of disciplines in order to deliver a tangible outcome at MC12.  
3.19.   The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the CTD and of the 
statements.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 6 - 
 
  4  AID FOR TRADE WORK P ROGRAMME – STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON TRADE A ND DE VELOPMENT  
4.1.  The Chairman  invite d Ambassador Mushayavanhu, Chairman of the CTD, to report on the 
matter . 
4.2.  Ambassador Taonga Mushayavanhu (Zimbabwe) , Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
CTD, update d Members on his  consultations on the  Aid for Trade work programme. The Committee 
on Trade and Development on Aid for Trade had met three times in 2018 to examin e the 2018 -
2019 work programme – twice in informal mode, the first occasion being on 17 Janua ry, and once 
in formal session.  
4.3.  On 19 F ebruary, he had suspended the formal session to allow additional time for Members 
to consider comment s made on the work programme. The Committee had then met most recently 
on 1 March in info rmal mode.  
4.4.  At the conclusion of that meeting, he  had stated that he would reques t the General Council to 
give the CTD some more time to complete their work on the work programme. He  transmi tted that 
request to the General Council with the request  to revert to the Aid for Trade work programme at 
a future General Council meeting.  
4.5.  The Chairman  noted the CTD Chair's report that further time wa s needed to com plete work 
on the 2018 -2019 Aid for Trade work programme. Therefore, unless any delegat ion wished to 
comment, he propose d that the General Council reverted to  the wor k programme at a future 
meeting as the CTD Chair had  suggested.  
4.6.  The General Council took note  of the statements . 
4.7.  The representative of Chad, speaking on behalf of the  Central African Republic, coordinator of 
the LDCs, said that t he Aid for Trade Initiative in the context of  WTO activities wa s essential  for 
the LDCs because it targeted  capacity building in countries which sought  to export their products. 
In that regard, the LDCs  express ed thei r gratitude to the Secretariat – particularly to the Aid for 
Trade Uni t and the Enhanced Integrated Framework – for their tireless efforts in see king to find 
ways to improve thei r infrastructure and pr oduction tools to ensure that they could  be compe titive, 
diversify and develop thei r products to be exported to the internati onal market.  
4.8.  The Aid fo r Trade Initiative of the WTO was an essential measure of thei r integration into the 
multilateral trading system . The LDC Group therefore placed  a great deal of expectation and 
ambition on the Aid for Tr ade Work Programme 2018 -2019.  The LDCs  hoped that the finaliz ation 
of the work programme would  fully take into account the ir specific need s and priorities . 
4.9.  In moving forward, Members  should es tablish a responsive work programme by assessing  
what they had  done in t he past and the outco mes that they had obtained so far. The LDCs would 
also welcome the taking into account of various principles for the effectiveness of Aid for Trade and 
the constraints experienced by the LDCs especially in terms of infrastructure and access to energy.  
4.10.   The LDC Group would be fully active in the discussions to try to achieve the best possible 
outcome  in finalizing the Aid for Trade Work Programme 2018 -2019. 
4.11.   The General Council took note  of the statement.  
5  APPOINTMENT OF OFFIC ERS TO WTO BODIES  
5.1.  The Chairman  recalled that i n accordance with the Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to 
WTO Bodies (WT/L/510), and the related practical steps to improve th eir implementation 
(JOB/GC/22) , he, together with the serving Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, 
Ambassa dor I hara (Japan), and Ambassador N eple (Norway), former Chair man of the General 
Council, had  conducted consultations on a slate of names for the appointment of Chairpersons to 
WTO regular bodies listed in Groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the Annex to the Guidelines and on the 
appointment of new Chairpersons for the Committee on Agricul ture in Special Sess ion, the Council 
for Trade in Servi ces in Special Session and the Neg otiating Group on Rules. In that regard, he had  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 7 - 
 
  convened an Inform al General Council meeting on 2 March where he had  provided a detailed 
report on the consultations that they had undertak en and had shared the slate of names for the 
regular bodies and two negotiating bodies on which there appeared to be consensus. As he had 
announced, his  statement at th at meeting would  be included in the minutes of the meeting .5 
5.2.  He highlighted three points . First, he underscore d the critical role that group coordinators 
played in the selection process and thank ed the coordinators for their efforts t hat year. Second, as 
set out in the Guidelines, the rotation between developed and developing c ountries on DSB  and GC 
chairs was clear. It was  also clear that amongst devel oping countries  the rotation was  between the 
African Group, the Asia and the Pacific Group of developing coun tries and GRULAC. The rotation 
was less clear for the other bodies and there they had  to strike a balance between developed and 
developing Members,  amongst the four groups, and they we re dependent on the specific shows of 
interest by Members . That wa s of cour se not always straightforward. Third, in the current selection 
process, he had  counted five instances where individual Members  had demonstrated cons iderable 
flexibility that allowed them  to announce the slate of names that day. He acknowledge d with 
gratitude their flexibility.  
5.3.  On the basis of the consultations, they  appear ed to have co nsensus on the following slate of 
names:  
General Council  
 
 H.E. Mr. Junichi Ihara  ( Japan ) 
 
 
Dispute Settlement Body  
 
 H.E. Ms Sunanta Kangvalkulkij  ( Thailand ) 
 
Trade Policy Review Body  
 
 H.E. Mr. Eloi Laouru  ( Benin ) 
 
Council for Trade in Goods  
 
 H.E. Mr. Stephen De Boer  ( Canada ) 
 
Council for Trade in Services  
 
 H.E. Mr. Alfredo Suescum  ( Panama ) 
 
Council for TRIPS  
 
 H.E. Dr. Walter Werner ( Germany ) 
 
Committee on Trade and Development  
 
 H.E. Mr. Diego Aulestia  ( Ecuador ) 
 
Committee on Balance -of-Payments 
Restrictions  
 H.E. Mr. Claudio de la Puente  ( Peru) 
 
Committee on Budget, Finance and  
Administration  
 H.E. Mr. Juan Aguirre  ( Paraguay ) 
 
Committee on Trade and Environment  
 
 H.E. Mrs. Sondang Angraini ( Indonesia ) 
 
Committee on Regional Trade  
Agreements  
 H.E. Mr. Julian Braithwaite  ( United Kingdom ) 
 
                                                
5 The Chairman's statement at th e Informal General Council meeting at the level of Heads of Delegation 
on 2 March is  incorporated in the minutes of this meet ing and is  reproduced in Annex 3  of this document.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 8 - 
 
  Working Group on Trade, Debt and 
Finance  
 H.E. Mr. Mohammad Haqjo  ( Afghanistan ) 
 
Working Group on Trade and Transfer of 
Technology  
 H.E. Mrs. Sabine Möller  ( Namibia ) 
 
5.4.  Concerning  the negotiating bodies, the  consultations show ed that there wa s consensus on the  
following  appointments : 
Council for Trade in Services in Special 
Session  
 H.E. Mrs. Zhanar Aitzhanova ( Kazakhstan ) 
Negotiating Group on Rules  
 H.E. Mr . Roberto Zapata ( Mexico ) 
5.5.  As he had said on 2 March, they had  not finalized the process for the appointment of the 
Chair of the CoA SS. Consultations would need to continue f or that  particular  appointment . He 
understood that consultations had  indeed continued and g roup c oordinators had been active. H e 
trusted that they  could have a decision on t hat matter without undue delay.6 
5.6.  All the appointments would  also be made formally by the bodies c oncerned at their next 
meeting.  
5.7.  With those words, he  invite d the Ge neral Council to take note of his  statement and of the 
consensus on the slate of names for the appointment of officers in the WT O bodies that he had  
mentioned.  
5.8.  The Ge neral Council so agreed . 
5.9.  The Chairman  congratulated all the colleagues on their selection and wished them w ell in the 
year ahead. He then  recall ed that the outgoing Chairpersons of the Council for Trade in Goods and 
the Council for Trade in Services would  conduct consultations to select Chairs for the bodies 
established under their respective Councils. He first invited Ambassador Choi, Chairman of the 
Goods Council, to take the floor.  
5.10.   Ambassador Choi Kyonglim (Republic of Korea ), Chairman of the Goods Council , recalled 
that in accordance with the Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies approved by 
the General Council in December 2002  contained in document WT/L/510 he would  be starting 
consultations for the appointment of chairpersons of the subsidiary bodies of t he Council for Trade 
in Goods. He would start that  process with group coordinators  as suggested in document 
JOB/GC/22  followed by interested Members.  
5.11.   He intend ed to make sufficient time available to meet with all interested Members and to 
hear their vie ws and suggestions. He would therefore  be sending a fax t o all Heads of Delegations 
that day indicating his  availability to start consultations with grou p coordinators starting 8 March  
(Thursday) at 3 pm indicating that he would  conduct further consultations as necessary with gro up 
coordinators and interested M embers.   
5.12.   In order to ensure the  efficiency of the process and the balanc e mentioned in the 
Guidelines, he would  work in coordination with the Chairman of the Services Council.  
5.13.   He also informed delegations that it was his intention to carry out that  process with a view 
to proposing and agreeing on a balanced slate of names at the next meeting of the Counc il for 
Trade in Goods which would  take place on 23 March . He hoped that that date would allow them  
                                                
6 As a result of the consultations, the Chairman, Ambassador Junichi Ihara, subsequently sent a 
communication on 13 March  to all Members informing them that it was his understanding that there was 
consensus among delegations on the appointment of Ambassador John Ronald Dipchandra Ford (Guyana)  as 
CoA SS  Chairperson, and had invite d them to submit comments, if any, by 15 March . Since he had received no 
objections, he confirm ed on 16 March  that Ambassador Ford would  be appointed as the CoA SS Chairman at 
the Committee's next formal meeting.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 9 - 
 
  sufficient time to present an appropriate and balanced slate of names for the election of Chairs to 
CTG subsidiary bodies.  
5.14.   The Chairman  then invited Ambassador Braithwaite (United Kingdom), Chairman of the 
Services Cou ncil, to take the floor.  
5.15.   Ambassador Julian Braithwaite  (United Kingdom ), Chairman of  the Services Council , recalled 
that i n accordance with the Guidelines for the Appoin tment of Officers to WTO Bodies  adopted by 
the General Council in De cember 2002 (WT/L/510) he would be starting his  consultations on the 
appointment of Chairpersons to the  subsidiary bodies of the Council for Trade in Services. He 
would  be consulting with a view to arriving at a proposed slate of names of Chairpersons for 2018  
that would enjoy  the wide support of the Membership. In order to ensure the balance of the slate, 
as mentioned in the Guideline s, he would be consulting with the  Chairma n of the Goods Council 
and would  make sufficient time available to meet with any interested Members.  
5.16.   The representative of  Chile thanked  the Chairman for the efforts he had made during his 
term in promoting the conclusion of the various negotiations and for the consultations that he had 
carried out to present a balanced slate of names for the appointment of Officers to WTO bodies 
which his delegation supported.  
5.17.   Chile had listened to Memb ers' opinions about the development and results of MC11 and 
joined others in thanking Argentina for the excellent organization of MC11 and the tireless efforts 
made by its delegation before and during the meeting particularly by the MC11 Chair Susana 
Malco rra. 
5.18.   Despite those efforts and the general interest in achieving substantive results in the 
different negotiating areas, it was clear that Members had not managed to make progress at 
MC11. Such progress had been necessary during that crucial time in the mu ltilateral trading 
system. As had been outlined in the MC11 Chair's Summary, Members found themselves at a 
crossroads. Chile therefore shared the dissatisfaction that had already been expressed by other 
Members.  
5.19.   Substantive progress should be made in agric ulture and its three pillars, in domestic 
regulation in services and in unblocking the situation in the Appellate Body.  
5.20.   Chile viewed fisheries subsidies with interest and hoped that what had been agreed at MC11 
would be fulfilled in the next Ministerial C onference. The consensus reached at MC11 on the 
renewal of the moratoria on e -commerce and TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints, among 
other issues, had also been important.  
5.21.   Chile highlighted that through the collective effort of numerous and signi ficant delegations 
at MC11, the so -called "new issue s" had been firmly positioned. A  large space had been opened for 
reflection and concrete proposals on e -commerce, investment facilitation and MSMEs with the view 
to building the necessary consensus to rea ch an agreement on those matters at MC12. Such was a 
positive development. Members could not close themselves to issues that were currently central to 
international trade and that precisely contributed to the development of their people.  
5.22.   We had recently ce lebrated International Women's Day. In this regard, another important 
achievement at MC11 was worth mentioning. For the first time in WTO history, 118 Members and 
observers supported a collective initiative to increase the participation of women in trade. That 
was a clear impetus to help women achieve their full potential in the global economy by 
eliminating obstacles to women's economic empowerment and building their capacities.  
5.23.   Members were however far from having fulfilled expectations at MC11 and from a ddressing 
not only the issues pending so many years ago but also situating themselves in the present and 
the future with responses consistent with the new global scenario.  
5.24.   On a personal note, that General Council meeting had a special meaning to him as it would 
be his last intervention in that room as Chile's Permanent Representative to the WTO. The 
President of Chile appointed him to head their Geneva mission four years ago and his term would 
soon end. After Chile's Presidential Election, his successor wou ld be appointed. Until then, the WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 10 - 
 
  mission would be headed by the Alternate Representative, Mr. Iván Favereau, as Chargé 
d'Affaires.  
5.25.   He thanked his colleagues, the Director -General and the Secretariat for all the support he 
had received in fulfilling his mis sion. 
5.26.   Thanks to the confidence placed in his delegation by GRULAC and the Chairman and the 
support of Members during the past four years, he had been appointed to chair the CTG and the 
CTE. He had also coordinated the Group of the Friends of MSMEs which ai med to reach an 
agreement to formally establish a Working Group and a program to help MSMEs integrate in 
international trade. That task had been supported by close to ninety WTO Members through the 
establishment of an Informal Group at MC11 currently coord inated by Uruguay with dynamism. He 
also commended the interpreters for always being available to efficiently support the various 
meetings that he had convened in the exercise of those tasks.  
5.27.   To conclude his intervention, he  wished to  share a personal refl ection on the current state of 
play and the future of the system and the organization. Minister Malcorra had said in Buenos Aires 
that Members were at a crossroads. That meant that some options and paths were presented to 
them as a system which implied mak ing decisions.  
5.28.   Taking a tacit decision would mean not making a decision and staying at the crossroads. 
Inaction would set the pace . 
5.29.   Another possible decision would be to take the path of continuity, of the linear projection of 
the past and the present, to try to advance in accordance with the parameters and procedures 
with the hope that what would not be achieved in a Conference would be realized in the next one. 
That contradiction should be resolved given the periodical fading of hope. One could not expect  
different results by doing the same.  
5.30.   A third option, the most difficult one requiring the greatest political decision, would be to 
make a qualitative leap in objectives, proposals and methods, to get out of the crossroads and to 
advance in line with what the new global realities and the Fourth Industrial Revolution called for . 
That would necessitate responding to the challenges that an environmentally, economically and 
socially sustainable development demanded on international trade.  
5.31.   As the Chilean Ministe r had said at MC11, "Our Organization must open up its windows and 
let the paradigm shift blow in. This shift is being felt in all areas, and particularly in the global 
economy."  
5.32.   The situation Members were experiencing as reflected in the interventions tha t had been 
made was a consequence of the dramatic change that had taken place in the last twenty years in 
the world economy, in global strategic alignments, in the technological revolution which impacted 
the forms of production of goods and services and in  employment.  
5.33.   The impact of those changes would not be mitigated or resolved by protectionist measures 
or by devaluing multilateralism. On the contrary, the multilateral trading system should adapt to 
the new era and not refuse to revise in depth its own fo undation and institution. Sooner rather 
than later, Members would have to enter into a new integral process of negotiations to align the 
system according to the realities of the 21st Century.  
5.34.   Political will, coherence and a forward -looking vision would be required to make that 
necessary qualitative leap and to avoid in the short term a foreseeable decomposition, paralysis 
and irrelevance that could lead into a trading system without common rules and would ultimately 
benefit no one . 
5.35.   Political will would depe nd on their governments. Coherence, through the harmonization of 
international institutions as required by for example Agenda 2030, and a forward -looking vision 
could be provided by a type of "collective intelligence" created through "Forecasting Units" 
established within institutional systems and in global think tanks. He suggested that the WTO 
should have a Forecasting Unit that would feed the anticipatory reflection and proposals visualizing 
future scenarios.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 11 - 
 
  5.36.   None of that would be possible if the princip le of solidarity would not prevail among 
Members. He knew that "business is business" and that countries had interests that should be 
defended. It had never been possible to advance with that logic. Every time the clash of interests 
had prevailed, the worl d had been drag ged into dramatic consequences. Only when Members 
would be  able to look to gether in the same direction could they advance  towards higher levels of 
progress and welfare. Members were currently facing new crossroads which required everything h e 
had said and in particular and most importantly – solidarity.  
5.37.   In that regard, he thought about the French philosopher Jacques Maritain – one of the mo st 
influential thinkers of the p ast century and one of the drafters of the Universal Declaration of 
Huma n Rights. In his work "Man and the State", Maritain had said the following about the idea of 
global governance: "An essentially economic interdependence, without any corresponding 
fundamental recasting of the moral and political structures of human existen ce, can but impose by 
material necessity a partial and fragmentary … political interdependence."  
5.38.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
6  POSSIBLE TRADE RESTR ICTIVE MEASURES  BY A MEMBER  – STATEMENT BY CHINA  
6.1.  The representative of China , speaking under "Other Business ", expressed China's  grave 
concern to the proposed national security restrictive measures of the United States against the 
imported i ron and aluminium products. It wa s not only because such measures would  significantly 
impact the inter national trade of iron and aluminium products but also for the following systemic 
concerns.  
6.2.  Firstly, in contrast to  the multilateral spirit of the  organization, su ch investigations and 
measures we re completely unilateral and would  seriously undermine the r ule-based multilateral 
trading system.  
6.3.  Secondly, the so -called Section 232 investigations we re based upon the domestic laws of the 
United States rather than the WTO rules. The US Department of Commerce's investigation could  
by no means prove any impact to the essent ial security interests of the United States  caused by 
imported iron a nd aluminium. It wa s an obvious deviation from and abuse of the security 
exception clause of the GATT 1994.  
6.4.  Thirdly, the United States had not carried out tho se investigations i n a transpare nt way. No 
prior notifications we re provided. Other Members could only acquire some information f rom the 
media. In fact, the United States was currently  maintaining over 200 trade remedy measures 
against imported iron and aluminium produc ts. Its domestic industries had  already been over -
protected. Therefore , in China's view, the US  industries' difficulties i f any were not caused by 
imports and could  never be solved by applying more restrictive measures in the name of national 
security.  
6.5.  China firmly objected to those proposed measures and would  join the whole Membership in 
safeguarding a healthy and orderly multilateral trading environment.  
6.6.  The representative of the European Union  had already raised that issue  at the Informal HODs 
and TNC  meeti ng on 5 March, and reiterated its grave concern about the recently announced trade 
actions planned by the United States.  
6.7.  While the details of tho se actions remain ed scarce for the time  being, the information that 
had been made available suggested that the y would  be taken with a view to protecting domestic 
industries under the guise of a national security justification.  
6.8.  The EU underlined that the measures that could be taken by the United States we re of 
fundament al concern to the entire organization a nd they should be the focus of thei r attention. The 
reaction of  other Members to tho se original triggering measures was not the issue at that  stage.  
6.9.  The EU strongly believed  in the need for all Members to comply with their commitments and 
to undertake actions s trictly within the framework set up by the WTO agreement. T he WTO 
agreement provided  ample room to take justified measures in a legal and coherent manner.   WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 12 - 
 
  6.10.   In view of the little available information and a risk of a rapid deterioration of trade 
relations,  the EU would urge the United States to exercise restraint, to enter into dialogue with its 
trade partners and to provide more information about the justifications for its planned measures 
on which as a matter of fact there seem ed to be diverging views wit hin the US administration.  
6.11.   The EU would  continue to review th e options that we re available to respond, including 
seeking dispute settlement consultations and taking WTO -compliant rebalancing measures. Here, 
the EU emphasized  the paramount importance of ha ving a fully functi oning dispute settlement 
system which had been  established precisely to stave off the risk of a deepening conflict.  
6.12.   Finally, the EU emphasized that  the problems facing the organiz ation would  only be further 
exacerbated by such measures. Those developments reinforce d its overall concern about the 
health of the multilateral trading system.  
6.13.   The representative of Canada  underscored the  very strong concerns about the proposed 
safeguard tariffs on imports on steel and aluminium products announc ed by the United  States the 
previous week – concerns which  were both systemic and commercial.  
6.14.   Canada was  deeply concerned by the attempted use of the national security provisions and 
safeg uards to address an issue that wa s not caused by the imports targete d. As the largest source 
of both steel and aluminium im ports into the United States, Canada was  disap pointed that the 
United States was considering tho se measures.  
6.15.   It was  inconceivable that imports of steel and aluminium from Canada could possibly be a 
threat to the United States' national security . Canada  viewed the proposed measures as a misuse 
of a rarely used WTO provision that shoul d remain rarely if ever used. Canada  feared that the 
United States could  be opening a Pandora's Box that they  would not b e able to close. Accordingly, 
Canada  urged the United States to carefully consider their announced plans.  
6.16.   The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that o n the unilateral actions being considered by 
the United States, Chinese Taipei wished  to register its strong concerns over the "national 
security"  based safeguard measures on steel and alumin ium imports despite the uncertainty of the 
details of tho se pro posed measures. Chi nese Taipei's initial asses sment on such possible measure 
was that the toll was high  and easily out of control.  
6.17.   While  the GATT had provided for security exemptions, the scope of such exemp tions had 
been delimited by specific situations and conditions. Chinese Taipei was of the view that a ny 
unjustifiable measures could further exacerbate global market distortions and could result in 
retaliation and tit -for-tat measures  which would then harm all Members' economies. Those 
measures would also pose a serious ri sk for the multilateral trading system. Chinese Taipei  urged 
Members to fully consider its WTO obligations before waivin g the national security flag. Chinese 
Taipei would be closely monitoring that situation.  
6.18.   The representative of Turkey  was deeply concern ed about the intention of the United States 
to impose extra tariffs on imported steel and aluminium. Turkey  believe d that  measure would have 
negative consequences.  
6.19.   The WTO already provided  its Members the necessary trade remedy tools to take measures 
against unfair trade practice s. Therefore, if a Member thought that it wa s being abused through 
unfair trade then that Member had  the right to carry out investigations and take necessary 
measures in compliance  with WTO law.  On the other hand, for purely protec tionist p urposes, when 
a Member would increase  its applied tariff s beyond its bound rates by simply  pointing out  its 
national security, other WTO Members could easily follow suit.   
6.20.   Such measures would undermine the current multilateral  trading  system and would bear the 
risks that could  pave the way for others to take c ounter -measures. Obviously, the  protectionist 
trend would hamper overall trade and would deteriorate global growth and welfare. Turkey 
therefore urged Members to refrain from stepping further  and putting such measures into practice.  
6.21.   The representative of the Russian Federation  associated his delegation with the Members 
who had expressed commercial and systemic concerns about the intention of the United States to WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 13 - 
 
  impose trade restrictions on im ports of steel and alumin ium resulting from  investigations carried 
out under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.  
6.22.   Application of any measure suggested by the US Department of Commerce would be in 
breach of the United States'  obligations in the W TO. Import tariff s in excess of bound levels would  
violate Article II of the GATT. If such tariffs would be  applie d only to certain Members, Article I 
would also be violat ed. If quantit ative restrictions would be imposed, the United States would  
infringe A rticle XI.  
6.23.   Moreover, unilateral actions by the United States could seriously jeopardiz e international 
trade by triggering an explosion of  retaliatory measures against US  exports. The multilat eral 
trading system had  developed over decades and it would be a mistake to obliterate its 
achievements.  The Russian Federation urged the US  administration to abide by the WTO rules and 
to renounce its plans to impose Section 232 measures on steel and aluminium.  
6.24.   The representative of Hong Kong, C hina was grave ly concern ed about one Member 's plan to 
unilaterally raise tariffs on steel and aluminium beyond its bound rates.  
6.25.   To begin with, as an affected party , Hong Kong, China could not agree with the 
Investigation Reports which had informed the Member's plan. Her delegation had great issues with 
the Reports'  findings, recommendations and th e process in which the study had been conducted.  
Hong Kong, China had already conveyed its  objections to that Member bilaterally.  
6.26.   Putting it in the WTO context, Hong Kong, China could not condone trade measures if they 
were inconsistent with WTO Agreements.  Knowing that other Members could  retaliate with various 
forms of trade restrictions, Hong Kong, China was also worried that tho se measures and 
countermeasures would  lead to trade wars on a global scale.  
6.27.   For an organization which was set out to re duce tariffs and trade barriers,  prided  itself on 
being the  bulwark against protec tionism and operated  on rules, such a development was  
profoundly  disturbing. It wa s challenging the fundamental objectives and principles that Members 
pledge d to uphold and attacking the system at its roots.  
6.28.   Hong Kong, China understoo d that the precise de tails of the proposed measures were not 
yet available  and that a final decis ion had  not been made. However, Members had  good reason s to 
react strongly even at that stage because one could  already foresee  the serious consequences of 
those measures and more importantly because it wa s still possible for the Member co ncerned to 
drop the idea and avert a crisis.  
6.29.   Hong Kong, China called upon Members to first and foremost honour their WTO 
commitments. Her delegation  urged the parties concerned to exercise restraint  and not to 
implement any unilat eral trade restrictive mea sures  or retaliate with measures whic h would  
likewise undermine the rules -based multilateral trading system.  At critical moments, one 
misguided move w ould be enough to cause havoc . Members should not allow that to happen.  
6.30.   The representative of Australia  shared the concerns of others that international trade rules 
should be upheld in addressing the global challenge of steel capacity. The United States had yet  to 
announce the final decision on the specific measures it would  impose under the Section 232 
investigations. However, like others, Australia was  concerned about the potenti al for arbitrary 
measures that we re inconsistent with international trade rules. Such measures could further 
exacerbate existing market distortions and result in retaliation which wou ld harm all thei r 
economies and significantly undermine the global rules -based trading system.  
6.31.   The representative of Norway  was deeply concerned about the possible restrictio ns 
announced in Washington the previous week on imports of steel and alumin ium following the 
Section 232 investigations by the US Department of Commerce. As had  been pointed out by 
colleagues, tho se measures woul d represent a serious challenge  to the  multilateral trading system. 
Norway  urged the U nited States to reconsider the ann ounced restrictive measures.  
6.32.   The representative of the Republic of Korea  joined previous speakers in expressing systemic 
concerns on the possible introduction of unilateral trade -restrictive measures on steel and WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 14 - 
 
  aluminium products based on national securi ty concerns.  Korea emphasize d that the notion of 
"national security"  in Article XXI of the GATT should  be interpreted in a very limited and stric t 
manner. If a Member would introduce  trade-restrictive measures based on an incorrect 
interpretation of the no tion of national security, it could  cause chain reactions of similar arbitrary 
measures by other Members.  Korea asked  the United States  to make the final decision on steel 
and aluminium products in a  rational and reasonable manner  in compliance with the WT O rules.  
6.33.   On a personal note, that would be the last time that he would  speak at the General Council. 
He would be going back to his country the following  month t o work on a new assignment. That had 
been his third posting in Geneva. He had  always enjoyed  working in the WTO. He had  enjoyed the 
unique camaraderie in the organization among Members of differen t delegations but also between 
members of delega tions and the Secretariat. Most of all, it had been  fascinating to see enlightened 
self-interests work ing together, overco ming differences and producing shared benefits. It had  
therefore been an honour for him to represent his country in that worthy process. It pained him to 
see that those rewarding moments we re getting increasingl y rare – particularl y as the or ganization 
faced  new challenges including the rising thre at of misguided protectionism. He  hoped that reason 
and self -restraint would  eventually prevail – restoring the respect for the rule of law and the spirit 
of compr omise at the WTO's core .  
6.34.   The representative of Japan  shared  the concerns expressed by other delegations about the 
unilateral actions being c onsidered by the United States. Japan understood that a formal decision 
had not yet been made public  but believe d that any trade measure shou ld be co nsistent with the 
WTO Agreement. Japan had  a grave concern about a potent ial spiral of counter -measures and 
would keep a close eye on the issue.  
6.35.   The representative of Pakistan  joined  the voices of concern rai sed by China and several 
other M embers o n the protectionist measures  being contemplated by a major Member. F rom a 
global perspective in general  and from a developing country viewpoint in particular, such measures 
could  have serious consequences.  Developing countries had  always relied strongly on  market 
access opportunities for developing their exports and contributing to their economic growth. Any 
news o f restricting access to markets which had  a strong likelihood of expanding into full scale 
protectionist retaliation by other Members could  only foretell disastrous consequences for 
developing countries.  
6.36.   Trade restrictiv e developments by a very large M ember with a s ignificant share in world 
trade could have long -term and serious implications for t he global economy. Not only would  it 
instigate a glo bal trend towards trade restriction, when a large market would be  closed , potential 
suppliers would also seek  to dump exports in smaller markets leading to global disruptions in trade 
patterns. In addition, and more importantly, such actions we re generally  against the spirit if not 
the let ter of the rules based system Members had  worked hard over two and a half decades to 
construct. They had weakened the entire edifice of the global trading system. Such measure s had  
serious and long -term systemic implicatio ns.  
6.37.   Pakistan  urged all M embe rs to keep up the spirit of the  organization and to continue to 
strive tow ards trade openness allowing  smaller countries the opportunity to grow  their economies 
through trade. The Director -General was right when he said, " an ey e for an eye will leave us all 
blind."  
6.38.   The representative of Switzerland  echoed the  concerns  expressed  on the  trade restrictive 
measures o n steel and aluminium. Switzerland was also concerned about those measures, and 
about  the potential consequences that could arise for international trade, the WTO and the 
multilateral trading system. Once the problem had  been identified , it would be of utmost  
importance to try to find solutions that would be  in keeping with the spirit and the letter of the 
WTO Agreements. Switzerland  urged the United States  to see to it that the measures that they 
were envisaging we re in com pliance with the WTO rules so that the tensions that had  arisen 
recently would not give rise to a deep crisis.  
6.39.   The rep resentative of Mexico  recalled that he had stated at the Informal TNC and HODs 
meeting on 5 March  that no one would  benefit from a situation where  failure to respect multilateral 
trade rules or a contrived interpretation of those rules was  the common denom inator. In fact, that  
could potentially pose a serious threat to the inte grity of the WTO. Mexico  once again appeal ed for WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 15 - 
 
  the reconsideration of the decision by a Member to unilaterally impose tariffs on steel and 
aluminium products  before the measure woul d be implemented . 
6.40.   The representative of Uganda  thanked the People' s Republic of China for raising  the issue of 
the United States'  planned trade measures of slapping tariffs on steel and aluminium  products 
imported into the US market  – as had been  announced  recently . 
6.41.   Uganda wa s equally concerned that t he said measures taken by the United States would  
have serious ramificati ons of adverse effect on other Members. Even if Uganda did  not export steel 
or aluminium products to the  US market, as a least -developed country , it would  be affected in one 
way or the other  especia lly if a trade war would start . 
6.42.   On 5 March, Uganda had  raised th e question as to whether in the WTO it was for some 
Members to make the rules  and for others to take the rules and to abide by them . For Uganda, 
that appeared  to be the beginning of a destructive attack on the rule -based multilateral trading 
system. That  attack had started with the destabilizing move on the existence of the Appellate Body 
of the DSB. Members should therefore stay awak e and alert.  
6.43.   The representative of India joined  others in expressing concern at some trade policy 
measu res being contemplated by the United States. That wa s an important systemic issue and a 
misuse of the secu rity exception under the GATT. Unilateral measu res had  no place in the trade 
arena and all Members should  exercise re straint and respect WTO rules. The a pplication of tariff 
measures sho uld not have the objective of  creating trade barriers. They should also be consistent 
with Members'  WTO commitments a nd respec t the bound rates agreed to by M embers at the WTO.  
6.44.   The representative of Brazil  had already expressed its views on that on 5 March  but given 
the importance of the issue for Brazil, he underscore d again a few points. Brazil reiterate d its deep 
concerns about the serious systemic implications of any elastic, broad interpretation and 
application of the n ational security exception. That  would open a new window into unchartered, 
danger ous territory. U nilatera l, inconsistent measures in that direction wo uld have serious  
consequences and impacts that would  not be in the interest of the Membersh ip as a whole. A ll 
would be wors e off. For that reason, Brazil again asked  the United States  to reconsider its initial 
announcement and to exercise restraint.  
6.45.   The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  echoed  the intervention it had 
made on 5 March when it had expressed in detail its concerns on a Member 's intention to impose 
unilateral trade restrictive mea sures. It wa s very important to support  the tra de and systemic 
concerns on that matter raised by China and the long list of Members who  had previously  spoke n. 
6.46.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
7  WORKSHOP ON GENDER B ASED ANALYSIS ON TRA DE POLICY – STATEMENT BY 
CANADA  
7.1.  The representative of Canada , speaking under "Other Business ", recalled that 120 Members 
and Observers had endorsed the Buenos Aires Declaration on Women and Trade  at MC11  
demonstrating strong support for pursuing women's economic empowerment through trade . 
Among other things, signatories  had committed to hold a series of workshops to explore issues 
related to trade and women 's economic empowerment. In that respect, Canada wa s organizing a 
workshop on gender based analysis of trade policy to be held on 16 M arch at the WTO.  
7.2.  The workshop would  be an opportunity t o learn from researchers who had  studied the impact 
of trade liberalization on women and to hear from practitioners about methodologies for 
undertaking gender based analysis of trade policy. With conf irmed speakers from academia, 
international organizations, think tanks and Membe r-Governments, the workshop would  benefit 
anyone s eeking to better understand that emerging policy priority. Canada  looked forward to 
seeing everyone  there.  
7.3.  The representative of Montenegro  express ed her delegation's  appreciation for C anada's 
efforts to organize the  seminar and its strong commitment to support the economic empowerment 
of women and the impact of trade on economic growth and gender based analysi s. WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 16 - 
 
  7.4.  On a personal note, as she was  taking the floor for the las t time at the General Council, she 
took the opportunity to express her  gratitude to th e WTO, the Director -General and the Secretariat 
for their continued support  to her  delegation,  and to all he r colleagues and friends  for their 
encouragement, friendship and solidarity.  
7.5.  The representative of the European Union  welcome d the initiative set out by Canada as t he 
subject of trade and gender indeed mer ited deeper reflection.  
7.6.  The General Council took no te of the statements.  
8  STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN IN CONNECTION WITH ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES 
FOR MEMBERS IN ARREA RS – STATEMENT BY THE CHA IRMAN  
8.1.  The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", recalled that the revised Administrative 
Measures for Members in ar rears, contained in WT/BFA/132 Anne x I had entered into force on 
1 January 2013. Those measures included a requirement that at the end of each meeting of the 
General Council the Chairperson of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration should 
provide information with regard to which Members and Observers were under Administrative 
Measures. He invited the Chair of the Budget Committee, Ambassador Peter Brňo (Slovak 
Republic), to provide the Council with that information.  
8.2.  Ambassador Peter Brňo (Slov ak Republic), Chairman of the CBFA , reported that the General 
Council had approved the rules for Members and Observers subject  to Administrative Measures. 
Those rules had been  impleme nted on 1  March 2013 and as had been required by the de cision of 
the Gene ral Council, he should  state all Members and Observers under all categories of 
Administrative Meas ures as at 6 March 2018. There we re currently 28 Members and 5 Observers 
under Administrative Measures.  
8.3.  He recall ed that Members and Observers had received their assessment letters for the 2018 
contrib utions to the WTO budget on 30 November 2017 . As at the start of every year, a number of 
Members and Observers became subject to Administrative Measures and some change d 
categories. In addition, the Director -General had notified tho se Members by le tter on 
20 February  2018.  
8.4.  There we re currently 13 Members and 3 Observers in Category I:  Angola; Belize; Burkina 
Faso; Congo; El Salvador; Lesotho; St Vincent and the Grenadines ; Senegal; Solomon Islands; 
Suriname; Tanz ania; Togo; Zambia; Somalia  (Observer) ; Syrian Arab Republic (Observer) and 
Timor -Leste (Observer). There were 5 Members in Category II: Antigua and Barbuda; Cameroon; 
Guinea; Rwanda and Uganda. There were 10 Members and 2 Observers in Category III: Burund i; 
Central African Republic; Chad; Djibouti; The Gambia; Guinea -Bissau; Mauritania; Niger; Sierra 
Leone; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Lybia (Observer) and Sao Tomé and Principe (Observer).  
8.5.  The Chairman  said that he was also  required at each Council me eting to request Members 
and Observers in Categories II and III of the Measures to inform the Secretariat as to when their 
payme nt of arrears could be expected.  
8.6.  The General Council took note  of the statement.  
9  ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON 
9.1.  The Chairman  said that it had  been a privilege to serve as the  Chairman of the General 
Council. Based on his  broad reflections  over the past year, he said that i t shoul d be increasingly 
clear that Members' work was  not immune to the growing conce rns about the impact of 
globaliz ation, trade and trade agreements on job security, inequality and  development. Such 
concerns had  been raised by many developing countries in the past, but the fact that similar 
concerns were then  more strongly voiced by citiz ens across developed countries w as a significa nt 
new development and manifested  in ways that deeply affect ed thei r work.  
9.2.  Many delegations would know that 2018 marked the centennial of Nelson Mandela' s birth. 
Twenty years ago at an event in Geneva commemorating the 50th anniversary of th e GATT, 
President Mandela had delivered a wonderful speech on the multilateral trading system. Many of WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 17 - 
 
  the issues he had raised then continue d to resonate – and one line had a particular bearing that 
day. President Mandela had stated that, " Rules must be applied  … but if they contain prescriptions 
that cannot be complied with by all, or if the results benefit too few, then injustice will emerge. 
Then it is prudent to remember that no amount of rules or their enforcement will defeat those who 
struggle with justice on their side." President Mandela had  of course been drawing on his  own 
experience of South Africa' s struggle for freedom but it also had  a bearing o n thei r work.   
9.3.  In the WTO, where decisions we re taken by consensus, ongoing and practical expressi ons of 
the principles o f transparency and inclusivity we re a baseline for a fairer, more inclusive and 
developmental multilateralism. At a minimum, incl usivity required that thei r processes and 
decisions fully took  into account the views of Members from th e different geographic regions, at 
different levels of development, but the decisions and processes should also fully engage with the 
competing policy perspectives and priorities of Members.  
9.4.  Members knew  that t he General Council oversaw  all the regular wo rk of the organiz ation 
related to the on -going implementation of the Uruguay Round Agreements and subs equent 
Ministerial decisions. They also kne w that four of the f ive Decisions taken at MC11 would  need to 
be carried forward under the General Council.  
9.5.  But from the vantage poin t of the Chair of the Council, he then had  a much better 
appreciation of the myriad of processes, procedures and decisions that shape d the da y-to-day 
workings of the organiz ation. E ffective decision making at that level wa s vital for  the p roper 
functioning of the organization and, generally, those processes and decisions we re uncomplicated.  
9.6.  However, where procedures we re not set out precisely, and where discretionary action wa s 
called for, transparency and inclusivity could  be even m ore imp ortant to build the trust that was 
needed to advance thei r collective, multilateral work. Issues related to such matters had ari sen 
periodically in the course of the year and Members  should deal with such matters sensitively.  
9.7.  In the course of the ye ar, Members had  also confronted a range of ot her challenges. At the 
outset they had  ran into a serious delay in appointing Chairs of the regular and negotiating bodies. 
At the May General Counc il, they had  encountered difficulties i n adopting the Council a genda. He 
understoo d that all the difficulties reflect ed the seriousness that Members attach ed to all as pects 
of the work of the organization and were  an expression of their legitimate interests.  
9.8.  In many instances, the key  to addressing the challenges was  to frame and app roach the 
issues in ways that ga ve sufficient comfort to a ll Members that their concerns we re being taken on 
board – in an even handed manner. It seemed to him  – and that wa s personal – that i f there wa s 
any bias, it sh ould favour the less  developed Members amongst them . 
9.9.  A great deal of time the previous year had been  taken up with the pre parations for MC11. 
Most of that had gone smoothly but sensitive issues, particularly issues regarding observer status, 
raised difficulties that we re some times beyond resolutio n at the WTO. Most Members seemed to 
agree that the work they had undertaken  just before MC11 on both the outcom e document and on 
e-commerce had been positive and he had been  struck by the fact that the process had been  
marked by a ge nuine and constructive attempt to nar row differences amongst Members even 
though ultimately they had been  unsuccessful.  
9.10.   He was grateful to the Chairs of the Regular Bodies as the work they oversaw had allowed 
the General Council to deliver comprehensive reports o f all thei r work to Min isters at the opening 
of MC11. He  again congratulate d Argentina for a well -organiz ed Minis terial Conference that many 
had said had met high standards of inclusivity and transpa rency. In no small measure, that had 
been due to  the qualities Minister Malcorra had brought to the process. Members should build on 
that experience.  
9.11.   Aside from a few troubling moments, the experience of chairing the General Council had  
been a rewarding one – personally and professionally – and in ways he had not foreseen just one 
year ago. He had  been enriched by the many opportunities to work with exceptional individuals: 
highly experienced Ambassadors, Delegates and Members of the Secretariat.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 18 - 
 
  9.12.   He thanked the Director -General for their  collaborat ion o ver the course of the year  
particularly  in the run up to and at MC11. He  also thank ed Victor do Prado and all the m embers of 
his team for the support and guidance they had provided over the year – always in a spirit of 
collegiality and good humour. Stefani a Bernabe had  offered suppo rt on almost a day -to-day basis 
even t hough he could  have tested her patience with countles s revisions of speaking notes. He was 
also grateful to Zainab  Mchumo  and Joan Apecu for their support over the year  particularly during 
the intense weeks leading to MC11  and at the Conference itself.  
9.13.   He had always been aware  that the Secretariat was  a reservoir of accumulat ed institutional 
knowledge but he then had  a deeper appreciation of the depth and sco pe of that expertise. The 
WTO was a Member -driven organization but it wa s absolut ely clear that the Secretariat wa s a 
valuable asset and an indispensable pillar of the system.  
9.14.   In light of the challenges they  confront ed with respect to the WTO' s negotiating function and  
dispute settlement function, they would need to pay greater attention and indeed they we re duty 
bound to protect the international stature of the Secretari at by ensuring it always remained  above 
the partisan positions Members took  on issues.  
9.15.   He thanked  all delegations f or their dedicated work and support over the year. He  remain ed 
grateful to the African  Group for nominating him  as thei r candidate for the DSB in 2016 when the 
long six-year rotation had passed back to Africa. After a year' s sojourn as Gene ral Council Chair, 
he was happy to return home to the Group.  
9.16.   He then propose d to move to the e lection of the new Chairperson. On the basis  of the 
understandings that had  been reached on the appointmen t of officers to WTO bodies, he  propose d 
that the Genera l Council elect ed by acclamation H.E. Ambassador Junichi Ihara (Japan)  as the next 
Chairperson of the General Council .  
9.17.   The General Council so agreed . 
9.18.   The Director -General  said that when Ambassador Carim, the departing Chairman, had 
started his term, he ha d told him  that 2017 would be an  eventful and demanding year. He thought 
that they had delivered on that promise. Yet Members were still moving forward in good shape in 
large part thanks to Ambassador Carim . He thank ed Ambassador Carim for his collaboratio n and 
for his tireless efforts , in particular in the very intensive pe riod of preparations for MC11. He had  
played a key role throughout the process and in ensuring that Members had  always been fully 
informed, that their voices had been heard and that they  had always  been able to participate. He 
had put his  considerable experience to the service  of the whole Membership – and he had no doubt 
that the Membership wa s truly grateful for that. He was certain that Members could continue to 
count on his unwavering  support as they  move d their work forward that  year. 
9.19.   Following the tradition, he then presented Ambassador Carim  with the engraved gavel as a 
memento of his  time as C hairman of the General Council.  
9.20.   He then congratulated Ambassador Ihara, the incoming Chair man, on his election. That  
appointmen t attested  to the valuable contributions he had made to the organization in his  capacity 
both as the DSB Chair in 2017 and as a Perman ent Representative to the WTO. The role of the 
General Council Chairman had  always been crucial in shaping the course of the organization's 
future and they  looked forward to shaping it with him at the helm. Ambassador Ihara could count 
on his  full support and that of the Secretariat.   
9.21.   The newly -elected Chairman  thank ed all his colleagues for the confidence they had shown in 
him by appointing him to that important function. It was  a great hono ur for him to serve the  
organization and its Members. As a Japanese person, he knew how important consensus was for a 
human community but at  the same time how time -consuming it was to reach it. He was ready to 
make him self available for consultations whenever necessary in order to facilitate the work of the 
General Council  in a transparent and inclusive manner.  
9.22.   As the results of MC 11 had indicated, the WTO and t he multilateral trading system were 
facing enormous challenges. They were at a crossroads. Under tho se circumstances, they could be 
both negative and positive in their attitude depending on whether they saw tho se challenges  as WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 19 - 
 
  problems o r opportunities. He  believe d that from that point of view, that year wa s crucial for the 
future work of the WTO.  
9.23.   He looked forward to working with all Members and told them that he would  need their help 
and understanding  in assuming his new role . 
9.24.   The repre sentative of Honduras , on behalf of the IGDC , thank ed the Republic of Argentina 
for the excellent job in organizing the Ministerial C onference – in particular Ambassador Marcelo 
Cima an d his entire time .  
9.25.   The IGDC recogniz ed the valuable work carried out b y Ambassador Xavier Carim as the 
General Council Chair. The IGDC also extend ed to Ambassador Junichi Ihara its  most cordial 
wishes as the new General Council Chairman. The Group  wished him full success throughout his 
term. In that regard, he could count on  the IGDC for its  full support and backing.  
9.26.   The representative of Kenya  recognize d that day' s meeting as an excellent General Council 
Session that should go on record  as very peaceful and fruitful. Kenya  thank ed the Director -General  
for the able leadership  that he had provided in the run -up to that  General Council  meeting  and 
during the Eleventh Ministerial Conference.  
9.27.   Kenya also commend ed the out going Chair man of the General Council, Ambassador  Xavier 
Carim, for his exemplary leadership throughout the year . As Africa, they wer e particularly proud of 
his performance.  
9.28.   Kenya also welcome d Ambassador Junichi Ihara – the in coming Cha irman of the General 
Council. Given the w isdom and commitment that he had  demonstrated since his arrival in  Geneva 
the previous yea r, Kenya was confident that he wa s the right person to chair the Gener al Council 
for the current year. Kenya  commit ted to support the in coming Chair man in advancing  the work of 
the WTO  for the benefit of the entire M embership.  
9.29.   The representative of Rwanda , on behalf of the African Group , commended  Ambassador 
Xavier Carim for his outstanding dedication and achievements during his tenure as Chairman of 
the General C ouncil in the course of the previous twelve months. Africa was proud of him. The 
African Group also welcome d the new Chair man and pledge d to work constructively with him . 
9.30.   The General Council took note  of the statements.  
 
_______________  
 
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 20 - 
 
  ANNEX 1  
THE REPORT  BY THE DIRECTOR -GENERAL AT THE INFOR MAL TNC AND IN FORMAL HODS 
MEETING HELD ON 5 MA RCH 20181 
Good morning and welcome to this informal TNC and informal HODs meeting.  Thank you all for 
being here today. This meeting is an opportunity to reflect on the way forward after MC11 and to 
raise and discuss issues ahead of the General Council meeting on Wed nesday.  
  
I recall that all your statements, and my own, will be reflected in the minutes of the General 
Council meeting.  So I expect that all delegations and group coordinators will take the floor today 
and not at the General Council.  
 
This is our first m eeting of the year in this format, but there has already been a lot of activity. I 
have been engaging widely with Members since the Ministerial C onference in December. My 
meetings have included:  
 
 The Swiss -organised informal ministerial gathering in Davos.  
 Bilateral visits to the UAE and Bulgaria.  
 The ACP retreat here in Geneva.  
 Consultations with the Cotton -4. 
 Discussions with various ministers and ambassadors.  
 And of course last week we welcomed President Nyusi of Mozambique to the WTO.  
 
In addition, I  am also in close contact with the General Council Chair and the Negotiating Group 
Chairs, and met with them all together on Thursday last week.  
 
There is clearly a desire among many Members to reflect on the problems we faced at MC11, and 
to find practica l and constructive ways to move forward. Indeed, the ACP meeting I just mentioned 
was held precisely to reflect on MC11 and explore innovative ways to advance our work.  
 
In reflecting on MC11, let me once again extend our sincere thanks and appreciation t o Argentina, 
through Ambassador Cima, for the exemplary organization of the Conference.  
 
There were many positives from MC11. The meeting was conducted in a very constructive and 
well-organized manner. Moreover, it was completely open and transparent. It w as entirely 
member -driven. And levels of engagement were excellent.  
 
We also saw very high levels of political support for our work, with the tone set on day one by the 
Presidential Declaration. And we saw strong engagement from other stakeholders – with t he 
Business Forum convened by Argentina being a notable success.  
 
Ministers adopted four decisions in Buenos Aires, covering our regular work:  
 
• e-commerce;  
• TRIPS non -violation and situation complaints;  
• small economies; and,  
• the working party on the accession of South Sudan.  
 
And on the negotiating track – the decision on fisheries subsides was agreed. The outcome on 
fisheries subsidies was a step forward, but it was not the ambitious outcome that many were 
hoping for, includ ing myself. In addition, we did not meet the deadline on public stockholding. And 
we could not agree on more detailed work programmes in many areas. However, there was 
agreement to keep working in all areas. Let me quote Minister Malcorra's closing stateme nt from 
the Ministerial Conference. She said: "Members  agreed to advance negotiations on all remaining 
issues, including on the three pillars of agriculture, namely domestic support, market access and 
export competition, as well as non -agriculture market a ccess, services, development, TRIPS, rules, 
and trade and environment."  
 
                                                
1 Also issued as JOB/GC/172.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 21 - 
 
  This is very important. But if we want to make progress we need to face up to the problems before 
us. Pledges of support for the system need to be matched by deeds. I will come back t o this point.  
 
The final element from Buenos Aires which I want to recogni ze here is the various declarations 
from groups of Members covering:  
 
• e-commerce,  
• investment facilitation,  
• MSMEs and  
• women's economic empowerment.  
 
So that's where we stand after MC11. Our task now is to find viable ways forward.  
 
A few of the negotiating groups have already met.  
 
The Negotiating Group on Rules met on 30 January to discuss the process for fisheries subsidies 
work pursuant to the Min isterial Decision. I am informed that there was considerable convergence 
across a broad spectrum of Members on a process of technical work, based on information 
exchange and workshops with outside experts, to inform the further negotiations. Views were als o 
exchanged on how the negotiations as such should proceed. Members generally agreed that the 
Negotiating Group should establish a clear calendar of multi -day meeting clusters on fisheries 
subsidies for the remainder of this year. I would therefore anticip ate an active programme of 
fisheries subsidies work once the new negotiating group Chair is in place.  
 
With regard to the DSU Negotiations, in early January of this year, the Chair circulated an 
indicative timetable of focused work for the whole of 2018. I n accordance with this timetable, the 
group has already held two meetings after MC11, and a third one is scheduled for later this week, 
all on the issue of Post -retaliation. In late March, the Chair intends to take up Transparency as the 
next issue after P ost retaliation.  
 
I hope we will find a way to make progress in other areas as well, including on Agriculture, 
Services, Development and Cotton. But, at present we still do not have a chair for the negotiating 
group on Agriculture. This is extremely urgent. I advise Members  to work with the General Council 
Chair to resolve this issue.  
 
In this regard, let me open a small parenthesis. I hope we will count on the readiness of 
Permanent Representatives to serve the Membership in this very sensitive position. I also hope 
you al l understand that the designated Chair will be assisting you in his or her personal capacity, 
so that nationality should play a minor role in the nomination process. I remind you that when a 
nomination for Chair is objected, for you it’s not personal, but for the Permanent Representative 
that was objected, it is indeed very, very personal. And I think this is partly why it has been so 
difficult to get nominations. So I ask you to please consider how to help the General Council Chair 
in his task of gathering  consensus around Chairs' appointments.  
 
Getting back to what I was saying before this small parenthesis, I think Members should seek to 
learn from the experience of MC11. If we simply repeat the same approaches, we will very likely 
arrive at the same resu lts. If we want to go further and deliver substantive outcomes across the 
board, we should  not just go back to business as usual.  
 
We need to reflect in an active way. With this in mind, I have suggested that the Negotiating 
Group Chairs guide a conversat ion about how to find approaches that could be more promising.  
  
I stress that this is just a suggestion. Members and chairs will decide together the precise steps 
that they want to take. And in making this suggestion, let me be clear:  
 
• First, this active and reflective process does not mean that we abandon the many 
proposals and ideas on the table.  
• Second, the reflection should not be a protracted exercise – rather it could be just one or 
two meetings at most.  
• And third; it is likely there will be differ ent results in different groups – that is to be 
expected. Moreover, there will be different needs in different groups. In some groups this WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 22 - 
 
  kind of conversation may be needed, in others maybe not. Again, this is for you to 
determine, together with the respe ctive Chair.  
 
I will be ready to help facilitate this conversation in any way that Members think can be useful.  
  
As I have stressed many times, development and particularly the prospects for the LDCs must 
remain at the heart of our work. And I think we n eed to do some real soul searching here. The 
conversation facilitated in Buenos Aires by Minister Eriksen Soreide was very constructive. We 
should seek to build on that conversation. I think we can all agree that development should remain 
at the centre of our work, but it is quite obvious that there is a very deep divide among Members 
about how to help and achieve development. I believe that we must acknowledge these different 
views and find ways to make progress despite these divergences. This will not be easy, but we can 
do it if we truly commit to understand each other’s views and to try to find a middle ground.  
 
In terms of the various initiatives launched in Buenos Aires by like -minded Members, as always it 
will be up to proponents to take these initia tives forward. It's encouraging that, in each case, 
proponents are clear that these initiatives will be open -ended, inclusive and transparent. I have 
always stressed that these initiatives should not be a departure from multilateralism, but a way to 
help a nd support it. Let me note here that I have been approached by these groups asking for 
Secretariat support. As we do with all such requests, we will provide support strictly on a demand 
basis. So let me stress again, that it is for the proponents to lead t hese initiatives.  
 
When I look at how we might move forward in all areas of our work, and when I discuss these 
issues with Members, it always comes back to one point: flexibility.  
 
I think it is clear that the organization has changed significantly over the past two decades or s o. 
Today the larger Members canno t force their views on others. But, equally, groups of Members, no 
matter how numerous they are, cannot impose their views on others either.  
 
So how do we respond to this scenario?  
 
As I said at the  closing ceremony in Buenos Aires – if Members are not prepared to put themselves 
in others' shoes and seek compromises, then we have little hope to move forward. The approach 
of 'I get what I want or no one gets anything' is very destructive. It does not encourage flexibility 
or efforts to find common ground.  
 
We need to find ways of increasing the levels of flexibility that we show to each other. And we 
know that this flexibility is facilitated by the different approaches for which the system allows. For 
example, in terms of specific initiatives, we have:  
 
• flexibility in substance, with the multilateral Trade Facilitation Agreement, for example,  
• flexibility in geometry, with the plurilateral initiatives like the GPA or the ITA,  
• and we are now seeing somewhat new flexibilities with these open -ended explor atory 
conversations.  
 
In a system with 164 Members of different sizes, different priorities and different stages of 
development, these kinds of flexibilities are essential. Ultimately, no one should be forced to 
accept anything or to negotiate anything th ey don’t want to. But, at the same time, everyone 
should be free to discuss issues that are of importance to them.  
  
In my consultations so far this year I have been detecting a positive, pragmatic mood from 
Members. This is very welcome. We need to build on this. And I will remain ready to serve the 
Membership to that end in any way that I can.  
 
That concludes my report.  
 
_______________  
 
 
 
  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 23 - 
 
  ANNEX 2  
STATEMENTS BY MEMBER S AT THE INFORMA L TNC AND INFORMAL H ODs MEETING HELD 
ON 5 MARCH 2018  
Following the Director -General's statement at the above -mentioned meeting, the statements made 
by Switzerland; Nigeria; New Zealand; Rwanda (African Group); Uruguay (Informal Working Group 
on MSMEs); European Union; Guyana (ACP); Turkey; Mexico; Colombia; Central African Republic 
(LDCs); China (FIFD); Uganda; Ecuador; Nepal; Japan; Singapore (ASEAN); Australia; Thailand; 
Plurinational State of Bolivia; Peru; Cuba; Republic of Korea; Bra zil; South Africa; Indonesia 
(G-33); Norway; Pakistan; Russian Federatio n; Hong Kong, China; Trinidad and Tobago; Canada; 
Panama (Article XII Members); India; Papua New Guinea (Pacific Group); United States; Senegal; 
Zimbabwe; Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela; Argentina (Informal Group on Investment 
Facilitation); Sri Lanka; G hana; Philippines; Kenya and Paraguay  are included below as part of the 
Minutes of the General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
1. Switzerland  
 
I would like to briefly report to the full membership on the Informal WTO Ministerial Gathering 
which once again was held in the fringes of the World Economic Forum in Davos, on 26 January 
2018, at the invitation of the Swiss government.  
 
The gathering was attended by Ministers and high officials from 29 Members, including the 
coordinators of the LDC Group, the ACP G roup and the African Group.  
 
Since the host, Swiss Federal Councillor Johann Schneider -Ammann, had to hand over the chair of 
the gathering to State Secretary Marie -Gabrielle Ineichen -Fleisch, it is the Concluding Remarks by 
the latter that I would like to recall today.  
 
The State Secretary 's brief summary was made under her personal responsibilit y, and was 
published on the WTO' s website, along with the list of participants.  
 
It reads as follows:  
 
 Ministers expressed their thanks and appreciation to the gove rnment and people of 
Argentina for an excellent organization of, and outstanding hospitality at, the 11th WTO 
Ministerial Conference held in December 2017 in Buenos Aires (MC11).  
 
 Ministers welcomed the fact that, in spite of challenging circumstances, som e positive 
results were achieved at MC11. At the same time, disappointment was voiced about the 
lack of further convergence and outcomes.  
 
 With reference to the decision on Fisheries Subsidies, a need to complete the negotiations 
by 2019 was emphasized fre quently.  
 
 Moreover, in many interventions, the adoption of Joint Ministerial Statements by groups of 
Members was referred to as a significant development at MC11. These notably include: 
Micro, Small and Medium -Sized Companies; Electronic Commerce; Investme nt Facilitation; 
Services Domestic Regulation; and Women and Trade. Proponents of these initiatives 
indicated that they would pursue the work on these issues in an open and inclusive 
manner, consistent with the spirit and principles of the WTO.  
 
 Beyond these outcomes of MC11, it was noted, from different perspectives, that the WTO 
is facing important challenges and that fundamental reflections, including at political level, 
will be required on issues where major divergences exist.  
 
 In many interventions,  a need to preserve and enhance the functioning of the multilateral 
trading system and the existing WTO framework was emphasized – in particular: the work 
of the regular WTO bodies; and the WTO' s dispute settlement mechanism, with particular 
concern being expressed about the situation of the Appellate Body.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 24 - 
 
   
 Among horizontal challenges faced in multilateral negotiations, the question of how to take 
into account different and evolving levels of development of Members was highlighted.  
 
 Furthermore, a need to re-engage in negotiations on a range of longstanding issues 
relevant to Members was expressed by many participants, taking into account what 
prevented more progress so far.  
 
 Ministers reaffirmed their willingness to pursue their engagement on WTO and to ad dress 
key issues. In this context, India announced that it will host an informal WTO Ministerial 
gathering on 19 -20 March 2018 in New Delhi.  
 
This con cludes my report from this year' s Informal WTO Ministerial Gathering in Davos.  
 
2. Nigeria  
 
At the outset, m y Delegation would like to thank the Director -General  for convening this first 
important meeting of the TNC, ahead of the General Council. We believe this meeting would afford 
us another opportunity to collectively re flect on the outcomes of MC 11, and more  importantly, the 
lessons learnt and the way forward, in the preparation for the post -MC 11 work program. We 
thank Argentina for ha ving successfully hosted MC 11 in spite of the daunting task and 
circumstanc es.  We also thank the Director -General for his su ccinct report and assessment. In this 
regard, per mit me to briefly share Nigeria' s perspective on the way forward.  
 
First, on MC11, we share the frank assessment that the outcomes were unsatisfactory and 
disappointing for all. Nigeria believes that one les son that we all need to draw from many WTO 
Ministerials (and from all international conferences) is that rigid unanimity on all issues is no way 
to conduct the business of any international organization, with 164 Members at different levels of 
development,  different commercial interests and with different comparative advantages. It is not 
possible that all Members can agree to everything on the same issues. There has to be a degree of 
elasticity in the structure of the WTO to cope with the diversity of the membership.  
 
Second, while we remain committed to consensus decision -making, as a WTO core value, 
consensus has to be applied responsibly. Outcomes must be non -discriminatory, win -win and 
sufficiently elastic.  
 
Third, Nigeria believes that individually, a ll our countries should accept responsibility at different 
levels. Acceptance of responsibility and leadership should be for all of us, at different levels.  
 
Fourth, Nigeria believes that for the credibility of any system and its effective functioning, 
promises made, must be kept. The system should implement its decisions. The WTO will lose 
credibility, if what it decides at one Ministerial Conference is unravelled and not implemented.  
  
Fifth, Notw ithstanding the disappointment we all felt with the multilateral outcomes at MC 11, 
Nigeria was deeply encouraged by and welcomed the outco mes amongst like -minded Members  on: 
Micro -Small and Medium Enterprises; Electronic Commerce; Investment Facilitation; and, Women 
Economic Empowerment. Nigeria would like to encourage the Members working in this area to be 
open, transparent, non -discriminatory and work hard to enlarge the circle of consensus to other 
Members.  
 
Finally, we have the collective responsibility and obliga tion not to allow WTO to falter  particul arly 
at a moment when it is more needed tha n ever before  to contribute to solving the problems of its 
Members. Nigeria believ es that our principal objective at this time  is to work together to 
strengthen WTO, update its rules  in order to contribute to the recovery and growth in the global 
economy. Nigeria stands ready to engage constructi vely with the entire membership  including ou r 
friends in the various groups  and shall do what is requir ed to grow the Nigerian economy  while at 
the same time contributing to mu tually beneficial relationships  and prosperity in a rules -based 
global economy.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 25 - 
 
  3. New Zealand  
 
Like others New Zealand is disappointed that MC11 did not result in any substantive outcomes. 
Nevertheless, that was then and t his is now. MC11 was an illustration that there are serious 
challenges facing the system. The question is what we do about them. We need to face up to the 
challenges and demonstrate that we as Members of the WTO can deliver against global priorities – 
for sustainable and inclusive development – to tackle contemporary and urgent issues which the 
world cares about. Otherwise the underlying problems are only going to get worse.  
 
On fisheries subsidies, we have a Ministerial Decision that provides clear ministe rial direction (i.e. 
we have been directed to negotiate comprehensive disciplines by 2020). This will not only help 
remov e subsidies which distort trade  but more importantly help fulfil Goal 14.6 of the Sustainable 
Development Goals. It provides us with an  opportunity to not only deliver a commercially critical 
outcome, but also demonstrate the WTOs commitment to sustainability. We look forward to the 
Rules Negotiating Group resuming negotiations as soon as possible. We do not have time to waste.  
And we as  Members must deliver. Ministers have picked up the challenge set by Leaders – failure 
to achieve an outcome is not an option and would be a serious threat to the credibilit y of this 
organiz ation and international governance more broadly.  
 
Agriculture is a nother area which requires the focused attention of the Membership. This includes 
delivering substantive and meaningful outcomes on agricultural domestic support – which will 
benefit both developed and deve loping Members. This is a core 'make or break'  issue and without 
substantive and real engagement on agriculture, we are very unlikely to have much luck tackling 
other challenges on the broader multilateral negotiating agenda.  
 
We strongly support the work of the joint initiatives that were adopted by a ra nge of Mem bers 
during MC11 including MSMEs , e-commerce and investment facilitation – issues which are 
important for the continuing relevance of a 21st century WTO. We are open to new ways of 
working if that helps us make progress and to build on the moment um and enthusiasm in these 
areas. These processes are open to all WTO M embers who share the objectives  and we hope will 
ultimately be mainstreamed into the fuller WTO negotiating agenda over time. We also look 
forward to working towards discussions on the relevance of Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform to the 
WTO.  
 
New Zealand continues to believe that a predictable rules -based international trading system is 
critical for all Members. We all need to work to continue to improve the system. And we also all 
need to be  continually implementing the oblig ations we have pursuant to that  system. But if there 
are questions about implementation, we also all need to be able to enforce our rights under the 
contract we have agreed – which means we need to ensure we continue to h ave available a well -
functioning dispute settlement system, including through the filling of outstanding Appellate Body 
vacancies.  
 
4. Rwanda (African Group)  
 
Let me start by thanking you for conv ening this informal TNC meeting  to discuss the way forward 
following MC11.  It gives us a n opportunity to reflect on MC11  and to draw important lessons for 
our future engagement.  
  
First and foremost, we must recognize that the outcomes at MC11 were unsurprising. The African 
Group had advocated the moment of truth whil e we were still in Geneva. The deliberations prior to 
MC11 had already underscored  the depth and scope of Members' divergences across the board  and 
this played out predictably in Buenos Aires. We also learnt that the process leading to MC11 was 
not suitabl e for any tangible outcome.   
  
While some Members have expressed disappointment that MC11 delivered limited outcomes, the 
African Group is most disappointed as the WTO has once again not delivered on any 
developmental outcome of interest to the G -90 which  includes the African Group. We welcome 
however the decision to continue work on Fishery subsidies. The African Group fully supports to 
seriously undertake negotiations on this issue as early a s possible until its completion  by MC12.  
  
On other negotiating  issues, a deep r eflection is not only important  but necessary. This period of 
reflection could be exploring ideas but within the framewor k that all Members signed onto.  We WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 26 - 
 
  believe this is feasible. But in order to succeed, all WTO Members need to take  into account the 
wider context  notably the growing inequalities and ma rginalization of poor countries  and the need 
for positive measures for industrialization of African economies so as to contribute to national 
development and global prosperity.  
  
The Afric an Group therefore calls for pursuing an inclusive and developmental multilateralism in 
line with the Agenda 2030 for sustainable development targets for all. The test of WTO rules 
therefore  – past and future – is whether they promote inclusivity and devel opment or its opposite: 
marginalization and inequality. In line with the Nairobi Declaration paragraph 31, work must be 
done to address longstanding demands on Agriculture domestic support, Cotton,  S&D for 
industrialization , among many other issues.    
  
For Africa: " The Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want"  constitutes the overarching framework for 
integration, industrialization, economic diversification and structural transformation for sustainable 
growth. Later this month the Continental Free Trade Area, the largest in the world by Membership, 
will be signed  in Kigali, Rwanda  to pave the way for further continental and development 
integration. We believe that a growing African economy would benefit all Members.  
  
Regarding the way forward, the African Group s tands ready to engage constructively on all issues 
in accordance with their respective mandates, notably under the DDA. On the process, we 
recommend its review and to get it right if we are to a chieve successful results by  MC12. The 
African Group paper on process submitted in the run up to Buenos Aires is a good basis for this 
exercise. Likewise, a collective reflection should also touch on the nature of outcomes we want: 
multilateral versus plurilaterals. The African Group strongly supports a rules -based, fair and 
inclusive Multilateral Trading System (MTS). We therefore encourage all Members to join effo rts in 
strengthening the MTS.  
  
In conclusion, the African Group would like to assure Members of its readiness to continue its 
engagement in the post -Bueno s Aires process targeting a win -win multilateral outcome for all.  
 
5. Uruguay (Informal Working Group on MSMEs)  
 
I make this statement in my capacity as General Coordinator of the Informal Working Group on 
MSMEs at the WTO, under my own responsibility.  
 
As you are all aware, the Ministers of 88 Members issued a Joint Statement i n Buenos Aires 
establishing an " Informal Working Group on MSMEs at the W TO that is open to all members…" . As 
per that Declaratio n, this informal working group " …will continue striving  for a multilateral outcome 
aimed at establishing a formal work programme for MSMEs at the next Ministerial Conference"  
(Joint Ministerial Statement WT/MIN(17)/58/rev.1).  
 
Since then, this informal working group has met twice at plenary level to discuss th e organization 
of its work and structure: on 30 January & on 27 February.  
 
The first plenary meeting of the year took place under the coordination of Chile. In that regard, 
before continuing with my report, I want to recognize the extraordinary leadership exerted by 
Ambassador Casanueva and his team in pushing forward this initiative since they assumed this 
responsibility in June 2017.  
  
In the second meeting, Uruguay assumed the general Coordination of this informal group and a 
coordinating committee compr ising the following Members was approved, n amely: Bahrain; El 
Salvador;  Hong Kong, China; Ivory Coast; Nigeria; Pakistan;  Philippines, and Switzerland.  
  
The informal working group is committed to work in an open, transparent and fully inclusive 
manner. All Members interested in our initiative should feel free to join us or simply come to our 
meetings. In that regard, I would like to share with you that the informal Group has the objective 
of organizing several open -ended meetings that will soon be reflec ted in our Road Map for 2018.  
  
Although the Road Map for the current year is still under development, I can share with you that 
the discussions and activities for this year will aim at both fostering the participation of MSMEs in 
regional and global marke ts and identifying possible ways forward on MS MEs in the WTO  based on 
concrete proposals and suggestions submitted by Members. The topics that are going to be WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 27 - 
 
  discussed at those meetings are those listed in ou r Joint Ministerial Statement in  Buenos Aires a nd 
include the following:  
 
• ways to promote a more predictable regulatory environment for MSMEs;  
• reduction of trade costs  including areas such as trade facil itation, shipping and logistics  
and procedures and requirements related to origin;  
• promotion of  bet ter access to trade finance for MSMEs; and,  
• consideration of how technical assistance and capacity building initiatives could take into 
account the trade needs and challenges of MSMEs.  
 
Last but not least, I would like to invite everyone to attend the first MSME activity of the year 
which will take place on 27 March.  
 
This open -ended meeting will be dedicated to the following topic: "Improved access to information 
for MSMEs."  
 
More information about this event will be provided in due time by the Swiss dele gation in their 
capacity as the Member coordinating this particular topic of our work.  
 
As I said before, the R oad Map for 2018 will be finaliz ed in the following weeks and in that regard 
we will keep you and all Members informed accordingly.  
 
6. European Un ion 
 
Many thanks for convening this meeting today to discuss the way forward following MC11.  
 
Before getting into that discussion, let me first briefly share the EU’s assessment of the Ministerial 
Conference. The EU had spared no efforts to prepare the gr ound for substantive outcomes in 
MC11. We were not optimistic when l eaving for Buenos Aires but yet  we can only be disappointed 
by the final result. Not only were we unable to arrive at outcomes, we even weren't able to 
properly discuss various issues of i nterest due to political and tactical blockage. The "cherry on the 
cake" was of course the widely reported lack of consensus to prohibit subsidies to illegal fishing.  
  
The lack of outcomes in MC11 and the b roader situation in this organiz ation are of great concern to 
the EU. We need to face the real ity and take corrective actions  including using creative solutions to 
move out of the deadlock. Business as usual is not an option.  
 
This being said, MC11 does indeed provide an opportunity for the future – an opportunity to 
change the way we do things. We need to find ways to regain the interest and support of our 
leaders and civil society for the WTO and the multilateral trading system. The EU remains its 
staunch supporter. We need the system's stability a nd the predictability it brings to international 
trade. However, for the system to remain meaningful and valuable, it needs to advance rule -
making on the fundamental issues that are at the heart of current trade tensions.  
 
There is no quick -fix solution t o this situation. Nevertheless, we should at all costs avoid that it 
further deteriorates. Therefore, we should, without delay, take some steps forward to make it 
happen.  
 
First, we believe that more flexibility is needed in the way we handle issues. Misu sing the 
consensus rule to block exploratory debates among Members is untenable and undermines the 
entire system. We need to ensure that the WTO's negotiating and deliberative functions thrive. The 
WTO should remain a forum where any Member can raise an is sue for discussion.  
 
Consequently, the EU believes that there is a need in the coming months to make use of various 
approaches to pursue our debates. This should be done for the purpose of allowing a fruitful 
debate among interested Members without exclud ing anyone. On issues where there is broad 
support of the entire Membership, the traditional approach that we used  before MC11 should be 
prioritiz ed. Fisheries subsidies is the prime example. Here we need a rapid acceleration of work if 
we hope to achieve an outcome as prescribed in SDG 14.6.  
 
On a number of other issues where discussions have been blocked, including those on which joint 
statements were made in Buenos Aires, we should explore with other interested Members possible WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 28 - 
 
  avenues on how to proceed with a view to strengthening the multilateral system. The obvious 
solution here is to discuss and eventually negotiate among those Members who are interested in 
an issue with a view to achieving outcomes whose benefits could be extended to all Members on 
an MFN basis.  
 
This does not mean turning our backs on the system. It means that we have heard the message 
from some Members that they do not want to discuss certain issues and that we will look for ways 
of addressing them in a manner that does not force a nyone to do what they do not want. From 
this perspective it's a win -win approach.    
 
This is of course a temporary fix. In the longer -term we will need to find other ways of multilateral 
outcomes on files currently blocked.  
 
This brings me to the second p oint I wish to highlight – the importance of pursuing the debate  on 
development and trade in  finding ways of addressing the issue in a manner acceptable to all.  
 
We all acknowledge that the question of development is central in the WTO. In the run -up to 
MC11, we failed to have a proper discussion. We should now engage with open minds in a concrete 
debate, looking at the needs and finding ways to accommodate them. There is no one size fits all 
answer to this question. The EU is ready to consider vari ous app roaches to flexibilities  but these 
have to be substantiated and applied on a case -by-case basis.   
 
Third, there is an urgent need to focus attention on the WTO's regular work. Regular committees 
are one of the best assets of the WTO and it is an essential  tool to ensure dialogue and the respect 
of existing rules. In this regard, there is a need for a renewed focus on transparency and 
notifications.  
 
Besides these elements, the EU continues to attach the highest priority to ensuring the smooth 
functioning o f the WTO's dispute settlement system. We need to safeguard its main features and 
principles.  
 
Finally, I would like to express the EU's grave concern about recently announced trade actions 
planned by a major WTO Member. The  current impasse in this organiz ation will only be further 
compounded by such illegitimate measures that are taken to protect domestic industries under the 
guise of a national security justification. We do hope that the government in question may still be 
convinced that these measures ar e liable to triggering a process that is in nobody's interest.  
 
7. Guyana (ACP)  
 
I make this statement on behalf of the ACP Group and wish to thank you for your report. I also 
wish to thank you for your very helpful participation at the ACP Reflections on 15 February.  
 
In reflecting on the recently concluded WTO Ministerial Conference, the ACP acknowledged that the 
challenges that faced MC11 were known to be formidable before anyone arrived in Buenos Aires. 
In Buenos Aires , Ministers a dded their weight to the effort. B ut beyond the elements in the 
decision on fisheries subsidies championed by the ACP Group,  there was wide disappointment with 
the overall outcome.   
 
Two broad conclusions can be drawn from the MC11 outcome.  
 
- On the one hand, the wide reaffirmatio n of the multilateral rules based trading system and 
the cen tral role of the WTO is welcome  alongside the recognition that development is 
integral to the system.  
- On the other hand, there are difficult issues of trust, relevance and possible reform that 
may be needed to advance the multilateral trade and development objectives of Members.  
 
Challenges  
 
In our view, there are three specific challenges that one might say matured fully before MC11 and 
undermined our efforts towards any outcome at the Conferenc e. 
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 29 - 
 
  The first of these challenges relates to the future of the DDA, which has recently been questioned 
mainly by developed countries. In that regard, th e ACP takes note that the Chair' s statement from 
MC11 reiterated Members'  commitment to paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration.   
 
At the same time, there was universal consensus in Buenos Aires on a decision to step up 
negotiations on the DDA mandated fisheries subsidies disciplines negotiations. The ACP Group 
welcomes this d ecision of Ministers on fisheries subsidies rules which provides us with a clear and 
reaffirmed mandate to continue our negot iations and to conclude by 2019  which would synchronize 
any agreement with the SDG 14.6 deadline of 2020.   
 
The second challenge e ncompasses the differences between Members on what trade policy 
meas ures are needed for development  and even  on those where there might be som e consensus 
on their usefulness  – under what terms they are av ailable to developing countries.  It would appear 
to us that developing countries themselves are better placed to define their developmental needs. 
For the  ACP, the developmental mandate embedded in the DDA  remains at the core.  
 
Thirdly, there exists a number of fractures related to how well WTO structures, procedures and 
processes work towards meeting the expectations of its large and varied membership.  
 
Any path for a way forward starts with facing these challenges and agreeing on ap proaches to 
their resolution. Status quo and business -as-usual approaches w ill weaken the WTO further and 
Members will increasingly look elsewhere to address the problems of trade policy and trade and 
development. We need to ensure that our varied interests are accommodated in a flexible 
multilateral framework.   
 
Way forward  
 
On the way forward, we need to start immediately to prioritize the important issues, place them on 
parallel tracks with clear output parameters, set timelines and dedicate resources to break the 
impasse so as to achieve the outcomes that strengthen the rule s-based multilateral system and 
advance the development of our countries.   
 
The ACP notes that the call to review, repair and reform the global tradin g framework is not new.  
It was indeed  the basis for the  Doha Development Agenda (DDA). We are however  at another 
important juncture where dissatisfaction with the process of arriving at convergence and the mode 
of agenda setting needs careful attention  while preserving the principle of consensus.  
 
The discussion on the development issue and priorities of the  multilateral trading system which 
trade ministers started in Buenos Aires must continue as a core aspect of the post -MC11 agenda.   
Moreover, our members have raised concerns that no attention has been given to finding ways to 
agree on the DDA agreement s pecific special and differential treatment proposals. These are core 
unfinished work under the DDA.  
 
We must refor m how we engage with each other  explicitly recognizing that we are trading partners 
with diverse needs.   
 
A multilateral agreement for disci plines on fisheries subsidies rules at the WTO remains an 
important and priority issue for the ACP Group. As is well known, the ACP had worked for a more 
substantive outcome at MC11 and remains very committed to continue engaging constructively in 
the nego tiations towards fulfilling our mandate.   
 
We also attach great importance to conclud ing negotiations on agriculture including cotton  
resulting in the elimination of all forms of supports that pose obstacles to our exports.   
 
On New issues for negotiatio ns, guidance was provided in the Nairobi Declaration in paragraph 34 
on how these are to be treated.    
 
We hope we can resume work  in the shortest possible time.  In that regard , we are pleased to hear 
that there is prog ress on the selection of the  Chair of the Negotiating Group on Rules  and look 
forward to settling the matter of th e outstanding CoA SS Chair as quickly as possible.  
 
We agree that our differences will not simply disappear. It will require our collective effort, shared WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 30 - 
 
  responsibility and flex ibility to achieve sensible compromises for what is necessary and relevant to 
ensuring the strengthening of the rules -based multilateral system that serves us all.   
 
The ACP reiterates its commitment to continue to engage in this fashion.  
 
8. Turkey  
 
Despite  the best efforts and hospitality of Argentina, we should admit that we failed to accomplish 
a successful Ministerial Conference in terms of WTO negotiations. For sure, our Delegation did not 
expect to advance on all outstanding negotiating topics. But we could have some concrete 
outcomes at least on a few of them.  
 
However , Turkey' s real disappointment is not due to the lack of concrete outcome on specific 
negotiating topics, but comes from the lack of agreement among the Membership on a common 
Ministerial  declaration and commitme nt to continue the negotiations  except in fisheries. This has 
been certainly a negative signal with respect to the future of the WTO negotiations and 
multilateralism in general.  
 
Nevertheless, Turkey does not see an alternative to the WTO and to multilateral negotiations. In 
this sense, I think we should resume our discussions without much delay to better understand the 
current positions of each and every Member  and to explore where and how we can move forward 
realistically. In this  regard, we may still follow our roadmap mandated in Nairobi and other 
Ministerial Decisions.  
 
In this process, all Members should bear in mind that negotiation is a give and take exercise. 
Without any compromise, it is not possible to reach an agreement r egardless of the subject. 
Demanding too much or drawing too many red lines and priority zones harden our positions to 
step further.  
 
It is obvious that both the global scene and the trading patterns have changed significantly sin ce 
the establishment of the  WTO while some problems have remained persistent. Therefore, we 
should all admit that the WTO and its agenda should also evolve in line with the changing face of 
the international environment.  
 
While doing this, we should also recognize the fact tha t trade is not an end in itself  but a tool for 
increasing the prosperity of our countries. However, if some countries are left behind on a 
consistent basis and their development processes are overlooked, our growth and prosperity will 
not be sustainable for all . In this sense, we should be open to understand the specific nee ds of 
certain Members  bearing in mind we have enough tools in our inventory to use trade for assisting 
them. We should provide necess ary policy space to each Member  without worsening off the others.  
 
Finally, let me stress that Turkey is ready to listen and consider all new ideas, suggestions and 
approaches with respect to all n egotiating areas with an open mind  and to contribute wherever 
possible.  
 
9. Mexico  
 
I would first like to thank you for your status report o n the work of this Organization  and the 
coordinators of the groups on MSMEs , investment facilitation and e -commerce for presenting us 
with the next steps that need to be taken in these discussions.  
 
Today more than ever, our efforts nee d to be concentrated on strengthening the multilateral 
trading system. The WTO could become irrelevant as a negotiating forum for the dif ferent actors 
involved in trade. O wing to its potential structural damage,  the WTO's  dispute settlement pillar is 
now a t significant risk of meeting the same fate.  
 
It is clear from our negotiations that we have not been able to find solutions for overcoming our 
differences by using the traditional approaches. We cannot expect a positive outcome if we 
continue to do exactl y the same thing we have been doing for the last 15 years. From now on, we 
will have to do things differently so that we can meet the challenges not only on traditional issues, 
but also on 21st century ones.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 31 - 
 
  As many M inisters noted during their informal g athering in Davos, we must begin a phase of 
introspection or policy thinking. However, as was also indicated on that occasion, this exercise 
should in no ev ent be seen as a pretext for not  moving for ward in other negotiating areas 
including:  
 
• Fisheries subsidies – where we received clear direction in Buenos Aires to achieve an 
outcome at the next Ministerial Conference, at the latest.  
• Domestic regulation of services  – where there is support from a large number of Members 
for moving the discussion forward  on the basis of a text  as a result of the meeting in 
Buenos Aires.  
• Agriculture – where we must continue the discussions aimed at establishing disciplines on 
the most trade distorting subsidies and the pending elements of the export competition 
pillar.  
• Other issues on which a significant number of Members have clearly indicated their 
willingness to explore alternatives so that progress can be made on a multil ateral basis in 
areas such as e -commerce, investment facilitation and MSMEs.  
 
Regarding our system's  crown jewel – the Appellate Body – the cr itical situation that we  along with 
a group of Latin American countries and an increasing number of Members  have been warning of 
for almost a year with respect to the Dispute Settlement Body is now a reality. Today , the 
Appellate Body has only four of its seven members. Given its workload and the possible 
termination of other members' terms, there will be a more blatant risk of paralysis  if this situation 
continues into the near future . 
 
The foregoing is even more w orrying in an international environment where talk of a t rade war is 
increasingly common  as we were regrettably able to attest only a couple of days ago after a 
Member announced its intention to unilaterally impose tariffs on steel and aluminium products. 
While we recognize the legitimate right of Members to defend their industries against unfair trade 
practices, we do not consider it appropriate for them to do so in a un ilateral and broad based 
manner  with no apparent account being taken of the rules of th is Organization or the potential 
impact on the exports of other Members.  
 
Clearly, this type of action carries the risk of moving us closer to a "law of the jungle" type of 
scenario  in which such measures are pitted against each other through reta liation a nd counter 
retaliation  and a failure to respect multilateral trade rules – or a contrived interpretation of those 
rules – can become the common denominator. As easy and tempting as it might appear to some, 
this would not be beneficial for any Member. On th e contrary, it could threaten the very integrity 
of the WTO.  
 
It is for th is reason that we appeal for these types of measures to be reconsidered before being 
implemented. We also call on Members to create the conditions to restore the Appellate Body to 
operation and thereby ensure a healthy Dispute Settlement Body  which should be the priority for 
all of us.  
 
Finally , we feel that the forthcoming Ministerial m eeting to be held in New Delhi will be a valuable 
opportunity that we must take advantage of to exp lore different ways to make headway  in 
discussions and to evaluate at the highest level  the immediate risks and challenges facing the 
WTO.  
 
Mexico once again reiterates its willingness to continue working to find common ground so as to 
facilitate a dialogu e as partne rs and not as trade enemies  and to ensure the integrity and 
relevance of our Organization and the multilateral trading system.  
 
10. Colombia  
 
As this is the first time we have gathered since the Eleventh Ministerial Conference, I would like to 
thank  the Government of Argentina for its efforts in planning that important event.  
 
We are of the impression that the incremental approach taken by this Organization since the Bali 
Conference in 2013 is being continued post Buenos Aires. We therefore welcome t he decision that 
has laid the foundation for negotiations on subsidies that are harmful to fisheries. We also support 
the initiatives geared towards bringing the WTO closer to new economic, trade and social trends WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 32 - 
 
  and realities  whose effects can be seen in  the progress made on issues such as MSMEs, e -
commerce, investment facilitation  and the relationship between trade and women's empowerment.  
 
We regret however  that we achieved no outcomes on agriculture at MC11  specifically on the 
domestic support pillar  which we see as fundamental to the goal of making trade more inclusive 
and capable of having an impact on poverty reduction.  
 
With respect to agriculture, we feel that the new cycle we are beginning must start with a brief 
reflection on what happened before and during MC11. The proposals that were submitted must be 
reviewed and the reasons for their failure identified so that we can start taking con crete steps as 
soon as possible  with new approaches, initiatives and proposals capable of garnering suffi cient 
support. We encourage all Members to actively support this reflective exercise and – what is even 
more important – to provide practical input during the thematic review of proposals so that 
elements can be identified for the continued generation of i deas on how to reduce forms of 
domestic support that distort this important economic sector.  
 
As regards fisheries subsidies, we are confident that Members will honour the Ministerial Decision 
to reach a comprehensive agreement  at the Twelfth Ministerial C onferenc e on the regulation of 
subsidies for illegal, unregulated and unreported fishing, overfishing  and fisheries overcapacity. 
This will see us deliver on the mandate of Su stainable Development Goal 14.6  which was agreed 
on by our Heads of State. We con sider it important for the Negotiating Group on Rules to have  a 
schedule of monthly meetings  as this will ensure the participation of capitals at least twice every 
six months.  
 
In addition, with respect to the fisheries subsidies notification obligations a greed in the Ministerial 
Decision, we must commit ourselves to supporting the guidelines of the Committee on Subsidies 
and Countervailing Measures in order to increase transparency and strengthen the negotiating 
process.  
 
With regard to domestic regulation  in services, we feel that the proposal put forward by a large 
number of developing and developed country Members in the run up to Buenos Aires provides a 
basis for constructive dialogue. We propose revising and adapting the proposal so that it can serve 
as a platform to continue broadening support among Members.  
 
Regarding e -commerce, we will work with the parties to the Buenos Aires decision to move forward 
discussions that are clear and inclusive and will propel us towards a multilateral outcome.  
 
In add ition, as part of the Group of Friends of MSMEs that adopted the Ministerial Declaration in 
Buenos Aires, we will continue advocating for spaces at the WTO where this important segment of 
our economie s can be discussed and analysed  as well as for initiativ es to cast light on the matters 
most likely to facilitate these enterprises' access to international trade and to make those matters 
a focus of the work of the Organization's regular bodies.  
 
We will continue to support an open and inclusive dialogue on ho w cooperation on investment 
facilitation, to the extent of the WTO's competence, could be used as a lever for development.  
 
Regarding the Organization's operations in general, we are open to discussing any issues in order 
to improve and bring about the Org anization that we need. Initiatives to conti nue increasing 
transparency are without doubt  important.  
 
Finally, we consider that what is happening in dispute  settlement needs urgent review  and the 
process to begin filling the Appellate Body vacancies must b e resumed as soon as possible. We 
must identify the concerns, openly review alternati ves for overcoming the problems  and 
demonstrate our full resolve to do so without this conditioning the launch of the pending selection 
processes for new members.  
 
In this  new post Buenos Aires phase, we must strive to demonstrate the value of the WTO as a 
tool for development. We hope that under your leadership and with support from all sides, we will 
be able to truly strengthen the Organization and bring about new multila teral outcomes.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 33 - 
 
  11. Central African Republic (LDCs)  
 
Our organization has come far since the creation of the GATT in 1947 passing through the Tokyo 
Round, the Uruguay Round and then Marrakesh in 1995 – the year of the establishment of the 
World Trade Organiza tion. We have gone from 29 Members in the GATT to the number that we are 
today. It is essential that we continue to support this process and maintain the three pillars that 
form the foundation for our organization – better representing the interests of con cerned parties 
and the integration of small countries such as the LDCs in decision -making. We must therefore be 
at the table with everyone else.  
 
This first post Buenos Aires meeting brings together all Members and invites us to reflect upon and 
discuss how we see negotia tions moving forward in the WTO, a greeing modus operandi looking to 
MC12.  
 
From the LDCs' perspective, you will not be surprised to hear that we were particularly 
disappointed with the results of MC11. We placed great hope and expectatio n on certain key areas 
for our group such as domestic support in agriculture, cotton, fisheries and special and differential 
treatment – following the instructions given by our Ministers at MC10 particularly on the progress 
to be made on Doha Issues as ens hrined in paragraph 31 of the Nairobi Declaration.  
 
At the beginning of this year, our group would like to reiterate the importance of fulfilling 
commitments that Members have taken in favour of LDCs. This includes not only the full 
implementation of the o utcomes of the Hong Kong, Bali and Nairobi Ministerial Decisions in market 
access, DFQF, services waivers to LDC service suppliers and rules of origin but also the completion 
of other issues under the DDA which are fully in line with the 2030 SDGs. In this  regard, the issue 
of the reduction of domestic support in agriculture should be fully dealt with particularly for the 
elimination of support in cotton.  
 
One of the necessary conditions for development and for the integration of the LDCs into the 
multilat eral trading system is industrialization. Conditions in favour of development that our people 
would benefit from can only happen in a competitive environment if there are flexibilities in the 
WTO through S&DT provisions. The question is, will the WTO and i ts Members respond to our 
needs urgently enough to allow us to effectively integrate into the multilateral trading system?  
 
If concrete outcomes in our favour will continue to be set aside, it will be more difficult for us to 
integrate into the post 2008 c risis environment. We are looking for signs of genuine will to 
integrate us into this system. In this regard, the principle of multilateralism guiding our institution 
should remain as such. Any other action would constitute a threat to our rules based syst em 
enshrined in the Marrakesh Agreement. Any issue negotiated in the WTO must therefore be on the 
basis of a multilateral, transparent and inclusive initiative in favour of economic development and 
job creation.  
 
To conclude, I would like to express the LD Cs' interest to pursue discussions together with all 
Members on the basis of constructive participation and a determined will for the benefit of all and 
that of multilateralism.  
 
12. China  
 
Thank you for convening this meeting and sharing the information about  your latest consultations. 
China would like to associate itself with the statement made by Indonesia on behalf of the G-33. 
 
Three months have passed since MC11. Members have re flected on the results of this M inisterial 
as well as the system in general. N ow is the time for us to utilize those reflections in our work this 
year. I will briefly touch upon three issues.  
 
First, how do we carry  out the instructions from MC11?  We do have some work program mes on 
issues  including fisheries subsidies which need to be implemented in a timely manner. However, 
MC11 only represents a small part of our work. We have decisions in the previous M inisterial 
meetings and many valuable or at least interesting proposals before Buenos  Aires for us to pick up 
on. We ha ve already missed one d eadline for Public stockholding. W hat has been achieved on 
devel opment is far from satisfactory. N othing yet has been achieved on NAMA , services or rules. 
There is still a  long to -do list in front of us and we will not fulfil  the expectations of our people by WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 34 - 
 
  idling around.  
 
I agree with the Director -General  that flexibility is essent ial in our work here in the WTO  which is 
built on consensus. I would like to add that understanding is also critical. To  better understand 
what M embers'  priorities and redlines are, more importantly why, is the first step of resolving 
differences and finding solutions. For example, when talking about our work in the CTD  SS, mutual 
understanding on why clarifying and improving S&D provisions are imp ortant as well as what is 
doable  is needed. Simply ignoring the  call from majority of the WTO M embership is not the right 
way forward.  
 
Secondly, how do we walk the walk in term s of supporting the system?  It is very unfortunate that 
we have all smelled the  smoke of a trade war. Apart from terrible mutual retaliation, only DSU can 
stop the trade war.  
 
But now, despite the challenges faced by the negotiating agenda, dispute settlement is putting the 
system in danger. China is a faithful supporter and major participant of the WTO dispute 
settlement mechanism. We have significant concerns r egarding the current deadlock in the  
Appellate Body selection process. We have also been in close co ntact with many other Members 
trying to seek for a solution as soon as po ssible. It should be noted that if the dispute s ettlement 
system were disrupted  not only the multilateral trading system  but also the interests of all 
Members will be diminished. We therefore urge the Members concerned to table concrete 
proposals and engag e constructively with a view to solving the problem as early as possible.  
 
Lastly, how  do we deal with non -DDA issues?  The world is changing fast. Every time I talk to my 
son, he will give me a lecture on a new app or videogame. At the same time, the world  is complex. 
The problems identified by our predecessors are not going away unresolved. Th e needs for 
agricultural reform  to offset the development deficit and rules deficit are st ill there  if not stronger. 
But unfortunately, the outstanding issues do not prevent the new problems from arising.  
 
China's position is simple. W hile fighting for the traditional issues, WTO should start discussions  on 
how to deal with new issues – another way to put it, how to take  advantage of new opportunities  
to keep its rele vance. These discussions can start among like -minded members, but should be 
conducted in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. All Members are welcome in those 
discuss ions but will not be forced into anything. At the same time, the like -minded M embers  
should cautiously  advance the discussion process  not to impose fragmentation among M embers.  
 
13. China (FIFD)  
 
FIFD firmly believes that the discussions on Investment Facilitation for Development is an open 
and inclusive process of building confidence and lay ing the groundwork towards the final objective 
of achieving the multilateral outcome. In addition to our Geneva efforts, FIFD is also planning on 
another two regional events in 2018, building on the progress made in Abuja last ye ar, to learn 
more about Mem bers' investment facilitation priorities and needs, especially the developing and 
least developed o nes. We warmly welcome all WTO M embers to participate in the process and 
contribute to these discussions.  
 
FIFD would like to encourage all of you to attend the open -ended meeting called by the 
Ambassador of Argentina to be held on 13 March  to discuss the next steps. I would also like to 
take this opportunity to welcome Guatema la in joining FIFD  following closely in the footsteps of the 
Gambia and Mauritania. With your participation and contribution, we can achieve much more in 
our efforts ahead.  
 
14. Uganda  
 
My Delegation would wish to express its appreciation to Argentina, and in particular to Minister 
Malcorra for hosting MC11. MC11 appeared to have been a succe ss on at least one front – there 
was evidence of  an inclusive, transparent and Member -driven process. The time -tested principle of 
consensus was at play. We are puzzled abo ut some M embers who tend to veer away from the 
consensus principle just for purposes of expediency. Without this principle and the Member -driven 
nature of this Organization, perhaps M embers would have forged a Ministerial Declaration that 
would have provided the mu ch-needed guidance for pos t MC11. We therefore encourage M embers 
to embrace this fundamental rule in the organization and s hould treat with suspicion any Member WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 35 - 
 
  who thinks that " the WTO consensus mechanism should be circumscribed and not be let to  stand 
in the way of Members' right to discuss some issues".  
 
At this ju ncture we would like to invite M embers to further consider the  African Group submission 
in JOB /GC/158 on the Ministerial Conference Process and Outcome Document. It appears to us 
that m any M embers made observations on the text without having bothered to read it in the first 
place. One of the causes of what came out of Buenos Aires wa s our inability to harness the 
"moment of truth" . This resulted in to our Ministers having an over loaded and unclea r agenda 
which required them to move from room to room. Surely we need to revisit the agenda setting 
process for a Ministerial Conference.  
 
We said it before  and we want to repeat here that Members must first  be clear on which 
documents are to be put befo re the Ministers and which ones are to be stayed  in advance of the 
Ministerial C onference. Secondly, Ministers should only be presented with documents for adoption. 
It is only in exceptional circumstances that they should be presented with opti ons on a tex t but 
which is largely stabilized. It is no wonder that the outcome in Buenos Aires was clearly predictable 
as there was no way Ministers were expected ever to find the landing zone in three days on 
elements over which we ourselves had failed to agree on o ver a period of 23 months. This should 
be a big lesson to us and should not be allowed to happen again.  
  
As firm believ ers in this organization being Member -driven, we need to agree on the parameters 
within which we do our work here in the TNC and in the regular bodies.  
 
We would like however to take note of  and welcome two decisions adopted by our Ministers in 
Buenos Aires, namely: on fisheries subsidies and the Work Program me on E-commerce. Here we 
ought to recall that just as we put emphas is on the fulf ilment of SDG Target 14.6, it is equally 
important to realize that in addition to fisheries, Agenda 2030 also calls for the conclusion of the 
Doha round in SDG 17.10. We should therefore avoid the temptation to cherry pick in our dealing 
with the SDGs. Tow ards that end, we support the conclusion of the remaining elements of the 
Doha round not only in line with the object,  purpose and spirit of the SDGs  but equally in 
consonance with the mandates of the DDA.  
 
The importance of the M ultilateral Trading Syste m in enabling LDCs to integrate into th e global 
economy cannot be over emphasized. Our engagement in the different areas of work is very much 
premised on the benefits we hope to rip from it. At the meeting of Ministers in Doha in 2001, our 
Ministers agreed to place development at the cent re of the negotiations hence calling the 
mandates  Doha Development Agenda. We regret though  that Members have gone against the 
underlying objectives of the DDA. They have deliberately and persistently failed to deliver on 
development at each of the Ministerial Conferences in line with para. 44 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration. If developing countries and particularly LDCs cannot get trade policy relief in this 
Organization then of what benefit is it going to be to us?  
 
Governments have a duty to make specific and targeted interventions in key sectors of the 
economy in order to respond to the specific needs and interests of their people with the view to 
triggering development, provide employment, increase household income s and eradicate poverty 
to mention  but a few. We have heard many M embers argue and question the c redibility of this 
Organization. I t is however  important to point out, and we ought to emphasize this, that the 
credibility of any Organization or an entity is  measured on the extent to which it meets the needs 
and interests of its M embers.  
 
Towards this end therefore, a lot remains to be done by this organization on this front. We must 
reflect deeply on the message this conveys about the Organization in li ght of future multilateral 
rule-making. Who is the WTO intended to serve if it cannot address the specific development 
needs of the majority of its Members? What  does the WTO intend to promote  beyond simply rule -
making?  
 
Our view on new  issues has always been  and will ever be that any issue that is not mandated by 
Ministers should not take up our time. Any issue that is inconsistent with the para. 1(g) of the July 
framework should be relegated to the exploratory discussions. Paragraph 34 of the Nairobi 
Ministe rial Declaration pr ovides further guidance: thus, " some wish to identify and discuss other 
issues for negotiation; others do not. Any decision to launch negotiations multilaterally on such 
issues would need to be agreed by all Member s." WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 36 - 
 
   
Take e -commerce fo r instance, the Buenos Aires Ministerial called for a discussion of an 
exploratory nature to take place in line with the 1998 Work Program me. Any attempts therefore to 
circumvent this Ministerial Decision through any other approaches with the view of arriv ing at 
outcomes that run contrary to the decisio n of the Ministerial Conference  will create a precedence 
that would render all our Ministers with their sub sequent decisions redundant. In fact, this is likely 
to spell doom for all of our future multilateral  decision -making processes and outcomes.  
 
There has been no agreement of the M embership on this or any other so -called new issues.  
Therefore we view any attempts to start or continue discussions on any such issues aimed at rule 
setting in whatever "forma t" to be going against the letter and spirit of this and all previous 
instructions. The WTO being a multilateral rule setting body should resist any isolati onist actions 
being pursued by M embers in this Organization as being inconsis tent with Article III:2  of the 
Marrakesh Agreement. These actions are intended to circumvent this r ule. We strongly call upon 
all M embers to respect the multilateral nature of the WTO and uphold its principles of 
multilateralism.  
 
We cannot pick and choose how to operate in this  Organization. We therefore need to reflect 
deeply during this time before the next Ministerial Conference on what kind of future we want. 
Otherwise we are very likely to go on a slippery slope where we as developing countries and LDCs 
in particular will u nwittingly lose our rights in the name of being constructive and fle xible. This is 
about the future  and about our future. We should all be co -creators of multilateral systems that  
would work for and apply to all of us  without distinction. We do not want to create two classes of 
Members in this Organization: those who make the rules and those who take the rules.  
 
We squandered the valuable opportunity in the lead up to MC11. We should not lose it now again. 
We need to ask ourselves the following questions: W hat is the place of the WTO in Developmen t? 
How have multilateral systems  rules aided or stampeded structural transformation  and 
industrialization for our M embers? How do the trade distorting domestic supports employed by 
major economies fit into the free trade narrative espoused by the same M embers? What should be 
of paramount importance  in the political economy of a c ountry? Should it be multilateral 
institutions o r the needs and interests of a c ountry? Would WTO exist without the suppo rt of its 
Members? We need not let this Organ ization become bigger than its M embers. How do we pretend 
to write new rules when the decisions made by our Ministers and the General Council are ignored 
in the name of expediency? How do we write new rules when the enforcement me chanism of the 
Organization is in dispute?  
 
In line with the  African Group submission in JOB /GC/167, this must be the time for M embers to 
conduct an audit of all existing rules to see how and where WTO rules have contributed to the 
devel opment  or otherwise  for Africa.  
 
To conclude, we say it once again that any ne w approaches that we may devise  must respect the 
multilateral nature of the WTO and its basic principles. MC12 will soon be upon us and we shall all 
be seeking to obtain outcomes. The period of re flection should therefore be use d constructively so 
as to avoid  the unknowns in the future. We should concretely write the future w e want. But, and it 
is a big but , this writing must take into account structural transformation and industrialization of 
Africa in line with agenda 2063, the Africa we want.  
 
15. Ecuador  
 
In these first few months following the Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference held in December last 
year, delegations have been reflecting and must continue to reflect on the direction in which we 
wish to steer the actions of this Organization.  
 
Ecuador agrees that it is important to continue focusing efforts on multilateralism, as this is one of 
the cornerstones of the negotiations in this Organization. For this reason, we reaffirm the need to 
deepen  and move forward multilateral negotiations, which are based on inclusive processes and 
the principles of transparency and balance, and which take into account the diversity of interests in 
regulating international trade to the benefit of all WTO Members. On this basis, we must continue 
our efforts, by working together, prioritizing development and special and differential treatment, 
and taking into account flexibilities for developing and least developed countries.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 37 - 
 
  Ecuador supports the special and differe ntial treatment mandated by the Buenos Aires Decision on 
Fisheries Subsidies, with a view to establishing an agreement on comprehensive and effective 
disciplines that eliminate subsidies for illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.  
 
We consider that one of the basic principles governing the multilateral trading system is 
compliance with the rules adopted by WTO Members. In this regard, we believe that the dispute 
settlement system of this Organization is essential for providing security and predictabi lity, and it 
is therefore the responsibility of the Members to initiate, as soon as possible, the appointment 
process to fill the vacancies created in the Appellate Body.  
 
We consider that the dispute settlement system is being undermined through the assoc iation of 
issues relating to the appointment of Appellate Body members with procedural concerns. These are 
two different matters that should not be linked in any way. This mechanism must be strengthened, 
especially as the international economic order is cu rrently under threat.  
 
With regard to e -commerce, at the last Ministerial Conference, Members agreed to reinvigorate our 
work on the basis of the 1998 Work Programme and the repor ts submitted by existing bodies  
without the need to change the current system  or create new institutions.  
 
Concerning the role of micro, small and medium sized enterprises (MSMEs) as a tool to promote 
development, Ecuador was party to the Joint Ministerial Statement agreed upon in Buenos Aires, 
and will work on finding multilateral , horizontal and non -discriminatory solutions that foster the 
participation of MSMEs in international trade, particularly taking into account the needs of 
developing and least developed countries.  
 
Lastly, as we have stated on previous occasions, the agric ultural pillar is of major importance for 
Ecuador, which is why we are in favour of introducing a true comprehensive reform in this area, in 
which commitments must be respected to achieve balanced results for all Members.  
 
16. Nepal  
 
Safeguarding the objective s and principles of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO and 
the multilateral trading syst em in the best interest of all M embers is our prime collective 
responsibility. The LDCs pin great hope in the multilateral trading system to achieve the long-
cherished objective for inclusive growth and development.   
 
My delegation aligns itself with the statement made by the Central African Republic, the 
coordinator of  the LDC Group.  
 
The post Buenos Aires period  as the pre vious speakers have highlighted  has become a period of 
uncertainty in the course of the multilateral trading system  and its further development. At this 
juncture, we all need to reflect on the situation and redoubl e our efforts to bring it back to normal. 
For achieving the goals of Agenda 2030 for sustainable development in an inclusive manner, there 
are no other measures as effective as the rule -based, free, fair and non -discriminatory multilateral 
trading system.  
 
Faithful implementation of the past commitments leads us to a transparent an d clear course of 
action for the future. If we get divided on issues and fail to display necessary flexibility needed for 
consensus decision -making demanded by our s ystem, the multilateral trading system  is doomed to 
fail to produce any outcome.  
 
The call of the time is to strengthen and revit alize all the pillars of the multilateral trading system  
and make them fully functional. The pillars of trade policy review , negotiations and dispute 
settlement in particular  must be strengthened and rendered fully fun ctional and outcome -oriented.  
 
As a strong supporter of the rule -based multilateral trading system, Nepal believes in the centrality 
of development in WTO negotiations and decisions. As an LDC, we expec t equitable trade 
opportunities  enabling policy space s and level playing field through meaningful special and 
differential treatments.  
 
We want to fully utilize the power of MTS in structural transformation of our economies, productive 
capacity building, achieving the sustainable development goals and meaningful integration into the WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 38 - 
 
  global trading system.  
 
Despite several years of efforts,  it is disappointing that the exports of LDCs continue to go on a 
downward trend, dropping from 1.17% in 2013 to 0.98% in 2015 and 0.91% in 2017, which 
sharply contrasts with the Istanbul Plan of Action objectives and the SDG target of doubling the 
LDCs ex ports by 2020.  
 
Implementation of the LDC -related decisions and declaration made in Hong Kong, Doha, Bali and 
Nairobi, including duty free quota free market access, preferential rules of origin, preferential 
treatment for the services and service provider s, TRIPS waiver and technology transfer must be 
institutionalized. Accordingly, mechanisms must be in place to ensure that these decisions are 
implemented in a faithful and result -oriented manner.  
 
The divide between Doha and non -Doha issues has further s queezed the LDCs and their 
marginalization has worsened in the wake of protectionist tendencies in the economies and trade 
globally. We view that if  development is put at the cent re and trade issues addressed 
commensurate wit h the development needs of the Member s, solutions to all outstanding as well as 
emerging issues can be found one by one and step by step.  
 
LDCs cannot be burdened by extra commitments of new issues when already committed issues of 
their interests are yet to provide desired results to t hem. I n this respect, we request all M embers 
to be sensitive to the real challenges LDCs are facing  and show willingness and flexibility to 
address them.  
 
In conclusion, a bottom -up approach to strengthening the multilateral trading system  and 
safeguardin g our collective interests is what we feel is the need of the time. Nepal remains read y 
to be constructively engaged in the process.  
 
17. Japan  
 
At the outset, I would like to join the Director -General and other delegations in expressing our 
gratitude to Argen tina for hosting a well -organized Ministerial Conference last December.  
 
We thank the Director -General for his  comprehensive report i ncluding his  assessment and 
suggestions to the Members about some important issues.  
 
It has b een more than two months since  "life after Buenos Aires"  began. During this period, I 
believe the Members have had time to reflect on the result of MC11. While we may each interpret 
it in different ways, one thing is clear: the WTO and the multilateral trading system are at a 
crossroad s. It is use ful to take time for reflection  but we cannot spend too much time indulging 
ourselves in looking back.  
 
We need to address all the issues which are releva nt to international trade today  regardless of 
whether they are remaining or new  and inclu ding those which contribute to the achievement of the 
Sustainable Development Goals. At the same time, it should be noted that different issues require 
different approaches: for some issues we h ave clear guidance for our work  while there are other 
issues w hich need fundamental discussions.  
 
On fisheries subsidies for example, we are ready to move forward: we should build on the 
Ministerial Decision at MC11 and strive to reach agreement on comprehensive and effective 
disciplines by 2019.  
 
On the contrary, n o work programme on agriculture was agreed upon in Buenos Aires. We need to 
identify a way forward of our discussion based on the objective of Article 20 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture.  
 
Trade and development is one area which requi res particular attention post MC11. If we continue 
in the same vein as past approaches, we will end up going nowhere. We should think outside the 
box and make efforts to bridge the gap among the Membership.  
 
In some areas such as e -commerce, investment fac ilitation and MSMEs, we have witnessed new 
movements by like -minded Members. This was one highlight of MC11. Such initiatives should be WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 39 - 
 
  pursued in an open, transparent and inclusive manner. In this connection, I would like to remind 
our colleagues that Jap an, Australia and Singapore will co -organize the first meeting of t he e-
commerce initiative on 14 March. Invitations have been sent to all WTO Members.  
 
The issue of the Appellate Body poses institutional challenges and must be solved quickly. I believe 
that this sense of urgency is now widely shared  but it should be translated into concrete action. 
For that, we need to see political engagement from all Members.  
 
All the se issues are quite challenging  but we need to always maintain a positive attitude in ta ckling 
them. Japan is ready to take leadership in such an endeavo ur. We look forward to collaborating 
with all Members for our common goals.  
 
Lastly, I would like to touch upon the issue of unilateral actions being considered by one Member. I 
understand t hat a formal decisi on has not yet been made public  but Japan believes any trade 
measure must be taken in compliance with the WTO Agreemen t and Japan has a grave concern 
about undesir able spiral of counter -measures  which will pose a serious risk for the mul tilateral 
trading system. Japan will closely watch the situation.  
 
18. Singapore (ASEAN)  
 
ASEAN attaches great importance to the inclusive, rules -based multilateral trad ing system 
enshrined in the WTO  with development at its core.  
 
The Ministerial Decision on  Fisheries Subsidies adopted at Buenos Aires gives clear direction for our 
work on fisheries subsidies negotiations. ASEAN calls for the negotiations to restart quickly. We 
reaffirm our commitment to engage const ructively in these negotiations with a view to adopting  by 
the next Ministerial Conference  a multilateral agreement on fisheries subsidies.   
 
In the run up to MC11, there had been useful wor k and discussions in this house  in both formal 
and informal settings. Some of these led to the issuance at MC 11 of several joint st atements on 
various initiatives  which are open to all Members. Building on earlier work and discussions, we 
need to strengthen the trust within the WTO system to have honest conversations a bout what is 
and is not working  and how the W TO can better respond to the needs of its Members and the 
challenges of t he day. We call on the Director -General to consult with Members so as to help build 
bridges for the way forward. ASEAN is committed to engage constructively in these conversations.  
 
ASEAN reiterates our systemic concerns with the lengthy delays in launching the Appellate Body 
selection process. ASEAN urges that utmost flexibility be shown so that Members can adopt a DSB 
decision to launch the Appellate Body selection expeditiously.  
 
19. Singapore  
 
MC11  
 
The outcomes from MC11 were modest. A few decisions were adopted. We have a mandate for the 
negotiations on fisheries subsidies. Joint statements by like -minded Members  on several matters 
were issued. T hese joint statements were supported b y Members from a broad spectrum of 
development status and across geographical regions – many of whom are also strong champions 
of the old trade issues.  
 
Way forward  
 
As we consider how to procee d with our work in the WTO post MC11, it may be useful to re mind 
ourselves what this organiz ation is for. We agree with the following which is from the WTO's 
webpage – "essentially, the WTO is a place where Member -Governments go, to try to sort out the 
trade problems they face with each ot her. The first step is to talk." MC11 and the recent 
international developments on trade however  beg the question if we have been talking to each 
other or if we h ave been talking at each other.  
 
When talking at each other, we need only be concerned about our own interests. Talking to each 
other requires more effort. It requires each of us t o ask questions and listen more  to really 
understand each Member’s interests, viewpoin ts and specific circumstances. Mutual trust needs to WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 40 - 
 
  be built in order to create the space for ideas to  be exp lored based on merit and at least in the 
initial stages  without prej udice to respective positions. When we do no t like what we hear, we 
need to restrain the  instinct to block and instead be ready to consider fresh approaches and to talk 
some more.  
 
Current  trade issues need to be pursued  as must the old, unfinished business of fundame ntal 
importance to many Members  such as agriculture and development. On agriculture, we need to 
make progress together on issues like domestic support, a permanent solution on public 
stockholding  and strengthening transparency on export restrictions.  
 
We hope that a Dedicated Discussion for E -comm erce under the General Council  can be convened 
for Members to discuss cross -cutting issues  including on the digital divide. Along wit h Australia and 
Japan as co -convenors of the joint statement on the e-commerce initiative, Singapore has also 
been consu lting with Members post MC11 on how we can proceed with the exploratory work. The 
initiative is an open process. We encourage all Member s to engage actively and to contribute 
constructively.  
 
We should continue to build on the excellent work being done at the WTO's regular committees  so 
that they achieve their fullest potential to  deal with live business issues such as non -tariff barriers 
as well as current trade issues.  
 
The impasse in the appointment of Appellate Body members is an issue of systemic concern that 
adversely affects the credibi lity and functioning of the WTO  and needs to be resolved 
expeditiously.  
 
Conclusion  
 
For 2018, l et us not lose sight of our common objective in the WTO – to sort out the trade 
problems we face, to promote trade and development to meet the needs of our pe ople and to 
ensure this organiz ation meets the challenges of the day so it does not lose its relev ance.  
 
20. Australia  
 
I want to begin by joining others in thanking Argentina for hosting MC11.  
 
We agree with the Director -General's assessment  and si milar views expressed by others  that this 
is not the time for a business as usual approach to WTO negotiation s. The world has changed and 
is continuing to change.  
 
The multilateral trading system is under threat and must be protected.  
 
It is clear the old approach to WTO negotiations will not w ork in the current environment.  If we are 
to improve the global trading environment we need to find new ways to achieve t rade liberaliz ing 
outcomes.  
 
The joint Ministerial statements at MC11 provide a very important starting point for the way 
forward.  Australia is committed to pursuing  the e -commerce initiative and will continue playing a 
leadership role to take this forwar d. Continued work on services domestic regulation is also a ver y 
high priority for Australia. We urge others to participate thoughtfully and constructively in taking 
these and the other joint statement initiatives arising from MC11 forward.  
 
At the same time, we must also break the logjam in agriculture, where trade distortions remain 
rife. 
 
Australia will continue taking a strong, constructive leadership role wherever  we can, with a view 
to exploring flexible options in order to make progress.  
 
Concerning possible measures that may be taken by the United States under Section 232 of the 
Trade Expansion Act, steel capacity is, wit hout doubt, a global challenge.  Australia  shares the 
concerns of others that in addressing this global challenge, international trade rules should be 
upheld.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 41 - 
 
  We understand the United States  is still to announce a final decision on the specific measures it 
will impose under the Section 232 invest igations.  However, we are concerned about the potential 
for arbitrary measures to be applied that are inconsistent with international trade rules.  Such 
measures could further exacerbate global market distortions and result in retaliation and tit -for-tat 
measures, which would harm all our economies and significantly undermine the global rules based 
trading system.  
 
21. Thailand  
 
Thailand associates itself with the statement made by Singapore on behalf of ASEAN.  
 
We believe that MC11 has given us some positive ou tcomes. But it also has given us a jolt of 
reality. Indeed, it is time to reflect on possible changes to how we approach our negotiations and 
what our Members need to do in order to move our work forward. It is also important to stress 
that the time for re flection cannot be too long. Important work such as the negotiations for and 
agreement on fisheries subsidies should be started immediately.  
 
Moreover, we should ensure that the momentum we have created running up to MC11 do not go 
to waste and that we con tinue to build on them as soon as possible. This may include agriculture 
negotiations and domestic regulation where large amount of work has been covered in the run up 
to Buenos Aires.  
 
We also see merit in the discussions of new issues such as e -commerce , MSMEs and investment 
facilitation as they could be beneficial and relevant to present day trade landscape. However, 
proponents will need to be more focused in driving the discussions forward especially in 
highlighting the importance and relevance of this  issue to all Members and the direction that needs 
to be taken in order to achieve balanced benefits.  
 
On the selection process of the Appellate Body, Thailand encourages all Members to show their 
utmost flexibility in order to resolve the issue as soon as  possible.  
 
22. Plurinational State of Bolivia  
 
I would like to begin by saying that Bolivia supports the statement made by Indonesia on behalf of 
the G -33. 
 
We would also like to thank Argentina for the excellent organization of the Eleventh Ministerial 
Conference. We also welcome the Ministerial Decisions on continuing work on fisheries subsidies 
and the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, based on the 1998 Work Programme.  
 
In terms of substance, the results of our evaluation reflect what has already been said in Geneva 
and at the mini Ministerial in Morocco.  
 
However, in agriculture, we note that, once again, our developed country partners have failed to 
meet the commitments undertaken at previous meetings, to secure results on issues such as 
public s tockholding for food security purposes, the reduction of domestic support, particularly for 
cotton, and the adoption of a special safeguard measure for developing countries.  
 
A few years ago, some developing countries warned that, if the Trade Facilitation  Agreement were 
adopted, developed countries would lose interest in achieving outcomes in agriculture, and this is 
what has been happening.  
 
We have also seen a lot of enthusiasm for new approaches, including potential plurilateral 
initiatives. This has ca ught our attention because, while no results are being produced regarding 
issues of interest for many developing countries, attempts are being made to promote plurilateral 
initiatives, which by definition involve a segmentation of multilateralism.  
 
We cons ider that this is not the context of the Tokyo Round. The WTO is not the GATT. This is not 
the 80s and the Membership has changed.  
 
Multilateral agreements are not easy to achieve. Nobody said that they had to be easy, but they 
are possible. They reflect t he commitment undertaken by all Members, and above all, they are WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 42 - 
 
  more legitimate. The Trade Facilitation Agreement is an example of this.  
 
After Buenos Aires, we consider that the legal and institutional architecture of the Doha Round 
remains on the table.  This structure includes specific mandates and actions, which continue to be 
the main reference points for the work of the WTO.  
 
Looking forward, we consider that we must continue to prioritize development as a key element in 
all our work. In this regard, special and differential treatment is a fundamental pillar that must be 
present in all work carried out by the Organization, not only to redress the imbalances and issues 
created for developing countries at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round, but also to address the 
needs of developing countries so as to enable them to integrate into the multilateral trading 
system. Development must be a priority in the multilateral trading system, in order to prevent the 
persistence of underdevelopment throughout the deve loping world.  
 
Inclusiveness and transparency, not only in notifications, but also in negotiations, must also be 
priorities in the work ahead. In terms of the process, the document submitted by the African 
Group and supported by Bolivia is an excellent bas is on which to work.  
 
To conclude, we consider that we should reflect seriously on whether it should be mandatory to 
hold Ministerial Conferences outside of Geneva every two years. This situation puts the host 
country and Members under unnecessary pressure  to force results, even when such results have 
not reached sufficient maturity. The simplistic argument of the bicycle that wheels along is not 
sufficient to justify this type of situation at the internal level. Furthermore, we support a prompt 
solution to  the deadlock in the Appellate Body.  
 
23. Peru  
 
We welcome the timely convening of this meeting to discuss which direction to take following the 
Eleventh Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires. To this end, I believe that we need to examine 
the progress that has been made in the Organization and how we have been working. We 
particularly need to evaluate the situation in light of the outcomes of the Buenos Aires Ministerial 
Conference. In this regard, we thank the Government of Argentina for organi zing the Ministerial 
Conference  and our distinguished coll eague Ambassador Marcelo Cima and his delegation  for the 
work carried out beforehand in Geneva.  
 
With that, I would like to share several observations. A s a starting point, Peru reaffirm s its belief 
regarding the need for  and the usefulness and benefit of  a multilateral trading system that is 
comprehensive in scope, rules -based  and reflected in the objectives, principles and institutional 
framework of this Organization.  
 
My first observation  concerns the persistence of diverging views among Members on the 
dichotomy between trade and d evelopment  and on how trade can contribute to efforts to achieve 
development. I nternational economic uncertainty, the emergence o f worrying protectionist trends  
and the rapid development of technology that continues to change th e way in which w e trade  as 
well as the evolution of major economies that are WTO Members and that have an increasing 
impact on trade relations at global level  and the difficulties that we face in moving forward with 
our work  which stem f rom the Organization's decision -making system  are major challenges that 
must be approached with determ ination and a realistic outlook  while maintaining the credibility 
and value of the WTO.  
 
In this cont ext, it is necessary to address  constructively and in the spi rit of the discussion that we 
had at the end  of the Buenos Aires Conference  the changes required to ensure that the operation 
of the multilateral trading system contributes more efficiently and effectively to the objective of 
promoting free trade at global  level. To achieve more ambitious results, we must fi nd new ways of 
working together  while taking into account the changes that have occurred in trade since the 
Organization was created and the new realities of the international system. Despite this situat ion, 
we believe that the WTO and its rules continue to provide an important and irreplaceable 
framework o f stability for trade relations  particularly  in the face of economic crises  which is of 
great value for international security and the economic develop ment of WTO Members.  
 
The second observation which concerns the outcomes of MC11  is that the Ministerial Decision 
(WT/MIN (17)/64) on fisheries subsidies adopted in Buenos Aires  in addition to being the most WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 43 - 
 
  important specifi c achievement of the Conference  demonstrates that it is possible to work on 
interests  that are shared by all Members  and highlights the value of the Organization's negotiating 
pillar. This mandate is not only an outcome of major importance – it has also established a clear 
working framew ork within which the negotiations can continue. We now have an overall political 
objective on the elimination and prohibition of subsidies that adversely affect the sust ainability of 
fishery resources  which is reflected in Goal 14.6 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainabl e Development 
and a commitment undertaken by all WTO Members  to move towards this objective  as well as 
texts that demonstrate the progress of the negotiations.  
 
In light of the above, we believe that the conditions are right for reinitiating disc ussions as soon as 
possible, taking into account the considerations and concerns expressed by Members at the first 
meeting of the Rules Negotiating Group in January this year. In this regard, Peru reiterates its 
significant interest in and commitment to re aching an agreement on fisheries subsidies before the 
next Ministerial Conference  in accordance with the mandate given to us by the Ministers.  
 
The third observation concerns the great amount of work required to increase the minimal 
consensus reached in ot her areas. It will  be crucial to draft a road map without delay in each 
negotiating body  in order to move forward on outstanding issues. In this  regard, we must resume 
our work as soon as possible  based on the progress achieved and the proposals and discus sion 
papers a lready submitted. We think that to make headway with our work  it will be important to 
use all of the discussion formats possible, find ways to keep the Members' attention consta ntly 
focused during discussions  including through the participati on of experts from capitals  and agree 
on a timetable of meetings with clear objectives to be met at each session.  
 
The fourth observation that we wish to share is that the Eleventh Minist erial Conference confirmed 
that in addition to the traditional agenda containing three negoti ating pillars: agriculture, non -
agricultural market Access and services  and the widespread and priority interest in continuing the 
agricultural negotiations, there is an emerging agenda of items that outline new areas of 
negotiation at the WTO  such as investment facilitation, electronic commerce and micro, small and 
medium sized enterprises . In this regard, Peru will continue to participate actively in the efforts to 
create a framework to enable MSMEs to take advantage of the opportun ities provided by the 
multilateral trading system  and to address the current challenges posed by electronic commerce. 
We will also closely follow the discussions on investment facilitation for development. We 
encourage and urge Members to remain open, flex ible and willing in this regard and to participate 
constructively in moving these discussions forward.  
 
I furthermore consider it essential to echo the concerns expressed regarding the situation in the 
Appellate Body, and insist that Members address the is sue and take action as a matter of urgency, 
so that the Appellate Body is able to fill its vacancies and resume its activities as soon as possible.  
 
To conclude, Peru reiterates that it is strongly c ommitted to working intensively with the Director -
General  and all of the Members  using a pragmatic and realistic approach that allows us to continue 
to progressively dev elop multilateral trading rules  based on the merit and progress achieved on 
each issue  and without making outcomes subject to other areas or the  resolution of issues that are 
still being discussed.  
 
24. Cuba  
 
It is the first time we have met in this format since Buenos Aires and therefore our first 
opportunity to engage in collective reflection. We are all well aware that the Eleventh Ministerial 
Conference did not deliv er the results we had hoped for  particularly in respe ct of the remaining 
Doha issues  which continue to weigh the Organization down like an outstanding debt.  
 
At the same time, work must go on. In the absence of guidance on many issues, my delegation 
believes it is vital to preserve and respect the existing mandates included in the decisions adopted 
by Ministers in Bali and Nairobi  which are all valid today. Concluding the outstanding Doha issues 
remains a challenge  but we must work towar ds fully achieving this objective.  
 
Cuba is open to ideas on how to overcome stumbling blocks within the framework of the adopted 
mandates. We should be very cautious regarding new approaches and should take care to ensure 
that they do not prevent the fu lfilment of these mandates or more importantly  affect their 
balanced design.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 44 - 
 
   
The multilateral nature of the WTO, an organization created over 20 years ago, must be 
preserved. Cuba advocates multilateralism in all international forums and does not support 
fragmented app roaches such as plurilateralism  especially within the WTO. The interests and 
priorities of all can only be secured in a collective and consensual manner. This is also the best 
way to acknowledge that we are all different and have different leve ls of development. It affords 
an opportunity to treat countries according to their needs and requirements  and ensures that no 
one is left behind.  
 
We remain firm in our belief that the outstanding Doha issues deserve urgent attention. The 
development mandate has been backed by a good many developing countries and must therefore 
be addressed a s a priority. We agree with the Director -General's  comm ents in this regard . We are 
open to engaging in frank dialogue  provided that it does not try to nullify or u ndermine the 
principle of special and differential treatment and go against its essence and the agreed mandate.  
 
Agricultural issues, in particular public stockholding for food security purposes and the special 
safeguard mechanism, have also been the focus  of clear Ministerial D ecisions since Nairobi. We 
therefore attach great importance to the prompt appointment of the new CoA SS Chair  to lead this 
work and other outstanding tasks.  
 
We are also committed to the recent mandate on fisheries subsidies and hop e to see concrete and 
balanced ou tcomes at the next Ministerial in fulfilment  of SDG  14.6.  
 
The 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce was unani mously ratified in Buenos Aires 
which is a truly commendable achievement. We are prepared to help revitalize  this exploratory 
mandate in accordance with its multilateral premise.  
 
Existing differences of opinion  including b etween those directly concerned on how to address new 
issues now called joint initiatives  is a cause for concern. We consider it too early fo r them to form 
part of the WTO's negotiating work and believe that they require consensus in order t o be included 
in the WTO agenda  as agreed by our Ministers in Nairobi.  
 
We reiterate our commitment to continue working to ensure a fair, equitable and rule s based 
multilateral trading system.  
 
Lastly, we endorse the statement made by Guyana on behalf of the ACP Group and the statement 
to be delivered by Indonesia on behalf of the G -33. 
 
25. Republic of Korea  
 
We thank the Director -General  for conveni ng this meet ing and sharing his  assessment of the 
current situation and the way forward.  
 
It is clear that we have to resume our work soon. Since we have different interests and different 
positions, we can reach an agreement only through compromise and such compromise does not 
take place in vacuum. We can build compromise only when we talk and negotiate.  
 
At the same time, as the Director -General  has already mentioned, it is equally certain that if you 
just start from where we left, we are bound to fail again. We failed to ma ke progress in the run -up 
to MC11 not because we lacked proposals or t ime but because we held on to positions that were 
not reconcilable with each other.    
 
We need to avoid repeating old arguments. Instead, we need to discuss why many o f the 
proposals did not work  and to explore ways to improve the proposals in a way that helps reduce 
our differences.  
 
One positive devel opment of MC11 was the joint initiatives by  a group of like -minded Members  on 
issues such as E -Commerce, Investment Facilitation and MSMEs. Korea considers this development 
positive because it represents the  desire of some Members to make movement to address 
concerns and demands of the business community on the ground.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 45 - 
 
  On the other hand, as plurilateral initiatives, they also reflect the failure of the WTO as a system in 
responding to new realities. As such,  potential outcomes of these initiatives still remain uncertain. 
Korea will participate in these initiatives in a constructive manner. We hope that they will 
eventually help the WTO adapt to the new reality of the changing environment and remain 
relevant.  
 
Let me also express our serious conc ern on the rising protectionism  in particular through the 
increasing resort to trade -remedy measures and the possible introduction of new trade 
restrictions. Trade remedies are a legitimate right of WTO Members. However , we must always be 
very conscious of their potential adverse effects on global trade  particularly if such measures are 
not in compliance with the strict requirements as stipulated in the WTO Agreements.  
 
We are equally concerned about any new trade -restrictive measures based on an ill -defined 
concept of national security. Such measures will pose a serious threat to the rules -based system.  
 
We must seek for a concrete solution to prevent the abuse of protectionist measures. If the 
increase of protectionist  measures is combined with the problem of the prolonged vacancy in the 
Appellate Body, it has the potential to create a fundamental crisis in the future of the Multilateral 
Tradin g System and the WTO.  
 
26. Brazil  
 
Since this is the first HoDs meeting after MC1 1, Brazil would like to highlight its appreciation to 
Argentina for being such an impeccable host in Buenos Aires. Our appreciation also goes to the 
Director -General and to the MC11 Chair – Susana Malcorra.  
 
Despite the lack of more substantive multilater al results, our assessment of MC11 is positive  given 
the circumstances. All Members reaffirmed a commitment to this Organization. It was possible to 
preserve an atmosphere of dialogue.  
 
As we look to the year ahead of us, though,  we must face up to realiti es. These are not normal 
times. This Organization and the multilateral trading system  face extremely serious, even 
existential challenges.  
 
The threat of protectionism is at the core of this assessment. The recent unilateral announ cement 
by one important Member  takes this threat to a new level. We have deep concerns about the 
serious systemic implications of elas tic applications of Article XXI  which would lead to serious 
consequences that are not in the interest of the M embership as a whole. We ask this Me mber to 
reconsider its decision.  
 
Turning to the consideration of our WTO 2018 agenda, a sober asse ssment of present 
circumstances in the WTO and elsewhere  should be the starting point. Therefore, our first concern 
at this moment is: let us preserve this O rganization.  
 
Preserving the System means at least re -committing to the crucial routine activities in the 
committees and regular bodies.  
 
It also means that we should spare no efforts to address the Appellate Body crisis  which 
undermines one of the fundam ental pillars of the WTO. Brazil is ready to engage in discussions on 
any specific concerns about the AB that may be brought to the table by any Member.  
 
However, we deeply regret the link between any possible discussion on AB issues and the timing of 
the decision to launch selection processes. This link is not productive. We have an obligation to fill 
the vacancies in the body as they arise.  
 
We feel extremely frustrated. W e see a crisis developing before us while realizing  that any 
systemic, broad soluti ons depend on a first step that must be made by ot hers. In the meantime 
however we cannot remain idle. More than fourteen  months have passed since the first selection 
process was blocked. Brazil believes that  as long as a sys temic solution remains elusive,  all 
interested Members should explore temporary, alternative solutions to this unprecedented crisis.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 46 - 
 
  Let me now turn to the negotiating pillar. Apart from  the clear MC11 M inisterial guidance on 
fisheries subsidies, a common understanding on the way forwa rd has yet to emerge.  
 
We have a duty to remain engaged. Brazil is willing to support discussions on a comprehensive 
assessment of our negotiating mandates and agenda  in any format.  
 
The sensible opt ion we have on the table is the Director -General's sugge stion that the Chairs of 
the negotiating groups should start a reflection on ways to move forward.  
 
For Brazil, Agriculture remains the unfinished business. Even if progress remains elusive, we will 
continue to explore meaningful but realistic approa ches to tackle domestic support including cotton 
and other pending issues  such as SPS.  
 
We also fully agree with the Director -General  that development must be at the heart of our work.  
 
Finally, let me mention that in Buenos Aires Brazil subscribed to the joint  Ministerial declarations 
on MSMEs, investment facilitation , e-commerce and domestic regulation in services. These 
initiatives must be open, inclusive  and oriented towards multilateral results.  
 
Regarding investment facilitation,  Brazil circulated a submi ssion in JOB/GC/169  which contains a 
concrete illustration of a possible WTO multilateral framework for this topic. As stated in the 
document, th is submission is not a proposal  but rather an input for our structured discussions. We 
trust that the text will  contribute to more focused disc ussions in our informal process  as well as 
dispel some concerns surrounding the issue. We are willing to discuss the document with all 
interested Members.  
 
These are the reflections Brazil wished to share. The challenges fac ing the multilateral trading 
system are extremely serious. We mu st be aware of what is at stake  and assume our 
responsibilities.  
 
27. South Africa  
 
Although Members have been discussing MC11 in the past weeks, this is a welcome opportunity to 
reflect on the Conference in a full multilateral setting. We endorse the statements made by 
Rwanda on behalf of the African Group and by Guyana on behalf of the ACP.  
 
MC11 may well come to be seen as a missed opportunity. Had we faced up to the reality that 
Ministers wou ld not be able to reach agreement on issues that we, in Geneva, could not despite 
many months of engagement, we may have been able to make better use of the four days our 
Ministers were together in Buenos Aires.  
 
Our Ministers might have exchanged views o n their trade policy priorities and considered the scope 
for common efforts to addre ss the backlash against globalization and trade  and the growing 
challenges of inequality, job insecurity and development. We lost an opportunity to consider a 
more positive  approach to foster an inclusive, developmental multilateralism. There is a lesson for 
the future here.  
 
We are all well aware of the challenges we face. We have divergences on the DDA mandate and on 
which specific issues to take forward. Where we agree on  the issue to take forward, we disagree 
on how. We also disagree on whether to even consider non -Doha issues.  
 
Nevertheless, there is important work that can begin. Work on fishery subsidies can proceed 
relatively quickly but we should not underestimate t he challenges. While there is some sense that 
we will need a period of reflection on how best to re -engage the other Doha issues, it is clear that 
trade distorting domestic support, cotton, food s ecurity, industrializ ation and development will 
continue to command the interest of most  Members. The DDA and previous Ministerial D ecisions 
already offer guidance for this work.   
 
For South Africa and indeed for Africa the continent' s primary economic objectives are set in 
"Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want"  as the y relate to integration, industrialization and structural 
transformation. We need a WTO that enables these objectives – but at a minimum we need a WTO 
that does not impede them.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 47 - 
 
   
We also see scope for productive exploratory, non -negotiating work on e -comme rce under the 
existing work program me. A range of tech nical clarifications are needed  and we could be thinking 
about constructing an approach that enables digital catch -up, equitable sharing of the potential 
benefit s of the digital transformation  and explo ring how to address the myriad of new and 
emerging challenges.  
 
We need a constructive discussion on development in the WTO. While there are diverging views, it 
should be common purpose that at its heart, development requires policies that nurture  economi c 
activities characteriz ed by increasing returns to scale, indu strial upgrading and innovation  and that 
trade rules should enable – not block – such efforts.  
 
Our final point concerns the unresolved matter of the Appellate Body and emerging systemic 
quest ions on the WTO enforcement mechanism. Unless addressed constructively and soon, this 
matter will cast a shadow and soon overwhelm  all the other work of the organiz ation.  
 
South Africa is ready to make its contribution to these multilateral processes at t he WTO.  
 
28. Indonesia (G -33) 
 
First of all, the G -33 wishes to thank the Director -General  for conveni ng this important meeting 
today  as well as for your views on how we  resume our works in the post Buenos Aires Ministerial 
Conference.  
 
Three months ago, our Ministers gathered in Buenos Aires to attend the 11th WTO Ministe rial 
Conference. Despite Member' s strong po litical will it was regrettable  that Members were not able 
to arrive at an agreement on most of the substantive issues.  
 
The G -33 wishes to express its disappointment on lack of consensus to deliver a concrete outcome 
on the issue of Public Stockholding f or Food Security Purposes that have clear mandate from 
Ministers – to be agreed at  the 11th WTO Ministerial Conference. The Grou p believes that failure to 
deliver this issue amongst other s will further hinder most developing Members in addressing issues 
related to livelihood security, food security and rural development.  
 
The Group is also concerned with  lack of consensus on a Post  Buenos Aires Work Programme to 
guide the works on  the rest of agriculture issues  including issues of Sp ecial Safeguard Mechanism 
and Special Products.  
 
In the absence of such concrete outcomes, it is the view of the Grou p that Members must continue 
our wo rk based on Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture and existing mandates given by 
Nairobi and preceding Ministerial Decisions. In this respect, we would like to reiterate that the 
establishment of a perm anent solution for the PSH  and acces sible, simple  and effective SSM both 
volume and price based  remain to be the priority for the G -33. 
 
While acknowledging current political challenges, the G -33 urges the Director -General in his 
capacity as the TNC Chair  to star t the process in Geneva  including to help Members in exped iting 
the election of the new Co A SS Chair which is now vacant.  
  
In this opportunity, on behalf of the G -33, allow me to express our highest appreciation and great 
gratitude to Ambassador Karau for  his hard work  and tireless efforts in gui ding the negotiation 
process, particularly in the lead up to and during the  Buenos Aires Ministerial Conference.  
 
Finally, the G -33 stands ready to be constructively  engaged in any process that the Director -
General  may deem necessary to resu me work  in Gen eva. 
 
29. Indonesia  
 
Indonesia associates it self with the statement by Singapore on behalf of ASEAN .  
 
Indonesia is of the view that the lack of consensus to deliver concrete outcomes in Buenos Aires 
would not serve the intere sts of any Member nor of the organ ization. On the  contrary, it will be 
running against our shared interests to strengthening the open, predictable and rules -based WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 48 - 
 
  multilateral tra ding system embedded in the WTO  which will bring benefits to all Members.   
 
In post Buenos Aires, we shall con tinue all of our works in Geneva based on the progress achieved 
so far. Members shall immediately take up unfinished works from Bali, Nairo bi and Buenos Aires 
immediately  based on the existing mandates given by Ministers.   
 
Special efforts must be given t o the fisheries subsidies issue  with a view to adopting by the  
Ministerial Conference in 2019  an agreement on comprehensive and effective disciplines that 
prohibit certain forms of fisheries subsidies that contribute to  overcapacity and overfishing  and 
eliminate subsidies that contribute to illegal, u nreported and unregulated fishing.  
 
For issues that have been pushed by proponents, such as MSMEs, investment facilitation, e -
commerce and trade and women empowerment, Members must continue and deepen the 
conve rsation with a view to prepare a base for further steps.  
 
In those efforts, "development" and " special and di fferential treatment principles"  must continue to 
be at the centre of our work in Geneva.  
 
Finally, in continuing our work , Indonesia believes that we shall continue to use incremental and 
pragmatic approach in addressing various issues that Members, particularly developing and least -
developed ones, are confronting . Members should focus their work  on achieving shared objectives 
rather than insist ing on particular ways to achieve those objectives.  
 
But a key to this is positive, inclusive and constructive engagement by all Members, and political 
will to  meet halfway so that everybody' s interest s and concern s can be accommodated.  
 
30. Norway  
 
Norway le ft Buenos Aires with an affirmation of the challenges facing the negotiating function of 
the WTO.  
 
Nevertheless, we also left Bu enos Aires with a sense of hope  that there is a willingness to keep 
working, and to explore new dialogues and initiatives.  
 
With a willingness to work together in a flexible mann er as also pointed out by the Director -
General, Norway believes WTO M embers can take fur ther steps towards safeguarding or as Brazil 
said defending  and strengthening the multilateral trading system in the  years to come.  
 
Norway believes that trade plays a strong role, and can play an even stronger role, in fulfilling the 
sustainable development goals.  
 
Not least, we look forward to continued hard work on fisheries subsidies, in order to implement 
SDG 14.6 in the WTO within the agreed timeframe. We all need to re -engage as soon as possible 
in text -based negotiations on fisheries subsidies under the guidance of the new chair of the 
negotiating group on rules.  
 
As regards agriculture, negotiations will probabl y restart after a reflection period and when we 
hopefully soon have a chair for the negotiating group. We have all clearly seen how difficult it is to 
make progress. This begs the question whether we can find better ways to approach the 
negotiations on agr iculture. The same question is just as relevant when it comes to other 
important areas such as NAMA and services.   
 
Multilateral agreements will always be the f irst best. Norway will always do multilaterally what we 
can do multilaterally.  
 
However, where not all M embers are convinced that trade rules, commitments and open markets 
are in their interest , Norway prefers not to give up  but to continue with ALL of those who do have 
an interest.  
 
Norway is convinced that outcomes of the open -ended joint initiatives from Buenos Aires that 
include obligations undertaken on MFN basis and subject to dispute settlemen t in the WTO would 
benefit all Members. No matter whether a M ember actually participates in an initiative or not, it WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 49 - 
 
  will benefit from the improv ed transparency and predictability that an initiative can provide.  
 
Norway is also convinced that an outcome on domestic r egulations of trade in services  based on 
the text that was before Members in Buenos Aires  should be pursued.  
 
The discussions at MC11  showed clearly the different views concerning the relationship  between 
trade and development as well as regarding how t o share responsibility between M embers at 
different levels of development.  
 
Nevertheless, Norway believe s that in Buenos Aires M embers c ame closer to seeing the 
preconditions for bridging the gaps  we all know are there.  
 
There is now a need to come out of the trenc hes and engage in real dialogue  without being 
restricted by past truths. Explaining more abou t what lies behind each Member's o wn positions 
without demanding that other Members give up  their po sitions a priori. Norway hopes M embers 
can build on this approach and find a way to move forward together.  
 
Finally, Norway is deeply concerned about the possible restrictions announced in W ashington last 
week on imports of steel and aluminium following the Section 232 investigations by the 
Department of Commerce. These measures would represent a serious challenge to the multilateral 
trading system  which is already under strain due to the fai lure to appoint new members of the 
Appellate Body.    
 
We urge the United States  to reconsider the announced res trictive measures and urge all M embers 
to prepare the grounds for filling the vacancies in the Appellate Body without further delay.  
 
31. Pakistan  
 
As we convene for the first time after MC11, Pakistan sees this as an opportunity to take stock o f 
new challenges confronting us  and deliberate about the course of action for our pending work.  We 
note that the issues and challenges before us are getting mo re intricate and complex. The winds of 
anti-free trade sentiment continue to threaten the multilateral trading system.  
 
In the backdrop of current developments,  in the field of economy and trade,  it is most needed that 
we have a frank exchange of views abo ut the challenges we face. Turbulence in the g lobal, political 
and economic environment is unfortunately increasing rather than subsiding. This makes our work 
in coming weeks and months extremely important.  
 
The ground reality is that the g lobal economy is  faced with a very potent and tangible threat of 
protectionism and testing economic times. Protect ionist barriers are on the rise. O bstacles to trade 
are growing faster than facilitating measures.  
 
In present context, we have to come out as the most vocal and united v oice for free and open 
trade. We have to be a voice for reduction an d elimination of trade barriers. W e have to count er 
the threat of protectionism.  We have to collectively resist the forces of protectionism and those 
fanning anti -trade rhetoric.  
 
Trade is a proven tool for deve lopment and poverty alleviation. W e should not allow the barriers 
and protectionism to blunt this tool.  
 
In present times, multilateral appro ach becomes even more important. The  WTO is a corner stone 
of global econo my which has a proven record of having worked for the benefit of our people.  
 
Through our collective efforts , we have to protect this system. It is our only hope fo r a common 
prosperous future.  
 
From Pakistan' s viewpoint, multilateralism and development are two pillars keeping the WTO aloft. 
For us, the way to struggle against the rising sentiment against free trade is by remaining 
committed to these ideals. If we ca n deliver on  inclusive development for the M embership, we can 
create a big dent in the designs of destabilising the system and this institution. Pakistan remains  
committed to working with the Membership to realiz e the objective of sustainable and inclusive  
economic development for developing countries through multilateral cooperation.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 50 - 
 
   
Even though MC11 did not see any meaningful develop ment in the area of Agriculture  this along 
with cotton remains one of the key issues for Pakistan. The problems and issues in agriculture 
affect billions of livelihoods in developing countries across the globe. We are  therefore  determined 
to find ways in which we can balanc e food security for our farmers  and global prac tices that do not 
ignore other Members'  concerns.  
 
We appr eciate the amount of work done on fisheries leading up to MC11. It is important that we 
do not lose that momentum and strive to fulfil the mandate we have been given by our Ministers. 
In this respect, Pakistan feels it is imperative that even though reflec tion is necessary, it should 
not hinder in any way  the progress to achieve the desired outcome through multilateral 
negotiations.  
 
On the emerging issues of e -commerce, MSMEs and investment f acilitation, Pakistan continues to 
view them positively. The thre e issues have overlapping aspects and carry great potential to create 
positive synergies for our economies. We welcome and commend the efforts of various convenors 
of these likeminded initiatives, the decision to keep these discussions open -ended, transpar ent and 
inclusive  is greatly appreciated. Pakistan looks forward to contribute positively and constructively 
in these endeavours.  
 
Pakistan is a member of the Coordination Committee for the initiative on MSMEs and we intend to 
contribute fully as part of t he activities on the roadmap we have chalked out under the leadership 
of Uruguay for 2018.  
 
On investment f acilitation, Pakistan is working with FIFD and other like -minded M embers to work 
on a future strategy for continuing work on investment facilitation as envisaged in the MC11 joint 
statement. In k eeping with the open, inclusive  and Member -driven nature of the initiative, we 
encourage other M embers to engage actively and substantively in the structured discussions.  
 
We have witnessed an exponential incre ase in the number of trade remedy actions taken by the 
countries in recent years. Pakistan too has taken a number of such actions during the last couple 
of years. We recognize the rights of the M embers to take such actions in the interest of their 
economie s. In our view, these developments further underscore the critical importance of the 
Dispute Settlement Mechanism in the integrated eco system of the WTO.  
 
For Pakistan, the WTO with its dispute settlement mechanism is the bedrock of trade policy and a 
key pillar of global economic governance. We express concern that the DSB has been unable to 
fulfil its obligation enshrined in DSU Article 17.2 to appoint Appellate Body members as vacancies 
have arisen.  
 
We recogniz e that various concerns have been raised in  recent times regarding its functioning. We 
acknowledge that those concerns need to be addressed. However, the solution lies in engagement, 
dialogue and a positive will towards meaningful reform. Delaying the appoin tment of Appellate 
Body members  unfortuna tely moves us in the other direction and stalls the work of the institution 
without any cha nce of reform. We urge all M embers to show the utmost flexibility to commence 
work on the appointment of Appellate Body members and simultaneously discuss solutions to 
address the outstanding concern s. 
 
To conclude, Pakistan wishes to underscore the importance of constructive engagement, dialogue 
and flexibility to ensure that we keep the WTO system alive for development and inclusive growth 
for all.  
 
32. Russian Federati on 
 
This is our first meeting at HOD s level since Buenos Aires. Our M inisters left Argentina with 
practically no major multilateral decisions. That is why, in Russia’s view, the results of MC11 were 
rather disappointing. Two months and a half after the Ministerial, we see the following picture:  
 
• In Buenos Aires, Members agreed to continue to engage constructively in the fis heries 
subsidies negotiations w ith a view  to adopting an agreement by MC 12. We need to start 
substantive discussions without further delay under the l eadership of a new Chairperson.  
• The membership has invested many efforts in order to achieve results in agriculture. WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 51 - 
 
  Unfortunately, that failed to materialize. Now it is time to relaunch the process. New 
approaches that may work will be we lcomed.  
• MC11 clearly signal led the interest from Members to advance discussions on investment 
facilitation. Last year , we had focused on sharing experience. It is time now to change the 
gear to a more substantial mode. Open -minded exchange of views would e nable Members 
to understand the issue in -depth and agr ee on how to proceed further.  
• We welcome the joint statement on domestic regulation and hope that more Members will 
join the process. We could build upon the textual base that we produced in 2017. We ar e 
looking forward to moving this topic forward in the coming months.  
• We are encouraged by the interest from Members to deepen the discussions on e -
commerce. Ho wever, it is important for the M embership to gain a firm foothold in what we 
are talking about. W e would like to invite Members to take part in the discussions in the 
months to come  as well as to reinvigorate the work on e -commerce under the auspices of 
the General Council.  
• In Buenos Aires , an Informal Working Group on MSMEs  at the WTO, open to all Members. 
We will continue the analysis and discussions on this issue seeking the best way forward.  
 
Russia believes that the outcome of MC 11 has confirmed that serious changes are required for the 
WTO to stay relevant and maintain its centrality in the multilateral trading system. Specifically, I 
would like to suggest the following:  
 
First, Russia is of the view that in order to retain its centrality, the WTO without wasting time for 
another two -year-long "period of reflection" m ust enhance its negotiating function. In practical 
terms, it means  effectively striking new deals  including on emerging trading issues. We should not 
allow the WTO to lag behind world economy demands.  
 
Second, we need to be pragmatic and set up achievable and  fair goals that will restrict 
protectionism and boost trade. It is the responsibility of all Members, be them developed, 
developing, or least developed, to provide for the proper functioning of the negotiating arm of the 
WTO.  
 
Third, in Buenos Aires, Mini sters have defined parameters for our future work in a number of 
areas. It is our understanding that the discussions can tak e place both in MFN -based plurilateral  
and multilateral formats. I would like to make it clear that the multilateral  trading system should 
be comple mented and not undermined by the plurilateral arrangements. We hope that the 
plurilateral initiatives will be ultimately transformed into full -fledged multilateral negotiating tracks.  
 
Fourth, the WTO is not merely about norm setting. It i s no less about implementation. This pillar 
suffers today from lack of notifications. We need to rectify this situation.  
 
Fifth, on vacancies in the Appellate Body, Russia senses it with alarm and invites Members to 
address these issues urgently.  
 
To concl ude, the WTO is a unique institution. There are some things in it that we can be unhappy 
with. But as the Director -General put it at the MC11 closing session, it is the best all of us have. 
We need to ensure that the WTO achieves its objectives for the ben efit of all Members who should 
be ready to invest in this process.  
 
33. Hong Kong, China  
 
This is our first meeting after  MC11. Let me share Hong Kong, China's  observations – first, on the 
outcome of MC11; and second, on current developments.  
 
MC11  
 
MC11 has given us Ministerial Decisions on, among other things, Fish eries Subsidies and E -
commerce.  For Hong Kong, China, these must be the starting point for the work ahead.  We hope 
to see rigorous work plans and intensified discussions whi ch can yield meaningful  results  well in 
time for MC12.  
 
Significant divergence still exists in subjects such as MSMEs and Investment Facilitation . Many 
like-minded Members are already there rallyi ng behind these two initiatives  as well as the one on WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 52 - 
 
  E-commerce which complement s the existing Work Programme. These initiati ves are open to all 
WTO Members  and Hong Kong, China  is participating actively in the di scussions  with a view to 
developing building blocks for an ultimate multilateral outcome.  
 
It remains Hong Kong, China' s obje ctive to bring unfinished business including Se rvices 
negotiations to fruition  and to pursue other initiatives  that can reinvigorate the WTO.  We will, as 
always, work closely with all other Members to this end.  
 
Current Developments  
 
Since returning from B uenos Aires, Members have been reflecting bo th on the negotiation 
prospects  as well as the broader issue of where the WTO stands and how it can move forward.  
 
As Members of the WTO, we are used to a rguing with sceptics out there about the benefits of free 
trade  and about the ne ed for global trade governance.  But now it seems that bigger challenges are 
coming from within the WTO itself.  
 
When entrenched positions persistently threaten  to impede, not only the organization' s negotiating 
function, but also its deliberative and dispute settlement functions, we know we are dealing with 
serious systemic risks.  
 
I have heard previous speakers say th at the WTO is at a crossroads.  Some say the issues at hand 
have the  potential to turn into crises.  Others say we are fa cing p erhaps existential challenges. 
These remarks may sound alarming  but if we collective ly fail to manage the situation  the 
consequences may indeed be dire.  
 
Hong Kong, China  does not wish to see the WTO going down the route where one blockage here is 
match ed with another blockage there.  We cannot allow the Appellate Body and the Dispute 
Settlement Mec hanism to become dysfunctional.  We certainly cannot afford to see protecti onism 
escalating to trade wars.  We app eal to Members to stop all this  before it is too late.  
 
In the WTO, Members would defend their own rights a nd promote their own interests.  There is 
nothing wrong about that. However, if we do so at the expense of the mul tilateral trading system, 
we are eroding the very foundation upon which we build our economic partne rships and share our 
benefits. For whatever short -term victory that one Member may claim, there will be a high price 
for all of us to pay.  
 
The fact that the multilateral trading system is rules -based does not mean it cannot evolve to keep 
up with the times. If we are not entirely happy with the system or the rules, we can and should 
seek to improve them.  In fact, that is how we keep the WTO alive and rele vant. 
 
We know this i s easier said than done but Hong Kong, China  believes that if we can be more o pen 
to new ideas and approaches and if we are willing to exercise greater flexibility  following what the 
Director -General said , we will see a better chance o f success.  
 
What is for sure is that success cannot be achieved by unilateral trade measures targeting other s 
or by frustrating each other' s efforts to forge agreements.  At the very least, Members must abide 
by the commitments that they have signed u p to and seek to preserve, not weaken, the 
multilateral trading system.  
 
Let us bear this in mind as we brace ourselves for the many challenges ahead.  
 
34. Trinidad and Tobago  
 
Trinidad and Tobago aligns itself with the statement made by Guyana on behalf of the Afr ican, 
Caribbean and Pacific Group of States.  
 
We thank the Director -General  for con vening this meeting and for his  report. The delegation of 
Trinidad and Tobago takes this opportunity to express our gratitude to the Argentine Republic for 
its hosting of th e Eleven th Ministerial Conference . We appreciate the tremendous work put into 
making the Conference a reality.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 53 - 
 
  This first Heads of Delegation meeting since MC11 provides Members with an opportunity to 
critically assess what was achieved in Buenos Aires an d share our perspectives on the way forward 
in this Organization. Any sincere assessment would reveal that there is a lot of work required to be 
done. As Members, we should not be daunted by the work ahead of us but rather refocus our 
energies and start im mediately on our post -Buenos Aires responsibilities. It is important for us in 
this Organization to identify and agree on our priorities and re -engage in the process of 
negotiation as quickly as is reasonable. The identification of our priorities would hel p develop our 
agenda as we work towards the next Ministerial Conference. Having a clear focus on what we want 
as an Organization would allow us the opportunity to concentrate on finding common ground 
among Members.  
 
As we chart the way forward and re -engag e on our priority themes, it is essential for us to respect 
the centrality of development in the work of our Organization. Our commitment to development 
issues adopted at Doha in 2001 must not be forgotten nor put aside. To do so would be a 
dereliction of duty. The development dimension of work a t the WTO  remains of paramount 
importance to Trinidad and Tobago.  
 
At Buenos Aires, our Ministers in treating with the issue of Fisheries Subsidies decided that by the 
Ministerial Conference of 2019 there should be a comprehensive agreement. It would be prudent 
for our Fisheries Subsidies negotiations to be undertaken in a manner that would avoid a frenetic 
approach to the finaliz ation of the envisaged agreement. Appropriate and effective special and 
differential tre atment for developing country Members and least developed country Members 
should be an integral part of the negotiations.  
 
I take this opportunity t o reiterate Trinidad and Tobago' s commitment and support for the 
multilateral, rules -based trading system, r epresented by the WTO. We will strive fo r a more 
transparent, inclusive  and consensus -based Member -driven Organization. You can r est assure  of 
our full cooperation and commitment to work constructively with all Members in the time ahead to 
achieve progress . 
 
35. Canada  
 
Canada would like to join others in tha nking Argentina for a well -run Ministerial Conference in 
December.  We welcome the opportunity to share ou r views on the way forward post MC11.  
 
There may be an inclination to dwell on what was not accomplished in Buenos Aires. Like others, 
we were disappointed that Members could not agree to disciplines on fisheries subsidies and that 
an agreement on agriculture continued to elude us.  
 
These are priorities for Canada and we remain committed to finding solutions in these areas. But 
we have to agree with the assessment that what happened at Buenos Aires should not have come 
as a surprise to anyone. While we must continue to build on what we have don e to date, we must 
also acknowledge that the world is not the same as it was in 2001 and we must be prepared to 
adapt our approaches and our thinking if we are going to make progress.  
 
While MC11 did not deliver a big, multilateral outcome for WTO Members,  we cannot overlook 
what we did accomplish at MC11. From Canada' s perspective, we took some important steps 
forward.  
 
First, Canada was pleased to join with other Members in join t statements on Trade and Women' s 
Economic Empowerment, E -commerce, MSMEs, an d Investment Facilitation. We are committed to 
supporting and actively moving these initiatives forward, building on the positive momentum from 
Buenos Aires. For example, in support of the Declaration on Women and Trade, Canada is 
organizing a workshop on Gender  Based Analysis of Trade Policy  open to all Members.  
 
We recognize the diversity of views rega rding some of these initiatives  but we see great potential 
in ensuring the continued relevance of the WTO – not only to be able to address the priorities o f 
businesses and to reflect the changing nature of global trade  but also to make  trade policies more 
inclusive  particularly for groups that are more marginalized in international commerce.  
 
Secondly, we collectively took an important step forward by having  a first dialogue on the issues 
facing the WTO. I would like to thank Argentina and M inister Malcorra in particular  for their WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 54 - 
 
  leadership in this respect.  
 
Members can and must imp rove the functioning of the WTO  in all aspects of our work – not just 
the negotiating function but the work of our regular committees and, just as importantly, the 
functioning o f the dispute settlement system  including the Appellate Body.   
 
Some of these discussions will be easier than  others. For example, improving transparency and 
enhancing the work of our regular Committees should be – I hope – something we can all agree to 
work on together.   
 
Other areas will be more challenging. We will have to co nfront some difficult questions – ones 
which challenge fundamental principles of the organization. We can see some of these t aking 
shape already: there is clearly a divide among us regarding the relationship between trade rules 
and development. The appropriateness of special and differenti al treatment – both in terms of 
subject matter – for example, illegal fishing – and its beneficiaries – given the changes in the 
global economy since 1995 – is another.  
 
Ignoring these questions has made our progress difficult and in some cases  impossible . While we 
may not all come to share the same view, we must be prepared to engage in a dialogue to seek a 
way forward.  
 
Finally, I would like to register Canada's strong concerns over the " nation al security"  based 
safeguard measures on steel and aluminium  imports that were announced by a M ember last week.  
We await the details of these propos ed measures and encourage that M ember to fully consider its 
WTO obligations if it implements the measures.  
  
As Prime Minister Trudeau and Foreign Minister Freeland h ave stated, "As a NORAD and NATO ally, 
and as th e number one customer for that Member' s steel exports, Canada would view any trade 
restrictions on Canadian steel and aluminium as absolutely unacceptable. It is entirely 
inappropriate to view any trade with Canada as a national security threat.  Should restrictions be 
imposed on Canadian steel and aluminium products, Canada will take responsive measures to 
defend its trade interests and workers."  
 
36. Panama (Article XII Members)  
 
First of all, the Group of Article 12 Members would like you thank the Director -General  and t he 
chairs of negotiating groups for their  efforts to advance negotiations at the Buenos Aires 
Ministerial. Before and during the Ministerial, Members participated actively by presenting their 
views and proposals which may provide a path for our future work.  
 
It is with this desire of strengthening the multilateral trading system t hat I would like to remind 
the M embership that during their accessions the Article 12 Members have made extensive 
commitments  significantly greater than those of the original WTO Members. We firmly believe that 
for negotiations to result in a fairer, more inclusive trading system, the original Members must do 
their share and undertake commi tments that result in a level playing field.  
 
In the same spirit with which we took commitments when we joined the WTO, we are ready to 
work towards the completion of our outstanding negotiating agenda.  
 
37. Panama  
 
Panama agrees with the Director -General's a ssessment in his report particularly on focusing on 
what needs to be done in order to reinvigorate our work, to provide more momentum and to bring 
our negotiations forward. We also agree that development should be put centre stage. We would 
also like to un derscore the importance of other areas some which have been making progress 
before and during MC11 such as MSMEs, fisheries subsidies, services, agriculture and e -commerce. 
Panama reaffirms its commitment to the multilateral trading system and stands ready  to work very 
hard and to move our work forward.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 55 - 
 
  38. India  
 
We thank the Director -General for convening this informal  meeting of the TNC and for his  report 
and asses sment as the Chair of the TNC.  
 
India associates with the statement of Indonesia on behalf of the G -33. 
 
This is the first TNC meeting after the 11th Ministerial Confere nce of the WTO in Buenos Aires.  It is 
a sobering reality that the Ministerial concluded w ithout any substantive outcomes even on 
mandated issues  and with very limited guidance for  further engagement in Geneva. The Members 
therefore have an increased responsibility of addressing these challenges and putting the WTO on 
a steady, meaningful path forward. India is keen on reinvigorating the negotiations in the WTO 
and using this multilat eral forum to develop trade rules that would be beneficial to all its M embers. 
This can best be accomplished by implementing existing decisions and mandates, building on the 
work done over the years and re -establishing mutual trust among t he M embership which has 
unfortunately eroded.  
 
Let me enumerate some ideas and approaches which we feel can help in taking the agenda 
forward.  
 
Agriculture  
 
Agriculture has some of the most important, sensitive and complex issues in our work in the WTO.  
These are also the issues of core i nterest to a large part of the Membership.  Therefore, it is 
extremely important that we take stock of our on -going negotiations and find ways to address 
issues on th e table with engagement of all M embers. In this context, we believe tha t it is 
important to have trade rules that enhance food security and sup port the fight against hunger. 
This would also facilitate the achievement of a number o f sustainable development goals  relating 
to the elimination of poverty, malnourishment and hunger  to which we are all committed. The 
work on obtaining a permanent solution on public stockholding for food security for al l developing 
countries and LDCs  should therefore remain an integral part of our agriculture work programme.   
 
The importance of addre ssing the asymmetries and inequities arising out of the huge trade 
distorting agricultural  subsidies provided by certain M embers is another issue that needs our 
attention and can on ly be addressed multilaterally.  We need to reform these subsidies as many 
developed countries are not exporting their competitiveness in agriculture but rather are exporting 
subsidies.  In this context, negotiations on disciplining the most trade distorting form of domestic 
support, namely, the AMS beyond de minimis , and the flexi bility to apply it without limit on specific 
products, must be a priority.   
 
Fisheries Subsidies  
 
Fisheries subsidies is a Doha issue where we can work to conclude negotiations by the next 
Ministerial.  India, and many developing countries, have a large p opulation of small, poor workers 
dependent on traditional fishing ac tivities for their livelihood. In developing disciplines on fisheries 
subsidies, we nee d to acknowledge this reality. Therefore, suitable special and differential 
treatment measures have t o be incorporated while framing the disciplines.   
 
Services  
 
In the area of domestic regulation in services, India has constructively engaged to broaden the 
debate and build consensus by providing textual suggestions to the proponents which factor in the 
concern s of many developing countries.  We have also highlighted, on many occasions, that 
domestic regulations in isolation will have little or no impact on trade in services.  A holistic 
approach needs to be adopted to address the numerous difficulties whic h services suppliers, 
particularly those of developing countries, face in the form of complex regulatory regimes of 
developed countries.  While we are prepared to engage on domestic regulations, it is of vital 
importance to simultaneously address entry rela ted measures  for movement of professionals.  In 
this context, we would like the M embership to seriously consider measures for  trade facilitation in 
services focused primarily on Mode IV alongside the negotiations for disciplines on domestic 
regulations.   
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 56 - 
 
  TRIPS -CBD 
 
While the TRIPS agreement advocates protection to patents, the Convention on Bio -Diversity, 
seeks to promote equitable s haring of biological resources.  The TRIPS -CBD linkage therefore seeks 
to protect bio -piracy by making many elements of the Co nvention on Bio -diversity enforceable. 
While this issue was earlier discussed in a DG -led process, it has lately slipped out of our priorities. 
We suggest that the WTO  take up work to make mandatory,  disclosure requirements for genetic 
resources and tradit ional knowledge in patent applications along with prior informe d consent and 
benefit sharing. This is also one of the outstanding implementation issues from the Doha Work 
Programme.  
 
DSB 
 
We value the role of the multilateral trading system, both as a neg otiating forum for trade rules 
and for its  dispute settlement functions. The latter has been, for us, one of the chief benefits of the 
WTO. What good is it to invest effort in the negotiation of rules if they cannot be effectively 
implemented and impa rtially enforced?  In this context , India, along with many other M embers, has 
growing and deep concerns regarding the delay in  selection and appointments of M embers to fill 
vacancies in the Appellate Body. This impasse not only threatens the functioning of the A ppellate 
Body, which is a key pillar of the dispute settlement system of this organization, but also poses a 
serious threat to the cr edibility of the WTO itself. We would therefore urge all M embers to 
constructively engage and find ways to address this iss ue on priority.  
 
Development  
 
The views expressed by some Members at MC11  signalled a desire to question the linkage between 
development and trade, and therefore the special and differential treatment provisions for all 
developing and least developed count ries as an integ ral part of the WTO agreements.  We cannot 
agree with this. Any approach which questions the centrality of the development dimension in the 
WTO and undermines the special and differential tre atment for developing countries  is 
unacceptable.  
 
New Issues  
 
On new issues, our consistent view has been that these can only be negotiated after consensu s 
has been reached amongst the M embership.   
 
Tariff Barriers  
 
We share the concerns that some Members have expressed on recent developments that could  
lead to new tariff  barriers and even a trade war.  Application of tariffs, we believe, should respect 
the ceiling of bound rates agreed to at the WTO.  
 
Conclusion  
 
In conclusion, I would li ke to state that as a founding M ember of the WTO, India has been a 
resolute supporter of the multilateral trading system. We strongly believe it is our collective 
responsibility to preserve the principles of non -discrimination, predictability and transparency 
which are the bedrock of this system. It is with this in mind t hat we are committed to facilitating 
and participating in candid conversations including at the Delhi Mini Ministerial we are hosting on 
19-20 March 2018, to chart a way forward for the negotiating agenda and for breaking the 
impasse related to the AB.  
 
Let me once again reassure the Director -General that India stands committed to positively 
contribute to strengthening the WTO.  
 
39. Papua New Guinea (Pacific Group)  
 
The Pacific Group supports the statements made by the ACP and the LDC groups.  
 
Let me thank the Director -General first of all for his report.  Since this is the first HOD s after MC11, 
the Group wishes to commend the Director -General, the MC11 Hon Susanna Malcorra  and the WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 57 - 
 
  Government of Argentina for ensuring that MC11 was transparent and inclusive.  
 
The Group shares the sentiments expressed by others that the MC11 results w ere disappointing 
but expected  given the deep divergences amongst Members leading up to Buenos Aires. F ollowing 
MC11 the Pacific Group  has been reflecting individually and with our strategic partners (especially  
ACP, LDCs) on the state of play in the WTO. As we begin work towards preparations for the next 
Ministerial Conference in 2019, the Pacific Group stresses the importance of working consistently 
over the next two years to comple te the work in Geneva and to avoid leaving things to the last 
minute.  
 
The Pacific Group, which comprises very small open economies, dependent on a few natural 
resources and exports, has always reiterated its support for the multilateral rules -based syste m 
which provides an open, transparent, predictable and equitable system for all Members including 
the small vulnerable economies. The Group will continue to work constructively to deliver 
meaningful development outcomes on Fisheries subsidies as mandated a t MC11 and on the 
remaining Doha issues.  
 
Turning to Fisheries subsidies, in particular, the Pacific Group was not a demandeur of this 
negotiation, however this will continue to be a priority for our Group and we will continue to 
engage actively given the importance of this sector to our food and livelihood security and 
sustainable economic development.  In fact, the fisheries sector has b een an area of long standing 
cooperation amongst our Members. More recently, since 2015, fisheries was included as one of  the 
five regional priorities endorsed by the Pacific Islands Forum Leaders under the Framework of 
Pacific Regionalism which focused on efforts to maximize economic returns from the sector and to 
strengthening conservation and management measures including  the elimination of IUU fishing.  
In 2017 , Pacific Islands Forum Leaders "recognised …. that the increasing demands for fisheries 
resources across the region requires coherent and coordinated approaches to address 
multidimensional issues including illegal,  unreported, unregulated (IUU) fishing, and monitor ing, 
control and surveillance."  
 
In this context, the Pacific Group considers that multilateral rules on Fisheries subsidies pursued in 
the WTO can make an important contribution which complements regional and national efforts in 
addressing some of the multi -dimensional issues facing the fisheries sector in our region.  The 
Group will therefore engage actively to build on  the work achieved before MC11.  In saying this, the 
Pacific Group underlines the importance of special and differential treatment that provides 
appropriate policy space for  the development of our fisheries sector including our artisanal and 
small scale fisheries.  
 
On the remaining Doha issues (Agriculture, NAMA, Services, TRIPS, Development), the Group 
notes the commitment to continue work in these areas in line with paragr aph 30 and 31 of the 
Nairobi Declaration  as reflected in the MC11 Chair' s Closing Statement.   
 
On Development, more work and perhaps a new strategy is needed given the wid e differences 
amongst Members. These differences in perspectives on Development and the role of S&D could 
potentially derail discussions elsewhere if not addressed at the outset.  As we stated in our 
Statement to the HOD s Meeting of 28 November, trade is not an end in itself but i s an instrument 
of development.  We should ensure that the WT O shapes the rules that enable trade to deli ver 
development for our people.  We therefore call for dialogue and consultations to exchange views 
and build better understanding amongst Members before resuming negotiations.    
 
To conclude, the Pacific Group i s willing to play its part in working with other Members to progress 
our work and deliver meaningful outcomes at th e next Ministerial Conference.  
 
40. United States  
 
We thank the Director -General as always for his  report and introductory remarks.  The United 
States welcomes today' s opportunity to provide views on the outlook for our work in the coming 
post MC11 period.  
 
Undoubtedly, we are off to something of a slow start this year.  W e sense some anxiety among the 
Membership about this fact  and of course the slow pace of work since MC11 does raise some 
questi ons about where we are going  and about potential focal  points for our work this year.  The WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 58 - 
 
  rather unusual coincidence in vacancies of several of our negotiating bodies has likely contribu ted 
to a certain sense of unease.  
 
The United States does  not dismiss  these anxieties.  But neither do we see the current outlook for 
our work as being unduly alarming. In fact, we consider a slow start out of the gate to be 
somewhat hopeful, as it  may indi cate that Members aren' t rushing ou t to repeat the same 
mistakes. This perspective of the United States stems from our evaluation of the Buenos Aires 
Ministerial.  
 
In his statemen t at the informal gathering of M inisters held in Davos, Ambassador Lighthizer  
emphasized the word "important" to describe MC11.  He noted there  that the M inisterial founded 
what could be an important new direction for the WTO, and that it sparked fruitful discussions and 
actions towards negotiating new agreements in important sector s among like -minded Members.   
 
At the same time, our M inister emphasized the view of the United States that not every subject 
will be adaptable to less -than-multilateral approaches, and he agreed with his colleagues who had 
asserted that rules agreed thro ugh new modalities cannot be imposed on those who are not ready 
to accept them.  
 
Still, we consider that we are entering into an interesting and potentially exciting time as we see 
groups of like -minded Members take steps together to advanc e issues of impo rtance to them.  The 
United States is pleased to be participating  directly in one such effort  on e-commerce.  
 
MC11 was also important because it at least opened up the possibility for serious discussion of 
some of the major challenges confronting the WTO.  These include the range of thorny issues 
surrounding our approach to development and, in particular, the implications of self -designation 
and a lack of effective differentia tion for our negotiating work. We have no illusions about the 
difficulty of discussi ng this challe nge; but we know that if we don' t begin to tackle it, our prospects 
for making progress i n negotiations will remain dim.  We welcome what we sense to be an 
openness among the Membership to begin having this hard conversation.  
 
Likewise, MC11 h elped to teach us that the time has come for serious efforts to fix on e of our 
biggest shortcomings: the lack of information resulting from widespread flaunting of basic 
notification obligations.  There were many reasons why MC11 did  not produce the big out comes 
desired by some, but it is hard to find a more compelling reason than the fact that in areas like 
agriculture and fisheries subsidies, we are oper ating extensively in the dark. The United States 
looks forward to continuing to work with other Members to explore solutions to this fundamental 
problem.  
 
In this regard, let me offer a few words specifically about agriculture, in the interest of clearing up 
potential misunderstandings regarding the posture of the United States.   
 
In Buenos Aires, the United States made clear that it was not prepared to accept a new work 
program on agriculture th at reflected two serious flaws.  First, the proposed program would have 
done nothing to alter the fundamental problem facing our negotiations in this area, namel y the 
absence of a solid fou ndation of factual information.  And second, it would have perpetuated a work 
program focused extensively on initiatives aimed at moving in a direction opposite from a 
reduction of dis tortions in agricultural trade.  As such, we w ere quite surprised that so many other 
Members were willing to go along with it.   
 
The stand that we took on this issue has, we fear, led to a mistaken view that the United States 
does not wish to d iscuss agriculture in the WTO. Quite the opposite is the case – and those 
delegat ions that interacted with the US  COA team a few weeks ago know this well.  We are 
determined that the WTO must continue to tackle this issue comprehensively, and w ith a view 
towards true reform.  But we insist that t his can only take place if the M embership invests a 
considerable effort in building a suitable foundation for negotiations through the development of a 
truly clear picture, based on data, about what is happening in global agriculture markets today.  
 
A similar perspective dr ives our view on the vital issue of fisheries subsidies, where we share the 
interest of nearly all Members in seeing good work continue within this organization.  We welcome 
the clear guidance Ministers provided on this issue in Buenos Aires. But clearly M C11 also showed 
that we are tangled in a series of kno ts on this issue.  Even as work in the Rules Negotiating Group WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 59 - 
 
  resumes, we must make sure that we are creating enough time and space to figure out why those 
knots exist and what it will  take to start unt angling them.  Here again, information and data will be 
critical elements.  
 
To conclude, let me re -emphasize that despite the current uncertainties and anxiet ies surrounding 
our work, the US  believes that the WTO has taken a new turn, and that there are opp ortunities to 
be seized.   
 
Seizing those opportunities will require all of us to move forward with some care, and als o to 
demonstrate some patience.  Many of the most important issues we face simply do not lend 
themselves to our cu stomary two -year cycle of  work.  Let us avoid falling into the familiar trap of 
thinking that all of our work must be funnelled  into an MC12 pathway, and let us instead get down 
to work, including through our regular committees – and I would mention in particular our new 
Committee on Trade Facilitation – to see where progress can be made.  
 
41. Senegal  
 
We thank you for convening this informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations Committee and for 
the report on your consultations and activities.  
 
We join the other Members in thanking the Argentine authorities for the successful organization of 
the Eleventh Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires and for the efforts made by Minister Malcorra 
to ensure that success.  
 
The Eleventh Ministerial Conference revealed deep divergences among Members in all areas of 
negotiation. The lack of flexibility and consensus in the negotiations dealt a heavy blow to the 
ability of the multilateral trading system to deliver on issues of interest to Members, in particular 
to the developing country and LDC Members . 
 
Today's meeting provides us with an opportunity to reassess  the negotiating process in light of the 
continuing divergences and of the current international context, and to look for ways and means to 
revive the negotiations at the WTO in a way that would  produce satisfactory results for all 
Members. As you have already said, this will require flexibility, inclusiveness and transparency.  
 
While it is true that a rules -based multilateral trading system that guarantees the rights and 
obligations of Members w ill ensure free, dynamic and mutually beneficial trade, the rules 
governing multilateral trade must also take account of the interests and the economic and social 
development priorities of the weakest Members of our Organization.  
 
The pursuit, with a view to concrete results, of the negotiations on ag riculture  in particular on 
domestic support for cotton, public stockholding and t he special safeguard mechanism  remains a 
priority for our delegation.  
 
Senegal further believes that development must be at the h eart of the multilateral trade 
negotiation s and that the developing countries and LDCs in particular need the flexibilities required 
to develop their production and supply capacity so that they can be properly integrated into world 
trade.  
 
As regards fishe ries subsidies, my delegation repeats its constructive commitment to fulfilling the 
WTO's negotiating mandate and to achieving Goal 14.6 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable 
Development. In this area as in others, the WTO must take account of the more global  objectives 
defined by the international community  to whose achievement international trade must contribute.  
 
Senegal therefore appeals to Members to show greater political will and to adopt new approaches 
so that we can revive the mu ltilateral negotiation  process which guarantees greater inclusiveness. 
Our delegation remains determined to contribute to those efforts.  
 
Let me conclude by saying that my delegation endorses the statements made on behalf of the 
African Group, the LDCs and the ACP.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 60 - 
 
  42. Zimbabwe  
 
Let me join others in thanking you Chair for your report. I would also want to thank Argentina for 
hosting MC11. Further, I associate myself with the statements delivered by Rwanda on behalf of 
the Africa Group, Indonesia on behalf of G -33, Guyana on behalf  of the ACP Group and Mali on 
behalf of C -4. 
 
At the outset, I would like to register my disappointment over the outcome of MC11 which had 
neither meaningful achievements nor a work prog ramme to guide our future work.  Indeed, it failed 
to bring benefit to developing countries such as our own. In view of this regrettable developm ent, 
I would like to encourage M embers to ensure that this organiz ation fulfils its development mandate  
in line with the Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development.  
 
Regarding the way f orward I would like to express my views as follows:  
 
• We should reflect on the past Ministerial Conference and come up with ideas that will 
ensure progress in the negotiations. The reflection period should not be too long as to 
diminish the time required to  adequately prepare for the next Ministerial Conference.  
 
• We should continue to be guided by the Doha Declaration and decisions taken since then 
because the DDA is still alive since there has been n o consensus to close the round.  No 
Special Session has bee n held in line with paragraph 45 of the Doha Declaration.  
 
• In this regard, the Nairobi Declaration and other previous decisions should guide us in our 
negotiations. Paragraphs 31 and 34 of the Nairobi Declaration mandate us to prioritize and 
address the remaining issues of the DDA namely, Agricultural domestic support including 
Cotton, Public Stockholding for Food Security purposes, SSM, Export Competition, 
Agricultural Market access, Non - Agricultural Market Access, Development, Services, TRIPS 
and Rules . We should therefore continue our negotiations based on this mandate.  
 
• Paragraph 34 of the Nairobi declaration further states that we need consensus to launch 
negotiations on other/ne w issues and therefore any non -DDA negotiations should fulfil this 
requirement. We are concerned about the diversion away from DDA issues to new issues 
that do not have existing mandates.  
 
• We continue to support a rules -based, fair and inclusive Multilateral Trading System which 
provides benefits to small economies such as our s and we are not in favour of plur ilateral 
arrangements. We wish to draw Members'  attention to the fact that any plur ilaterals that 
fall under Annex 4 plur ilateral Agreements of the WTO  require consensus of the full 
Membership.  
 
• We would like to underscore  the importance of having future commercially meaningful 
developmental outcomes and in this regard we need to urgently address the issue of 
Special and Differential Treatment which is one of our priority areas that is in line with our 
national objectives o n industrialization and the AU' s Agen da 2063. Elimination of 
agricultural trade distorting subsidies including that for cotton, a permanent solution on 
Public S tockholding for Food Security Purposes and Special Safeguard Measures to protect 
our farmers rem ain our priorities in the negotiations.  
 
• Lastly, we should devote time to discuss process issues regarding the manner in which we 
conduct our business wh en preparing for and during Ministerial Conferences. The Africa 
Group proposal on this is a good refere nce and basis for such a discussion.  
 
43. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
Since this is the first meeting since the Eleventh Ministerial Conference, we too would like to thank 
Argentina for its hospitality and organizational skills.  
 
We would also like to thank the Director -General for his report.  We share a number of his thoughts  
in particular with regard to how development should be viewed as a cross cutting priority in our 
work. As we have said on previous occasions, the WTO's main responsibility should be to create 
the conditions that enable trade to act as an instrument for development.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 61 - 
 
   
We therefore deeply regret the inertia that exists su rrounding the Doha Round issues  particularly 
special and differential treatment and agricult ure. In this area in pa rticular  we associate ourselves 
with the statement delivered by Indonesia on behalf of the G -33. We deeply regret the lack of 
political commitment to reaching agreement that was shown by the major economies in Buenos 
Aires. In the absence of a declaration on this matter in Buenos Aires, it is our u nderstanding that 
the previous M inisterial commitments remain in effect and must therefore be honoured.  
 
Despite our dissatisfaction with the outcomes achieved in Buenos Aires, we recognize that 
Members achieved a s much as they possibly could , given the polarization of positions. It is clear 
that although the meeting formats were sometimes complex for small del egations, they were 
always open -ended in order to respect the principle of transparency that should guide our actions 
and that is so necessary to build trust. Furthermore, even though ambitions were high, varied and 
almost impossible to reconcile, we managed to agree on a mandate for fisheries subsidies  which 
means we now form a strategic part of a broader, un iversal system, in which we are actors 
contributing to the achievement of one of the 2030 Agenda Sustainable Development Goals.  
 
We have also given renewed impetus to the 1998 Work Pr ogramme on Electronic Commerce which 
will enable us to take steps forward  as regards a very complex matter that is a priority for all.  
 
We would now like to highlight three very specific concerns that I view as swords of Damocles 
hanging over our Organization.  
 
The proliferation of joint initiatives  
 
We are firm believers in, and advocates of, multilateralism. In its short period of existence, this 
Organization has presented the world with significant achievements that have been possible on the 
basis of consensus. Looking to the future, we must  accept that we form a system. I n other words, 
we are much mo re than our constituent parts and every system moves forward at the speed of its 
slowest member. Therefore, in order to move forward, it is first necessary to bridge the gaps that 
divide us. This means that we must make a great e ffort to be empathic, to really listen to each 
other and to understand each other's differences.  
 
In this regard, we are deeply concerned about the recent tendency to plurilateraliz e so called "joint 
initiatives",  which seems to be gaining ground. While it  is true that no one can prevent groups of 
countries from coming together to explore common interests, we cannot ignore the fact that this 
Organization is one in which rules are negotiated, and it is therefore very risky to try to take 
shortcuts instead of  following the often complex consensus route. The proliferation of joint 
initiatives is, in our view, a dangerous exercise that goes against multilateralism; one that could 
take us down paths that we, as a group, might later regret.  
 
The failure to agree o n the filling of vacancies in the Appellate Body  
 
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela wishes to reiterate its deep concern about the regrettable 
delay in appointing three Appellate Body members due to the lack of consensus on procedural 
formalities.  
 
Like many WTO Members, we wish to reiterate the importance of the Appellate Body and its 
special contribution to the multilateral trading system. Furthermore, we cannot overlook the fact 
that the dispute settlement system is being used ever more frequently by  smaller  developing 
countries.  
 
The Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela hopes that WTO Members will overcome their differences and 
act quickly to appoint these new Appellate Body members. This urgent action will renew the high 
level of confidence that Members have in the dispute settlement mechanism.  
 
Proliferation of protectionist measures and unilateral coercive measures  
 
Our delegation wishes to express its deep concern regarding the continued application, by certain 
Members, of unilateral coercive measures and protectionist measures that affect the interests of 
others. At this juncture, we face the possibility of one Member applying a measure that could 
affect international trade, most notably in steel and aluminium. This could have serious WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 62 - 
 
  consequences for the multilateral trading system and may, as various delegations have pointed 
out, lead to an unprecedented trade war. This very same Member has a history of unilateral 
coercive measures that not only impact the trade of the Member affected, but also, to a significant 
degree, the well -being of its population.  
 
Lastly, I would like to express support for Bolivia's comments about studying the desirability of 
holding Ministerial Conferences in Geneva, and reconsidering the proposal on procedures tabled by 
the A frican Group, which was endorsed by our delegation.  
 
44. Argentina  
 
We thank the Director -General for his  comp rehensive report and  the Members who have expressed 
their congratulations to Argentina for the organization of MC11. In this regard, let me clarify th at it 
was a joint effort with the Secretariat and with all WTO Members. I think we have shown that a 
Ministerial Conference can be organized without drama. With expenses, many, but without drama.  
 
The MC11 is over and we must look forward and start working  for the future. Although agriculture 
has not been among the results of Buenos Aires, agriculture is part of that future. It is a 
commitment of the WTO and a permanent interest of Argentina. On the contrary, there was a 
result at MC11 in relation to the el imination of some fishing subsidies and our country continues to 
engage in that negotiation.  
 
45. Argentina (Informal Group on Investment Facilitation)  
 
As you will recall, in their Joint Ministerial Statement on Investment Facilitation for Development at 
MC11 , 70 WTO Members agreed to shift gears in their discussions and move forward along three 
mutually -supportive tracks:  
 
• First, they agreed to begin structured discussions with the aim of developing a multilateral 
framework on investment facilitation;  
 
• Secon d, they agreed to engage in continuous outreach to all WTO Members to learn more 
about their investment facilitation priorities and needs; and  
 
• Third, they agreed that – in the future – they would work in cooperation with relevant 
intergovernmental organi zations  to assess developing and least -developed Members' 
requirements in implementing a possible multilateral framework.  
 
To achieve these goals – and chart a path forward – the Joint Ministerial Statement also called on 
Members to "meet early in 2018 to discuss how to organize outreach activities and structured 
discussions on this important topic".  In keeping with the open, transparent and inclusive nature of 
this initiative, the Joint Ministerial Statement invited and strongly encouraged all WTO Members  to 
"actively participate in this work".  
 
Thus, I wish to inform you that an open -ended meeting – aimed at giving all Members a voice in 
how to advance the next phase of the initiative – will be held on Tuesday, 13 March 2018 at 
10 a.m. in Room W.  
 
To ens ure that all Members have an opportunity to contribute to the discussion – and to facilitate a 
focused and informed exchange of views – the invitation fax sent to all Members on 28 February 
asks five guiding questions which Members are encouraged t o discuss and answer.  
 
As I said, this preliminary meeting is intended as an important and necessary organizational one – 
and I urge everyone to take part.  If we get the process right – a process that everyone helps to 
shape and feels comfortable with – it will be that much easier to plan ahead, work productively, 
and ensure that we are launched on a clear path forward. A meeting officially opening the next 
phase of our initiative could be organized in the spring.   
 
46. Sri Lanka  
 
I thank Director -General for  his report on the consultations and meetings that he has held so far 
after MC11. We also appreciate him for sharing his  views on MC11 and on the way forward. I also WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 63 - 
 
  take the opportunity to convey our thanks and gratitude to the Government of Argentina for  the 
excellent arrangements and hospitality provided during the Ministerial. If we are to progress from 
Buenos Aires, we need to be more pragmatic and creative, as well as maintain some flexibility in 
our negotiating positions.  
  
As we all know, the multi lateral trading system is facing enormous challenges. On one hand, 
taking forward the important subject issues on the table and addressing the systematic issues on 
the other. This has reflected on the participation of small economies in the global trade an d 
experience challenges b eing marginalized. We therefore  need more than before a dedicated 
approach to the multilateral trading system. In this context, my delegation note s with appreciation 
the strong support demonstrated by the political leaders  who attended MC11 by signing a 
declaration reaffirming their commitment to multilateralism as the best way to take advantage of 
global trade opportunities and to counter the challenges.  
  
We as M embers share the responsibility towards taking up the subject issues  that we could not 
conclude in Buenos Aires. In this regard, as suggested by many delegates who spoke before me, 
we need to prioritize the subject issues that demonstrated broa d agreement. Fisheries is one  such 
subject that we all agreed to conclude before  the next Ministerial. In this regard, my delegation 
believes that close coordination between fisheries management organizations is essential 
especially on subjective issues that require more clarity.  
  
It is the general perception that when M embers engage  in trade under WTO rules, the WTO will 
essenti ally act as the referee if any M ember breaks the m. From the GATT to the WTO, by 
accepting much broader trade agreements a nd commitments, developing and LDC Members are 
expected to place development  in the pr iority agenda of trade. The Director -General  in his  remarks 
today has also emphasiz ed on development as the centre of deliberations and it should not be 
neglected. Since 2001 , major topics of interest to developing countries on the development 
agenda have be en stagnated and the DDA remains inconclusive even after sixteen years.  
  
Multilateralism is not about what you want but about what is possible. We need to show greater 
flexibility and compromise in the future for multilateralism to flourish. As we see  it, global trade is  
not in crisis. T he coalition in the willingness to continue the multilateral process is however 
disappearing making the WTO and the multilateral trading system vulnerable.  
   
Sri Lanka is open for ideas and exploring options on the way fo rward to progress in our 
negotiations from Buenos Aires. We also stand ready to contribute actively with our own ideas in 
this exercise. In this pr ocess, we believe that all the M embers need to contribute towards ensuring 
sustainable integration of s mall d eveloping and LDC Members to w orld trade by levelling out the 
playing field in favour of them.  
 
My delegation also associates with the statements delivered by Indonesia on behalf of the G-33 
and Guatemala on behalf of the SVEs in this regard.  
 
In conclus ion, I wish to recall what is state d by the Director -General that " Trade to be seen as part 
of the solution to economic difficulties , but not a part of the problem" . I am sure that we all would 
be able to contribute to the same sentiment with greater flexibilities in our future negotiations.  
 
47. Ghana  
 
We thank the Director -General  for con vening this meeting and for his  report, the assessment of 
the current situation and the way forward.  
 
Let me take this  opportunity to thank Argentina for a well -organize d Ministerial Conference and to 
wish distinguished delegates a fruitful and fulfilling year.  
 
Ghana aligns with the statements delivered by Rwanda and Guyana on behalf of the African Group 
and ACP Group, respectively.  
 
At the last General Council Meeting b efore MC11, Ghana reiterated the importance it attaches to 
issues of developmental dimension, including elimination of harmful subsidies in agriculture, 
cotton, fisheries and a special safeguard measure that would protect the fragile an d vulnerable 
develop ing country farmers from cheap imports.  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 64 - 
 
   
We have also always indicated that if there was ever a time in global history when the importance 
of trade as a catalyst for growth has be en manifested that time is now  especially for ma ny of us in 
Africa. Industrializ ation and trade are two key elements that have dominated our development 
narrative in the last few years. That is why in Ghana, our President has  articulated a new vision of 
a "Ghana beyond Aid"  with our development focus shifting from aid to t rade and investment. 
Against this background, we have embarked on a very ambitious and comprehensive ten point 
agend a for industrial transformation in line with Africa' s Industrial Transformation Agenda – The 
Vision 2063: The  Africa we want. Indeed, Africa 's development should be in the interest of the rest 
of the world.  
 
It is therefore with regret that we recall the failure of the Eleventh Ministerial Conference in 
Buenos Aires in reaching substantive agreements in these areas.  
 
In this regard, allow me to refer to the statement of the Hon Minister for Trade and Industry at the 
Plenary of the Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires when he shared his view on the fundamental 
challenges that confront th e WTO as a Member -driven organiz ation. He observed, amon g others, 
that our inabilit y to reconcile our differences  and subordinate our individual interests for the 
benefit of the greater good  and the laborious and often divisive nature of the process o f 
negotiations and consultation  have subverted the organizati on's ability to deliver c oncrete results 
to developing M embers.  
 
Rising protectionism  and plurilateralism  are real threats to the multilateral trading system. 
Whereas developed countries have always called for the reduction and removal of tariffs by 
devel oping countri es and LDCs  for more open trade, some countries have in recent years resorted 
to protectionist policies which could be detrimental to op en trade as envisaged by the multilateral 
trading system . 
 
Also of concern to Ghana is the inability of the  WTO to restore the full strength of the Appellate  
Body of the much talked about the " jewel in the crown " – the Dispute Settlement System, for over 
one year. How can we continue rule making if the jewel is being taken off the crown? We entreat 
Members to r eview their protectionist policies and also garner efforts to restore the outstanding 
issue of Appellate Body appointments.  
 
Notwithstanding  these , Ghana bel ieves in the resilience of the multilateral t rading system in 
galvanizing consensus and support  and rising to the expectations of developing co untries  to 
resolve the outstanding issues. We therefore remain confident that the f isheries subsidies 
negotiations  for which Ministers provided  clear guidance in Buenos Aires  will lead to meaningful 
outcomes befo re the next Ministerial Conference in 2019.  
 
Ghana will observe developments in new initiatives in the WTO with keen interest to develop its 
offensive and defensive strategies if need be  in the coming months.  
 
Finally, my delegation calls for a renewed imp etus in the negotiations in all other mandated areas 
with an open mind and in an inclusive and transparent manner, to address the outstanding 
developmental challenges of interest to a majority of Members.  
 
To conclude , I wish to reaffirm my country's suppo rt to the rules  and consensus -based, 
transparent, inclusive, Member -driven multilateral trading system.  
 
48. Philippines  
 
We align ourselves with the statement of Sin gapore as current ASEAN Chair.  
 
We thank the Director -General and the M embers for their honest  assessment of MC11. Most of 
what we' ve heard today from Members affirms what was then a healthy level of scepticism  on the 
chances of an ambitious ou tcome coming in to Buenos Aires  making our post -mortem session 
today sound more like a self -fulfilled prophecy. We were concerned then with attempts to 
backslide on specific issues  such as agriculture and fisheries  where previous mandates have been 
clear and unequivocal. While we seemed  to have dodged that bullet in MC11, I have come to 
realize that avoiding this same scenario in MC12 would be entirely up to us.   
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 65 - 
 
  What MC11 may have had some success  is to highlight the need for greater reflection on systemic 
and structural issues that hinder us from making greater progress on long -standing and new 
issues. But this process must go hand -in-hand with and not divorced from what is currently on the 
negoti ating table. And what is on the table is voluminous and screaming for our attention.  
 
It is hoped that we can resist any urge to turn this period of reflection into an undisciplined 
brainstorming exercise and a sounding board for left field philosophical views on the multilateral 
trading system. Discussions must be forward -looking and firmly rooted, not only in current 
realities of th e global economy affecting all M embers, most especially developing and least -
developed countries, but also in the constituti onal basis for the establishment of the WTO and the 
basic principles underpinning the rules -based multilateral trading system.  
 
One issue threatening the stability and effectiveness of the WTO is the protracted impasse on the 
selection process to fill App ellate Body vacancies. We share the deep concern of a great majority 
of Members and lend our voice to the growing clamo ur to resolve this crisis without further delay.   
 
Nonetheless, on other areas w here some marginal progress was achieved in MC11, we can  still 
translate some of the political guidance into solid, evidence -based technical work to further inform 
negotiations towards mutually agreeable outcomes. It is of course, given our collective experience, 
not as easy as it sounds. But the Philippines re mains  committed to working with the M embership 
on all DDA issues and exploring ways to ensure that the multilateral trading system truly benefits 
all Members.  
 
49. Kenya  
 
At the outset, Kenya would like to associate itself with the statement made by Rwanda on behalf of 
the African Group, Guyana on behalf of the ACP Group and Indonesia on behalf of the G-33.   
 
We thank the Director -General for his  report  on the assessment following MC11 and recent 
contacts he  made after MC11.  
 
We would like to thank the Governm ent of Argentina for organizing the Eleventh Ministerial 
Conference and for the hospitality provided to our delegations.  
 
Kenya would like to acknowledge the progress made in Buenos Aires, particularly decisions on 
fisheries subsidies and work programme o n E-Commerce, which will guide t he work forward in 
these areas.  We also welcome the unanimous decision by Ministers to establish the Working Party 
on the Accession of South Sudan. As a member of the African Union, Kenya urges WTO Members 
to work constr uctively to advance South Sudan' s accession negotiations.  
 
While importan t decisions were made in Buenos Aires, these decisions were less than satisfactory. 
This limited outcome reflects the rapidly changing and complex architecture of the current global 
governance system. Trade is indeed at crossroads and as Members of the WTO, now is the time to 
reflect and provide pragmatic solutions to the challenges that we are facing.  
 
Indeed, several issues of utmost importance to Kenya and many developing countries re main 
unresolved. Beyond this, a serious reflection on the developmental aspects of WTO work need to 
be further explored.  
 
As we are reflecting on the way forward, it is important to note that we cannot keep doing the 
same things and expect d ifferent result s. We need to reassess our strategies  and approach the 
negotiations with flexibility, inclusivity and creativity.  
 
In a system made up of Members with different socio economic structures, one way to tackle the 
issues at hand is to come at the negotiating ta ble with a compromise. This is paramount for the 
negotiations to yield positive outcomes.  
 
In conclusion, Kenya is open to constructive engagement in all mandated areas and to explore 
ways that will lead to tangible multilateral outcomes going forward.  
 WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 66 - 
 
  50. Paraguay  
 
Paraguay thanks the Director -General for his report on his  recent activities. We also thank the 
Argentine Republic for hosting the most recent Ministerial Conference and for its efforts to ensure 
the success of that event.  
 
Previous delegations h ave already expressed their views on the complex situation that we now 
face. It seems that the spectre of a trade war will be looming over us for some time to come. And 
this spectre finds the WTO in a disoriented state.  
 
We reiterate that the situation is a complex one and we face problems in all the WTO pillars. 
Transparency must be enhanced – a large number of WTO Members are lacking in this area. A 
fundamental part of the Dispute Settlement Body is on the verge of paralysis. The negotiating 
pillar was un able to deliver outcomes at the last Conference. Regular WTO bodies are forced to 
work with commitments that are out of step with reality.  
 
And these problems are mutually reinforcing.  
 
For example, in a recent regular Committee meeting, we spent a good fe w minutes discussing how 
Member X had increased its applied tariff several times for product Y, up to its maximum bou nd 
rate. And it was frustrating  because nothing could be done about it. Member X was respecting its 
commitments. If we remain at a standsti ll in the negotiations and do not update our commitments, 
this situation will not change. Similarly, the negotiations will be affected if the DSB becomes 
dysfunctional.  
 
Crises are useful if they allow us to rethink practices and set out alternatives. This  will not happen 
if we stick with traditional practices. We all seem to agree on this. We have heard it mentioned 
several times today. However, the statements delivered continue to highlight the red lines and 
specific priority objectives of each Member.  
 
Paraguay is prepared to continue supporting the multilateral system and is ready to work in any of 
its bodies.  
 
We reiterate our interest in the three pillars of the agriculture negotiations: market access, 
domestic support and export competition. We stand ready to seek alternat ives that will lead to 
outcomes  regardless of whether these outcomes are comprehensive or incremental. This position 
also applies to services and non -agricultural goods.  
 
We reiterate our support for special and differential treatment . The concept must become 
operational so that we can approve instruments in this Organization. Special and differential 
treatment is the element that will bring fairness to contributions.  
 
We would like to work on new issues. We have signed all the joint c ommunications and are 
anxious to contribute and to analyse the best way to configure objectives. We hope that the 
discussions will remain as inclusive as possible.  
 
_______________  
 
  WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 67 - 
 
   
ANNEX 3  
STATEMENT BY THE GEN ERAL COUNCIL CHAIRMA N AT THE INFORMAL GENERAL 
COUNCIL MEETING AT T HE LEVE L OF HEADS OF DELEGA TION HELD ON 2 MARCH  2018  
 
At his request, the statement made by the General Council Chairman at the above -mentioned 
meeting is included below as part of the Minutes of the General Council meeting.  
 
_______________  
 
Good afternoon  and welcome to this informal General Council  meeting.  
 
I have convened this meeting in line with Paragraph 7.1(f) of the Guidelines for Appointment of 
Officers to WTO Bodies, contained in document WT/L/510 . In undertaking th e process  for the 
appointment of officers  set out in these Guidelines,  I have been assisted by the serving Chairman 
of the Dispute Settlement Body, Amb. Junichi I hara (Japan ), and by the former Chairman of the 
General Council  Amb. Harald N eple (Norway ). I would like to thank them  both very much  for their 
continuous efforts and support throughout the process.  
 
Together we have worked to  put into effect the practical steps to improve th e implementation  of 
the Guidelines, which were agreed by the General Counc il in 2012 and which are  contained in 
JOB/GC/22.  
 
You will recall that this  process was initiated  with a communication sent o n 11 January, in which I 
informed all delegation s that we would be meeting first with  the coordinators  of the four Group s 
identifie d in the Guidelines and then with any interested delegations if they so wish. The four 
groups are, as you know : the developed countr ies; Africa; Asia and the Pacific; and Latin America 
and the Caribbean .  
 
In that communication,  and as announced at the General Council meeting last November, 
Members were reminded that  the selection process  would address the  Chairpersons of WTO bodies  
listed  in Groups  1, 2, 4 and 5  of the Annex to the Guidelines – and that it would also cover any 
negotiating bodies as  may be required.  
 
On 29 January, I sent another communication  informing delegations that Ambassador M cCook, 
Chairman of the  Negotiating Group on Rules;  Ambassador C ima, Chairman of the Council for Trade 
in Serv ices in Special Session; and Ambassador K arau, Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture 
in Special Session would be vacating their positions. Therefore, the appointments of chairpersons 
to these three negotiating bodies would be part of this selection process.  
 
In a further communication  dated 8 Febru ary, and in accordance with Paragraph 7(d) of the 
Guidelines, we invited individual delegations to meet with the three of us, if they so wished. We 
did meet with delegations that came forward and we interacted continuously  with the  Group 
Coordinators to share information and advance the process.   
 
Let me take this opportunity to highlight two points that emerged during this process. First, it was 
clear – once again – that the coordinators of the four broad groups play a critical role in this 
process. Throug h their consultations within the respective constituencies, they are instrumental in 
building consensus around candidates. This is in line with the "practical steps" I mentioned earlier 
and I can not overemphas ize the importance of their role in facilitatin g the process . 
 
The second relates to the principle of rotation. For the chairmanships of the General Council and 
the Dispute Settlement Body  it is clear that we have an  annual rotation  between developed and 
developing Members. It is also clear that amongst developing Members, the rotation occurs 
between Africa, Asia and the Pacific and GRULAC.  
 
However, we do not have  the same degree  of clarity on rotation  for the other WTO bodies.  On 
these, we seek an acceptable degree of repre sentation amongst the four groups, amongst 
developed and developing countries, and we need to address the expressed interests of WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 68 - 
 
  delegations to chair specific WTO bodies.  This is not straightforward and can pose challenges, as 
you well know.  
 
I want to sin cerely thank the group coordinators of their continuous efforts in this process, to 
propose candidates from their constituencies and to make the adjustments to resolve difficulties as 
they arose . I counted at least five instances of significant adjustments  of initial positions and I 
want to acknowledge with gratitude the flexibility demonstrated by individual delegations that has 
allowed us to converge.  
 
Let me now share  with you the slate of names for the WTO regular bodies  in Groups 1, 2, 4 and 5  
on which  I understand we should be able to confirm today.  
 
General Council  
 
 H.E. Mr. Junichi Ihara  ( Japan ) 
 
 
Dispute Settlement Body  
 
 H.E. Ms Sunanta Kangvalkulkij  ( Thailand ) 
 
Trade Policy Review Body  
 
 H.E. Mr. Eloi Laouru  ( Benin ) 
 
Council for Trade in Goods  
 
 H.E. Mr. Stephen De Boer  ( Canada ) 
 
Council for Trade in Services  
 
 H.E. Mr. Alfredo Suescum  ( Panama ) 
 
Council for TRIPS  
 
 H.E. Dr. Walter Werner ( Germany ) 
 
Committee on Trade and Development  
 
 H.E. Mr. Diego Aulestia  ( Ecuador ) 
 
Committee on Balance -of-Payments 
Restrictions  
 H.E. Mr. Claudio de la Puente  ( Peru) 
 
Committee on Budget, Finance and  
Administration  
 H.E. Mr. Juan Aguirre  ( Paraguay ) 
 
Committee on Trade and Environment  
 
 H.E. Mrs. Sondang Angraini  (Indonesia ) 
 
Committee on Regional Trade  
Agreements  
 H.E. Mr. Julian Braithwaite  ( United Kingdom ) 
 
Working Group on Trade, Debt and 
Finance  
 H.E. Mr. Mohammad Haqjo  ( Afghanistan ) 
 
Working Group on Trade and Transfer of 
Technology  
 H.E. Mrs. Sabine Möller  ( Namibia ) 
 
 
Appointments for these bodies will be for one year in keeping with the general rule in the 
Guidelines.  These appointments will, of course, be formalized at the next meetings of the relevant 
WTO bodies this year.   WT/GC/M/171  
 
- 69 - 
 
   
I draw your attention to the  subsequent exercise to select Chairs for the bodies established under 
the Council for Trade in Goods and the Council for Trade in Services, respectively  that should be 
initiated  after the upcoming  General Council. These processes  will be conducted by the o utgoing 
Chairs of those  two Councils and they will make an announcement to this effect  at the General 
Council meeting on Wednesday.    
 
Let us now turn to the negotiating bodies . And here let me begin by informing you all that we have 
currently no candidate  to chair the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session. Therefore, for this 
particular appointment, consultations will need to  continue . I would strongly encourage interested 
Members  to consult with their group coordinators as soon as possible.  
 
On the other two negotiating bodies,  our consultations appear to show that there is consensus on 
the appointments of:  
 
H.E. Mrs. Zhanar Aitzhanova  (Kazakhstan ) for the Services Council in Special Session, and,  
H.E. Mr  Roberto Z apata  Barradas  (Mexico ) for the Negotiating Group on Rules.  
 
I hope that this  slate for the WTO regular bodies and for the two negotiating bodies is acceptable 
to Members  and that it can be formally agreed to by the General Council on Wednesday.  
 
__________