RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/91 
14 March 2005 
 (05-1054) 
General Council 
26 January 2005  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 26 January 2005  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan)  
 
  Prior to the start of the meeting
, delegations observed a minute's silence in memory of 
the victims of the recent Indian Ocean tsunami.  The Chairman extended condolences, on behalf 
of all delegations, to the representatives of the countries whose citizens had been affected, and through them to their governments and their peoples.   Subject discussed
: Appointment of the next Director-General 
  – Meeting with the candidates for the post of Director-General  
 
 The Chairman  recalled that the meeting had been convened in accordance with 
paragraph 14 of the Procedures for the Appointment of Directors-General (WT/L/509), and that its purpose was to enable Members to meet formally with the four candidates who had been 
nominated for the post of the next Director-General.
1  He recalled briefly the modalities for the 
conduct of the meeting which he had communicated in a fax to all delegations on 18 January:    - First
, delegations would be meeting with each of the four candidates in the order 
in which their candidatures had been received.  The order and the scheduled meeting time for each candidate had been indicated on the Airgram convening 
the meeting (WTO/AIR/2479); 
  - Second
, each candidate would be invited to make a brief presentation lasting no 
more than 15 minutes.  This would be followed by a question-and-answer period of no more than one hour.  During the last five minutes of the question-and-
answer period, each candidate would have the opportunity to make a concluding 
statement if he so wished; 
  - Third
, names of speakers for each question-and-answer period would be drawn 
at random from a box at the podium containing the names of all delegations 
wishing to put questions to the candidate concerned.  Members wishing to put 
questions to one or more candidates had been requested to place their names in boxes made available for this purpose the previous day; 
 
                                                     
 
1 In keeping with the Procedures , and following the close of the no mination period on 31 December for 
the appointment of the next Director-General, a consolid ated list of the candidatures received was circulated by 
the Chairman as document WT/GC/INF/8. WT/GC/M/91 
Page 2  
 
  - Fourth
, in order to make the fairest possible use of the time, each Member 
whose name was drawn from the box would be allowed to ask one question, with no follow-up questions allowed.  This would be followed by a response from the candidate, followed by the drawing of the next speaker, and so on; 
 
 - Fifth
, questions should last no more than one minute.  Other than questions, 
there should be no statements from delegations.  The Chair would exercise strict discipline to ensure that the one-minute time limit for questions was respected, and that speakers did not engage in general statements; 
 
 - Sixth
, Members were urged to assist the process by not asking questions that 
might already have been asked.  Similarly, candidates might choose to move on to another question if they felt that one had already been touched on in a previous response;  
 - Seventh
, if the number of speakers was exhausted before the one-hour time limit 
for the question-and-answer session, the Chair would ask if any additional 
delegations wished to put questions, giving priority to those who had not previously spoken.  If, at the end of the time limit for the question-and-answer session, there were unfulfilled requests to put questions, the Chair would indicate to each candidate the number of Members remaining on the list of potential speakers;  and  
 - Finally
, each candidate would have the opportunity to meet with the Press in the 
WTO building immediately following his meeting with Members in the General Council. 
  Following the Chairman's introductory remarks, Members in the General Council met 
with the candidates as follows: 
 
Mr. Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay)  10.10 a.m. – 11.25 a.m.   
Mr. Jaya Krishna Cuttaree (Mauritius)  11.40 a.m. – 12.55 p.m.  
   
Mr. Luiz Felipe de Seixas Corrêa (Brazil) 2.40 p.m. – 3.55 p.m.    
 Mr. Pascal Lamy (France)   4.10 p.m. – 5.25 p.m.   
 
The presentations by each candidate, as well as the questions and answers at each 
session, are recorded in Annexes A to D.   
   WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 3 
 
 
 Annex A  
 
Meeting with Mr. Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay)  
 
A. Presentation by the Candidate  
 
 I should like to begin by expressing my most sincere feelings of solidarity with all the governments and peoples affected by the recent tragedy of the tsunami in the Indian Ocean.  The scale of the loss of life, the amount of material damage and essentially the enormous burden of suffering and hopelessness to which millions of people have been subjected in this vast region 
are a further challenge to international cooperation.  In this respect, I fully share the Director-
General's view that the WTO must also, through trade measures, make a contribution to the generous efforts undertaken by the international community in the face of this tragedy.   I should like to express my satisfaction at being once again in this house and having an 
opportunity to share with the General Council my vision of the challenges facing the 
multilateral trading system and the reasons that have prompted me to become a candidate for the post of Director-General of the WTO.     The first reason for my candidacy is that I firmly believe in this institution's irreplaceable role in promoting the growth, development and well-being of mankind.  The 
second is my humble belief –but also one allied with enormous conviction – that my 
background, my experience and my vocation for public service will enable me to make a positive contribution to the great task of building a more just and equitable multilateral trading system (MTS).  
 In my opinion, in the years ahead, the Organization will be faced with a number of 
important and urgent challenges:    The first
 will be to reaffirm and guarantee the central role of multilateralism in 
international trade.  This means confronting the growing fragmentation and dislocation of the MTS, now marked by the proliferation of preferential trade agreements of various kinds and 
the gradual erosion of the non-discriminatory treatment enshrined in the Most-Favoured-
Nation Clause as a basic principle of the WTO.  This also means bringing into the WTO those countries that are not yet members, so as to guarantee complete universality.  Steps must also be taken to ensure that the MTS offers equal opportunities to all its Members, whether rich or poor, large or small, and that the developing countries find concrete opportunities in this system 
for their trade and development.  Furthermore, it will be necessary for the monitoring 
mechanisms to be strengthened and for the Dispute Settlement Body – a cornerstone of this institution – to continue to be an objective and efficient tool that will guarantee an impartial framework in which all Members, regardless of their size or power, are able to defend their legitimate interests. 
 
 The second
 challenge, one that is equally important, will be to transform the 
development dimension into a reality in all agreements, rules and disciplines negotiated in the WTO.  This Organization must be in a position to respond positively to needs that are real and, in many instances, cannot be delayed, and so leave room for the developing and particularly the least-developed countries to implement their own objectives instead of limiting their capacity to 
do so.  But words are not enough.  Giving concrete meaning to the development dimension, over 
and above the traditional approach of Special and Differential Treatment, is one of the WTO's most important responsibilities at this time.  Achieving this goal will be essential in facilitating full integration of the developing countries into the system and I shall be wholly committed to this endeavour. WT/GC/M/91 
Page 4  
 
  
 The third
 challenge is to make all necessary efforts to enhance the WTO's image among 
the public at large.  We are all aware of the extent to which a distorted view of the WTO's activities, objectives and role now prevails in large segments of public opinion.  To my mind, many of the criticisms are unfair and do not tally with the facts.  I believe that, as we continue to 
improve our working methods so as to ensure transparent and effective decision-making, the 
time has also come for the WTO to try to tackle these criticisms and dispel the present doubts and uncertainties.  Far from being a threat to growth and harming the interests of developing countries, trade can be an engine for the economic growth, development and well-being for our societies, and a vital tool for fighting poverty.  This is the endeavour in which we are all engaged 
and it will certainly call for renewed dialogue with civil society.   
  The fourth
 challenge is institutional.  The Uruguay Round agreements were a 
formidable step forward in consolidating the Organization.  We must ensure that the WTO continues to evolve and adapt to the changing realities of international trade. In recent years, 
important progress has been made in respect of transparency and inclusiveness in the 
negotiating process, but we cannot be complacent and must continue to move forward in that direction.  Having recently chaired some of the WTO's most important bodies, including the General Council, I have a clear idea of the way in which the Organization works.  My view is that the WTO is an institution that does not require radical change, although there is obvious room for improving procedures and efficiency.  At the same time, I have no doubt that the 
principle of consensus in decision-making must be preserved.  I also think that, where the need 
arises to set up smaller groups in the negotiating process, some degree of flexibility must be maintained so that all Members with an interest in the topics discussed in the groups can participate.  
 These are, in my judgement, the major challenges looming in the future for this 
Organization, and to be able to tackle them, I should like to share with you the priority actions I foresee if I am selected as Director-General.   The first task
 is the completion of the present Round of negotiations by 2006 at the 
latest, by reaching a balanced package of results that reflects the interests of all Members and 
faithfully respects the Doha mandate.  Above all, we must ensure that those results are worthy 
of being described as the Development Round.  The time to achieve this goal is short, and hence it is essential for the next Director-General to have not only the requisite political stature essential for the post, but above all substantial knowledge of the issues and proven experience in WTO negotiations and thus move towards that objective from the very first day on the job.  I 
have been involved in this effort since the beginning of this Round, first as my country's 
negotiator and later as Chairman of the General Council, and I can assure you that I will dedicate myself entirely to ensuring a successful outcome of the Doha Round.  While the completion of the Round is an important objective for the strengthening and the credibility of the system, thereby helping to reaffirm the central role of multilateralism, the task does not end there.  We must also work out a longer-term vision, and I will work together with all Members 
to identify a substantive agenda for the future of the WTO. 
  The second task
 will be to equip the WTO with sufficient operational capacity for it to 
comply with its mandate, including proper implementation within agreed time-frames of the outcome of the Round.  To this end, the WTO Secretariat's present analytical, technical 
assistance and training capacities and infrastructure will have to be evaluated in the light of 
these new realities.   The third task
 on which I intend to focus is that of further developing and strengthening 
the coherence and coordination of the WTO's activities with those of other international  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 5 
 
 
 organizations.  This means that the current valuable cooperation with the IMF and the World 
Bank will shift to a more operational phase to implement joint actions that move towards global solutions for certain sensitive issues we are currently dealing with.  A very clear example would be to strengthen cooperation with the World Bank in regard to assistance in the process of adjustment stemming from implementation of the results of the trade negotiations, including the 
problem of the erosion of preferences.  I also intend to broaden and strengthen cooperation with 
other international organizations, such as UNCTAD, ITC and WIPO, as well as development-related regional bodies, taking advantage of the clear existing complementarities.  These challenges and action priorities that I have outlined, and which are by no means exhaustive, call for a coordinated response by all Members.  If I am selected Director-General, I 
shall certainly work with all the means at my disposal to help find such responses.  Throughout 
my professional career, I have dealt with the kinds of problems that a Director-General of the WTO has to face.  I have dedicated more than thirty years of my career to trade and development.  I have played an active part in the last three rounds of multilateral trade negotiations, representing the interests of my country, and I have also had the honour in recent 
years to chair the most important WTO bodies, including the General Council, in the service of 
the interests of all Members.  In short, I am acquainted with the system from within.   The most enriching phase of my professional experience, however, is the one that has allowed me to become closely involved with development matters.  I have worked for many years in UNCTAD, ITC, ECLAC and SELA, in direct contact with each and every aspect of 
today's development challenges.  During this period, I had the privilege of visiting more than 
thirty African countries, many of them least-developed, in search of solutions to concrete problems regarding commodities, including cotton, tropical timber, meat, hides and skins, and cereals.  I also visited countries in Asia, working directly with the private sector on trade promotion.  And after being elected Permanent Secretary of SELA, for four years I lived the 
day-to-day reality of all the countries in Latin America and the Caribbean, participating in the 
search for solutions to trade and finance problems in very difficult times for the economies of the region.   But the point is not to scrutinize my professional life in the greatest of detail, but to emphasize that I am presenting myself as a candidate for no reason other than my firm belief 
that I have the necessary credentials and that I meet the requirements that, in my opinion, 
WTO Members are looking for in their next Director-General.    There are two additional elements I would like to emphasize before concluding this statement, for I believe they are indispensable in the selection of the next Director-General.  In 
my extensive participation in the multilateral system, I believe there is a distinctive character 
trait I have always demonstrated, and it is the constant search for understanding, helping to identify common ground and build the consensus without which no agreement is possible.  This is probably because I am from and have represented for many years the interests of my country, Uruguay, a small developing country, responsible and conciliatory, which has made the search for consensus its raison d'être .  This is certainly why, in all my activities in the WTO, I have tried 
to foster the requisite respect and trust so that my proposals were always viewed as constructive 
and independent, designed to find common ground among Members.  And the fact that I am from Uruguay also explains why, as far as I'm concerned, development is not theoretical or academic.  It is empirical, forged in daily contact with a reality that is often harsh and to which I remain committed to finding the best solutions.  Again, my commitment to multilateralism 
stems not from an abstract notion of international relations, but from a profound conviction 
that this principle is the best guarantee for harmonious, respectful and cooperative coexistence among the members who make up the international community and is the best protection of the interests of the developing countries.  WT/GC/M/91 
Page 6  
 
  As of today, a selection process will be started to determine which of the four candidates 
can command consensus among the Members.  I do not visualize this process as a confrontation between candidates from North or South.  I see it as a process of selecting someone who has the best qualities to lead an organization based on the principles of cooperation and multilateralism, and I sincerely believe that I can be the consensus candidate the WTO needs. 
 
 To me, the post of Director-General is not a job or a mere place of work.  It is a commitment to all of you to strengthen the MTS.  It is also a commitment that brings with it my most profound aspiration to see a more just and equitable international concert of nations in which each will see its essential interests reflected.  A system that does not make trade an end in 
itself, but a tool for improving the living conditions of our societies.  A system that promotes 
stability, that settles its conflicts reasonably and pays heed to the needs of the less-favoured Members.  This will all mean a valuable contribution to a safer world, one free of tensions, where the best conditions can be found for everybody's welfare and respect for the rights and dignity of man. 
 
B. Questions and Answers
 
 
Q: You had a major role as Chair of the Ge neral Council in preparations for the Cancún 
Ministerial and then, as Chair, you helped us all to recover from that lost ground.  I wonder if you could tell us briefly what you see as the fa ilure in Cancún, including any comments on your 
own role, because I have heard comments in the past that perhaps you were not seeking, as you 
mentioned a few moments ago, to get a consensus,  but were leaning more towards the interests 
of the United States and the EU.  And as part of that, could you tell us what, as Director-General, you would do to ensure that th ere is no repeat of a Cancún failure in Hong 
Kong, China?  (Australia) 
 
A: Well your question has three main areas.  The first deals with the failure in Cancún, and 
the preparations and the role I played as General Council Chair.  I think there are many reasons for the failure in Cancún, which I will not go into in detail, and which have to do with the complexity of the agenda, the missed deadlines during all the processes that led to Cancún, the non-satisfaction in crucial topics, the fact that the interests of developing countries did not 
get a satisfactory answer, and the fact that a number of new subjects came into the picture as a 
package and not on their individual merits, i.e. the Singapore issues.  It would therefore be difficult to pinpoint exactly the different degrees of responsibility that all that these factors had.  With regard to the process, which I think your question is more aimed at, I would say that the final stages of preparation towards Cancún were delayed because of a lack of consensus on 
major issues, and it was, as you will remember very well, only about a month before Cancún 
that we were able to put pen to paper in order to try to rescue some of the issues.  And I would like to say that we went to Cancún with a paper that had 28 issues to be resolved by Ministers.  I would say that on most of these issues there was a general understanding among Members prior to Cancún that they could live with the text.  However, on the crucial issues this was not the case, and this prompted me not only to provide a paper as a basis for negotiations, but also to 
accompany this paper with a letter in which I highlighted the major differences in the process.  
  I think the process had something to do with it.  You will remember that I had the responsibility of leading Members towards Cancún, but at Cancún that responsibility shifted to the Minister of the host country, as has always been the case.  He was involved in the selection of 
facilitators.  Sometimes the facilitators were not properly involved with the many hundreds of 
hours that we had spent in consultations on many subjects and perhaps, from a procedural point of view, this is something that we should look at in future in order to ensure a certain continuity by the Director-General, General Council, facilitators, Directors, and by the Chairs of different groups, so that when we get to a Ministerial Conference, such as at Cancún, we are  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 7 
 
 
 not faced with a completely different scenario, with completely different procedures and ways of 
operation that do not facilitate the process.   With regards to the second part of your question, I note that there were some allegations, which I have found to be unfounded, that my draft text went in the direction of the 
United States and the EU as you just mentioned.  This was an allegation and, I repeat, it was 
unfounded.  I acted as the Chair of the General Council.  My job was to provide Ministers a basis for them to continue negotiations and to come up with substantive results, and the text I put forward therefore did not, and could not, reflect 100 per cent the position of any country or grouping -- neither the G20, nor the CAIRNS Group, the G90, the G33, the United States, the 
EU or any other group.  I believe that in all fairness and objectivity I presented a basis for the 
continuation of discussions among Ministers on those topics on which there were divergences with a view to reaching consensus.  But if you ask me in particular whether my text was aligned with the positions of the US and the EU, I would have to say that this refers to Agriculture.  And let me tell you – because this is a subject that has been of great concern all my life – that in my 
text I had put forward the elimination of export subsidies.  What the EU and US had put 
forward in their text was the reduction of export subsidies.  Again, in my text I had put forward a differentiated formula on market access, one for developing countries that was mainly the Uruguay Round formula, and one for developed countries that contained the same formula – the mixed formula – that they had put forward.  
 With regards to the "blue" box, I did not stop at a 5 per cent level of reduction, but went 
into a second phase of reduction, which in my mind was up to 2.5 per cent of the value of agricultural production.  With regard to de minimus , in my text developing countries would have 
been exempted from making any type of reductions.  Some of these issues were there in my text.  And even in the text that was agreed in July, we have not been able to reach that level of 
ambition.  But one of the things I want to emphasize before I finish this answer, is that there 
was a post-Cancún period, and many people tend to forget, and there was another paper presented by the Chairman on many of these issues that commanded a great degree of support and that was the basis on which Members were able to continue their negotiations and finally reach the July Decision.  And therefore I feel that in that paper, I exercised the competence that the General Council had in order to make this process move forward, and I think that I feel 
proud of what we, together with you Members, achieved here in that period.  This is the answer 
I would like to give you to your question.  
Q: I appreciated the extensive emphasis put in your presentation on the field of 
development.  I had a question referring to on e subject also mentioned in your presentation, 
which is the erosion of trade preferences.  Do you think that developed countries' preferential 
access for some developing countries should be ma intained, or should all developing countries 
enjoy the same market access?  (Belgium) 
 
A: That is a good question.  The issue of erosion of preferences has been a subject of 
concern during the last years in this organization and I think this is a subject that is now part of 
our agenda. The texts agreed in July show that we will have to give a response to that problem.  
The erosion of preferences is not an issue only in the WTO.  This is a trend that is taking place everywhere as a result of the proliferation of bilateral, regional and even unilateral processes of liberalization.  So this is a trend that will continue and that we will have to deal with.  To the extent that we are successful as well in the multilateral scene in being able to reduce tariffs, that 
problem of erosion of preferences will also be enhanced.  So, in my mind, this problem should 
be dealt with in the following manner:  part of the answers can be given within the framework of WTO.  I think the countries that are suffering from the erosion of preferences in certain sectors or commodities should be in a way compensated by receiving market access in products in which they have comparative advantage, or in products in which they can develop that WT/GC/M/91 
Page 8  
 
 comparative advantage, so that this is a trade response to a trade problem.  They are losing on 
the one hand, but they may gain on the other.   The question of the timing of how this process will evolve and the impact should also be part of our assessment.   Finally, I think that this problem is very much in the centre of the discussions we are 
having about coherence.  For many of the countries that will lose their preferences I know that 
this will create a process of adjustment with social as well as economic costs, and this is where I feel that working together and devising strategies and plans, with the World Bank for example, to assist these countries in coping with the process of adjustment is one reality that we are talking about.  But that we should take in the next phase to make sure that they are 
implemented by the time the results of the Uruguay Round come to be tackled.  So this is the 
way I would answer your question.  
Q: Continuing on the development point, my question would be whether you would agree 
that small, vulnerable economi es have specific vulnerabilities wh ich should be taken into due 
consideration without creating a new category of Members, and in light of the initiative of 
"Everything But Arms" what special treatment in  concrete terms should be given to them, not 
only by developed but also by richer developing countries?  (Latvia) 
 
A: I think that the notion of small and vulnerable economies has been retained in the July 
Decision as one of the areas that we should be giving attention to.  I do believe as well that we 
should avoid in the WTO to start introducing new categories of countries.  But I do also feel 
that attention should be given to countries in accordance with subjects, and therefore that there are no formulas of universal application for small and vulnerable countries in the WTO agenda as a whole.  I think that when we look at agriculture, when we look at NAMA, when we look at rules, when we look at services, when we look at other areas – technical assistance, capacity 
building, technical barriers to trade, SPS – we should look at what are the specific problems 
that these small and vulnerable countries have in respect of the specific field, and then devise measures which go towards providing some solutions to these problems.  So, my answer is yes, we should look into it, but let's not have formulas of general application because this is not the way it works in the WTO.  Q: When you spoke this morning, you talked considerably of the importance of development as a part of these negotiations so it is probably not surprising that several of the 
questions that have been addressed to you already relate to that.  Let me ask, perhaps in a little 
bit of a more macro sense, given the emphasis that  we all have placed on development as a part 
of this Round and our mutual desire to bring the Round to a successful conclusion, what are the 
kinds of specific things, that you would advocate as Director-General to lead us forward in the 
negotiations that would hopefully bring the appropriate level of emphasis in terms of 
development, but do so in such a way too that we can bring the Round to a conclusion?   (United 
States) 
 
A: As you know, I have devoted hundreds of hours in this organization to the subject of development during my tenure as General Council Chairman, and we spent a lot of hours 
looking at the 88 proposals on S&D treatment that developing countries, and mainly the Africans and the least-developed countries, submitted to us for consideration and approval.  I think that S&D treatment is part of the answer, but I think that if we want to introduce the development dimension into the WTO, S&D should be part of a much broader approach in 
which it should be recognized that the fundamental interests of the developing countries lie, 
many times, not only in the S&D proposals that are on the table but far beyond these proposals.  I think that the developmental component of this Round, if we manage at the end of the day to be able to call it a Development Round, will have to come from substantive results in the fields in which we are negotiating – substantive results in agriculture which look at the interests of  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 9 
 
 
 developing countries in terms of market access and  elimination of distortions and subsidies that 
have an impact on the capacity potential and, in NAMA, with regard to substantial reductions or elimination of tariff escalation and tariff peaks which are hindering the possibilities of moving into higher levels of production.  The development component will also have to do with the ability of developing countries to have the policy space needed to be able to implement 
major objectives of economic policy.  It will have to do also with the full participation of these 
countries in all the processes of decision making.  So I think that even if tomorrow we agreed on the 88 proposals on S&D, I venture to say that perhaps this would not be enough for the Round to be called a Development Round, and we will have to go much deeper into issues as I mentioned, that are the essence of what the development dimension is on the substantive issues 
that the WTO is dealing with. 
 
Q: What do you consider the function of the Director-General and of the Deputy Directors-
General to be?  (Mexico) 
 
A:  I believe I hinted at this in my opening statement.  I believe that the Director-General 
should be a facilitator working together with Members in order to achieve the best possible results in the present negotiating Round, in order to ensure the integrity of the multilateral trading system and non-discrimination, to ensure the universal nature of this organization by bringing all countries in as Members.  Likewise, the DG should seek to ensure that the WTO's message is better conveyed to the general public.  The DG should, through actions aimed at 
coherence with other organizations, be able to bring before the organization for airing issues 
that might not necessarily be within its capacity to resolve successfully.  I consider the Director-General's role to be a very active one, together with Members, in trying to make of this organization a transparent, successful, result-achieving organization which permits countries to grow, to develop and to ensure ever greater inclusion of developing countries in the multilateral 
trading system.  The Director-General plays an active role, working hand in hand with the 
Members.  
Q: I would like to follow up on the issue of  development in South-South trade, so my 
question would be, from your point of view, what should be done to address the issue of South-South trade in the Doha negotiations, partic ularly in NAMA.  Do you think that there is a 
specific role for South-South discussions?  Do you think that binding WTO rules as a possible 
result of negotiations on trade facilitation would h ave a positive impact on  South-South trade?  
(Germany) 
 
A: I am convinced that multilateral trade negotiations are about South-South trade as well as North-South trade.  I think that you only have to look at the trade statistics over the last few 
years to realize that the process of trade liberalization, whether it was done in the WTO, whether it was done unilaterally, or whether it was done in the framework of bilateral or regional agreements, has promoted the importance of South-South trade in the share of total global trade.  So I certainly feel that NAMA should provide answers as well to the question of South-South trade, and therefore the answer is yes. 
 
 With regard to your question on trade facilitation, I think trade facilitation as such will improve trade in general and will improve South-South trade as well.  The binding nature of these obligations will facilitate it if the developing countries have the necessary capacities of infrastructure, institutional, financial to implement them.  So I feel that in binding the rules, if 
that is the course that we are going to take, the levels of preparedness and the levels of 
development of developing countries in the areas that we are going to deal with, with regards to trade facilitation, whether it is infrastructure in imports, whether it is other kinds of administrative process, should be taken very much into account.  And I think that if all these aspects are taken into account and these rules are also, as provided in the mandate, WT/GC/M/91 
Page 10  
 
 accompanied by technical and financial assistance so that developing countries can properly 
implement what is being asked of them, I think that the answer will be yes at the end of the day.  
Q: Could you clarify further your views on the issue of further differentiation of developing 
countries in the context of the DDA and the WTO as an institution?   (Philippines) 
 
A: I don't know if I understand that question well.  I definitely feel that S&D treatment 
should apply to all developing countries.  I do feel with regards to differentiation that the least-developed countries within this group should be entitled to a differentiated treatment as well.  So this is very clear in my mind.  The other kinds of differentiation that you are probably 
talking about is that in specific areas of the negotiations some groups of developing countries 
who are affected in one way or another by the decisions we are taking or, for example, in the case of agriculture the net-food importing countries, should be given special and differential treatment.  I believe there is room for this in the WTO and I want to underline what I said earlier, that I think there are ways of differentiating and attending to the specific and concrete 
interests of developing countries, but let's do it on a sectoral basis and according to the specific 
problems of these countries in that sector, rather than trying to devise formulas of universal application to all the negotiating groups.  
Q: What would you do to improve the functioning of the WTO without compromising its 
objectives?   (Kenya) 
 
A: To improve the functioning, I would certainly have as one major goal, as I mentioned 
earlier, of trying to restore the central role of multilateralism in international trade, and I think that by doing so, far from upsetting the original objectives of the WTO, we would be enhancing them.  I would certainly, as I also mentioned, be seeking to transmit to the public a different 
image of the WTO, which I think is clearly misunderstood.  I would work with Members on a 
daily basis on consultations on specific issues, trying to make sure that the development dimension is not just words but becomes reality in all the agreements, in all the rules and in all the disciplines we negotiate.  I would also definitely promote, as I mentioned, much greater coherence with organizations that have competence which can be complementary to ours, so that we can deliver the goods in a much more comprehensive manner and with greater potential 
for us to achieve our goals.  And I will certainly look into the workings of the Secretariat, into 
the priorities, the structure, the needs on technical assistance and capacity building, but this is a subject that I will do once I am selected, if I am selected, and I can study and examine in detail what are the bottlenecks, if any, and the adjustment of priorities that we could make so that the whole organization works in a more efficient manner. 
 
Q: You have said in the course of your statem ent that you had experience at the head of 
SELA.   In view of your administrative experien ce on that occasion, I would like to know what is 
your vision of the needs of the organization.  What does the WTO need in order to improve its 
administrative, management and analytical capacities?  (Chile)  
 
A: If I am selected as Director-General, I shall be bringing to this organization the 
experience I had as the Head of SELA.  It was a smaller organization, at the time we were about 150, and it was an organization which also had financial difficulties, administrative difficulties, human resource difficulties, as well as analytical capacity problems.  I had to struggle with all of these in order to reach positive results for many of these problems, so that I do come with 
experience of the administration of an organization, and I believe this will be very valuable for 
this future task.  To reply to your question, no doubt one of the objectives I would set would be to deepen the analytical capacity of this organization.  I believe that the body representing international trade in the world should have the analytical capacity, a greater analytical capacity, to examine trade problems, to be able to see beforehand some of the problems which  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 11 
 
 
 might arise, in order to be able to inform Members annually on the main trends which are 
emerging, the impact of these trends.  In other words, this analytical field will be something I would like to reflect on, together with Members, in order to grant it a greater role than it has today.  This analytical field, this reinforcement of the analytical field, is one which should be linked to technical assistance tasks and to training, so that developing countries can have a 
greater awareness, when we are struggling with new subjects, as to what the real impact may be 
of assuming commitments – what would happen for their economies and the margin of manoeuvre for their countries.  So, in these three areas, I do see some things that can be done as soon as possible by the Director-General, which I would do if I were selected for this post.   Q: In your presentation you mentioned your ro le as Chairman of the General Council and 
the importance you attach to the rule of consensu s in the work of this organization.  We too 
consider the rule of consensus as one of great im portance, as well as the fact that this is an 
organization whose vocation is negotiation.  Hence,  all the Members have an important role.  I 
would like to ask you, on the relationship between the Director-General and his role as a 
facilitator of consensus, and the role of the Chairman of the General Council, how do you see 
how you could help the negotiations go forw ard and to contribute towards a consensus  bearing 
in mind the role of the Director-General as Ch airman of the Trade Negotiations Committee?  
(Brazil)  
 
A: I wish to reiterate that as concerns decision making, the rule of consensus must be maintained without any kind of alteration.  I believe this is the strength of the organization and 
trying to introduce any change for substantive matters might involve great risk.  Instead of facilitating solutions for the problems which are pending, it might be an obstacle, so I am a firm believer in this basic principle in WTO.  We must preserve it.  I see an important role for the Director-General in promoting consensus among Members.  As I said before, a 
Director-General must have – and more so on this occasion, when we have to finish a Round 
and have little time at our disposal to do so – complete knowledge of what the agreements are, the problems involved at this time, the various positions of Members and the ability to envisage possible solutions.  I believe the Director-General may have a role in the consultation process, a very important role, in order to bring Members closer, to build bridges, to find paths towards understanding, so as to try to propose, should the case arise, some options for alternative 
solutions which might respond to the various concerns expressed by Members.  I also see a role 
for the Chairman of the General Council, in view of the pre-Cancún experience, where, together with the Director-General, we had decided that instead of maintaining talks at the level of the negotiating groups, the prudent way forward was to concentrate on some subjects, four at the time, maintaining the entire process of consultations at the level of the General Council, headed 
by the Chairman of the General Council and the Director-General, a joint task which was 
assumed by both of them to take forward the consultations and negotiations, to bring proposals onto the table and to help Members reach a consensus.  I do see a role for Director-General in this and I do believe that this active role may help the process go forward. 
 
Q: Were you to be elected as Director-General,  could you give us two concrete initiatives 
that you would take to revitalise the Doha De velopment Round and to speed up conclusion of 
the negotiations?   (United Kingdom) 
 
A: At the time I am selected, if I am, and take office on 1 September, I will have to look at 
the state of play in order to say what type of initiatives I will have to take.  I hope that by then 
there will be sufficient progress in some areas, where I will not have to take initiatives.  But 
definitely, to answer your question, it will very much depend on where we stand at the time, as I hope, I take over on 1 September.  Certainly, there are some crucial areas that have to be addressed and resolved in order to be able to give this Development Round a meaning and which probably need priority attention by Members, in order to be able to move on some other WT/GC/M/91 
Page 12  
 
 fronts as well.  After Cancún, there were four areas that were identified which were, as you will 
remember, Agriculture, NAMA, the new issues and cotton.  If we could get some movement in those areas, this would, as a result, probably help and facilitate moving forward in some other areas.  Therefore, my answer to you would be that on 1 September, I would look at the picture and I would certainly know which are the areas in which I will have to take an initiative, and 
you can be sure that I will not hesitate in taking the action, together with Members, that is 
necessary in order to move that process forward and to come to Hong Kong with positive and substantive results that will allow us then to move into 2006 with the hopes that we can finalize this Round.  Q: We would like to ask your views on the Sut herland report, especially the suggestion to 
reform the WTO dispute settlement system such  as opening the panel and appellate body 
hearings to the public and monetary compensation.  (Thailand) 
 
A: I have read with great interest the Sutherland report, and its recommendations, and I think it is a useful contribution to the WTO.  A priori, there are some recommendations that I 
feel would be useful to reflect on in due time.  With regard to some of the other recommendations, I have some views that I will be able to put forward when we analyze them.  In general terms I would say that the WTO has been evolving a lot in the last few years, and that on a number of things that are suggested as recommendations we are in fact evolving in that direction already, in different ways, and that this experience should also be brought into 
consideration by Members when we analyze those recommendations.  With regard to dispute 
settlement, and particularly the suggestions made with regard to the openness of the process, if I understand your question correctly, I don't think this is a matter for the DG to decide.  That is a matter very much for Members to decide, and if Members feel that by agreeing to a more open exposure of panels and of the appellate body they are enhancing transparency and providing a 
service to the organization, if Members decide to move in that direction, I certainly as DG will 
not have any objections whatsoever.  I will certainly support that trend but I don't think that now as a DG candidate I should comment on that issue, because this is not an issue for the DG to decide, but rather for Members.  
Q: If you are selected as Director-General, wh at will be your focus?  Would you focus on 
the Geneva process or would you prefer to meet  Ministers and State leaders in capitals?  
(China) 
 
A: I feel very strongly that the DG should perform the two roles of being very closely 
associated with the process in Geneva and, when needed, to be able to have the capacity to go to 
capitals and to seek the advice of Ministers.  I have worked in Geneva for many, many years 
and you have seen me working here.  I feel very comfortable working with Ambassadors in Geneva.  I feel that at the end of the day it is the Geneva process that will deliver the goods.  I think Ministerial advice is obviously important at crucial times during the negotiations, but I would certainly pay a lot of attention in my daily workings to being present in Geneva and following, on a day-to-day basis, the process of negotiations in Geneva.  It would certainly be 
one of my top priorities, but this will obviously have to be complemented by presence in 
capitals, which is always something that will add value to the process.  But, I believe in the Geneva process and in the importance of the work of Ambassadors on a daily basis in Geneva, and you can be reassured that I will be working with all of you very closely in all areas of the negotiating agenda. 
 
Q: I would like to ask you about the DDA and it s current phase.   So far we have seen some 
progress, one could say good progress, in the agricultural negotiations.  What steps do you feel are necessary in order to achieve a similar le vel of progress in other areas such as NAMA, 
services and rules?   (Poland)   WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 13 
 
 
  
A: I will reply in French because I believe it is very important for the Director-General to 
be able to speak the languages of the organization.  I have had no questions so far in French but I do wish to show that I can speak French because I do believe firmly that for a Director-General to be able to carry out his objectives he must be able to speak the languages of 
the organization. 
  As concerns your question, you have spoken of progress in agriculture.  I have seen a certain progress in agriculture, but I would say that we have a long way to go yet before we can speak of significant progress in agriculture.  As concerns NAMA, I believe that we are at the 
same starting point as we were before Cancún, but probably this is due to the fact that the 
structure we inherited from Amb. Girard, and which was slightly modified in Cancún, was more advanced in terms of its framework compared to what Agriculture was at the time.  On services, I believe a lot has to be done yet.  There are offers which have not yet been submitted.  In order to reply to your question, I believe that we should keep on being vigilant in all these 
fields.  I do hope that we can make progress on all fronts at the same time.  I don't believe that 
we should ask ourselves now whether we have advanced more on one area and whether we shouldn't do something more in another.  I believe it is up to all the Members and to the Director-General to have a global overview of these negotiations in order to give the necessary movement so that we can advance on all issues.  If we do not do so, then we have the risk of coming to Hong Kong with results which will not be a solid basis for concluding the Round in 
2006. 
 
Q: The Dispute Settlement Body is a very import ant body, but the system, such as it exists 
today, does not allow small countries,  those with no means, to participate.  What do you intend 
doing as the Director-General of this organization to ascertain that small countries with very 
limited resources can really fully partic ipate in the Dispute Settlement Body?   (Benin) 
 
A: I believe very firmly that the Dispute Settlement Body is a very important body.  It is a 
body that works well.  It has given developing countries a possibility to reach results that are important even in disputes with major exporting countries.  I have noticed an evolution since this body was created.  There is an ever-greater participation by developing countries, including 
small developing countries.  However, I am well aware of the problems you have raised.  I am 
aware of the fact that the problem of financial resources is sometimes a discouragement and prevents countries from taking up matters in a body of this importance.  I do not pretend to have any solution today to this problem.  I just said I was aware of it because even in the case of my country, in a certain situation, it was a matter of having to weigh the financial costs before 
entering into a process of dispute settlement.  I do not say that it is the only thing which kept us 
from entering this process, but it did have a considerable weight.  It is a concern I shall bring up if I am selected as Director-General in order to try to find a solution which might not only be financial but which might also come from searching for assistance in different ways so that countries may prepare and present their cases without being limited by financial considerations.  I am being very frank in that I do not have a solution to your question.  It is difficult now to 
foresee financial resources which would allow everybody to participate.  I believe that the legal 
body which has been set up in Geneva has helped the participation of developing countries a great deal, but we have not yet found solutions to all the problems you raised.  It is a concern I shall take with me and I shall take it on board and I shall try to analyze it in greater depth if I am selected Director-General.  
 WT/GC/M/91 
Page 14  
 
 C. Summing up by the Candidate 
2 
  I will wrap up by saying, as I mentioned earlier, that I am presenting my candidature for the post of Director-General because I believe in this organization.  I believe in multilateralism.  I believe that trade is not a panacea for development but that it is certainly an 
engine and an instrument that can help us to grow and to develop in our countries, and as such, 
it would also help us in our fight against poverty.  If I am selected for this post, you can be sure that you can count on my loyalty, that you can count on my best efforts in order to bring this Round to a successful outcome, and that I will make a point, as I mentioned before, that the development dimension will be properly understood and will be incorporated in a meaningful 
way into every agreement, every rule, every discipline that we adopt in this body.  This is a 
promise.  I feel that I have been training for this job for the past 30 years and that, if I am selected, I will bring experience, I will bring knowledge, I will bring understanding of positions and, above all, I will bring the objective of trying to look for common ground, of trying to build bridges, of trying to bring Members together.  My policy will be an open-door policy.  Those 
people who know me, know how I work.  I will meet with everyone.  I will meet with groups, I 
will make a point of working with the least-developed countries, to meet regularly with other groups such as the developing countries, but that my doors will always be open for consultations with the major players and I will try to facilitate the consultations so that we can move forward in this process which is so important to us all.  I think that the future of the WTO depends on how we finish this Round and the future of multilateralism and the credibility of multilateralism 
is very much in our hands.  And I can assure you that if I am selected Director-General I will 
put my best efforts, as I have done in the past, into achieving that goal.     
                                                     
 
2 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meeting communicated by the Chair to all delegations on 
18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five minutes of 
the question-and-answer pe riod if he so wished.  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 15 
 
 
 Annex B   
 
Meeting with Mr. Jaya Krishna Cuttaree (Mauritius)  
 
A. Presentation by the Candidate  
 
Let me first of all thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the Secretariat for organizing this 
meeting.   I would also like to thank all Member delegations for taking time to meet with me this 
morning and for providing me the opportunity to share with you my vision for the WTO as well 
as some of my thoughts on how I see the future phase of the WTO work, under the stewardship of a new Director-General.   My overarching priority will be the successful completion of the Development Round we 
initiated in Doha.  This cannot but be a legitimately shared vision. We cannot lose sight of where 
we came from and of the numerous setbacks we suffered before we managed to launch this Round.  In taking stock of the progress achieved so far, I am of the view that now is the time for action if we have to conclude this Round on time.  We cannot afford, yet again, to overshoot the time that we have targeted for its completion.  
 I need not underscore that I, personally, have taken actions that bear out my 
unflinching commitment to the multilateral trading system and to the Development Round.  After Cancún, we worked together and we collectively redoubled our efforts to put the negotiations back on track.  
 The July Package, as an outcome of our collective efforts, reaffirmed the development 
dimensions and gave a new thrust to the approach to development.  Here, I would like to draw your attention to the paragraph on development which reiterates that special attention  shall be 
given to the specific trade and development-related needs and concerns of developing countries.   The elements of the July Package, inter alia,  call for immediate attention to address 
such issues as Special and Differential Treatment and Implementation Issues, as well as food 
security, rural development, livelihood, preferences, commodities and net-food importers and prior unilateral liberalization.  All these underscore the importance of the development dimensions and have to be taken into consideration, as appropriate, in the course of the negotiations, and in particular to those related to Agriculture and NAMA. 
 
 One of my main objectives will, therefore, be to ensure that development is truly crystallized in this Round so as to live up to the Doha expectations and aspirations.  A holistic approach to trade, in which I firmly believe, cannot ignore this dimension.   The multilateral trading system is, de facto, a mutually interdependent system. Hence, 
its effective and efficient functioning cannot be divorced from the principles of partnership, 
solidarity, cooperation and inclusiveness; nor can it be from those of equity, fairness and transparency which must remain the cornerstones of the WTO system.   We all agree that trade is a powerful engine of sustainable development and growth, and 
is capable of lifting millions from poverty.  In a multilateral trading system that has to deal with 
countries which are at different levels of development, international solidarity is of paramount importance in addressing the needs of the weak and vulnerable countries.  International solidarity is indeed not a vain concept.  Efforts deployed by people around the globe after the recent tragic events in the Indian Ocean region have demonstrated the power of this solidarity WT/GC/M/91 
Page 16  
 
 and the capacity of all to understand the concerns of those among us who are less fortunate and 
afflicted.   These principles can safeguard the interest of all Members – the developed and the developing, the rich and the poor alike.  I will ensure that they remain central in the work 
culture of the WTO. 
  Again, we all agree that trade liberalization initiated under the GATT since 1947 has contributed enormously to global growth and development and to substantial increases in overall world trade.  However, it is also a matter of concern that the benefits therefrom have not 
been equitably distributed, contrary to the objectives enshrined in the GATT and the WTO 
Marrakech Agreement.  The early conclusion of this present Round is, therefore, imperative to ensure a better redistribution of the welfare benefits and gains of trade liberalization.  Nothing, therefore, should distract us from keeping the Doha Round on course.  Neither can we afford to divert resources and energy from this development imperative at this very critical juncture. 
 
 It is not my intention to delve into the reasons that have contributed to the situation whereby the prime objectives of the multilateral trading system as set out in the Marrakech Agreement have not been fully realized.  Suffice it to say that there is urgent need to bridge the gap in understanding the problems and needs of all Members.  We have to draw lessons from past failures.  These are all serious challenges for us.  But the greatest challenge, from a larger 
perspective, is for us all to work together in doing the following: 
 (i) ensuring that development remains at the core of our preoccupations, not only for this Round,  but duly entrenched in the system as a whole;  
(ii) bridging the differences on major issues due to the diversity of interests; 
 (iii) building further on effective programmes to address capacity constraints, including the  implementation of WTO Agreements and obligations;  (iv) ensuring that the decision-making process is based on greater transparency and 
inclusiveness; 
 (v) ensuring full and effective implementation of commitments, decisions, understandings and  agreed rules;  
(vi) ensuring effective coherence in global policy-making aimed, primarily, at building more 
 competitive economies to cope with global competition;  more importantly, ensuring a right  mix between providing a multilateral framework of rules for free trade, on the one hand, and  assisting countries to mainstream into the multilateral trading system, on the other.  
 Let me also touch on another important issue which has been raised time and again.  As 
you are aware, several ideas have been floated concerning the institutional reform process in the WTO.  Some have suggested that, while undertaking institutional reforms, account should be taken of both administrative issues and the decision-making process.  The recent report of the Consultative Board also brings up some of these ideas.  It is legitimate to undertake 
introspection and soul-searching of an organization with a view to improving its efficiency and 
productivity.  Reform is a continuum in an evolutive process.  The WTO cannot be an exception.  However, I strongly believe that, for any reform to be successful, it has to be fully owned by its principal stakeholders.  It also has to take account of the evolutive dimension of the reform process.  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 17 
 
 
  
 We will therefore have to continue to focus on how we could improve on what we already have in the system so as to make the WTO responsive to the dynamic environment in which it operates.  Be that as it may, it is my strong view that this should not be done at the expense of the Development Round. 
 
 The Director-General needs to work in very close consultation with Members and will have to ensure that such a process is facilitated for the efficient and effective functioning of the WTO.  Under no circumstances, however, should the fundamental principles of fairness, equity, inclusiveness and transparency be undermined. 
 
 The Doha mandate also underscores the importance of ensuring internal transparency and effective participation of all Members.  Concerns have been expressed over internal and external transparency, including improving public and citizen access to information about the WTO procedures and decisions.  I shall work with you on these issues and see how we can 
collectively and effectively proceed. 
  It is a matter of constant concern for a number of Members that lack of capacity has prevented them from participating effectively in the multilateral trading system, in the negotiations and in the implementation of decisions.  Technical assistance and capacity building will therefore have to remain a core element of WTO activities.  There is need to build on the 
experiences and lessons of the past to make capacity building and technical assistance a more 
meaningful tool for development, and in enabling WTO Members, particularly the developing countries, the least-developed countries, the small, weak and vulnerable economies, to derive legitimate trade and development gains from this Round.  I shall work closely with all other international institutions and agencies to ensure greater synergies and meaningful 
collaboration, and global coherence. 
  I see all this as part of a balanced approach to a gradual process of trade liberalization.  The more effective this approach to technical assistance and capacity building, the more far-reaching and successful this trade liberalization process will be, thereby making the WTO work meaningfully for progress and development of all Members. 
 
 Services are an integral part of the negotiations.  The potentialities of this sector to the development agenda of Members are enormous.   Indeed, the development of the services sector can unlock huge opportunities for 
improving the income levels and quality of life of peoples around the world.  While undertaking 
such development, due account should be taken of the concerns of both developing and developed countries relating to the social dimension of this sector, having special regard to health, education, utilities, transport and audiovisual services.   We took an historic decision on TRIPS and Public Health in Doha and gave a clear 
expression of what we can do together when we have the necessary political will and sense of 
solidarity.  We now need to push this decision most expeditiously to its logical conclusion by giving a meaningful closure to the outstanding work on making this Decision operational on a predictable and permanent basis.  
 In addition to the Public Health issue, we need also to resolve issues such as the 
relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity, and transfer of technology.  WT/GC/M/91 
Page 18  
 
  In this regard, we need to ensure a balanced distribution of benefits arising from the 
TRIPS Agreement.  Indeed, the protection of intellectual property rights can lead to the movement of capital in high tech sectors in many developing countries devoid of natural resources.  This is a key to prosperity.  
 It is my staunch belief that the multilateral trading system can best protect the interests 
of all Members.  It is also true that effective regional integration is a stepping-stone to the multilateral trading system.  This is especially true for many developing countries which, only by pooling together their competitive advantages, can become global players.  
 I would like to mention that the dispute settlement mechanism and rule-making are two 
important aspects in the functioning of the WTO system that will require our focused attention.  The Dispute Settlement Body is no doubt one of the central pillars of the WTO system.  However, in the light of experience gathered so far, there is a consensus that there is need to improve on the functioning of the DSB.  I will work with you all to ensure that the best balance 
is achieved in the interest of the system. 
  It is a matter of satisfaction that the membership of the WTO is now becoming more universal.  From its original 25 we are now 148.  The question that begs is:  is it now time to have a fresh look at the process of participation of all Members, be it in the negotiations, regular committees and working group meetings, or at Ministerial conferences?  The answer is yes.  In 
the same breath, there is also the need to see how the Secretariat could be made more 
responsive to the growing needs of a more universal membership.  Inclusiveness and transparency being my constant preoccupations, I intend to work with Members on these important aspects and build on the positives achieved so far, in order to ensure that even the resource-poor Member is able to participate effectively and meaningfully. 
 
 I should like to conclude by re-emphasizing that only a timely and successful conclusion of the Development Round and the full implementation of decisions and commitments will safeguard the institutional credibility of the WTO and of the multilateral trading system.  In this endeavour, I firmly believe that there is need to reconcile the process of liberalization with the imperatives of development. 
 
 Any institution in a negotiating process will have to take account of the interests of all its Members.  If any group feels marginalized, this will undermine the legitimacy of the whole exercise.  However, there is a perception that the concerns of the weak and vulnerable nations are not sufficiently addressed at the WTO.  Seattle and Cancún are stark reminders of this 
reality.  It is therefore imperative that the WTO develop a truly consensual relationship that 
reflects and serves the interests of the entire membership.  My personal involvement, along with others in the post-Cancún period, was to try to act as a bridge to get the process on track again.  No one wanted 2004 to be a lost year.  It is generally recognized that the G-90 meeting in Mauritius paved the way for the July package.  The challenge facing the WTO today is to develop a true and effective partnership between developed and developing countries, in order 
to create a prosperous and stable world order where everyone feels that a fair and balanced 
multilateral trading system is in the superior interest of every partner.   I pledge to work with all Members in this direction.  The successful completion of the Development Round will be among the first moves in giving the WTO a genuinely humane face. 
 
B. Questions and Answers
 
 
Q: I listened to your presentation very carefully , especially when you said that technical 
assistance and capacity building have to remain th e core of WTO activities.  In relation to that,  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 19 
 
 
 do you think that all the developing countries a ffected by the phasing-out of the textile quotas 
should benefit from WTO trade-related technical assistance?   (Belgium) 
 
A: That is a rather vague question.  Obviously the elimination of those quotas at the end of 
last year has raised serious problems for a number of countries which are involved in 
developing their textiles sectors.  These countries depend on textiles for their development and 
there is obviously the question of transforming the textile industry into a competitive one.  In that context, the capacity for transformation is a very important fact, but as you know, many of our countries are in contact with traditional development partners, the World Bank and the European Union in particular, to obtain funds at competitive interest rates, to obtain technical 
assistance, to move to a higher rung, producing products of better quality, so that we can better 
compete with countries coming on to the textiles market at this time.    
Q: In your introduction you glanced over the question of coherence with other 
international organizations, and my question is – do you have any specific ideas on how to 
deepen and make more effective WTO actions vis-à-vis  other international organizations within 
a coherence agenda?   (Malta) 
 
A: I think the issue of coherence between the WTO and other international organizations 
has been on the table for some time now, and there has been some coherence-building between the WTO and the World Bank and the IMF.  But I think that we have to look at the issue 
further.  I believe that if you want really to have a global trading system, where everybody is 
able to participate, opening of markets per se  does not take us very far.  It is the capacity to 
produce competitively that is the key element to be able to trade on a multilateral basis.  And this is where I think that you need to have greater coherence with organizations such as the World Bank – which is an aid giver – to develop infrastructure, to build, let's say in the case of 
agriculture on the continent of Africa, which as everyone says has been a great potential for 
trade in agriculture, roads.  You don't have port facilities in these countries;  there are problems of SPS;  you don't have refrigeration facilities to carry your fresh products.  All of these are very important development aspects which need to be taken care of, and this is where I think that when you are looking at the opening up of markets, if at the same time there is no coherence between the opening of markets and the assistance which should be given to these 
countries to build their capacity to produce, then you are going to have an imbalance in the 
system, because then only the big countries which have the capacity to produce are going to take over the market.  To me, coherence between the WTO and other world institutions is vital if we want all of the players to be able ultimately to share in the benefits of the multilateral trading system.  Q: In light of what the EU did with the Everything But Arms Initiative, what special treatment, in concrete terms, do you consider sh ould be given to small, vulnerable economies by 
developed and richer developing countries?   (Luxembourg) 
 
A. I think the EBA initiative is a recognition that all players are not at the same level, and the market access which is given to the weaker developing countries obviously is welcome, and I 
think it forms part also of the philosophy which prevails within the WTO as far as the development dimensions are concerned.  I think, from that point of view, it is a very welcome initiative.  On the other hand, recent events in the Indian Ocean, for example, have shown that even countries which theoretically have a high income per capita can be extremely vulnerable, 
and that therefore the concept of vulnerability and weakness should not be equated simply with 
the question of income per capita.  And I think that these countries, as well, need specific assistance in order to be able to compete in world markets.  But one has to be fair, also, that since Doha, the concept of small economies has been on the table and there has been a recognition that these countries also need special attention, obviously without creating a new WT/GC/M/91 
Page 20  
 
 category of Members.  And I welcome that, although I would have wished that progress on the 
small economies work programme had been faster.  
Q: In the rules, procedures and practices of  the WTO there are still points of inequity 
which are prejudicial to the situation and interest s of the developing countries and in regard to 
which corrections would be useful.  What do you think would be useful for the new Director-
General to do in order to br ing solutions to these inequities?   (Benin) 
 
A: We all know that the WTO is a Member-driven organization.  The rules, if they are to 
be changed, would be the responsibility mainly of the Members.  But it is evident too that when 
you look at the Doha package, the agenda from Doha or the framework agreement of July, 
there are very firm, strong provisions in favour of development.  And I believe it is up to us, the Members, and those of us who are going to be negotiating modalities, to ensure that the intentions contained therein are implemented, so that the inequities that you have mentioned are no longer a problem of division between rich and poor countries. 
 
Q: In your initial presentation you mentioned several aspects of the Doha Round.  I did not 
hear you mention one of them, to which my count ry attaches importance, which is agriculture.  
I would like to hear your views on the agricultura l negotiations, especially in the context of the 
preoccupation you have with the interests of small developing countries and preference-
receiving developing countries.   (Brazil) 
 
A: I think you touched on a point which is extremely important.  Obviously, the 
liberalization of agricultural trade is at the centre of the preoccupations of the multilateral trading system, and there is no doubt about that.  But, as I said earlier, when you look at the world trading system, if you want to have a multilateral system which works, it has to be all-
inclusive, because if not, you will strengthen the divide between the rich and the poor, which no 
one wants to see happen.  Development is about partnership, the partnership between the poor and the less poor and the rich.  Therefore, it is in the interests of the developing countries that we have a real partnership with our richer partners in order for us to be able to integrate better into the multilateral trading system.  But, as you know, we are not living in an ideal world.  Countries have different factor endowments.  We are at different levels of development, and to 
have a system whereby everyone is expected to run on the same field, I think this will not work.  
To use a soccer example – because Brazil is very good at soccer – if you have four soccer divisions and suddenly you decide that you are going to have only one division and all the teams are going to play in the same division, then you are going to have maybe three quarters of the teams being eliminated, and I do not think anyone wants that. 
 
 Now, the question of preferences.  Obviously, if you look at the multilateral trading system, you cannot have a system whereby you are going to have preferences forever.  I do not think this is the objective.  But I think that countries which are weaker have to be accompanied in order for them to become global players, and preferences play a role in that.  And this is where I think that we did a fantastic job in July when, in spite of all of our differences, the 
notion of preferences was recognized and we are working on that.  And I think this goes to the 
credit of countries like yours or the developed countries which maybe are inimical to the notion of preferences but which realize that all countries are not the same, that preferences are important for certain countries and that special treatment has to be given to these countries. 
 
Q: You know that one of the concerns of th e immense majority of Members of this 
organization is transparency and the effective part icipation of all in the negotiations.  There are 
different methods, such as those we all know about – mini-Ministerials and "Green Room" meetings apart from the meetings we hold in th is open format, and which are part of the reality  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 21 
 
 
 and they will continue existing.  What would you do in order to encourage the greatest 
participation possible, at all levels and in all fields, on the part of Members?   (Argentina) 
 
A: I think you raised a very important issue.  We are a Member-driven organization.  We 
are 148 to date.  Our numbers might increase in the years to come, and if we are going to work 
by consensus, it is not easy to get 148 Members to sit together in a room and discuss and come to 
a conclusion.  It can be a very unwieldy situation.  I think this has been recognized.  Now the question is whether the various methods which have been used to sort out this problem have been successful.  I was very much involved, as many of us, in Cancún.  At that time, I was the Chair of the African Union Ministers of Trade, and I must tell you that one of the reasons so 
much heat was generated among the various groupings at that Ministerial was the fact that a 
large part of the constituency of the WTO felt that they were being excluded and that they did not know what was happening there.  In fact, I was in the Green Room, but we had a constituency which was the G-90 constituency.  But what we did from the Green Room was to consult with our constituency all along, and our constituency accepted that.  There was myself 
and my colleague from Botswana, and we were going back and forth taking directives, although 
people said that the Green Room was an exclusive or elitist process, whatever they wanted to call it.  Yet, the way we were doing it satisfied our membership, because they felt they had representatives of their interests within the Green Room.  And I think this created, as far as we were concerned, transparency or the democracy which we would want to see within the system.  Now, with regard to mini-Ministerial meetings, the question is how do you choose who is going 
to be in that Ministerial meeting?  From my experience, it is very often that someone or some 
very powerful countries decide that they are going to invite this country from Africa, that country from Latin America, and this other one, and that these countries, when they attend, very often represent themselves, and this creates suspicion between the regional groupings and those who are supposed to be representing them at such meetings.  Therefore, if you have to 
have a system whereby you are going to have a smaller focus, not to take decisions but to discuss 
issues with the aim of trying to develop a consensus, to try to understand each other's position, then you have to have it through some sort of representation of the people.  For example, you could mention to the African and Caribbean Group that we are going to have such a meeting and that we are going to discuss services.  The Group could then send someone who is really well-versed in services, who will be there sitting with you and will discuss and represent the 
interests of the group.  Of course, you just asked me this question, and I am giving you ideas as 
they come to mind.  For example, in the Sutherland report, there is a mention of a consultative body, but I think that the way this is approached in that report is wrong when they talk of having permanent Members.  We then go back again to a system of the UN Security Council.  I do not think anyone wants the WTO to become the UN or the Security Council or the General 
Assembly.  But your question is a very valid question, and I think that for the future of the 
WTO – if we really want it to be all-inclusive and if we want the organization not to witness the same type of divergences, and hate, almost, that we witnessed at Cancún – the process has to be more transparent and everyone must feel that their voice is being heard, and that if not all 148 Members are present at any meeting they should feel that their own representatives can be present and discuss in their name.  
 
Q: In your introductory statement you ment ioned the development dimension of this 
Round and also some statements concerning the WTO management.  As the Director-General, 
what would be the first two decisions you would take regarding the management of the WTO 
Secretariat?   (Austria) 
 
A. Well, we have the WTO Secretariat and we have an organization which is Member-
driven.  The question we have to ask ourselves when we look at the Secretariat is:  has it operated as we wanted it to operate?  And if it has not, it is us, primarily the membership, which is responsible, because we have not defined the duties and responsibilities of the Director-WT/GC/M/91 
Page 22  
 
 General.  I think this is the first thing we will have to do.  The second point, once we have 
defined that, is to decide what role do we want the Director-General to play.  I start from the principle that this organization will have to stay a Member-driven organization.  We do not want to uproot the Secretariat and to have it be a big commission.  What we want it to be is a lean, efficient, intellectual organization which can weigh in on the discussions which are taking 
place in Geneva on the various issues.  I think that my feeling is that it is okay.  I am not 
criticizing anyone.  I think that you have various working groups which are doing a good job.  The TNC is there.  The Director-General is doing the job there.  But I think that many Members, especially those who do not have the sort of capacity to develop policies, to try to understand policies, would have liked the Secretariat to be more proactive in the evolution of 
policies.  These policies are not going to be adopted by the Secretariat, but the Secretariat will 
have to be like a think-tank for the evolution of policies.  To some extent this is being done, but this is what I would like the Secretariat to do – to become much more proactive in the intellectual field in terms of evolution of policies at the level of the organization.  Obviously, we can always talk at length about the management of the organization, what should be the 
relationship between the Director-General and his staff.  Ideas have been floated that we need to 
have regional offices and all that.  I am not content with this direction at all.  I think that this is a Member-driven organization, and what we need is a lean, efficient Secretariat with a Director-General who is hands-on and with the resources that will enable him to do the job.  
Q: Just to expand a little more on the functioning of the WTO, I would like to put a 
question with regard to budgetary allocations.  Listening to your statement that there would be 
a need to expand some of the functions of the Secretariat and to develop some new functions, 
would you be re-allocating exis ting resources of the Secretariat, or would you be seeking new 
resources and thus increasing membership fees for Members?   (Latvia) 
 
A. This is the classic question that is asked of Ministers of Finance, and I do not happen to 
be a Minister of Finance, but obviously if you want to have an organization be able to do the job, you have to give to this organization the resources necessary.  I am not proposing that we should increase the contributions of Members.  This will be for the membership to decide, but you will decide that as a function of what you want the Secretariat to do.  I honestly believe that the Secretariat has got a greater role to play in terms of capacity building.  I believe that, for 
example, the Secretariat should have the resources to bring people from capitals to Geneva.  My 
personal experience is that there is this link between what happens here in Geneva and what happens in capitals, and that this link does not work very often.  Very often, when you have meetings here, many countries cannot afford to send their people from capital to come here and sit with the experts here and discuss the issues.  In our own countries, we know that very often if 
you do not have this linkage between our Ambassadors here and our technicians in capitals, it is 
more difficult for the input even to reach the decision-making process, the decision makers, the Ministers.  So if we really want international trade to form part of the culture of all of us, and I am talking here particularly of the developing countries, people have to understand its importance.  To give you an example, in Mauritius, as Minister I convinced the University to have a special module on international trade within the Bachelors course on economics, and this 
has now evolved into a Masters course in international trade and economic diplomacy.  But you 
cannot do that if you do not have trained people.  So this is where I think we need to focus if we want to have universities and institutions of learning create awareness among our young people because these are the people who are going to become the decision makers of tomorrow.  And the trading system is with us;  it is not going to disappear in five years' time.  On the contrary, 
we want to deepen the system.   Therefore we need our people to understand, and not only to 
understand, but to be proactive in pushing the trade agenda.  And the only way you can do that is to train people, and this is where I think the WTO should have more resources to be able to play this role, especially in the developing countries. 
  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 23 
 
 
 Q: I apologise beforehand if my question may sound a little too aggressive.  I do not intend 
to be aggressive, but I do want to understand the rationale of your candidature.  The point is 
that your country has been a member of groups in  agriculture that have been very prominent in 
raising the question of erosion of trade preferences and therefore resisting liberalization, defending multi-functionality and non-trade concerns and so on.  This is not exactly at the 
forefront of a drive to promote trade liberalization,  which is what this Round is all about.  How 
do you reconcile these positions taken by your co untry under your leadership as Minister, with 
your ambition to become Director-General and therefore spokesperson of an organization that 
aims to promote freer and non-discriminatory trade?   (Chile)  
 
A: Maybe I will answer your question by pointing out that my country is not the only one 
which has been fighting for preferences or for looking at agriculture in a different manner from NAMA.  You mentioned the question of multi-functionality in agriculture.  I think this is a concept which many people defend, and not only Mauritius, and I think there is a valid point to defend.  But whereas as Minister responsible for my country, it is my sacred duty to defend the 
interests of my country, and I will always do it, as Director-General of the WTO I am 
completely independent of any country.  If you look at the legal texts you will see that I am in the hands of the membership of the WTO and I serve the membership of the WTO.  We all have different opinions about different things.  I am sure you have ideas which are different from mine on many issues, but when you are in a position where you have to represent a constituency, you have to defend the interests of that constituency, and my role as Director-
General of the WTO will be to defend the multilateral trading system, to make it inclusive and 
to make sure that everybody gains from that system. 
Q: May we request your views regarding the Dispute Settlement Body cases and the 
procedural problem of non-compliance or impunity.  (Philippines) 
 
A: I think that the dispute settlement mechanism is a vital part of the multilateral trading 
system, and that this is what is great with the system.  It is not like you have resolutions at various other institutions and everyone goes home and forgets all about them.  You are Members of an institution, you are bound by the rules, and when you are unhappy about the way something is being done or is against your interest, you go to a dispute settlement body.  The Dispute Settlement Body has had successes.  If you ask me what I find unfair in the system, 
it is that if a small or a weak country wants to avail itself of the DSB to try to get redress, the 
process is very onerous, and we in Mauritius know about that.  For example, that there is this dispute on sugar, and we know how much money this costs, and if you get satisfaction from a panel but the losing party does not implement the judgement, if I may use that word, what is the redress you can have?  What is the compensation a small country can get?  These are the issues 
that I think the membership should address.  But the dispute settlement mechanism, to me, is a 
fundamental part of the multilateral trading system.  It gives guarantees, but I think it has to be more accessible to the membership. 
 
Q: If I may ask a question on a little more pers onal basis, what do you bring uniquely to the 
role of Director-General?  (United States) 
 
A: It is very difficult to talk about oneself, but I believe that I have the conviction, which I 
have expressed, that the multilateral system is the system to enable the world as a whole to develop in harmony.  I have been involved in many negotiations, bilateral negotiations, but I also know that these bilateral negotiations can be very onerous.  I think that from the point of 
view of technical competence and commitment to the system, I can say I am a good candidate.  
The other thing which motivates me a lot is the fact that I learnt a very big lesson in Cancún.  I was never thinking about ever becoming Director-General of an organization like this one until I saw that what I considered the catastrophe of Cancún.  Not only that we did not manage to get an agreement, but the divide between the rich and the poor was there for everyone to see.  And WT/GC/M/91 
Page 24  
 
 everyone maybe was well minded, was of good faith, but there was this feeling that we are we 
and they are they and it was as a result of Cancún, you will recall, that people thought that, well, it will take us years before we start getting this process back on track.  And as you know, it was the United States, Robert Zoellick himself, who first started with this idea that we cannot have a lost year in 2005 and sent a letter to his colleagues.  We started thinking about this in our own 
constituencies and we said okay, the system is good for us, let us see whether we can get the 
process back on track.  And I think that it is there that the credibility of the person who leads such an exercise is extremely important, and I think that I have been working with developing countries for a very long time, whether in Africa, the Caribbean, or some Asian countries.  As you know, I have been the Chair of the African Union.  I have been the Chair of the ACP.  I also 
presently the current Chair of SADEC.  I know the concerns, I know the people and I know how 
they feel.  I have also worked very closely with people in the developed world, with very responsible decision makers in Europe and the United States.  I feel that I can be, at this stage – which is a very crucial stage in the Development Round – the bridge between these two constituencies, whose interests are actually the same.  I can be that bridge to take this process 
forward. 
 
Q: Could I ask you what you would regard as th e most significant weakness or threat to the 
multilateral system over the coming deca de and how you would deal with it?   ( H o ng  K o n g ,  
China) 
 
A: I think the biggest threat is something which is not tangible.  It is perception.  If we talk 
to people in the developing world, for example, we talk to NGOs, it is not normal that every time there is a meeting of the WTO, not every time, but very often when you have a meeting of the WTO, you find the NGOs demonstrating.  People are demonstrating within their own countries.  The trade unions or the civil society organizations are saying this is the end of the country, there 
is the risk that the WTO is going to bleed us, and we should get rid of the WTO.  We should go 
back to more nationalism, and things like that.  This is not a secret.  We all know that this happens in many of our countries.  Therefore, if you ask me what is the biggest challenge, it is to give confidence to the people in the multilateral trading system and the WTO.  I think this is the key.  Once this is done and everyone realizes that multilateralism is with us, and they do not say wh ether w e  l ik e  it  or n ot,  the y  sa y  i t i s  w ith  us ,  h o w  d o  w e  make  it  w ork in  order f or us  t o  
benefit from it.  I think this is the main challenge, and I think that we can rise to that challenge 
if we all understand that we have to work together in order to create a better world.  
Q: In the 10 years of WTO's existence, the exports of African countries have seriously 
fallen and the LDCs have been ever more margina lized with respect to the multilateral trading 
system.  What in your mind should be the priority  for all Members to tackle in the forthcoming 
months in order to truly restore confidence?  (Rwanda)  
 
A: I would revert to a point that I made in my opening statement, namely the perception 
that the multilateral system has not benefited all.  You come from Africa.  You know well that we in Africa, when we say that the multilateral trading system has been good for the 
international system because it has meant a greater opening and that the volume of trade in 
goods and services has increased, we know very well that in Africa, for instance, this is not true.  Our share in international trade has decreased, and if you eliminate petroleum and minerals, the situation is even worse.  And that is why I always come back to the question of producing for international trade.  Market access without the ability to produce for the markets means 
nothing.  You well know that African countries, even with our bilateral markets, be they with 
the EU, or with the USA which gives us virtually unlimited access, if we do not have the capacity, the investment, the infrastructure to produce, trade for us will be a fly-by-night operation.  For us, the priority of all priorities, is to provide the capacity to produce for export.    WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 25 
 
 
 Q: In order to lead the DDA to a successful conclusion you will need help from major 
countries.  What kind of expectation and request to those countries do you have?   (Korea) 
 
A: I am not sure that I understood your question properly.  I will give you an answer and if 
you think I haven't answered your question, with the permission of the Chair I will be happy to 
answer it again.  Now, I understand that you asked the question about what I expected from our 
development partners if I wanted to have a successful conclusion to the DDA.  I do not talk about them as the richer countries but as development partners, the development partners of the poorer countries.  I think that we have something on the table – the July package.  We are not going to reinvent the wheel.  The July package is there.  What we want to see in the package 
is there.  It might not be an ideal package, but I think that we all went away quite satisfied that 
our concerns had been taken on board in that package.  Now, the question is, how do we all put our heads together to make sure that when we start tackling those modalities, that at the end of the day, when we get to the Hong Kong Ministerial, we get to it with substantial progress on this package.  This progress can be made if we cooperate, but also with the support, the essential 
support, of the richer countries who are our development partners. 
 
Q: You have said that the successful completion  of the Round is your first priority, and in 
particular realizing the development objective of the Round.  I wonder if you could tell me 
where you see, in very specific terms, the great est potential benefit in the DDA negotiations for 
development.  What can make the greatest contribution?   (Canada) 
 
A: Very specifically, Agriculture and NAMA are the answers. These are the two areas 
which are of concern to the developing countries.  Of course, there are the issues of implementation and all that which are ongoing, but I think that if we can make progress on Agriculture and NAMA, and I think we will, this will be a giant step forward. 
 
Q: You mentioned that services can unlock th e income of developing countries.  With 
regard to Trade in Services, in your view, what are the major challenges ahead?  Do you think 
WTO Members are equipped for the current ro und of negotiations?  Where could the 
momentum of the negotiations, both in  market access and rules, come from?   (Thailand) 
 
A: Let me answer this question from the perspective of the developing countries.  When we 
are talking about trade, we are talking about trade in goods and services.  If you look at the countries that have actually made the greatest progress, they are the countries which have developed the services sector.  Trade in goods is, of course, important.  But if you are a country without natural resources, and you are strategically located, the development of services can 
bring you prosperity.  The biggest sector which is developing faster than anything is tourism, 
for example, and you cannot have a tourism industry unless you open up that sector for investment.  Information and communication technology (ICT) is also extremely important, not only as a sector for the creation of employment, but for increasing productivity.  I will give you the example of the United States, where productivity has been technologically driven to create a competitive economy.  I think that the developing countries should look at the opportunities 
which are being offered in the services sector, obviously taking precautions, because every 
country has its own specificities, but I think that we should not close our minds to this question of opening up the services sector, not making it an ideological question, but rather looking at it as an opportunity.  Q: Last year, EC Commissioners Lamy and Fischler put forward a proposal suggesting that they should offer the Round for free for the G-90.  What is your comment on that 
proposal?  (China) 
 WT/GC/M/91 
Page 26  
 
 A: I think that that proposal is a recognition that many countries cannot be expected to 
take new commitments, and when this proposal was made I welcomed it because it showed a realization that if you really want to move the process forward, you have to look into the problems of the weaker and the more vulnerable countries.  On the other hand, other countries have also asked why create a new category of Members, why create a system whereby you 
exclude some people completely from the exercise, and whether we shouldn't get everybody in 
but have a special and differential treatment so that everyone feels that they are a party to the exercise.  
Q: With regard to the effectiveness of the WTO and the strengthening of the Secretariat, do 
you have any specific points you would recommen d to Members to strengthen the WTO and the 
Secretariat?  (Nigeria) 
 
A. I have said earlier on that I think we have to define the duties and responsibilities of the 
Director-General.  If you want two specific points, I would repeat again that I do not think we 
have to have uproot the entire organization, but we need to have a lean, efficient organization 
where the powers of the Director-General are defined, and the Secretariat is also given the resources to enable it to do the job we give it. 
 
C. Summing up by the Candidate 
3 
 
 Let me first of all thank you again for listening to me and asking me all these questions.  
Obviously, I have tried to answer all your questions very honestly.  I do not have all the answers.  It would be abnormal if I had them.  I am not the DG yet, but still I think that it is important at this juncture, where we find ourselves right in the middle of this development Round, that we need somebody who can, above all, try to recreate confidence among the whole 
membership in the organization and in the multilateral trading system. 
  The second point which I want to talk about is when you are talking about development, I come from a developing country and I always stress that.  We cannot develop unless we have the support of our development partners, and my role would be to make sure that this confidence building between the partners becomes a priority.  I saw Cancún, I heard statements 
post-Cancún and I think that now that things have calmed down, it is in the interests of 
everyone that we have a united and safe world, and this happens, above all, through economic prosperity for all.  Therefore, this prosperity is in the hands of everyone.  The developing countries must realize that the multilateral trading system is their best guarantee for progress, and the developed world must understand that if we want to have a united and safe world, it 
will be through the development of a new partnership based on mutual respect, understanding 
and a political will to take the process forward.    
                                                     
 
3 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meeting communicated by the Chair to all delegations on 
18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five minutes of 
the question-and-answer pe riod if he so wished.  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 27 
 
 
 Annex C  
 
Meeting with Mr. Luis Felipe de Seixas Correa (Brazil)  
 
A. Presentation by the Candidate  
 
 It is with a great deal of respect and admiration for this organization that, having been nominated by the Brazilian Government, I come to this podium as a candidate for the post of Director-General.  I appreciate this opportunity to share with you some of my views and ideas regarding the WTO and, in particular, the role of the Director-General. 
 
 Let me say at the outset that I believe in the multilateral trading system and in our capacity to make it work for all countries, regardless of their stage of development.  I believe in transparency, dialogue and full participation in decision-making.  I think that this can be achieved in this organization. 
 
 The uniqueness of WTO is predicated on the fact that it is essentially a negotiating forum endowed with a dispute settlement mechanism.  It aspires to establish a balance of benefits among participants at the highest possible common denominator.  It embodies our collective pursuit for a strong, fair, equitable, rules-based multilateral system that can work for all.  It is – and should remain – a Member-driven, consensus-based organization.  As all 
intergovernmental organizations, the WTO is a political institution, in which the processes are 
just as important as the results.   The DG has a key role to play.  He is the manager of the Secretariat and the trustee of the mandate on which this institution was founded 10 years ago.  He should no doubt be a 
leader in the negotiating process.  He should assist Members in arriving at compromises and in 
translating their shared objectives into concrete agreement.  As a leader, the DG must encourage Members to move by means of persuasion, by showing them possible new pathways to follow.  The DG must be perceived as an honest broker among the decision-makers.  He should be capable of ascertaining wherein lies the collective will and collective interest of the organization.  His main asset is the trust he is expected to earn and maintain at all times from 
the Members. 
  These are the basic premises under which I would like to address a question which has been often put to me in the course of the last weeks:  what can a Brazilian candidacy bring to the top post in the WTO? 
 
 In trying to answer that question, allow me to talk about myself and about my country.  I think that a candidate cannot be dissociated both from the perspectives of his personal experience and from his national circumstances.  The WTO is not a multinational corporation in search of a CEO.  It is an international, intergovernmental organization about to elect a Director-General originating from, and nominated by, one of its Members. I am a Brazilian 
Foreign Service Officer.  I served my country in many capacities and in many different 
circumstances.  Most recently, as Deputy Foreign Minister, I was a member of the Brazilian team that negotiated the Doha mandate.  As Brazil's Representative to the WTO since 2002, I have been part of the often-misrepresented and unfairly-criticized Geneva process.  I stand by the positions taken by Brazil in these negotiations.  I am proud of the role we performed, 
together with some key partners, in bringing about the G-20 to deal with the central 
development-related issue of this Round, which is agriculture.   Brazil is a founding member of the GATT and has had a history of active and constructive participation in global negotiations.  As a medium-sized global trader with a WT/GC/M/91 
Page 28  
 
 diversity of partners around the world, we have developed an acute sensitivity to the different 
conditions and problems relating to trade in commodities, in non-agricultural goods and in services.  We are committed to and rely on a strong and fair multilateral system.  We were instrumental in the launching of the Doha Round and in the adoption of the TRIPS and Health Declaration that, to a certain extent, made the Round possible.  Since Doha, Brazil's actions 
have been geared towards building consensus through intensive interaction with the different 
constituencies within the WTO.  I am convinced that we have contributed positively to preserving the integrity of the mandate we all agreed to in Doha, while emphasizing and promoting the shared interests of developing countries.  
 If elected, I shall, of course, be the Director-General of all Members and represent the 
collective will of the entire membership.  I will observe strict neutrality insofar as national positions are concerned.  But I hope everyone will be able to identify what I stand for:  the democratic values to which my country subscribes;  its commitment to multilateralism;  the contributions it has made to strengthen the system embodied in the WTO.  Democracy is a key 
concept here.  It is a value that lies  at the core of President Lula's domestic and foreign policies, 
which have the central aim of promoting the eradication of poverty through sustained economic and social development.  Let us not forget that more than two thirds of the WTO membership struggle with conditions of chronic poverty.   Although the WTO has been able to maintain its relevance after its first decade of 
existence, its continued preeminence cannot be taken for granted.  In order to remain the 
central cohesive element of the world trading system, it must deal with the risks of fragmentation by providing an overarching normative structure, capable of effectively harmonizing the growing number of trade agreements that are being concluded throughout the world.  It must also strengthen its coordination with the other major institutions, with a view to 
enhancing much-needed coherence in today's evolving macroeconomic scenario. There are 
many shortcomings in the existing rules, much unfinished business which often impact negatively on international trade.  The WTO needs to deal with these challenges, while improving its rules and its working procedures.   But let us be cautious in approaching so-called WTO reform.  We are confidently 
engaging in a crucial calendar year for the Doha negotiations.  We have been setting up 
foundations for the substantive progress we all expect to achieve at the Hong Kong Ministerial.  Let us concentrate on fundamentals and avoid distractions.   The future of the WTO and, thus, of the multilateral trading system itself, is inextricably 
linked to the outcome of this Round of global negotiations.  As we work towards the timely and 
successful conclusion of this Round, we must remain committed to our mandate and articulate its many components in a balanced way.  We must not lose sight of our collective aspiration to make this a development Round.   The way to do that is very clear:  we have to mainstream the development dimension 
into the organization to the benefit of all developing countries;  we have to ensure that the 
negotiations will result in specific provisions for LDCs and small, vulnerable economies designed to safeguard and enhance their national structures for development;  we must look for measures that will promote the diversification of their productive and export base, as well as broader duty-free and quota-free market access for their products;  on S&D, we must achieve 
precise operative procedures capable of adding value to specific development-oriented policies. 
  The next Director-General of the WTO must be fully prepared to help Members cope with these challenges.  In his capacity as Chair of the Trade Negotiations Committee, the Director-General, working together with the Chair of the General Council, must ensure that  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 29 
 
 
 negotiations and technical work proceed at a pace that allows for the full participation of all 
delegations, big, medium or small.  No one should be left behind.  Let us learn from experience and not arrive at the Hong Kong Ministerial, as we did in Cancún, with sharply different levels of preparedness.  
 The Director-General of the WTO cannot be expected to move the negotiating process 
single handedly, as though he had the monopoly of wisdom or the capacity to embody the so-called systemic values.  But he can and should help in finding solutions to concrete problems with the assistance of the Secretariat.  He should be clearly aware of the fact that effectiveness cannot be secured through diminished or merely formal participation by Members.  He cannot 
second-guess them, much less circumvent them.  But he can listen to them, assist them and 
incorporate their legitimate claims into his working agenda.   Only full participation allows for equitable, effective and durable consensual solutions to emerge.  The emergence of the G-20, together with other groups like the G-33, the G-90 and the 
G-10, has demonstrated that the time of deals negotiated between the major powers and then 
passed on to the rest of the membership for minor adjustments is past.  I am convinced that the rule of consensus can work and lead to fully operational agreements, capable of better withstanding the test of implementation.  Consensus has to result from inclusive and transparent procedures.  
 In order to retain its uniqueness and its legitimacy as the central global negotiating 
forum, the WTO must remain, let me emphasize, Member-driven.  Any attempt to dilute this fundamental trait of our organization goes against the rights and interests of all Members.  It would not be appropriate – and it would be particularly detrimental to developing countries – if we were to apply to the WTO decision-making models such as the ones followed in the World 
Bank and in the IMF, which are organizations of a different nature. 
  In the same line of reasoning, I firmly believe that the next Director-General of the WTO should come from a developing country.  Developing countries form the majority of the Members of the WTO.  We are negotiating the Doha Development Agenda.  Convergence between the trade and the development agendas is essential for the WTO to retain a pivotal role 
in the international system of the 21
st century.  On top of that, it is hard to accept that, having 
control of the Bretton Woods institutions, developed countries should also be at the helm of the WTO.   In July 2004, we were able to preserve the integrity and the level of ambition of the 
Doha mandate which had been threatened in the Cancún process by the persistence of old 
practices of negotiation.  We are past that stage now.  We must ensure that we do not backtrack.   Re-energizing a process of trade liberalization on an equitable basis – and we must do precisely that in this Round – will require strong political leadership.  For my part, I am ready and willing to provide just that:  leadership through persuasion.  I cannot conceive the future of 
the WTO in a dynamic of confrontation.  I see the future as a process of approximation, of 
convergence and conciliation.  I believe in pluralism.  We must engage in fair and equitable trade-offs.  This is the essence of consensus building.  Let us use the upcoming election to consolidate our unity of purpose and to strengthen this organization by fulfilling the promises of the Doha Development Agenda. 
 
B. Questions and Answers
 
 
Q: In your presentation you mentioned that specific provisions for small, vulnerable 
economies should be made, and in a speech given in Georgetown on 6 January, you admitted WT/GC/M/91 
Page 30  
 
 that small, vulnerable economies have specific vulnerabilities that should be taken into due 
consideration.  In light of what the EU did with the Everything But Arms Initiative, what 
special treatment in concrete terms, do you co nsider should be given to small, vulnerable 
economies by developed and richer developing countries?   (Denmark) 
 
A. Thank you for having given attention to my speech in Georgetown.  I really believe in 
that and I think that nobody here has a ready-made answer or a ready-made solution to this problem, which is a problem that has been rightfully raised in the Doha mandate.  I think that sometimes we have, we move into problems in the negotiations by trying to solve specific problems by general statements or general assumptions.  I believe in pragmatism and I think 
the essence of the negotiation is to find the appropriate solutions to the specific problems we 
have to deal with.  The problems of the small economies is a concrete problem that we have to deal with, and we have to deal with this problem in every specific issue of the agenda.  It is not for the Director-General to come up with concrete solutions for that.  It is for the Members to arrive at those solutions in the course of the negotiations.  As Chair of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee, it is for the Director-General to make sure that this question, which is part of the 
mandate, will be rightfully addressed.  My approach would be the pragmatic approach in terms of looking at the specific situation, its specific chapter of the mandate, and making sure that these economies, small vulnerable economies, and also the LDCs, will be appropriately and adequately treated.  Q: In your presentation, towards the end, you sa id that it is appropriate for WTO to be 
headed by a representative of a developing co untry, and you made the point about the Bretton 
Woods institutions.  My question is, do you regard this competition as a North-South competition, and do you think that would be of benefit to the institution in the long term?   
(Chile) 
 
A. That is a very important question.  I think it has touched on an issue that is in the minds 
of everyone and an issue that has been also, from what I gather, treated in the media.  And since we have the experience of the previous selection process very much in the minds of everyone, and I can definitely state that I don't see this in any context of confrontation, and I was very specific in mentioning in my speech my vision of the future of the organization.  There is a 
future of convergence, there is a future of pluralism and a future of conciliation.  When I 
mentioned that the next Director-General should come from a developing country – and I firmly believe in that and have said that publicly many times, including in the Georgetown speech alluded to by Denmark – I am looking for balance.  I am looking for something that is inherent to every international organization.  I do not know of an international, global, regional, 
inter-regional organization that does not take into account these factors in selecting their 
leaders, their Directors, their structure of administration.  The WTO is not different.  The WTO is, like other organizations, an organization that must look for balance and geographical distribution, and since the criteria of developed versus developing countries is applied in the selection of the Chairs of the General Council, the subsidiary bodies and so on, I firmly believe that it should be also applied to the selection of the Director-General himself.  Not only because 
of this intrinsic question of achieving balance within the organization itself but in the overall 
context, and it is very important to signal and to take into account the fact that two other major institutions that have to deal with the problems that affect the system and in which many fundamental interests of developing countries are at stake, namely the World Bank and the IMF, have been and are, headed by representatives of developed countries.  There is even a 
traditional division of labour, I should say, among the United States and Europe regarding 
those two institutions.  I think it would only be fair that since this organization is not only composed of a vast majority of developing countries, but that it is dealing at present with the crucial question of development, that the perspective of developing countries should be taken into account in the selection process of the next Director-General.  I believe that the direction of  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 31 
 
 
 the WTO, together with the other two major institutions as well as the other institutions it has 
to interact with in civil society, would be better served by that kind of criteria.  I also think that, from the point of view of qualification, I do not think that developed countries have the monopoly on qualified people, and I believe that in the developing world we have strong leadership and strong capacities, and we are quite prepared to take up the challenge of heading 
an important organization such as the WTO.  But let me make one point very clear, and I think 
that this has to be really clear:  I do not see this as a confrontation.  I do not see this as a North-South issue.  I believe it is in the interest – who am I to say that but it is my impression – that it is in the interest of developed countries that this Round succeed and that the perspective of developing countries be fully integrated in the multilateral trade agenda.  I think that in the 
conduct of this election, or selection, process we do not have to – even though we have the 
representatives of developed countries and developing countries – we do not need to transform this into any kind of North-South competition.  I would not do that and it would be totally against what I stand for and what I would like to do if elected as Director-General.  So I stick to this point.  I think it would be important, from the internal point of view of the WTO and of the 
general balance in world institutions, that the WTO select a candidate from a developing 
country.  But that, I repeat, is not a North-South issue.  That is not a confrontation process. 
Q: Colombia considers that a Director-General, apart from all the conditions to be filled 
for this post, must also be capable of avoiding or  preventing conflicts.  We are getting close to a 
very important Ministerial meeting, and in this  connection would like to ask whether you have 
any plan in mind which would allow for a soluti on, before the Hong Kong Ministerial meeting, 
to the issues of preference erosion, the banana conflict, as well as the problem of small and 
vulnerable economies?   (Colombia) 
 
A: Once again, we find on the table the subject of the small, vulnerable economies, which is 
a subject which for us is at the top of the agenda we are to deal with.  If I had a plan, I believe I 
would not be the Director-General, but a magician.  I believe we have before us a problem of 
erosion of preferences for the small vulnerable economies.  A point in case is bananas, which is a case also for Colombia.  We have a whole series of problems for which it is difficult to find solutions of a general nature, solutions which are not the fruit of an in-depth discussion.  That is where we are at.  I believe solutions will have to emerge from what we are capable of doing.  We should be capable of resolving  each one of these subjects on the agenda, and I believe the 
compatibility of erosion of preferences and the results of the Round is probably one of the most 
difficult points.  What is very important, likewise, is that we should be able to analyse, case by case, within each chapter of the negotiations that these subjects not be used in order to separate the developing countries.  This is crucial and I think it would not be in the interests of any of us to use this type of question in order to divide us.  I believe it would be the opposite of what we 
should do.  We have to get down to work.  We have to find ways of doing things.  I can commit 
myself to you and all the countries who are most interested in these subjects, to start work immediately so that the negotiations may conclude with a successful solution.  I do hope to be successful.  It would be vital and crucial for all of us, and we should not allow any type of manoeuvring or diversion of our attention or division among Members of this organization on these kinds of questions. 
 
Q: As you know, a constant concern among sma ll delegations for some time has been that 
we are not invited to mini-Ministerial meetin gs, or to "Green Room" discussions.  The small 
economies are the last to be consulted with, but  they are the first to be affected by WTO 
decisions, because we are vulnerable and find it difficult to make the adjustments.   For this 
reason, we would like to know what you intend to  do in order to improve transparency of the 
work in WTO.  Do you believe that there is a divide between transparency and efficiency, or can 
both be achieved at the same time?   (Paraguay)  
 WT/GC/M/91 
Page 32  
 
 A: I thank you for your question, which is so important.  For all of us, it is important 
because we have to negotiate on a daily basis in this organization, so that it is a question which is at the forefront for everybody.  There is no type of global negotiation – the negotiation of a Round has the characteristics of a global negotiation – which can be carried out at all times with all participants on all subjects, but quite obviously this requires a negotiating structure, an 
appropriate structure and quite obviously this generates, particularly at the most critical 
moments, a tension between those who are around the table and those who are not.  That is a problem that is not exclusive to WTO, but can be found throughout the multilateral system.  It occurs in all organizations where I have had experience, and I believe this can be solved in different ways.  Well, not necessarily solved, but it can be faced in different ways.  
Transparency can be achieved in different ways.  It can be achieved through direct 
participation.  It can also be achieved through coordination.  I believe that here in WTO, those of us who have been closely involved in the work last year, in the work that has resulted in what has been called the July package, we have had a very interesting experience as to how, in a process which quite often occurred outside the physical space of this organization, a reduced 
number of participants carried this forward, then how through the participation of groups and 
the coordination in real terms between the different groups, enabled us to obtain adequate information, but more than information, an influence in the negotiating process.  I can mention here, though this is not the model I am in favour of, our experience with agriculture where, for example, we have found a very vast coalition over three continents, countries from different regional groups with different subjects of interest to them, and the real time participation 
within this group and the coordination with the other groups who wished to participate in these 
negotiations has led us, not to an ideal situation, but it has allowed us to think of a functionality in this process, so much so that we did achieve solutions which were then accepted by consensus.  So there is a way.  This depends on what we could call good chairmanship, and this depends also on the capacity of each one of us in each group to spread this process, consensus building, to 
take into account the sensitivity of the others in groups with which we interact, and the capacity 
to make this process legitimate through this transparency, which is possible and desirable obviously.  You have raised a very interesting problem in your question – the dichotomy of transparency and efficiency.  The latter is a very subjective concept.  What is efficiency for some, might be the opposite in fact for others, according to one's own interests.  Sometimes it seems that efficiency and speed are synonyms in the process of consensus building.  Speed 
obviously is important, but it is not the crucial point.  The crucial point is solidity, the capacity 
to see that at the end we reach agreements or solutions which can undergo the test of implementation.  The participation of all is a process of legitimacy, and I see no other way of ensuring legitimacy other than through transparency and inclusiveness in our deliberations.  Q: Knowing your ability to propose initiatives,  to move forward with determination, what 
would be your two specific initiatives were you to be named Director-General, to revitalize the 
Doha Round and at the same time to try to a ccelerate the conclusion of these negotiations?  
(Spain) 
 
A: Yours is a very specific question.  I never thought of two initiatives.  We have to work with a group of initiatives, but I would say the following:  I do not know that we are currently 
trying to revitalize the Round because I think the round is already revitalized.  I think we are on the right road.  There is commitment.  There is participation.  We have a plan.  We have a framework.  We have the July package which gives a very precise plan within the ambition of the mandate, which will permit us to continue to work.  Over the past several months here, we 
have been making progress on all the components of the negotiations.  As representative of my 
country, I participated in many of these negotiations, and I noted a very clear commitment on the part of Members.  I think we have things well prepared.  We have also been working with our respective Ministers.  We have conceived of a process for Ministerial intervention throughout the process until the December meeting, which I think is good.  To my mind, the  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 33 
 
 
 Round has been revitalized and we have matters to work on with the hope of achieving a 
satisfactory conclusion in Hong Kong, China.  What I can commit myself to, in an attempt to reply to your question and to mention two specific things I might do to accelerate the process, is first to work a lot, and second, to seek convergence, seek consensus, and I think what the Director-General as TNC Chair – this is very important in the WTO, that the DG, and this 
happens nowhere else in the international world, chairs the negotiations and has a crucial role 
to play –  can do is work well, listen, lead, understand and influence, and I am convinced that this will be the case.    
Q: I am sure that you have a lot of ideas ab out how to improve the work of the WTO and 
probably strengthen the Secretariat, and some  of these ideas have been floated in the 
Sutherland report.  We wanted to ask which of th ese would be a priority for you in trying to 
improve the work of the WTO and in strengthening the Secretariat?  (Nigeria) 
 
A: My impression regarding this point – and I made a general observation in my statement – is that we have to concentrate on the business at hand, and what we have to do is achieve 
results by December.  We also have to achieve a timely and successful conclusion of this Round.  We have what it takes to do that.  We have engagement, we have commitments and we have a good process laid out for the coming months, so we have what it takes.  I think that until this process is over we should not think about major changes in the structure of the Secretariat, in the structure of decision making, in the structure of the administration of this organization.  
Allow me to expand a little bit on that, and to share with you what I think about this whole 
question.  The future of the WTO, as I mentioned, will be determined by what we achieve in this Round.  This is the Round that will define the WTO of the 21
st century.  It will incorporate new 
items, it will deepen the negotiation of many components of the mandate and, in short, the WTO that will emerge from a successful conclusion of this Round will demand certainly from the 
Members a bigger level of engagement and will demand from the Secretariat also a different 
level of preparedness, a different level of engagement in the process of administering, managing the new conditions of multilateral trade that will emerge from this Round.  So my approach towards so-called WTO reform is predicated on the successful conclusion of the Round.  And we do not have any other major priorities at this point.  We have to dedicate ourselves fully and completely to this task.  Everything will come after that. 
 
Q: You replied to our colleague from Paraguay by describing the dichotomy between 
efficiency and transparency, and that you yoursel f would opt for transparency which meant, as 
I understood it, rather more full involvement of a ll Members.  I agree with that view, but in 
those circumstances, I would like to ask you what role you think should be played by the larger 
groups, such as the G-20, if one is going to go for transparency as the objective in the overall 
negotiations for the Doha Development Round?   (United Kingdom) 
 
A: I think that the answer to this question lies very much in the way we perform, because 
this is a sort of learn-as-you-go process.  I know that every negotiation – and I have been in many negotiations, and even had the privilege recently of chairing a global negotiation under 
the WHO on the Convention on Tobacco Control – every negotiation engenders its own 
environment and its own conditions, and every organization has its own characteristics, its peculiar ambiances and its peculiar working methods, so you can learn from what you do in one stage in applying to the others, but you do not exactly know what circumstances are awaiting you around the corner.  Last year, we experimented with one procedure that worked for the 
July package.  Who knows what we will have to do at the end of the year in order to achieve the 
same results.  But whatever we do, and this is the point I made about transparency and legitimacy, we will have to ensure that people will feel a sense of ownership of the process.  The G-20, since you asked the question – I did not want to dwell too much on that point but I will do it in this case – tried to do that in real time, because as I mentioned, we are a broad coalition.  WT/GC/M/91 
Page 34  
 
 It's a negotiating group.  It is a group that prepares positions.  It is a group that negotiates 
within its own space and negotiates with others, and many other groups are doing that, so this is not the privilege of the G-20.  I think this model is being followed in other groups that have been formed in this organization, and they are coordinating their positions, so if one member of the group goes into one negotiating forum to deal with one specific item, he goes with a mandate 
from this group and then goes back to the group, and the process may be cumbersome, it may 
take some time, but it worked last year.  It may continue to work, hopefully, and I think that the experience we have been having, not only in the G-20 but with the other groups that have been interacting in this process, has been successful.  This is one way of dealing with the question of transparency and with the question of inclusiveness, and hopefully of efficiency. 
 
Q: My question will deal with management.  As DG, what would be the first two decisions 
you would take regarding the management of the WTO Secretariat?   (Cyprus) 
 A. I mentioned, in reply to the question posed by Nigeria, that it is difficult for anyone, I 
think, to talk about two decisions that one is going to make, or measures one is going to 
implement immediately.  Managing a complex structure like the WTO Secretariat is obviously a complex undertaking.  I have some experience in that I was twice Deputy Foreign Minister in my country, and we had to manage a very complex and large organization.  I know that each organization has its secrets and each organization has its ups and downs and its positive and negative aspects.  I have learned from experience that whenever you take charge of a new outfit 
or a new organization, one must always resist the temptation of sweeping in immediate changes 
– whether one, two or three changes.  One must resist the temptation of thinking that one's predecessors did not know what they were doing or that one's predecessors were not confident in facing the problems.  Everything has a reason.  If something is happening in one way, it is because previous decision makers thought it should be done like that.  One has to interiorize 
those circumstances before proposing any sweeping changes in management, and this is valid 
for small, medium or big outfits.  This is something that obviously would become clear in the transition period – I think we will have three months for the transition here to deal with internal management questions of the Secretariat.  So at this point I would prefer not to pre-empt any solutions or any proposal that I would like to make after being familiar with the operation, after I know the results and I know some of the operating procedures.  But I do not know everything 
about the workings of the Secretariat, and it would be unfair for the Secretariat and for the 
membership for me to declare in advance what I would change.  
Q: My question concerns dispute settlement.  Do you think that "gap-filling" – meaning 
resolving the ambiguities or the gaps that accrue in the WTO treaties – is an appropriate role 
for the dispute settlement system?  If not, coul d you give examples of gaps or ambiguities that 
should be addressed by Members in negotiations?   (Luxembourg) 
 
A: This tension – these ambiguities and this tension between the executive processes as 
opposed to the judicial or judicial-like processes – exists in any organization and is something that is constantly in the minds of those who have worked with that.  I have some experience of 
dealing with this question in the MERCOSUR, which is an integration process that has a 
dispute settlement mechanism, and the constant work that we have to do in order to adjust the normative and the judicial branch of the process.  My general impression is that both aspects should go hand in hand, because the normative aspects of any integration process or any legal process such as the ones that we undertake in the WTO, if there are gaps, they cannot be filled 
by the judicial branch.  The judicial branch, in the case of WTO the dispute settlement 
mechanism, has to interpret and apply the norms.  It cannot create the norms.  So if there are gaps, if there are problems, we have to deal with them in the norm-setting process in the negotiations themselves.  I think that it has been my feeling about these questions in general that if you judicialize any integration process or if you judicialize any legal commitment, any result  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 35 
 
 
 of trade negotiations or whatever, you run into serious trouble with implementation and, in 
many respects, of legitimacy.  So my general answer to your question, and I respect your question, would be to strengthen the normative capacity of the output of our work.  Here again I would turn to the same aspect I mentioned as far as reform or changes are concerned with the Secretariat.  I think that this question of dispute settlement reform will be dealt with 
appropriately as we approach the end of this Round, and as we have a better view of what kind 
of WTO will emerge from the complex undertaking of this Round.  It has to be discussed on that basis.  I have taken part in many of the discussions of the Special Session of the Dispute Settlement Body.  I find that to be very clear.  It is very difficult to have people engaging in sweeping reforms of the process until we have a clear view of what will be the basis on which it 
will be working, and as soon as we conclude this Round we will certainly have a much more 
complex, normative base under which the dispute settlement mechanism will have to work, and then I think the basis, the logic and the foundations for reform will have been created.  
Q: My question also relates to the Dispute Se ttlement Body.  Could you share your views on 
the concerns regarding the DSB process, specific ally the issue of non-compliance or possible 
impunity, as well as the issue of acce ssibility for developing countries?  (Philippines) 
 
A: This is probably a question that would require an answer not from the candidate to the 
post of DG, but a panel of eminent persons and experts that would probably have to sit for a number of days trying to answer you.  Let me concentrate on one aspect that you mentioned – 
the question of accessibility.  This is a real question and I think that having had, as Brazil, quite 
a lot of experience in dealing with the procedures of the DSU, we know how complicated it is, not only in terms of personal involvement in the structures you must have, the expertise that you must develop, but also in terms of costs.  It is tremendously expensive to run a case, and this is a question that has to be addressed.  Based on the experience I have had on this, I would 
certainly be prepared to come up with suggestions on that side as time goes on.  But again, I 
would not put this as a priority at this point.  The priority, to return to the central argument, is to conclude, in a timely manner and successfully, this Round, and I would say that all my energies would be devoted to achieving this, because if we are successful, as we certainly will be, we will have certainly a different organization in our hands, and much more complex, and dispute settlement will become even more complex than it is today.  We have always to be 
cautious not to try to reform in order to win the last battle, but we do have to reform in order to 
prepare for the next battle and the next battle will only be clear to us when we conclude this Round. 
 
Q: Uruguay and Brazil are both members of MERCOSUR, an entity which aspires to be 
more than a customs union in that it promotes the adoption of a common trade policy.  How, in 
that context, should we interpret the presentati on of your candidacy after Uruguay has already 
done so ?  (Costa Rica) 
 
A: I do not believe that it has been the case here, as far as I know, that the two candidates 
who have preceded me on this podium have dealt with questions relating to their own candidacy 
vis-à-vis  others.  Neither do I believe that the political processes of MERCOSUR should be put 
up for judgement in this process.  A lot is said in this organization, and a lot is written in the media, that we should choose the best and most capable candidate.  MERCOSUR has presented two candidates.  This means that the two countries, Uruguay and Brazil, each believe they can contribute to a process which is a process of general interest.  And I do not see anything more 
than this. 
 
Q: I appreciate the answer you gave a moment ago with respect to not wishing to make 
sweeping decisions with respect to the Secretaria t before you have had the opportunity to be 
confused by all of the facts.  But I think it is still fair to know, from the candidate for the senior WT/GC/M/91 
Page 36  
 
 manager of the WTO Secretariat, what your assessment is of the Secretariat in very broad 
terms – do you think that we have the right leve l of resources, do you think the priorities in the 
organization are about the right ones, do you think we have the right number of DDGs and that their responsibilities are about correct?  Just in v ery general terms, where do you want to take 
us in terms of the organization itself?  So let me go back to that question.   (Canada) 
 
A: You take me back to the question and I take you back to what I said in terms of the fact 
that we have one Secretariat now, we have one level of demand now at this point, and we are going to have a new level of demand after we successfully and in a timely manner conclude this Round.  So I would be very cautious again in approaching reform, or whatever, until we have a 
clear picture of what this organization is going to be post-Doha Round.  I have a vision of a 
much bigger, much more complex, much more in-demand organization, that will certainly require from its management and from the experts within the Secretariat a lot more work, and in that case, we will have to have more resources in terms of financing, we will have to have more resources in terms of personnel and their qualifications, and so on.  My assessment, since 
you ask about my assessment, is positive for what we have been doing, for the services we have 
been requiring from the Secretariat in terms of the existing level of activity.  For the existing level of demands that we are making on the Secretariat, we have been appropriately served.  I know that the Secretariat, and this is my impression, would have the capacity to do even more if we demanded more from them, but this is a Member-driven organization and the Secretariat has to do whatever the Members ask them to do.  I do not recall any single instance when the 
Secretariat failed to assist the Members in terms of their demands in recent experience.   
  Now, the number of DDG's.  I think that from the point of view of geographical distribution, the existing number of DDGs is appropriate, because it allows for the DG to have as his closest aides the people capable of bringing to him special sensitivities and special inputs, 
according to their expertise and according to their regional problems, so my immediate reaction 
would be to maintain the system.  At the same time, I was particularly impressed by one of the recommendations of the report we have just been discussing, and the question of having perhaps a Senior Manager, one deputy or something.  This is something that is worth studying, and I would certainly be looking forward to consulting with Members after the selection process in the transition period, to hear what Members have to say about this and to discuss 
appropriate suggestions to make at that point. 
 C. Summing up by the candidate 
4 
  I have not prepared a closing statement because I thought that whatever I would say in 
closing this session would have to be in line with what people have asked me.  And I think that I 
have got all the right questions, and judging from the questions that I got, they came from a broad spectrum of the membership.  The concerns expressed in the questions are very similar to the concerns that I would have if I was sitting over there amongst the representatives of Members, and I think that I can relate to many, if not all, of the concerns and of the demands and of the expectations that you all have from this process.  So I would not have much to add to 
what I have already expressed, but just to say that I really look forward to this prospect and 
that I would be quite prepared to take up this challenge if you see fit to place it on my shoulders.  I think that it is a fascinating challenge to put this organization to work towards the strengthening of the system and towards what we all aspire to be a successful conclusion of this Round.  I mentioned, and I have often thought about this, that although this organization is, and 
should remain, a Member-driven organization, it places upon its Executive Head, the Director-
                                                     
 
4 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meeting communicated by the Chair to all delegations on 
18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five minutes of 
the question-and-answer pe riod if he so wished.  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 37 
 
 
 General, a very special responsibility, which is that of chairing the negotiations.  This does not 
happen in other organizations, so the Director-General, aside from his institutional responsibilities, has this enormous responsibility of leading the negotiating process.  So he must be, as I mentioned, basically an honest broker.  The decisions lie with the Members, but he must be able to lead Members towards where they want to go, and where the mandate of the 
negotiations tells them they have to go.  I see the role of the DG in that capacity, as a keeper of 
the mandate.  The Chairs of negotiating bodies are essentially committed, or should always be essentially committed, to fulfilling a mandate, and I think we have a mandate.  We have an ambition.  We have commitment.  I am quite reassured about that.  And I am quite prepared to take up the challenge, and I would feel most honoured if I would have a favourable 
consideration by the membership of the WTO. 
 WT/GC/M/91 
Page 38  
 
 Annex D
 
 
Meeting with Mr. Pascal Lamy (France)  
 
A. Presentation by the Candidate  
 
 In these introductory remarks, I want to set out my views on the role of trade opening in the world of today, the role of the WTO in this process, the role of the DG in serving the organization, and finally, on what could be my contribution to these processes – if you decide to offer me the job. I would like to talk on the basis of my own experience, but also to reflect what 
a number of you, as Members of the General Council, have said to me in various discussions we 
have had over this last month in Geneva.  1. The role of trade in serving growth and development  
 My point of departure is simple:  trade opening and reducing trade barriers has been, 
remains, and will remain, essential to promote growth and development, to improve standards of living and to tackle poverty reduction. But trade opening is neither natural nor automatically beneficial in and of itself.  It needs a system based on rules coupled with adequate domestic policies.  Since the creation of the GATT, some important steps have been taken towards the construction of this system and we can be proud of them. But there remains a lot to do, hence 
the launching of the new multilateral trade Round in 2001, following several earlier rounds. 
  But as we all know, trade rules also evolve in response to the priorities set by the broader international agenda – security, peace, freedom and, at least today, by the needs of development. Development today is, as defined by the United Nations Millennium Goals, the 
priority on the international agenda.  It must, therefore, take a central place in the international 
trading system, not because trade opening would have undermined development – exports from developing countries have tripled in just 20 years – but because these new possibilities unleashed by the world trade system remain unequally divided and unequally utilized, whether because the rules themselves remain unequal, or because the capacity to use them remains unequal, or because making the necessary adjustments is too difficult a task for the weakest 
countries.  Whatever the reason, it is the results, and the perception of the results, which count.  
Our priority, thus, should be to re-balance the international trading system in favor of developing countries.   Of course, and as I have said in the past, trade opening is not a sufficient condition, in 
the sense that its benefits depend largely on the quality of flanking policies. But it is a necessary 
condition, which must be better accompanied.  I believe that we share this view on what one might call "a Geneva consensus" of some sort.  To ensure that trade opening contributes more to development, we have, together, named the current WTO round "the Doha Development Agenda".  I know this as one of the authors of this programme, which represents a promise of fairer trade opening.  To lead these negotiations in the right direction is therefore our priority 
number one, two and three, even as we must also be capable of reacting to catastrophes, such as 
the one we have just witnessed with the devastating tsunami in Asia.  2. The role of the WTO in pursuing this new agenda  
 How must the work of the WTO evolve to accompany this change in the role of trade?  
On this second issue, my starting point remains, once again, rather simple. The WTO must remain the principal place, if not the only place, where trade opening is negotiated.  Why?  Because multilateral trade negotiation is, and remains, the most efficient and most legitimate means of opening world trade.  The most efficient because it means the construction of a system  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 39 
 
 
 in the service of all the participants, and because the WTO has a trade dispute resolution 
mechanism which is an advance towards global governance.  The most legitimate, because it is the fairest system of all – as all the decisions are taken by all the Members, large or small, strong or weak.  But multilateralism is confronted by new problems that the GATT never had to tackle, and which arise from the growing participation of developing countries in trade and 
in the decisions which provide the framework for trade.  To surmount these difficulties, the 
WTO itself must adapt.  The ultimate goal must be to keep a system where the same rules apply for all.  But we know that this goal remains a distant objective and that, here and there, there remain "specificities".  
 The novelty for the WTO is that it must better integrate its work in the landscape of 
actors, States and international governance organizations which are working for development, in such a way as to bring within range practical results from sometime theoretical decisions.  This is why I believe that the WTO's mission remains the construction of fair trade rules to guarantee better, more long-lasting, more predictable, more transparent market access.  But it 
is also clear that the WTO must be more interested in practical questions of implementation, in 
assuring better coherence with the Bretton Woods institutions.  Does this clearer mission for the WTO in support of development imply major institutional reforms?  I don't think so.  Yes, we have to reinforce our efficiency and our legitimacy.  Having described this organization as "medieval" at the conclusion of two Ministerial conferences, as I have, I could hardly say otherwise.  We learn more from our failures than our successes.  But any reforms must preserve 
two essential principles:  that the WTO must be driven by the Members of the organization, and 
the principle of consensus must continue to govern our deliberations.  The WTO remains an inter-governmental organization.  This is, after all, what the Sutherland report concludes, along with some interesting ideas on how the WTO should operate.  
3. The role of the Director General and of the Secretariat in serving the WTO 
  How must the Secretariat and the Director-General accompany this evolution in the goals of the organization?  My answer is, once again, simple and clear – in contributing to the strengthening of both the efficiency, legitimacy and transparency of the WTO;  in remaining at the service of all the WTO Members, of course, but also in improving the quality of that service, 
as do all organizations which rely for their funding on taxpayers' money.  From this perspective, 
I think that the role of the DG is threefold:  he is a manager, he is an advocate and he is an honest-broker.  Here, if I may explain my apparent lapse into politically incorrect speech, I say "he", because the list of candidates which closed on 31 December does not contain a single "she".  But there is little I can do about that. 
 
 Why a manager?  Because he is responsible for the activities of the Secretariat, for the conduct of WTO operations, for the management of WTO personnel.  He must fix objectives and evaluate performance.  And because he is given this job, he is himself responsible for his own performance before the Members, who vote the budget.  He must manage, and in order to manage, he must motivate, lead, and reform if necessary, notably in the direction of 
transparency, following the path of the changes initiated in 1999 by our friends Mike Moore 
and Dr. Supachai.   Why an advocate?  Because the DG is the spokesman for the organization and the goals defined by the Members of the organization:  in Geneva and in national capitals where he must 
be capable of opening doors;  in the media;  and in debate, notably with those who criticize us, 
sometimes fairly, but also with those who have even more fundamental objections.  To do so, the DG must be able to speak several languages:  the language of the WTO agreements, in which we are, of course, all masters of its sometimes obscure complexities, at least for the non-initiated;  but also the simpler language of international public opinion.  A Director-General must WT/GC/M/91 
Page 40  
 
 convince.  And to do that, he must be convinced, for example, of the priority of multilateralism 
over bilateral agreements, whatever their virtues.  That is my conviction, and I have put it into practice.   Why an honest broker?  Because the Members of the organization have different 
positions, sometimes conflictual, and these differences are, if anything, growing, as our 
membership grows.  The solution remains in the art of compromise between sovereign nations.  The DG must therefore be able to facilitate, he must be considered by the Members to be an objective interlocutor, an intermediary in whom everybody has confidence, capable of reducing disagreement, mistrust, and prejudice.  He must be ready to make a contribution as a catalyst in 
this peculiar chemistry set of consensus, in full co-operation with those to whom you have 
conferred responsibilities as chairmen of different councils and committees.  He must be both an engineer and an mechanic, with the WTO agreements as his technical manual.  He must be ready to stand aside when necessary, and to be available when necessary.  
 The sheer complexity and necessity of this role is not, I fully recognize, precisely defined 
by the texts which govern this organization.  The DG of the WTO has no "powers" of this kind.   Because the organization remains Member-driven, he has no right to such a role, he must earn it.  And in what currency is this role earned?  In trust.  The DG must construct a trust fund with a revenue stream based on respect for his role.  Not to save it, but to spend it, in the service of the organization. 
 
4. How am I in a position to serve these objectives?   You have adopted, in December 2002, a process for selecting the successor to Dr Supachai, which is comprised of several stages, including today's hearings, and which offers, by 
way of comparison to the practice of other international organizations, a notable and welcome 
innovation in terms of transparency.   The other candidates you are hearing from today I am proud to call friends.  I know them well, and I have worked closely with them over the past years.  So why me and not them?  That, of course, is for you to decide when the period of consultation is open.  For my part, I will 
not attack them for their past, for their passports, or for what they have said.  I will, instead, 
simply try to convince you.  Indeed, as a DG must in the course of his work.   I think I am known to most of you, and I am trying to rectify any sins of omission in the course of these weeks.  The only point on which I would like to lay stress, at the conclusion of 
this statement, is that you can count on my conviction, on my commitment, and can be sure of 
my ability to resist pressure.  I will do this job, if you decide that I should, putting my convictions and my experience at the service of this organization.  I have my own track record, as an EU Commissioner, and notably with my contribution to development as a guiding principle – Everything But Arms, access to medicines, the abolition of export subsidies – these are all issues for which I have fought, taking my bumps in both domestic and international 
battles.  I have fully sized up the dimensions of the job in front of me, at a time when the 
priority above all priorities is to make the Hong Kong Ministerial a success, in ensuring that this meeting opens the path to the final phase of the Round.  If you want to enforce both multilateralism and development, which I believe is our objective, the window of opportunity that the Hong Kong Ministerial opens is indeed very narrow.  So, it would be first and foremost 
in the service of this urgent objective that I suggest that you put me to work.  Thank you for 
your attention.  
B. Questions and Answers
 
  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 41 
 
 
 Q: The WTO has given recognition to the con cerns of small developing economies in the 
Doha Declaration and the July package.  In this  regard, what elements do you consider to be 
essential to the benefit of the small developing eco nomies so as to facilitate their full integration 
into the system and increase – this is the most important – their participation in world trade?  
(Guatemala) 
 
A: As you have pointed out quite rightly, in the Doha Declaration a certain number of 
provisions can be found, to the effect that the negotiation programme must lead us to take due account of the needs of the small economies.  The Doha Declaration affirms these objectives, spelling out, however, that it is not a question of creating a separate new category of Members, a 
subject somewhat closer to differentiation, which we will dwell on later.  We must take better 
account of the situation which, it is true, does not permit them always to benefit as fully as others from market capitalism and which is a law of economies of scale.  It is true that in the system, when you are small, you have less chance of benefiting from large-scale economies than if you were big.  But our rules and their application must take this into account.  I believe that, 
in this regard, I have long-standing convictions.  The question to ask is not "should we go in this 
direction?", but rather "how do we do it?"  Not by creating a new category, as this is where the difficulties begin.  This is where the discussions that have taken place since Doha up to the decision on the July package, and from the July package on, this is where these discussions may permit a reply to be given.  I do not think that there is a general reply, but a certain number of measures that must be taken, possibly transitional, possibly permanent.  I believe that this is the 
direction we should be taking, in any event, without getting into the issue of creating a new 
category of Membership in the organization.  The mechanisms of differentiation which we already have are enough.  We do not need to add a new one to them.  
Q: You said in your statement that indeed you find this organization medieval in nature.  
Could you possibly suggest some of the changes you might proceed to as a matter of priority – at 
least two - were you to be chosen as Director-Gen eral, in order to make this organization more 
contemporary?  (Rwanda) 
 
A: I did not say that today I believe that the WTO is medieval.  I recognized what is a 
matter of public notoriety, having used the term twice, only twice – once after the Seattle 
Ministerial and once after the Cancún Ministerial.  Many of us were there, and I do not think I 
would be stepping on anybody's toes were I to say that neither of those Ministerials was a straightforward success.  And, if I used the term, it was at the time as a user.  My viewpoint is somewhat different today.  But as a user I was frustrated, disgruntled with the way Ministerials functioned, with their organization and the way they worked.  And I was not the only one.  I was 
perhaps more affirmative than other of my colleagues.  I did not make criticisms of this type 
either at Doha or at the Geneva Ministerial, which, may I say, were far better organized and transparent.  And in the term medieval, I believe there was indeed rather a lot of obscurity.  Now what can the DG do to improve the organization?  In the Sutherland report, a number of proposals are put forward, which I find of good quality, even if I do not share all of the suggestions.  Their geometry is sufficiently variable to be dealt with by the Members, by you, 
before the Director-General voices his opinion, which is not the essential part.  What is essential 
is what you think, and not what I think.   Now, as regards the immediate term, I think one can do a bit better in respect of transparency as those of you whom I have consulted recently have so informed me.  I believe 
you all recognize that notable progress has been made since 1999, and that things remain to be 
done, both from the standpoint of procedure, as well as from the standpoint of the feeling of transparency.  Not everything is procedure.  Some of you don’t have the feeling that the organization – its Secretariat, its DG – is today as transparent as they would wish.  Thus, things WT/GC/M/91 
Page 42  
 
 remain to be done.  As regards the priorities of the DG, I would mention but only one essential – 
the organization of the parking.  
Q: What do you believe should be the role of the DG in defending the most-favoured-nation 
principle, which over the past several years we see threatened by the insistent position adopted 
by certain Members who wish to maintain no n-reciprocal preference margins, and by other 
Members who shield themselves behind this excuse to refrain from further opening their 
markets?   (Costa Rica) 
 
A: That question brings us back to the question of differentiation, which is indeed one of the more difficult issues in the organization.  It happens in families that there are difficult issues 
like this.  Differentiation is a difficult issue for the WTO.  Why?  First of all, because it is a reality.  It exists across a range of agreements which govern this organization – TBT, TRIMs, GATS, Subsidies, Article XVIII of the GATT, Customs Valuation, even in the Trade Policy Review mechanism.  Differentiation is there.  It is obvious in preferences, in particular since the 
1979 Decision on the Enabling Clause, which gives explicit recognition to the fact that more 
favourable treatment can be extended to certain Members without giving this treatment to others, which is a fundamental derogation from the MFN clause.  Thus, differentiation exists, and we cannot hide from this reality.  The basic question is to know whether these waivers from the MFN clause should be increased or reduced, starting from the principle that if they exist, there is a reason for them to exist.  Why?  Because we reached agreement on them.  The right 
question to ask is, should they be increased?  And from that standpoint, my position, for what 
it's worth, is the following:  I think that the horizon we should set ourselves, the look we should direct towards the future, what our guiding star should be, should, insofar as possible, be to have the same rules for all.  But we all know that that is a distant star and that we will take some time to cover the road.  Therefore, it is normal that – as long as they are decided upon by 
the Members and monitored by the Members, and as long as their beneficial effects are proven 
and discussed – we can accept a certain number of exemptions.  In my preceding post, which is not the one today, I was moving in that direction with the Everything But Arms Initiative.  Why?  Because a UN conference on LDCs had expressed the wish for the LDCs to have duty-free, quota-free treatment, and because it was in the Doha Declaration that we all accepted.  That is my position on this issue.  We must have this quest in mind.  Bit by bit, we must do some 
house-cleaning among all these waivers and exemptions, as things do from time to time look like 
a plate of spaghetti, as the Sutherland report says with regard to other waivers from the MFN clause.  One concept that might be made operational or at least discussed is what you might call "situational flexibility".  This might be the sort of concept around which we could come together. 
 
Q: In relation to the Sutherland report, wh ich recommendation meets with your greatest 
agreement, and which is the one with which you most disagree, and why?  And as compared to 
these two recommendations, what steps are you goi ng to take as Director-General to reply 
thereto?  (Canada) 
 
A: First of all, the Sutherland report does not deal with the question of parking, and I said 
that that is my priority, and I am very sorry that this was not one of the issues they looked into.  Now, with which recommendation am I most in agreement?  I hesitate, because the report has some doctrinal aspects as well as some organizational aspects.  I agree with the stress it lays on the fact that the doctrine of the house – the virtue of trade opening – should be reaffirmed, 
defended, promoted.  As regards organizational matters, it will come as no surprise given what I 
said earlier that the organization of Ministerials, as far as I am concerned, would be taken up by me as a matter of certain urgency, bearing in mind past experience.   WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 43 
 
 
  Now, where would I be most reticent?  In what the authors seem to be proposing 
regarding a sort of consultative body, comprised of a maximum of 30 Members – the idea to have this in the absence of a board, such as exists in the IMF, the World Bank, which have quota systems that are shareholder-driven.  But there are no shareholders in WTO, but rather Members, each having one vote.  The idea that we should create a board of this nature, I do not 
think is ripe.  There are other means than this to achieve the required transparency and to 
reconcile what we well know – on the one hand, it is not possible to draft with 148 people sitting in a drafting committee a five-line text which would be binding on all of us in all of its implications, and on the other hand, machinery such as the Green Room, which at times has shown its effectiveness, is no longer enough to ensure the required transparency.  That is my 
reply to the specific question. 
  As regards the role of a DG in the follow up to the Sutherland report, I think you have already discussed this among yourselves.  You must ensure that those proposals, which as a whole I think are quality and represent a fairly high calibre of discussion, become imbued, in a 
sense.  You must discuss them.  The time for decision will arrive only if the priority of priorities, 
which is to conclude the Round, is satisfied.  I would be very hesitant to put on the table for your deliberations, institutional questions which are fascinating but sometimes divisive, at a time when we must concentrate on the priority of all priorities – the Hong Kong Ministerial.  And Hong Kong is the day after tomorrow and so is the end of the Round.  Q: You know that domestic suppo rt and subsidies to the production and export of cotton is 
part of the trade negotiations agenda.  What pers onal reading do you, as candidate for the post 
of DG and as former Trade Commissioner of the European Union, give to the problem, and 
what solutions do you foresee?   (Benin) 
 
A: As regards the cotton question, your representatives and some of your neighbours 
tabled a proposal before Cancún, for certain efforts to be made.  We know where we started from.  The cotton market is a globalized one.  Your countries are suffering difficulties, in particular, bearing in mind the existence on the world cotton market of quantities of this product coming from subsidized production, which is not your case.  There are several aspects which have become apparent, thanks to the efforts you have made, and which are not foreign to 
me in any case in the context of my previous function, but looking at it from another viewpoint, 
there is obviously a trade aspect in the negotiation, but there is also the aspect of coherence with what the rest of the international community, in particular in respect of development, is doing in regard to this issue.  The trade aspect is essential for us.  We decided this together in July.  That is why a specific sub-group in the agricultural negotiations was set up, to ensure that in the 
agricultural negotiations cotton is treated as a priority issue.  You have not yet reached 
agreement as to what exactly that means.  Does it mean that, within the agricultural negotiations, cotton will at the end have a special status in terms of the amount of reductions, say, in domestic support?  Will those reductions have to be carried out more rapidly, for example, with respect to export support than in other fields?  The issues remain open.  But I believe that the spirit is that, within the agricultural negotiations, cotton shall be dealt with on a 
priority basis. 
  As concerns the other aspects, and there are
 others – be they bilateral or multilateral 
development aid – I believe the IMF and the World Bank have begun to reflect on this.  Many aid donors are themselves interested in repairing the cotton sector in a number of countries.  
Third and last point – regarding the WTO on the one hand, and the development agencies on 
the other – each of the countries concerned, including yours and your neighbours', should, from the standpoint of domestic governance, ensure that the natural advantages you have are made better use of, for example, by integrating certain productive capacity, and this will assume investment which, even if helped by development aid, will ultimately reside in the decisions of WT/GC/M/91 
Page 44  
 
 investors ready to transform this sector in your respective countries.  This is the answer that I 
can give to your question.  
Q: Do you consider that the adoption in th e multilateral trading system of a variable 
geometry approach, which will permit reaching plurilateral agreements on an opt-in, opt-out 
basis, might eventually weaken the present rule-b ased multilateral trading system and the single 
undertaking?  (Peru) 
 
A: This is an important systemic question which is raised periodically each time a Round is 
concluded.  My personal experience, having been closely associated with the Uruguay Round 
and then with the one ongoing at present, is that it is usually at the end of a Round that we ask 
ourselves, might we not, within the WTO, achieve results more rapidly in a less complicated manner?  And there are normally two options.  One is the plurilateral, the other is the sectoral.  And, when we look at our own rules, the essential results come from multilateral negotiations in the wider sense of the word, but there are certain sectoral elements, particularly in what was 
decided in Singapore, and there are certain plurilateral agreements such as Government 
Procurement.  So, the formulae exist in our tool box.  I find them interesting, on the condition that the Members agree.   A plurilateral agreement is not one concluded among some WTO Members, without the others being either part of the negotiations or part of the results.  Plurilateral agreements, to my 
mind, can be possible only if everyone has the possibility of participating in the negotiations, 
and if the Members as a whole accept the possibility of concluding a plurilateral agreement.  Thus, subject to this condition, and only if this condition is present, I think that this is an element in our tool kit which can be useful.  Q: You have said that one of the prioriti es of this organization – and one of your own 
priorities were you to be elected DG – is the su ccess of the Hong Kong Ministerial.  Yesterday, 
we heard Mr. Sutherland suggest that conflicts  which exist in the organization should be 
resolved prior to Ministerial meetings.  Do you believe that there is an option which would permit the resolution, prior to the Hong Kong Ministerial, of the differences between developing 
countries relating to the erosion of preferences, classification of countries and the relation of 
these issues to the  single tariff on bananas?   (Colombia) 
 A: It would be very good if we could conclude our negotiations in the absence of Ministers, and I would be in agreement with this, but experience has proved this to be difficult.  It is difficult to wrap up the package of a Ministerial meeting before the Ministers meet.  This, I 
believe, is due to the specificity of domestic policy in regard to trade policy, which is the 
asymmetry that for politicians, trade negotiations mean a lot of people benefit and do not know anything about it, and they are silent, and a certain number of people have problems, which are normally fewer in number, but they are politically vociferous.  It is because of this asymmetry that Ministers, in the face of their Parliaments, of their voters, have to intervene, because otherwise this asymmetry blocks trade negotiations.  Now, you are quite right in saying that in 
addition to the negotiations in this Round, following up on the July package with a view to Hong 
Kong and post-Hong Kong, there are in the background certain difficulties.  You have mentioned bananas, but it is not just bananas – there is also sugar, and there may well be a remnant of textiles, i.e. subjects which are not themselves on the agenda of the negotiations, but which are the object of various disagreements amongst the membership, some in the disputes 
before the DSB.  I think we should try to avoid a collision which would be embarrassing at the 
Hong Kong Ministerial between a certain number of these issues – such as cotton, which we spoke of earlier – and the result of the Hong Kong Ministerial.  This will require a great deal of tact in dealing with these different subjects between now and December.   WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 45 
 
 
 Q: In your opening statement this afternoon, you spoke clearly on the importance of 
development issues to the successful conclusion of this Round.  If you were serving as TNC 
Chair, how would you see managing this issue on a going-forward basis to the conclusion of the 
Round, and where do you see the biggest opportuni ties for gains in terms of development?  
(United States) 
 
A: First, I think the Chair of the TNC has to find the right articulation with the Chair of 
the General Council and with the Chair of the Ministerial Conference.  The chemistry between these three persons is absolutely crucial.  Not that it should be an obscure chemistry, but their role in the preparatory process, their role in making sure that what is on the table reaches out to 
the whole of the membership in time so that it can be understood, digested, discussed and then, 
during the Ministerial Conference itself, the who-does-what and how the roles are partitioned is absolutely crucial.   Now, on substance, I think the biggest gains of this Round in terms of development will 
come from market-access issues, and I include in market access the rules part of agriculture, 
which is about subsidies.  So the biggest gain of this Round in my view is agriculture, industry and services – market opening in areas which are a priority for developing countries.  Agriculture, I think, is a rather clear case, notably as concerns the reduction of subsidies.  And you know the position I took myself on the abolition of export subsidies.  NAMA is crucial, notably in areas where, for instance, tariff escalation still prevents a number of developing 
countries from exploiting and benefiting from their comparative advantages, and services, 
which probably was not that high on the agenda when we started the Round, notably Mode four, which since has taken a much bigger part.  These are, to answer your question, the main benefits which I see from the Round.  Now, there are also, in terms of special and differential treatment, in terms of transition periods, in terms of implementation, TRIMS and the rest, a 
number of issues which have to be dealt with in order to relax the part of the membership which 
is composed of developing countries and who have problems coping with a number of these obligations, and this has also to be addressed.  I think it is very important that these Members, who sometimes have difficulty in meeting their obligations, do not feel that the system is working against them.  They must be able to feel that the system is working for them, and they must have enough convincing arguments to convince their capitals that their view – and they 
need good arguments for that – is that it can work for them.  So, this is basically where I would 
put the sort of priority.  
Q: How will you improve the efficiency of the Secretariat – even though the Secretariat is 
very good, it is always possible to improve upon things – without spending more?  (Argentina) 
 
A: This is a question with which I have had some experience.  In a previous part of my life, 
I was Director-General of a bank with serious difficulties and with 50 thousand persons working for it.  This was not very simple.  Just prior to this, I had about the same number of people as today are working for the WTO, so I can say that I have already quite often had to tackle the necessities of good management.  And I must admit that, with regard to my 
temperament for this type of question, I am not really hands-off.  It is a matter of temperament.  
Also, I believe, as I said in my introduction, that it is the Director-General who is responsible for the Secretariat before the Members, and so there is permanently the task of evaluating as to whether work is well distributed, whether everybody works in a reasonable proportion.  In every organization, some people work more than others, and this can be felt on global 
productivity.  But I also think that people are more or less productive according to whether they 
are motivated or not, whether they believe in what they are doing or not.  My experience has been that when one is capable of leading people, of setting objectives, and when one is oneself capable of getting one's hands dirty to show others how to go forward, well then sometimes miracles in productivity are possible.  I do not say that it is necessary at this stage.  I do not have WT/GC/M/91 
Page 46  
 
 sufficiently precise views on the functioning of the Secretariat at this stage, but if you put me in 
this situation, I will start off by getting an opinion on my own, and then I shall take up my responsibilities.  In the Secretariat, which has a good reputation on the whole, there are many Divisions, although there have been fusions lately.  A question which arises, for example, is whether the Secretariat should have to continue with so many Divisions.  I do not say that I 
have an answer, but in any case I will have to reach my own personal opinion on this. 
 
Q: You have occupied until recently a very impo rtant, very significant and quite symbolic 
position, and there is therefore a certain fear that you could continue to act in accordance with 
the positions of your former delegation.  Could you  tell us how you will take off this robe people 
believe you are dressed in, and how you will assume  the impartial, neutral and equidistant role 
that a Director-General of this organization must have?   (Paraguay) 
 
A: I am sure this is a question that some of you have, and I will be quite happy to answer it 
shortly and simply, because I remember five years ago having had the same question when I 
moved from the position I had before I was an EU Commissioner to my position as an EU 
Commissioner.  At the time, the concern was:  How can this French person with sort of socialist leanings deal with trade, that the whole thing smelled of protectionism.  And I had this question at the time:  Will you switch to your new position?  And I think, five years later, the answer to that question is, yes, I did switch to my new position.  I was faithful to what I was sworn to, which is independence, and the sort of oath which a European Commissioner has to give before 
the European Court of Justice is very similar to the language which is in the WTO rules, that 
the DG has to discharge his duties in full independence, without instructions from specific Members.  So this is a sort of change of universe which I have already done, and you know fairly well that including from my initial constituencies, such as my home country, for instance, I took positions which are, I think, enough evidence of my capacity to be independent.  I am 
aware that the position of a DG is very different from that of an EU Commissioner whose role is 
to drive a policy.  A DG is not driving a policy.  A DG is leading an organization that is Member-driven, and has no power of initiative like the one I had before.  But I know that.  I know the difference and I can tell you I think I can manage the difference.  Ask those who have been working with me during these years whether as a person I can reach the necessary level of distance from my initial constituency, and the answer, I believe, will be yes. 
 
Q: You have mentioned several times in your statement your contribution on subjects 
connected with development.  Could you be more precise by adding to your comments with 
regard to the Doha Development Agenda and the Everything But Arms programme?  
(Romania) 
 
A: Yes, as I indicated in my opening statement, I believe it is necessary to reorient, and this 
is the object of the Doha negotiations and work programme, the system more towards the developing countries.  I have taken up, in my previous functions, a whole series of initiatives along these lines.  Access to medicines is a battle we have waged in this organization and in which I have had a part that I think no one contests.  I have already spoken about agriculture 
and the elimination of support for exports.  Everything But Arms, as I said earlier, was an 
initiative I took in order to give a strong political signal and in order to reply to a request by a conference of the United Nations on LDCs, and the Doha Declaration, which spells out that Members must undertake best efforts in order to grant duty-free, quota-free access for LDCs.  I know that in doing so I have used a lot of flexibility and differentiation, which I spoke about a 
while ago, but I believe this was on the basis of political instructions which corresponded to the 
consensus at the time.  If this consensus is to be reviewed, it will be reviewed.  I did this in my previous capacity.  The Director-General of the WTO is in no position, in view of the rules, to adopt this kind of initiative as Director-General.  From this point of view, there is a world of difference between the universe of a Minister and the universe of a Director-General.  That is  WT/GC/M/91 
 Page 47 
 
 
 why I acted as I did, and I believe it did have a certain effect because a whole series of other 
Members have also gone along this path.  I believe it was not something which was isolated or out of thin air.  I shall not quote the list here, but I do know that several Members present here went along these lines, and the LDCs are better off.  Q: You mentioned that the Green Room is not su fficient to ensure transparency.  If you are 
the DG, how are you going to address the issue of  the decision-making process so as to improve 
the consultation process and make it transp arent and inclusive, as well as effective?   (Thailand) 
 
A: I believe that in the WTO family, among several of you, there is still the feeling that this organization is not yet sufficiently transparent, is not yet sufficiently inclusive, and that this 
again plays to the detriment of those among you who do not necessarily have great means in order to take up all the subjects, to be present in meetings, to participate in negotiations.  I believe this is a reality, because this is at least what you were saying when I spoke to you – and I have spoken to many of you during the course of these recent weeks – and I believe that this is a 
strong view.  I believe that the situation is better than it has been before.  We got out of a system 
where negotiations were between one or two elephants, the rest being asked not to show too much dissent as the best way of getting to a consensus.  I believe this is done and over with.  It is dead.  It died somewhere around the end of the 90s, and I believe that the creation of the WTO, in this respect, was a good thing.  We have done better, I believe, even for the outside world.  Outside this organization, we have done better.  If there are 600,000 hits per month on the WTO 
website it is a certain index of transparency.  It is not an absolute index, but it is a certain 
indication of transparency.  Well, what can the Director-General do?  Well, he himself, personally, could be at the disposal of Members, and he can see them, contact them, not necessarily wait for them to come knocking on his door, but when they do, to be available, and I think this is fundamental.  It is a right you are entitled to, to have access to the Director-
General, and the Director-General has the duty to tell you the truth and the reality as to the 
state of this or that negotiation, or this or that position, if you have any questions.  There is the role of the Director-General, a role to be played by the Secretariat.  I believe that the Secretariat is also an instrument which can compensate for this imbalance, which is to some degree natural, between those Members who have access to information about what is happening, to the details and the technicalities, and the others.  In this sense, it is necessary that public institutions do 
what they are supposed to do, that is, to rebalance a distribution of benefits that is naturally 
unequal.  This is, in some way, how I think we should deal with this feeling.  There are procedures.  We must follow them.  Once again, I revert to the question of the preparation for Ministerial Conferences, because this is essential.  On the occasion of the preparation for a Ministerial, the different steps taken must be perfectly well-known and available to all 
Members.  I believe that this is the essential criterion. 
 
Q: There are certain issues that have occasion ally been very contentious or have caused 
polarization among Members, such as the so-called implementation issues or the issues relating to the extension of the protection of geographica l indications to products other than wines and 
spirits, as well as some issues relating to trad e and environment within the ambit of the Special 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Environm ent.  Without going into too many specifics, 
but emphasizing more what you would do as a future DG if you became the DG, could you 
speak about your thoughts on approaching such si tuations where there is some polarization or 
strong division within the house?   (Philippines) 
 
A: Well, this is inevitable.  We are in an organization that deals with the everyday life of 
billions of people, and there is no way the topics the WTO is handling will not give rise to differences, frictions, conflicts – not the least because there is a lot at stake for the people who work, who consume, for the whole of the populations which are affected by decisions which this organization takes, notably in terms of rules.  So, I do not think we should be ironic in any way.  WT/GC/M/91 
Page 48  
 
 This organization deals with issues which raise serious political problems, and there are 
important interests, most of them extremely respectable, behind sometimes strong positions which such-and-such country will take.  Now what is the role of the DG?  I think the role of the DG is to try to spot – with experience, with a sort of intelligence he can deploy in the system – the issues that would create divisiveness, as early as possible, not the least to try to defuse the 
sort of tension, energy and abrasiveness which sometimes accumulates in parts of the system, 
and which then makes the political solution more difficult.  So there is a sort of observation, a sort of radar-spotting of issues that may, if not paid attention to, become real problems.  And I would put a lot of emphasis on that.  And this implies quite a number of radars and quite a number of contacts with those among you who feel a problem like this will be coming.  So, early 
warning is, I think, an important thing which the DG, if he is respected, if he has the trust of the 
Members, will be able to do.  Then it is up to the Members to decide whether they need the DG or not.  There are procedures within the whole dispute settlement sector where the DG can be more or less involved in the disputes, depending on what the membership wants the DG to do, and I think it is no secret that if you look at the sort of rate of utilization of these various 
provisions of the machinery of the dispute settlement mechanism, arbitration and so on, quite a 
large part of that has been underused, compared to what the intensions of the authors were, but, I repeat, this does not depend on the DG.  It depends on the Members who will call on the DG to discuss, or to be involved in, whichever good offices procedure, for instance, and I think the difference is whether or not the DG is felt by the membership as being able to bring something valuable, which would be better, for instance, than a litigation procedure.  But this is 
not an answer that can be taken for granted.  It will only be an answer if the level of trust and 
confidence that will ease the solution of the problem is there.
5 
 
Q: You come from a developed-country, or de veloped country region, and some are of the 
opinion that this organization should be head ed by somebody coming from a developing 
country.  I would like to seek your reactions to  that.  Does it really make a difference where  the 
Director-General comes from, in terms of managing the Secretariat or in terms of being its 
spokesperson, in terms of its  political credibility and standing outside? (Chile) 
 A: I think the answer to that is quite clear in my mind.  You have set up a procedure in 2002 which sets out precisely the criteria for the recruitment of a DG:  extensive experience in 
international relations, firm commitment to the work and objectives of the WTO, proven 
leadership and managerial skills, demonstrated communication skills.  These are the criteria which you have adopted.  The passport does not figure among these criteria.  Not because I like it this way, but because you decided it this way.  Where I come from is important in terms of what I have been doing, and what the person I am is worth to the service of this organization.  
This is one of the reasons why I pitched for this job.  I pitched for this job looking at the criteria 
which you have decided, and I then made the decision that I could fit the bill for the service of this organization.     
__________ 
 
  
                                                     
 
5 Under the modalities for the conduct of the meeting communicated by the Chair to all delegations on 
18 January, each candidate had the opportunity to make a concluding statement during the last five minutes of 
the question-and-answer period if he so wished.  Mr. La my chose to take the following final question with his 
time.