RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/C/M/94 
11 July 2008 
 
 (08-3375) 
Council for Trade in Goods  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRADE IN GOODS 
1 JULY 2008 
 
Chairperson: H.E. Ambassa dor Karen Tan (Singapore
) 
 
 
 The meeting of the Council for Trade in Goods was convened by airgram WTO/AIR/3212 and the proposed agenda for the meeting was c ontained in document G/C/W/600.  The meeting 
proceeded on the basis of the following agenda.  
 
Table of Contents
 Page  
 
I. UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR WAIVERS FOR AFRICAN GROWTH 
AND OPPORTUNITY ACT, CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT, AS 
AMENDED........................................................................................................................ ........1
 
II. ISSUES RELATED TO TEXTILES.......................................................................................2  
III. OTHER BUSINESS................................................................................................................. .6 
A. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING ......................................................................................................6  
 
 
I. UNITED STATES – REQUEST FOR WAIVERS FOR AFRICAN GROWTH AND 
OPPORTUNITY ACT, CARIBBEAN BASIN ECONOMIC RECOVERY ACT, AS AMENDED, AND ANDEAN TRADE PREFERENCE ACT, AS AMENDED  
 
1.1 The Chairperson
 recalled the Council's consideration of  the three waiver requests presented 
by the United States for the African Growth and Opportunity Act, the Caribbean Basin Economic 
Recovery Act and the Andean Trade Preference Ac t.  The United States had submitted revised waiver 
requests for these three progra mmes in documents G/C/W/508/Rev.1, G/C/W/509/Rev.1, and 
G/C/W/510/Rev.1.  She recalled that the General Council,  at its meeting of 27 and 29 July 2005, 
agreed that the CTG should continue its consider ation of this matter a nd report back when it had 
completed this work.  At the 22 May 2008 meeting, the United States had indicated that it would be 
submitting a revised request for the ATPA programme, a nd it had been agreed to revert to this matter 
at this meeting.   
 1.2 The representative of the United States
 reported that his delegation was still in the process of 
preparing its revised document which it would be su bmitting to the next CTG meeting in the autumn. 
  
1.3 The representative of Paraguay  reiterated his delegation's strong interest in achieving a possible 
solution.  His delegation continued to do everything in  its power to resolve this long standing issue.  
Unfortunately, to date, its efforts had not been re warded.  Nevertheless, his delegation hoped that the 
United States may eventually understand its positio n and end the discrimination negatively affecting G/C/M/94 
Page 2  
 
  Paraguay by leaving it outside the preference pr ogrammes intended to support countries in greatest 
need.  He added that on the basis of recently recei ved information, Paraguay's trade deficit with the 
United States had moved from 15 to 1 to 20 to 1.  In other words, for every dollar Paraguay exported 
to the US, it imported 20 dollars.    
1.4 Against this background, on 19 June, a delega tion from Paraguay, headed by its Ambassador 
to Washington, met with the political and technical advisers to Congressman Elliot Engel, the Chair of 
the US House of Representatives Sub-Committ ee for the Western Hemisphere as well as 
Congressmen Robert Wexley and Dan Burton, bot h members of the Committee for International 
Affairs of the House of Representatives.  The mee ting was held to follow up the discussions held on 
15 May with Congressman Elliot Engel.  There w as an opportunity to discuss the possibility of 
Paraguay receiving trade preferences similar to tho se granted to other countries in the region, thereby 
enabling it to compete on an equal footing in e xports of its products to the United States.  His 
delegation stressed the importance for Paraguay of receiving this type of preference as a mechanism 
to promote investment in productive activities whic h would have a significant impact on its economic 
and social development.  A few days after the above meeting, in a meeting between the future 
Minister of Industry and Trade of Paraguay, (member of the new Administration due to enter power on 15
 August), and high-level officials of the USTR th is issue was raised.  Paraguay was using every 
opportunity to seek a solution to this issue which was viewed at the highest levels of Government as 
being of utmost importance.  Paraguay had a system ic objective which it had pursued for many years, 
well before this case arose.  It was for this reason th at it would continue to strive to ensure that the 
WTO could play a catalysing role in eliminating al l kinds of discrimination and achieving fair and 
more equitable trade, and in ove rcoming barriers that prevented developing countries from making the 
most use of their potential for production and trade.  1.5 The Chairperson
 proposed that the Council take note of the statements made and revert to this 
item at its next meeting. 
 1.6 The Council so agreed
. 
 
II. ISSUES RELATED TO TEXTILES 
2.1 The Chairperson  recalled that at the last meeting of the CTG the discussion had focused on a 
new submission made by Turkey, contained in  document G/C/W/599.  This new submission 
envisaged that, as a first step, the WTO Secretariat,  with the contribution of interested Members, 
would compile studies already conducted by selected  organizations such as UNCTAD, the OECD and 
the IMF on the post-ATC era and that, as a second step, the studies compiled would be elaborated in detail in a workshop or workshops organized in co-operation between the WTO and selected 
organizations.  At the meeting, in view of the f act that the new proposal had just been circulated, 
many of the Members that took the floor could only provide comments of a preliminary nature. It was 
agreed, therefore, that the Council would have to continue the discussion at its next meeting, when 
Members would have had the possibility to consider  the new proposal in greater depth.  In the 
meantime, she encouraged Members to take up the o ffer by Turkey to have bilateral and plurilateral 
discussions in order to have a better appreciation of  the issues and of each other’s position.  In this 
way, the Council might eventually, be in a position to move forward on the issue.  She understood that 
there had been some discussions since the last meeting, on which Turkey might want to report. 
2.2 The representative of Turkey
 informed the Council that his delegation had held some 
consultations with interested parties since the last  CTG meeting.  In particular, he noted a very 
constructive and fruitful discussion with the delega tion of China.  In coming days Turkey was 
planning to meet with China again.  Last week hi s delegation was pleased to have met with Tunisia, 
the Dominican Republic, Jordan, Sri Lanka, Mongol ia, Morocco and Egypt.  Unfortunately, other 
meetings were not possible given the busy sche dules of many delegations.  Nevertheless, his  G/C/M/94 
 Page 3 
 
 
  delegation would continue its consultations with all interested parti es.  In light of the consultations, he 
reiterated two points.  Firstly, for the compilation exercise, his delegation had suggested using the 
work of the IMF, the World Bank, and UN Agencies  such as UNCTAD, and the OECD.  It was also 
ready to consider other internati onal organisations.  The WTO Secretariat could also assist with new 
suggestions.  Secondly, the workshop was being pr oposed to exchange views and experiences in 
regard to international trade in the textile and cl othing sectors. His delegation firmly believed that it 
would be more methodical, systematic and appropriate to frame the discussions by taking one of the studies from the compilation exercise.  Nevertheless, if there were other studies Members wished to tackle in the workshop, his delegation was also re ady to consider them.  The OECD study, in his 
delegation' view, was already available and c ould constitute a good basis for discussion in a 
workshop.  But his delegation was looking forward to hearing suggestions from other Members and 
would continue to pursue a common ground.   
 
2.3 The representative of China
 recalled that his delegation had made some preliminary remarks 
on Turkey's proposal at the last CTG meeting on 22 May.  His delegation had had a frank and in-
depth bilateral discussion with the Turkish delegati on two weeks ago and was confident that Turkey 
fully understood the concerns and the position of China.  For transparency, he explained his 
delegation's positions again.  Firstly, his delegation had a systemic concern with the singling out of a 
specific sector, and the new proposal did not relieve this concern.  The term s of reference of this 
Council was to examine and facilitate the implementa tion of the relevant GATT rules relating to trade 
in goods.  These rules applied to all sectors;  their application to the textiles sector was no different.  
Therefore, his delegation could not be persuaded to agree to the examination of trade in textiles in 
particular.  To single out a specific sector would creat e havoc in the work of this Council, not only for 
a few Members' interests, but for all Members' interests.    2.4 Secondly, his Capital was confused about the purpose behind Turkey's submission of this 
proposal in this Council.  If the purpose was to draw Me mbers' attention to the rules related to trade in 
textiles and to seek an opportunity to modify the rules, his delegation believed the negotiations on 
non-agricultural market access would be the more corr ect place to do so.  He recalled that Turkey had 
submitted a proposal on the harmonizati on of textile tariffs in that c ontext.  However, both developing 
and developed Members did not like the proposal because it called for a limitation on free trade.  If the purpose of this new proposal was not to challenge  the rules, as the proponent had stated in the 
past, then he asked what the pur pose was.  Was the purpose to pr omote investment, trade cooperation 
or technological upgrading?  For any of these purposes, his delegation did not believe that the Council for Trade in Goods was the right place to raise th is matter.  Maybe UNCTAD or the World Bank were 
more appropriate places.    
2.5 Thirdly, if Members were to agree on this pr oposal, care must be taken with its implications 
to the ongoing Doha negotiations.  Members were awar e that this was a critical moment of the Doha 
negotiations.  To organise a seminar of this kind before the conclusion of these negotiations would 
certainly have implications for the negotiations.  Fourthly, it was difficult for his delegation to 
understand why Members of the WTO should discuss a study that was neither carried out nor authorised to be carried out by the WTO, particul arly one that was completed by an organisation of 
which China was not a Member.  The OECD could inv ite any country to a seminar when it wanted to 
hear its views.  WTO Members should be confiden t in the OECD's capacity to organise seminars 
since it had been successful in doing  so in the past.  He added that he had counted over 50 studies 
related to trade in textiles and clothing carried out by different organisations since 2004.  Shouldn't 
studies of other international organizations besid es the OECD be discussed as well?  The Turkish 
delegation did not respond to the question raised by  his delegation at the last CTG meeting concerning 
the selection criteria of the studies.  His delega tion looked forward to a clear response from the 
Turkish delegation on this.  For the reasons outli ned above, China did not believe it was necessary or 
practical to organise such a seminar in the Council for Trade in Goods.  However, his delegation was G/C/M/94 
Page 4  
 
  always ready to have further bilateral or multilate ral discussions with the Turkish delegation to find a 
way out on this issue.  2.6 The representative of the Dominican  Republic
 expressed the importance that her delegation 
attached to this issue;  the textiles sector wa s very important to the Dominican economy.  Her 
delegation supported the Turkish pr oposal and believed that all studies carried out, and a Workshop 
covering all aspects of the textile sector under the WTO, would be a step forward for developing 
countries and identifying specific mechanisms.  Foll owing the end of the Agreement on Textiles and 
Clothing in 2005, her delegation requested an adequa te solution within the fra mework of the WTO.  
In this respect, a frank and open discussion between all interested parties on trade in textiles and 
clothing in a multilateral context, based on the crea tion of studies, could create the necessary basis for 
a detailed, fruitful and constructiv e dialogue.  This would ensure that countries with less favourable 
competitive conditions could benefit from improved competitiveness in the sector.  
  2.7 The representative of El  Salvador
 stated that textiles and clothing was also a significant issue 
for her country.  Her delegation believed that the proposal presented positive suggestions on the issue 
and was a document which could be used as a basi s for further discussions and negotiations.  Her 
delegation believed that a favourable conclusi on could then be reached as soon as possible. 
 2.8 The representative of Jordan
 also voiced his delegation's support for the Turkish proposal 
which it believed was an appropriate basis on which to  reach a solution to this long standing issue in 
this Council.  It hoped that the proposal would work to move the process forward. 
 2.9 The representative of India
 informed Members that his delega tion had not been able to meet 
with Turkey.  Nonetheless, it had done some homework through which it had counted at least 
60 significant studies on this topic since 2004.  A quick review through these studies raised two 
points.  Firstly, some of these studies were carri ed out by organisations like UNCTAD, UNDP, and 
the ILO etc. which were following-up on the results of the studies.  Secondly, some of these studies 
looked at development in a larger perspective, not onl y in the context of textiles.  This was a crucial 
linkage.  Like the Chinese delegation, his delega tion saw little reason to separate the textiles sector 
from the regular work of the WTO and subject it to some kind of workshop or seminar process in the 
WTO.  At this stage, his delegation saw little advantage in carrying out this kind of activity given 
other and rather more pressing preoccupations in th e WTO.  He further added that, even if Members 
did agree to the proposal, it was not at all clear what would be the result.  At this stage, all that was 
required was that Members examine the proposal.  Since the focus of the proposal was the OECD 
study which was not even finished, at a later stage,  if at all, something could be done.  He was not 
sure what the Council could be expected to do with  a proposal whose main focus was a study that was 
not even finished.  Therefore, his delegation request ed that a hold be put on the entire process and, at 
a later stage; if at all, the Committee on Trade a nd Development take it up because that was where the 
subject would fit.  2.10 The representative of Mauritius
 informed Members that her delegation had met with Turkey 
and was looking forward to more discussions with Tu rkey on this issue that was important for her 
delegation.  It continued to suppor t the Turkish proposal as had been expressed by the delegations of 
the Dominican Republic, Jordan, El Salvador and ot hers at previous meetings of this Council. 
 2.11 The representative of Thailand
 informed Members that his delegation also did not have an 
opportunity to discuss bilaterally with Turkey the ne w proposal.  He reiterated his delegation's former 
position in that it continued to view the new pr oposal, as with the various versions of it, as a de facto  
singling out of textiles and clothing.  The abolition of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing was an 
important outcome that the WTO was able to ach ieve.  The new version of the proposal did not 
provide his delegation with the comfort that this sy stemic concern had been overcome.  It was still not 
clear about the need for the compilation of different  studies and, more importantly, on where and why  G/C/M/94 
 Page 5 
 
 
  there was a need for the proposed workshop.  What would be the detailed objectives of the 
Workshop?  Having said that, his delegation remained  open to bilateral discussions with Turkey at a 
later time.  2.12 The representative of Pakistan
 said that his delegation was looking forward to meeting the 
Turkish delegation for a bilateral discussion on th is matter and to explain its objections.  The 
important concern for his delegation was the capac ity constraint and the timing of the proposal.  
Delegations, like his, had constraints and this, as well as the points raised by China, India and 
Thailand, should be taken into account.   
2.13 The representative of Morocco
 reiterated that textiles was an important matter for her 
country's economy.  On behalf of her delegati on, she expressed her support for Turkey's proposal. 
 2.14 The representative of the European  Communities
 stated that his delegation considered that it 
could be useful to discuss the impact of the end of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  There 
was a need to address legitimate concerns expressed  by developing countries and LDCs about the 
evolution of trade in textiles and clothing after lib eralisation.  There was no question of turning the 
clock back on liberalisation.  His delegation belie ved that this was not advocated in the Turkish 
proposal.  The revised paper in, G/C/W/599 suggested that a study be carried out using research from other international organisations such as the OE CD, UNCTAD, and IMF, and that a workshop be 
held.  His delegation thought it c ould be constructive for Members to analyse and exchange views on 
the challenges and opportunities of liberalisation in textiles trade.  Therefore, the EC could support 
this compromise proposal which seemed to address concerns expressed by a number of Members. 
 2.15 The representative of Chinese  Taipei
 suggested holding the seminar/workshop at a later time, 
and that all documents, reports or studies used shoul d take into account the opinions of all Members.  
The reports adopted by the CTG should be objectiv e, independent and transparent, so opportunities 
could be provided to all Members for their reference and comments.  2.16 The representative of Tunisia
 congratulated Turkey on its efforts to deal with this issue with 
all interested delegations.  His delegation was ple ased to see that Turkey was trying to find a positive 
outcome to this sensitive issue.  Tunisia attach ed great importance to this issue as it was very 
significant for the Tunisian economy.  His delega tion believed that the WTO and the Goods Council 
were the ideal places to deal with this issue.  All studies were welcome and his delegation gave no preference to any of them.  It was important to con tinue consultations with a ll delegations that showed 
an interest in this issue in order to find a solution.  
2.17 The representative of Hon g Kong, China
 expressed his delegation's satisfaction that Turkey 
had actually dropped its previous proposal.  The new proposal was a compromise proposal.  His delegation considered the integration of textiles and clothing into the trade/GATT rules a major 
achievement of the Uruguay Round, and had concerns regarding any moves to single out this sector.  
In this regard, his delegation supported the view s expressed by the delegations of China, India, 
Pakistan and Thailand.   
 
2.18 The representative of the United States
 did not believe that this proposal was expected to 
result in great changes within the WTO.  The propo sal had evolved into something quite modest and 
his delegation could not see the systemic concerns  that others had expressed.  The CTG was a forum 
for discussing these issues; therefor e this was a reasonable proposal that should not cause concern to 
others.  His delegation was willing to co ntinue to discuss it in the future.  
 2.19 The representative of Turkey
 said that his delegation had belie ved that its consultations with 
China had been positive;  perhaps it had a different understanding from the meeting.  Nevertheless, he 
expressed his delegation's appreciation for all the vi ews expressed.  The matter on the agenda of the G/C/M/94 
Page 6  
 
  CTG was not new and most Members knew where Turkey was coming from on this issue.  It simply 
wished to discuss, in cooperation with other Me mbers, the consequences of the termination of the 
Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  Consequences should not always be viewed as negative and his 
delegation did not believe that liberalisation was negative.  The textiles and clothing sector had been 
subject to restrictions, not only for 10 years, but previously as well.  Since 2005, the sector had been 
subject to completely new conditions.  His delegatio n would like to exchange views with developing 
and developed countries on various aspects in cluding the division of labour, avenues for 
collaboration, and any other problems.  In comparis on with its previous proposals, he admitted that 
his delegation's current proposal was a compromise.  It had been prepared in close contact with 
interested Members, especially China, whose view s were taken into account.  His delegation would 
continue to cooperate with Members both in formal  meetings as well as in informal consultations.  
Finally, he added two points.  First, his delegation did not believe that a simple exercise could effect 
the negotiations and Members' positions in those ne gotiations.  He had already stated that this 
proposal had no linkage with Turkey's proposal in  the non-agricultural market access negotiations.  
Secondly, the OECD study was important for his delegation.  The OECD study was available to the 
public and was understandable.  While it was not fini shed yet, it was evolving.  His delegation was 
open to including other studies as well because the main objective was a comprehensive examination 
of the sector.  This was not threatening for any Memb ers.  His delegation woul d continue its bilateral 
consultations with other Members in the hope  of positive movement on the proposal.   
2.20 The Chairperson
 concluded that, from today’s interventions, it seemed clear that the Council 
would have to continue this discus sion at its next meeting, when Me mbers would hopefully have had the 
possibility to organize further bila teral consultations.  Therefore, she proposed that the Council take note 
of the statements made and revert to this item at its next meeting.  In th e meantime, she encouraged 
Members to meet with a view to getting a better appr eciation of each other’s position so that the Council 
would eventually be in a position to move forward on the issue. 
2.21 The Council so agreed . 
 
III. OTHER BUSINESS 
 
A. DATE OF THE NEXT MEETING  
3.1 The Chairperson  informed Members that the next CTG meeting was scheduled to take place 
on Tuesday, 18 November 2008.  The agenda would close on Friday, 7 November 2008. 
 
3.2 The meeting was adjourned.  
__________