RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/97 
5 October 2005 
 (05-4446) 
General Council 
27 and 29 July 2005  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 27 and 29 July 2005  
 
Chairman:  Ms Amina Mohamed (Kenya) 
 
  Prior to the start of the meeting on 29 July, Mr. Pascal Lamy, Director-General-designate, as 
well as Mr. John Tsang, Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology of Hong Kong, China, 
and Chairman of the Hong Kong Ministerial Conf erence, addressed the General Council.  Their 
statements are reproduced in Annexes I and II, respectively.   Also, prior to the close of the meeting on 29 July, the Chairman and Members bid farewell to the outgoing Director-General, Dr. Supachai Panitc hpakdi.  Their statements, as well as that by 
Dr. Supachai, are reflected in Annex III. 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
1. Implementation of Paragraph 11 of the Decision on the Implementation of 
Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaratio n on the TRIPS Agreement and Public 
Health – Statement by the Chai rman of the TRIPS Council................................................2  
2. Rules of Origin – Harmonization Work Programme – Statement by the 
Chairman....................................................................................................................... ............4  
3. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the 
GATT 1994 – Communications from Hondur as and Guatemala – Statement by 
the Chairman................................................................................................................... ..........6  
4. Waivers under Article IX of  the WTO Agreement..............................................................12  
(a) Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff 
concessions – Requests for waivers..........................................................................................12  
(i) Argentina – Schedule LXIV...................................................................................................... .12 
(ii) Malaysia - Schedule XXXIX...................................................................................................... 12 
(iii) Panama - Schedule CXLI......................................................................................................... .12 
(b) United States – Requests for waivers for African Growth and Opportunity Act, 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, as amended, and Andean Trade Preference 
Act, as amended – Statement by the Chairm an of the Council for Trade in Goods .................12  
(c) Review of Waivers Pursuant to Artic le IX:4 of the WTO Agreement .....................................13  
(i) LDCs – Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Ag reement with respect to pharmaceutical 
products, granted on 8 July 2002 until 1 January 2016 ...........................................................13  WT/GC/M/97 
Page 2  
 
 (ii)
 Preferential Tariff Treatment for Least- Developed Countries, granted on 15 June 
1999 until 30 June 2009........................................................................................................ ....13  
(iii) Kimberley Process Certification Scheme for Rough Diamonds, granted on 15 May 
2003 until 31 December 2006...................................................................................................1 3 
5. Committee on Budget, Finance and Admi nistration – Recommendations of the 
Committee following its meetings of June and July 2005....................................................14  
6. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the 
Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade and Development ......................................14  
7. Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment .................................................24  
(a) Report by the Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development.................................................................................................................... .........24  
(b) Reports by Chairpersons of other WTO bodies to whom special and differential 
treatment proposals ha ve been referred ....................................................................................25  
8. Report by the Director-General on his consultative process on all outstanding 
implementation issues under Paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration .................................................................................................................... ..........30  
9. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee ........................................31  
10. Preparations for the Sixth Session of the Ministerial Conference......................................35  
(a) Attendance by International Intergovernment al Organizations as observers – Requests 
by: ............................................................................................................................ .................35  
(i) League of Arab States .......................................................................................................... .....35  
(ii) Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation (AITIC)...................................35  
(b) Election of Officers for the Sixth Session – Statement by the Chairman .................................37  
(c) Statement by the Chairman...................................................................................................... .38 
11. Chairmanship of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade in Agriculture 
and the Sub-Committee on Cotton........................................................................................40  
  
1. Implementation of Paragraph 11 of the Decision on the Implementation of Paragraph 6 
of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (WT/L/540) – Statement by the Chairman of the TRIPS Council 
1. The Chairman
 recalled that in August 2003, the Ge neral Council adopted a Decision on the 
Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 
(WT/L/540).  Paragraph 11 of that Decision provided that the Decision, including the waivers granted 
in it, shall terminate for each Member on the da te on which an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement 
replacing its provisions takes effect for that Member .  Furthermore, the Decision instructed the TRIPS 
Council to initiate, by the end of 2003, work on the preparation of such an amendment with a view to 
its adoption within six months , on the understanding that the amendment would be based, where 
appropriate, on this Decision, and on the further understanding that it would not be part of the 
negotiations referred to in paragr aph 45 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration.  At its meeting in 
June 2004, the TRIPS Council had agreed to contin ue its work on the preparation of the amendment 
with a view to making a recommendation by the end of March 2005, so that the General Council 
could conclude its work on the amendment at its first meeting thereafter.  The Chair of the TRIPS 
Council had informed the General Council, at its me eting on 27 July 2004, of these arrangements.  At  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 3 
 
 
 the General Council meeting in May, the Chair of  the TRIPS Council had informed Members of the 
status of the TRIPS Council's work on this matter, and said that more time was necessary before the 
Council would be in a position to make a recommendation to the Gene ral Council, and that the TRIPS 
Council would be reverting to this  matter at its meeting in June. 
2. Mr. Choi (Korea), Chairman of the TRIPS Council , reporting on the status of the TRIPS 
Council's work on the preparation of an amendmen t to replace the provisions of the Decision on 
Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, 
said that since his report to the General Council in Ma y, he had continued his consultations in various 
formats, and the TRIPS Council had taken up this i ssue at its meeting in June.  The TRIPS Council 
had agreed that he continue his consultations on the preparation of an amendment to the TRIPS 
Agreement pursuant to paragraph 11 of this Deci sion, with a view to agreeing on a recommendation 
as soon as possible, having regard to the hope expressed  by some delegations that this could be done 
before the summer break.  Since that time, the most  interested delegations had been actively pursuing 
consultations amongst themselves aimed at finding a way forward.  While no new proposals had as yet been tabled to add to the earlier proposal by the African Group, he unders tood that delegations had 
found these discussions very useful.  However, some more time was still necessary before the Council 
would be in a position to make a recommendation.  He was hopeful that Members might be able to 
make progress soon after the summer break.  The TRI PS Council would revert to this matter at its 
meeting in October.  He stood ready to contin ue to keep the General Council informed of 
developments. 
3. The representative of Kenya
, on behalf of the African Group , thanked the Chairman of the 
TRIPS Council for his report.  While  some delegations had been consu lting to see how best to tackle 
this issue, his delegation was deeply disappointed  that nearly two years after the Decision of 
30 August 2003, Members had not been able to  conclude their work on the amendment to 
accommodate that Decision.  The biggest problem  Members were facing was the difference in 
interpretation on what shape the amendment should ta ke.  While some Members wished to amend the 
Decision, others wished to trans pose the Decision as it stood.  Para graph 11 of the Decision said that 
the amendment would be based, where appropria te, on the Decision, but it did not mention 
transposition.  His delegation hoped that from now on, as the Chairman guided Members in these consultations, they would change their position and agree to amend the TRIPS Agreement, in order to 
be faithful to paragraph 11 of the Decision and ther eby make their work easier.  His delegation also 
hoped that since the African Group proposal was the only one on the table, that should be the basis of 
discussion until other proposals were made.  He hoped  this would help Members conclude their work 
before October, because Kenya wished to concl ude work on the amendment of the TRIPS Agreement 
before the Hong Kong Ministerial. 
4. The representative of Cuba
 supported the statement by Kenya on behalf of the African Group.  
The amendment to the TRIPS Agreement should not  include any element that would impede the 
importation or exportation of generic medicines in orde r to meet public health needs, particularly in 
Africa, where enormous numbers of people were dyin g on a daily basis.  Cuba wished to reiterate its 
view that the statement by the General Council Chairman at the time the August 2003 Decision was 
adopted was not part of that Decision, and called on  Members to adopt a constructive approach to this 
sensitive issue, in order to find an immediate a nd multilateral solution for those countries that had 
insufficient capacity to produce the drugs they needed.  In this way, Members would be faithful to 
paragraph 11 of the Decision. 
5. The representative of Brazil  said his delegation wished to place on record that Brazil 
maintained the position that the asterisked footno te in document WT/L/540 was unwarranted and 
should be deleted. WT/GC/M/97 
Page 4  
 
 6. The representative of the United States
 said that the report by the TRIPS Council Chair was a 
faithful reflection of the work that was going on.  Consultations were under way and his delegation, 
like others, hoped those consultations would come to a fruitful conclusion.  The United States 
remained fully committed to reaching an agreemen t on the amendment expeditiously, but wished to 
reiterate that it was essential, if Members were to  be successful, that the amendment preserve the 
entire package that had been agreed in August 2003.  To his delegation, it had been clear at the time 
that it had been agreed that part of the understandi ng was the Chair's statement.  Therefore, it would 
be important to the United States that Members find a way to include an express reference to the Chair's statement in the Decision.  The basis for this work continued to be the Decision.  It was the 
Decision that Members were worki ng to turn into an amendment. 
7. The General Council took note
 of the statement by the Chairman of the TRIPS Council and of 
the other statements. 
2. Rules of Origin – Harmonization Work Programme – Statement by the Chairman 
8. The Chairman  recalled that the harmonization work programme for non-preferential rules of 
origin had been launched in July 1995 in the Commi ttee on Rules of Origin, and that, due to the sheer 
number and complexity of the technical issues involve d, Members had been unable to conclude this 
work even though the deadline for its completion had been extended several times.  Since July 2002, 
when the Committee on Rules of Origin (CRO) had forwarded 94 core policy issues to the General 
Council for discussion and decision, this matter had b een taken up at the General Council level.  The 
substantive work had, since then, been pursued in informal consultations conducted by the Chair of 
the CRO, at the request and on behalf of the Chair of  the General Council.  In July 2004, the General 
Council had agreed to extend the deadline for comp letion of negotiations on the core policy issues to 
July 2005, and that following resolution of these core policy issues, the CRO would complete its 
remaining work concerning the overall architecture and technical issues by 31 December 2005. 
9. In view of the tight deadline Members we re facing, her predecessor had announced the 
following steps at the February 2005 Council meeti ng, as a purely practical means to advance the 
work on the harmonization work programme:  Firs t, that he would request the Chairs of the 
Committees on Anti-Dumping Practices, on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and on Safeguards to take up the "implications" issue in c onsultations on his behalf with Members in their 
Committees as soon as possible, with a view to a ddressing the following questions, keeping in mind 
the July 2005 deadline for comp leting negotiations on the core policy issues:  (i) whether the 
harmonized rules of origin should be applied to th e Agreements on Implementation of Article VI of 
GATT 1994, on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and on Safeguards;  and (ii) whether the 
harmonized rules of origin should be applied to the problem of circumvention of trade remedy 
measures.  Second, that he would request the Chairs of these Committees to report on the outcome of their consultations to the General Council Chair before  July 2005.  Third, that he would request the 
Chair of the CRO to continue consultations on the core policy issues on the General Council Chair's 
behalf.   The Chair had also stated that delegations  would have an opportunity to hear a full report on 
the progress of the harmonization work programme at the present Council meeting.  In this connection, she drew attention to the communica tion in document WT/GC/92 addressed to her by the 
three Chairs of the Committees concerning trade re medy measures, which summarized the work that 
had been done and the outcome of their consultations.  She wished to sincerely thank, on behalf of all 
Members, the Chairs of the three Committees, as  well as their predecessors, for having undertaken 
this considerable work at very short notice and under a tight deadline, and for the time and effort they 
had put into it.  This work had been useful in identifying the problems and clarifying the reasons for 
the differences of view that existed, and she requ ested the Chair of the CRO take this communication 
into consideration in her further work on the impli cations issue.  She then invited the Chairperson of 
the Committee on Rules of Origin to update the C ouncil on the work she had been pursuing, at the 
General Council Chair's request and behalf, on the core policy issues.  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 5 
 
 
 10. Mrs. Thorstensen (Brazil), Chairpers on of the Committee on Rules of Origin , said that over 
the past 12 months she had held four rounds of extensive, one-to-one, sm all-group, and open-ended 
consultations.  Unfortunately, however, it had not be en possible to reach consensus, and Members had 
missed the deadline for completion of negotiations  for the seventh time, due to the significant 
implications of the harmonized rules of origin fo r Members' trade policies, mainly anti-dumping, 
subsidies and safeguards issues.  Summarizing the st ate of play, she said that with regard to the 
93 product-specific issues it had again been confirme d by a number of Members that the CRO Chair's 
proposals were a good package, reflecting a fair bala nce of interests as a whole.  A number of 
delegations that had had long-sta nding positions had been able to persuade their industries to accept 
this package.  As a result, she was pleased to report that two outstanding issues had been resolved.  
One concerned the mixing of coffee or tea, and the other, petroleum products.  She also wished to 
report that Members were very close to resolution of more issues, namely, the smoking of fish, heavy salting of fish, production of curry, and cement.  Second, due to the flexibility shown by some 
Members, important progress had been made on the issues of coffee, dairy products, cocoa, juices, 
wine, medicaments, leather, textiles and footwear.  Since many delegations were seeking resolution of 
some of these issues as a package, more time was needed for full consensus on all issues.  With regard 
to the assembling of machinery and information tech nology products, the main question related to the 
use of two different criteria to determine the origin  of the good – tariff classification or value added in 
the production of a good.  Delegations had devoted si gnificant time to trying to solve this issue, and 
had discussed the "major components rule" as a possi ble compromise solution.  However, as she had 
reported to the former General Council Chair in  February 2005, it seemed clear that a major 
breakthrough could only be made after reaching a common understanding of the implications of the 
harmonized rules of origin for other WTO Agreem ents relating to trade remedy measures.  The 
reports on the outcome of informal consultations carried out by the thr ee Committee Chairpersons 
seemed to indicate that the resolution of this issue needed further work, and possibly a new approach.  
She had attended all four joint c onsultations organized by the Chairs of the three Committees with 
great expectation and interest, to see how the trad e remedy measure experts would deal with this 
complex subject.  She had thus been able to w itness first-hand how hard the three Chairs and the 
Rules Division had worked, and wished to thank them  for their sincere efforts to help facilitate the 
harmonization work programme. 
11. In this context, delegations at her consulta tions on 30 June had agreed to hold a three-day 
workshop in the near future on motor vehicles, co mputers, semi-conductors and textiles.  Not only 
origin experts, but also industry representatives w ould be invited to this workshop.  The purpose 
would be to provide delegations  and industry representatives with an opportunity not only to 
familiarise themselves with the production processes of  the goods concerned, as affected by recent 
technological changes, but also to reconsider the proposals on the table in light of the new 
international trade environment of the goods.  After the summer break, the CRO Committee would 
take up the implications issue again, keeping in mind that further progress would be very difficult 
without resolving this issue.  She recalled that in July 2004, when she had recommended that the 
General Council extend the deadline for completion of negotiations on the core policy issues once 
again, she had said that all were aware that Memb ers did not have boundless freedom to continue their 
work into the future.  Ten years had already passed  since the start of work on harmonizing rules of 
origin.  It could be estimated that around 70 per cent of the work had been completed to date, and 
Members' task was to complete the remaining 30 per cent.  At the present meeting, she wished again, 
on behalf of delegations in the informal cons ultations, to recommend that the General Council 
continue its work with a view to completing the negotiations on the core policy issues by July 2006, 
with a firm commitment to finishing the work this time.  She hoped that at the end of this new deadline, the CRO Chair would be able to make a better report to Members than the one she was 
presenting now. 
12. The Chairman
 expressed her thanks, on behalf of all Members, to the CRO Chair for her 
report, for the energy and hard work she had put  into this effort, and for her commitment and WT/GC/M/97 
Page 6  
 
 dedication to guiding Members towards the conclu sion of this long-overdue work programme in a 
timely fashion.  In light of the report she had ma de, Members had to recognize that despite the CRO 
Chair's – and Members' – best efforts to date and the useful work done over the past year, the deadline 
of July 2005 for completion of the negotiations on the 94 core policy issues could not be met.  The 
issues Members faced in their work were admitted ly difficult, especially in connection with the 
implications of the harmonized rules of origin fo r other WTO Agreements, an d required further time 
to bring to a close.  She had discussed the ques tion of further work with the CRO Chair, and 
understood that the latter had also discussed this matt er with delegations.  A ll delegations were aware 
of the importance of the issues to be resolv ed and the implications to be considered. 
13. In light of the circumstances, and the views of delegations in the cons ultations held by the 
CRO Chair, she proposed that the General Council c ontinue its work with a view to completing the 
negotiations on the core policy issues identified in document G/RO/52 by July 2006, as proposed by 
the CRO Chair.  She also proposed that this work be pursued, at her request and behalf, by the CRO 
Chair.  She further proposed that, following reso lution of these core policy issues, the Committee on 
Rules of Origin complete its remaining work con cerning the overall architecture and technical issues, 
as well as the overall coherence exercise referred to in Article 9.3(b) of the Agreement on Rules of 
Origin, by 31 December 2006. 
14. The General Council took note
 of the statement and agreed  to the Chairman's proposals. 
3. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 
– Communications from Honduras and Guat emala (WT/GC/85, WT/GC/90 and Corr.1) 
– Statement by the Chairman 
15. The Chairman  recalled that this matter had been raised by Honduras and Guatemala at the 
Council meeting in December 2004, and had been cons idered by the General Council at its meetings 
in February and May 2005.  In light of the view s expressed at those meetings, and the requests for 
consultations by Honduras and Guatemala, her predecessor and she had both held consultations on 
this matter to assist in finding a way forward.   At the May Council meeting, she had encouraged 
further discussion among the interested parties with a view to reaching a mutually satisfactory 
resolution of the concerns that had been referred to the General Council, a nd had urged all Members 
to continue to reflect on how they might move this matter forward.  In light of the views expressed at 
that meeting, she had proposed that she hold furthe r consultations on this matter before the present 
meeting. 
16. On 26 July, she had held further consultati ons to provide another opportunity for the 
Members concerned to seek clarifications, to the ex tent possible, and to see if she, as Chair, could 
facilitate a satisfactory resolution to the concerns e xpressed regarding this matter.  She had invited to 
those consultations all delegations  who had spoken at the December, February and May meetings of 
the Council, and had made clear that the consultatio ns were without prejudice to any Member's rights 
under the WTO.  Honduras and Guatemala had renewe d their calls for the Community to be more 
forthcoming, and to respond to the communications they had submitted to substantiate their case.  
They had also reiterated the importance of this matter for them, as well as their concerns for its 
systemic implications, including on the ongoing Doha round negotiations.  Several delegations had 
expressed support for the position of Honduras and Gu atemala, and had noted that this matter 
involved two small countries heavily dependent on a single export product – although this was not the 
only product of interest in respect of which claims  of negotiating rights had been submitted – and had 
urged the Community to explore other creative, alte rnatives through which the real concerns could be 
addressed.  Delegations had noted too, that there were several distinct and ongoing WTO processes 
relating to this matter, and that each particular process  needed to be given due consideration.  In this 
context, some delegations had re iterated concerns about the unsatisfactory operation of their own 
Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII processes with  the Community – including the question of  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 7 
 
 
 compensatory adjustment – which they believed were relevant to the overall question of non-
recognition of rights raised by Honduras and Guatem ala under this item.  One delegation had urged all 
parties to negotiate on the substantive issues with th e aim of reaching some concrete alternatives, and 
had expressed its willingness to participate in finding such alternatives.  It had been suggested that 
one such avenue might be the arbitration process  currently under way with regard to the single 
Community-wide tariff on bananas. 
17. Although the consultations had not produced any conclusive way forward, she had sensed a 
willingness on the part of all sides to explore other avenues of resolution, even as the current process 
under this Agenda item continued.  She believed that  there were ways forward on this issue, and had 
encouraged further discussion among the interested parties with a view to reaching a mutually 
satisfactory resolution of the concerns referred to the General Council.  She had also offered her good 
offices to facilitate this.  She urged all Members to contribute to moving this issue forward now and in the autumn, together with all the other issues Members would be engaged in at that time. 
18. The representatives of Argentina,
 Ecuador , Colombia , Mexico , Costa Rica , Peru  and 
Paraguay  thanked the Chairman for her efforts to try to make some headway in the consultations. 
19. The representative of Honduras  recalled that in August 2004, the European Communities had 
notified the WTO of its intention to modify its concessions on bananas under Article XXVIII of 
GATT 1994.  Acting with due diligence, his country had requested that its rights as a substantial 
supplier be recognized.  In its request, Honduras had more than fulfilled the relevant requirements in 
Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII and in the 1980 Procedur es for Negotiations under Articles XXIV:6 and 
XXVIII.  Honduras had also provided detailed inform ation with the appropriate statistical-legal 
analysis in document WT/GC/90.  It was cause for regret that the EC had not replied to Honduras's 
statistical-legal analysis, and had shown no signs of  doing so.  Twelve months had elapsed since this 
process had begun, and the EC had not replied to a single one of the questions raised by Honduras 
requesting the Community to explain to the Gene ral Council and to the Honduran Government why it 
had not responded to Honduras's claims. 
20. Honduras wished to place on record that it found it unacceptable that no effort had been made 
to duly fulfil the provisions of paragraph 4 of the 1980 Procedures.  According to that paragraph, the 
General Council was empowered to play an active role when a clai m was ignored, since it was clear 
that that provision was completely inoperative when a Member was unable to obtain any answer to its 
questions.  However, the strategy of ignoring Ho nduras's request, as a means of depriving it of its 
legitimate rights, could not be allowed to succeed .  Consequently, Honduras would continue to press 
its claim and would keep this matter on the Council' s agenda until the EC recognized its rights as a 
substantial supplier and granted it the compensation that was its lawful due.  There were several 
proceedings under the auspices of the General Council th at related to this matter, and although each of 
them had its own procedure, they all pointed toward the Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong.  It was 
cause for concern for Honduras that although this ag enda item was one of the easiest to resolve, the 
EC had not even provided a reply to it.  Under these circumstances, he asked what Honduras could 
hope for from the EC under the current Development R ound, if the signs already indicated a failure to 
fulfil the rules that governed this organization.  Honduras was deeply concer ned about the multilateral 
trading system, and through the General Council – wh ich was the highest body of this organization – 
urged the EC to be pro-active in fulfilling its comm itments and obligations to WTO Members and, in 
particular, to demonstrate that it was prepared to comply with the concept of a "Development Round". 
21. The representative of Guatemala  recalled that in December 2004, Guatemala had asked to 
have included on the General Council's agenda as a standing item the European Communities' non-
recognition of its rights under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of GATT 1994, within the negotiating 
process concerning the enlargement of the Europe an Union.  Although the Chair had regularly 
convened consultations in search of a mutually agreed  solution to Guatemala's complaint, the situation WT/GC/M/97 
Page 8  
 
 remained unchanged.  The EC refused to recogni ze the rights of a country that had neither the 
economic nor the political strength – resources the EC did have – to assert its claims.  It was 
unthinkable that one of the most powerful Members of this organization, which played a significant 
part in the drafting and formulation of the rules of multilateral trade, shoul d refuse to apply those 
rules.  However, the attitude displayed thus far by the EC and its repeated denial of Guatemala's claim 
suggested to his delegation that the Marrakesh Decl aration, which enshrined Members' conviction that 
the creation of the WTO would strengthen the global  economy and lead to more growth in trade, 
amounted to idle words for small countries such as Gu atemala.  His delegation wished to thank those 
countries that had supported its claim, and to app eal for a reaction from Members that had thus far 
remained silent, because Guatemala considered the claim it was making, together with Honduras, was 
of systemic interest to the membership. 
22. The representative of Argentina
 said that he would not reiterate  questions of substance or his 
Government's position on this matter, but wished to ra ise two specific points.  First, in light of the 
discussions under way, it seemed there had to be a way to move things forward in the autumn.  
Exploring alternative avenues would be a useful way to try to do that, and his delegation would 
certainly be prepared to work with others to try to find new ways of solving this problem.  Second, 
regarding a point raised by Honduras, this matter shoul d not be added to the very complicated agenda 
that was developing for the Hong Kong Ministerial Conf erence.  It would be better to deal with this 
matter soon, and thus would be a good idea to  try to explore alternative avenues soon. 
23. The representative of Brazil  fully supported the concerns expressed by Honduras and 
Guatemala.  This was a matter of great importance not only to the two countries concerned, but also 
one of cross-cutting importance to a ll Members.  For this reason, Brazi l wished to reiterate its support 
for the concerns that had been raised.  Brazil urge d the Community to listen to these concerns, and to 
bring to the consultations solutions that would r espond to the just demands of these two countries. 
24. The representative of Uruguay  said that in the interests of brev ity, he wished simply to restate 
Uruguay's interest in resolving this matter very s oon because it agreed with others that this was a 
matter of principle of cross-cutting importance.  Ur uguay, like Argentina, would be pleased to work 
with the Chair to see if alternative ways of dealing with this matter could be found that would lead to 
a prompt solution. 
25. The representative of Ecuador  reiterated his delegation's s upport for Honduras and Guatemala 
and its view that their rights should be respected.  This was a matter of systemic importance to the 
organization, and dealing with it would be in the inte rest of transparency and in the overall interest of 
the multilateral trading system.  As his delega tion had stated in the past, the claims under 
Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII were matters of substa nce, which had been clearly outlined in the 
communications from the two countries concerned.  This process, like those relating to the enlargement of the European Union and the with drawal of concessions under Articles XXIV:6 and 
XXVIII, were separate processes, as was the question of arbitration pursuant to the Annex to the 
waiver granted to the EC at the Doha Minister ial Conference in 2001.  These were all separate and 
distinct matters.  Ecuador wished the Community to respond in a positive fashion as soon as possible, 
and to do so in whatever way seemed appropriate.  Ec uador was prepared to play the role of facilitator 
in this process.  This matter had to be settled as soon as possible, and certainly before the end of the 
year. 
26. The representative of Colombia
 reiterated Colombia's support for the claims by Honduras and 
Guatemala.  As stated in the Chairman's consulta tions and at other meetings  of the General Council, 
Colombia supported these requests because Honduras a nd Guatemala had put forward justifiable legal 
arguments to support their position vis-à-vis the EC.  As Ecuador had stated, the claims by Guatemala 
and Honduras were related to the enlargement of th e EC and not to the establishment of the single 
tariff on bananas.  These were two separate matters , although there been some confusion because both  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 9 
 
 
 matters involved the same product.  In the case of  some countries, such as Colombia, although their 
rights to participate in negotiations with the Co mmunity had been recognized, these negotiations had 
yet to be concluded and the Community had not recognized claims for compensation. 
27. The representative of Mexico  reiterated his delegation's s upport for the requests by Honduras 
and Guatemala.  It was necessary, and Mexico's wish, that this matter be resolved positively as 
quickly as possible.  His delegation would remain at  the Chairman's disposal to assist in any way 
possible. 
28. The representative of Costa Rica  reiterated his delegation's support for the requests by 
Honduras and Guatemala for recognition of their righ ts under Article XXIV:6.  Both delegations had 
properly substantiated their right to participate in  the negotiations on EC enlargement with arguments 
that the EC had not refuted.  Costa Rica had par ticipated in the consultations the Chairman had 
conducted.  His delegation was surprised that the EC continued to try to link the negotiating process 
on EC enlargement under Article XXIV to the establis hment of a single tariff for bananas, which was 
currently under arbitration.  Costa Rica wished to  reiterate that these were two separate processes.  
They were different both in nature and in terms of  Members' rights and the EC's obligations.  He 
added that, as was the case for some other delega tions, although Costa Rica's rights to participate in 
negotiations with the Community had been recognize d, these negotiations had so far proved fruitless.  
Costa Rica hoped that the requests by Honduras and Guatemala would meet with an early and satisfactory response. 
29. The representative of Peru
 supported the request by Honduras and Guatemala for recognition 
of their rights under Article XXIV:6.  Peru hoped th at in the next few months a solution would be 
found regarding the justified claims from these de legations, and urged the EC to respond favourably 
to them. 
30. The representative of Indonesia  said his delegation shared the views of Honduras and 
Guatemala with respect to th e non-recognition of rights under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII.  The 
issue of a substantial vis-à-vis  a principal supplying interest, as contained in Article XXVIII, had a 
long history.  This referred to a Member's right  to compensation if another Member modified its 
schedule of tariff concessions in such a way as to adversely affect the interests of the Member 
concerned.  Since this Article was vague and c ould not accommodate the interests of all Members, 
one of the results of the Uruguay Round negotiations  had been the adoption of the Understanding on 
the Interpretation of Article XXVIII, which made a clear interpretation of who actually had a principal 
or substantial supplying interest, and who had the right to claim compensation, although a country 
might have no Initial Negotiating Rights.  This U nderstanding had been adopted in order to protect 
Members who were deemed to have a principal su pplying interest but had no INRs, particularly 
developing countries and LDCs.  Para graph 2 of the Understanding clearly stated that "[w]here a 
Member considers that it has a principal supplying  interest in terms of paragraph 1, it should 
communicate its claim in writing, with supporting ev idence, to the Member proposing to modify or 
withdraw a concession, and at the same time inform the Secretariat."  In Indonesia's view, the phrase 
"in terms of paragraph 1" corres ponded to a country which considered it had a principal supplying 
interest but did not have an INR.  However, based on this paragraph, the right to claim compensation 
had to be recognized.  There was no doubt that for Honduras and Guatemala, exports of bananas 
played a great role in propelling their economies.  Indonesia continued to believe that, based on the 
data provided, these two countries had a principal supplying interest regarding bananas, as this 
product had played and was playing a great role in contributing to the economies of rural areas, and in 
turn to increasing the standard of living in these two countries. 
31. The representative of the Philippines  noted the recent submission by Honduras of 
18 May 2005 (WT/GC/90) and hoped the membership could use this document as a basis for further 
discussions on this matter.  His delegation fully joined  and endorsed the statement by Indonesia.  This WT/GC/M/97 
Page 10  
 
 statement, like that of Honduras's submission, provi ded a recent analysis of the rules and issues 
involved, and logically called for the appropriate rec ognition by the EC of affected countries' rights to 
compensation.  Regarding the specific interests of  the Philippines, his delegation wished only to 
reiterate its view that under the rules which had been clarified and supplemented through the 1980 
Procedures and other documents adopted by the Gene ral Council, it was the obligation of the Member 
or customs union that was attempting to withdr aw concessions to first commence procedures for 
negotiations and consultati ons, and to make appropriate offers  of compensation to the affected 
Members prior to effecting the withdrawal of t hose concessions.  Thus, further consultations among 
the interested parties, with a view to arriving at  concrete offers of co mpensation or appropriate 
alternative measures should be encouraged, taking into account the spirit and intent of the WTO 
agreements of maintaining a balance of commitm ents.  Furthermore, if required, a possible 
clarification of the rules might also be appropriate  under the circumstances, in order to make them 
clear, transparent and unambiguous for the benefit of all Members. 
32. The representative of Paraguay
 said this matter had gone on for longer than one would have 
hoped.  Although Paraguay did not ha ve a substantial interest in th is matter, it felt it necessary to 
speak in favour of the preservation of the multila teral trading system, which required responsibility on 
the part of all Members – and particularly on the part of the largest economies – when dealing with 
issues such as the specific and well founded requ ests from Honduras and Guatemala.  His delegation 
wished to see justice prevail in this organization.   This was a fundamental element, without which 
Members could not move forward.  To this basic c oncept of justice, one had to add the element of 
equity when dealing with small economies such as Honduras and Guatemala.  Paraguay therefore 
urged the Chairman to continue consultations aimed at finding a solution to this issue, and also called 
on the Community to respond appropriately to these and other requests fro m developing countries. 
33. The representative of El Salvador  thanked the Chairman for her efforts on this matter, which 
was of interest to it.  As on previous occasions, El  Salvador wished to join in support of the request 
from Guatemala and Honduras on this systemic issue.   In order to avoid setting a negative precedent 
for the organization, all avenues should be explored  to find a positive response to this request on the 
principles indicated by Guatemala and Honduras.  This matter had gone on for a long time without resolution, and El Salvador wished to  see it resolved as quickly as possible. 
34. The representative of Panama
 said that given the continuing and well substantiated requests of 
Honduras and Guatemala and their increasing appeals in the General Council, and the number of 
delegations who had asked the Community to respond to those requests, Members had to take up this 
issue after the summer break and find the proper ave nue for dealing with these well justified and well 
documented requests on a very important subject.  His delegation hoped that with the Chairman's 
assistance, Members would be able to find a solution. 
35. The representative of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  supported what it said was a just 
request from Honduras and Guatemala, not simply b ecause it was just, but also  because it was related 
to the credibility of the WTO.  When a small count ry made a request and a very powerful country or 
countries failed to respond, this hindered the transpar ency in the organization.  If the opposite were 
the case – if the EC had a complaint against H onduras or Guatemala – he wondered how long the 
matter would go on before a solution was found. 
36. The representative of Bolivia  said his delegation fully supported the request by Guatemala 
and Honduras, mainly because it fell well within the pr inciples and procedures of the organization.  
Bolivia also hoped this matter would be reso lved before the next Ministerial Conference. 
37. The representative of the European Communities  said that the Chair's report faithfully 
reflected the discussions that had held.  He also thanked Honduras and Guatemala and the many other 
Members who had spoken.  As the Community had already stated on several previous occasions, in  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 11 
 
 
 particular at the February and Ma y General Council meetings, it attach ed the utmost importance to the 
WTO agreements, and to the ability of Members to ex ercise their rights and fulfill their obligations.  
The question of rights under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII was no different.  The Community had 
scrupulously based itself on WTO law and well-established practice when recognizing or rejecting claims in these particular cases.  The Community could not, and should not, unilaterally change or 
add to the WTO rules for establishing and according supplying rights.  One of the difficulties in the 
current discussion was that Members were dealing w ith questions of legal interpretation, which the 
General Council was not particularly  well equipped to deal with.  On  the other hand, however, the 
Community obviously recognized the right of any Member to bring difficult issues, including legal ones, to the General Council.  Both Honduras a nd Guatemala, as well as other delegations, had 
underlined that, in fact, Members were dealing with  systemic issues, and this was what made the 
solution so difficult.  Normally one did not solve syst emic issues on an ad hoc basis, but rather in a 
systemic way.  Some delegations continued to sugg est that the Community should, in this particular 
case, make a special effort and unilaterally grant negotiating rights to small, vulnerable developing 
countries with a high dependency on specific products , even if they did not meet long-established 
WTO rules and practice for this purpose.  There was perhaps a case for reviewing GATT/WTO rules 
in this area.  However, in the Community's view, this should be done in the appropriate WTO forum, 
and not on an ad hoc basis but rather in a way that would enable all Members to subscribe to the rules 
and agree to apply them in a fully comparable way in the future.  His delegation noted with interest 
the statement by Brazil in this context, as well as those by others, in particular Paraguay, on small 
developing countries.  He reiterated that the Comm unity was quite willing to engage itself in this 
direction – in other words, to have a debate of this sort. 
38. In the meantime, however, the Community woul d do what it had done with any other Member 
who had difficulties or wished to have consulta tions – namely, to meet with those Members who 
believed that the Community's examination was mist aken, and to look further into the matter on the 
basis of solid documentation, applying the princi ples for establishing supplying rights as they were 
laid down in the rules.  His delegation stood ready to continue to do so.  Regarding the 
Article XXIV:6 negotiations following the EU's re cent enlargement, while there was still clearly 
much work to be done, the Community continued to make progress and hoped to continue to do so in 
the near future.  On the question of the move to a tariff-only regime on bananas, as foreseen in the 
Doha waiver on this issue, as all Members were aware, the EC was not currently in de facto  
negotiations, but rather in an arbitration procedur e which it was confident would lead to a mutually 
satisfactory and lasting resolution to the long-st anding banana question.  In this regard, the 
Community hoped to be able to report further pr ogress by the time Members touched on this subject 
at the next General Council meeting.  In the meanti me, his delegation stood ready to participate in any 
consultations the Chairman felt would be helpful. 
39. The representative of Honduras
 expressed appreciation for delegations' support for its claim.  
These delegations had expressed a systemic concern, and had appealed to the Council for a solution to 
this matter as quickly as possible.  In response to  the points made by the EC, he said his delegation 
hoped for action on the part of the EC, not just words.  Honduras hoped that the EC would truly respect the rules of this organization.  His delegatio n wished to reiterate to the EC that it was not 
asking for any favours, but simply requesting that  its rights be recognized.  Honduras would continue 
to defend its rights.  Regardless of whether or  not Honduras was a small-economy country, it knew 
that it was covered by the rules of the organizati on, and again urged the EC to live up to these rules 
and to demonstrate that it was committed to co mpleting faithfully the Doha Development Round. 
40. The representative of Guatemala
 said that like Honduras, his delegation wished to thank 
delegations for their expressions of support for their claim.  Discussion was only useful if there was 
an effort to seek a solution.  In its statement at the consultations the previous day, the EC had simply 
presented statistics – information that had been suppl ied to the EC by Honduras and Guatemala.  One 
was only going to move forward in finding an u nderstanding regarding the question of substantial WT/GC/M/97 
Page 12  
 
 suppliers in this case if there was real movement , and Guatemala thanked the Chairman for taking 
interest in this matter.  His delegation hoped th at by the time the General Council met again, the 
Chairman would be in a position to report progress. 
41. The General Council took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting, and that the Chair would hold further consultations in the m eantime with the aim of moving 
this matter forward. 
4. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement 
(a) Introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff concessions – 
Requests for waivers 
(i) Argentina – Schedule LXIV (G/L/735/Rev.1, G/C/W/514/Rev.1) 
(ii) Malaysia - Schedule XXXIX (G/L/734, G/C/W/512) 
(iii) Panama - Schedule CXLI (G/L/736, G/C/W/515) 
42. The Chairman  drew attention to the requests from Argentina, Malaysia and Panama for 
waivers for the introduction of Harmonized System 1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff concessions, and to the respective draft decisions in documents G/C/W/514/Rev.1, 512 and 515.  
These requests had been considered by the Council fo r Trade in Goods at its meeting on 15 June.  In 
the absence of the Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods, and on his request and behalf, she 
reported that the Goods Council on 15 June had approved the draft decisions in documents 
G/C/W/514/Rev.1, 512 and 515, and had recommended that these draft decisions be forwarded to the 
General Council for adoption.  On this basis, she proposed that, in acco rdance with the Decision-
Making Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 
(WT/L/93), the General Council adopt the draft decisions in documents G/C/W/514/Rev.1, 512 and 
515. 
43. The General Council so agreed
.1 
(b) United States – Requests for waivers for Afri can Growth and Opportunity Act (G/C/W/509 
and Add.1), Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery  Act, as amended (G/C/W/508 and Add.1), 
and Andean Trade Preference Ac t, as amended (G/C/W/510 and Add.1) – Statement by the 
Chairman of the Council for Trade in Goods 
44. The Chairman  drew attention to the requests for waivers from the United States in documents  
G/C/W/509 and Add.1, G/C/W/508 and Add.1, and G/C/W/510 and Add.1. 
45. In the absence of the Chairman of the Counc il for Trade in Goods, and at his request and 
behalf, she read out the following statement the la tter had intended to make at the present meeting: 
 "The United States delegation presented three requ ests for waivers pursuant to Article IX.3 of 
the WTO Agreement to the Council for Trade in Goods at its meeting on 11 March 2005.  In document G/C/W/508, the United States requested  a waiver to extend and expand the scope 
of its existing waiver for the Caribbean Basin Economic and Recovery Ac t, as amended.  In 
document G/C/W/509, the United States requested  a waiver for the African Growth and 
Opportunity Act, and in document G/C/W/510, the United States requested a waiver for the 
Andean Trade Preference Act, as amended.  Supplemental information on each of the 
                                                     
 
1 The Decisions were subsequently  circulated in documents WT/L/618, 619 and 620, respectively.  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 13 
 
 
 programmes was also provided in documents G/C/W/508/Add.1, G/C/W/509/Add.1 and 
G/C/W/510/Add.1. 
  "The Goods Council considered these requests at its formal meetings on 11 March, 15 June, 
and 15 July 2005.  In addition, two informal  consultations were held on 5 April and 
27 May 2005.  Questions were raised at these m eetings and had been circulated in documents 
G/C/W/516, G/C/W/519, G/C/W/520 and G/C/W/527.  Responses were received by the United States delegation to the first three set s of questions and circulated in documents 
G/C/W/518 and G/C/W/526.  The Council was waiting for replies to the last set of questions which were posed only at the 15 July meeting. 
 
 "As was evident, the Council for Trade in  Goods had been unable to complete its 
consideration of the waiver requests during the 90 days foreseen in Article IX.3.  It therefore 
requests that the General Council agree to allow it to continue consideration of the three 
requests and to report back to the Genera l Council once it had completed this work." 
 
46. She then proposed – in the light of this statem ent and the request that had been made by the 
Goods Council – that the General Council agree to a llow the Goods Council to continue consideration 
of the three requests from the United States and to  report back to the General Council once it had 
completed this work. 
47. The General Council took note
 of the statement and so agreed . 
(c) Review of Waivers Pursuant to Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement 
(i) LDCs – Article 70.9 of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to pharmaceutical products, 
granted on 8 July 2002 until 1 January 2016 (WT/L/478) 
(ii) Preferential Tariff Treatment for Least-Developed Countries, granted on 15 June 1999 until 
30 June 2009 (WT/L/304) 
(iii) Kimberley Process Certificati on Scheme for Rough Diamonds , granted on 15 May 2003 until 
31 December 2006 (WT/L/518) 
48. The Chairman  recalled that, in accordance with para graph 4 of Article IX of the WTO 
Agreement, "any waiver granted for a period of mo re than one year shall be reviewed by the 
Ministerial Conference not later than one year afte r it was granted, and thereafter annually until the 
waiver terminates."  In keeping with this provi sion, the three waivers listed under this item were 
before the General Council for review.  With regard to the waiver in sub-item (ii) for LDCs under the 
TRIPS Agreement, she noted that in connection with  the approval of the draft waiver at the meeting 
of the TRIPS Council in June 2002, the Chairman of the Council had noted that it was understood, in 
regard to the review foreseen in paragraph 2 of that waiver, that the exceptional circumstances 
justifying the waiver would continue to exist fo r least-developed country Members until its expiry 
date of 2016. 
49. The General Council took note  of the Chairman's statement,  and that the General Council 
would revert to the review of multi-year waiver s under Article IX.4 of the WTO Agreement at its 
meeting in December. WT/GC/M/97 
Page 14  
 
 5. Committee on Budget, Finance and Admini stration – Recommendations of the 
Committee following its meetings of June and July 2005 (WT/BFA/78) 
50. The Chairman
 drew attention to the recommendations  of the Budget Committee following its 
meetings of June and July  in document WT/BFA/78. 
51. Mr. Postma (Netherlands), Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration , said that document WT/BFA/78 containe d the recommendations of the Committee's 
meetings held on 29 June and 11 July 2005.  Due to time constr aints, the full report of the Committee 
would be presented at the next meeting of the General Council.  The two recommendations which 
required decisions by the General Council concer ned the new WTO Annexe and the duration of the 
mandate of the external auditor.  Regarding the fi rst issue, the Committee had examined in detail the 
revised cost estimates for the new WTO Annexe on th e Avenue de France.  He recalled that it had 
been foreseen that the original cost of Sw F 50 million for the construction costs would be financed 
through an interest-free 50-year loan from the Swiss authorities.  It had now been proposed that the 
initial estimates be revised upwards by Sw F 10 milli on, to Sw F 60 million.  The additional amount 
was foreseen for the following:  (i) Sw F 6.5 million for elements which had not been included in the 
original plans – 5.1 million for security and 1.4 m illion for archives;  (ii) Sw F 950,000 for additional 
fees to specialized technicians;  and (iii) Sw F 2. 55 million relating to price inflation. The General 
Council's approval of this recommendation would aut horize the Director-General to notify the Swiss 
authorities of Members' agreement to the revised co st estimates and to complete the tendering process 
for the construction of the new annexe. The Comm ittee had made the recommendation on the basis of 
certain understandings which were in tended to minimize the possibilities of  any further cost increases.  
He then read out the text of the recommendation contained in document WT/BFA/78. 
52. Regarding the recommendation concerning the Extern al Auditor, he recalled that the five-year 
term of the Austrian Court of Audit as External  Auditor would end with the accounts of 2006.  In 
view of the fact that the formal audit report ha d to cover the two annual financial periods of the 
biennium, the recommendation proposed that the exis ting mandate of the Austrian Court of Audit as 
External Auditor of the WTO accounts and the WTO Pension Plan accounts be extended by one year 
to include the accounts of the 2006-2007 biennium.  He then read out the text of the recommendation contained in document WT/BFA/78.  With regard to the funding of the Doha Development Agenda 
Trust Fund, he urged Members who had made pledges to  follow up their pledges with the transfer of 
funds.  At the present time, some Sw F 3.6 million in pledges remained to be received.  Receipt of these funds would put the cash-flow of the Fund on a much more solid basis. 
53. The General Council took note
 of the statement and approved  the Budget Committee's 
specific recommendations in document WT/BFA/78. 
6. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
54. The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting in Febr uary and March 2002, the General Council 
took note of a framework and procedures for the conduct of the Work Programme on Small 
Economies, under which this Work Programme sh all be a standing item on the General Council's 
agenda.  The framework and procedures also provi de that the Committee on Trade and Development 
shall report regularly to the General Council on the pr ogress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on this 
subject. 
55. Mr. Senadhira (Sri Lanka), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the Committee on Trade 
and Development , reporting on his own responsibility on the Work Programme for Small Economies, 
said that since the most recent formal meeting of the Dedicated Session on 25 May, work had continued through informal consultations with gro ups of interested Members.  The Work Programme  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 15 
 
 
 in the Dedicated Session was now approaching a key juncture in its work.  Earlier in the year, 
Members had agreed to move ahead using a three-st ep approach.  This appr oach provided, as per the 
mandate in paragraph 35 of  the Doha Declaration,  a way of examining the issues relating to the trade 
of small, vulnerable economies, with the objectiv e of framing responses to trade-related issues 
identified for the fuller integration of these econom ies into the multilateral trading system, without 
creating a sub-category of WTO Members.  The first two steps of this approach were to identify the 
characteristics of the small, vulnerable economi es and the trade-related problems which could 
reasonably be attributed to those characteristic s.  The Dedicated Session has made good progress in 
considering the characteristics and examining the trade-related problems.  He said that it was important to point out th at Members had been deliberating on aspects of these two steps in a manner 
that would not specifically identify a sub-category of countries.  The third step – the one which the 
Dedicated Session was about to start examining – i nvolved trying to frame responses to those trade-
related problems.  In the most recent proposal discussed in the Committee, Members had examined some "elements of responses" which could help pave the way for making certain recommendations.  Members were now poised to begin work on what some of the proponents had called the "solution 
phase".  Another aspect of the work on small economi es was related to the fact that many issues of 
concern to small, vulnerable economie s were actually the subject of negotiation in other bodies.  The 
Dedicated Session was not a negotiating group per se,  but it was part of the Doha Work Programme.  
Some Members believed that some of the specific issues raised in the Dedicated Session might be 
dealt with by the relevant negotiating groups, while others wished to avoid a possible duplication of 
work.  He was of the view that the Dedicated Se ssion could act in a parallel process alongside the 
negotiating bodies. 
56. The examination of the proposals of the smal l economies by the negotiating bodies should be 
done in light of the respective mandates and framewo rk agreed by Members in the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration and the July 2004 Decision of the General Council.  While noting that  some of the 
negotiating bodies might not be ready to consider  these proposals until the main elements in their 
respective areas had been clarified, it was necessary to recognize that the negotiating groups should 
consider the proposals which addressed the trade-re lated problems of small, vulnerable economies in 
an expeditious and timely manner, in order to comp ly with paragraph 35 of the Doha Declaration.  
The Dedicated Session would monitor this process to ensure that an arrangement was found to address 
the concerns of small, vulnerable economies in  an appropriate and ba lanced manner in the 
negotiations.  He remained optimistic about addr essing the mandate of the Dedicated Session and 
about finding solutions to the trade-related problem s of small and vulnerable economies.  With this 
objective, it was his intention to intensify work in the coming months.  He urged all Members to stay 
engaged in this process, so that they could arri ve at appropriate recommendations to the General 
Council in time for the Sixth Ministerial Conference. 
57. The representatives of Barbados for the small-economy countries
, Bolivia , Honduras , 
Guatemala , Dominican Republic , El Salvador , Paraguay , Solomon Islands , Jamaica , Cuba , Chile , 
St. Kitts and Nevis for Antigua and Barbuda , Dominica , Grenada , St. Vincent and the Grenadines , 
and St. Kitts and Nevis , Paraguay  and Trinidad and Tobago  thanked the Chair of the CTD in 
Dedicated Session for his report. 
58. The representative of Barbados , on behalf of the small-economy countries , said that while the 
report by the Chair of the CTD Dedicated Session did capture the results of the process carried out in 
that body, it was important to present to the C ouncil the perspective from which the small-economy 
countries had assessed both the process in the CT D Dedicated Session as well as the equally 
important developments which had taken place outside of that body, in particular, in the negotiating 
and other bodies.  One year earlier, the Work Pr ogramme had been caught in a circular discussion 
phase.  Despite the clarity of Ministers’ vision in Doha to create a Work Programme integrated into 
the DDA as part of the balance achieved, there ha d been little meaningful movement on the solutions 
needed to allow the full implementation of that  mandate.  Since the July 2004 General Council WT/GC/M/97 
Page 16  
 
 Decision, Members had been able to make progress of a substantial nature.  While there was much 
that still needed to be done, and he would address th at shortly, it was equally  important to highlight 
the steps, small as they might be, which had been made on the Work Programme. 
59. As the small-economy countries had previously reported, Members appeared to understand 
better the unique challenges faced by small, vulnera ble economies, and appeared to have accepted the 
characteristics-based approach.  Consistent with this approach, the small-economy proponents had 
tabled two documents – WT/COMTD/SE/W/12, which elaborated on the idea of an indicative and cumulative list of specific characteristics and problems shared by small, vulnerable economies, and WT/COMTD/SE/W/13/Rev.1, which sought to lay the foundation for the way forward in terms of presenting key elements for responses.  These proposals had been the result of intensive bilateral and 
plurilateral consultations with those trading pa rtners who supported the methodology embarked upon, 
and with those who still had concerns.  The sm all-economy countries had found these consultations 
very useful and had been heartened by the positive engagement exhibited by their partners, as well as 
the constructive manner in which Members had been able to overcome some of the hurdles which had 
previously inhibited progress in the Work Programme .  One of the important messages received from 
their trading partners during these consultations , as well as from discussions in the CTD Dedicated 
Session, was the need for the small economies to engage with the negotiating groups and other bodies 
in the WTO in terms of tabling of specific nego tiating proposals and concerns.  While recognizing and 
appreciating the important role of the CTD Dedicate d Session, it had been agreed that specific small-
economy negotiating proposals would be best served in the arena in which the issues were being 
negotiated – i.e. the negotiating groups.  To th is end the small economies had already tabled 
documents in the Negotiating Groups on Agricultu re and NAMA, and a number of Caribbean and 
Pacific small economies had tabled a proposal on fisheries subsidies in the Negotiating Group on Rules.  It was their expectation that these submissions, and those th at would follow, would be given 
special attention by these negotiating groups.  It w as also their expectation that the General Council 
would be in a position to request the negotiating groups and other WTO bodies to specifically address 
the trade-related problems of small, vulnerable economies and to consider such proposals in an 
expeditious and timely manner, in order to comp ly with the Doha mandate and the July 2004 
Decision.  Such action by the General Council would be  fully consistent with its role as set out in the 
Framework and Procedures agreed to on 5 Marc h 2002, in which the General Council was mandated 
to review the Small Economies Work Programme and,  as appropriate, direct relevant bodies to frame 
responses to the trade-related issues of small, vulnerable economies, and in accordance with 
paragraph 35 of the Doha Declaration, where it was charged with making recommendations for action 
to the Ministerial Conference. 
60. He had set out what the small-economy countries considered to be the positive strides made in 
2005 under the Work Programme on Small Economi es.  However, he wished to express these 
countries' continued disappointment that after more than four years, the validity of the Work 
Programme – and indeed, the special concerns of  small, vulnerable economies – continued to be 
called into question by certain de legations.  While respecting the pos itions of all Members, there was 
equal need to respect the mandates and instructions ag reed to by Ministers.  It was contrary to the 
spirit and intent of the DDA mandate that real  substantial movement on the Work Programme 
continued to be hindered by qu estions of process and by constant assertions which had been 
consistently proven to be without any basis.  Pr ocess was important, and c onsultation was imperative, 
but the need for meaningful implementation was indisputable.  The Work Programme on Small 
Economies might not be a high priority for the majority of the membership, but for the small, vulnerable economies and their peoples, it was the mo st important consideration in this Round.  A 
small, vulnerable economy would re main vulnerable unless the WTO addressed its trade concerns as 
an integral component of its developmental objectiv es.  With that in mind, he assured Members that 
the Ministers of the 22 small-economy countries woul d want and expect to see a meaningful outcome 
of this Work Programme at the Hong Kong Ministerial.   He trusted that this was the collective will of  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 17 
 
 
 the membership, and the small-economy countries wi shed to thank the Chairman and the trading 
partners for their continue d constructive engagement. 
61. The representatives of Honduras , Guatemala , Dominican Republic , El Salvador , Cuba , 
St. Kitts and Nevis for Antigua and Barbuda , Dominica , Grenada , St. Vincent and the Grenadines , and 
St. Kitts and Nevis , Paraguay , Solomon Islands , Jamaica , Trinidad and Tobago  and Mauritius  
supported the statement by Barbados on be half of the small-economy countries. 
62. The representative of Bolivia  thanked Barbados for the stat ement on behalf of the small-
economy countries.  The latter's contributions had been presented in the Dedicated Session and had 
formed the basis of the discussions therein.  Boliv ia considered the CTD Dedicated Session to have 
made important progress since the approval of the July  2004 package.  That p ackage gave priority to 
certain areas of negotiation and subjects for discussi on on the basis of the provisions of the Doha 
Declaration.  Bolivia had observed during this initia l phase that all Members had been able to channel 
their efforts into a three-step approach – iden tification of characteristics, problems and possible 
responses – which had not necessarily been conceived in sequential terms.  Such an approach had 
enabled the small economies to present an indicative,  cumulative list of characteristics and problems, 
which had subsequently been supplemented by the identification of areas for negotiation which these 
countries believed would require some degree of flexibility.  At the most recent CTD Dedicated Session, several Members had requested the small- economy countries to be even more specific in 
their objectives and proposals.  Accordingly, wh en negotiations resumed after the summer break, 
these countries would take up this task and respond to this requirement in the relevant bodies, always 
taking into account the rules of the organization, th eir offensive and defensive interests, the rhythm 
and speed of the negotiations and the scale of the proposals. 
63. The representative of Honduras
 said that since the beginning of this process, the group of 
small-economy countries had sought to be pro-active and had submitted several proposals whose aim 
had been to advance the process and follow the appr oach set out by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the CTD.  As Barbados had stated , the proposals required bilateral and multilateral 
consultations with the trading partners interested  in the advancement of the process and also with 
those that had expressed concerns.  The small ec onomies had submitted documen ts in the Negotiating 
Groups on Agriculture and NAMA, in conformity w ith document WT/L/447, which explicitly stated 
that this did not prejudice the right of Members to submit for consideration proposals relating to the concerns of small economies to the relevant WTO b odies.  Honduras was aware that the work before 
Members would be difficult, but any outcome of th e negotiations had to take  into account the small 
economies' priorities and particular circumstances, and reflect their proposals, since only in this way 
could those outcomes receive Ministers' approval at the next Ministerial Conference.  Honduras attached the greatest importance to this subject in  the current negotiations, and would continue to 
work constructively to obtain positive results, so th at the WTO could finally take account of its 
development goals. 
64. The representative of Guatemala
 said that the July 2004 Decision reaffirmed Members' 
commitment to tackle, as part of the Doha work  programme and in accordance with the mandate in 
paragraph 35 of the Doha Declaration, "... the trad e-related issues identified for the fuller integration 
of small, vulnerable economies into the multilateral trading system, and not to create a sub-category 
of WTO Members".  In accordance with this manda te, Members' efforts in the Work Programme on 
Small Economies had been directed to tackling the trade-related issues affecting the small economies 
so as to achieve solutions that would bring about their greater integration and participation in the 
multilateral trading system.  Guatemala had played a constructive role in that Work Programme.  His 
delegation had worked intensively with a broad gr oup of countries with diverse characteristics, and 
had contributed a series of documents and ideas to the process with a view to making significant 
advances that would provide Ministers with the opportunity to introduce specific measures for the 
small economies at the next Ministerial Conference .  It had been emphasized in the discussions under WT/GC/M/97 
Page 18  
 
 the Work Programme that it was vital for the sm all economies to present their solutions in the 
appropriate fora.  A number of Members had said on  several occasions that the negotiating train might 
leave the small economies behind, and for this reaso n Guatemala considered it urgent that the General 
Council recognize the proposals of the small ec onomies and recommend to the various negotiating 
bodies that they be taken into account.  His delegatio n continued to be ready to make, in conjunction 
with other Members, the necessary e ffort to obtain the best results within the time-limits imposed by 
the process, so as to achieve concrete solutions to  the problems of the small economies at the next 
Ministerial Conference. 
65. The representative of the Dominican Republic
 reiterated the high priority his delegation 
attached to this issue, on which some progress had been made in the Dedicated Session of the CTD.  
The Dominican Republic had submitted two documen ts, the first of which outlined the special 
features and problems of small economies, while the second provided guidelines on the path to be 
followed to solve such problems.  The conclusi on his delegation had drawn from the intensive 
consultations and discussions carried out was th at the proposals of the small and vulnerable 
economies needed to be presented in the negotiating groups, and this was what they intended to do 
after the summer break.  The Dominican Republic  hoped that the examination of these proposals 
would be given priority in those bodies, so that Mi nisters could take concrete decisions at the Sixth 
Ministerial Conference that would help the sma ll and vulnerable economies to become more fully 
integrated into the multilateral trading system. 
66. The representative of El Salvador  said that, as Members were aware, the most recent meetings 
of the Dedicated Session of the CTD had been given fresh momentum, since Members had structured 
their discussions around the identification of char acteristics and problems of small economies and 
solutions to them, without creating a new cate gory of WTO Member.  The Dedicated Session had 
held valuable discussions on the characteristics and problems of small and vulnerable economies, 
taking document WT/COMTD/SE/W/12 as a basis.  In  that document, the proponents had outlined the 
areas where they were seeking concrete solutions , taking due account of current discussions in the 
negotiating bodies.  It was important to point out in  this connection that, in full conformity with the 
Work Programme on Small Economies agreed in Febr uary 2002, the proponents had already begun to 
submit documents in the negotiating areas of NAMA and agriculture, without detriment to further 
submissions in other areas.  His delegation was fully  aware that much remained to be done, including 
the tasks awaiting Members in the Dedicated Session of  the CTD.  However, El Salvador also wished 
to point out that progress in the various areas of the Doha mandate, such as agriculture and NAMA, 
would also involve giving due c onsideration to options for in tegrating small and vulnerable 
economies into the multilateral trading system.  In other words, a balanced outcome to the 
negotiations would be possible only if Members to ok proper account of the different facets of the 
challenge confronting them.  The Ministerial Confer ence, the highest authority of this organization, 
had admitted its concern about sma ll and vulnerable economies.  It had set a mandate for this area, 
and that mandate had fallen under the responsibility of  the General Council.  Th erefore, his delegation 
expected concrete results from the next Ministeria l Conference, and with that in view wished to 
express appreciation for the efforts that the Chai rs of the General Council and of the Dedicated 
Session of the CTD had devoted to building the con sensus required in order to define the concrete 
responses that small economies su ch as El Salvador needed. 
67. The representative of St. Kitts and Nevis , also on behalf of Antigua and Barbuda , Dominica , 
Grenada , and St. Vincent and the Grenadines , said that the Chair of the CTD in Dedicated Session had 
been a competent and fair facilitator, and these countries looked forward to working under his chairmanship during the next few months and ach ieving further progress in finding solutions to the 
concerns of small economies.  The statement by Barbados on behalf of the small-economy countries 
fully complemented the report by the Chair of the CTD Dedicated Session.  These countries wished to 
thank the representative of Barbados for his efforts as the former Chair of the CTD Dedicated Session 
in progressing this issue which, unfortunately, as Ba rbados had pointed out, had been in a stalemate  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 19 
 
 
 for approximately four years.  These countries also  wished to note that, as they were among the 
smallest economies in the WTO, this Work Progra mme was very important to their developmental 
goals.  They were particularly pleased to see the prog ress on this issue so far.  They saw the two-track 
approach as the way forward, as had been indicated by  many of their trading partners.  They intended 
to heed the warning of some trading partners that they should not miss the boat or bring issues to the 
table too late in the negotiations.  However, these c ountries did ask Members to hear their concerns in 
good faith, as they had shown an understanding for their trading partners' concerns.  If the small-
economy countries did not get significant progress on this Work Programme both in the CTD and in the other relevant WTO bodies, they failed to see how they would benefit fully from this round of 
negotiations which, after all, was supposed to be a development round.  For this reason, they saw each 
area of the negotiations as part of a package, and pr ogress in this Work Programme in parallel with 
the other areas of negotiations.  These countries believe d that their trading partners would negotiate 
with them fully in the good faith that they request ed, and wished to thank them for showing such good 
faith thus far. 
68. The representative of Paraguay
 thanked the Chairman of the CTD in Dedicated Session for 
his dedication and perseverance in conducting the work  on this Work Programme.  As Barbados had 
said, little had been done as yet to fulfil the mandate  in paragraph 35 of th e Doha Declaration.  
However, in one of the many meetings held with  delegations to explain the position of the small 
economies, one of the larger-economy Members ha d pointed out that the Doha Round had been 
launched to respond to the needs of all Members wi thout exception, and thus could be concluded only 
when all delegations saw their concerns accommodate d.  Paraguay agreed.  The small and vulnerable 
economies had succeeded in overcoming the first obstacl e, set for them by some delegations, namely, 
to determine what was meant by a "small and vulnerable economy",  by looking at the matter from a non-traditional angle and focussing more closely on the characteristics and needs of small economies 
without defining them or naming the countries they  might include.  The small-economy countries now 
had to tackle a second obstacle, namely, determining where to discuss solutions to their difficulties.  
When these countries went to the Committee on Trad e and Development with specific proposals on 
negotiating issues, some delegations asked them to  take their proposals to the negotiating groups, and 
when they did so, other delegations stated that th e CTD was the appropriate forum to deal with the 
needs of small economies.  They therefore needed a mandate from the General Council so that their 
demands could be treated with the priority they deserved in the various negotiating groups.  Their 
demand was still pending in the General Council, and th ey would continue to raise it, because it was a 
just and necessary demand.  Paraguay endorsed the proposal by the Chair of the CTD Dedicated 
Session that Members should work in parallel in the CTD and the negotiating groups.  His delegation 
hoped that for the next Ministerial Conference, Members would at least have a roadmap for the adoption of specific measures and decisions to r espond to the concerns of small and vulnerable 
economies and to secure their inclusion in world trade. 
69. The representative of the Solomon Islands
 said he hoped that the report by the Chair of the 
CTD Dedicated Session would provide a foundation fo r concrete and meaningful movement when 
negotiations resumed in September.  It seemed a l ong time earlier that at Doha in November 2001, 
Ministers had resolved that a work programme be  initiated to address the concerns of the small, 
vulnerable economies. At that time, Members ha d been asked to make recommendations on the 
measures that might integrate more  fully the small, vulnerable econom ies into the multilateral trading 
system.  However, like so many other issues in the WTO that were seen as potentially assigning trade 
advantages to one nation over anothe r, finding a viable approach had been challenging.  In the process 
of finding a compromise, the CTD in Dedicated Sess ion had subsequently decided to avoid creating a 
sub-category of Members who were small and vulnerable.  By taking this approach, the proponents of 
the Work Programme on Small Economies had hoped th at all Members would be able to respond 
positively to their unique problems.  A good number of them had done so, when they had requested 
the small and vulnerable economies to move from th e general to the specific and to start putting 
proposals before the relevant negotiating groups .  Small-economy delegati ons had since become WT/GC/M/97 
Page 20  
 
 active in articulating their concerns in the nego tiating groups.  On 7 July, a statement of small-
economy positions on the NAMA negotiations had been  made by Barbados in the Negotiating Group 
on NAMA on behalf of the proponents.  Early that  week, a communication stating the positions of 
small economies in the agriculture negotiations ha d been submitted to the Special Session of the 
Committee on Agriculture. 
70. In addition, a paper on the architecture of fi sheries subsidies discip lines had been submitted 
by the Pacific and Caribbean small-island economi es to the Negotiating Group on Rules.  Fisheries 
was a very important sector for all 16 Pacific Island Forum countries and, for some, the most important sector for providing employment, exports  and income-earning opportunities for small-scale 
fisheries and food security.  Most, if not all, Pacific Island Forum countries had ambitions to develop 
the sector further.  Fisheries was therefore the sect or with the greatest potential to contribute to the 
integration of these countries into the global economy a nd to their long-term sustainable development.  
That potential could only be realized if there was special and differential treatment in the current 
negotiations on fisheries subsidies disciplines.  The paper these countries had submitted sought 
exactly that.  Besides fish, there was little else for export in the case of some very small Pacific Island 
Forum countries.  For the relatively bigger countries,  long-standing trade preferences, particularly in 
the agricultural sector, had played a crucial part in ensuring that their exports were competitive.  But 
with the erosion of these preferences, market acc ess negotiations in NAMA and agriculture had to 
give small, vulnerable economies some flexibility to  undertake liberalization at a pace and a sequence 
that was consistent with their trade, developm ent and financial situations, and their special 
vulnerabilities.  The peculiarity of small, vulnera ble economies was in many cases the lack of viable 
alternative sources of revenue to re place what would be permanent cuts. 
71. There were three countries in the region of th e Solomon Islands – Samoa, Tonga and Vanuatu 
– who were aspiring to become WTO Members and who were in different stages of the accession process.  One of these countries had been trying to accede for more than 10 years, but due to 
insufficient rules concerning WTO accessions, some Members had been demanding onerous 
conditions for its accession.  This was not fair.  Th ese countries should not be required to undertake 
commitments greater than those of Members at a si milar level of developmen t.  His delegation would 
therefore submit a proposal to facilitate these countri es' accession to the WTO.  There had been some 
progress in the WTO on small economies in the past si x months.  The fact that a representative from 
among the proponents of the Work Programme on Small Economies had been formally included in the Dalian mini-Ministerial meeting clearly show ed that this Work Programme was gaining both 
momentum and recognition.  The expectation of the Solomon Islands was that any further mention of 
the Work Programme should be July 2004-plus .  Members had to remind themselves that 
paragraph 35 was an integral part of the balance reached at Doha.  They should therefore not only 
give small economies' proposals serious consideration when they were tabled – and some had already 
been tabled – but the General Council should also re quest the relevant negotiating bodies to give these 
proposals the special attention they deserved.  On ly then could one expect to see a meaningful 
outcome of this Work Programme at the Hong Kong Ministerial at the end of the year. 
72. The representative of Jamaica
 thanked the Chair of the CTD in Dedicated Session for his 
efforts.  His delegation shared the view that so me progress had been made over the past few months 
on the small economies' initiative, particularly sin ce the CTD in Dedicated Session had agreed to a 
three-phased approach for moving the Work Prog ramme forward.  Members had had a thorough 
discussion on phases one and two which concerned the characteristics of small, vulnerable economies 
and their trade-related problems.  They had now moved into the third and most important phase of 
their work, which was to frame responses to th ese problems.  What was needed now was the 
continued constructive support of all Members, so as to ensure implementation of paragraph 35 of the 
Doha Declaration.  Members were in the process of crafting responses to the trade-related problems 
identified for the fuller integration of small, vulne rable economies into the multilateral trading system.  
Jamaica had co-sponsored document WT/COMTD/SE/W/13/Rev.1 tabled in the CTD Dedicated  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 21 
 
 
 Session, which outlined a non-exhaus tive list of elements of responses to the trade-related problems of 
small economies.  That document identified some of the issues of interest to small economies in the 
ongoing negotiations – in agriculture, NAMA, services and trade facilitation.  The co-sponsors of this 
document sensed a growing level of understanding of  the issues of concern to the small economies, 
and also an increasing preparedness to engage, not only in the CTD, but in the relevant negotiating 
groups.  Jamaica expected that there would be th e requisite level of support from Members for the 
proposals relating to the interests of small econo mies in these and in other areas of the ongoing 
negotiations. 
73. Jamaica urged Members to respond to the issues  raised by the small economies in an open, 
objective and forthcoming manner, always bearing in  mind the mandate Ministers had set in Doha.  
The post-July 2005 period would be an important one for all Members.  This included the small- 
economy proponents, and Members would be intensifying their work leading up to the Sixth Ministerial Conference.  Jamaica intended to work with other Members in elaborating concrete and specific proposals in the areas of interest to small economies, and anticipated further constructive 
engagement so as to ensure fulfilment of the Doha  mandate.  He recalled th at this mandate required 
the General Council to make recommendations for ac tion to the Sixth Ministerial Conference, and 
therefore expected concrete results before and at Hong Kong, and nothing less.  His delegation wished 
to emphasize once again that this would be a criti cal aspect of the Doha Development Agenda and of 
a fair and balanced outcome of the Doha Work Programme. 
74. The representative of Trinidad and Tobago
 said that, to some extent, there seemed to be 
greater acceptance that small, vulnerable economies di d face particular challenges, and that steps had 
to be taken to address those challenges.  The flex ibility shown thus far and the willingness of some 
delegations with different approaches to this issue to  engage in discussions had been very beneficial.  
Small, vulnerable economies had circulated propo sals to negotiating groups and had worked in 
accordance with paragraph 35 of the Doha Declarati on.  Her delegation hoped that due consideration 
and attention would be given to these proposals, and that Members would continue to engage in this 
process in a constructive and meaningful manner. 
75. The representative of Mauritius  said that considerable work had been done in past weeks on 
this issue.  Members had now identified a clear  methodology based on three phases to address this 
issue.  They were now tackling the third aspect of  that methodology, that of proposing concrete 
proposals for the consideration of Members.  As Ba rbados had said, the issues relating to small and 
vulnerable economies might not be a priority for many Members, because the small and vulnerable 
economies did not carry major weight or have a large share of world trade, but these issues – and the 
flexibility and consideration being sought – were cr ucial for their very survival.  Thus, in responding 
to these problems, Members would not only be res ponding to the specific mandate given by Ministers 
in Doha, but would also be giving a clear positiv e signal to the outside world about the WTO.  
Members would also be giving a human face to the WTO and showing that it did address and have at 
heart the issues of concern to its weakest and sma llest Members.  This would build on the ownership 
of the WTO, and would ensure the balance and equ ity that all were seeking in the outcome of the 
DDA negotiations.  It would also ensure that there was a smooth and gradual integration of the very 
small economies into the world economy, which woul d surely be a positive step in reinforcing the 
development dimension that lay at the h eart of the current round of negotiations. 
76. The representative of Cuba  thanked and encouraged the Chai r of the CTD Dedicated Session 
to continue his laudable efforts to assist the small- economy countries.  Cuba wished to reiterate its 
plea that Members fulfil paragraph 35 of the Doha D eclaration.  Concrete effo rts had to be made to 
help small and vulnerable economies  and to ensure that they beca me a full part of the multilateral 
trading system.  All of this was to be done without prejudice to S&D treatment and without the creation of a new category of Member within the WT O.  Cuba urged Members to work constructively 
on the proposals presented by small economies to the Special Session of the Committee on WT/GC/M/97 
Page 22  
 
 Agriculture and the Negotiating Group on NAMA.  Cuba  also suggested that these issues be taken up 
in those negotiations when they restarted in th e fall.  All Members should pursue the objective of 
having the Sixth Ministerial Conference adopt c oncrete decisions that would respond to the 
paragraph 35 mandate. 
77. The representative of Ecuador
 said that although he had not intended to speak on this item, a 
number of the statements that had been made compelled him to do so to clarify some issues.  It was 
important to note that Ecuador had played an activ e part in the discussions on the question of small 
economies, and it wished now to express some concern in the light of the views expressed in the course of this discussion and indeed in the course of the meetings of the CTD in Dedicated Session.  It 
had been stated and restated that paragraph 35 of the Doha Declaration specifi ed that the objective of 
this work was not to create a sub-category of WT O Members.  Yet, whenever delegations spoke on 
this question, he had the feeling that one was m oving very slowly towards doing just that, and this 
was a matter of concern.  Further, in identifying the problems or characteristics of small economies, as 
some had done in their statements, delegations we re in fact attributing characteristics to these 
countries that could be attributed to all developing  countries.  His delegation was concerned that the 
identification of certain economic facts or the use of  some data to qualify certain countries, despite the 
fact that these problems and attributes were common to developing countries including Ecuador at any given time, might well mean that some deve loping countries would be in a favourable position 
and would enjoy flexibilities that others did no t.  A number of documents had been submitted on 
behalf of the small economies to bodies such as the Negotiating Group on NAMA, which included 
proposals that had actually been envisioned initially as applicable to developing countries or LDCs.  
The small-economies seemed to be asking for a special  flexible approach with in NAMA, for instance, 
which could well end up distorting the commitments ma de to developing countries in general.  The 
proposals submitted had to be very firmly within th e framework of the mandate of each body to which 
they were made.  It was only by working within  each body's mandates that Members would be in a 
position to meet their obligations under the Doha Declaration and in all areas of the negotiations.  
This was a matter of serious concern to Ecuador, as was the whole question of flexibilities and the 
gradual erosion of preferences.  These were issues that had to be discussed and clear guidelines set out so that there could be a consensus among Members that would ensure that the Doha Declaration 
mandate was respected.  No distinctions should be made such that some developing countries were 
covered by special rules and other developing countries with similar characteristics were not. 
78. The representative of Chile
 said he wished to respond to a number of statements by 
delegations representing small, vulnerable economies.  He wished to pay tribute to these delegations 
for the very significant efforts they had made to  advance the work on understanding what constituted 
small and vulnerable economies and on responses to  their problems.  That said, like Ecuador, his 
delegation did not want Members to be left with the impression that there was any clarity on these issues, or that they were close to  finding solutions to these problems.  There had been an attempt to 
establish certain characteristics that might identify a small, vulnerable economy.  However, some of 
these characteristics seemed to be applicable to de veloping countries in general.  There had been an 
attempt to define the problems facing small, vulne rable economies, but these were problems that were 
common to other developing countries as well.  This would not be of any importance were it not for the fact that the responses and initiatives being pro posed by some might well lead to an absurd 
situation where Members found them selves trying to tackle certain countries' problems even though 
these were problems common to all developing countri es, with the result that not all developing 
countries would enjoy the same kind of approach or  attempted solution.  Furthermore, not all the 
problems facing small and vulnerable economies were similar.  These countries faced different problems, and they faced them in different degrees,  and it could well be that the proposed responses 
dealt with the problems of some small and vulnerabl e economies, but not all such countries' problems.  
He was not saying this in order to make light of a ny of these problems, but in order to point out that 
Members could end up in an absurd situation.  Some small and vulnerable economies had free-trade agreements with Chile, others with Mexico;  some  were part of a customs union;  some had a free- WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 23 
 
 
 trade agreement with the world's largest economy.  In  other words, the degree of sensitivity to trade 
liberalization was not the same for all of these count ries.  He believed that Members did indeed have 
an approach to this work which could be very usef ul, but which could also have very serious systemic 
knock-on effects which they should try to avoid.  His delegation wished to in vite the representatives 
of the small and vulnerable economies to attempt to define more clearly the problems they faced, with 
a view to finding a more precise and adequate respon se to their problems that would be in conformity 
with the multilateral trading system. 
79. The representative of Honduras  thanked all those who shared the concerns of small 
economies.  In response to the statement by Chile, he  said that Chile's economy did not need solutions 
of the kind being proposed for small economies.  Chile's economy was not small.  Given that 
situation, he wished to invite Chile to support the small economies, in order to enable them to become 
strong emerging economies like Chile, and to thus benefit from numerous regional trade agreements. 
80. The representative of El Salvador  said that the small-economy delegations had made it clear 
that a great deal of work remained to be done, a nd that this work would not be easy.  No one had 
suggested that these issues were going to be resolved  overnight.  That said, Members were slowly but 
surely moving towards solutions to the problems id entified.  With respect to the domestic trade 
policies of the small-economy countries, these reflec ted their legitimate objectives, which were to 
become integrated into the trading system.  Their pol icies were determined in the light of what they 
considered to be necessary to their economies and thei r progress.  He wished to make clear that these 
countries were not proposing that anything be done th at would stray from the mandates of the various 
bodies or from anything that had already been decided.   What they wished to do was to ensure that 
work was done to meet the specific problems of th eir economies, and this was what they were asking 
Members to help them with. 
81. The representative of Colombia  fully supported the statements  by Ecuador and Chile which 
expressed the concerns of some developing countrie s at the possibility of creating a sub-category of 
developing countries.  Colombia fully understood th e issues Chile had raised.  This was a matter of 
systemic concern.  This was not a matter that Ch ile was raising as a developing country, but rather 
looking to the future of this organization.  It was a matter of principle and a systemic issue.  The current round had to be approached with the full commitment of all to do their work.  This was 
important in order to ensure that the results of this round were positive.  There should be no 
exclusions, or differences between categories, or di stinctions based on particular criteria that would 
result in no one being willing to make concessions a nd everyone feeling they had reason to exclude or 
include one or another Member.  Members had to work to ensure that there was a world trading 
system.  Various delegations had po inted out that it was very diffic ult to make concessions, and that 
all had their reasons to ask for special situations to be taken into account.  That type of approach 
might well impede any progress.  This was why Colo mbia agreed with Chile and Ecuador.  Members 
had to ensure there was give and take , and all would benefit in this way. 
82. The representative of Barbados
 recalled that in his statement he had made reference to the 
unfortunate circular process that had taken four y ears to get nowhere.  He had also expressed the view 
that Members had begun to emerge fro m that process, so that they could move forward – not in an 
effort to frame a mandate, but on the basis of th e mandate all had agreed to.  The small economies 
were not starting anything new.  Paragraph 35 had been agreed by all Ministers in Doha.  The small 
economies were not trying to frame a new mandate, a nd had spent considerable time and effort trying 
to avoid this accusation.  They had thought they had achieved that understanding.  Small and 
vulnerable economies could do nothing to distort anything in world trade.  Their share of world trade was insignificant.  They did not compete with anyone .  They were just seeking some consideration to 
assist them in their trade difficulties as part of th eir developmental objective.  They were merely 
asking Members to understand – to pause and consider.  They were not trying to take anything away 
from anyone, and were seeking to proceed on a manda te all had agreed to.  He hoped that, either WT/GC/M/97 
Page 24  
 
 through private consultations or in the CTD, Member s could make another attempt to see if they could 
avoid this process of circular argument, because they  were not going to achieve much at Hong Kong 
if they spent the next three months in the same circular arguments the small economies thought they 
had emerged from after four years. 
83. The representative of Guatemala
 supported and fully agreed with  the statement by Barbados.  
Any confrontation should be avoide d.  No one had spoken of a new category of Members, but rather 
of characteristics and of an understanding that was re quired for the very marginal trade of the small 
economies.  He again referred all to the mandate  in paragraph 35 of the Doha Declaration. 
84. The General Council took note  of the report by the Chairman of the CTD Dedicated Session 
and of the statements. 
7. Work Programme on Special and Differential Treatment 
(a) Report by the Chairman of the Special Sessi on of the Committee on Trade and Development 
85. The Chairman  recalled that in Section 1(d) of its July 2004 Decision on the Doha Work 
Programme (WT/L/579), the General Council had instructed the Special Session of the Committee on 
Trade and Development to expeditiously complete  the review of all the outstanding Agreement-
specific proposals on special and differential treatm ent and to report to the General Council, with 
clear recommendations for a decision, by July 2005. 
86. Mr. Ismail (South Africa), Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade and 
Development , said that as indicated in his written report in document TN/CTD/13 submitted to the 
TNC meeting the previous day, the CTD in Special Session was not in a position to make specific recommendations on any of the Agreement-specific proposals Members had entrusted it to consider.  
With regard to future work and the road to Hong Kong, his report to the General Council 
recommended that while significant progress had b een made on the Agreement-specific proposals 
tabled by the LDCs, the Special Session would need to continue to work on the remaining Agreement-
specific proposals and report to the General Council with clear recommendations for a decision by the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  The Special Sessi on would also need to continue to monitor and 
coordinate its efforts with that of the Ne gotiating Groups and other WTO bodies to which the 
Category II proposals had been referred by the Ge neral Council.  As mandated by the July 2004 
General Council, the Special Session should also continue, within the parameters of the Doha 
mandate, to address all other outstanding work, incl uding on the cross-cutting issues, the monitoring 
mechanism and the incorporation of S&D treatment in to the architecture of WTO rules, as referred to 
in document TN/CTD/7, and report, as appropriate, to  the General Council.  He had made a report to 
the meeting of the TNC on 28 July, and asked that th at report be included in the records of the present 
meeting.
2  He again wished to extend his deepest apprec iation and gratitude to all delegations who had 
worked closely and intensively with  him in the past few months.  After the summer break, the CTD in 
Special Session would build on the accumulation of cr eative suggestions made by various delegations 
to try to bridge existing gaps and to  forge consensus in the negotiations. 
87. The representative of Cuba  expressed concern at the stagnation and lack of results in this area 
which was of special interest to the developing countries, and supported the view that there was a 
need to maintain a balance among all the different su bject areas of the Doha Agenda in terms of the 
progress made.  If Members did not advance on these issues, it would be impossible to make commitments in other areas of negotiation.  Members had to examine all of the S&D proposals in a 
                                                     
 
2 The report by the Chair of the CTD in Special Session to the TNC meeting of 28 July, which is 
reflected in the records of that meeting in document TN/C /M/19, is incorporated by reference into the present 
records.  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 25 
 
 
 constructive spirit in order to achieve results that represented real economic progress for the 
developing countries, rather than clauses that we re devoid of any content and did not bind anyone. 
88. The General Council took note  of the report by the Chairman of the Special Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statement, and agreed  to the course of action 
proposed by the Chair of the Special Sessi on of the Committee on Trade and Development. 
(b) Reports by Chairpersons of other WTO bodies to whom special and differential treatment 
proposals have been referred 
89. The Chairman  recalled that in Section 1(d) of its Decision of July 2004 on the Doha Work 
Programme (WT/L/579), the General Council had also  instructed all WTO bodies to which special 
and differential treatment proposals had been referre d in 2003 – the so-called Category II proposals – 
to expeditiously complete the consideration of th ese proposals and report to the General Council, with 
clear recommendations for a decision, as soon as possible and no later than July 2005.  The WTO 
bodies involved were the following:  Special Sess ion of the Committee on Agriculture, Committee on 
Agriculture, Negotiating Group on Rules, Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services, 
Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body, Committee on SPS, Committee on TRIMS, 
Committee on Safeguards, and Council for TRIPS. 
90. Mr. Groser, Chairman of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture , said that 
Members had his written report on the issues referred to the Special Session on Agriculture 
(TN/AG/18), which he felt was a fair and accurate presentation.  He wished to make a few basic points.  Many of the ideas in the proposals predated the Doha Ministerial Conference itself, and had been taken up in rather similar ways by a number of  other proposals.  For example, in the case of 
special products, he thought that Members were  making some progress now and were waiting for 
some new proposals on the basic indicators underwriting the criteria that had been agreed on in the 
framework on food security, rural livelihood and rural development needs.  Thus, in his view, the 
negotiating process in itself, in one way or another, was starting to address in very serious ways some 
of these concerns.  Even if he could not report prog ress on all issues, this was simply a reflection of 
the general point he had made in the TNC meeting the previous day, which was that Members were 
taking small steps and moving forward, but needed so me bigger steps to get there.  He was confident 
that the matters raised in these proposals of longstanding concern would be addressed in many of the 
issues that, unfortunately and for reasons all underst ood, Members had not been able to get around to.  
In closing, he wished to say a word of support to his successor as Chair, who would be formally 
appointed in due course.  He had known Mr. Falconer  for 20 years, and the latter was a person of rare 
intellect and vast experience.  Mr. Falconer also had a capacity for creative solutions, and would need 
all of those qualities in the job Members were about to appoint him to.  He had his full support, but 
much more important was that Members give the new Chair their full support and confidence, 
because without that, even with his excellent qualiti es, he would face a very tough task.  He wished 
the new Chair best wi shes for the future. 
91. Mr. Farahat (Egypt), Chairman of the Committee on Trade in Agriculture
, said that his 
statement, which complemented his written report in document G/AG/20, concerned the consideration 
by the Committee on Agriculture of a Category II proposal by the African Group that was linked to the implementation of the Marrakesh Decision on Measures Concerning the Possible Negative Effects of the Reform Programme on Least-Developed and Net Food-Importing Developing Countries.  The 
proposal called for the establishment of a Revol ving Fund in the framework of the Marrakesh 
Decision, as well as food aid to be provided in fully grant form.  The Revolving Fund proposal had 
already been discussed at great length in the pe riod 2001-2003, without any agreement being reached 
on the substance.  Although the matter had been on  the agenda of the Committee on Agriculture in 
2004 and 2005, there had been no signs of movement.  Earlier in 2005, he had renewed his informal 
consultations on this matter with interested Members, but no progress had been made in the WT/GC/M/97 
Page 26  
 
 discussions.  In his assessment, the discussion of th e African Group proposal as it currently stood had 
reached an impasse.  The only way forward was fo r the African Group to submit a new or modified 
proposal.  Indeed, a member of the African Group ha d indicated during the informal consultations he 
had conducted that a follow-up proposal was under preparation.  In response, a number of donor 
Members had signalled their readiness to engage in discussions once the proposal was submitted.   
The Committee on Agriculture stood ready to examin e expeditiously any follow-up proposal by the 
African Group.  He asked Members to maintain the spirit of work that had been part of the 
consultations and discussions on this particular prop osal, given its importance, and to maintain that 
spirit in the future, given the importance that some  of the developing-country Members attached to 
this proposal. 
92. Mr. Valles Galmés (Uruguay), Chairman of the Negotiating Group on Rules
, said that in 
2003, the Negotiating Group had received a series of S&D treatment proposals in the areas of regional 
trade agreements, anti-dumping and subsidies a nd countervailing measures. These proposals had been 
referred to the Group by the then-Chairman of the Ge neral Council.  Since their referral to the Group, 
his predecessors and he had taken the initiative of in cluding them on the agenda of several meetings 
of the Group.  At least one of these meetings had been convened primarily in order to consider the 
proposals.  The discussions on these issues were reflected  in the relevant records of the meetings.  As 
reflected in these records, the discussions had not b een of a substantive nature.  He was therefore 
unable, at the present stage, to report any precise recommendations for decision with respect to these 
proposals.  At a meeting in December 2004 conv ened primarily to discuss these S&D proposals, it 
had been suggested that he contact directly th e sponsors of the proposals, in particular the 
coordinators of the African Group and of the Group  of Least-Developed Countries.  In response to 
invitations sent by himself and by the coordinators  of these Groups, he had attended a meeting of the 
African Group at Head-of-Delegation level on 22 June 2005.  At that meeting, he had briefed the 
African Group on issues of interest regarding the ru les negotiations.  This meeting had been very 
helpful, and he believed that there had been a shared sense that a constructive dialogue between 
himself and the African Group should continue.  He wished to emphasize  that S&D issues with 
respect to all asp ects of the mandate of the Negotia ting Group on Rules were under active 
consideration by that Group.  He also wished to underline that Members might still, at the present 
stage and certainly in the meetings to be held in  the second semester, raise any issues of concern to 
the African Group.  He further wished to underlin e his commitment and that of the Secretariat to 
ensuring that developing countries would receive all necessary support in order to be able to 
effectively participate in the negotiations on rules th at, as all knew, were extremely complex.  He also 
wished to recall that there was a pos t in the rules area that was finan ced by a special fund in order to 
assist developing countries in moving through this  complex area of negotiations.  Many of these 
countries had found technical assistance there.  He in vited Members to continue to make use of this, 
in order to be able to use it for the purposes for which it was intended. 
93. Mr. Jara (Chile), Chairman of the Special Session of the Council for Trade in Services , said 
that the proposals on S&D that had been referred to the Services Council had been discussed quite 
extensively in consultations held  in different formats.  These discussions had been mostly of a 
question-and-answer nature.  He believed that it w as time for Members to shift gears and to begin to 
pronounce themselves on whether these proposals were  acceptable or under what conditions they 
could be acceptable, i.e. to enter into a phase of negotiation.  He was aware that some Members had 
engaged in consultations among th emselves, and he hoped that these would be fruitful in terms of 
allowing Members to reach conclusions very soon.  At the most recent cluster of Services meetings, 
Members had expressed the wish to have time to c ontinue their work on this matter, and for that 
purpose he had reserved time for them to start work on this matter on 5 September. 
94. Mr. Choi (Korea), Chairman of the Council for TRIPS , said that regarding the Category II 
proposals that had been referred to the TRIPS Council,  there continued to be agreement on a text in 
regard to a proposal by the African Group concerning exclusive marketing rights.  At its meeting in  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 27 
 
 
 June 2005, the TRIPS Council had agreed to authori ze him to report to the General Council that the 
TRIPS Council reiterated its recommendation concerning the text in question that had been forwarded 
to the General Council for appropriate action by th e Chair of the TRIPS Council in August 2003.  In 
addition, the TRIPS Council had authorized him to provide a brief factual report on what had happened with regard to the othe r proposals referred to it.  In short, these proposals had been on the 
agenda of the Council's meeting in December 2004,  March and June 2005.  No delegation had taken 
up those proposals at any of these meetings.  The af orementioned text and othe r relevant information 
could be found in his written report to the General Council in document IP/C/36. 
95. Mrs. Novik (Chile), Chairman of the Committee on Safeguards
, recalled that the Safeguards 
Committee had reported in detail on the S&D propo sals referred to it to the General Council in 
July 2003 in document G/SG/64.  The report's conclu sion had been that the informal consultations had 
indicated that there was no consen sus in the Committee on these proposals.   In light of the July 2004 
General Council  Decision, the Safeguards Co mmittee had held an informal meeting on 
23 November 2004 in order to seek Members' views on the status of these proposals.  Unfortunately, 
Members had been of the view that the situation remained the same – the Committee was not able to 
suggest a course of action on this issue due to lack  of consensus.  This was her report, and she 
remained ready to answer any questions. 
96. Mr. Young (United States), Chairman of the Committee on SPS Measures , said he was 
pleased to report that on 30 June 2005, the Co mmittee had adopted a substantial report on S&D 
treatment.  This report was a direct response to the General Council's July 2004 request for clear 
recommendations for a decision.  In completing th is report (G/SPS/35), Members had shown a great 
amount of understanding and flexibility in approach ing the complex issues, particularly given the 
nature of health and safety measures applied un der the SPS Agreement.  Members had also taken 
positive note of various relevant de velopments, which to some degr ee addressed underlying concerns.  
That being said, he also had to clearly state th at Members had not been in a position to adopt any 
recommendations with specific regard to the five  referred proposals.  These proposals, however, 
remained under active review in the Committee.  Mo reover, some Members had expressed their intent 
to provide revisions to these proposals for further consideration.  Equally importantly, the Committee 
would expeditiously undertake discussions on fu rther work to assist it in addressing underlying 
concerns.  Some elements for discussion were pr esented in paragraph 43 of document G/SPS/35.  
These elements essentially represented additional wa ys which, through better information flows, 
Members might further address underlying concerns.  The SPS Committee had presented the 
recommendations in paragraph 44 of G/SPS/35 to the General Council, and in line with these 
recommendations, would be pleased to continue this s ubstantive work in the area of S&D treatment.  
It was his assessment that the Committee's work had already yielde d several important recognitions, 
approaches and possible solutions. 
97. Mr. Palayathan (Mauritius), Chairman of the Committee on TRIMs , said that pursuant to the 
General Council's July 2004 Decision, the Committe e had considered two Category II proposals on 
S&D treatment related to Articles 4 and 5.3 of th e TRIMs Agreement, which had been submitted by 
the African Group.  Since the July package ha d been agreed, the TRIMs Committee had held a 
number of formal and open-ended informal me etings, as well as several rounds of informal 
consultations to discuss these proposals.  At the informal meeting on 9 May 2005, the Committee had 
considered a revised version of the proposals su bmitted by Kenya on behalf of the African Group, 
which targeted more specifically the interests of the African countries.  Discussions in the Committee 
had allowed for a frank exchange of views and had shed more light on the underlying concerns the 
proponents sought to address.  However, the Committ ee had been unable to arrive at a solution that 
would enable it to agree to the proposals.  His personal assessment was that it would appear possible 
to reach agreement on the first part of the revised  African Group proposal dealing with consideration 
of potential requests to apply TRIMs under Artic le XVIII of GATT 1994.  In contrast, certain 
fundamental questions remained unresolved with resp ect to other elements in the second part of the WT/GC/M/97 
Page 28  
 
 proposal on Article 4, and in the proposal on Article 5.3, including, in particular, the country scope 
and the time horizon for their application.  Nevertheless, he had sensed that there might be room for progress also in these areas if Memb ers were able to work with creativity and flexibility.  His 
recommendation to the General Council, therefore, woul d be to keep this issue under consideration.  
His written report to the General Council on the Committee's consideration of the S&D proposals 
referred to it had been circulated in document G/L/742. 
98. The Chairman
 said she had been advised that the Ch airman of the Special Session of the 
Dispute Settlement Body had nothing to add to the report he had circulated in document TN/DS/13.  
She expressed gratitude to all the Chairs for thei r reports and for the dedicated efforts they had 
continued to put in, together with delegations, to  respond to the needs and interests of developing 
countries in this particular area. 
99. The representative of Kenya  thanked the Chairs for their reports on this issue.  However, he 
wondered whether the reports responded to the Ju ly 2004 Decision, because that Decision was very 
clear that the subsidiary bodies were to make re ports with clear recommendations for a decision.  
Having gone through the reports a nd having heard what the various Chairs had said at the present 
meeting, it seemed Members were very far from that .  Indeed, some of these reports appeared not to 
have been discussed and adopted within the resp ective bodies, and Kenya thought that any report 
coming to the General Council would first be agr eed by Members in those bodies, and that the 
Chairmen would then report to the General Counc il what Members had agreed.  Although the reports 
might portray the situation as it was, the process itsel f had not been right.  His delegation would have 
thought that these reports would have been discuss ed and adopted in the various bodies before being 
brought to the General Council.  A few had been, but  not all.  It seemed that Members were losing 
sight of the assignment Ministers had given them unde r paragraph 44 of the Doha Declaration.  It was 
clear what Members were expected to do – to  strengthen and operationalize the existing S&D 
treatment, not future S&D treatment.  Somewhere along the line Members had been diverted into 
other issues, such as underlying concerns.  However, as Members pondered what they would do as 
from September, they should go back to their original mandate and work from that. 
100. The other point he wished to raise was that  out of the 151 Agreement-specific provisions 
identified in document WT/COMTD/W/77/Rev.1, the developing countries, including LDCs, had 
made proposals on only 88.  Thus, there was still a balance of provisions remaining, and his delegation had not heard what Members were going to  do about those, because the mandate included 
all existing S&D treatment provisions.  Perhaps Me mbers needed to reflect and to see whether the 
current procedure – whereby they had farmed out several of these proposals to various bodies – was 
working or not.  Other than the TRIPS Council, wh ich had come up with something positive, in all the 
other bodies either there was no consensus or they we re still working and wanted  to keep these issues 
on the agenda.  His delegation wondered whether the current procedure would produce results.  
Members might have to consider giving the Chai r of the CTD in Special Session his proper job by 
having that body take back all of the S&D treatme nt proposals, so that Members could concentrate 
their work therein.  This would help also because some Members had had difficulties following 
discussions in the subsidiary bodies, due to the overla pping nature of meetings in the WTO, in spite of 
the fact that the July 2004 package clearly stated that in organizing the meetings of those bodies, the 
relevant Chairs should try as much as possible to av oid overlap, so as to enable the full and effective 
participation of developing countries in these discu ssions.  In some of those bodies, Members had not 
had discussions because there had been parallel me etings, and they had been concentrating on the 
bodies that were carrying out negotiations.  This had been a problem, and one way of resolving it 
would be to take all of these issues back into the CTD in Special Session, which could then handle all 
the Agreement-specific proposals, because no resu lts were being achieved by taking these proposals 
to the specialized bodies.  Some of the reports of these bodies – for example, the report on agriculture 
– had not been discussed comprehensively in that body.  His delegation wondered what the General 
Council was going to do with these reports.  If they ha d not been agreed by Members at the level of  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 29 
 
 
 the subsidiary body, his delegation wondered wh ether the General Council could take action as 
recommended by the Chairs of these bodies, becau se these recommendations were not the Members' 
recommendations.  Kenya wished to hear Member s' views on whether the General Council would 
rather just take note of these reports and move ahead. 
101. The representative of India  shared Kenya's concerns over the S&D treatment proposals under 
discussion in the various WTO bodies.  It did seem th at there was a problem with the process, which 
would warrant a discussion in the CTD in Special Session.  India urged Members to take a speedy decision in this regard, and to take a second look  at the process, perhaps in the CTD in Special 
Session. 
102. The representative of Jamaica
 thanked the Chair of the CTD in Special Session  for his report 
in document TN/CTD/13, which he had just ha d a chance to peruse quickly.  He asked for a 
clarification on one aspect of the report.  On page 2 in the second paragraph, the third-to-last sentence 
read, "These Members also felt that the appro ach seemed to give undue emphasis on development 
being the end purpose of S&D, instead of integratin g developing countries into the multilateral trading 
system, which they felt should be the main objective of S&D."  The next sentence read, "Although 
further consultations were held to allay these c oncerns, differences among Members on the best way 
to proceed could not be bridged."  It was apparent that the concern was that a new emphasis on development was being given by S&D.  Jamaica f ound this a little incomprehensible.  This might be 
the views of some Members, as the report appeared  to say, but in a docu ment issued by this 
organization, his delegation found it perturbing that this was the representation of what the situation 
was regarding S&D treatment and the linka ge to development in this document. 
103. The representative of Benin
 congratulated the Chairs of the various bodies on the reports 
presented, in particular the Chair of the Special Session of the Committee on Agriculture for all the 
very hard work and energy put into moving matters fo rward, particularly with respect to the work of 
the Sub-Committee on Cotton.  Benin wished to thank him on behalf of all the cotton-producing 
countries for the work done in this Sub-Co mmittee, and for his energy and commitment. 
104. The representative of Bangladesh  thanked the Chairs for their efforts in trying to resolve the 
S&D issues.  His delegation also understood, appreciated and full y supported the views expressed by 
Kenya regarding the approach to S&D issues and th e need for fresh thinking on this subject.  His 
delegation wished to emphasize that S&D provisions of the Uruguay Round were very important to the LDCs.  These provisions were what allowed the LDCs to be on board in the multilateral 
agreements, and it was very important to have pr ovisions that would enable the LDCs to take 
advantage of the S&D elements.  There was one fundamental problem that Bangladesh had been 
noticing in the process of trying to resolve these S&D issues, and he  wished to highlight it.  As 
Members discussed S&D issues in the various bodi es, his delegation had found that many Members 
felt that making a substantive change to implement the provisions in the Uruguay Round would change the balance of the Uruguay Round itself.  Th is made it extremely difficult to negotiate on 
S&D treatment, and he wished to draw Members' atten tion to this.  In particular, with regard to the 
provisions for LDCs, Members needed to look  at these issues in a different light. 
105. The representative of Cuba
 supported the statement by Kenya.  Cuba agreed that there had 
been little success in the whole area of S&D treatment  in the CTD in Special Session.  It would be 
useful for that body to have another look at th e S&D proposals and to see how they could be dealt 
with better. 
106. The Chairman  recalled that in the penultimate paragra ph of his report to the General Council, 
dealing with future work, the Chair of the CTD in Special Session had stated that the Special Session 
would need to continue to monito r and coordinate the efforts of the Special Session with that of the 
negotiating groups and other WTO bodies to which the Category II proposals had been referred.  The WT/GC/M/97 
Page 30  
 
 General Council under the previous sub-item had agreed  to this proposed course of action.  This was 
therefore something that was already under considera tion and would just need to be enhanced.  She 
invited the General Council to take note of the st atements and to request the relevant Chairs to 
continue to keep the General Council informed of progress in this work. 
107. The General Council so agreed
. 
108. The representative of Kenya  recalled that his delegation had made a suggestion that Members 
could perhaps make more progress by concentrating their work on S&D in the CTD in Special Session.  He believed the suggestion had receive d some support, and asked whether the General 
Council might wish to deliberate on this, because it would be good to know this at the present meeting 
so that Members could prepare themselves to star t working appropriately as from September.  There 
had been problems in following these issues in the subsidiary bodies, and he believed this was why 
the results had not been as encouraging as they might have been. 
109. The Chairman
 said this was a matter on which she would wish to consult before 
recommending any action to the General Council.  She would take up this matter after the summer 
break in order to find out if this was a decision th e General Council wished to take.  Kenya's point had 
been well taken, and the support for its proposal had been noted.  It was on this basis that she would 
be consulting. 
110. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
8. Report by the Director-General on his consultative process on all outstanding 
implementation issues under Paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration  
111. The Chairman  recalled that in Section 1(d) of its July 2004 Decision on the Doha Work 
Programme (WT/L/579), the General Council, wit hout prejudice to the positions of Members, 
requested the Director-General to continue with his consultative process on all outstanding 
implementation issues under paragraph 12(b) of the Doha Ministerial Declaration, including on issues 
related to the extension of the pr otection of geographical indications provided for in Article 23 of the 
TRIPS Agreement to products other than wines a nd spirits.  The General Council agreed that the 
Director-General would report to the TNC and the Ge neral Council no later than May 2005.  In May, 
the Director-General had made a full progress repor t to the TNC, which had been circulated in 
document JOB(05)/83.  At the May meeting of the General Council, the Director-General had highlighted what he considered to be some important aspects of that report, and had suggested that the 
consultative processes continue.  He had also indicated  that he would report again to the July meetings 
of the TNC and the General Council. 
112. The Director-General
 recalled that in line with the July 2004 Decision, he had continued his 
consultations on the paragraph 12(b) implementa tion issues in his capacity as Director-General, 
including on issues related to the extension of the protection of geographical indications (GIs) 
provided for in Article 23 of the TRIPS Agreement to products other than wines and spirits.  In 
accordance with the Decision, the process he had undertaken had been without prejudice to the 
positions of Members on any of the outstanding implem entation issues.  As requested in the Decision, 
he had reported on progress at the May TNC and Ge neral Council meetings.  At that time, he had 
suggested that his consultative processes should conti nue, and that he would then report again to the 
July meetings of the TNC and General Council.  Th e aim had been to move ahead wherever possible, 
so that the General Council was in a position to re view progress and take any appropriate action, in 
line with the July 2004 Decision. 
113. At the July meeting of the TNC, he had prov ided an update on his consultative processes 
since his most recent report in May.  That report ha d been circulated immediately after the meeting in  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 31 
 
 
 document JOB(05)/156.  He did not intend to repeat it in full at th e present meeting, but wished to 
highlight some important aspects of it.  As earlier,  this work had been undertaken on two tracks.  The 
first track, concerning all outstanding paragraph 12( b) implementation issues except the GI extension 
issue, had been undertaken by the Chairs of th e concerned WTO bodies acting as his Friends and on 
his behalf.  The second track of work, which concerne d the GI extension issue, had been undertaken 
by Deputy Director-General Mr. Thompson-Flôres, al so on his behalf.  He regretted to report that 
Members' positions remained divided on the issues  under both tracks of work.  The situation had 
clearly not evolved significantly since May.  He therefore suggested that his successor as Director-
General be requested to continue the consultative processes after the summer break.  For his part, he 
again urged everyone to make every effort to allow progress to be made. 
114. The representative of Cuba  said his delegation wished to speak on this important topic 
because it felt that in the WTO there was a need to  overcome the imbalance that had resulted from the 
Uruguay Round.  There was an important group of  developing countries that had problems resulting 
from this, and Cuba regretted the lack of progress on these and on other issues that were of concern to small economies.  The current Round was supposed to be a Development Round, and yet one saw a 
lack of political will to seek a f undamental solution to this very im portant issue.  This should be a 
priority, because if Members failed to find solutions  to the development problems, it would be very 
difficult for many Members to accept commitments in other areas. 
115. The representative of India
 thanked the Director-General for his sustained efforts on the 
implementation issues cluster.  This cluster include d many subjects of wide interest to developing 
countries, including India.  He wished to mention pa rticularly the issue of the relationship between the 
CBD and the TRIPS Agreement, and the need for a dditional flexibilities for developing countries in 
the TRIMs Agreement.  India wished to reiterate th e imperative need for con tinuing attention to this 
set of issues, with a view to achieving concrete  progress in time for the Hong Kong Ministerial.  
Members also needed to ensure that the coming ch angeover in the office of the Director-General did 
not lead to any rupture in this vital area of work .  In this connection, India welcomed the Director-
General's suggestion for the continuation of this work. 
116. The representative of Brazil  thanked the Director-General for his efforts and for the 
assessment he had provided.  Brazil also wished to echo the statement by India.  There were issues 
that were of the utmost importance to developing  countries, in particular the issues of TRIMs and 
TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity. 
117. The representative of Peru  joined India and Brazil in reiterating the importance of finding a 
solution to the problem with regard to bringing the TRIPS Agreement into line with the Convention 
on Biological Diversity.  In this respect, Peru had proposed – and considered there to be a definite 
need for – an amendment to the TRIPS Agreem ent.  His delegation hoped that the Hong Kong 
Ministerial would see the introduction of such an amendm ent, or at least steps being taken to pave the 
way for a permanent solution to this problem – specifically, the inclusi on of disclosure of origin in the 
TRIPS Agreement – at the end of the Round. 
118. The General Council took note  of the Director-General's report and of the statements, and 
agreed to request the Director-G eneral's successor to continue the consultative process after the 
summer break. 
9. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
119. The Chairman  recalled that at its first meeting in 2002, the Trade Negotiations Committee had 
agreed that it would report to each regular meeting of the General Council. WT/GC/M/97 
Page 32  
 
 120. The Director-General
 said that since the most recent meeting of the General Council, the TNC 
had held one formal meeting on 21 and 28 July.  It ha d also held an informal meeting at the level of 
Heads of Delegation, in conjunction with the Ge neral Council Chair, on 8 July.  On the present 
occasion, on the eve of the summer break, he had ma de his report to the General Council in written 
form.  The full report had been circulated the previous  day in document TN/C/5.  As he had said at the 
TNC meeting the previous day, his report was not intended to be a document for negotiation or for 
discussion in its own right.  He had issued the report on his own responsibility as TNC Chairman, as 
an aid to participants' reflection during the summer and to help provide a focus for the intensive work 
ahead when Members returned in the autumn.  He hoped that it would help Members along the critical 
path to Hong Kong.  He did not intend to read out hi s report, but wished to draw on it in order to give 
his overall assessment of where Members currently st ood in the negotiations under the TNC, and his 
views on the key challenges ahead.  Delegations had,  of course, already had the opportunity to put 
their views on the state of play in the negotiati ons on record in the TNC meeting.  The respective 
Chairs had given their updated assessments of wher e Members had got to, including in the three areas 
where intensive work had continued since the start of the TNC meeting the previous week.  Members 
had finished the month without major breakthroughs, but with a much sharper sense of the key issues 
for urgent decision and the links between them.  Th ey had also finished the month with a renewed 
sense of the absolute necessity to resolve these issues rapidly if their essential ambitions for Hong 
Kong were to be realized.  The situation Members were in made the Hong Kong Ministerial harder, 
but not impossible.  He believed Members had see n a renewed commitment on all sides to realize 
their ambitions.  At that TNC meeting, he had s uggested that disappointment had to be converted 
immediately into determination, and he thought he had seen that determination at the TNC meeting 
the previous day.  However, he had also stressed th at no one should be in any doubt that the alarm he 
had sounded earlier in the month was still ringing, and he  had urged all to hear the warning.  This had 
to be a real wake-up call for all participants.  If the necessary breakthroughs were not forthcoming 
early in the autumn, the possibility of the substan tive results at Hong Kong – which were essential to 
conclude the Round – would inevitably be put into jeopardy.  However, the strong commitment to the 
Round that one had seen from the highest political  levels underpinned Members' work and made 
failure unthinkable.  The road might be a hard one, but it had to lead to a successful conclusion. 
121. He believed that all agreed with the diagnosis he had made at the TNC meeting the previous 
day.  Members had heard some very thoughtful and detailed statements from a large number of 
delegations, some of which had been made by capital- based officials, including Minister Nakagawa of 
Japan.  Whatever the differing views on the substan ce of the negotiations, he thought that it was clear 
that all participants were united in their determin ation to conclude the Round.  Members had also 
heard strong reaffirmations of commitment to an ambitious outcome at Hong Kong and to the 
intensive work and decision-making that would be re quired to get there.  He thought that everyone 
agreed with him that it was urgent to find solutio ns to the outstanding problems that were holding 
Members back, and that this had to be done early in the autumn.  He thought that Members also 
agreed that their approach had to be to turn disappointment into determination to make progress 
urgently.  In his report, he had set out some key issues that he believed we re absolutely necessary to 
resolve urgently in order to unloc k progress, not only in the particular area concerned, but also across 
the broader range of the negotiations.  This was far from being an exhaustive list of the elements that 
would have to go into a balanced package for Hong Kong, but it was an attempt to help participants 
focus on the most urgent of them.  He wished to underline the need for the development dimension to 
remain at centre stage in all areas.  Members had to deliver on the legitimate expectations of 
developing countries for this Round.  Looking to th e work ahead, all participants had to make the 
most productive use possible of the very short time remaining to prepare the Ministerial.  The work 
also had to be organized in a coherent, flexible and effective way.  In considering the critical path to 
Hong Kong in his report, he had also given his view s on how this could be done.  His main point was 
that substance had to drive process, not vice-versa.   The best process in the world would result in 
failure if there was not a shared willingness to r each convergence on substantive issues.  This would 
mean keeping a flexible and pragmatic approach to the negotiating processes, which would need to  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 33 
 
 
 make full use of all possibilities for progress, wh ile keeping fully in mind the principles of 
transparency and inclusiveness. 
122. Implementing a substance-driven process required a close and continuing review of progress 
and rapid corrective action where necessary.  He would suggest that appropriate checkpoints might 
need to be set along the three-month period before the Ministerial.  What form these might take and at 
what level they might be convened was for further co nsideration.  However, they should not become 
deadlines in themselves, but rather reality check s of progress made along a continuum towards Hong 
Kong.  He had suggested that the first such checkpoint  should be not later than mid-October.  By then, 
Members should expect to have reac hed, or be very close to reachi ng, agreement on the key strategic 
issues he had identified in his report.  As he had said earlier, what Members needed urgently was not 
just a change of gear in the negotiations, but also a change of attitude and approach.  The time for 
identifying options was past.  It was now time to choose among them.  This called for leadership towards concrete, specific results, and frank dialogue .  He had suggested that intensive work should 
start from early September, but he would also sugg est that August should not be wasted – it should be 
used to prepare the ground for decisions and to intensify the network of informal contacts among 
Ministers and negotiators that was essential to progress. 
123. In his report, he had aimed to provide an  honest, frank assessment, because he believed this 
was what Members needed at the pr esent time.  He had also been as forward-looking as possible, and 
the suggestions he had made had been offered in a spirit of maintaining the ambitions all had for the 
Round.  Members simply had to complete the Doha Round in 2006.  This was a real deadline.  To 
achieve this, they had to have a substantively successful Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong in 
December.  They had made some progress towards that  goal, but less, perhaps much less, than they 
had wished.  Accordingly, they had left themselves a lot to do.  They could wi thout doubt still do it, 
provided that from the present on, they avoided complacency and brinkmanship, and dedicated 
themselves instead to a politically -engaged, results-oriented, decision-making mode of operation 
immediately after the summer recess.  No one w ould follow Members' progress more closely than 
him, and he would continue to suppor t Members' efforts in every possibl e way.  He was sure that well 
deserved success would attend their efforts. 
124. The representatives of Argentina
, Bangladesh for the LDCs , Barbados , Bolivarian Republic 
of Venezuela , Brazil (including on behalf of the G-20) , Chile , China , Chinese Taipei , Costa Rica , 
Cuba , Dominican Republic , Egypt for the African Group , El Salvador , Guatemala , Honduras , 
Indonesia for the G-33 , Jamaica , Korea , Lesotho , Mauritius , Nepal , Norway , Pakistan , Peru , 
Philippines , Singapore , St. Kitts and Nevis , Tanzania , Thailand , Trinidad and Tobago , Uganda  and 
United States  asked that their statements at  the 28 July meeting of the TNC be included in the records 
of the present meeting.3 
125. The representative of the Bolivar ian Republic of Venezuela  thanked the Director-General for 
his report.  Venezuela understood from the Director-G eneral's introduction that it was not intended to 
be a document for negotiation or discussion, but rather was being presented as a document to aid 
reflection.  However, this document bore a very strong resemblance to a document for negotiation.  
Although his delegation understood that  it was not, he wished to explain why the document gave that 
impression.  The Director-General had submitted a report under his individual responsibility, based, in its turn, on several reports under the responsibilit y of other chairpersons.  Although, as many 
delegations had indicated at the TNC the previous da y, most of the latter repor ts were balanced, some 
were not, or at least they presented features which,  in Venezuela's view, did not reflect the current 
state of the negotiations.  Consequently, the docum ent did not fully encompass the previous day's 
discussions.  The enthusiasm of the report for the momentum achieved in Dalian contrasted with the 
                                                     
 
3 The statements by these delegations at the TNC mee ting of 28 July, which are reflected in the records 
of that meeting in document TN/C/M/19, are inco rporated by reference into the present records. WT/GC/M/97 
Page 34  
 
 assessments made at the conclusion of that mini-Min isterial meeting and with its real outcome.  In 
NAMA, for example, some Members still considered that it was not yet time to resolve the "chicken 
and egg" problem mentioned in the document.  W ith regard to services, reference was made to 
Annex 1 of the report by the Chairman of the Speci al Session of the Council for Trade in Services.  
Some delegations had expressed reservations not only with regard to the Anne x, but also the total 
balance of the document.  Regard ing trade and environment, the di fferences on the general framework 
of these negotiations were still signifi cant.  Thus, the critical path laid  out before Members at the end 
of the document contained elements  of negotiating modalities that still needed to be formally accepted 
by all Members.  Venezuela was aware that in leaving Members this document as a legacy, the 
motivation had been to provide the leadership with  which the Director-General had assisted Members 
over recent years.  It was in this way that his delegation understood  this contribution. 
126. The representative of the United States
 said it was an honour for him to have this opportunity 
to briefly address the General Council.  He was co ming fresh from a victory in the US Congress, as it 
had just been confirmed by the US Senate to have  the United States enter into a free-trade agreement 
with the Central American countries and the Do minican Republic.  This Agreement, although 
relatively small in trade terms, had become a symbolic vote in the United States.  Having had this 
success with this particular trade bill, the United States would now have the opportunity to be even 
more successful in the WTO.  He believed that th is success would give the United States the ability to 
lead in an even more aggressive way with regard to  trade liberalization and all of its benefits on the 
global stage.  He wished briefly to reinforce the message the US had delivered at the TNC the 
previous day.  This was basically a message of  hope and commitment – the hope was that Members 
would make the progress everyone hoped for, and the commitment was that the United States would 
continue to take a leading role in this effort, a nd that this support came from the highest level.  The 
US President was a supporter of the Doha Round.  Some Members had seen this support and vision 
firsthand at the G8 meeting in Gleneagles.  The US  President had challenged Members to be bold, and 
to ensure that they did not miss the opportunity to have trade make its importa nt contribution to global 
growth and development.  The key was to create new opportunities and to demonstrate to Members' 
citizens that enhanced trade could make a positive a nd significant difference in their lives.  This was 
true in the United States, and it was a challenge that he himself took on, but it was also true 
throughout the world, and certainly in the developi ng world.  This was why all Members were seeking 
to ensure that the Round resulted in new opportuni ties for the products and services of developing 
countries.  The United States' momentum was positive,  but trade was not always an easy issue at the 
present time.  Earlier in the spring, the US Congr ess had determined that it was important for the 
United States to remain in the WTO, because a rules-based system  was essential for its economic 
growth, but also for global economic prosperity and the alleviation of poverty.  The US President had 
also now received approval of a short extension of trade promotion authority enabling the United 
States to negotiate a completed Doha agreemen t by the end of 2006 for Congressional approval.  
Further, the United States was wo rking through its ex-Secretary of Agriculture on agricultural reform 
and renewal of US farm legislation.  This f it well with its common goal for Hong Kong – to secure 
modalities in agriculture. 
127. He reiterated that the passage of the Centra l American Free-Trade Agreement by the US 
Senate the previous day was very important, and w ould help the United States to advance its broader 
trade liberalization agenda.  All had high ambitions for various areas of the Do ha Round, starting with 
agriculture.  The United States had made clear that it was ready to explore different approaches that 
could bring the DDA together and result in subs tantial accomplishments on all three pillars of 
agriculture.  He understood that discussions the prev ious day had confirmed again that market access 
in agriculture remained a major sticking point in  the negotiations.  This area was behind the other 
areas of the agriculture negotiations, and one could see that it was holding up progress, not only in the 
rest of the agriculture negotiations, but also in  NAMA and services.  His delegation had listened 
carefully to the particular concerns and sensitiviti es that had been raised by its developing-country 
partners in these negotiations.  The United States was prepared to work with these Members to  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 35 
 
 
 address their concerns in ways that built upon and st rengthened the rules-based system that was so 
vital to all.  He believed that Members needed to be ambitious in all areas of the negotiations if they 
were to meet their goals and complete these negotia tions successfully in 2006.  His purpose in coming 
to the present meeting was to meet with Ministers, Ambassadors and WTO officials, in order to see firsthand how to overcome the blockages Members faced, how to make progress and how to ensure 
that all kept uppermost in their minds what the potential gains of a successful Round could be – for 
their workers, their farmers, their service providers  and their consumers.  All Members had a calling.  
Otherwise, they would not be here.  Their calling was to improve the lives of their citizens and the 
global economy by succeeding with the DDA.  All needed to do a better job of keeping focussed on the gains that could be realized through trade liber alization and in meeting the adjustment challenges 
that all faced as that process went forward.  Th e United States had played a leadership role in 
launching these negotiations.  As all knew, it would c ontinue to show leadership in trying to bring 
them to a successful conclusion.  The United States  was ready to be bold and creative and to try to 
bridge the differences, but this had to be the e ndeavour of the entire memb ership.  He hoped that 
Members would use the summer wisely to find creative wa ys to build bridges, so that they could meet 
the substantial challenges ahead and deliver the results needed in Hong Kong to finish these 
negotiations in 2006.  For his part, he would be using the summer as an opportunity to move the 
process forward, and in September looked forward to continued serious negotiations.  He thanked 
Members for their attention and congratulated the Chairman on her very successful stewardship of the 
General Council. 
128. The Chairman
 congratulated the US Trade Represen tative on the passage by the US Congress 
of the CAFTA Agreement.  His presence, and that of Ministers from Japan and of Secretary Tsang of 
Hong Kong, China at this General Council, as we ll as the presence at the TNC meeting of the EU 
Trade Commissioner, was a reflection of these individuals' commitment to a successful Hong Kong Ministerial and the successful conclusion of the Round in 2006.  She believed that she spoke on 
behalf of all Members in saying that this gave them great encouragement and hope, and that they 
would work as hard as possible to ensure that they achieved their common objectives. 
129. The representative of Nigeria
 said his delegation had noted with keen interest the report of the 
TNC Chair, which highlighted areas of the Work Programme where some progress had been made as 
well as the challenges that remained.  The conclusi on his delegation reached from the assessment was 
that the scale generally weighed more in favour of th e negative side than the positive.  His delegation, 
therefore, remained committed to making progress in the post-July process, with a view to narrowing 
differences highlighted in the report.  It was Nigeri a's hope that with the right political impetus, most 
of the existing concerns could be resolved before Hong Kong. 
130. The General Council took note  of the Director-General's report and of all the statements. 
10. Preparations for the Sixth Session of the Ministerial Conference 
(a) Attendance by International Intergovernmental  Organizations as observers – Requests by: 
(i) League of Arab States 
(ii) Agency for International Trade Information and Cooperation (AITIC) 
131. The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting in May, the General Council had agreed that in 
keeping with past practice and the agreed Guidelin es for observer status for IGOs in Annex 3 of the 
General Council's Rules of Proce dure (WT/L/161), the organizations invited to attend the Cancún 
Ministerial Conference would also be invited to attend the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  The 
Council had also agreed that consultations would be  held on any requests for observer status at the WT/GC/M/97 
Page 36  
 
 Hong Kong Ministerial from any other IGOs that were not already observe rs at Cancún, and who 
were neither observers in the Gene ral Council nor in other WTO bodies. 
132. Also at the May Council, she had informed Memb ers that a request for observer status at the 
Hong Kong Ministerial had been received from the L eague of Arab States, and had invited Members 
wishing to consult the communication sent by this organization to contact the External Relations 
Division of the Secretariat.  She had also proposed that, in regard to this request, the General Council 
proceed in exactly the same way it had in the past  with regard to requests from IGOs for observer 
status at Ministerial Conferences who were neith er observers in the General Council nor in other 
WTO bodies.  Accordingly, she had proposed that unless any objection was received by the Secretariat from any Member by 15 June 2005, the League of Arab States be granted observer status 
at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  She had also indicated that, as in the past, she would 
inform the General Council at its next meeting of th e situation with regard to this request, and that 
delegations would have an opportunity at that meeting to engage in a discussion on this request if an 
objection had been received.  Two reservations had si nce been received by the Secretariat within the 
proposed deadline, and there was therefore no consensu s to grant the request from the League of Arab 
States at the present stage.  In the interests of transparency of the process, she requested the 
delegations who had expressed reserv ations on the request from the League of Arab States to indicate 
this to the membership. 
133. The representative of Israel
 said that at the present time, Israel was not in a position to support 
the request by the League of Arab States for observe r status at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. 
134. The representative of the United States  said that in the spirit of transparency, as the Chairman 
had suggested, he wished to confirm that the United States had also raised an objection to the granting 
of observer status for the League of Arab States at the Hong Kong Ministerial. 
135. The representative of Egypt , on behalf of the Arab Group of countries , expressed regret that it 
had not been possible to agree by consensus to th e request by the League of Arab States.  As 
Members were well aware, this request met the appli cable criteria and had gathered the support of the 
majority of the membership.  However, the Arab  Group accepted the rule of the organization, which 
was consensus.  The Arab Group again urged the whole membership to wo rk towards reaching an 
agreement or understanding on the overall observer st atus issue regarding both observer status in the 
General Council and subsidiary bodies, as well as at  Ministerial Conferences – an issue which had 
been with Members since 1999.  The agreement s ought was one that corresponded to the principles 
governing the organization and enshrined in the Agreement establishing the organization.  The Arab 
Group looked forward to participating in any consul tations the Chairman might hold concerning this 
matter. 
136. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
137. The Chairman  then said that since the Council's most  recent meeting, the Secretariat had 
received a request for observer status at the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference from the Agency for 
International Trade Information and Cooperation (A ITIC), which currently did not have observer 
status in any WTO body.  Members wishing to consult the communication received from this organization were invited to contact the External Re lations Division of the Secretariat.  She proposed 
that Members proceed in exactly the same way they ha d in the past with regard to requests from other 
IGOs for observer status at Ministerial Confer ences who were neither observers in the General 
Council or in other WTO bodies.  Accordingly, she proposed that, unless an objection was received 
by the Secretariat from any Member by 15 August 2005, the AITIC be granted observer status at the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Conference.  As in the past, she would inform the General Council at its next meeting of the situation with regard to this request , and delegations would have an opportunity at that  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 37 
 
 
 meeting to engage in a discussion on this request if an objection were received from any delegation by 
the deadline of 15 August. 
138. The representative of Benin  said that, as Chairman of the Council of Representatives of the 
AITIC, he wished to provide the General Council with a brief presenta tion of this agency.  The AITIC 
had been created in 1998 at the initiative of the Swiss Government.  It had been set up as an 
independent agency based in Geneva, whose mandate was to help the less-advantaged countries take a 
more active part in the work and negotiations of th e WTO.  The transformation of the AITIC had been 
launched as an initiative adopted by the Ministers of Trade of 55 governments during the Doha Ministerial Conference in November 2001.  The aim of  this initiative was to consider the feasibility of 
transforming the AITIC into an intergovernmental or ganization.  In March 2002, the task force set up 
following the approval of the initiative had submitted  a report to the United Nations International 
Conference on Financing for Development in Monte rrey.  This report mandated the task force to 
negotiate the agreement establishing the AITIC as an intergovernmental organization.  The 
negotiations had been completed and the agreement signed in December 2002.  The AITIC currently 
had seven donor members and 52 participating memb ers.  Under the Agreement, the AITIC would be 
financed in future by the following donors:  Denmark, Finland, Irela nd, Netherlands, United 
Kingdom, Sweden, and Switzerland.  The status of pa rticipating member was open to all of the less-
advantaged countries without any financial commitme nt.  The purpose of the AITIC was to help the 
participating members, i.e. the developing countries with limited resources, including the small vulnerable economies, the economies in transition, the least-developed countries and, above all, those 
which did not have a permanent representation in Gene va, to participate effectively in the work of the 
WTO.  The AITIC had been cooperating actively in the development and implementation of the 
WTO's Geneva Week programmes for non-residents ev er since the creation of the event in 1999.  
Another permanent activity of the AITIC was the prep aration of Ministerial Conferences.  In this 
regard, the AITIC had organized a sub-regional sem inar in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, and was preparing to organize similar semi nars in Benin and the Central African Republic.  
For all of these reasons, Benin wished to recommend that Members grant the AITIC the status of 
observer at the forthcoming Ministerial Conference. 
139. The General Council took note
 of the statements and agreed  to the Chairman's proposal.   
(b) Election of Officers for the Sixth S ession – Statement by the Chairman 
140. The Chairman  recalled that Ministers at Cancún had requested the General Council to hold 
consultations with a view to determining the presidi ng officers – i.e. the Chairperson and three Vice-
Chairpersons – of the Ministerial Conference who would hold office until the end of the Sixth 
Session.  She recalled that at the Council's May meet ing, Members had agreed that, in keeping with 
customary practice, they would elect a representative of the host government – in this case Hong Kong, China – to chair the Confer ence.  Members had also  agreed that she would hold consultations 
with regard to the election of the three Vice-Chairs, and that the Council would revert to this matter at 
its next meeting in order that the full slate could be agreed at the same time. 
141. On the basis of consultations she had held recently with representatives of broad regional 
groupings, who had themselves suggested consensu s candidates to her regarding the three Vice-
Chairpersons, she was in a position to propose that  the General Council elect the following presiding 
officers for the Sixth Session: 
 Chairperson:  Mr. John Tsang 
   Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology  
   Hong Kong, China  WT/GC/M/97 
Page 38  
 
  Vice-Chairpersons:   H.E. Dr. Martin Bartenstein 
    Federal Minister for Economic Affairs and Labour 
    A u s t r i a  
 
    The Hon. Dame Billie Antoinette Miller      Senior Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade 
    B a r b a d o s  
 
    H.E. Mr. Idris Waziri     Minister of Commerce 
    N i g e r i a  
 142. The General Council agreed
 to elect the above presiding officers for the Sixth Session of the 
Ministerial Conference. 
143. The representative of Nigeria  expressed his Government's gratitude for the selection of its 
Minister as one of the Vice-Chairpersons.  On behalf  of his Minister, he wished to assure Members of 
Nigeria's commitment to the success of the multilatera l trading system and the successful conclusion 
of the Doha Round.  His Government's thanks al so went to the entire WTO membership, and the 
African Group in particular, for the confidence repos ed in Nigeria, which was highly humbled by the 
privilege of serving in this capacity. 
144. The General Council  took note  of the statement. 
(c) Statement by the Chairman 
145. The Chairman  said that Members had just heard the report of the Chairman of the TNC who, 
along with others, had painted an accurate portra it of where Members were in the negotiations. 4  The 
Chairs of the Negotiating Groups had painted very similar portraits the previous day at the TNC.  It 
would certainly be fair to say that Members were not  where they wished to be.  They had made some 
progress on some issues, but far too many remained  to be resolved.  The progress made had been 
much too slow.  Members had  done exactly what she had raised in her acceptance statement in 
February, and what Members had said they did not wi sh to do – backload most of the decisions into 
the fall and, potentially, overload the agenda for Ministers at a five-day, politically charged, Ministerial Conference in Hong Kong.  All had seen that movie, and all knew how it ended.  To make 
it more challenging still, there would be a relativel y high turnover in Heads of Delegation during the 
summer, including some Chairs of Negotiating Groups.  Some had been temporarily averted, and 
others were in abeyance, but all of these changes would add to Members' burden.  On the subject of 
not adding to this burden, she joined the Director-G eneral and others who had said that there was not 
a crisis in the negotiations and that one need not press the panic button.  The truth was that Members 
had long ago come to the realization that they would not likely make much greater progress in the 
negotiations by July.  However, it was not in her na ture, nor Members', to throw in the towel.  The 
challenge before Members was to remain deliberate and determined. 
146. She had consulted informally with Members and believed that three things would be needed 
in order to succeed in Hong Kong.  First, Members would have to make the most efficient, rational 
use of time.  Among other steps they might take, this could mean:  reducing the work of regular 
bodies, other than the Dispute Settlement and the Trade Policy Review Bodi es, to essential business 
only, in order to allow Members to focus their res ources on the negotiating bodies;  avoiding informal 
Ministerial meetings outside Geneva that conflicte d with the negotiating agenda and took negotiators 
away from Geneva for extended periods;  ensuring mo re frequent and active pa rticipation of Senior 
                                                     
 
4 The full text of the Chairman's statement was subsequently circulated in document WT/GC/95.  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 39 
 
 
 Officials in the Geneva process;  ensuring that Ministers were on call to provide political guidance on 
a continuous basis, including by travelling to Geneva  to consult each other, and ensuring that they 
were in regular contact with each other between meetings, deepening their understanding of each 
other’s positions and needs;  in addition to this ongoing involvement, it might be useful to provide a 
stocktaking session early in the fall for Ministers to assess whether progress was being made;  and – 
perhaps most importantly – there was a need for mo re coherent, integrated, centralized and continuous 
management of the negotiating process.  It was now critical to begin pulling the different threads of 
the negotiations – which had, quite often, run on sep arate tracks – together,.  It was her intention to 
consult both the out-going and in-coming Directors- General on how this could be done quickly so as 
to provide a focus to all of the work in the fall.  Part of using the fall efficiently was using the August 
break efficiently.  Members needed to take this  time to reassess their ne gotiating positions with 
capitals – to look for new approaches th at would ensure acceptable outcomes. 
147. Second, transparency and effective participati on in the negotiations were issues on which she 
had received countless petitions from the smaller Members.  She shared the collective importance Members attached to this issue, and believed that  the organization’s commitment to transparency and 
effective representation would be met in several ways.  For example, the Bureau for the Sixth 
Ministerial Conference, that had just been estab lished, was representative, but the members of the 
Bureau owed their constituencies regular briefings.  Transparency and effective participation would 
also be achieved through more frequent TNC meetings  and informal meetings of Heads of Delegation, 
and by effective integration and participation of regional coordina tors in formal and informal 
consultations.  Regional coordinators  would then be responsible for briefing their constituencies in an 
effective and timely manner. 
148. As Chairman of the General Council, she st ood ready to brief individual delegations and 
groups on issues arising in the negotia tions on which they might require clarification.  She was certain 
that the Director-General and the Chairs of the Negotiations Groups would also be pleased to provide 
such assistance to any Member.  She also intended to consult with the Director-G eneral to ensure that 
the most effective possible use was made of the seco nd Geneva Week for Non-Residents, so that the 
Week was focussed on the issues Members would n eed to address prior to and at the Hong Kong 
Ministerial meeting.  Third, and most importantly, Members would need real political will – not political speeches, but political action and political c ourage, not political constraints, but creative 
political solutions to problems.  Ultimately, it wo uld be political will that would determine whether 
Members succeeded in Hong Kong.  The objectives for Hong Kong should not be lowered.  They 
remained the same ones Members had set out at th e beginning of the year – modalities for agriculture, 
still the engine of the Round;  modalities for non-agricultural market access;  a critical mass of high quality offers in services;  an agreed negotiati ng agenda in the area of rules, including trade 
facilitation;  and a meaningful contribution to develo pment in all aspects of the negotiations.  She also 
wished to remind Members, as she had done in  February upon taking up  the General Council 
chairmanship, of the importance attached by A frican Members, the Least-Developed Countries and 
the ACP to progress on the issue of cotton, in accord ance with the negotiating mandate in agriculture 
for substantial reductions in trade-distorting intern al support and substantial improvements in market 
access.  This mandate, too,  could not be lowered.  This was one of the areas of urgency, itself linked 
to broader global priorities that  she had addressed in February. 
149. Members' progress thus far had been disappointin gly slow.  However, she urged the General 
Council to keep the big picture in mind.  The Doha Development Agenda  could make a real 
contribution to the broader global priorities of pove rty reduction and sustainable development.  The 
Hong Kong Ministerial could set the stage for the completion of the DDA.  It was a rare opportunity – 
one that Members could not afford to miss.  She had said at the beginning of the year that "this year the organization would be challenged.  Difficult deci sions would have to be made, and we know it."  
She had also said that in several areas Members had to  bite the bullet.  Nothing had changed.  As she 
had said then, the challenge for this organizati on was that it was result-oriented, with outcomes 
directly affecting various spheres of economic life.   The organization would continue to be judged by WT/GC/M/97 
Page 40  
 
 real outcomes on a success and failure yardstick.  Members could not escape that challenge.  They had 
to face it.  Members needed to change gears and to improve their play in several areas as they 
prepared for Hong Kong.  Progress and success could onl y be achieved collectively.  In closing, she 
wished to inform the Council that she would be in Geneva during the month of August.  Her door 
would be open and she would we lcome any guidance on the ideas she had presented, or any other 
suggestions that Members wished to offer to ensure collective success at Hong Kong. 
150. The General Council took note
 of the statement. 
11. Chairmanship of the Special Session of the Committee on Trade in Agriculture and the 
Sub-Committee on Cotton 
151. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business", recalled that at its meeting in 
February 2004, on the basis of consultations carried  out by the then-Chairman of the General Council 
– and in keeping with the provisions of the structure adopted by the TNC at its first meeting that the 
General Council Chair consult on the chairman ships of the individual negotiating bodies – the 
General Council had agreed on the appointment of the then-Permanent Representative of New 
Zealand, Mr. Tim Groser, as Chair of the Committe e on Agriculture in Special Session until the Sixth 
Session of the Ministerial Conference.  Subsequent ly, at the General Counc il meeting in May 2005, 
under the agenda item on the report by the Chai rman of the TNC, she had referred to a 
communication from New Zealand, which had been ci rculated to all delegations, informing her and 
the membership as a whole that Mr. Groser had stepped down as New Zealand Permanent Representative, with effect from 23 May 2005, foll owing his decision to become a candidate for 
election to his country's legislature.  At that mee ting, she had welcomed the offer of the New Zealand 
Government to supply the necessary resources to enab le Mr. Groser to continue to carry out his 
functions as Chair of the Agriculture Committee in Special Session and the Cotton Sub-Committee until the summer break.  She had stated that, concer ning the position after July, it would be necessary 
for the membership to reflect on what was in the best interests of the negotiating process as Members 
approached the Hong Kong Ministerial, and that she would be ready to conduct consultations as 
necessary. 
152. In the context of consultations she had sub sequently begun with re gard to the future 
Chairmanship of the Agriculture Committee in  Special Session, on 8 July the New Zealand 
authorities, in a communication circulated to a ll delegations, had reiterated the position they had 
conveyed in May.  In particular, they had made it cl ear that the intention had been to allow sufficient 
time for the membership to determine who would succeed Mr. Groser as Chair, and that the New 
Zealand Government's arrangements that supported Mr. Groser in the role of Chair would end after he 
had completed the July meetings.  In her initial c onsultations, some Members had indicated that they 
wished to see Mr. Groser continue in the interest s of continuity, while others had taken a different 
view.  In the absence of consensus, she had undertak en consultations on the question of a successor to 
Mr. Groser to fill the position of Chairman of th e Committee on Agriculture in Special Session and of 
the Sub-Committee on Cotton.  She had also cons ulted on this matter with Mr. Groser, who had 
firmly made clear that he would step aside as soon as a new Chairman was selected, and that his 
overriding concern was to avoid slippage and loss of  time in the negotiations and ensure a smooth 
hand-over.  As she had indicated to delegations in  a fax dated 25 July, she had conveyed her strong 
appreciation to Mr. Groser, both on her behalf and on behalf of the membership, for his extraordinary 
contributions to the agriculture negotiations, including  on cotton.  In that fax, she had also indicated 
her intention to announce the name of a successo r to Mr. Groser at the present General Council 
meeting.  On the basis of this background, and the consultations she had conducted, she informed 
Members that the name of Mr. Crawford Falc oner of New Zealand had emerged as a consensus 
candidate to replace Mr. Groser as Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture in Special Session and 
of the Sub-Committee on Cotton as from 1 August. 
153. The General Council took note
 of this information.  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 41 
 
 
 ANNEX I 
 
Statement by Mr. Pascal Lamy,  
Director-General designate,  
prior to start of meeting on 29 July  
 
 
 This is the first time since I was entrusted with  this new role that I ha ve appeared before the 
General Council.  I would like to take this opportuni ty to thank all of you directly for the confidence 
you have shown in me.  I do so most sincerely.  I must say, however, that I have been warned by the 
man who on 1 September will be my predecessor.  I would like to thank you and I would also like to 
say that I have heard the words of warning from Dr. Supachai.  I would also like to thank those of you 
who were involved in the selection of the new DG, the Chair of the General Council, as well as Ambassadors Glenne (Norway) and Stephenson (Canada).  I do feel that they conducted matters in 
keeping with the wishes of the me mbership.  All of this was done fully respecting the letter of our 
rules and also, and this is just as important, the w hole spirit of such a procedure – the atmosphere, the 
climate in which such a campaign, if one might call it that, is to be carried out.  All of this was done with great transparency and firmness, and I do feel th at when one can act in the spirit and letter of the 
law, the WTO does indeed succeed.     I would like to say thank you then.  As I said the last time I took the floor from this rostrum –  
at the time I was speaking as a candidate – my prior ity was, is and shall be the conclusion of the 
Round.  That is the main purpose that I will have in  mind when I take office on 1 September.  Today I 
am speaking as someone who is not yet in office.  I am not in a position therefore to give you a 
detailed consideration of the situation.  That is yo ur business here this morning and, in a sense, your 
discussions and your work will info rm my understanding and appreciation of the situation.  Therefore, 
I am not in a position to be either alarmist or reassuri ng.  All I can do is hope  that you will work with 
all lucidity and that you will have a very clear unde rstanding of the state of play of the negotiations, 
and this should help us in the fe w weeks before we start up again in September to give us lots of 
energy for our route to Hong Kong.  As far as I am c oncerned, I will be here at work on 1 September, 
in keeping with the rules.  In order to be able  to devote myself 100 per cent to negotiations starting 
1 September, I have already taken a certain number of  decisions.  These decisions have to do with the 
organization of my team, the Deputy Directors-Genera l and the small team that will be working with 
me from 1 September.  I hoped to take these decision s quickly and be able to give you the results of 
this work today, having discussed the matter with so me of you over the last few weeks.  I will give 
you the results of all of this this morning, so th at all organizational matters  are behind us, which will 
allow us to focus on the substance of our negotiations from 1 September. 
 
 So let me start with the Deputy Directors-Genera l.  You know that after some hesitation, after 
some consultations, I decided to keep four Deputy Directors-General.  There were, there still are, 
other possible approaches which have their advantag es and disadvantages.  All things considered, and 
bearing in mind the importance of the negotiations, our Round, the success of Hong Kong, I felt that it 
was best to stick with a structure with which Me mbers are familiar, even though what everyone is 
used to is not necessarily the best thing.  I want to  make that clear, so that I am not misunderstood.  I 
do think that things have to be considered on a ca se-by-case basis, but that was a choice I made with 
respect to the Deputy Directors-General.  I made another decision, which you will have noted.  The 
selection procedure for the Deputies involves a decisi on to be made by the Director-General and not 
Members of the WTO, but I tried to ensure that the procedure was as transparent as possible and that 
the criteria governing my decision were made pub lic.  I then considered some 85 candidacies and 
retained some 15 of them – 15 candidates that I met with and interviewed personally, generally for 
about one hour.  At the close of these meetings with these 15 people short listed from the 80-plus who 
had applied, in addition to one or two people I a dded to the list, following all of this, I took the 
decision to appoint four people.  I will give you f our names in alphabetical order.  First of all, WT/GC/M/97 
Page 42  
 
 Amb. Alejandro Jara.  Then another Ambassador , Amb. Valentine Rugwabiza.  Third, someone 
known to some of you, Harsha Singh, and then Ru fus Yerxa, whose name has both a Y and an X and 
that is why I would imagine he always comes at the end of any alphabetical list.  And that is life.  That 
is just the way things are.  
 You will note – and I will not dwell on it –  that  I have given you at this stage four names.  
Four names of people and I have given you thei r names before giving you their nationalities.  
Alejandro Jara is from Chile, Valentine Rugwabiza is from Rwanda, Harsha Singh is from India and 
Rufus Yerxa is from the United States.  This inform ation as to their nationality I give you only in 
second place.  This is my way of stating it as clearly as possible that I have not recruited countries.  I 
have hired people, indi viduals.  And I have tried to assess their skills and experience as fairly as 
possible.  I have my own sense of their ability to en gage in team work, and also I bore in mind what I 
deem to be their ability to work with me.  This is  no absolute statement.  It is a matter governed by 
circumstance.  The criteria I used, I would reiterate , are criteria based on the people, the personalities 
with whom I was going to be working.  I think I now  have a strong and dynamic team.  Three of these 
names I think are very well known to you.  Hars ha Singh will be known only to those of you who 
have been here for quite a while, because he had been  in Geneva before returning to Delhi for a while.  
You will get to know him and I am sure you will come to appreciate his qualities.   One final clarification on the matter of my team.  In the criteria I had decided upon, I had hoped to have a balance between men and women on my team, and I have only half succeeded in that.  
When you have a goal, you have to state it.  When you do not fully meet it, it is best to recognize that.  
Sometimes one has to deal with the realities of a give n situation, and I do think that this was perhaps 
an early confirmation to me that at the WTO you do not always get what you want.  Now that said, we 
have a woman Deputy Director-General.  That is  news, and I do hope that that will be fully 
appreciated, leaving aside the qualities of the person appointed. 
 
 I would also like to let you know who will be number one and number two in my Cabinet.  
The four other positions will be announced later, at the beginning of September, because I still have a 
number of conversations and interv iews to have.  The number one w ho will be heading my Cabinet is 
Arancha Gonzales, whom many of you know because she previously served in my team when I was 
in Brussels and when I was worki ng for the Europeans, as I have to refer to them now.  The number 
two will be coming from within the Secretariat.  His name is Victor Do Prado whom a number of you 
also know.  I have also selected, in consultation with Dr. Supachai, Stuart Harbinson and a few people 
from within the Secretariat who I think fit the bill of quality which we all need.   That is where we are for the moment.  The train, after the discussions you will have had 
today, will be ready to leave the station from 1 September.  We all know the destination.  The 
destination is the conclusion of the Round, with a cr ucially important stop at the end of the year in 
Hong Kong.  I will be one hundred per cent invested in this.  I will be, as soon as possible, meeting 
with the Chairs of the different negotiating groups to make sure that the machinery is well oiled.  And 
now today, the General Council Chairman and the DG  will review the process and the organization to 
be put in place from September on.  I will conclude this short intervention by, in my turn, thanking a 
lot our friend Dr. Supachai who steered the WTO during the last years in what I think was a very clear 
way, a very transparent way.  You are not, my  friend, somebody who spends time banging on the 
table and kicking people to move them forward.  Your  style is persuasion.  Your style is making sure 
things happen because people believe they should happe n, and this is, I think, a trait for me and I will 
not say more about that – that you are a good man, a man of good, a man for good – and I think that is 
the big thing, the big legacy which you will leave us  with, and I hope that this sort of fundamental 
characteristic – as a human being, looking for good – we  will be able to bank on in your next position,  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 43 
 
 
 not far from here.  I will carefully meditate on your last lesson about marathons.  I wonder a bit 
whether I should not change my basic sporting hab its.  You instilled some doubt in me, I must say, 
but there is a bit of time for reflection.  I will leave you today with a sort of little question mark on whether I really should keep putting all my eg gs in the marathon basket.  Maybe a bit of 
diversification would be wise, and I will thi nk this over as a lesson of your experience. WT/GC/M/97 
Page 44  
 
 ANNEX II 
 
Statement by Mr. John Tsang, Secretary for Co mmerce, Industry and Technology of Hong Kong, 
China and Chairman of the Sixth Session of the Ministerial Conference,  
prior to start of meeting on 29 July  
 
  I am glad to be here for the closing session of the General Council before the summer break.  It 
is beautiful here in Geneva.  I cannot figure out why you all want to leave here when it is bright and 
sunny, and stay here when it is dark and gloo my. Perhaps, that is the fate of negotiators. 
 
 I decided some time ago that, whatever the state of play, I should come to Geneva at this time 
to have a reality check, as you would say, five m onths before the Sixth Ministerial Conference in 
Hong Kong.  I am glad that I did.  Although I have attended a number of informal Ministerial 
meetings over the last 12 months, they have been ab le to provide me with only a partial and filtered 
view of progress.  The reality is here. 
  Having read Dr. Supachai's report, I am of c ourse disappointed that we have not managed to 
arrive at the much hoped for and highly anticipated "first approximation" of the package which we all 
wish to see delivered in  December in Hong Kong.  I am, as I have said, disappointed, but I am not 
discouraged.  Certainly, time is running out.  Certai nly, much time has been wasted, while all of us 
have waited for political events to resolve themselves in  different parts of the world.  There have been 
unfortunate but unavoidable interruptions.  On the other hand, much technical work has been 
completed in the meantime, and we have seen the first, very welcome signs of a willingness to aim 
actively for the middle ground between previously fixed positions.  The task which faces us in 
delivering a successful and substantive outcome in  Hong Kong is a difficult one – difficult but not 
impossible.  The political imperative we face remains the same – we must complete the Doha Round in 
2006, or we lose a once-in -a-generation opportunity to do some serious good for the global economy as a 
whole, and that is particularly relevant for developing economies.  What is needed now is serious political leadership on the part of all our Governments, and determined work on the part of all our representatives here in Geneva.  When you reconvene after the summer, it will be a time for constructive bridge-building, not destructive brinksmanship. 
 
 Hong Kong, China offered to host the Minist erial Conference because we believe in the 
multilateral system.  Not surprising, perhaps, given our development history.  Obviously, we were 
beneficiaries of the increasingly open economic climat e which it ushered in during the second half of 
the last century.  More important, however, since we  took our share of hard knocks along the way, we 
recognize that only a genuinely multilateral, rules- based institution can provide protection for the 
small and weak against arbitrary action by the larg e and powerful.  So our commitment to the Sixth 
Ministerial Conference is absolute.  In order to  preserve and strengthen the institution, the first 
requirement is that it must continue to deliver .  So the WTO must continue to deliver trade 
liberalization, it must continue to reduce distortions  in the global economy, and it must continue to 
enhance certainty and predictability for commerce.  Only by remaining relevant to the needs of 
business in a rapidly globalizing economy can it deliv er its vital contribution to the development 
needs of everyone represented here.   Much is made of the fact that all else is  waiting on progress in agriculture, which represents 
only a small fraction of world trade.   But let us be frank with ourselves – if agriculture had been easy 
to deal with, it would have been resolved in a previous Round.  The last Round saw agreement on a 
time-frame for the disman tling of a particularly egregious derogation from the GATT in the area of 
textiles and clothing.  Amongst much else, this Round must see a similar commitment to dismantling the 
equally egregious, hugely trade- and investment-distorting arrangements in the area of agriculture.  So  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 45 
 
 
 let us drive hard to break the log jam as quickly as possible in agriculture, and get on with the rest of the 
agenda.   I look forward to welcoming you all in Hong Kong in December.  We have, I believe, a 
window of opportunity to do something truly historic  in this Round.  We want the Sixth Ministerial 
Conference to be a significant milestone along the ro ad to the successful conclusion of the Round and 
early implementation of the Doha Development Ag enda.  So we fondly h ope that you will have 
cleared most of the hurdles out of the way by then, leaving us time to celebrate outside the conference 
hall in Hong Kong. WT/GC/M/97 
Page 46  
 
 ANNEX III 
 
Statements of farewell to the Director-Gener al, prior to close of meeting on 29 July
 
  
 The Chairman
 said she wished to take this opportunity to bid farewell, on behalf of the 
membership, to Director-General Dr. Supachai, for whom this was the last meeting of the General 
Council before his term of office ended on 31 Augu st.  As all knew, this was the last substantive 
meeting Dr. Supachai would be attending in his capacity as Director-General of the WTO and as Chairman of the TNC, and she wished to pay tribut e to Dr. Supachai for his stewardship at a critical 
time for the WTO and the multilateral trading system.  Through his hard work, commitment and 
patience, Members had been able to make pr ogress in the DDA negotiations.  He had worked 
tirelessly in 2004 with her predecessor as Council Ch air to encourage Members to adopt the General 
Council Decision of July 2004, which still guided much  of Members' present work in the various 
negotiating groups.  To ensure that Members reache d this Decision, which had put the DDA back on 
track after the Cancún setback, Dr. Supachai had sp ared no effort to secure political support for the 
work in Geneva.  In recent weeks, Dr. Supachai ha d not relaxed.  Far from it – he had represented the 
WTO at a number of Ministerial meetings, and most recently at the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, where he had made an impassioned plea to the leaders present to re-energize the DDA and conclude it as soon as possible.  It was her understanding that this had made a real impression on these leaders, and that they had assured the Director-General that  they would follow up on it.  Conscious of the 
structural weaknesses of the economies of developing  countries, particularly the least-developed, Dr. 
Supachai had not lost any opportunity to remind Members to take account of the interests of developing countries in the DDA negotiations, beli eving that a strengthened multilateral trading 
system in which developing countries played an ac tive role would benefit all countries, developed and 
developing alike.  He had also encouraged developi ng countries to be proactive in the negotiations by 
taking on commitments which would eventually st rengthen their economies and put them on the path 
of sustainable growth and development.  He had urged work on special and differential treatment for 
developing countries to be accelerated, and in that connection had urged all sides to be flexible and 
accommodate the interests of one other.  He had ne ver shied away from responsibility.  From early in 
his tenure, he had agreed to take on the intractab le issue of implementation personally, and had made 
a number of creative proposals for resolving the outstanding issues.  Although little substantive 
progress had so far been made on these issues, it w as not because of lack of effort, but because of 
deeply entrenched positions of Members on the various issues under discussion.  With his habitual 
perseverance, Dr. Supachai had urged Members to  continue working on these issues until they found 
appropriate solutions to all of them.  
 She had no doubt that most of the membership  had experienced first-hand Dr. Supachai's 
warmth and calmness even during stressful periods .  His reassuring presence, soft-spoken and gentle 
manner had been a source of inspiration for many.  His steely determination to get agreement the 
previous week on the modalities for agriculture a nd NAMA, and generally to advance all of the 
negotiations so as to ensure a su ccessful Hong Kong Ministerial C onference, had not been lost on 
anyone.  His perseverance in the face of seemi ngly insurmountable hurdles had been truly 
commendable.  His contribution to the DDA was well appreciated by all, and there would be no better 
way of honouring him than to fulfil all the Doha mandates.  She trusted that Members would rise up to this challenge and deliver at Hong Kong.  On a more personal note, she had enjoyed working with 
Dr. Supachai over the past three years, especially  since the beginning of 2005 when she had been 
elected Chair of the General Council.  His easy and gracious manner and respect for colleagues had 
endeared him to her and to many others.  His positions on issues were always well thought-out, and 
his arguments were always presented cogently an d in a lucid manner.  He convinced people, as 
Director-General-designate Mr. Lamy had said in his address at the present meeting, by force of 
persuasion.  This was what all appreciated in a consensus-based organization.  On behalf of all 
Members and observers, she wished to thank Dr. Sup achai for the invaluable service he had rendered  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 47 
 
 
 to this organization, and to wish him the best in  both his personal and professional lives.  All were 
blessed that he would continue to  support Members' work in his new position as Secretary-General of 
UNCTAD.  She was convinced that he would do a sterling job there, as he had at the WTO.  He would strengthen relations between UNCTAD, the WT O and other internationa l institutions, so that 
all could effectively address the supply-side constr aints which had made it difficult to integrate 
developing countries into the multilateral trading syst em.  She wished to thank him once again for his 
dedication and commitment to the multilateral trading system.   As she had indicated at an informal meeting of Heads of Delegations the previous day, she 
wished to offer the floor to a small number of de legations that were broadly representative of the 
membership to add their own word s of farewell to Dr. Supachai. 
  The representative of Japan
 said that Dr. Supachai was highly appreciated for his excellent 
contributions to the WTO.  Japan wished to extend its  special thanks for his leadership in re-launching 
the negotiating process after the failure of the Cancún Ministerial Conference, which had been a hard 
time for the multilateral trading system.  Japan woul d do its best to make the Hong Kong Ministerial 
Conference successful and conclude this Doha Round by the end of 2006.  In doing so, it wished to 
forge a win-win relationship among Members.  Dr. S upachai had been appointed Secretary-General of 
UNCTAD by the UN Secretary-General because many people appreciated Dr. Supachai's achievements in the WTO.  Japan was confident that Dr. Supachai would work towards a more 
desirable direction for the relations between trad e and development.  Japan wished Dr. Supachai 
success and good luck in his new post. 
  The representative of the European Communities
 thanked Dr. Supachai for his outstanding 
contribution to the WTO and the world trading syst em during his tenure as Director-General.  The 
past three years had not been an easy time, but not withstanding the various setbacks, there was still a 
reasonable perspective of concluding the Round in 2006.   And if that were to be so, much would be 
due to Dr. Supachai's relentless efforts in keeping Ministers all around the globe, and also Ambassadors in Geneva, committed.  Dr. Supachai had done so at the very highest level, and the 
General Council Chair had reminded all of his ex cellent performance at the recent G-8 summit in 
Gleneagles.  Dr. Supachai had shown patience and wisdom in dealing with Ambassadors.  With some of them, this must have been one of his biggest ch allenges.  Dr. Supachai had been at pains to make 
Members' dealings more inclusive and more transparent.  He had been a very accessible Director-
General, particularly for the sma ller delegations, a good listener with an open mind to the problems of 
Members.  The door to his office was always open, and even if one did not get what one wanted, one 
at least got a cup of coffee.  Over the past three years, a much sharper focu s had been needed on the 
interests of the weaker Members, as well as a c ontinued strong emphasis on development issues, both 
in and in parallel to the DDA.  Members had seen a significant increase in WTO's trade-related 
technical assistance, which had worked as a precursor fo r aid to trade at large.  Dr. Supachai had set in 
motion an in-depth discussion on the functioning and organization of the WTO.  The Sutherland report had in fact been part of his initiative and pa rt of his legacy.  Cancún had been a setback for all 
and certainly for the Director-General, but in some  ways it had also been a blessing in disguise, as 
Members had been able collectively to draw importa nt lessons from it.  Cancún had also generated 
new and important alliances, greater ownership of  the process and greater assertiveness.  Members 
had seen a first result in the July 2004 Decision of the General Council.   Dr. Supachai had contributed greatly to rev italizing the negotiations and in connecting the 
Geneva process with Ministers.  It had been greatly  appreciated by the membership that in the past 
few months, Dr. Supachai had continued to fulfil his duties to the fullest, notwithstanding the illness 
and subsequent loss of his father.  In welcoming Mr. Pascal Lamy at the present meeting, Dr. Supachai had made some reference to marathon running and WTO Members running in all 
directions – some of them probably to the next cock tail party.  In fact, Members' negotiations rather 
resembled a multidimensional chess game, with a multiplic ity of players.  Dr. Supachai might not be a WT/GC/M/97 
Page 48  
 
 marathon runner, but he was certainly an accomp lished chess player.  He had always brought 
important insights on both substance and tactics in his role of managing the system.  He was also an 
accomplished painter.  His Christmas cards were a well appreciated memento.  It was hoped that Dr. Supachai would continue this tradition at UNCT AD.  Here at the WTO, Dr. Supachai had been 
inspired by the lake.  At the Palais, Dr. Supachai  also had the lake, but also peacocks – a possible 
suggestion for his next season's greetings cards.  The Council Chair had mentioned some of his 
accomplishments.  Dr. Supachai had not succeeded in solving the parking prob lems at the WTO, but 
at least he had turned the WTO into a non-smoking building.  It was hoped that this innovation would 
survive the arrival of Mr. Lamy, who appreciated a good cigar and regularly ignored the non-smoking signs in the EC delegation.  Every Sherlock Holm es had his Dr. Watson, and Dr. Supachai's Watson 
par excellence was Stuart Harbinson.  He wished to take this opportunity also to thank Mr. Harbinson, 
who was always there whenever one needed him.  Thanks were due as well to the whole team on the 
Director-General's corridor.  This was, of course, not  an "adieu" but only an "au revoir".  Dr. Supachai 
and his wife would remain very much part of the WTO family of friends.  Members would continue to 
meet Dr. Supachai professionally and socially and to benefit from his wisdom and friendship.  He 
wished him all the best. 
  The representative of the United States
 said that the Chairman had clearly spoken for all 
Members in recognition of Dr. Supachai's contributio ns.  He could not and would not try to match her 
eloquence but wished to add just a few words on behalf of his delegation.  The United States  
appreciated having this opportunity to express its hear tfelt thanks to Dr. Supachai for the leadership, 
commitment and dedication he had demonstrated time and again over the past three years, and for the 
vital role he had played in the DDA negotiations.  The previous day Dr. Supachai had said that some 
thought his job was akin to the task of Sisyphus, wh ile others had compared it to playing the role of 
chess master.  This reminded him of another meta phor.  One spoke of it "taking two to tango", and 
this was the one organization where it took 148 to tango.  So, choreography was everything, and his 
delegation had welcomed Dr. Supachai 's choreographic skills over the past three years.  Dr. Supachai 
had always shown a steady determination to help  the membership overcome the many complex 
problems that all had to face up to eventually  – hopefully soon.  The United States thanked 
Dr. Supachai for that and for the unfailing patience and kindness he had shown to all.  His delegation 
was pleased that Dr. Supachai would be able to  remain in Geneva, and looked forward to his 
continued support and cooperation.  The United Stat es wished him the very best and looked forward 
to working with him in his new role at UNCTAD.   Under his leadership, the United States looked 
forward to building a closer and more productiv e relationship between WTO and UNCTAD.  On 
behalf of his Government, he wished to commend Dr. Supachai for his many contributions to the 
organization and for his distinguished service, and to wish him the very best for the future.   
 
 The representative of Argentina , on behalf both of GRULAC and the G-20 , said it was both a 
privilege and an honour for him to make this stat ement on this occasion on behalf of the Members of 
both of these groups.  Since 1 September 2002, Dr. Supachai had performed a difficult but highly 
praiseworthy task in supporting and assisting Member s to advance the Development Round.  The task 
had not been, nor was it now, a simple one, and th ese countries appreciated all his efforts on behalf of 
a more open, more transparent and, above all, mo re equitable multilateral trading system – a system 
that not only facilitated the opening-up of market s, but that included clear disciplines and a good 
measure of equity in order to help the poorest and weakest Members, and that embraced the interests 
of all Members and took into account the needs of the developing world.  Coming from a developing country, Dr. Supachai had understood perfectly well th e challenge ahead of him, and during the three 
years that he had led the organization, Dr. Supach ai had not ceased in his determination to achieve 
progress in the Development Round.  Dr. Supachai had constantly sought to bring this message before 
all the world's authorities, in particular, more  recently, before the Presidents and Heads of 
Government of the G-8, and he countries wished to th ank him particularly for this final effort to guide 
the negotiating process.  A new challenge awaited Dr . Supachai now, and he would surely follow the 
fortunes of Members' negotiations at the WTO.  Dr . Supachai had proved himself to be an eminent  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 49 
 
 
 and highly respected official, who had always been at  Members' disposal, seeking to contribute to the 
settlement of their disputes, bringing positions clo ser together and facilitating their work.  He also 
wished to emphasize his appreciation for the work ca rried out by all of the Deputy Directors-General 
and also the commitment and dedication of the me mbers of the Secretariat.  The countries of 
GRULAC and the G-20 wished to thank Dr. Supachai  for his enormous efforts and for the excellent 
work Dr. Suachai and his colleagues had conducted in a serious and responsible manner.  They 
wished Dr Supachai, all the very best for the future. 
  The representative of Bangladesh
, on behalf of the LDCs , expressed appreciation for Dr. 
Supachai's leadership of the WTO for the past three years.  Dr. S upachai had come to the WTO with 
outstanding credentials.  He was a well-known academic  and had had years of experience in trade and 
development issues.  He had held important positio ns in his Government, including that of Deputy 
Prime Minister.  This background had been invaluable  to him in his leadership of the WTO, as the 
first Director-General of either the GATT or of the WTO from a developing country.  When 
Dr. Supachai had come to this organization, the fra mework of the Round was already in place.  With 
him as Director-General and Chair of the TNC, Me mbers had been able to benefit from his wisdom, 
his sense of fairness and his openness.  Transp arency was an often-used word, and during 
Dr. Supachai's leadership Members had seen it in operation.  Among his other outstanding contributions was the publication of the annual World Trade Report, which had become a flagship publication of the WTO.  The LDCs also wished to  acknowledge his contribution to the integration of 
technical assistance and training in the WTO.  These  were two separate functions in the WTO, and for 
the first time, one had been able to see the synergy that could be derived from the combination of the 
two.  The LDCs had always recognized Dr. Supachai's contribution to the weakest members of the global community.  Soon after his arrival, he ha d established the LDC Unit in the WTO, and had 
placed it in the Development Division.  This had b een more than mere cosmetic rearrangement – it 
had firmly put in place a group to provide substan tive support to the LDCs.  Many might have noticed 
that since then, the LDCs had become much bette r organized and had improved their coordination.  
They thanked Dr. Supachai for this contribution.  Dr. Supachai was leaving the WTO at a critical 
juncture.  However, it was hoped that Members wo uld benefit from his wisdom and contribution to 
the trade negotiations in a different capacity.  The LDCs were delighted that Dr. Supachai would be 
taking over as Secretary-General of UNCTAD.  Havi ng the benefit of experience at the helm of the 
WTO, he would have an opportunity to take a pro- active role on Members' behalf.  The LDCs wished 
him the very best both in his new assignment and personally. 
  The representative of Benin
, on behalf of the ACP Group , said that as Dr Supachai prepared 
to take up his new duties at the head of anothe r Geneva international institution, the ACP Group 
wished to express its thanks and sincerest gratitude  for his tireless efforts in the framework of the 
Doha Round of trade negotiations.  These countri es had witnessed the extent of Dr. Supachai's 
concern regarding the outcome of this work, a nd had also witnessed, and fully appreciated, his 
personal commitment and motivation as Chairman of the TNC, both during the work in Geneva and in 
the meetings held outside Geneva – the mini-Min isterials and the regional meetings organized by 
different WTO groups – not to mention his meetings with political leaders of the Members.  The ACP 
Group remained convinced that Dr. Supachai would c ontinue, in his new post, to be a leading player 
and an essential partner in the cooperation that ha d developed between the WT O – of which he had a 
practical knowledge and understandi ng – and UNCTAD, and the other international organizations 
involved in the promotion of international tr ade and development.  The ACP Group wished 
Dr. Supachai every success in his new duties.  
 The representative of Croatia
, on behalf of the CEFTA-plus countries , expressed their 
profound appreciation to Dr. Supachai for having skilfully guided the organization in the past three years.  In assuming this post in 2002, Dr. Supach ai had accepted a challengi ng task of steering an 
organization that involved more than 140 Members, a ll with various interests and their own particular 
agendas when it came to trade negotiations.  He  commended the endless patience and understanding WT/GC/M/97 
Page 50  
 
 for each Member's position that Dr. Supachai had show n.  This signified perhaps the most important 
part of his success as a Director-General.  Despite the fact that Dr. Supachai's tenure as Director-
General had been marked by some demanding year s in the WTO's history, the CEFTA-plus countries 
recognized the achievements he had made.  They r ecalled that Dr. Supachai had taken up the post of 
Director-General at a critical juncture when  the DDA negotiations had needed a decisive push 
towards more structured and in-dep th discussions aimed at leading Members to their final goal.  Not 
only had Dr. Supachai proved that he could deliv er as Chairman of the TNC, but he had also 
contributed his share to achieving some important mil estones in the negotiations in the past few years.  
Without his timely input and efforts in trying to  bridge individual differences, Members would 
probably not have been able to arrive at the present phase of th eir negotiations.  The CEFTA-plus 
countries also wished to thank Dr. Supachai for hi s vision and for the commitment he had maintained 
throughout his entire term as Director-General.  Th ey wished him all success in the new professional 
challenge awaiting him in the near future.  Moreover,  they looked forward to continuing to work with 
him in Geneva in promoting and improving global tr ade relations that were widely perceived as the 
essential tool for growth. 
 
 The representative of Egypt
, on behalf both of the African and Arab Groups , said that these 
countries were grateful for the dedicated efforts Dr . Supachai had made over the past three years, 
during which he had led the Secretariat of this or ganization with confidence, wisdom, motivation and 
vision.  Dr. Supachai had started his term at a ti me when this organization was going through a critical 
and complex phase, under the heavy pressure of  one of the most am bitious and challenging 
negotiating rounds.  Nevertheless, with his help and the help of his very able team, the membership 
had managed to make it a period that had witn essed remarkable advancements in rules-based 
multilateralism with development at its heart.  Despite the difficulties stemming from the complex 
nature of these negotiations, Members could not forg et the significant record of achievements during 
Dr. Supachai's term.  It was quite evident that Dr . Supachai had had a considerable impact on this 
house.  Among the multitude of his achievements, he wished to point out the number of accessions 
and the enlargement of developing countries' me mbership.  Needless to say, maintaining the 
momentum gained thus far for the DDA was anothe r important achievement.  One could not ignore 
the tremendous effort the WTO had made under Dr. Supachai's leadership in providing technical 
assistance and capacity building to developing countries in the field of trade negotiations in general.  
All knew that the WTO was a Memb er-driven organization, but Dr. Supachai had managed to prove 
that the Secretariat could play a very helpful ro le in stimulating the organization's progress through 
assuring inclusiveness and transparency, not to men tion hard work, patience and dedication.  The 
African and Arab countries were quite proud of what  had been achieved together.  They knew they 
would miss Dr. Supachai's presence.  However, th ey would always look forward to continuing their 
fruitful cooperation and collaboration with Dr. Sup achai in his new position.  Dr. Supachai had 
another long marathon to run in his new responsibiliti es in UNCTAD.  However, he had proved to be 
really fit.  The African and Arab countries wished him all the best.   
  The representative of Paraguay
, on behalf of the Informal Group of Developing Countries , 
said this was a very special occasion for these countries, since they were bidding farewell to 
Dr. Supachai, the first developing-country national to  have headed the organization that presided over 
the multilateral trading system since the creation of the GATT in 1947, and its permanent successor, 
the WTO, in 1995.  Dr Supachai was already a fi gure of international renown when he took up the 
post of Director-General in September 2002.  As Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Trade in Thailand, he had contributed significantly to the no table development and prosperity of that country, 
which for decades had set an example for the implementation, in a developing country, of trade 
policies geared towards competition and efficiency.  At the same tim e, Dr Supachai had devoted his 
efforts to the liberalization of world trade th rough ASEAN and APEC, a dom ain in which he had 
shown great vision and leadership.  With his wealth  of knowledge and experien ce, he had come to the 
Centre William Rappard, bringing with him his brush es and paints, to work hard at the head of the 
WTO, while at the same time immortalizing, with his paintbrush, the beauty of the WTO headquarters  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 51 
 
 
 on the shores of Lac Léman.  In addition to his cap acity for leadership, Dr Supachai had also been 
remarkable for his serene nature and conciliatory spirit, which had helped him face delicate and 
uncertain situations in an environment of natural tranquillity that was clearly propitious to identifying 
the problems and finding timely solutions.  Thanks to this special talent, Dr Supachai had been able to 
guide Members through the difficulties of the Canc ún Ministerial Conference, which unfortunately 
had produced no results, helping Members to recove r confidence through the adoption of the July 
package in 2004.  This strong climate of confiden ce in Members' capabilities was still present, as they 
once again encountered serious obstacles in the ne gotiations, and would undoubtedly help to guide 
their efforts towards success in Hong Kong.    
 The Secretary-General of the United Nations  had duly acknowledged Dr Supachai's abilities 
and merits by appointing him Secret ary-General of UNCTAD, where he would be able to pursue his 
mission in support of development.  The developing countries wished him every success in his new duties on behalf of peace and harmony among mankind.  In connection with Dr Supachai's work on 
behalf of the developing countries, he wished to highlight three achievement s as clear examples of his 
commitment and determination.  First, the creati on of the WTO's LDC Unit had helped to orient the 
Secretariat's capacity to help countries with the gr eatest needs and the fewest resources to integrate 
more fully into world trade.  Second, the significant increase under his direction in the WTO's  technical cooperation work had benefited all deve loping countries.  This important achievement had 
been made possible by Dr Supachai's intelligent and pragmatic approach to technical cooperation, 
which involved combining the WTO's resources and cap acities with those of other international and 
non-governmental organizations to produce the kind of  rationality and efficiency that were essential to 
achieve optimum results with the least possible expe nditure.  Third was his remarkable willingness to 
visit developing countries whenever the opportunity ar ose.  Dr Supachai had apparently visited more 
than 60 countries throughout the world during hi s term.  Of these, about 50 were developing 
countries.  These visits were of inestimable value.   Not only had they helped to enhance general 
understanding of the organization and to counter th e stereotypes that had often developed concerning 
the WTO, but they had also delivered a message of optimism to the developing countries concerning 
their true prospects of overcoming underdevelopment by adopting suitable trade policies and applying 
them in a rigorous and disciplined manner.  "M ission accomplished" summarized the feeling that 
prevailed on this special occasion, and the deve loping countries congratulated and thanked Dr. 
Supachai for all he had done. 
 
 The representative of Switzerland
, on behalf of the host country , said it was the privilege of 
the representative of the host country to welcome ne w executive heads of international organizations 
and to wish them good luck.  It was also his sad duty to thank them and say goodbye when they left.  However, he would have the unus ual pleasure not only of bidding fa rewell at this meeting to Dr. 
Supachai, but also of welcoming the latter again in a month's time in his capacity as Permanent 
Representative of Switzerland to UNCTAD.  Dr. S upachai had been involved for a long time in 
multilateral cooperation, especially with UNCTAD, a nd he had certainly had the opportunity to note 
that in some organizations in which he had been active, people were somewhat more restrained and 
polite than in others.  In this sense, Dr. Supachai 's beginning with UNCTAD and then moving to the 
WTO had not been the easiest transition for him.  In  any event, Switzerland was delighted to be able 
to keep Dr. Supachai in Geneva.   As had been said time and again at the present meeting, Members 
owed Dr. Supachai their gratitude fo r all the efforts he had made in the course of the past three years.  
These years had been difficult.  They had been difficult not only for Dr. Supachai, but also for 
Members, who had a feeling of frustration at not ha ving advanced further than they had.  However, 
what was important was to keep a sense of persp ective and to note the progress they had made, 
compared to where they had been three years earli er.  Indeed, three years earlier he would have 
described the situation as all being in the starting box with no clear idea of whether they would make 
the race.  At present, however, Members were deep ly involved in the process of negotiations, as the 
statements made these past two days had demonstrat ed.  Dr. Supachai had played his part in this 
process, and for that Switzerland was very grateful.  Beyond the contribution Dr. Supacahi had made WT/GC/M/97 
Page 52  
 
 in terms of substance during his tenure as Director-General, there was also the image that he would be 
leaving behind.  In this regard, he recalled the im ages of two previous Directors-General – the first 
was Arthur Dunkel, who had just passed away and who, as a typical Swiss, had left the image of a 
hard worker and a man anxious to do the right thing.  The other was Peter Sutherland, who as an Irishman was both a charming individual and a most brutal Chair.  As for Dr. Supachai, the image he 
would personally keep was of a man of good faith and a very deep honesty.  For that, and for his 
substantive contribution and personal commitment, all owed Dr. Supachai their gratitude, and he 
wished to add his best wishes for Dr. S upachai's activities up the hill at UNCTAD. 
  The representative of Thailand
, on behalf of ASEAN Members , expressed their deepest 
appreciation for the tremendous work carried out by Dr. Supachai in his capac ity as Director-General 
over the past three years.  During this period, they  had been impressed with his astute and unflappable 
character as an impartial leader, and his sense of de termination in fulfilling the mandate to conclude 
the Doha Development Round by the originally stat ed time-frame.  They were pleased that during his 
tenure, Dr. Supachai had always put development at the forefront of critical issues which had to be 
addressed in the Doha Round and, as a result, the effort to ensure a more equitable level of 
engagement in the WTO for developing and least-d eveloped country Members was bearing its fruits. 
This also extended to his tireless efforts to help  enhance the provision of technical assistance and 
capacity building to developing and least-develope d countries.  Throughout the negotiating process, 
they had been grateful that through his mediation a nd active role, Dr. Supachai had been able to help 
bridge some seemingly unbridgeable gaps, and help Members overcome their differences in many 
difficult negotiating areas.  His strenuous efforts had contributed significantly to the July 2004 
Decision, which had ushered Members ever closer to  realizing the ultimate and universally beneficial 
goals of the Round.  As Dr. S upachai was also  from an ASEAN Member country, these countries 
were doubly proud of him, as he had represented the WTO during these three years in the most vibrant, effective, and – most importantly – fair  manner.  They also wished to pay tribute to 
Mr. Harbinson and to thank the whole team of Dr. Supachai for their outstanding work.  Although 
they were saying "farewell" to Dr. Supachai, they  really meant "see you again", as all knew that he 
would be making his untiring efforts in another im portant capacity as Secretary-General of UNCTAD, 
and they would surely come acro ss him again in the near future.  They had no doubt that UNCTAD 
would benefit from the experience, the deep insi ghts, and the special qualities Dr. Supachai would 
bring to that organization.  They were certain th at his future work at UNCTAD would continue to 
help developing countries and least-developed countri es better integrate into a global trading system 
that was fair, inclusive, and effective, and comple ment the concrete platform he had helped establish 
during his tenure as WTO Director-General. The ASEAN Members wished Dr. Supachai every 
success in the future, both professionally and personally.  
 The Director-General
 said he had been profoundly touched by all the kind and sincere words 
directed to him.  There was, to his mind, no organization in the world that could emulate the unique importance this institution had.  He had been at th e creation of the WTO in Marrakesh in 1994.  He 
knew how difficult it had been for th e collective community of the wo rld to reach an agreement to 
establish this institution of such importance to the welfare and wellbeing of human beings around the 
world.  So Members should be proud and feel the ho nour of working within and for this institution for 
the benefit of the wider world.  One could not imagine how honoured and how proud he had felt, and 
had always felt, to have been appointed to head th is organization, because he had come in at a time, as 
many had said, when the organization was headed in to territory that was fraught with all kinds of 
sensitivities, intangibles, old issues, new issues, ti me of challenges and interesting tasks to be 
performed.  But he also remembered particularly th e teaching of Lord Buddha that nothing in life was 
permanent.  The moment he had entered this organi zation had been the moment he had been thinking 
also of leaving it.  It did not really matter who he  was or what position he was taking.  It mattered 
most what he could do, in terms of  content and substance into this organization – what he could do to 
help his fellow citizens of the world.  He had been reminded recently of the words of a poet, an Indian 
poet and philosopher whom he liked very much, a nd who had written something along these lines:  "I  WT/GC/M/97 
 Page 53 
 
 
 slept and I dreamt that life was a joy and then I w oke up and I found out that life was a duty.  Then I 
acted and behold, duty was joy."  Several of his friends and colleagues around the world had 
questioned him as to the wisdom of taking on this job, because they did not think it was such an 
attractive job to take.  However, in spite of the ups and downs, in spite of some rough times, he had 
not really had a moment of unhappiness or suffering th roughout his tenure.  It had been a time of joy – 
of joy in having been given the honour of working for this institution and working with Members.  
The latter had made his life, his work, his duty, a so urce of joy.  And during the past three years he 
had also learned the truth of something he had been taught and had tried to practice but had not 
always succeeded.  He had always been taught that life was giving and taking, but more of giving than 
taking, and that the more one gave, supposedly the more one would receive.  He had been taught to 
give and not expect anything in return – a sort of non-reciprocity treatment in WTO terms.  So, the 
more he had been working with Members in the WTO, the more he believed that in order to 
accomplish something in the WTO, his heart, his mind and his all had to go to support Members' efforts and to help them accomplish what they ha d set out to do with the DDA.  It was merely to 
understand the art of giving – it was in giving, a nd giving as much as one could while not really 
expecting anything in return, that one would really be getting everything one wished for in return. 
  He had thanked almost everyone at the TNC the previous day and would not repeat this, but wished to re-emphasize and reiterate his thanks to two people.  First, the Chair of the General 
Council, not because she was the Chair at the mo ment, but because she actually embodied the notion 
that Africa – a continent that had been suffering so much – could have a representative such as 
herself, who could bring out the best from her contin ent and that all could work together towards the 
goal of integrating all countries, including Africa,  into the multilateral trading system.  He had 
appreciated her work, her quality, her contribution, not as a Chair, which she had often been, but as an embodiment of something that Africa could achieve.  He also wished to express his appreciation to 
another friend who had not been mentioned in his st atement the previous day – Stuart Harbinson.  
When he had come to this institution, he had asked Mr. Harbinson to join him, with great respect for 
the latter and the work that he had been doing for th is institution.  In addition to many other things, 
Mr. Harbinson had a human quality that he could alwa ys look up to and respect.  He was certain that 
he had not thanked Mr. Harbinson enough, and wish ed to do so now before the membership, for his 
dedication to his work, and his faith and belief in what the WTO was doing.  He had not thought that 
Mr. Harbinson would again make a sacrifice in co ming along with him to UNCTAD, trying to work 
in the same direction as the membership, which was to realize the dream that the multilateral trading 
system could deliver the goods, the goodness and the good things in this world for each and everyone.  
He knew that the task at UNCTAD would not altogeth er be similar to that he had performed at the 
WTO, but he fully believed that the process of globa lization could be managed so that all could have 
the best benefits and minimize the costs.  All had to  work together.  He believed in coherence, and in 
the UNCTAD and the WTO working hand in hand to guarantee the final success of the DDA, and he 
pledged himself to do everything he could to achie ve that together with all Members.  He expressed 
his sincere thanks, also on behalf of his wife, to all for their support during their stay in Geneva over 
the past three years.  This had made him really feel at home, for which he was profoundly grateful. 
  The Chairman
 said she had probably not heard so many  words used to describe one person – 
calm, cool, collected, effective, honest, determined, open-minded, resolute, modest and, most of all, 
committed to trade as a development tool.  She again wished to thank Dr. Supachai for the 
tremendous contribution he had made to the work of  this noble organization.  She also wished to 
thank him for the kind words he had addressed to her a nd to her continent.  She wished to take this 
opportunity again, on behalf of all Members, to al so thank Mr. Harbinson for his contribution, for 
always keeping his door open, for his objective analysis  of situations and his usual very good advice.  
In closing her tribute to Dr. Supachai, she said all were pleased that the latter would be remaining in 
Geneva, where they could seek his counsel whenever necessary. 
 
__________