RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/130 
5 April 2011 
 (11-1698) 
General Council 
22 February 2011  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 22 February 2011  
 
Chairman:  Mr John Gero (Canada)  
 
 
Prior to the adoption of the agenda, the Ch airman, on behalf of the General Council, 
expressed deep regret over the recent eart hquake near Christchurch, New Zealand. 
 The representative of New Zealand made a statement.
1 
 In the course of the meeting, the Chairman, the Director-General and delegations bade 
farewell to Amb. Shinichi Kitajima (Japan), w ho was leaving his post at the WTO, and expressed 
appreciation for his valuable contribution dur ing his time as Permanent Representative.  
 Subjects discussed
:2 
 Page  
1.  Report by the Chairman of th e Trade Negotiati ons Committee ..........................................2  
2.  Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the 
Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade and Development ......................................15  
3.  Review of the exemption provided under paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 .......................16  
4.  WTO Pension Plan – Election of members to the Management Board – Proposal 
by the Chairman of the General Council..............................................................................18  
5.  Appointment of Officer s to WTO Bodies .............................................................................18  
6.  Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Samoa – Statement by 
the Chairman................................................................................................................... ........20 
7.  Eighth Ministerial Conference – Statement by the Chairman ...........................................21  
8.  Administrative Measures for Members in arrears – Statement by the Chairman...........21  
9.  Election of Chairperson........................................................................................................ ..22 
ANNEX I – Statement by New Zealand prior to adoption of the Agenda ...................................... 25 
ANNEX II – Statements by delegations at the informal meeting of the Trade 
Negotiations Committee on 2 February 2011 .................................................................................... 26 
 
                                                      
1 The text of the statement is reproduced in Annex I to these Minutes.  
2 The Proposed Agenda was circulated in document WT/GC/W/631. WT/GC/M/130 
Page 2  
 
  1. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
1. The Chairman
 invited the Director-General, Chairman of the TNC, to report on the TNC's 
activities since his last report to the Council. 
2. The Director-General, Chairman of the TNC , said3 that since the most recent meeting of the 
General Council, the TNC had held one informal  meeting on 2 February.  At that meeting, 
participants had reviewed and assessed developments  in the DDA since the beginning of the intensive 
process which the Negotiating Groups had embarked on in early January 2011.  Similarly, as had 
become customary in late January and early Febr uary, the backdrop of the discussions had been the 
informal gathering of Ministers organized by Sw itzerland in Davos.  His remarks at the informal 
TNC, including the overview of Negotiating Groups, ha d been circulated to delegations in document 
JOB/TNC/7.  He would not repeat what he had said then, but nevertheless wished to place on the 
record the main message that he had taken from Geneva  to Ministers in Davos.  In his intervention in 
Davos, he had noted that the activiti es in Geneva were show ing a change of gear and approach in both 
legs of the negotiating process, i.e. in the Negotiating Groups as well as in the bilateral and 
plurilateral consultations.  In th e Negotiating Groups there was an overall sense of greater engagement 
and focus, with no single topic being left behind.   Work was progressing on developing draft language 
and textual proposals, as well as on removing brackets.  Nevertheless, he had stressed to Ministers that the pace of multilateral work was not only too sl ow, but also too short of the kind of substantive 
progress needed to reach the landing zone within the window of opportunity Leaders had identified.   
3. Regarding the bilateral and plur ilateral legs, he had shared with Ministers his concern that 
these processes were lagging behind, thereby risk ing starving the multilateral negotiations of the 
oxygen required to make the next leap forward.  Without an imminent transfer of energy from the 
bilateral and plurilateral processes, all the hard wo rk done over the past few weeks in the multilateral 
track risked coming to a grinding halt.  In othe r words, he had said that the current multilateral 
momentum urgently needed fuel.  In Davos he  had sensed an unambiguous determination among 
Ministers to further accelerate the Geneva process to meet the 2011 window of opportunity identified 
by the G20 and APEC Leaders.  Ministers present ha d agreed to increase the pressure on their various 
bilateral and plurilateral negotiations so as to pr ovide the necessary momentum, and had also agreed 
that the current work had to build on progress reached  thus far.  They had committed to instructing 
their negotiators to reassess positions, abandon comfor t zones and engage in genuine give-and-take.  
Finally, Ministers had emphasized their readiness to  engage personally in the negotiating process at 
the appropriate moment.  However, they had also been quite clear that they expected the Geneva 
process to bring them a limited number of issues for them to crack.  At the informal TNC, delegations 
had expressed wide support for the roadmap – text s in all areas by around Easter, a comprehensive 
package by July and finalization by the end of 2011.  In this context, a number of delegations had re-
emphasized that progress should build on what had al ready been achieved and that the acquis should 
not be unravelled.  Delegations had also highlighted  specific areas of importance they wished to see 
advance in this end-game phase.  Several participan ts had stressed the importance of transparency and 
inclusiveness in the processes ahead, and a number ha d also emphasized the importance of respecting 
the development mandate of the Round. 
4. Regarding the bilateral and plurilateral discu ssions among Senior Officials which had taken 
place over the past couple of weeks, he understood that these had been constructive and had explored 
specific substantive issues in a number of key areas,  including flexibilities and how to ensure overall 
balance across issues.  He also understood that participants in these talks had emphasized the 
importance of the multilateral process.  Although it w as still early, he was encouraged by the direction 
and nature of these talks and urged the participan ts to keep up the pressure, push harder and dig 
deeper in their efforts to find the common ground n ecessary to put the multilateral pen to paper.  It 
                                                     
 
3 The Director-General's statement was subsequently circulated as JOB/GC/8.  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 3 
 
 
  was clear from the level of activity planned in th e various Negotiating Groups that all faced some 
intense and challenging weeks ahead.  This included co llectively facing up to the fact that the current 
process – at each and every level – remained t oo slow.  Throughout the Negotiating Groups one 
continued to hear that some delegations "have no in structions" and that "we still have time".  Such 
statements were not only unhelpful, they failed to respect the tremendous day-to-day efforts by the 
Negotiating Group Chairs to move the process forwar d.  In the Negotiating Groups, one heard that 
"we will move when the plurilaterals move", and in  the plurilaterals one heard that "we will move 
when the bilaterals move", and finally, in the bila terals one heard that "I will move when the other 
does".  Ultimately, of course, this meant that Members were waiting for themselves to move.  All 
would no doubt agree that this vicious circle had to be broken. 
5. At the present point, he believed Members needed to collectively recall that they had agreed 
on a modus operandi for the current process – namely , to produce elements of progress that Chairs 
could capture in texts, and to do so urgently.  He had to issue a serious warning that a major 
acceleration at all levels – multilaterally, plurilaterally  and bilaterally – was n eeded in order to make 
this possible.  Furthermore, the output of all these processes needed to urgently move up a level, to 
real progress on key issues of substance.  The window of opportunity was still there, but it was 
narrowing every day.  Finally, for his part, he woul d continue his regular c oordination meetings with 
the Negotiating Group Chairs, including ensuring that  the schedule of meetings took into account the 
constraints of smaller delegations , and would of course continue hi s own personal consultations.  In 
the interests of transparency and inclusiveness, he had also called fo r an informal TNC at HODs level 
on 8 March at which Members could collectively evaluate the state-of-play across the board. 
6. All delegations who spoke thanked the Director-Gen eral for his report on the state of play in 
the DDA.  They also expressed their delegations ' condolences to the delegation and people of New-
Zealand for the loss of lives and material destru ction sustained as result of the recent earthquake. 
7. The Chairman  invited any delegation that wished the statement it had made at the informal 
meeting of the TNC held on 2 Febr uary 2011 to be included in the Minutes of the present meeting, to 
communicate this directly to the Secretariat.4 
8. The representative of Mexico  said that first, his country concurred fully with the Director-
General that Members were waiting for others to move  and that this was an important issue.  Second, 
if Members continued at the same pace of progress in the negotiations, there was no hope of concluding them in 2011.  This was because there would be no way for Members to have an agreement before the summer break on all the issues necessary to enable them, in the second half of 
the year, to begin the preparation of schedules and the legal drafting of the various issues that had 
been agreed.  Of even more concern was the fact th at – regardless of the progress that had been made 
– in terms of market access, Members had not achieved any real progress in two years.  This was something Members should be concerned about, and they should begin seriously to consider looking at how to achieve progress that would enable them  to have a package in place before the summer 
break.  Mexico concurred with the Director-Gen eral that there was a need to use different 
configurations in the negotiations.  It was clear there was a need for negotiations at all levels – 
bilateral, plurilateral and multilatera l – in order to move forward.  However, his delegation wished to 
point out that only it, and no one else, was negotia ting for Mexico, and to stress the importance that 
those delegations in a position to do so, move the ne gotiations forward.  Second, the negotiations were 
currently lacking a horizontal process or procedure to exchange concessions.  Such a process needed 
to be established as soon as possible, as without it,  Members would not be in a position to exchange 
concessions as required in order to meet the desired ob jectives.  Third, Mexico wished to stress that in 
terms of market access, there was a need to simulta neously resolve the problems in the four areas.  
                                                     
 
4 Such statements are included in Annex II to the present records. WT/GC/M/130 
Page 4  
 
  This was something on which his Minister had ma de a proposal in Davos, which his delegation had 
summarized at the informal meeting of the TNC on 2 February. 
9. The representative of the Dominican Republic
, on behalf of the Informal Group of 
Developing Countries , said developing countries had been participating and following with great 
interest the latest developments concerning the Rou nd.  It was true that they had witnessed a change 
in atmosphere and that there was now a certain sense  of urgency in putting the finishing touches to the 
modalities and bringing some of the other areas up to speed in order to achieve convergence, so that 
all reached the finish line at the same time.  Deve loping countries had many times in the past said that 
development had to be at the heart of the negotiations , but he asked what this meant.  He wished to 
offer some insights on this matter from the recently  published Interim Repor t on the Doha Round by 
the High Level Trade Experts Group chaired by Professor Bhagwati and former Director-General 
Peter Sutherland.  This report said that "[t]he  a ssumption that a development-friendly trade deal must 
demand less of countries in a way that is proportiona te to their state of development permeates the 
Doha Round, and the final package will rightly have to be measured against it.  This means that 
developed countries have to accept that the outcome will be asymmetrical, even vis-à-vis  large and 
competitive exporters."  Moreover, the report al so described specifically how the development 
mandate should be delivered, including:  (i) excl uding LDCs from undertaking any new commitments 
beyond increasing their amount of bound tariffs; (ii)  flexibilities for developing countries in the 
agreed Agriculture and NAMA moda lities, as well as other areas under negotiation – and the IGDC 
wished to add specifically the flex ibilities needed by SVEs;  and (iii) Aid for Trade.  This broadly 
captured the demands that developing countries as a whole had been making during the negotiations.  
However, they were not just making demands for fl exibility, and were also willing to contribute to 
trade liberalization, as they were convinced that  this put them on the path to development.  
Developing countries stood to gain much from a successful conclusion of the DDA. 
10. The developing countries' view of the way fo rward was that in climbing their way up the 
ladder, they could not be allowed to fall back from where they were at present.  It would be 
unthinkable to try to undo the balance of commit ments which had been so difficult to hammer out.  
The outlines of the current deal were already fair ly clear and would greatly contribute to increasing 
world trade and, hopefully, to the welfare of people in developing countries.  Members just needed to 
make the deal better in an incremental manner.  The IGDC also wished to reit erate the primacy of the 
multilateral process as the basis for Members' work in  trying to put the fina l touches on the modalities 
and beyond.  While bilateral and pl urilateral meetings were useful to  solve particularly narrow issues 
involving a few delegations, Members should not forg et that this Round had been launched under the 
principles of transparency and inclusiveness.  A nother message that emerged loud and clear from the 
Director-General's report was the paramount im portance for the multilateral trading system of 
concluding the DDA.  A failure in this respect woul d seriously jeopardize the future of the multilateral 
trading system as a whole and the WTO in particular .  However, the risks went far beyond the trade 
area.  More than ever, multilateral cooperation was needed to tackle the serious challenges faced by 
all, both in the developed and de veloping world.  If Members could not come to an agreement on a 
win/win issue such as trade liberalization, developi ng countries did not even want to think what the 
prospects were of agreeing on much more difficult areas like climate change, natural resource management and population growth.  The developi ng countries stood ready to fully engage in this 
period of intensified efforts that would hopefu lly be crowned by an ambitious, balanced and 
development-oriented DDA package. 
11. The representative of Singapore
 said that having followed deve lopments from afar before his 
arrival as Permanent Representative in Geneva, he felt  that the current intensity was palpable.  Experts 
were working hard on their texts, actively engaging on their issues of interest.  In Trade Facilitation, 
experts were probably a little weary from five straig ht weeks of work on texts, but the pay-off had 
been progress and some demonstration of flex ibility.  In other areas, new ideas were being 
brainstormed to bridge the gaps among Members.   In the Committee on Trade and Environment in  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 5 
 
 
  Special Session, Members were exploring creative approaches in devising a set of modalities that 
would ensure high environmental, developmenta l and trade dividends.  In NAMA, experts were 
working closely in drafting groups , Room D and plenary sessions.  Th ese were all positive signs that 
Members had heeded the call to sei ze the window of opportunity in 2011.  However, as a newcomer, 
he approached this optimism with some realistic caution.  He asked whether – if Members were to 
proceed in accordance with the deadlines in 2011 – they were moving fast enough.  Besides working 
faster, he asked whether experts were negotiating with  an end-game mind set.  Beyond engagement at 
the expert level, he asked whether all were truly prepared to make real compromises.  He cautioned 
that one should not mistake labour for productivity.  Despite the recent flurry of activity, the 
necessary empathy to forge a d eal still seemed lacking.  
12. At the end of 2010, all had recognized that the months between January and March 2011 
would be crucial in accelerating work in the Negotia ting Groups towards the finalization of all texts 
and in making the transition to horizontalization.   The reality, however, was that Members did not 
seem to have reached the stage where they could make the necessary cross-issue interlinkages aimed 
at a final give-and-take.  The reasons for this we re not unfamiliar, but the bottom line remained that 
all those who needed to, had to take the firs t step towards compromise and show the necessary 
leadership going forward.  The window of opportuni ty was finite.  Decisions on the viability of the 
deadlines were also looming.  As Members approa ched the end of February, Singapore hoped that 
negotiators would not only e ngage, but negotiate with these factors in mind.  It was in this frame of 
mind that Singapore was committed to its engagement  in the Negotiating Groups.  He assured all of 
Singapore's readiness to continue to play a constr uctive role, which naturally included its active 
support for the Chairs and for the Director-Gener al as Chairman of the TNC during this crucial 
period. 
13. The representative of Chinese Taipei , on behalf of the Recently Acceded Members (RAMs ), 
said these countries had been encouraged by the in creased level of momentum demonstrated by 
Members in the recent DDA negotiations.  However,  they were concerned that while Members had 
worked diligently in various technical discussions , substantive progress had not been made.  The 
RAMs shared the sense of urgency in the current narrow window of opportunity.  They were also afraid that time might be running out, if Member s did not transform this sense of urgency into 
concrete negotiating actions.  The RAMs agreed with the Director-General that the window of 
opportunity was narrowing every day, and wished to reiterate that Members n eeded to keep working 
in whatever way they could in order to be able to  conclude the Round in 2011.  They also wished to 
emphasize that in order to successfully conclude th e negotiations in 2011, Members needed to engage 
on all the substantive elements across all negotia ting areas.  The RAMs also called on Members to 
fully take into account the development dimension and the objectives established in the Doha and 
Hong Kong Ministerial Decisions.  In particular, Members had to take the trade concerns of 
developing-country Members into account, with due atte ntion to the latter's limited resources.  It had 
long been the position of the RAMs that only by  conducting an open, transparent and inclusive 
negotiating process would Members be able to conc lude the Round successfully.  The RAMs wished 
to stress once again their unique position as Member s that had undertaken extensive market-access 
commitments at the time of thei r accessions.  They urged Members to recognize and give full and 
proper consideration to the RAMs' unique situa tion, and to provide th em appropriate special 
treatment.  The RAMs also wished to  register their strong interest in taking part in and contributing to 
the consultation process, and assured all of their co ntinuing commitment to work closely with the 
Director-General, the General Council Chair, the Negotiating Group Chairs, and their fellow 
Members in order to bring the DDA negotiations to  a successful and balanced conclusion in 2011. 
14. The representative of Indonesia
, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said these countries 
wished to see Members continue to show their strong commitment to br ing the DDA to a successful 
conclusion in 2011.  The work Members had done so far should continue to intensify and pave the 
way for reaching the target of delivering texts in April and an overall agreement on the package by WT/GC/M/130 
Page 6  
 
  July.  ASEAN remained committed to constructive engagement in this process of bringing all 
Members toward a balanced and ambitious conclu sion of the Round, consistent with the DDA's 
mandate and built on the progress achieved so far.   ASEAN wished to reiterate the urgency for 
Members to step into the end-game that would u tilize the critically important window of opportunity 
in 2011.  The prompt conclusion of the DDA would benefit all Members, who therefore had to 
continue working together with a sense of collectiv e responsibility, flexibility and realism, in order to 
advance the negotiations and conclude the Round in  2011.  ASEAN welcomed further intensified and 
substantive work ahead in all the Negotiating Gr oups and in various othe r appropriate fora and 
configurations that supported the work of the Nego tiating Groups.  In this regard, it wished again to 
emphasise the importance of transparency and in clusiveness in the process as Members strove to 
conclude the DDA in the near future.  
15. The representative of Turkey
 said the world economy had faced one of its biggest downturns 
in the recent economic and financial crisis, but seeme d to have bounced back from a recession.  The 
global recovery had gained momentum, but was still fra gile.  That was to say, the adverse effects of 
the economic and financial turmoil had not been to tally averted yet, and this meant that Members 
were obliged to do their part in the WTO.  Thus, the successful conclusion of the Round by the end of 
2011 was crucial, not only to create a better functioni ng multilateral trading system, but also to enable 
Members to respond to new crises they might have to face in the future.  Regarding the state of play in 
the negotiations, some Members were involved in info rmal bilateral or plurilateral initiatives to find a 
gateway for the ultimate solution of completing the DDA.  Turkey hoped these discussions would 
produce results, and wished to make several points in this regard.  First, it understood that the key to 
success lay in adjusting the level of ambition, and accordingly, the major players had been discussing 
in various configurations ways to improve the de gree of openness in various market-access areas. The 
outcome of these endeavours in different configura tions might have a major impact on the delicate 
balance of the negotiations.  Second, the stability that  was expected to be reached at the end of these 
discussions, in order to be relevant, had to be accep ted by the entire membership, and not just by a 
few Members.  Turkey was sure that the G-11 m eetings were being conducted with the best of 
intentions and that those involved were not pursuin g their own narrow interests.  However, it seemed 
that the G-11 process was a veiled attempt by the ma jor stakeholders to conduct horizontal bilateral, 
trilateral or plurilateral consultati ons with the addition of certain countries.  Nevertheless, Turkey 
supported any initiative that would take Members forw ard.  Third, he was obliged to mention the 
shortcomings of these meetings, in that they excl uded other main stakeholders.  More representative 
configurations were always within reach.  Turkey  also understood that the G-11 was planning to have 
another meeting in a month's time.   The G-11 seemed to be taking on an institutional character, which 
was not good.  Fourth, his delegation hoped there w ould be no expectation that the rest of the 
membership would simply endorse any outcome auto matically, just for the sake of completing the 
DDA.  His delegation would examine thoroughly the implications of any possible additional 
commitment and would not hesitate to raise any con cerns and interests.  At the December meeting of 
the TNC, the Director-General had pointed out that it was not enough to have answering machines around the table.  Over the past months, dialogue and discussions had taken place on all issues and at all levels, in informal as well as formal gatheri ngs.  Thus, if the Chairman called now, he would 
probably get a constant busy tone from around the ta ble.  Turkey interpreted this as a good sign.  
16. The representative of Bangladesh
, on behalf of the LDC Group , said the LDCs were pleased 
to note that as planned, negotiati ons had intensified in January and February and that new momentum 
had been added.  However, as usual it had been diffi cult for the LDCs to participate in meetings held 
in parallel.  When scheduling meetings, due account  should be taken of the capacity constraints of 
smaller delegations.  On substantive issues, there was still no clarity as to what was on offer for LDCs 
in terms of agricultural and non-agricultural mark et access.  He asked how Members interpreted 
"meaningfully enhanced market access for LDCs ", and also where the expeditious, specific and 
ambitious outcome on Cotton was.  Lack of clarity on these questions constrained the LDCs' ability to 
negotiate.  The Group wished to see further progress  in discussions relating to simplification of  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 7 
 
 
  preferential rules of origin that were easily impl ementable, and the work of  defining an appropriate 
monitoring mechanism for the implementati on of DFQF market access under the NAMA and 
Agriculture modalities.  The Group had submitted its proposal on rules of origin, and looked forward 
to discussions on it in the near future.  The LDCs were examining the various  negotiating texts with a 
view to formulating possible Group positions on i ndividual issues.  In general, the LDCs would 
continue to pursue, and stressed the need for, a balanced and fair outcome in all areas of the 
negotiations, which fully observed the development mandate of the Doha Round.  The Group stressed 
the need to make S&D treatment provisions in vari ous texts precise, operati onal and effective, as well 
as the need for sensitivity to the specific needs of the LDCs.  Ther e was also a need to build in 
provisions for technical assistance to LD Cs to implement what was agreed.  
17. The Group appreciated the considerable progress made in discussions on the Services waiver 
and felt encouraged that many Members viewed th e existing gaps to be bridgeable.  An increasing 
number of Members saw the validity of making the scope of the waiver as wide as possible.  Limiting the scope to market access only would run contrary  to the spirit of the Hong Kong decisions.  The 
Group hoped to make rapid progress in the small-gr oup discussions in order for Members to agree on 
the waiver as soon as possible.  This waiver was only one of the elements of the LDC modalities.  
Paragraph 9 of Annex C of the Hong Kong Declara tion identified the other areas that were to be 
expeditiously implemented.  The Group wished to  see the full and effective implementation of the 
LDC Modalities set out in paragraph 3 of Annex C of  the Hong Kong Declaration.  Particular account 
would have to be taken of the serious difficu lties of LDCs in undertaking specific negotiated 
commitments, in view of their special economic s ituation and their developm ent, trade and financial 
needs.  This also warranted targeted and c oordinated technical assistance and capacity building 
programmes in order to strengthen LDCs' domestic  services capacities, build institutional and human 
capacity and enable them to undertake appropriate regulatory reform.  Technical assistance was also 
necessary to carry out national assessments of trade in Services in overall terms and on a sectoral basis, with reference to the objectives of the GATS a nd Article IV in particular.  Such provisions for 
technical assistance had to be built into the agre ements reached.  Members had to redouble their 
efforts to conclude the negotiations on LDC-sp ecific issues, including conclusion of the accession 
process of those LDCs at an advanced stage of ne gotiations, so that the outcomes could be presented 
as concrete deliverables of the WTO process at the LD C-IV Conference in Istanbul in May 2011.  An 
early, ambitious, balanced and development-orient ed conclusion of the Round would provide the 
necessary stimulus for growth and development of LDC economies.  The Group remained committed 
to pursuing that end. 
18. The representative of Colombia
 said his delegation had been moved to make the following 
statement by the description it had heard of the critical state of the negotiations.  The Doha Round was slipping out of Members' grasp, like water runn ing through their fingers.  At the end of 
November 2010, there had been a clear political mandate to enter the final stage.  At that time it had 
been decided to set up the G-11 as a forum for discu ssing ways out of the existing problems.  That 
group had held a number of meetings , and one had been told there had been a "constructive" dialogue 
in a "positive" atmosphere.  However, there was still no sign of the emergence from those 
deliberations of constructive outcomes or positive so lutions to the specific negotiating problems.  In 
the meantime, the larger-economy Me mbers continued to be involved in exploratory discussions to 
examine what they could do.  This had not been without an element of tactical manoeuvring, as if 
Members were at the beginning rather than the end of  the process.  In the midst of all this, there had 
been unprecedented developments in the organiza tion, such as the largest developing-country 
Members refusing to discuss with a group of medium -sized Members.  Colombia could not remain 
aloof in these circumstances.  As a responsible Me mber of this organization, it saw the need for 
immediate action.  Colombia therefore had the following proposals.  Members had to send out an 
urgent message now for the timely completion of the negotiations.  The Director-General, in his 
capacity as TNC Chair, had to inform Ministers dir ectly and immediately on the critical state of the 
negotiations and ask them to renew instructions to their delegations for the adoption of flexible and WT/GC/M/130 
Page 8  
 
  constructive positions that would facilitate comp letion.  Members had to request the Negotiating 
Group Chairs to intensify their efforts on all fr onts.  All Members had to commit themselves to 
presenting constructive proposals in order to close the existing gaps in all areas.  In one month, it 
would be urgently necessary to make a comprehens ive assessment of where Members stood.  To that 
end, Colombia wished to have the TNC Chair convene  a TNC meeting at Senior Officials level.  The 
current situation was critical and required Members to  adopt a coherent approach.  The time to act 
was now, in accordance with Members' common but di fferentiated responsibilities.  This meant that 
all had to make a contribution, and the largest Me mbers had to exercise the leadership role that 
inescapably fell to them. 
19. The representative of Kenya
, on behalf of the African Group , said the Group welcomed the 
Director-General's assessment in his report and noted that over the past few weeks, the intensity of the 
negotiations and that engagement, particularly of  capital-based Senior Officials, had increased 
considerably.  It appreciated this development and hoped that these renewed efforts would enable 
Members to reach before Easter the target they had set themselves.  The African Group wished to 
comment briefly on a number of issues of both pr ocess and substance.  On process, the "cocktail 
approach" Members had adopted in 2010 had tended to present challenges to small delegations due to 
meetings held in parallel.  However, thus far th ere had been some flexibility for interested Members 
to meet either formally or informally for discu ssion or clarification of issues, and the Group hoped 
this would facilitate some movements in those area s where there was currently a stalemate.  There 
was also a need to ensure that meetings were organized in a coordinated manner that would allow 
small delegations to participate and to contribute effectively in the spirit of transparency and 
inclusiveness.  Regarding substance, at the presen t stage it was difficult for the Group to get a clear 
sense of how some issues were being addressed, in view  of the fact that some of the negotiations were 
taking place in plurilateral and bilateral formats w ith limited participation.  Notwithstanding, the 
African Group was not opposed to these formats and had extended its goodwill to them for the 
purpose of moving the negotiations forward, provided the following:  First, that the mandates given 
by Ministers were fully and comprehensively respect ed.  Second, that care was exercised to ensure 
that stabilized areas of the draft modalities were not unravelled.  Third, that before new texts were 
drafted in areas where there were none, and others we re revised, consensus had to be obtained on all 
areas in terms of overall balance and ambition.  In  this respect, the Group hoped that the hard-working 
Chairs of the Negotiating Groups would be attentiv e to the African Group's interests as much as they 
were those of others.  The African Group suppor ted the statement by Bangladesh for the LDCs, 
particularly the specific reference to Agriculture and Cotton.  As Members prepared to produce new 
and revised texts, the Group wished to emphasize that commercial interests should not be seen as 
overriding the development dimension as the fulcrum of this work. 
20. The representative of Australia  said that given developments that had taken place since the 
TNC meeting on 2 February and the crucial stag e where Members were in the negotiations, his 
delegation wished to make additional comments to those made by the CAIRNS Group at the TNC 
meeting.  Australia had been of the view earlier in  2011 that by the end of February, Members needed 
to have a clear sense that things were happening and that real engagement was taking place.  It still 
felt that was the case, perhaps with an extension in to early March.  Members would need to listen 
carefully to the state of the negotiations at that time in deciding how to move forward.  Australia 
agreed with the content of the Di rector-General's report.  There had been encouraging signs and a 
welcome sense of urgency following the G20 meeting in 2010 and the commitment from Ministers in 
Davos.  However, one had also heard the very cl ear message that the work needed to be done in 
Geneva.  Since that time there had been some m eetings, and Australia had participated in the G-11 
meeting the previous week.  Those meetings had play ed a useful role in trying to find the way ahead.  
Australia had been encouraged by the tone of the discussions in those meetings, but had been 
disappointed to see that some of the reporting of those discussions in the press did not accurately 
reflect the constructive tone of the meetings and the important bilateral discussions that had taken 
place.  Members needed to allow tim e for these kinds of meetings to continue.  They had agreed to  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 9 
 
 
  hold a further meeting of the G-11 in March, a nd Australia hoped there would also be additional 
meetings of that group prior to that scheduled meeting.  Obviously, the G-11 was only one of a number of different formats of meeting that needed to be held, and Australia agreed with those who 
argued in support of the need for a horizontal pro cess of discussion.  The G-11 could provide one such 
avenue for that kind of discussion which needed to ta ke place.  It also provided the format for all of 
the key players to discuss with one another how to move the negotiations forward, which was the kind 
of discussion that was absolutely vital to determini ng how to move forward.  Whether it was the G-11 
or some other sort of horizontal process that could be put in place, this was the direction the discussion needed to take. 
21. This did not mean Members should stop work and wait for things to happen in those kinds of 
formats.  In fact, the opposite was true.  The Negotia ting Groups needed to continue to intensify their 
work.  There was a huge amount of work to be done  in all the Negotiating Groups, and Australia had 
been very concerned at the slow pace of progress.   In this regard, it wished to see Negotiating Group 
Chairs, particularly in the market-access areas of  Agriculture, NAMA, and Services, take a more 
active role in seeking to discuss ke y issues between key players with a view to finding convergence, 
where possible, or to highlighting where the r eal problems were and where convergence might be 
more difficult and of a political nature.  Members needed to be doing that between now and April, in order to maximize the chances that when one reac hed the stage where the Chairs might be in a 
position to bring forward a text, those texts refl ected as much as possible the convergence achieved, 
and stated clearly where there had been no conve rgence and further work was required.  Members 
should come forward with proposals and ideas that reflected flexibility and a willingness to 
compromise, and Australia was giving thought to areas where it might be able to do that.  However, if 
Members were not going to do that, the Chairs sh ould try to ensure that Members were put in a 
position where those kinds of discussions could take pl ace.  This would help the Chairs when they got 
to the stage where they needed to put out new text s.  In terms of timing, Australia saw April as an 
important benchmark, but felt Members should not, at the moment, become fixated on this.  What was 
crucial was to move the work forward in the Negotiating Groups in the way he had suggested. 
22. All Members – not just one or two – needed to  be willing to show the necessary flexibility 
and compromise.  Everyone, including all of the key pl ayers, needed to be willing to move in order to 
be able to find an outcome.  In finding that out come, as Australia had said many times, one had to 
seek to add to what was already on the table.  However, in saying that, his delegation was very mindful that there was only so much that Members would be able to do, and the challenge was to 
strike the balanced and ambitious  outcome all were striving to ach ieve.  Members were coming to a 
critical stage of the negotiations in the coming week s.  The 8 March meeting of the TNC would be a 
very important meeting where all would be listening  to hear what progress had been made.  Members 
should think very carefully about Colombia's suggesti on about the need for some kind of stocktake or 
review of progress towards the end of March.  It coul d be very useful to take a reality check at that 
time and to decide how to approach the month of April and the period between now and the middle of 
the year. 
23. The representative of Barbados
, on behalf of the SVEs , assured the Director-General of these 
countries' continued commitment to a balanced outco me in the negotiations.  The SVEs continued to 
urge that in the negotiations, Members remain mindf ul of the SVEs not just when special flexibilities 
were being negotiated, but that th ere be a general consciousness of the need for consideration of how 
general modalities affected SVEs and that due accomm odation be given to their concerns.  The SVEs 
also urged Members to ensure that as the ne gotiating process accelerated, those modalities on which 
consensus had been reached with SVEs were protect ed and that there was no back-tracking on earlier 
undertakings, even where drafting changes were nec essary.  The SVEs had observed increasing global 
concern about food security, which made Agriculture  – already an important plank of the DDA – even 
more important.  In addition, the SVEs wished to  see increased focus on the SSM, particularly as it 
related to SVEs.  They also urged that Members direct their energies to reaching a balanced and WT/GC/M/130 
Page 10  
 
  acceptable outcome in Agriculture and NAMA, in light  of the important place of these areas in the 
negotiations, as well as in the other areas of the Doha  Round such as Services and fisheries subsidies. 
The SVEs had also been recently active in the ne gotiations on fisheries subsidies in the Negotiating 
Group on Rules.  They had had an opportunity to reintroduce to Members their proposal that sought to create additional flexibilities under S&D provisions fo r developing countries which had a negligible 
or infinitesimal impact on overfishing and overcapac ity in fisheries worldwide.  The SVEs would 
continue to participate actively in that Negotiati ng Group as well as working bilaterally with Members 
with a view to finding solutions that met the prio rities of the SVEs in the negotiations on fisheries 
subsidies.  They again wished to emphasize th e centrality of the multila teral process and urged 
continued commitment to that approach.  The SVEs  pledged their continued support for a successful 
and development-oriented outcome to the Round. 
24. The representative of Chile
 said his delegation had listened attentively to the Director-
General's report on the state of play in the Doha R ound and to the reports on what had happened at the 
G-11 meetings the previous week, and it was not satisfied.  At the end of December 2010, his 
delegation had felt a change of ai r in Geneva.  Members had had th e prospect of a more or less 
definite timetable, with an intense process of negotia tions in variable geometry being resumed at all 
levels in January, under the "cocktail approach", with a view to producing texts by Easter and 
achieving modalities by the summer.  Easter was less than 58 days away, and Chile did not feel Members had the necessary impetus to meet the pr oposed goals.  They were moving in the right 
direction but not at the required speed.  They needed  to do more.  They need ed to inject new energy 
and dynamism into the Doha Round, and the reports  at the present meeting and the previous week 
were no help in that respect.  He said that as a boy, he had been made to wear short trousers, but as he 
had approached adolescence, he occasionally wore long trousers.  He had been no different, but his 
friends with short trousers had seen him differently  – for them, he had been almost an adult.  
Something similar was happening in Geneva.  Over a nd above what might be said or interpreted, the 
truth was that those who at present wore long trou sers should act in the way they were perceived by 
others, as the parties bearing chief responsibility for the process.  Without a basic understanding 
between the main actors – the large economies – there would be no Round, and this was not an 
arbitrary statement.  If a survey were held at th e present meeting, he was sure the great majority 
would be in favour of concluding the Round right away .  Those that formed the great majority were 
not the problem, but part of the solution.  Chile therefore hoped that those who bore the main responsibility would act accordingly, with a lofty and historical perspective.  In this connection, he 
associated his delegation with the five-point proposal by Colombia, particularly regarding the need to 
receive instructions, when there were instructions , from Ministers, and the holding of a stocktaking 
meeting at Senior Officials level in a month's time. 
25. The representative of Switzerland
 said he wished to thank the Director-General for his call for 
action and to stress the importance of the latter's remarks.  Members were indeed moving forward, but 
it would take some work for them all to move in  the same direction.  Switzerland was somewhat 
bewildered that in the tenth year of the negotia tions, Members should still be looking for a formula to 
conclude them, stuck as they appeared to be in th e same old rut, in which two elephants were dancing 
on a raft with the others trying to swim alongside – except now there were five elephants dancing, the 
water was more troubled, the raft was even more unsta ble and the others were paying the price.  He 
said that surely this was no way for an exercise  to move ahead.  All had heard the appeals of 
Ministers, who in Davos had not only stressed that  Members had to conclude the Round, but that it 
was the negotiators who had to conclude it.  Rath er, what was happening was that Members spent an 
hour in a drafting group trying to decide whether they  should speak of flexibility or discretion.  Such 
hair-splitting was not going to produce results.  His delegation subscribed entirely to the different 
appeals heard from Mexico, Singapore, Turkey and,  above all, Colombia, whose concrete proposals 
Switzerland fully endorsed.  Only in moving away  from all sensibilities would Members be able to 
achieve a result.  Those who thought in terms of blocs – be it East-West or North-South – were 
defending strategies that were doomed.  The future of the multilateral trading system was at stake, and  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 11 
 
 
  all needed to make concessions.  Members needed to be reasonable.  They now had on the table 
outlines of texts which all had participated in draf ting – these were no longer the gems of a handful of 
drafters, but rather belonged to all Members.  He noted Australia's willingness to be flexible, and in 
that connection looked forward to listening to that delegation the following day in the consultations on 
the extension of GIs.  Members could continue to pl ay cat and mouse for the next few weeks, but they 
would conclude the Round with a different acronym – RIP, for Rest in Peace – and that was not what 
they were looking for. 
26. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said his delegation found the developments in the 
negotiations over the past three weeks a little deflating.  At the informal TNC on 2 February, many delegations, including his own, had stressed the need to conclude the Round in 2011, which 
realistically was the last window of opportunity in sight.  Members had also fully recognized the need 
to accelerate the pace of work in order to achieve  this common goal following the agreed timeline.  
There had also been a shared sense that the bilateral and plurilateral negotiating legs had to catch up, 
or there would be a drag on the progress that coul d be made in the Negotiating Groups.  Over the past 
two weeks, progress had been made in various Negotiating Groups and in other formats.  His 
delegation was somewhat encouraged by the positi ve engagement and outcomes in certain areas.  
However, the clock was ticking fast, and Members had only two months left before Easter.  In this 
regard, his delegation was concerned that the steps Members had taken in the past few weeks still fell 
short of what was needed to put them firmly on the path to their first target of producing revised texts 
for all negotiating areas by Easter.  Hong Kong, China had yet to detect the end-game mentality and 
the serious give-and-take approach that was necessary for Members to strike deals and make 
compromises in the Negotiating Groups.  Naturally , his delegation was also concerned that the 
engagement among key players had yet to deliver concrete and tangible breakthroughs that would 
help galvanize the negotiations. 
27. He did not wish to hide Hong Kong, China's disappointment, as a sober and honest 
assessment was needed to keep Members on track.  Al so, this was not the time for expectations to be 
voiced, but rather for action to be taken.  Members could not wait, nor could they afford to do so.  
That said, while Hong Kong, China looked forward to a display of leadership by the major players to 
narrow the gaps on some outstanding issues, all had to play their part and take the negotiations 
forward collectively.  In the next few critical we eks, Hong Kong, China urged Members to continue to 
make the greatest possible efforts, at all levels and in all areas of the negotiations, to reach compromises.  A deal could be struck only when the negotiators showed greater flexibility and more 
creativity in improving the deal on the table with a stronger sense of pragmatism that was not at the 
moment evident.  Members' common challenge was not to preserve their various positions, but rather 
to move away from their individual comfort zones and be prepared to accommodate others' requests and difficulties.  In this connection, his delega tion supported the call for a thorough stock-take at 
Senior Officials level towards the end of March. 
28. The representative of Korea
 said his delegation appreciated the Director-General's precise 
assessment of the current status of the DDA nego tiations and his proposed way forward.  As the 
Director-General had aptly pointed out, the window  of opportunity was still there but was narrowing 
every day.  Considering this, Korea was pleased to  note that Members were very serious about the 
unequivocal signals issued at the G20 Seoul Summ it, the Yokohama APEC Leaders meeting and the 
Davos meeting.  In this regard, the G-11 Senior  Officials process was a good example of Members 
intensifying the negotiations on all fronts.  Korea a ppreciated the contribution and genuine efforts the 
G-11 Members had made to take the DDA negotiations  forward.  Having said that, Korea wished to 
highlight its growing concern over the fact that non-G-11 Members with substantial stakes might continue to be excluded from this emerging horizont al process.  As all were aware, a third G-11 
Senior Officials meeting was scheduled for the week  of 21 March.  The G-11 SOM process therefore 
appeared to have been institutionalized.  Korea wished to recall that when Members had endorsed 
what they called the "cocktail approach", they ha d had in mind the possibility of convening meetings WT/GC/M/130 
Page 12  
 
  and consultations in different conf igurations.  One could see some truth in the observation that the   
G-11 SOM grouping was a tent that was not bi g enough to accommodate or represent non-G-11 
Members who had substantial stakes in the DDA nego tiations and were eager to make substantive 
contributions to the successful conclusion of the ne gotiations.  Korea therefore shared the view that a 
reasonably bigger configuration than the current G-11  should be launched in tandem with the talks in 
the G-11 format.  His delegation appreciated Australia’s  statement in this regard.  It was safe to say 
that in order for the horizontal, end-game, give-a nd-take process to succeed, it was critically important 
to engage in the process non-G-11 Members as well .  This would also illustrate Members' genuine 
effort to live up to the prin ciples of inclusiveness and transparency while facilitating constructive 
engagement and a sense of collec tive responsibility and ownership. 
29. The representative of the European Union
 said he wished to share a few of the EU's thoughts 
about where Members were and where they were going.  First, the good news:  discussions among 
Senior Officials in various formats had taken pl ace in a positive and constructive atmosphere.  
Members continued to observe a high degree of co mmitment to the negotiations and a genuine 
willingness to conclude the Round.  This clearly contributed to the positive momentum towards 
reaching a successful conclusion of the negotiations in 2011.  However, the EU also agreed with those 
who had made the point at the present meeting that good atmospherics had not yet been matched by progress on substance.  Members were still very cau tious and guarded in their positions, instead of 
genuinely exploring the possibilities for further give-and-take, which Leaders and Ministers had 
called for in the past few months.  Faced with Members' difficulty to commit in substance, the 
question was what to do.  The looming Easter deadline should create a very high sense of urgency.  
Progress in substance was needed rapidly and coul d come from informal bilateral and plurilateral 
meetings that would continue to take place.  In  parallel, Members should collectively energize the 
multilateral leg of negotiations and take the negotiations to a more concrete and substantive level. 
30. His delegation wished to share some thoughts on some of the lessons learned from recent 
experience, based on its evaluation of the current stage of negotiation, and to outline what it 
considered to be five practical and effective ways to move forward.  First, at the current stage of 
negotiations Members knew there was a need for more ambition to complement what was on the 
table, but they could no longer keep talking about this  in the abstract.  They had to drill down into the 
specifics and establish clear and practical instrume nts for conducting the negotiations.  This was 
particularly important for the negotiations on NAM A sectorals and Services market access.  Second, 
Members also had to ensure that all negotiating ar eas proceeded in parallel.  They needed both to 
continue to work within the silos and to allow sufficient horizontal space for the negotiations.  In 
addition to market-access i ssues, they needed robust results in th e important "rules-type" areas.  This 
would allow ambition to be found across the board, as  well as trade-offs on a broad range of issues.  
Third, the negotiations had to continue to be ta ken forward on the basis of a variable geometry 
approach in a flexible way.  Members should use all possible formats, including smaller plurilateral 
groups, which were an important intermediary leve l between the multilateral and bilateral processes.  
This had been demonstrated again the previous  week where all the progress reached in smaller 
groups, even if modest, had fed efficiently into the next level of wider groups, and had been injected 
into the multilateral process of the Negotiating Grou ps.  Fourth, Members had to continue to ensure 
that individual negotiating topics received suffi cient top-down guidance and oversight, including 
through Senior Officials and Ambassadors making themselves available to participate in meetings, 
together with their technical experts.  Appropriate  planning of work in all areas was important, and 
progress at technical level was also needed.  Fi fth, it was necessary to further intensify the 
negotiations and to deliver the substance that would go into the texts.  Members were closer to texts 
now than they had been in January, which was certa inly positive.  However, in many areas the task 
was very demanding, simply because progress ac hieved in substance among Members was not 
sufficient.  Members needed to do better and to intensify their efforts to produce texts based on 
Members' contributions.  For the EU it was clear that Members needed to collectively preserve and 
expand the current momentum, accelerating progress on substance at all levels, as a way to facilitate,  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 13 
 
 
  encourage and make it possible for all to really ente r into the end-game negotiation urgently.  It was 
with this state of mind that the EU would work during the following weeks. 
31. The representative of Zimbabwe  said his delegation supported the statement by Kenya for the 
African Group.  The Doha Round was complex, as it included a large number of areas and covered 
issues that were key to countries such as Zimbabwe, and yet to some extent, in doing so it conflicted 
with interests of other Members.  Hence, finding a delicate balance that met the interests of all 
Members was key to the success of the Round.  This balance should be achieved through an inclusive 
and transparent negotiating process.  His country recognized the hard work that had gone into 
producing the draft negotiating texts circulated in D ecember 2008, and concurred fully that the results 
of the Doha Round should be built on what had b een achieved so far.  It was aware that the 
opportunities presented by the Round could be realized  only with hard work and commitment, and 
therefore looked forward to working with the Dir ector-General and the Members to bring the Round 
to a successful conclusion. 
32. The representative of the United States  thanked the Director-General for his assessment and 
said his delegation agreed with virtually all of it.  It  had been very interesting at the present meeting to 
hear the assessment of many of his colleagues about where Members were with the Round.  It 
reminded him of a thought he had had upon arriving in  Geneva about a year earlier.  At that time, it 
had struck him that it was important not to be naïv e, but also not despondent.  He had heard a great 
deal of concern and frustration expressed at the pr esent meeting, which he appreciated and shared.  
There was no question that Members were not moving quickly enough and that if they did not find a new way of engaging in serious negotiations, they we re not going to make it to the finish line in 
anything like the timeframe all desired.  He had lis tened in particular to some of the ideas Colombia 
had suggested, which were very interesting and woul d be a very important basis for follow-up over 
the next few days and weeks.  He wished to give  a brief assessment from the US standpoint of where 
it felt things stood and where Members seemed to agr ee that more work was needed, but also where it 
felt there might be a glimmer of optimism. 
33. He wished to comment first on the G-11, because it was very important that people 
understood both what the G-11 was and what it was not .  Others participating in that group could, and 
in some cases had, offered their own perspective on this.  To the US, the G-11 was first and foremost 
one among multiple geometries, and pa rt of a cocktail approach that all had said was what they should 
be pursuing now  in terms of seeking different ways to e ngage and move forward.  The US had no 
intention of trying to institutionalize the G-11, but by the same token, it hoped that wherever 
Members were gaining even the smallest amount of tr action, they would take advantage of that tool 
and try to use that particular part of the cocktail for what it was worth.  At a minimum, in the G-11 
discussions Members had gotten some small bit of tr action.  There had been interesting substantive 
discussions there that could be he lpful to the broader process.  On e thing the G-11 had been was a 
forum for horizontal discussions – clearly not the on ly forum, but a forum nevertheless.  Many had 
felt there was a need for that type of horizontal group  in order to be able to weave together the work 
being done in different silos, so it was important from that standpoint.  The G-11 had been one place – 
not the only place, but one place – for re-engaging Seni or Officials in the process, and his delegation 
was very open-minded about other fora where Members might ensure that Senior Officials were appropriately involved.  One hope the US had for th e G-11 was that it could act as a catalyst for the 
bits of traction Members might be able to achieve in developing ideas that could be useful to the 
broader group, and that it could then contribute to the broader discussions.  That, in a loose way, was 
what the US thought the G-11 was. 
34. As to what the G-11 was not, it was not more important than any other ingredient of the 
cocktail.  It was not a substitute for any other element Members were working on.  From that 
standpoint, it was important to look at where Me mbers were and what progress they could make in 
bilaterals, plurilaterals and multilate rals over the days and weeks ahead.  With regard to bilaterals, the WT/GC/M/130 
Page 14  
 
  US had had some interesting discussions the previous  week.  He agreed with all who had said that 
Members were not moving fast enough.  Sitting in some of the discussions the past week it had struck him that Members should have been having those disc ussions about a year earlier, because clearly that 
would have given Members the time they needed to  flesh out these ideas and have a better chance of 
being successful.  However, the current situati on was as it was, and his delegation hoped that 
Members could have the types of negotiations that w ould be most useful to th em now.  He was certain 
that Members would have an opportunity in the da ys ahead for what the US hoped would be a very 
meaningful engagement. 
35. It was important to mention some of the work  being done in plurilateral configurations.  
Clearly two of the most important outstanding issues Members currently faced, and two areas of 
unfinished work from July, were sectorals and Serv ices.  There seemed to be broad acknowledgement 
that work in those areas needed to be done.  The new idea of a product basket approach had been 
percolating for several months, in part due to the l eadership of Japan.  One of the things Members had 
been able to do in the past few weeks was to move that into a more focused discussion.  Specifically, 
leaders of individual sectors were organizing discussions where the product basket was an appropriate 
tool in that sector, to see how it could be applied in that sector.  This gave Members a chance to have 
the tangible discussions needed if they were going to move the sectoral discussions forward and move 
ambition forward.  A very useful meeting had also  been held the past week among some 30 Members 
in the area of Services.  Members were still collec tively struggling to focus the Services discussions 
and, ultimately, negotiations, but this offered one fo ra that had brought many of the important players 
together with a focus on the issues that were cu rrently outstanding.  Multilaterally, he had recently 
read an encouraging report about the work being do ne in the Trade Facilitation Negotiating Group.  In 
any event, the assessment of the US expert was that  a great deal of work had been done in removing 
brackets in the very tangible text-based area on which all were supposed to be focused.  In that regard, 
the Trade Facilitation Negotiating Group, which many had frequently pointed to as having one of the 
potential big wins for the Round, was providing an example of how work could be done across the 
board.  Thus, the bottom line he derived from all of this was that he conti nued to be aware of how 
much work remained to be done and how significan t the gaps were – no honest person could say the 
gaps were not big – but that there was a path laid ou t for Members, and that if they were serious, they 
could get the work done and could try to bridge th e gaps.  All knew they could not succeed without 
negotiating, and it would be a great tragedy if Member s were to fail without having tried to negotiate.  
This was the current juncture.  From that standpoint, the very clear deadline was today. 
36. The representative of Japan
 recalled that at the 2 February informal meeting of the TNC, his 
delegation had outlined Japan's position on each negotiati ng area.  Therefore, at the present meeting it 
wished simply to make some comments on the curr ent work in the DDA negotiations in general.  
Japan recognized that Members had become more seri ously engaged in the negotiations than they had 
been earlier and that the discussions had been deepened and intensified.  It supported the roadmap to 
seek overall agreement on the packag e before the summer break.  To this end, his delegation wished 
to stress that Members should not repeat abstract arguments, but rather make concrete proposals and 
engage in Negotiating Group discussions, thus enab ling more serious and s ubstantial discussions.  
Japan also wished to underline th at bilateral and plurilateral mee tings among key Members were very 
important and should continue more  intensively in order to realize a breakthrough.  Regarding his 
imminent departure, he said it had been a great honour and pleasure for him to have represented Japan 
and to have sat among such distinguished colleagues for the past three years as his country's 
Permanent Representative to the WTO and other intern ational organizations in Geneva.   He wished 
to express his sincere gratitude for his colleagues'  cooperation, friendship and kind words.  Japan 
attached great importance to the work of the WT O and the multilateral trading principles it upheld, 
and valued highly the contribution it had made in r esisting trade protectionism in the wake of the 
recent financial and economic crisis.  In particul ar, Japan appreciated the excellent leadership 
demonstrated by the Director-General.  There had been ups and downs in the DDA, and unfortunately 
it had not concluded during his time in Geneva.  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 15 
 
 
  37. The General Council took note  of the Director-General's report and of the statements. 
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
38. The Chairman  said that in line with the framework and procedures agreed by the General 
Council in 2002, the Work Programme on Small Economies was a standing item on the General 
Council's agenda, and the Committee on Trade and De velopment reported regularly to the Council on 
the progress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on th is subject.  He invited Mr Erwidodo (Indonesia), 
Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD, to  report on the progress of work in this area. 
39. Mr Erwidodo (Indonesia), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD , said that since his 
last report to the General Council in December  2010, the SVE proponents had continued to follow 
developments in all areas under negotiation in the Doha Round and in the regular WTO bodies.  The 
pace of work in the DDA negotiations had rece ntly picked up, and the SVEs had responded 
accordingly.  They continued to closely watch deve lopments as they related to the DDA overall, but 
were paying particular attention to those areas where SVEs sought flexibilities – mainly Agriculture, 
NAMA, Services, Subsidies disciplines, Trade Facilita tion and Fisheries Subsidies.  Work in all these 
Negotiating Groups was progressing, and the SV Es would continue to monitor any new 
developments.  Another area of work important to the SVE proponents concerned Aid for Trade.  The 
previous week a workshop had been held on SV Es and Aid for Trade as part of the 2010-2011 Aid-
for-Trade Work Programme.  The outcome of that  workshop, which had focused entirely on SVEs, 
had been reported to the 16 February meeting of the CTD Dedicated Session on Aid for Trade.  The 
workshop had been organized into two sessions, with the first focusing on regional aspects of Aid for 
Trade, featuring presentations by Caricom, the P acific Islands Forum and the Australian Agency for 
International Development on work in the Pacific region.  The second session had focused on the role 
of Aid for Trade at industry level and how Aid for Tr ade could work for the private sector in SVEs.  
Another presentation had focused on a study on the effectiveness of Aid for Trade in SVEs, 
particularly in the areas of trade facilitation a nd infrastructure.  Many SVEs had welcomed this 
particular focus of the Aid-for-Trade Work Prog ramme on their issues and concerns.  The SVEs had 
proposed setting up a separate SVE framework on Ai d for Trade, which would help them address 
such key challenges as mainstreaming trade into their national development strategies.  
40. The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the SVEs , thanked the Chair of the Dedicated 
Session for his report, which accurately reflected the state of play of developments within the Small 
Economies Work Programme.  The SVE delegations ha d been actively participating in the various 
Chair-led discussions and a number of informal processes that comprised the DDA intensification 
process Members were currently in, and would be co nsidering making further submissions in various 
negotiating areas, as appropriate.  As the Chair of the CTD Dedicated Session had said, the SVEs greatly welcomed the Dedicated Workshop on SVEs and Aid for Trade recently held as part of the 
2010-2011 Aid-for-Trade Work Programme.  This work shop had been both timely and relevant, and 
the SVEs hoped that it had provided Members with an informed understanding of the challenges and 
opportunities of implementing the Aid-for-Trade m echanism across the various SVE regions.  The 
SVEs had been working on a proposal for an SVE Framework on Aid for Trade that focussed 
particularly on promoting effective mainstreaming of  trade into national development strategies.  The 
general parameters of this proposal  had been introduced and circulated at the 16 February meeting of 
the CTD Dedicated Session on Aid for Trade.  In th e short term, and subject to further consultations 
and finalization of the text, the SVEs expected to ta ble a formal version of this proposal at the next 
CTD Dedicated Session on Aid for Trade.  The SVEs remained convinced that Aid for Trade could be 
an important vehicle in facilitating their capacity to  be more fully integrated into the multilateral 
trading system.  As always, they remained committe d to engaging further with other Members to find 
the consensus necessary to bring th e negotiations to a balanced, su ccessful and development-oriented 
conclusion. WT/GC/M/130 
Page 16  
 
  41. The representative of Maldives
 said her country fully endorsed the statement by Barbados for 
the SVEs, and thanked Barbados for coordinating th e SVEs' work and maintaining their voice in the 
negotiations taking place in various formats.  This  was quite a challenge for small delegations.  
Regarding the negotiations, Maldives welcomed th e recent momentum, which it hoped would spark 
new efforts for a development-friendly outcome of  the Round.  Her delegation hoped that specific 
issues that adversely affected small economies, such  as the recent rise in food prices, would be given 
consideration, and looked forward to a final outco me that took the necessary flexibilities into account. 
42. The General Council took note  of the report of the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statements. 
3. Review of the exemption provided under paragraph 3 of the GATT 1994 (WT/L/810 and 
Corr.1) 
43. The Chairman  recalled that paragraph 3(a) of GATT 1994 provided an exemption from Part II 
of GATT 1994 for measures under specific mandatory le gislation – enacted by a Member before it 
became a contracting party to GATT 1947 – which prohi bited the use, sale or lease of foreign-built or 
foreign-reconstructed vessels in commercial applicat ions between points in na tional waters or waters 
of an exclusive economic zone.  On 20 December  1994, the United States had invoked the provisions 
of paragraph 3(a) with respect to specific legisla tion that met the requirements of that paragraph.  
Paragraph 3(b) of GATT 1994 called for a review of th is exemption five years after the date of entry 
into force of the WTO Agreement – and thereafter every two years for as long as the exemption was 
in force – in order to examine whether the conditio ns which created the need for the exemption still 
prevailed.  The General Council ha d last considered this matter at its meeting in December 2009 at 
which it had taken note that under the two-yearly cy cle provided for in paragraph 3(b) of GATT 1994, 
the next review would normally be held in 2011. 
44. For the purposes of the conduct of the review in 2011, he proposed that the Council proceed 
in a manner similar to that in 2009, which had been based on a procedure agreed by the General 
Council in December 2002.  Therefore, all interested  delegations could speak for the record at the 
present meeting with regard to the review under the cu rrent cycle.  Interested delegations could also 
submit comments and questions to the United Stat es regarding the operation of the legislation under 
the exemption, to which the US would be inv ited to respond.  These statements, questions and 
responses, together with the annual statistical re port provided by the US under paragraph 3(c) of 
GATT 1994, would form the basis for the current year's  review.  This matter would be on the Agenda 
of subsequent General Council meetings in the c ourse of 2011 as the Chairm an deemed appropriate, 
or at the request of any Member.  The Council would also consider this matter again at its meeting in 
December 2011, where it would take note of the disc ussions held in the course of the review until 
then, and take any other action it might agree on.  It  would then also take note that the subsequent 
review would normally be held in 2013.  He also  noted that, as provided in paragraph 3(e) of GATT 
1994, the exemption was without prejudice to soluti ons concerning specific aspects of the legislation 
covered by this exemption negotiated in sectoral agreem ents or in other fora.  He then drew attention 
to the annual report circulated by the Un ited States in document WT/L/810 and Corr.15, and invited 
the United States to introduce the report. 
45. The representative of the United States  said his country welcomed the opportunity to 
participate in a review of the exemption under paragraph 3 of GATT 1994.  This was the seventh 
review of that exemption.  The United Stat es had continued to provide Members with annual 
statistical reports pursuant to the requirements of pa ragraph 3(c) of the exemption, including the most 
recent one.  These reports provided detailed annual re porting of vessel orders and deliveries from US 
shipyards, as required by paragraph 3(c) of GATT 1994.  Recognizing that there were differing views 
                                                      
5 Corr.1 in English and French only.  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 17 
 
 
  on the nature of this review, his delegation again stood ready to organize informal consultations in 
which interested delegations were free to ask ques tions and discuss issues without prejudice to their 
national positions.  The United States was also prepared  to respond to questions that were put to it on 
a more formal basis. 
46. The representative of the European Union  said his delegation supporte d this review process 
and thanked the US for its availability to answer qu estions and hold informal sessions as needed.  He 
wished to underline once again the EU's strong con cerns with this unjustified exemption.  The EU 
continued to view the Jones Act as legislation that  restricted fair competition in the shipbuilding and 
shipping markets and no longer served a legitimate purpose in the present global economy.  The prevailing situation had negative economic conseque nces for the EU's shipbu ilding industry, as it 
basically closed the US market for ships, certain segments of which, such as passenger ferries, were of 
interest to EU shipbuilders.  This long-standing im pediment to normal trade flows was all the more 
awkward at a time when Members were in the process of intensifying their efforts in the Doha negotiations to enhance liberalization of goods a nd services.  The EU sincerely hoped that the 2011 
review would be consequent.  The review of this  exemption should not become merely a recurring 
point on the Council's agenda, but rather the starting point to look into a situation that was neither 
justified nor satisfactory. 
47. The representative of Australia
 thanked the United States for the information provided at the 
present meeting, which was required as part of the ag reement on this exemption.  Australia had long-
standing commercial and systemic interests in this issue, as it had made clear on many occasions previously, and wished to ensure that the Genera l Council maintained scrutiny over this exemption.  
His delegation would participate actively in the review  process.  Australia wished to ensure that there 
was a sound assessment of whether the conditions that had justified the granting of the exemption had 
changed, and in this regard had a number of qu estions it would pursue through the review process.  
For example, his delegation was interested to know whether the US Government recognized a need to 
address changing technology in the shipbuilding sector , and whether there was any scope to do this 
through adjustments to the Jones Act legislation.  Furthermore, recent maritime disasters in the US, 
including the oil lake in the Gulf of Mexico, had highlighted the need for flexibility in responding quickly to developments.  It would therefore be in teresting to know whether the US Government had 
considered amending the Jones Act in  this context.  It was long past time for the US to begin the 
process of reform in this aspect of its maritime sector .  In particular, Australia was looking to the US 
to make commitments in the maritime transport servi ce sectors in response to the plurilateral maritime 
transport services request, which were part of the Doha negotiations.  His delegation looked forward 
to continued active consideration of this issue. 
48. The representative of Japan
 said his country appreciated the US written response to the 
questionnaire submitted by Japan prior to the Council's consideration of this matter in 
December 2009, and also that the United States had provided the latest data in document WT/L/810.  
Japan attached great importance to the review of  this exemption and believed that Members should 
conduct an effective examination from various points of  view with regard to the response and data the 
US had provided.  Japan hoped that the current year 's review would be con ducted in an appropriate 
manner and under the Chair's leadersh ip, so that Members would be ab le to examine in detail whether 
or not the circumstances still prevailed that had justified the exemption, which was a fundamental 
deviation from the principles of the WTO. 
49. The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked the Chairman for his introduction and 
explanation of the proposed conduct of the review , and the US for its latest information on the 
relevant vessels.  However, he wished to point ou t – as his delegation had done in past reviews – that 
the exemption under paragraph 3(a) of GATT 1994 was a major derogation from the fundamental 
principle of national treatment in the WTO.  Neve rtheless, this exemption had been invoked by the 
US and had been perpetuated for more than 15 years.  Hong Kong, China was one of the major WT/GC/M/130 
Page 18  
 
  proponents of the liberalization of maritime transport services.  It continued to be concerned that the 
exemption represented one of the major impediments to the United States making market-access commitments in such services under the DDA negotiations.  Hong Kong, China looked forward to participating constructively in the upcoming seventh re view of the Jones Act exemption, together with 
all other interested delegations.  It hoped that th is review would be conduc ted in a substantive and 
meaningful manner and would yield a satisfactory out come, unlike the previous reviews whose results 
had left much to be desired. 
50. The representative of Korea
 said that in view of his country's commercial and systemic 
interest in this matter, he wished to renew Korea' s concern expressed at previous reviews.  Bearing in 
mind that the exemption in paragraph 3 of GATT 199 4 was a serious deviation from the fundamental 
principles of the GATT, it should be examined carefu lly whether the reasons for its continuance were 
justified.  After the reviews conducted thus far, Ko rea did not see that the conditions for retention of 
the relevant measures still prevailed.  Considering the history and background of the exemption – the 
relevant legislation was almost 100 years old –  there was a strong need for the US to undertake a more practical and objective examination of whethe r the original purpose and intent of the measure 
was justified at present.  Korea hoped that a mean ingful and substantial review of the exemption 
would be conducted and wished to be incl uded in any consultations on this matter. 
51. The representative of China
 said that given that the exemption under paragraph 3 of 
GATT 1994 was a major deviation from the fundamental principles of the WTO, and that it had lasted 
for more than 15 years, his delegation shared th e concerns expressed by previous speakers.  China 
wished to put on record its willingness to participat e in the review and to learn more about whether 
the conditions that had created the need for this exem ption still prevailed.  It hoped that the review in 
2011 would be meaningful and substantial. 
52. The General Council took note  of the statements and agreed  to revert to this item at a future 
meeting. 
4. WTO Pension Plan – Election of members to  the Management Board – Proposal by the 
Chairman of the General Council (WT/GC/W/630) 
53. The Chairman  recalled that Article 4(a) of the Regulations of the WTO Pension Plan 
provided, inter alia , for the election by the General Council of a Chairman, four members and four 
alternates to the Management Board of the Pens ion Plan, each for a three-year term.  In a 
communication circulated to delegations in doc ument WT/GC/W/630, he had indicated that two 
members previously elected to the Management  Board by the General Council were no longer 
available to serve on the Board, and that it was th erefore necessary for the Council to decide on their 
replacement.  Accordingly, in his communication he  had proposed the names of two representatives 
who had kindly agreed to have their names put forw ard for election as members.  He had also invited 
delegations to submit any comments they might have  regarding the proposed nominations by close-of-
business on 16 February.  He had not received any comments regarding the proposed nominations.  
Accordingly, he proposed that the General Counc il elect Mr Ken Schagrin (United States) and 
Mr Marhijn Visser (Netherlands) to serve as members on the Management Board of the WTO Pension Plan for the remainder of the Board's term, i.e. until May 2011. 
54. The General Council took note
 of the statement and so agreed . 
5. Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies 
55. The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance with the Gu idelines for Appointment of Officers to 
WTO Bodies approved by the General Council in December 2002 (WT/L/510), he and his colleagues, 
Mr Agah (Nigeria), the Chair of the Dispute Settlement Body and Mr Matus (Chile), former Chairman  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 19 
 
 
  of the General Council, had conduc ted consultations with  delegations on a slate of names for the 
appointment of Chairs to the bodies listed in Groups 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the Annex to the Guidelines.  He wished to thank Messrs Agah and Matus for their a ssistance, which had been very valuable to him 
and, he was certain, also to all Members.  They had consulted delegations both individually and in 
groups, including through group coordinators.  The se consultations had included an informal open-
ended Heads-of-Delegation meeting the previous day. 
56. He was pleased to be able to inform delegati ons that, on the basis of these consultations, there 
was a consensus on the following slate of names: 
General Council H.E. Mr Yonov Frederick AGAH (Nigeria) 
 
Dispute Settlement Body 
 
 H.E. Mrs Elin Østebø JOHANSEN (Norway) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
  H.E. Mr Mario MATUS (Chile) 
Council for Trade in Goods 
 
 H.E. Mr Jüri SEILENTHAL (Estonia) 
Council for Trade in Services 
  H.E Mr ERWIDODO (Indonesia) 
Council for TRIPS 
  H.E. Mr Federico A. GONZÁLEZ (Paraguay) 
Committee on Trade and 
  Development 
 H.E. Dr Anthony Mothae MARUPING (Lesotho) 
Committee on Balance-of- 
  Payments Restrictions  H.E. Mr Hisham M. BADR (Egypt) 
Committee on Budget, Finance  
  and  Administration 
 Mr Pasi-Heikki VAARANMAA (Finland) 
Committee on Trade and  
  Environment  H.E. Mrs Hiswani HARUN (Malaysia) 
Committee on Regional Trade  
  Agreements  Mr François RIEGERT (France) 
Working Group on Trade, Debt and  
  Finance 
 Mr Martin GLASS (Hong Kong, China) WT/GC/M/130 
Page 20  
 
  Working Group on Trade and  
  Transfer of Technology  H.E. Mrs Marion Vernese WILLIAMS (Barbados) 
 
57. Appointments for these bodies would be for one year as usual, in keeping with the general 
rule in the Guidelines.  These appointments would, of course, be made formally by the WTO bodies 
concerned at their subsequent meetings in 2011. 
58. The General Council took note
 of the statement and of the consensus on the slate of names for 
the appointment of officers. 
59. The Chairman , on behalf of the General Council, expressed sincere appreciation to the 
outgoing Chairpersons of all WTO bodies for their de dicated work in chairing these bodies.  Before 
concluding on this item, he recalled that – in k eeping with Paragraph 7.3 of the Guidelines on the 
Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies – the out going Chairpersons of the Council for Trade in 
Goods and the Council for Trade in Services were to  conduct consultations to select Chairpersons for 
the bodies established under their respective Councils.  The Guidelines also provi ded that these Chairs 
should announce the start of their respective cons ultation processes at the February General Council 
meeting.  He therefore invited Mr Maruping (Lesoth o), Chairman of the Goods Council, to take the 
floor. 
60. Mr Maruping (Lesotho), Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods , informed Members 
that, in accordance with the December 2002 Guidelines for Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies, he would be starting consultations for the appointment of chairpersons to the subsidiary bodies of the 
Council for Trade in Goods.  He would be carryi ng out this process with a view to proposing and 
agreeing on a balanced slate of names at the ne xt meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods, 
scheduled for 21 March 2011.  He intended to make  sufficient time available to meet with any 
interested Members and to hear their views and s uggestions, and would be sending a fax to all Heads 
of Delegations the following day indicating his availa bility for this purpose.  Following this, he would 
conduct further consultations as necessary.  In order to ensure the efficiency of the process and to 
achieve the balance mentioned in the Guidelines, he would work in coordination with the Chairman of 
the Services Council, and the c onsultation process by the Chairs of the two bodies would be duly 
coordinated. 
61. The Chairman
, on behalf and at the request of Mrs Johansen (Norway), Chairperson of the 
Services Council, read out her statement.  "In accordance with the Guidelines for Appointment of 
Officers to WTO Bodies (WT/L/510), I will be star ting my consultations for the appointment of 
chairpersons to the subsidiary bodies of the Council fo r Trade in Services.  I will be consulting with a 
view to arriving at a proposed slate of names of ch airpersons for 2011 that enjoys the wide support of 
the Membership.  In order to ensure the balance of the slate, as mentioned in the Guidelines, I will be 
consulting with the Chairman of the Goods Council , and will make sufficient time available to meet 
with any interested Members."  
62. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
6. Chairmanship of the Working Party on the Accession of Samoa – Statement by the 
Chairman 
63. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", informed Members that following 
consultations with members of the Working Party an d the authorities of Samoa, and in keeping with 
usual WTO practice, it had been agreed that Mr Oike (Japan) would serve as Chairperson of this 
Working Party, replacing Mr Kitajima (Japan), w ho would be leaving Gene va shortly and would no  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 21 
 
 
  longer be available to serve in this position.  On behalf of the General Council, he thanked 
Mr Kitajima for having served as Chairperson of this Working Party. 
64. The General Council took note  of the statement. 
7. Eighth Ministerial Conference – Statement by the Chairman  
65. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", recalled that at its December 2010 meeting, 
he had informed the Council that he intended to  use the opportunity of the consultations on the 
Appointment of Officers to start discussing some as pects of the Eighth Ministerial Conference, which 
would take place in the CICG in Geneva on the dates fixed by the Council at its October 2010 
meeting, i.e. 15-17 December 2011.  During the cour se of the consultations he had undertaken, there 
had been convergence on the following points.  Firs t, in the preparations as well as at the Conference 
itself, Members would continue to be guided by the "FIT" principle used by his predecessor – Full 
participation, Inclusiveness, and Transparency – wh ich had been successfully applied at the previous 
Ministerial Conference in 2009.  Second, in keeping with the FIT principle, MC8 should be centred around Plenary Sessions in which all Ministers could participate equally.  Third, like the previous 
Ministerial Conference, MC8 would need to be a l ean and economical event, in view of the budgetary 
and physical space constraints.  Finally, his successo r would, of course, continue the consultations 
with Members in order to develop th e more detailed parameters of MC8. 
66. The General Council took note
 of the statement. 
8. Administrative Measures for Members in  arrears – Statement by the Chairman 
67. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", recalled that at its meeting in May 2006, the 
General Council had approved a recommendati on from the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration regarding revised Administrative M easures for Members in arrears.  Among these was 
a requirement that, at each meeting of the Gene ral Council, the Chairman of the Committee on 
Budget, Finance and Administration should provide in formation with regard to which Members were 
under Administrative Measures in Categories II through IV.  He wished to begin by inviting the Chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr Vaaranm aa (Finland), to provide the Council with this 
information. 
68. Mr Vaaranmaa (Finland), Chairman of  the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said that as required by the decision of  the General Council, he would list the 
Members under Categories II through IV of the Ad ministrative Measures as at 21 February 2011.  
Since his last report in December, Members had received their assessment letters for the 2011 contributions.  As was the case at the start of ever y year, a number of Members had become subject to 
Administrative Measures.  Nine Members had b ecome subject to Administrative Measures in 
Category 2:  Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Do minican Republic, Grenada, Mali, Nicaragua, Peru 
and Venezuela.  Two Members had moved from Categor y I to III:  Saint Kitts & Nevis and Uganda.  
Nine Members remained in Category IV and were referred to as Inactive Members:  Burundi, Chad, 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Do minica, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Mauritania, and 
Sierra Leone.  The Secretariat and the Director-Gen eral remained active in trying to find solutions 
with these Members.  The Secretariat would report on the situation at the next meeting of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration. 
69. The Chairman
 said that under the revised Administrative Measures, he was also required at 
each Council meeting to request those Members in Ca tegories III and IV of the Measures to inform 
him, before the next meeting of the General Counc il, as to when their payment of arrears might be 
expected. WT/GC/M/130 
Page 22  
 
  70. The General Council took note
 of the statements. 
9. Election of Chairperson 
71. The Chairman , as the outgoing presiding officer of the General Council, said he wished to 
leave delegations with three thoughts.  One was that to the extent that Memb ers had had successes in 
the General Council over the past y ear, those successes were  the Members' and not his.  Members had 
been exhibiting cooperation, and he thanked them  for that.  Second, his work as General Council 
Chair was not a one-person show.  The job could not be  done without, first of all, the able assistance 
of the Director-General and his office, without th e wise advice of the four Deputy Directors-General 
whom he had consulted regularly throughout the y ear, and certainly without the help of Mr Evan 
Rogerson and his staff.  He wished to sincerely thank them all.  He also wished to thank the 
interpreters and technicians without whom none of these meetings would be able to take place.  
However, he had to end on a note of regret – the fact that Members had not been able to accomplish 
what he had hoped they would when he had taken over this job, which was conclude the Doha Round.  
That was a very significant regret for him.  He wi shed to leave the Council with the words of a very 
wise US President, somewhat paraphrased, "To have a successful Doha Round, we will all need to ask 
not what the Doha Round can do for our countries, but what our countries can do for the Doha 
Round." 
72. The General Council then unanimously elected  Mr Agah (Nigeria) to the Chair. 
73. The Director-General  said that as the outgoing Chairman had been very serious in his final 
words, he himself would not add anything to that.  Rather, he wished to say a few words in the form 
of a poem:  "John, at the end of another term  of General Council Chair, many meetings and 
consultations you've had to prepare.  On looking back  one thing is clear, it has been a very busy year.  
You had little time for jogging, with so many Me mbers offering lunches and drinking.  You had to 
find a landing zone and put up baskets, to boost access to Members' markets.  So the search is not yet 
over.  Was it, John, a problem of not being sober?  Fred will continue searching, and maybe he'll be 
luckier with Shinichi leaving." 
74. The newly-elected Chairman  expressed his gratitude a nd appreciation to the entire 
membership for the confidence placed in him and the opportunity he had been provided to serve the 
organization.  He considered hi s appointment a great honour and pr ivilege, and wished to assure all 
that he had accepted this challenge with great hum ility, especially at this critical moment in the 
history of the multilateral trading system, when Me mbers had intensified their work towards making 
very important decisions in the coming weeks and m onths.  He stood ready to serve the interests of 
the entire membership with fairness and equity th rough regular dialogue and c onsultations.  However, 
sitting on the podium at the present meeting he fe lt as though he had moved from the witness box to 
the dock, and was beginning to imagine the Members to be a jury.  Unfortunately, he had no defence 
before Members.  However, as the WTO was a Memb er-driven organization, it was gratifying to note 
that he was not the only one that was to be sentenc ed, and he looked forward to listening to Members' 
defence if they should fail to ca rry out the instructions of th eir Leaders to conclude the DDA 
negotiations in 2011.  He was fully aware of th e challenges Members faced, and promised to work 
very hard to achieve the noble goals of the organiza tion.  He was confident that he would also enjoy 
Members' full support and good will, which had been th e case with his predecessors.  On that note he 
urged all to engrave the following wo rds in their hearts:  "Champions make decisions that create their 
future;  losers make decisions that create the present they desire."  He believed that all wanted to be 
champions.  Thus, he encouraged all collectivel y to make the decisions that would secure and 
guarantee the future of this great organization as we ll as the multilateral trading system it represented. 
75. He wished to pay special tribute to his pr edecessor as General Council Chair for his hard 
work, dedication and steadfastness.  He was not sure whether he could fill the huge shoes he had left  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 23 
 
 
  behind, all the more so because of the latter's sen se of humour and his effortless use of metaphors to 
describe very difficult and complex situations.  He trusted that since the outgoing Chair would remain 
in Geneva, he could always count on his support and guidance.  He wished to commend the Director-General and his highly capable team for their unw avering commitment and relentless efforts, which 
had produced the remarkable progress Members had made  so far.  He recognized that the task ahead 
was enormous, but the challenges were clearly not insurmountable.  He therefore looked forward to 
working closely with the Director-General to furthe r consolidate and build on the achievements made.  
He wished to thank the outgoing chairpersons and congratulate the newly-elected ones.  He looked forward to working with the latter and to benef itting from their respective expertise and experiences. 
76. The representative of Mauritius
, on behalf of the ACP Group , expressed the Group's pleasure 
at seeing the newly-elected Chair in this position, because he hailed from a country in the ACP Group, 
and their pride, because he was assuming leadership of  this organization at such an important time.  
While the outgoing Chair had said he had not been able to conclude the Round, the Group hoped that the newly-elected Chair would have better luck and would be able, by the end of the year, to bring 
Members a well-balanced conclusion in which all could see benefits.  The ACP Group was sure that 
with the newly-elected Chair's v ast experience, wisdom and intellectual capacity and competence, he 
would ably lead the General Council and the organi zation in the course of the year to come.  The 
Group assured him that he could rely on its full co llaboration.  To the outgoing Chair, he expressed 
the Group's appreciation for his good humour and th e wise leadership he ha d shown in chairing the 
General Council and in doing all the work that accompan ied such a huge responsibility.  It particularly 
appreciated his approach of consulting very widely  in a transparent and inclusive manner.  The Group 
was sure that as he would remain in Geneva, he w ould continue to enlighten Members, not only with 
his wise thoughts, but also with his sense of humour. 
77. The representative of Jamaica
, on behalf of GRULAC , said these countries wished to 
congratulate the newly-elected Chair on his appointment and to pledge their full support.  They also wished to thank the outgoing Chair for the skilful and efficient manner in which he had steered the 
work of the Council over the past year, and also for the facilitative approach he had taken to the 
consultations on the slate of names.  GRULAC wished  to congratulate all the newly-elected Chairs of 
the various bodies and to assure them of its support.  He wished to thank his colleagues in GRULAC 
for their cooperation in the consultative process, and particularly the GRULAC Members who had 
accepted the challenge of chairmanship. 
78. The representative of Indonesia
, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , expressed their 
appreciation for the tremendous work carried out by the outgoing Chairman in his capacity as General 
Council Chair during the past year.  During this peri od, Members had witnessed the latter's invaluable 
contribution in facilitating efforts to conclude the DDA negotiations and in the work of the WTO in 
general.  They wished to thank him for his hard work through various difficult periods during the past 
year, and for his efforts to ensure balance and con tinuity in Members' work.  They wished him every 
success in his next challenges and hoped that in some  other capacity, he would be part of the future 
success Members might achieve in their ongoing negotiations.  In the same vein, the ASEAN 
Members warmly welcomed the newly-elected Chair, and stood ready to work closely with him in the 
pursuit of Members' collective cause, through out his chairmanship in the year ahead. 
79. The representative of Kenya , on behalf of the African Group , said the Group sincerely 
thanked the outgoing Chair for all the personal effo rt and sacrifice he had made during his term.  It 
wished to congratulate the newly-elected Chair on hi s appointment at this critical time for the DDA, 
and was confident that the entire membership woul d give him the necessary support in his capacity as 
the new Chair of the General Council. 
80. The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the SVEs , said these countries wished to 
congratulate the newly-elected Chair on his election and to thank the outgoing Chair for his balanced WT/GC/M/130 
Page 24  
 
  and efficient management of the General Counc il meetings over the past year.  They also 
congratulated all the new Chairs on their appointment  and pledged their support over the coming year.  
This was a difficult time for the WTO as Member s approached the end-game, and the General 
Council chairmanship would be a challenging position,  but the SVEs believed that all were willing 
and able to give the newly-elected Chair the gr eatest support possible, and they wished him well. 
81. The representative of the United States
 said he wished to add his delegation's voice to those 
thanking the outgoing and newly-elected Chairs .  The outgoing Chair had mentioned that the 
successes all belonged to the Members, but his delega tion would say the contrary, and that no failure 
was attributable to the outgoing Chair.  The US ve ry much appreciated the energy and wisdom the 
latter had brought to the job and was grateful for hi s hard work.  On a similar note, his delegation 
wished to thank the newly-elected Chair for his willi ngness to serve in this cap acity and to do all the 
work that entailed, and looked forward to working with him. 
82. The representative of the Dominican Republic , on behalf of the Informal Group of 
Developing Countries , said the Group wished to congratulate the newly-elected Chair on his election 
to this post at such a critical time for the organizati on and its future.  It also wished to congratulate the 
outgoing Chair for all the work he had done to  benefit the organization during his term. 
83. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
 
_______________ 
  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 25 
 
 
  ANNEX I 
Statement by New Zealand  
prior to adoption of the Agenda  
  
I know these are difficult days for a number of Members, but it is a dark day for New-Zealand 
and a terrible day for the people of Christchurch.  As you said, Christchurch has been suffering a number of earthquakes – there was one last Septembe r which was even larger in magnitude than the 
most recent one, but fortunately then, because of wh ere it was and the time of day, there were no 
casualties.  This time the quake was right next to Ch ristchurch in the middle of the day for the people 
of Christchurch, so there have been a number of ca sualties.  The latest estimate confirms casualties of 
65, but more than 200 people are missing.  Of course, it is now night time and the weather has deteriorated a little bit, but I think they are work ing with all speed to try to recover people from 
buildings, including with the assistance of a team fr om Australia.  So thank you all for those kind 
thoughts and for all the condolences for those who ha ve lost their lives, and for the families and 
loved-ones affected. 
 
_______________ 
 
 WT/GC/M/130 
Page 26  
 
  ANNEX II 
Statements by delegations at the informal meeting 
 
of the Trade Negotiations Committee  
on 2 February 2011  
 
 
 At their request, the statements made by a number of delegations at the above-mentioned meeting are included below as part of th e Minutes of the General Council meeting. 
 
1. Australia for the Cairns Group 
 
 The calls for re-intensification of work to conclude the Round have been heeded and the 
Cairns Group is ready to participate in the end-game negotiations.  As we enter this the tenth year of 
these negotiations, the need to conclude the negotiations  is ever more apparent given what is at stake 
for the multilateral trading system.  It is a heavy r esponsibility borne by us all.  The 2011 “window of 
opportunity” will not be there for long – and we strongl y call on all parties to show genuine resolve to 
conclude an ambitious and bala nced Doha Development Round this  year.  The time for real 
engagement has come.  We note the discussions that  have been going on in various configurations 
both here in Geneva and elsewhere.  These discuss ions have shown there is a renewed sense of 
urgency and a realisation that we need to change gear now if we are to succeed in concluding the 
Round this year.  Ministers in Davos made clear this objective.  These discussions have also 
reinforced the fact that ambition in Agriculture will be a key determ inant of ambition across all areas 
in the end-game process.  The Cairns Group stands r eady to participate in the work of the Agriculture 
Negotiating Group as part of a comprehensive and transparent multilateral process.  We realise 
creative thinking will be required to unlock the nego tiations to ensure the necessary progress.  It is 
essential that we see efforts intensify in all Ne gotiating Groups in the next few weeks.  For 
Agriculture, this needs to build fro m what has already been captured in the draft Rev. 4 text.  Senior 
Officials and negotiators in Geneva need to heed the calls from Ministers and seek creative solutions 
to specific issues that need to be resolved to conclude the negotiations.  It goes without saying that the 
development objectives of the negotiations must re main central to our work.  An ambitious and 
balanced outcome in Agriculture will be central to this goal.  To conclude, the Cairns Group has heard 
the call to intensify work and will be working with  others to achieve a successful outcome to the 
negotiations in the weeks ahead. 
 
2. Brazil 
 
Let me start by thanking you for the detailed account in which you highlighted the state of 
play in the various Negotiating Groups in light of th e recent intensification of their work, as well as 
your report on the interactions with Ministers in Da vos.  On the one hand, the bottom-up, transparent, 
and inclusive multilateral work in Geneva, fully ow ned by the membership and respectful of the 
principles of the Single Undertaking, and on the other hand, the political support from Ministers and Leaders, are the main pillars of our efforts to ca rry out negotiations in this window of opportunity 
identified by our political masters last year.  Add itionally, plurilateral and b ilateral meetings, provided 
that they are fully integrated in the multilateral process, can also play an important supplementary 
role.  It is evident that in procedural terms we are marching at a steady pace. The work program seems 
well designed and it has the support of the membership. Nevertheless, we are about to enter a most delicate stage of our process. Very soon, we will test the limits of the political engagement and 
ascertain whether the proclaimed commitment to  an outcome will translate into negotiating 
flexibilities that allow us to bridge the quite signifi cant and substantive differences that have kept us 
apart since early 2009.  The essence of our differen ces remains the same:  finding a balance across the 
market-access issues that is acceptable to all.  As we all recall, the main trade-offs were defined 
simultaneously during the July 2008 Ministerial – agricultural tariff cuts, number and payment of  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 27 
 
 
  sensitive products, cuts on trade-distorting domes tic support, NAMA formula coefficients and 
flexibilities and, finally, a pledging  conference on Services was held.  At that time, a few issues kept 
us from fully agreeing on the landing zones, but the or der of magnitude of what was required to close 
the deal was well defined in our minds. These boundaries are not simply imaginary – they were 
reproduced in the December 2008 draft modalities texts.   Contradicting this understanding, we now 
face demands that attempt to change the nature a nd scope of those deals. They try to selectively 
change the outcomes in areas where developing countries would be the only ones paying. 
 We do accept that ambition is an important drivin g force in trade negotiations.  Actually, it is 
an indispensable one.  Nonetheless, at a certain stage, particularly after long and complex negotiating 
efforts, ambition – particularly when coupled w ith selectiveness – can back fire, risking unravelling 
the delicate network of trade-offs we so carefully  wove over the last nine years.  The collective 
wisdom contained in the draft modalities texts befo re us constitutes an achievable balance between 
our collective ambitions and restraints.  Those texts embody our desires framed by reality.  Our 
challenges concerning substance and timing do not, however, necessarily prevent us from achieving a 
marginally improved framework.  But for this, what is required is a carefully designed and executed 
effort, where the fundamental premise is to keep the balance that has been achie ved so far.  As far as 
Brazil is concerned, any attempts to shift this balance away from Agriculture or development are 
bound to fail.  The only means to accomplish this marg inally improved framework is via trade-offs in 
which we take on board a representative cross-section of  all interests, offensive and defensive, in all 
market-access issues – NAMA , Agriculture and Services.  Additiona l concessions in one area must be 
matched by strictly proportional concessions in another area.  More market access in NAMA or 
Services means also more market access in Agriculture.  If some developing countries are asked to do 
more than the general rule applicable to all, key developed-country Members, especially those who 
have been asking for more in areas of their interests,  must also do more than the general rule, not less.  
If we all understand and accept this, we  are in good shape for this final push.  In conclusion, I will 
devote just a few words to the negotiation of horiz ontal disciplines. We think that they represent a 
major contribution to the package that, unfortunately , so far has been consis tently underestimated.  
The outcomes there can be very significant, as is the case for Trade Facilitation.  Negotiations of 
disciplines, in all areas, are also about market  access and we must acknowledge this.  They add 
significant value to the Round and they should enhance our chances of concluding negotiations 
successfully.  I support the statements made before me. 
 
3. Brazil for the G20 
 
The G20 welcomes the report on recent deve lopments and the process outlined by the 
Director-General for future negotia tions.  The Doha Round is at a critical juncture and we must put 
together our best efforts to achieve our common goa l of concluding the negotiations.  It is time for 
realism.  Agriculture remains the engine of the Doha Round.  The December 2008 draft modalities 
text must be the basis for negotiations.  Agricultu re remains the key determinant of the level of 
ambition in all other areas of the negotiation.  Agri culture will continue to be the benchmark for the 
end-game in terms of the landing z ones for ambition.  The G20 is pr epared to engage constructively 
towards the objective of achieving an ambitious  and balanced outcome that delivers on the 
development objectives of the Round in accordance with the mandate. 
 
4. China 
 
China would like to associate itsel f with the statements by Brazil for the G20 and Indonesia 
for the G-33.  We also support the statements by  Kenya for the African Group, Bangladesh for the 
LDCs and Barbados for the SVEs.  China appreciates your report and supports the work plan you 
have outlined.  That is to say, in order to implem ent the instructions of our leaders and grasp the 
window of opportunity in 2011, we should aim to work out texts by April, agree on modalities by July 
and conclude the Round by the end of the year.  This  plan was first proposed by you at the November WT/GC/M/130 
Page 28  
 
  TNC meeting and adopted by Members at the D ecember 2010 General Council meeting. Now it has 
been further endorsed by the Davos mini-Ministeri al meeting last week, which in my view is a 
positive signal.  As my predecessor said in December, this plan is Desirable, Doable and Agreeable, 
especially in view of the fact that the world economic  recovery is still not stable and that 2012 will be 
even more difficult when several major Members wi ll face domestic elections.  At the same time, 
each of us is aware that the window of opportunity is actually small.  To execute the plan is not easy.  
For this reason, if we truly want to complete the negotiations within the limited time, we have to set a 
realistic goal for the level of ambition.  Furthermor e, we should lock in the progress made, adhere to 
the development objectives and concentrate on the ou tstanding issues.  With this understanding, all 
Members – I stress all – should be ready to move out  of their comfort zones so that the remaining 
gaps could be bridged in a fast and efficient manner,  so as to meet the timelines we set for ourselves.  
Regarding the process, China is open to any bilateral or plurilateral engagement.  However, in order to 
make sure that the concerns of all Members, especi ally those of developing Members, will be taken 
into account, the main negotiations have to take plac e in a multilateral process.  Finally, we want to 
highlight again the importance of transparency, in clusiveness and a bottom-up approach.  China is 
willing to take a positive, constructive and pragmati c attitude to work with all Members to push the 
Round to a successful conclusion this year. 
 
5. Cuba 
 
Thank you for your detailed report on recent developments on the political and technical 
aspects of the negotiations.  We are all facing a trem endous challenge in view of the complexity and 
scope of the negotiating areas, as well as the huge interest s at stake.  In this connection, and bearing in 
mind what some delegations have said before me, I da re say that the success or the failure of the Doha 
Round depends on Agriculture.  There are a great ma ny reasons why this sector poses significant 
challenges, but the one challenge we  cannot ignore is Members' food security.  So this is where we 
must be extremely careful not to mistakenly un dertake commitments that could lead numerous 
countries to situations of food insecurity.  In Cuba's  view, we need to continue working without being 
pressured or subjected to artificial timeframes, a nd especially without losing sight that this is a 
development Round in which most of the commitme nts should be directed to development.  We 
concur with the statements by Barbados for th e SVEs, Mauritius for the ACP Group, Brazil for the 
G20 and Indonesia for the G-33, as well as those by  China, South Africa and Ecuador regarding the 
need to address outstanding development-related issu es and to respect the principles of transparency 
and inclusiveness.  I also wish to convey my disap pointment at the dearth of progress made on topics 
of considerable interest to many  developing countries.  For example, there has been no assessment of 
our special situation regarding export credits.  This is  a priority issue as far as Cuba is concerned, and 
we could not endorse the final outcomes of the Round unless this matter is resolved.  I hear repeated 
references to speed, flexibility and a constructive appr oach when it comes to our work and, above all, 
to the fact that the supposed 2011 window of op portunity should not be missed.  I also see that 
numerous concerns remain and – as in January of previous years – that political instructions are 
awaited from the few Ministers who attended the Ec onomic Forum in Davos.  Nonetheless, there does 
not appear to be a good connection from Davos to Geneva, since the signals are losing strength along 
the way.  Everything points to a major blockage in the line of communication between the two cities.  
As you yourself have said, determin ation to conclude the Round this year was reaffirmed in Davos, 
but we can see that there is no agreement on this point, because the major trading nations are still 
asking for more from the emerging economies and the countries of the South, whereas it should be the 
other way around.  It would be a grave mistake to  sacrifice the development objectives of this Round 
to market access considerations alone, and to unra vel or derail the delicate balance achieved with the 
2008 draft modalities, which are the basis on which my country is willing to continue working.  We 
must not forget either that we cannot proceed  with an avalanche of simultaneous meetings, 
jeopardizing the involvement of the developing countries in the decision-making process expected to take place between now and July, and thus affecting inclusiveness and transparency. 
  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 29 
 
 
   
6. Ecuador  
The importance of the development dimensi on in the negotiating process under way, and 
more generally in the structure of the multilatera l trading system, has been widely recognized.  
Members must not only ensure possible or potential gains for the developing countries, but must also 
make certain that the outcomes of the Round as su ch are tools that effectively support their 
development;  in other words, that they provide for enhanced and effective market access, balanced 
rules and well-targeted, sustainably financed t echnical assistance and capacity-building programmes;  
and second, that those outcomes preserve or genera te sufficient policy space for the implementation of 
their development strategies and measures to saf eguard their external balances, preserving the 
flexibilities that have been stabilized up to now, but at  the same time taking them one step further.  
The smallest developing countries need sufficient policy space to effectively promote the conditions 
of production necessary for the achievement of food security.  They also need such space to apply 
incentives for the development of value-addi ng activities so as to permit progress in the 
transformation, diversification and specialization of  production, as well as towards sustainability of 
the economic ecosystem through the sustainable production of goods and services.  Moreover, the smallest developing countries require expeditious m eans of effectively safeguarding their external 
balances on an ongoing basis.  Indeed, account must be taken of the deep and continuing uncertainty 
that has pervaded the international economy for so me years now and the risks and dangers that may 
arise out of this situation, particularly for our c ountries.  These past few years, we have witnessed and 
are still witnessing events with unprecedented pote ntial for destabilization, which could have 
extremely serious consequences.  State interventi on has been of key importance in handling these 
events, in some cases with support from internatio nal cooperation.  The available resources and the 
social realities in small developing countries differ fr om those of countries that so far have directly 
faced such situations.  Hence, this element of uncer tainty and high risk will have to be factored in 
when the time comes to define timeframes and the depth of commitments, especially in terms of 
access, that have to be assumed by the small devel oping countries.  It will also be necessary, as I 
mentioned before, to envisage expeditious means of safeguarding our external balances effectively on 
an ongoing basis.  In short, the successful conclusi on of the Doha Round, a process that we shall 
continue to support actively, s hould constitute for developing co untries like Ecuador an effective 
means of supporting the achievement of the objec tives provided for in their national strategies. 
 7. Indonesia for the G-33  
The G-33 takes note of your encouraging report on the latest developments in the Doha 
Development Round negotiations and your assessment on the mini- Ministerial meeting held on the 
margins of the World Economic Forum in Davos.  The Group reaffirms its support for the roadmap 
initially outlined by the TNC Chair, agreed by  the General Council on 14 December 2010, and 
underscored by the Chairs of the Negotiating Groups .  We reiterate our commitment to constructive 
engagement in the forthcoming in tensified negotiations aimed at cl osing the gaps in the December 
2008 draft Agriculture modalities text.  This willingn ess needs to be reciprocated by all Members, 
especially the developed countries.  As always, th e process has to be bottom-up, transparent and 
inclusive.  We continue to pursue a balanced and fair outcome of the Agriculture negotiations that 
fully observes the development mandate of the Doha Round and respec ts the S&D treatment 
flexibilities that would ensure food security, liveli hood security and rural development of developing 
countries.  8. Malaysia 
 
Malaysia would like to join others in thanki ng you for your assessment on the state of play of 
the negotiations and report on the outcomes of the Davos  Ministerial Meeting.  We would also like to 
endorse the statement made by Australia on behalf of the Cairns Group.  A miss is as good as a mile. WT/GC/M/130 
Page 30  
 
  Ministers in Davos alluded and re-emphasised our Leaders’ political calls for negotiations to be 
concluded by 2011.  The time is now, and quoting Benjamin Franklin, “lost time is never found 
again”.  Thus, we need to shift gears and accelerat e work in all areas of negotiations to realise the 
narrow, or as some put it, the “only” window of oppo rtunity in 2011.  In this regard, Malaysia fully 
supports the work plan that has been outlined for 201 1, and that revised texts be issued by April 2011 
and a package reached by July.  Past experience wa s that we did not usually have much success with 
packages in July, but this time around, let us prove the sceptics wrong, and let us deliver on what we have set out to do.  There is more than e nough political push and support, there has been 
empowerment, and there has been renewed energy and momentum in the negotiations, so what is left 
now is a real commitment to close the deal, and this  we must do in all earnestness within this limited 
time.  There is now a clear sense of urgency for us to  deliver on the work plan.  With a tight schedule, 
the path is indeed challenging.  However, our Mini sters called for a change in mind set, and that is 
what we should all strive to do.  There has been a lot of talk about give-and-take and reciprocity, but 
to date we have yet to see this happening and transl ated into the outcomes of the negotiations.  If this 
trade-off and horizontal process does not happen soon, we  run the risk of not meeting our target again, 
and we cannot afford to post another failure when so  much is at stake.  We must start emptying our 
pockets and putting our cards on the table.  Involvement of Ambassadors and Senior Officials at this 
critical stage must continue.  It is essential that  the confidence-building amongst us complement the 
process as we attempt to bridge differences and find creative solutions in moving the discussions forward.  We concur with your assessment that the multilateral leg has moved at a faster pace where the process of intensification has already begun within the Negotiating Groups.  However, it is 
discomforting to hear that the bilateral and plurilate ral leg is still lagging behi nd.  We hope this leg, 
which represents the various configurations of gro upings that have emerged among the major players, 
gets into the game and starts delivering the beef.  The complementarity of these two processes is critical for the final outcome, and the sooner they come  together, the faster we will be up on our feet 
and running towards the finishing line.  In Davos , Minister Mustapa Mohamad of Malaysia gave 
Malaysia’s strong commitment and readiness to contri bute to the process.  We are ready to move and 
do our part in closing the deal on the outstanding  issues in the key negotiating areas of Agriculture, 
NAMA and Services, as well as the other areas of th e DDA.  We hope our trading partners and others 
are also ready to move with us into the end-game.  
9. Mexico 
 
We thank Ambassador Wasescha for his very comprehensive evaluation and for sharing with 
us the conclusions expounded by his Minister, Johan Schneider, at the close of the mini-Ministerial 
meeting in Davos.  The Davos gatherings rec onfirmed that 2011 is the decisive window of 
opportunity for concluding the Round and that the cost of a possible failure would be intolerably high 
for the multilateral trading system and its Members, for which reason it is urgently necessary to speed 
up the negotiations and expeditiously come up with  creative solutions enabling us to implement our 
roadmap and move on to the last stage – that is, the final process of give and take leading to an ambitious and balanced global package.  This package,  as has been stated, must be ready in July at the 
latest.  Otherwise, there will be no Round.  This being the case, in Davos my Minister suggested a possible approach that could help us find a solution to  outstanding issues in all areas of market access, 
and at the same time facilitate the search for solu tions to rules-related issues pertaining to access and 
give impetus to the final bargaining process that should cover all aspects of the negotiation.  Allow 
me to summarize briefly the points made by my Minister:   "Building upon what we have on the table, we could draw the contours of a package.  The key 
ingredient being, what some call the give-and-take , and others call it reciprocity .  This 
involves taking together the four market-access areas. 
  In NAMA , though we do not like sectorals, we woul d be willing to engage considering the 
following main elements:  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 31 
 
 
   
- only developing countries applying the Swiss formula would be expected to 
participate, and in no more than two sectorals; 
- developing countries would self-designate the products they would be willing to 
commit in each sector, with different options for tariff reductions and with 
self-designated exceptions; 
- developed countries would be expected to participate in all the sectorals they are 
sponsoring, with no excepti ons and bigger reductions. 
 In Environmental Goods , product coverage and depth of ta riff reductions would be bigger for 
developed Members than for developing ones.  Products to be included would be on a 
self-designation basis. 
  In Services , we could envisage members having participated in the Signalling Conference in 
2008 to undertake binding commitments on the basis of their current regulatory regime, with self-designated exceptions for a number of sectors and/or subsectors.  Of course, the number 
of exceptions would be bigger for devel oping Members than for developed ones. 
  In Agriculture , developed Members would be expected to bind their applied tariffs wherever 
these are below the rate resulting from the appli cation of the agreed formula.  They would 
further reduce their overall domestic support, te nding towards the current applied levels.  
No more exceptions for developed Members would be permitted with respect to sensitive 
products. 
  An approach like the one I am outlining woul d allow us to immediately start scheduling 
commitments.  It would provide the scheme we are lacking to unchain the, across-the-board negotiations.  Any Member wanting to be more ambitious than what w ould be provided under 
this scheme would need to reciprocate with c oncessions of similar value within the same 
sector or across different sectors. 
  I am convinced that reaching as soon as possibl e an agreement on the market access issues 
would put us on the road towards success in the other areas too." 
 
 We are prepared to enter into a more deta iled discussion of these ideas with all delegations 
that so wish.  We have developed a plan which gives more substance to the points made by my 
Minister.  Proposals of the kind he has made could usefully be discussed horizontally between Senior 
Officials and Ambassadors.  Unless you so requ est, I shall not give a full presentation of the 
proposals, given the need to make reasonable use of our time. 
 
10. South Africa 
 
We thank you for your comprehensive report.  South Africa participated in the G20 Summit 
in Seoul and supports the view that 2011 presents a window of opportunity to conclude the Doha 
Round.  During the past few months, South Africa par ticipated in various initiatives that attempted to 
provide momentum to the Doha Round negotiati ons.  These included the Ambassadors Small-Group 
Process, meetings of the G-11 and the recent informal Ministerial meeting held in Davos.  The Small-Group Process helped us all understand each other's c oncerns much better, but did not contribute to 
real movement by the major players on any of the co re issues of the Round.  Ministers in Davos urged 
us to conclude the Round, but did not signal an y bold initiatives to break the current impasse in 
Geneva and give momentum to th e negotiations, nor did they set an y further negotiating meetings at 
Ministerial level.  However, they did implore us to draft new texts by Easter and to conclude the WT/GC/M/130 
Page 32  
 
  negotiations by July.  How do we avoid the erro rs of 2006 when the Round was suspended and again 
in 2008 when the round collapsed?  We propose that  a successful conclusion to the Round is indeed 
possible if we all adhere to the following prin ciples.  First, honour multilateral convergences and 
agreements reached.  At the last Ministerial Conf erence, Minister Davies clarified South Africa's 
approach as follows:  South Africa was not part of the agreements reached by some Members in the 
July 2008 package.  As we have stated before our  view is that even these texts are imbalanced and 
reflect too much accommodation of the sensitivities of developed countries in Agriculture, while 
demanding too much from developing countries in term s of reducing their applied industrial tariffs 
and policy space for industrial development.  Desp ite these reservations, we have been willing to 
work to see whether, on the basis of the existing texts, the specific problems posed for South Africa 
and SACU, arising from the historic injustice of S outh Africa's classification in the Uruguay Round as 
a developed country, can be resolved in a fair manne r.  However, this has not been the approach of 
some other Members, particularly the largest deve loped countries that seek to re-open convergences 
reached in the July and December 2008 texts. 
 
Second, adhere to the principle of fairness.  The current playing field in trade is uneven and 
biased against developing countries.  It is unfair.  Agricultural protection in the US, EU and other 
developed countries continues to undermine the agri culture development and food security concerns 
of a large number of developing countries, many of which are in sub-Saharan Africa, the poorest 
region in the world.  The plight of the cotton producers from West Africa is but a reminder of a wider distortion caused by trade-distorting subsidies in the US and in several other OECD countries.  It is 
for this reason that the removal of these distortions in agriculture trade is th e core issue in the Doha 
Round and is a litmus test for a development outcome.  Our assessment is that the level of ambition of 
the package on Agriculture reflected in the July and December 2008 texts is extremely modest.  In 
addition, several of the outstanding issues, such as a refusal to cap extremely high tariffs, demands for 
more sensitive products and new TRQs and other su ch issues still demanded by the major developed 
countries will lower the ambition in Agriculture even  more.  Thus the current demands by the major 
developed countries for more market access from developing countries in NAMA and Services is unfair.  It will tilt the current imbalance in the tr ading system and the July and December texts even 
more against developing countries.  South Africa lo st a million jobs during the global economic crisis 
that it had no part in creating.  This has to be added to the 25 per cent structural unemployment that 
we inherited.  As we begin to r ecover from the economic crisis and stri ve to create new jobs, it will be 
unfair to expect more market access that results in more job losses from developing countries like 
South Africa. 
 Third was respect the Doha Mandates.  The D oha Round placed Agriculture at the centre of 
the Round. The level of ambition in NAMA and other areas of the Doha Round were to be 
proportionate to the level of ambition developed countr ies were prepared to u ndertake in Agriculture.  
The Doha mandate called for "the pr oducts of interests to developing countries to be prioritized", in 
NAMA, and that required developing-country contribu tions to be based on the concept of "Less Than 
Full Reciprocity" and "S&D treatment".  Demanding more market access from so-called advanced developing countries in NAMA goes against this mandate.  The Doha Round can be concluded this 
year.  Indeed, it could have been concluded in 2006  when it was suspended, and again in 2008 when it 
collapsed.  Trying to impose an unfair deal that  does not respect the convergences reached and the 
development mandate of the Doha Round will not work.  The multilateral trading system has served 
us well during the economic crisis.  The largest a nd richest economies have benefitted the most from 
the rules-based trading system since 1947.  They sh ould be prepared to pay for this and not pass the 
burden of responsibility to the poorest countries.  Le t us all work to conclude the Doha Round this 
year.  It can be concluded successfully if we adhere to the following principles.  The largest developed 
countries should lead.  The process should be inclusiv e and transparent. The interests and concerns of 
the poorest countries, especially the LDCs, should be pr ioritized in an early harvest.  South Africa will 
work with determination to conclude the Round on the basis of these principles. 
  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 33 
 
 
  11. Sri Lanka 
 
I wish to thank you for your comprehensive repor t reflecting on the latest development of the 
Doha Round of negotiation after the World Economic Forum in Davos.  Before I touch upon issues of 
specific concern to my country, let me first associ ate my delegation with the statement by Indonesia 
for the G-33.  We are pleased that the Doha R ound has reached its end-game and moved to a higher 
gear to prepare for the final p ackage of the Doha deal.  We we lcome the emerging political will to 
complete the Doha Round by the end of this year.  Sri Lanka is very encouraged with these positive 
political messages because, on the one hand, the bulk of external trade today depends on MFN trade, 
and on the other hand, globally the economic case fo r further trade liberalization through a Doha deal 
remains unquestionable.  Sri Lanka is ready to work with Members to achieve this important goal, as 
long as the negotiations and the process are fully inclus ive and transparent.  However, the final results 
of the Doha package should bring benefit to all Me mbers.  There are various contours of the Doha 
deal.  All outstanding issues should be addressed.  We have reasonable fear that once bigger issues are 
settled between the key players, the issues of inter est to small countries like mine may be left out.  
Sadly, if the final package takes this unacceptable shap e, we will not be able to sell it back in our 
capital and this will create problems.  Our developed-c ountry partners must make extra efforts to take 
on board our concerns, particularly in the area of the NAMA negotiations, and provide solutions.  My 
delegation did not intend to go into more deta il on specific areas of interest to my country.  
Nonetheless, after carefully listening to some of th e intervention today, I thought our view should be 
clearly expressed here.  We agree with what was sai d before that the negotia tions should be guided by 
the principle of give-and-take.  In this Round, Sr i Lanka is undertaking and making contributions in 
all areas of negotiation.  However, in return we still cannot see measurable benefits from the Round.  
We must be able show gains from the Round to ou r capital and our domestic constituencies in order to 
sell the final package of the Doha deal.  At least , we should yield benefits from the across-the-board 
liberalization, and such direct benefits should not be confined to a handful of tariff lines.  To this end, 
Sri Lanka stands ready to engage on these concerns  in the appropriate Negotiating Groups or even 
bilaterally and plurilaterally with Members.  Sr i Lanka has engaged constructively in all areas of 
negotiation and will continue to cooperate to achie ve an outcome which is balanced and a win-win 
situation for all. 
 
12. Switzerland 
 
The traditional Ministerial meeting my Minister organized in Davos could be summed up as 
DDA, the "Davos Delivery Aspiration" .  If one of the few journalists who do not understand anything 
about the WTO would have been in the room, he would have reported that the WTO was or is a story about a two-legged, well-fed pilot trying to jump  through a window of opportunity.  We would just 
complement your report, for which we thank you, with some additional elements contained in the 
concluding remarks of my Minister, which are ava ilable at the Swiss delegation.  We note with 
satisfaction that all Ministers share a common opinion th at we are in the end-game, that there is a real 
will to negotiate and that we will ha ve negotiating texts in all areas by April, even where we have no 
text now.  We need an overall agreement on the p ackage by July and a finalization of everything by 
the end of this year.  Observing and listening to the Ministers, I had the feeling that they were not at 
all interested to get involved in the technicalities of our negotiations, and it was clear from their signal 
that this has to be our job.  So unfortunately, an d unusually for Ambassadors, Ministers expect us to 
work.  We urge the large develope d- and developing-country Members to accelerate their bilateral and 
plurilateral negotiations, including in specific NAMA areas, with a view to getting a more efficient 
result in all areas of the negotiations, while buildin g on progress reached so far.  Ministers said that 
they were ready to reassess their position, and to em power us negotiators to engage in give-and-take 
and come up with creative solutions.  We hope that this process takes place within the coming one or 
two weeks, so that we can see real movement on the difficult issues soon.  If we fail, the costs for the 
credibility of our multilateral trading system and the economic opportunity costs for the world economy would be very high – higher than the politi cal costs of passing the potential results through WT/GC/M/130 
Page 34  
 
  different national processes.  We have one concern with regard to inclusiveness – those who are most 
affected by a certain measure or concession in a gi ven negotiating area must be at the table when the 
relevant decision is taken.  The negotiating meetings of small groups should therefore be 
complemented, for each negotiation issue, with particularly affected Members and their coordinating Member.  The Ambassador-level small-group meeti ngs that we had last year may give a good 
example.  For Switzerland, the areas of Services – where greater visibility is especially expected – 
Trade Facilitation, Trade & Environment and TRIPS -related issues are capital, in order to achieve a 
balance. 
 
13. Switzerland for the G-10 
 
The G-10 Ministers also met in Davos on 29 Ja nuary.  They issued a communiqué in which 
they expressed their firm commitment to finalize the DDA negotiations in 2011.  The G-10 calls on 
all Members to accelerate the negotiations.  The G-10 has already shown enormous flexibility in the 
Agriculture negotiations.  I would like to remind you that the G-10 Members are, by far, those most 
affected by the solutions retained in  the current Agriculture modalities. 
 
14. Switzerland as Chair of the NAMA Negotiating Group 
 
In NAMA, we have put the emphasis, in the most recent months and weeks, on non-tariff 
measures.  There we expected acceleration of the wo rk, and I would like to thank, through you all, the 
availability and the flexibility of your representatives  in the negotiating work.  I also would like to 
thank the smaller delegations for the pragmatism shown up to now concerning the difficult situation 
of coinciding meetings which cannot always be  avoided.  And finally in the NAMA week the 
following week, we will again address the tariff aspects , and I count on those involved in bilateral and 
plurilateral negotiations to be as transparent as possibl e, so that we all benefit from the information we 
need to assess our situations. 
 
15. United States  
Thank you, Director General, for your assessment of the current situation, which we generally 
share.  Looking at developments since the start of the new year gives cause for both concern and 
cautious optimism.  There is cause for concern becau se the window of opportunity is truly narrow and 
we have not, as yet, seen Members make the pivot from talking substance to resolving substantive 
issues.  But at the same time, th ere is cause for cautious optimism in that we are hearing almost all 
Members recognize, and in fact call for, a true spirit of give and take.  Gatherings over the last week 
have indicated that there seems to be a new m ood and a better atmosphere for negotiations.  Most 
Ministers want to get beyond sterile debates of the past, and they are looking to Senior Officials and 
Ambassadors to roll up their sleeves and get the job done.  As we have said before, the first step 
towards success is to avoid the mistakes of the past.  We will not achieve success by the distraction of 
deadlines – which is a bit like making hotel reservations at a nice resort while not making the reservations to get there.  The most important dead line, from the perspective of the United Stated, is 
now.  We must begin serious negotiations now, or we will fail to profit from the current window of 
opportunity.  At the same time, there are no detours around the hard work that lies in front of us in 
each market-access pillar.  There are no blanket pr escriptions or over-arching formulaic solutions that 
will determine what individual Members will be able to  accept in terms of final, horizontal trade-offs.  
At the end of the day, there is simply no substitute for the act of sitting across the table from one another, engaging, negotiating and working through the issues in problem-solving mode.  It is clear 
that we are at a crossroads.  If we are going to seize the current window of opportunity we need to 
shift to the type of give-and-take discussions that our  Leaders and Ministers have called for.  We need 
breakthroughs soon on major roadblocks.  And we do not subscribe to the notion of inherent balance 
in the 2008 package.  By contrast, the cloth woven in 2008 has major holes, including widely acknowledged unfinished work in Services and sect orals.  Balance can only be achieved by  WT/GC/M/130 
 Page 35 
 
 
  completing our work in all areas.  The United States has made it clear from the highest level, that we 
are ready, willing, and able to engage in a proc ess of give and take on all fronts – bilateral, 
plurilateral, and multilateral.  Gi ve and take, though, can only take place at the negotiating table – not 
as a price of admission for sitting at the table.  We  fully understand that Members are looking at all 
the major players to play a leadership role in m oving the negotiations forward, building, of course, on 
existing progress.  We are ready to join with others in doing so, without forgetting that in the end, all 
Members need a package that they can support and call their own.    
__________