RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/M/89 
9 July 2007 
 
 (07-2907) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
21 MAY 2007 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Ambassador Karsten Vagn Nielsen (Denmark
) 
 
 
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in  Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3015 
and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/579.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda.  
I.
 NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS.............................................1  
II. MARKET ACCESS ISSUES ...................................................................................................2  
A. COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS – PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ...............................2  
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996  CHANGES INTO WTO SCHEDULES OF 
TARIFF CONCESSIONS – REQUESTS FOR  WAIVER EXTENSIONS ....................................................2  
III. UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR WAIVERS FOR AFRICAN GROWTH 
AND OPPORTUNITY ACT, CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY 
ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT, AS AMENDED........................................................................................................................ ........3
 
IV. UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER 
FOR THE FORMER TRUST TERRITO RY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS 
(G/C/W/570) .................................................................................................................... ..........5  
V. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ENLARG EMENT:  PROCEDURES UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994.....................................................................................5  
A. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EU ROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 MAY 2004 ............................................5  
B. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EU ROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 JANUARY 2007.....................................7  
VI. ISSUES RELATED TO TRADE IN TEXTILES  – SUBMISSION OF 
TURKEY ......................................................................................................................... ..........7  
VII. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................1 1 
A. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING .....................................................................................................11  
 
I. NOTIFICATION OF REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
1.1 The Chairman  recalled that, following the adoption of  the new Transparency Mechanism for 
regional trade agreements by the General C ouncil in December 2006, the Committee on Regional 
Trade Agreements (RTA Committee) had agreed on new working procedures.  Under these new 
procedures, the Council for Trade in Goods was to be  kept informed of Members' notifications of 
new regional trade agreements.  However, the CTG  would no longer be requi red to adopt terms of G/C/M/89 
Page 2  
 
  reference for their examination in the  RTA Commi ttee.  He informed the CTG that the following 
regional trade agreements had been notified to the RTA Committee: 
 
A. Gulf Cooperation Council Customs Uni on – notification from Saudi Arabia in 
document  WT/REG222/N/1; 
 
B. Pan-Arab Free Trade Area Agreement – notification from Saudi Arabia in 
document  WT/REG223/N/1; 
 C. Agreement between the EFTA States and the Republic of Lebanon – 
notification from the Parties in document WT/REG224/N/1; 
 D. Agreement between Turkey and Syria – notification from Turkey in document 
WT/REG/225/N/1; 
 
E. Agreement between the European Communities and Albania – notification 
from the Parties in document WT/REG226/N/1;  and 
 F. Agreement between Panama and Singa pore – notification from the Parties in 
document WT/REG227/N/1. 
 
1.2 He proposed that the Council takes note of the information just presented. 
 1.3 The Council so agreed
. 
 
II. MARKET ACCESS ISSUES 
A. COMMITTEE ON MARKET ACCESS – PERIODIC REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE  
2.1 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to documen t G/MA/195 which contained a factual 
report of the work undertaken in the Committee on Market Access.  He proposed that the Council 
take note of this document. 
2.2 The Council so agreed . 
B. INTRODUCTION OF HARMONIZED SYSTEM 1996  CHANGES INTO WTO SCHEDULES OF TARIFF 
CONCESSIONS – REQUESTS FOR  WAIVER EXTENSIONS  
2.3 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to the draft waiver decisions circulated in document 
G/C/W/576 and G/C/W/575 by Argentina and Panama re spectively.  These were made in connection 
with the introduction of HS1996 changes into WTO schedules of tariff concessions.  The current waiver decisions were contained in document s WT/L/653 and WT/L/652 respectively and expired 
on 30 April 2007.  The one year extensions of the waiver decision were the subject of consultations in 
the Market Access Committee where they were considered at the fo rmal meeting that took place on 4 
April 2007.  They were forwarded by that  Committee to the CTG for action.   
 
2.4 In the absence of comments, the Chairman  proposed that the CTG recommends that the draft 
waiver decisions contained in G/C/W/575 and G/C/W/576 be forwarded to the General Council for 
adoption. 
 2.5 The Council so agreed
. 
  G/C/M/89 
 Page 3 
 
 
  III. UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR WAIVERS FOR AFRICAN GROWTH AND 
OPPORTUNITY ACT, CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT, AS AMENDED 
3.1 The Chairman
 recalled the Council's consideration of the three waiver requests presented by 
the United States for the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act and the Andean Trade Preference Act.  The United States had submitted revised waiver 
requests for these three programmes in docum ents G/C/W/508/Rev.1,  G/C/W/509/Rev.1, and 
G/C/W/510/Rev.1.   At the 19 March meeting of the CT G, the United States hi ghlighted the changes in 
the programmes which brought about the revised request s.  Since the last mee ting, he had held an 
informal, open-ended consultation on these requests on 8 April 2007.  At this meeting, the United 
States again explained the changes in the three prog rammes in its presentation of the new requests.  A 
large number of Members, benefici aries of these programmes, took the floor to state the importance of 
these programmes for their economies  and to urge adoption of these three requests.  However, it was 
clear that the Council was still not in a position to agree unanimou sly to the adoption of these waiver 
requests.   
 
3.2 The representative of the United States  said that his delegation had continued to consult since 
the last meeting with interested delegations so th at this issue might be brought to closure with 
approval of the requests.  At both formal and informal meetings, many WTO Members emphasised 
the important contribution these programmes made to  the economic growth a nd development of their 
countries and expressed support for approving these requests.  He informed Members that his 
Government had decided to restore the language c ontained in past waiver decisions related to 
preference programmes that had been eliminated in  the current draft decisions.  The revised draft 
decisions would be circulated to Members shortly.  Despite this move forward, it was with deep 
disappointment, however, that he reported that con sensus still could not be reached.  His delegation 
could not report progress in its discussions with one Member who was blocki ng approval on grounds 
that it had been harmed in some way.  Despite re peated consultations in Ge neva and in his capital, 
his delegation had failed to uncover any specific damage caused by these programmes.  The US stood by these programmes as an important element in  its collective efforts to increase developing 
country participation in the global trading system.  Today, it again asked Members to join in signalling the WTO critical endorsement of this goal through the approval of these waivers.  
3.3 The representative of Paraguay
 said that his delegation had analysed the documents which 
the US had provided concerning the modifications  to the AGOA, CBERA and ATPA programmes.  
The extensions of the periods for the implementation of such preferences were proof of the spirit of 
co-operation and generosity the US showed toward s those countries which needed to promote their 
development through trade.  However, his delegatio n was not yet able to agree to the approval of 
these waivers in the CTG.  Paraguay remained in c ontact with the US within the framework of the 
good political and diplomatic relations between th e two countries.  Recently, Mr. Thomas Shannon, 
Deputy Secretary for State for Latin America, was in Asunción.  The Paraguayan authorities were able to explain in detail the situation in Geneva  and had made proposals for a solution which would 
lead to the end of the discrimination which its trad e suffered.  His Minister of Foreign Affairs would 
be visiting Washington in June in order to pursue co nsultations on this issue.  As already noted in 
earlier interventions, the problem was raised to US  authorities a few years prior to the presentation 
of the requests here.  Furthermor e, Paraguay had maintained a positi on of principle in a number of 
WTO bodies concerning waivers for preferences fo r developing countries that these should not be 
discriminatory vis-à-vis other developing countries.  It had also tried to explain to WTO Members 
the basis of its decision so that it may be fuller understood and not misinterpreted.  Therefore, his  
delegation was delighted to receive the following  joint statement of the Heads of States of 
MERCOSUR which was published following the Rio de Janeiro Summit, held on 18-19 January 2007:  G/C/M/89 
Page 4  
 
  "The Presidents express their support to the position maintained by Paraguay in 
order to ensure a fair and appropriate treatment in the cases where the principle of non-discrimination in the implementation by  Members of the WTO of preferential 
unilateral treatments under the enabling clause may go astray." 
 
3.4 MERCOSUR was comprised of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Venezuela.  
Paraguay understood the interest of preference-receiving countries that these programmes be approved.  His delegation also hoped that they could be approved.  But these Members had to 
understand that, while their countries were favoured  by the effective implementation of such 
preferences, Paraguay was suffering from unjust discri mination and material injury.  For every dollar 
exported by Paraguay to the US, US$10 was imported fro m the US.  In addition, imports of software 
and other goods, covered by  intellectual property agreements and services, would need to be added 
to this.  According to easily accessible statistics, all the countries of the Latin American regions 
which benefited from these preferences, without ex ception, had important balance of trade surpluses 
with the US.  42% of exports were carried out unde r the preferential treatment that they enjoyed. The 
majority of these countries had a healthier econom ic situation than Paraguay which had a small 
vulnerable economy in a land-locked country.  Therefor e, Paraguay felt obliged to draw attention to 
this unfair and inequitable state of affairs.  It also remained open to cooperate in the search for a 
solution which will allow it to approve, as s oon as possible, these preferential agreements. 
 3.5 The representative of Ecuador
 stressed the important of these preference for developing 
countries.  Given the magnitude of the illicit trade in  narcotics crops, she highlighted the importance 
of ATPA and the core responsibility of the intern ational community to support its objectives.   
Ecuador understood that ATPA was a response to the significant contribution that Ecuador needed to 
resolve this problem.  Notwithstanding, Ecuador , with its limited budget,  gave a substantial 
proportion of its resources to fighting these problems.   Ecuador would like favourable consideration 
be given to the extension of these preference schemes.   
 3.6 The representative of Brazil
 appreciated the concerns expressed by Paraguay regarding the 
need to provide for fair and adequate treatment to  Members in the context of the implementation of 
preferential schemes pursuant to the enabling clause.  In that regard, Brazil welcomed the announced 
continuation of consultations between interested Members on this issue. 
 
3.7 The representative of Colombia  expressed his delegation's support for the approval of the 
waivers requested by the US.  He thanked the US for its continuing efforts to modify the proposals 
so that approval of these waivers could be achieved.  Hi s delegation hoped that the discussions being 
carried out between the US and Paraguay would l ead to a satisfactory end so that the CTG could 
move forward with the approval of these preferential schemes. 
 3.8 The representative of Chile
 noted its satisfaction with the US programmes which allowed 
beneficiary countries preferential access to the US in order to improve their development.  His 
delegation was sensitive to the fact that a country  of its region, Paraguay, had asked for similar 
equivalent treatment.  Consequently, it urged the au thorities to continue their dialogue so that they 
could reach a satisfactory solution for both parties. 
 3.9 The representative of Côte d'Ivoire
 thanked the US for its generosity to Sub-Saharan African 
countries through the AGOA programme.  His delegati on was pleased that Paraguay was consulting 
with the US to find a solution.  However, in li ght of the situation of the beneficiaries of these 
programmes, this dialogue should lead to the continuation of AGOA for the benefit of Africa. 
 3.10 The representative of Argentina
 said that his delegation believed that, in order to move 
forward on this issue, account should be  taken of the statement by Paraguay. 
  G/C/M/89 
 Page 5 
 
 
  3.11 The representative of Angola  expressed its appreciation to th e US for its continued efforts 
towards approval of the AGOA waiver.  He stressed  the importance of AGOA to African economies, 
which were amongst the most vulnerable in the World.  The programme intended to facilitate 
African countries' integration into the world econom y and thus provide better economic prospects.   
 
3.12 The representative of Haiti  stressed that adoption of th ese waivers as soon as possible would 
allow beneficiary countries to develop their fragile  economies and facilitate their integration into the 
multilateral trading system.  Speedy implementation of the amendments to CBERA so that Haïti would benefit from additional trade would certainly be of  help to this country.  It would also help in 
increasing the volume of exports to the US as its prim ary trading partner.  Since the increased threats 
of illegal immigration, drug trafficking, poverty and under-development were threats against peace 
and security at the international regional leve l, development was also defined through the 
achievement of peace.  As this issue had been on the CTG agenda for 2 years, it should be treated 
with seriousness and a favourable solution shou ld be sought to all the different concerns. 
 
3.13 The representative of Costa Rica
 appreciated the updated report on the consultations which 
had been carried out on this issue.  His delega tion took note of Paraguay's statement and welcomed 
the efforts which were being deployed by the inte rested parties to seek a satisfactory solution.   
 3.14 The Chairman
 proposed that the Council take note of the statements made and that, on the 
basis of revised texts from the US and on the b asis of continued bilateral contacts between the 
parties involved, it revert to this matter at the next meeting.  If Members wished, he was ready to 
assist through holding further informal consultations.  3.15 The Council so agreed
. 
 IV. UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE WAIVER FOR THE 
FORMER TRUST TERRITORY OF TH E PACIFIC ISLANDS (G/C/W/570) 
4.1 The Chairman
 recalled that the United States had submitted a request for an extension of the 
waiver for the Former Trust Territory of the Paci fic Islands in document G/C/W/570.  At our last 
meeting, one Member indicated that it needed more time to consider this request.    
4.2 The representative of the United States
 confirmed that at the last meeting, one Member  
expressed concern that language from the previo us Mariana Islands waiver decision was not 
included in this current waiver decision.  He pr oposed a revised text of the waiver decision that 
added in the language from the original waiver d ecision.  His delegation had not yet discussed this 
proposal with the concerned Member.  It planned to  do so before the next meeting of the Council 
and hoped that at the next meeting, the Council wo uld be in a position to adopt the revised waiver 
decision.  4.3 The Chairman
 proposed that the Council take note of the statement made and revert to this 
matter at its next meeting.  
4.4 The Council so agreed
. 
 
V. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ENLARG EMENT:  PROCEDURES UNDER 
ARTICLE XXVIII:3 OF GATT 1994  
A. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EU ROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 MAY 2004   
5.1 The Chairman  drew Members' attention to document G/L/695/Add.5 which concerns the 
accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004 of  Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, G/C/M/89 
Page 6  
 
  Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, the Slovak Republi c and Slovenia.  In this communication, the EC 
indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precluded fro m withdrawing substantially equivalent 
concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 becau se this withdrawal occurred later than 
six months after the EC's withdrawal of concessions, provided that the claiming WTO Member 
withdrew concessions no later than 45 months af ter the EC's modification of concessions.   
 5.2 He recalled that the General Council had on f our earlier occasions, on the basis of similar 
communications from the EC, extended the deadline fo r withdrawal of concessions referred to in 
Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994, namely, at its meet ings in October 2004, and in March, June, and 
December 2005.  Similarly, the Council for Trad e in Goods had extended the deadline on two   
occasions, namely at its meetings of  12 July 2006 and 30 January 2007.   
 5.3 The representative of the European Communities
 informed Members that, while 
negotiations had been finalized, the exercise of setting the new bound banana tariff for the 25 EC 
Member States had not yet been terminated.  Negotia tions, in this respect, remained open in the hope 
of reaching an agreement with MFN suppliers as part of an overall solution to the long-standing 
banana issue.  Therefore, the EC had circulat ed the proposal in G/L/695/Add.5 which aimed at 
extending the period in which Members were allo wed to withdraw subs tantially-equivalent 
concessions.  This message was identical to th e one which the CTG endorsed six months ago. 
 
5.4 The representative of Colombia  did not agree with the EC's view regarding the negotiation 
situation and stated that, in his delegation's view, the negotiations w ith regard to the EC enlargement 
to 25 Member States had not yet ended.  The EC sa id that given that the negotiations on enlargement 
had ended, it was now negotiating a new binding for bananas.  This new ba nana binding had nothing 
to do with enlargement.  Banana bindings relate d to a commitment made by the EC as compensation 
for the extension of the treatment given to bananas in the context of the Cotonou Agreement.  So, it 
must be made clear that the negotiations for th e new banana binding was an issue completely 
independent of the enlargement of the EC to 25 Members.  He reiterated that negotiations on 
enlargement had not ended.  His delegation wanted compensation as a result of the EU enlargement which had undermined his country's principal supplyi ng interests.  Negotiations in this regard were 
distinct from other negotiations regardin g binding of the banana tariff.   
 
5.5 As concerns the request for an extension to  complete the negotiations, his delegation noted 
that three years had evolved since the start of th e negotiations which had not yet ended.  This new 
request for an extension showed a qualitative change ;  the previous 3 extensions were requested in 
order for the EC to complete the negotiations with the Members which notified a reservation to 
apply retaliatory measures.  First, the effected countries notified the reservation to apply retaliatory 
measures, then the EC requested an extension as a consequence.  This time, the EC was requesting 
an extension without waiting for countries to notify th eir right to apply retaliatory measures.  This 
was positive.  Given these changes, his delegation hoped that before the end of the 45 months it 
would be able to conclude this process.  
5.6 The representative of Ecuador
 endorsed the statement by Co lombia.  The two issues were 
not linked.  The negotiations on banana bindings came from an agreement which was established at 
the start of the Doha Round and therefore was not linked to the negotiations on the EC enlargement.  
With regard to the request for an extension, she asked the EC what the date would be for the end of 
period.   
 
5.7 The representative of the European Communities  said the he would have to confirm with his 
experts but he believed it would conclude in  a further 6 months from the present date. 
  G/C/M/89 
 Page 7 
 
 
  5.8 The Chairman  proposed that the Council take note of  the statements made and of the EC 
communication contained in document G/L/695/Add.5 a nd  agree on the extension of the deadline as 
set out in the European Commission's document G/L/695/Add.5.  5.9 The Council so agreed
.  
 
B. ENLARGEMENT OF THE EU ROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON 1 JANUARY 2007   
5.10 The Chairman drew Members' attention to  document G/L/821 which concerned the accession 
to the European Union on 1 January 2007 of Bulgaria and Romania.  In this communication, the EC indicated that it would not assert that Members who had submitted a claim pursuant to 
Article XXIV:6 of GATT 1994 were precluded fro m withdrawing substantially equivalent 
concessions under Article XXVIII:3 of GATT 1994 because  this withdrawal occurred later than six 
months after the EC's withdrawal of concessi ons, provided that the claiming WTO Member 
withdrew concessions no later than 12 months afte r the EC's modification of concessions.  The EC 
was therefore proposing an extension of the 6 mont h period for withdrawal of concessions, in other 
words, to no later than 1 January 2008.  If th e extension was agreed, Members would have to 
provide at least 30 days' notification of their intent  to withdraw substantially equivalent concessions 
– in other words, no later than 1 December 2007.    5.11 The representative of the European Communities
 informed Members that negotiations 
concerning the 2007 enlargement were currently ongoing.  His delegation was confident that it 
would be able to reach agreement with its partners soon.  Howeve r, the issue of bananas and the 
setting of the new bound tariff was also relevant to this exercise.  Theref ore, again the EC had 
circulated a message aimed at extending the period  in which Members were allowed to withdraw 
substantially-equivalent concessions.  The messag e was similar to the one of 2004 enlargement 
which the CTG endorsed when extending the period of withdrawal for the 2007 enlargement about 6 
months ago.   
 5.12 The Chairman proposed that the Council take  note of the statements  made and of the EC 
communication contained in document G/L/821, and agree on the extension of the deadline as set 
out in the European Commission's document G/L/821.   
5.13 The Council so agreed
. 
 
VI. ISSUES RELATED TO TRADE IN TEXTI LES  – SUBMISSION OF TURKEY  
6.1 The Chairman recalled that at the CTG m eeting on 19 March the discussion focused on the 
new proposal submitted by Turkey on 6 March 2007, contained in document G/C/W/573 and Corr.1.  
In this submission, Turkey presented a draft ou tline for the work programme it had proposed in 
document G/C/W/549, dated 28 April 2006.   This la tter document itself contained, in particular, the 
terms of reference of a work programme proposed by  Turkey for the consideration of the Council.  
At the 19 March meeting, Members expressed their views on the draft outline, some of them being 
preliminary.  Clearly, there was no common understanding among the Members neither on the new submission presented by Turkey, nor on the terms of  reference of the work programme contained 
therein.  In this light, the Council agreed to revert to this item at its next meeting and invited him to 
hold further consultations on the issue.   These consultations were held  on 14 May 2007.  He 
reported that, by and large, Members re-stated in s ubstance their known positions.  He also recalled, 
that Turkey had clarified at prior open-ended c onsultations on 8 May 2006 and that the work 
programme the CTG was now talking about was the one contained in document G/C/W/549.  Turkey 
had now taken an additional step by presenting document G/C/W/573 and Corr.1. G/C/M/89 
Page 8  
 
  6.2 The representative of Turkey
 explained that in history it was common practice to break 
down time into eras or periods in order to study or assess developments.  Economic history also used 
the same methodology.  In this regard, a globa l trade agreement was the best candidate for a 
milestone in examining crucial economic events th at shaped the global economy.  The Agreement on 
Textiles and Clothing (ATC) was a milestone.  With its expiry, the world trade and economy had 
entered a new phase where different opportunities and challenges had appeared.  The economic 
environment, before the ATC and post-ATC, in te rms of flow of investments, labour markets, 
technological developments and the need for be tter co-operation among all economic agents, had 
offered comparable conditions for entrepreneurs.  Under the current CTG agenda item Turkey was 
looking for a study to be conducted by the WTO Secr etariat to analyse the different aspects of the 
global conditions in the textiles and clothing sector.  Such an unprejudiced effort did not target any 
WTO Member or any stakeholder.  This study was being proposed for textiles and clothing since this 
sector constituted, as a whole, a high share in the GNPs of individual devel oping countries.  This 
sector was of vital importance to the economies of many  countries and, in international trade history, 
it had had an undeniable unique role.  The WTO was the best place for such a study to be undertaken 
and discussed.  WTO's experience and data faciliti es could be used to prepare the study, which 
would be assessed by the Members.  Possible elemen ts for, and outline of, a study, contained in 
document G/C/W/573, had been presented by Turk ey at the March 2007 meeting of the CTG.  
Turkey proposed to focus on the developments in international trade and the economics of the 
sectors, as well as on prospective developments, in novation, and also technical and practical 
assistance opportunities for countries.  His delegation expected a frank discussion and contributions 
of the Members in order to be in a position to initiate such a study right away. 
6.3 The representative of China  stated that there was no change in the official position of his 
delegation.  After careful study of the proposal  on the agenda as well as the statement made by 
Turkey, his delegation still had some difficulties in understanding, or misconceptions regarding, 
what Turkey had stated during the last CTG on 19 March 2007.  Therefore, his delegation was 
looking for clarification as to why the Chairman had mentioned in his opening statement that the 
documents for discussion were G/C/W/549 and G/C/ W/573 (and this had been said by Turkey) and 
that, at the same time document G/C/W/522 was still mentioned in the Agenda for the present 
meeting.  His delegation would be  grateful if Members could explain what was the relation between 
document G/C/W/522 and the other documents. 
6.4 Turkey had said that it wanted this session’s  discussion focus on how to initiate this study 
immediately.  He feared that this would not be the case.  If his reading of the last CTG minutes was 
correct, there had clearly been no consensus.  In  fact, there had been no consensus from the very 
beginning, either on the Turkish proposal or on each and every document submitted by Turkey.  
During the last meeting of the Council, it had been pointed out that perhaps one could understand the 
intention of Turkey of trying to keep the discussi on alive, or this item on the agenda, by submitting a 
new document from time-to-time.  But he wondered to what extent this was the best way for 
Members to use their time and energy.  Of course, if other Members wanted, one could continue this 
exercise.  Also, Turkey had felt, as recorded in pa ragraph 6:2 of the Minutes, that since it had tabled 
its submission "the discussion had been more structured and more constructive."  Therefore, he wanted to contribute to this more structured and constructive discussions by sharing his thoughts and 
ideas on some issues his delegation did not understand.   
6.5 Reading the documents, it seemed that Turkey was interested in studyi ng the impact of the 
post-ATC period.  Interestingly enough, Turkey had st ated at the last meeting that it also wanted to 
see the effect of the current negotiations.  This is where his delegation wanted to seek clarification.  
If this programme or study was going to also exam ine the effect of the current negotiations, could 
Turkey clarify what negotiations it was referring to: the current NAMA negotiations; the agricultural 
negotiations; the Doha negotiati ons; or some other negotiations?  His delegation saw a clear 
contradiction between the intentions of the documen t and the intention or statement of the Turkish  G/C/M/89 
 Page 9 
 
 
  delegation.  Furthermore, Turkey claimed that  the new document was intended to provide an 
opportunity to have cross-cutting discussions on each and every aspect of the textiles and clothing sector.  But if one looked at the specific terms, its seemed that there was a certain focus or bias, in 
the sense that there was more inter est for certain Members than for others.  For instance, it was said 
that studies would help countries find the key reas ons why they had had a hard time.  Here, the 
purpose of the study was not so comprehensive or cross-cutting.  If one really wanted to have a 
comprehensive cross-cutting discussion one should not only suggest to study those who had had a 
hard time but also those who had had a positive expe rience.  Or, may be, those who had had a hard 
time at some period of the year might have had a positive time at another period of the year.  Therefore, his delegation believed it was clear that  Turkey had failed to meet its own objectives or 
claimed aspirations and intentions of having a cro ss-cutting, comprehensive or impartial study.  He 
sought clarification on this. 
6.6 The representative of China further said that, one  could also argue, if one was to study the 
effects of the current negotiations it might be better to wait until the completion of these 
negotiations, or even until after the implementati on of the result of the negotiations.  Members 
would then be in a better position to study its eff ects.  He concluded by saying that his delegation did 
not think that there was a need to have such  a programme.  Until Turkey was able to address 
successfully and convincingly the issues or questions raised now and in the previous meetings of the 
Council, there was no need to have this programme. 
6.7 The representative of Mexico
 supported the undertaking of a study under the terms of 
reference quoted by Turkey.  He believed th at such a study was independent of the NAMA 
negotiations and urged flexibility of  those delegations who were opposed to the process, so that the 
programme could start. 
6.8 The representative of El Salvador  repeated that her delegation favoured the initiation of a 
study on textiles and clothing as proposed by Turkey.  The most recent communication from Turkey contained additional elements which specified t hose matters which should be considered under the 
work programme.  This programme would allow the Members to identify ways for assisting the 
countries facing challenges.  She also  stated that her delegation would continue to work in a positive 
spirit with other delegations in order to  ensure the approval of this proposal. 
6.9 The representative of Thailand
 stated that his authorities had had a closer look at the new 
document G/C/W/573 submitted by Turkey.  Having considered the further details, his delegation 
maintained that it had systemic  concerns regarding the proposal and work programme and also 
maintained its original position that it could not support this proposal. 
6.10 The representative of Tunisia  reiterated the importance of the textiles and clothing sectors 
for his country.  His delegation favoured the est ablishment of a work programme on textiles and 
clothing which would allow developing countries to be tter analyse the evolution of trade in that area 
since the elimination of the quota system and to prepare themselves better for the challenges of the 
future.  He stressed that document G/C/W/573, including the terms of reference of the study 
proposed, was an excellent basis for the work progr amme under the aegis of th e CTG.  It was clear 
that the finalization of the terms of reference of this study must be the work of all the Members. 
6.11 The representative of Côte d'Ivoire  added his voice to those de legations which had supported 
the proposal of Turkey for the establishment of th is work programme. At a time when Members had 
concluded the WTO Summit on Cotton and when some of them saw their factories closing one after 
another, it was understandable that such a st udy be undertaken.  All the more since on the 
development pillar of the WTO in the Cotton Sector, certain Members, including his country, had been asked to evaluate a series of data, in par ticular the support which had been provided for the 
promotion and development of cotton growing.   He believed that this study would be G/C/M/89 
Page 10  
 
  complementary.  As for clothing, in his own count ry one was not fully aware of the reasons for the 
change in the trade structure.  Therefore, he suppor ted the preparation of this study.  As to document 
G/C/W/573, it constituted a good basis for discussion, and he asked those who opposed this proposal 
to show some flexibility. 
6.12 Indonesia
 stated that her delegation supported the statement made by China and could not 
accept the proposal of Turkey. 
6.13 The representative of India  observed that his delegation had e xplained at the last meeting of 
the CTG, as well as during the informal consultatio ns on 14 May 2007, that India continued to have 
systemic concerns regarding the proposal made by  Turkey.  These concerns had not been addressed 
in the new submission and his delegation continued to oppose the need for a study. 
6.14 The representative of Hong Kong, China  stated that his delegation had not changed its 
position, despite Turkey making some elaborations in the meeting: there was no need to single out 
the textiles and clothing issues as it was against th e fundamental objective of integrating textiles and 
clothing issues under the GATT Rules. 
6.15 The representative of Egypt  supported the Turkish proposal mentioned in document 
G/C/W/573 and reiterated his dele gation’s position in favour of a dopting a work programme under 
the CTG to study the changes in the textiles and clothing sector. 
6.16 The representative of Bangladesh  reiterated his delegation's position.  It supported the 
Turkish proposal and believed that a study should be conducted by the WTO Secretariat on the textiles and clothing sector.  It was his delegatio n’s understanding that this study would help all 
WTO Members to better understand the issues. 
6.17 The representative of Mauritius
 associated herself with the statements made by other 
delegations including Côte d'Ivoire, Tunisia, Egypt, Bangladesh and others in repeating her 
delegation’s support for Turkey's proposal for a study in the textiles sector, a sector which was of vital interest to her country’s economy. 
6.18 The representative of Viet Nam
 stressed the importance of the textiles and clothing sector to 
his country’s economy.  Having studied the proposal  by Turkey and heard the statements made by 
several Members, the position of his delegation rema ined the same.  It coul d not, at present, see the 
need to have this special study. 
6.19 The representative of Cameroon  stressed that all that had been said during the High Level 
Session on Cotton should not remain a "dead letter" .  The study was important, as it would allow all 
the Members to take stock in order to ex amine what the future possibilities would be. 
6.20 The representative of Turkey  welcomed the participation of Members and expressed 
satisfaction that the proposal had elicited some interest in capitals.  He elaborated on some areas including on why his delegation had made this proposal .  First, as regards the systemic issue, he 
commented that it was not fair to say that fundame ntal GATT provisions were in danger because of 
the proposal.  Fundamental GATT provisions could not be affected by a study.  His delegation was 
not proposing anything systemic and/or in relati on to any GATT provisions.  The study was to be 
historical only and, when discussing the present, should determine what was taking place in the 
sector, help developing countries cope with the tr ade environment and, if possible, dwell on the 
collaboration among all Members, de veloped and developing.  China' s intervention showed that it 
had examined the outline carefully.  He was confid ent that when Members started discussing this 
they would come to a common understanding on the way to proceed.  His delegation was ready to 
continue the close relationship with all Members in  order to provide further explanation, and was  G/C/M/89 
 Page 11 
 
 
  confident that Members could reach a resolution acce ptable for all.  As to document G/C/W/522, he 
observed that this issue had already been raised in  the previous meetings.  If this document was the 
only reason for China or any Member not to accept that the study be conducted, his delegation was 
ready to take this request into consideration very  seriously and co-operate with all Members, and 
China, in that regard.  His delegation had emphasise d this in previous formal and informal meetings 
and even in one bilateral meeting with China.   
6.21 Regarding the relationship between the ou tline proposed and the current negotiations, he 
stated that there was no direct relation between th em.  They were totally different issues.  His 
delegation was proposing that the study examine, in terms of scientific estimation as this would be a 
scientific study by the WTO Secretariat, how the cu rrent negotiations could he lp all Members in this 
sector.  The idea was only to estimate how the cu rrent negotiations could influence the current 
conditions in the sector.  His delegation considered  that the post-ATC analysis included the Doha 
negotiations which were part of the present conditions  and one of the main variables or coefficients 
of the equation.  The study should not have a speci fic and direct linkage with the Doha negotiations; 
what was suggested was only an  analysis in that regard. 
 
6.22 The question had also been raised as to why Turkey was proposing an outline for the study 
at this point.  The reason was that his delegation wa nted to be very clear as to what its intentions 
were by showing what the outline could include.  He  repeated that it would be for the Members to 
agree to the outline and, in this regard, his dele gation was ready to work on it in detail with all 
Members.  He thanked Members for their constructive and sincere views and stated that he would 
continue to explain his delegation’s position better.   He did not see any challenge for anyone.  The 
proposed study could foster a broader understandi ng of the textile and clothing sectors, guide 
Members to design better national policies and pave  the way for important practical and technical 
international collaboration.  
6.23 The Chairman
 concluded that from the interventions which had been made, it was clear that 
there remained no common understanding among the Me mbers on the item.  He proposed, therefore, 
that the Council take note of the statements made, and revert to this item at its next meeting.  He also 
proposed, in the meantime, that he would hold furt her consultations to continue the discussion on the 
issue.  He also encouraged Members to seize any opportunity to meet with a view to getting a better 
appreciation of each other’s position, so that the Council would eventually be in a position to move 
forward on the issue. 
 6.24 The Council
 so agreed. 
 
VII. OTHER BUSINESS 
A. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
7.1. The Chairman informed Members that th e next meeting of Council would take place on 
Monday, 9 July 2007.  The agenda would close on Friday, 29 June 2007.  7.2. The meeting was adjourned.  
__________