RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/GC/M/116 
2 December 2008 
 (08-5884) 
General Council 
14 October 2008  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 14 October 2008  
 
Chairman:  Mr Bruce Gosper (Australia) 
 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
 
1. Report by the Chairman of th e Trade Negotiati ons Committee ......................................... 1  
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on  Trade and Development ....................................................... 12  
3. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 – 
Communications from Honduras and Guatem ala – Statement by the Chairman .......... 14  
4. Appointment of the next Director-General – Statement by the Chairman ...................... 19  
5. Chairmanships of the Working Parties on the Accession of Kazakhstan and Serbia ..... 20  
6. Administrative Measures fo r Members in arrears ............................................................. 20  
ANNEX – Statements by delegations at the informal meeting of the Trade Negotiations 
Committee on 10 October 2008 ............................................................................................ 22  
  
1. Report by the Chairman of the Trade Negotiations Committee 
1. The Chairman
 invited the Director-General, as Chairman of the TNC, to report on the TNC's 
activities since his last report to the Council. 
2. The Director-General, Chairman of the TNC , said that since he had last reported to the 
Council in July, work in the negotiations had been  taken up again at the level of the negotiating 
groups following the summer break.  The TNC had held  an informal meeting the previous week to 
take a look at where Members were in these negotiati ons and to consider the next steps.  In his 
opening statement at that meeting (document Job(08 )/100), he had noted that it was encouraging that 
negotiators in Geneva had gotten back to work quick ly and seriously after the July setback.  However, 
he had also noted that it was necessary to situat e these encouraging signs against the sombre backdrop 
of the global financial crisis, wh ich had given added importance and urgency to Members' work.  In 
his July report, he had highlighted the fact that  many delegations had signalled very clearly their 
determination to press ahead with the negotiations.  Since then, the responses in his contacts with a 
wide range of Members had confirmed that the colle ctive commitment to the Round remained strong.  
Although it was clear that the Round would not be conc luded in 2008, he belie ved it was still possible 
to reach agreement on modalities, and the Ministers w ith whom he had spoken we re all determined to 
push ahead.  Considerable progress had been made, in  July and earlier, and he believed a renewed WT/GC/M/116 
Page 2  
 
  effort could bring Members to the point where ag reement on modalities was possible.  Work in the 
negotiating groups had now resumed in earnest.  The focus now was, as it should be, on the multilateral process, which would continue in all ar eas of the negotiations in the spirit with which 
Members had worked up to the present – a step-by- step and bottom-up approach.  All the negotiating 
groups had programmes of meetin gs and consultations over the coming weeks, in particular 
Agriculture and NAMA, which remained key to fu rther progress across the board.  Any Ministerial 
involvement which might become necessary would take place when the moment was right. 
3. As regards the financial crisis, he had suggested at the informal TNC that this might also be 
having a direct impact on developing-country access to financing of imports and exports.  As all were 
aware, there had been a number of meetings on this issue at the WTO with both multilateral 
institutions and private banks, most recently in Apri l 2008, to check availability of trade financing at 
affordable rates.  Up to then, the situation had see med to be stable, with volumes and rates at normal 
levels.  However, just that week Brazil had brought this issue to the forefront.  Given the deterioration 
of the financial landscape, and despite the welc ome announcement the previous week by the World 
Bank International Finance Corporation of an increase in its trade financing programme by US$500 
million, he had reconvened major providers of trade finance to a meeting on 12 November to examine 
this issue and find ways to alleviate the situati on should it deteriorate.  One-third of the world 
economy, mainly in emerging countries, still had a big growth potential, and Members had to try to ensure that this engine could work through trade.   This would be followed up in the Working Group 
on Trade, Debt and Finance at the end of November.  He had also constituted a Task Force within the 
Secretariat to follow up the effects of the financial crisis on the different areas of WTO work.  If there 
were indications that the financia l situation could be having serious implications more generally for 
trade or the trading system, he would consult with  the Council Chair on the possibility of convening a 
General Council meeting under its coherence mandate.  He suggested that Members keep the situation 
under review and be ready to act as necessary.  Finall y, he said that the previous day trade had taken 
centre stage with the award of the Nobel economics prize to an economist who had spent a great part 
of his life trying to better understand trade and its  economic underpinnings, th e relationship between 
trade and inequality, and the relationship between multilateralism and regionalism.  He saw this as an 
encouraging signal to all. 
4. All representatives who spoke thanked the Director-General for his report. 
5. The representative of India
, on behalf of the G-20 , said these countries wished to state their 
views on the current situation of the Agriculture ne gotiations, and its implications for the negotiating 
process in Geneva and the overall balance of the R ound.  They stressed their utmost commitment to a 
successful and development-oriented outcome fo r the DDA.  In uncertain times for the world 
economy, the WTO should make an unequivocal contri bution through the reform and strengthening of 
the rules-based multilateral trading system.  The Group remained of the view that this Round had to 
redress the fundamental distortions in internationa l trade rules, and thus unleash the potential for 
development.  These distortions we re mainly in agriculture and linke d to developed-country levels of 
subsidies and layers of market protection.  In  this sense, the Group remained convinced that 
Agriculture was at the heart of the Round and the le vel of ambition there would determine the level of 
ambition in other areas, particularly in light of  Paragraph 24 of the Hong Kong Declaration.  The 
Group welcomed the resumption of the multilateral discussions under the Chair of the Agriculture 
negotiations, but remained concerne d about the continuous reducti on of the level of ambition in 
Agriculture, particularly on market access and domes tic support.  More and more layers of exception 
were being sought by developed countries – in  increasing the number of sensitive products, in 
avoiding tariff simplification and tariff capping, in creating new TRQs – while disproportionate 
efforts in Agriculture and NAMA were demanded from developing countries.  The central numbers in 
domestic support remained open – in OTDS, product-sp ecific disciplines and cotton.  Members had to 
avoid a race to the bottom regarding the level of am bition in Agriculture.  Developed countries had to 
show whether they were prepared to live up to  the mandate for substantial reductions in trade- WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 3 
 
 
  distorting domestic support, substantial improvement s in market access, and the elimination of all 
export subsidies.  The Agriculture Chair's Ju ly 2008 draft modalities were the only basis for 
negotiations.  Any new revision of that text had to  be the product of a multilateral, transparent and 
bottom-up process.  The G-20 remained convinced that  substance had to take precedence over timing.  
It was possible to achieve modalities in Agriculture  consistent with the level of ambition in the 
mandate, a final outcome to the DDA that preserved th e balance with other areas of the negotiations, 
particularly NAMA, and the appropriate flexib ilities for developing countries.  The G-20 would 
continue to work hard towards a balanced, ambi tious and development-oriented outcome in the 
Agriculture negotiations. 
6. Speaking on behalf of India , he expressed his country's satisfaction that the multilateral 
process had resumed in earnest, at least in Agricu lture and NAMA.  In Agriculture, during the past 
two weeks his delegation had witnessed serious en gagement on some of the important outstanding 
issues and as a result, while convergence was still some  distance away, the expectations of the various 
parties on these issues were much clearer.  The comp lexity and variety of the outstanding issues had 
exposed the hollowness of the claim of some that  only one issue stood in the way of consensus on 
modalities.  Similarly, in NAMA, the new Chair was in the process of identifying the key issues on 
which he should focus and had already scheduled consultations that week.  India was happy to note 
the Chair's assertion that Members had to negotiate not with him, but with each other, and that his role 
was as a facilitator.  While that might sound ba nal to some, for India it was a very promising 
beginning.  The inclusive nature of the consulta tions in the two areas had created optimism that 
Members could find solutions to the outstanding i ssues.  The financial turmoil was already creating 
ripples in the real economy, and in a globalized worl d no country could remain insulated from its ill 
effects.  A serious multilateral process in the WT O would send a clear mess age that Members were 
committed to finding multilateral solutions to global problems.  India welcomed the Director-General's initiative in calling a high-level meeting on trade finance, and encouraged him to also hold 
consultations on the impact of the financial turmoil on the real economy and global trade.  He wished 
to highlight the need for further strengthening a nd widening this multilateral engagement.  Nothing 
should be said or done to derail or short-circuit this process by intro ducing yet another set of deadlines 
based on yet another set of political developments somewhere. 
7. While the focus of attention had to be on c oncluding the Agriculture and NAMA negotiations 
as early as possible, there was no reason to keep th e other areas in the Single Undertaking on hold.  
India therefore welcomed the plans for resumption of the negotiations in other areas.  Members had 
concerns and expectations in these areas which could not  be deferred for future consideration.  In this 
connection, apart from other areas, he wished to  highlight especially the need to expedite the 
negotiations on Trade Facilitation.  An ambitious outcome  in this area could bring about gains for all.  
At least this area should be spared the tyranny of  trade-offs.  On the TR IPS issues, the past few 
months had witnessed a significant shift in dy namics, with about 110 Members pressing for 
negotiations on the issues of the TRIPS disclosure re quirement, GI register and GI extension.  The 
joint submission (TN/C/W/52) of 19 July 2008 clearly highlighted the expectation of a vast majority of the membership that the thr ee issues had to attain closure as an integral part of the Single 
Undertaking.  India appreciated the Director-G eneral's efforts in initiating a process under his 
chairmanship prior to the July mini-Ministerial meeting, and strongly urged that this process be 
resumed.  The joint submission provided a sound basis for further work on these issues.  His country 
also looked forward to receiving the new text on Ru les within the month, and to negotiations based on 
the new text soon thereafter.  There were a number of important unresolved issues in this area, and 
Members needed to get down to negotiating them as soon as possible. 
8. The representative of Côte d'Ivoire
, on behalf of the African Group , requested that his 
delegation's statement on behalf of the African Gr oup at the 10 October informal TNC meeting be WT/GC/M/116 
Page 4  
 
  reflected in the record s of the present meeting
1, and that the present statement be considered a 
postscript to the former.  The latest developments  in the management of the financial crisis – 
involving the adoption of American and European pl ans to devote a combined total of 2,200 billion 
euros, among other things, to guarantee interbank loans and/or to recapitalize banking institutions – 
called for a few comments.  Given the negative exte rnalities of this financial crisis for the real 
economy, the African Group welcomed enthusiastically  the initiatives of the American and European 
governments, because even if the African countries we re, to a certain extent, less exposed than the 
United States and Europe, when it came to the financ ial dimension of this crisis, all lived in a global 
economy.  As a result, faced with the prospect of  a slowdown in European growth, Africa could not 
expect to be spared, because of the very close systemic links between the African and European 
economies, to the point where, when European gr owth lost a percentage point, African growth, 
according to the IMF, lost 0.3 per cent.  Thus, one could easily understand that after the hesitations of 
the past weeks, Africa – a very fragile contin ent which had suffered and was still struggling to 
overcome an energy crisis and a surge in food pr ices – welcomed these more or less joint and 
cooperative efforts by Europe and the United States to  regain control over the financial markets.  It 
was this clearly expressed political will, which unfor tunately was lacking in the WTO context and in 
the negotiations under the DDA, that justified his statement. 
9. The 1,700 billion euro rescue plan for Europe  and 500 billion euro rescue plan for the United 
States were strong signals to the market.  The A frican Group welcomed these efforts, which should be 
able to save the world economy.  However, these resources did not represent American and European 
savings only, but also, and perhaps to a great extent, world savings.  Inevitably, they were assets and 
financial resources that would no longer be there for foreign direct investment which, as all knew, 
now financed development in African countries.  Indeed, FDI flows represented some 55-60 per cent 
of private capital destined for the developing co untries.  The financial resources that had been 
mobilized by the United States and Europe were r esources that would no longer be available for 
official development assistance which, in spite of  a decline, continued to finance approximately 
11 per cent of Africa's development.  Thus, one could understand why the African Group, aware that 
trade was a powerful factor in economic growth, w as arguing with such determ ination and persistence 
in favour of the conclusion of the Doha Developm ent Round – to help create, in African countries, 
areas of expansion, economic growth and social deve lopment.  It was hoped that the political will just 
shown by the major economic and trading powers wh en it came to saving the financial industry and 
alleviating the impact of the crisis on the real ec onomy, would also come to the rescue of the DDA.  
The various areas of work under the Round – for ex ample, Trade Facilitation and initiatives such as 
Aid for Trade, which were directly or indirectly related to the efforts towards the global and sectoral 
competitiveness of African economies – had to be addressed with greater en ergy, speeded up and 
finalized. 
10. The representative of Mauritius , on behalf of the ACP Group , said the Group acknowledged 
the Director-General's efforts since July to bring about an early resumption of the negotiations.  The 
present meeting took place against a gloomy outlook for the world economy, and this had a strong bearing on Members' work in Geneva and th e manner in which they approached the DDA 
negotiations, despite a recent easing off in this  situation.  The SVEs, which the ACP Group 
represented, had to brace themselves more than other countries for the consequences of the ongoing 
financial crisis and the global instability it created, as there was no doubt they would be the hardest 
hit.  An example was Mauritius, whose outward-oriented economy rested on the development of a few 
key sectors:  agriculture, namely sugar;  textiles and cl othing;  tourism;  and financial services.  All of 
these were threatened by the international economic contraction – fewer buyers of its textiles, fewer 
tourists, less interest in its financial services, and fewer opportunities to borrow money, as investors 
and credit suppliers became more risk averse.  Ther efore, beyond all rhetoric, Mauritius stood to lose, 
in the near term, much of the development gains for which it had toiled during the past decades, and 
                                                     
 
1 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.   WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 5 
 
 
  now faced the spectre of poverty.  This demonstrated the extent of the ACP countries' fragility and 
growing anxiety.  However, vulnerable as they might be, the ACP countries were resisting the easy temptation of policy reversals, still held firm on th e major economic reforms in which most of them 
were currently engaged, and still believed that trade was part of the solution.  This was not the time 
for policy reversals.  The ACP Group heeded the warning of the Director-General, who had been 
reminding Members that protectionism and economic isol ation were policies of the past and that such 
a move could only hurt economic growth and slow the process of recovery.  While it was crucial to 
focus on how to restore the stability of the internati onal financial system, the fear remained that the 
crisis would distract the ACP countries' developmen t partners from trade issues and, in particular, 
Aid-for-Trade pledges.  The Group therefore welcom ed the Director-General's  initiative to keep the 
coherence mandate under close review. 
11. The Group shared the view that the financial crisis added urgency to striking a deal on the 
Doha Round and thereby restoring confidence.  Howeve r, the crisis demonstrated yet again that the 
Round was not simply about liberalizing trade, but also about designing rules for the international trading system that were fair to all countries and that responded fully to  the Round's development 
promise.  This could only be done though a genui ne and inclusive multilateral process covering all 
issues on the agenda.  Therefore, the Group welc omed the resumption of negotiations at the 
multilateral level in both Agriculture and NAMA.  It  thanked the two respec tive negotiating Chairs 
for their painstaking efforts and reaffirmed the ACP Group's constructive engagement.  The 
resumption of the negotiations should be based bot h on the July texts and also on the convergence 
reached during the Ministerial consultations in July, pa rticularly on many issues of direct interest to 
the Group.  The Group called for that convergence to be stabilised in the upcoming two revised 
modalities texts.  Such convergence now constituted part  of the delicate balance to which all aspired.  
Pretending there had been no progress during the multila teral consultations or attempting to unravel 
those areas of convergence would not be conducive to an early conclusion of the modalities.  
Furthermore, any hardening of positions, be it tactical  or strategic, would serve no one and would only 
exacerbate uncertainty.  The Group therefore called fo r leadership and flexibility from all quarters, in 
particlular from the major players, as a sign of real engagement.  The ACP Group's readiness to 
engage was a constant, particularly  on issues crucial to it.  These included Cotton, bananas, DFQF for 
LDCs, SSM, NFIDC-related issues and S&D treatment  provisions in all the relevant negotiating 
areas.  On Cotton, specifically, the Group repeated its  calls for a speedy solution, and the C-4 proposal 
remained the basis for these negotiations.  The Gr oup trusted that the two negotiating Chairs would 
help deliver on these issues, and strongly welcom ed the process both had initiated.  These Chairs 
knew better than anyone the importance the ACP Group attached to the princi ples of inclusiveness.  
With respect to TRIPS-related issues, the ACP Grou p formed part of the large coalition of countries 
seeking a solution to these issues.  As Members were aware, a process had been initiated prior to July 
and during the July mini-Ministerial to try to reach a solution on these issues.  The Group strongly 
urged the TNC Chair to resume that process and to  help achieve a solution to these issues as well. 
12. The representative of Argentina
 said that as the TNC Chair had said at the 10 October 
informal TNC meeting, it was necessary to continue  negotiating in a full and constructive multilateral 
process.  While the process should continue in all areas of the negotiation, Agriculture and NAMA 
were key to the successful conclusion of the Round.   Argentina supported the consultations by the 
Agriculture Chair and hoped that the exercise be ing undertaken by the NAMA Chair would be more 
fruitful than that of his predecessor.  Argentina al so supported the statements on Agriculture by South 
Africa at the 10 October informal TNC and India fo r the G-20 at the present meeting.  Some speakers 
at the informal TNC had called for all Members to endorse the so-called July package.  His delegation 
wished to make clear that not only was Argentina not in a position to endorse that package, but 
rejected both its substance – since it took no account  of Argentina's interests – and the manner in 
which it had been devised, which had been without c onsultation and on a top-down basis.  Argentina 
wished to emphasize that the only wa y to reach an agreement was by considering the interests of all WT/GC/M/116 
Page 6  
 
  Members, so that each and every one could find th e balance it was seeking in relation to the overall 
objectives of this negotiation. 
13. The representative of th e European Communities
 said his delegation shared the Director-
General's sober assessment of the state of the Ro und and the very challenging times for the world 
economy.  These times demanded leadership, determ ination, and stronger-than-ever governance and 
global coordination.  Leadership and determination by all Members were required to confront the 
unprecedented financial crisis and also to deliver  a swift and successful outcome to the Round.  
Although positions might differ on the specifics, the present crisis showed that all Members equally 
needed this Round – to restore the public's confiden ce in their capacity to work together, to protect 
their system of global governance against the emergence of protectioni sm, and to open up new 
opportunities for their troubled business sectors.  De veloping countries would suffer as much, if not 
more, than others from the economic downturn.  Th e EC therefore welcomed the Director-General's 
decision to call an emergency meeting to improve ac cess to trade finance, and stood ready to use its 
experience and influence in this field in the follow up to that meeting.  Members needed to act rapidly 
and in a well-coordinated manner.  In July, the EC  had demonstrated its determination to achieve 
progress and make compromises.  In the same spir it, it remained committed to bringing negotiations 
on modalities to a successful close by the end of the year.  It was obvious that Agriculture and NAMA were cornerstones of the DDA and key elements for modalities, but other so-called in-between issues 
could not be simply pushed off the table.  Thus, i ssues such as TRIPS also need ed to be tackled, as 
had been underlined by a large majority of Members. 
14. By now all would be aware of the appointment of a new EU Commissioner for Trade.  The 
EU's commitment to the DDA, however, remained constant.  The new Commissioner had already 
indicated her intention to maintain the Doha Round as the clear trade priority, in full continuity with 
the policies of her predecessor, w hose commitment to this process all acknowledged.  This was the 
clear policy position of the Commission as an ins titution representing the European Union.  The new 
Trade Commissioner would have her presentation meeting with the European Parliament the 
following week, and would therefore be in a positi on take on her new role actively once this was 
done.  She would be coming to Geneva as soon as possi ble in order to meet the Director-General and 
others and to pass the clear message that the EU remained committed to working with all delegations, 
under the Director-General's guidan ce, to ensure that every possible opportunity was made available 
to Ministers to deliver on Members' Doha commitmen t.  He also wished to underscore the emphasis 
the Commissioner placed on this commitment translating into real pro-development outcomes.  In that 
respect, it was clear that Members now had on the table a package with real and immediate benefits, 
not just for the world economy as a whole, but for deve loping countries in particular.  This had to add 
to the sense of urgency to take the DDA forward and to resist arguments that political calendars 
effectively ruled out progress.  The world economy could do with some good news, and delegations in 
Geneva were well placed to play that role. 
15. The representative of Bangladesh
 said his delegation appreciated the Director-General's 
persistent efforts to conclude the DDA.  Bangladesh welcomed, inter alia,  his initiative to form a task 
force to follow up on the effects of the unprecedente d global financial crisis.  He requested that 
Bangladesh's statement at the 10 October informal TNC meeting be reflected in the records of the 
present meeting.2 
16. The representative of China  supported the statements by India for the G-20, Mauritius for the 
ACP Group and Côte d'Ivoire for the African Group.  The current world financial turbulence and its 
impact on the world economy and trade were unpr ecedented.  Members faced common challenges and 
had to find a solution through joint efforts.  Perhaps more than ever before, the world was looking to the WTO for confidence in international cooperati on.  Failure to deliver on the Development Round 
                                                     
 
2 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.   WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 7 
 
 
  would be a big blow, not only to the multilateral trading system, but also to the credibility of global 
governance in general.  Against this background,  it was important to make progress on modalities in 
Agriculture and NAMA as soon as possible.  China was glad to see that no one had given up and that 
the right process, led by the Agriculture and NAMA Ch airs, had restarted.  His delegation wished to 
make the following points.  First, the Doha  Round was a development Round.  Members should 
constantly bear in mind that development was their pr iority and had to be placed at the centre of all 
negotiations.  To deliver development results, an ope n and transparent process was needed, in order to 
ensure that all Members, particularly LDCs, SVEs , ACP countries and African countries, participated 
fully in the negotiations and eventually got on bo ard.  Second, agreeing on modalities in Agriculture 
and NAMA was the central task.  China hoped the respective Chairs could produce revised draft 
modalities before the end of 2008 on the basis of th e negotiations over the next few weeks.  At the 
same time, Members should also work on other issu es, such as Trade Facilitation, Rules and other 
issues in the Single Undertaking.  He wished to point out in particular that the draft modalities texts contained in document TN/C/W/52 had been co-sp onsored by 110 Members, who requested that 
TRIPS-related issues be included as part of the horiz ontal process.  This issue should be dealt with 
properly.  Third, faced with the current unpreceden ted financial turmoil, a ll Members should have a 
sense of urgency and show political will and flexibi lity.  The major developed-country Members, in 
particular, should take the lead.  Fourth, no fu rther artificial deadlines should be imposed on the 
process.  All Members needed to do was to work hard through the multilateral process and try to make 
progress.  China was ready to make its best effo rts and work with other Members constructively 
towards concluding the Round as soon as possible. 
17. The representative of Switzerland
 said that the international economic situation, the acute 
financial crisis that had take n on global proportions, and the economic slowdown forecast for the 
coming years made completion of the Doha Round all the more pressing and necessary.  Like most Members, Switzerland deplored the failure of the mini -Ministerial in late July.  Significant progress 
had been achieved on a considerable number of issu es.  It was now time not only to consolidate the 
advances made, but also to focus attention on multila teralizing the discussions, so as to find solutions 
that could be endorsed by the membership as a wh ole.  Switzerland therefore fully supported the 
consultation and negotiati ng process established by the Agricu lture and NAMA Chairs, which it saw 
as the only possible course in the current circumst ances.  If Members could accept that their efforts 
should focus on these two sectors for the time being, th is did not mean that the other negotiating areas 
should remain by the wayside – quite the contrary.  As soon as there was a sufficiently strong move 
forward in the Agriculture and NAMA negotiations, work  would also have to resume without delay in 
the other areas – in Services, on the basis of the ve ry encouraging outcomes of the end-July Signalling 
Conference, which needed to be consolidated;  and in the sphere of intellectual property, i.e. the 
proposal on geographical indications' registration a nd extension endorsed by more than 100 countries, 
and the TRIPS/CBD relationship.  The starting point for the discussions to come had to be the 
modalities text contained in document TN/C/W/52 of 19 July 2008, which set forth the parameters for 
the negotiation of legal texts concerning each of the th ree elements that formed an inseparable whole.  
There was also Rules and Trade Fac ilitation, where expectations in economic circles ran high, and the 
issue of Trade and Environment.  All of these would have to form part, along with the Agriculture and 
NAMA modalities, of the intermediary outcomes on wh ich Members would have to agree.  The task 
was an arduous one, especially against the present in ternational political backdrop, with electoral 
deadlines coming up in several countries.  Moreove r, some Members had hardened their positions 
since July, and some solutions outlined then were now  less clearly defined.  One might say this was a 
normal phenomenon when the goal was so close, but it was also a disturbing one, because this meant 
that even greater efforts would be necessary to complete the work as soon as possible.  However, 
Members had no other option.  At stake was the credibility of the WTO multilateral trading system, 
which had been eroded by the July events. 
18. The representative of Turkey
 said it was important that Members were going back to the 
multilateral process, and Turkey was committed to enga ging positively in this Chair-driven process.  WT/GC/M/116 
Page 8  
 
  As his delegation had said at the July TNC, collec tive responsibility dictated collective participation 
that would enable collective wisdom to emerge.  In order for that wisdom to bear fruit in the form of 
an outcome, Members should refrain from setting a ny deadlines, as deadlines had not been at all 
helpful.  Turkey welcomed and supported the ge neral understanding that Members should go back to 
the bottom-up multilateral process.  While there still existed many modality issues that needed to be 
discussed among the stakeholders, the SSM had been  in the spotlight and had received unnecessary 
prominence.  Although Members needed a proper, operable and effective SSM in their toolbox, this was not the only potential deal-breaker issue.  Tu rkey believed the July 2008 revised texts should be 
the basis for future work in bot h the Agriculture and NAMA negotia tions.  The three TRIPS-related 
issues –  CBD, GI extension and GI registration – s hould be kept in the DDA for future deliberations.  
Regarding the process and its interaction with th e current global conditions,  Members were going 
through a very exceptional phase of an economic cycl e.  The paradigms were changing and the WTO 
could not stay away from the present turmoil.  Wh ether developed or devel oping, Members would be 
affected by the consequences of the ongoing instabil ity, which in turn would adversely affect global 
trade and its finance.  The volume of internationa l trade was expected to diminish, and developing 
countries would be affected the most.  Two points needed to be underlined to overcome any possible 
negative repercussions of this turbulence on internati onal trade:  First, Members should continue their 
efforts to complete the Round and their endeavors for more liberal conditions, despite protectionist 
movements, and the WTO should continue to alert th e public to the results of protectionism.  Second, 
the financial crisis required br oader cooperation across various mu ltilateral institutions.  Only a 
multilateral and multi-institutional framework could overcome the destabilizing effects of such a 
crisis.  A tripartite approach to the international tr ade and global financial crisis involving the WTO, 
the World Bank and the IMF might be an option, and th is should be elaborated on.  A news article the 
previous day had reported that the Director-General had said the WTO was working with the World Bank and the IMF to improve conditions for trade fi nancing.  Turkey wholeheartedly supported this 
approach.  It also welcomed th e Director-General's initiative in calling a meeting with the major 
providers of trade finance on 12 November 2008.  Agai nst the serious risk of global trade contraction, 
trade-finance instruments could provide alternative t ools to be used.  His delegation wished to suggest 
a meeting of export/import banks in Geneva as a comp lementary event to the 12 November meeting, 
at which Members could hear trade financiers' view s and let collective wisdom yield some concrete 
results on this issue. 
19. The representative of the United States
 said his delegation was keenly aware of the extremely 
challenging financial and broade r economic circumstances in which Members were conducting their 
work.  As Côte d'Ivoire for the African Group had said earlier, no country was spared the impact of 
the financial crisis.  He was confident all would agree that these circumstances made a successful 
completion of the DDA more important than ever.  Accordingly, the United States was committed to 
making as much progress on the DDA as possible in 2008,  and agreed with the Director-General’s 
assertion that Plan A – agreement on modalities – was doable in 2008.  The United States was 
committed to working toward that end.  It also ag reed that the 10 July draft texts on Agriculture and 
NAMA were the appropriate starting points for build ing the next texts, but the entire membership 
should work together to exploit whatever promisi ng elements there were from work done during the 
July informal Ministerial meeting and work done  by senior officials sin ce the summer break.  His 
delegation looked forward to working with the Chai rs in Agriculture and NAMA in their multilateral 
processes in the coming weeks, in particular to re solve the remaining issues in Agriculture – e.g. 
SSM, sensitive products, tariff simplification, TRQ creation and cotton – and to ensure significant 
new market access in NAMA, including participatio n by major trading Members, both developed and 
large emerging economies, in sectoral initiatives that would cut tariffs even more deeply than the 
tariff-cutting formulae.  Members also needed to proceed in an appropriate manner and pace with 
work in the other areas.  His delegation would work  with the respective Chai rs and negotiating groups 
to define appropriate paths forward in each area.   The United States supported the Director-General’s 
convening of a meeting on the implicatio ns of the financial crisis for trade financing.  It was important 
to understand those implications for the trading system and for Members' work.  WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 9 
 
 
  20. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said his delegation shared the Director-General's 
assessment that it was still possible for crucial progress to be made before the end of 2008.  At a time 
when the global economy was facing its most severe financial crisis, Members had no right to remain 
pessimistic.  Rather, they had an urgent obliga tion to give the world economy the necessary boost by 
concluding the Doha Round negotiations as soon as po ssible.  In the context of the analogy of 
climbing to the top of Mont Blanc, Members had actually succeeded in July in establishing a camp 
very close to the summit, and this was their new ba se camp.  They now had to stay where they were 
and support their guides, the Agriculture and NAMA Ch airmen, in their efforts to keep Members in a 
constant state of readiness to make another attempt on the summit as soon as conditions were 
favourable.  Chinese Taipei was also waiting to feel a new wind of political will start to blow.  His 
delegation, along with the other Recently Acceded Me mbers, remained committ ed to working closely 
with the TNC Chair, with the Chairs of the negotia ting groups and with other Members, so that when 
the time came, all could be ready together  to make the final push to the summit. 
21. The representative of Brazil  said that on Agriculture, his delegation supported the statement 
by India for the G-20.  On NAMA, Brazil welcomed the new Chairman, who could count on Brazil's 
commitment and readiness to work intensively in the coming weeks.  As in Agriculture, important 
issues remained to be tackled.  In order to ma ke progress towards concluding modalities, it would be 
essential to put as much effort into dealing with co untry-specific issues as into the general architecture 
and the cross-cutting subjects, to use the three boxes the Chair had used to describe the way he saw 
the NAMA negotiations.  It would also be crucial to  keep pace with the Agriculture negotiations and 
to resist attempts to increase the level of ambition in NAMA at the expense of a balanced outcome in 
the Round.  On Services, consultations conducted by th e Services Chair had provided a draft text to be 
presented to Ministers as a suggested road map for th e conclusion of the negotiations.  An agreement 
in principle had been reached on the way forward fo r the implementation of a priority mechanism for 
LDCs.  On domestic regulation, fruitful discussions had taken place on the revised draft disciplines 
since early 2008, but much remained to be done in order to reach convergence.   On market access, the 
Signalling Conference had been successful, with full engagement of various Members represented at 
the highest level, which had provided positive indi cations of possible commitments in the revised 
offers.  On Rules, further reflection was  required on how  to sustain the negotiating process and 
provide it with a truly adequate basis from now on.  Brazil stressed the need to continue the work at 
the negotiating group level, but always bearing in mind both the overall and the inner balance of all 
areas comprised in the Rules mandate.  On TRIPS issues, Brazil remained committed to achieving an 
outcome on all three – namely, TRIPS and CBD, GI ex tension and the GI register – as part of the 
Single Undertaking.  Like Brazil, more than 100 Me mbers – over two-thirds of the membership – had 
agreed that the Doha Round had to deliver a subs tantive outcome on TRIPS-related issues.  Brazil 
understood that these issues remained on the table and that all three had to be dealt with jointly, 
simultaneously and as part of the same p ackage.  The joint submission in document  TN/C/W/52  
provided a  sound basis for further work.  His delegation expected discussion on the TRIPS issues to 
be resumed and intensified in the current semester. 
22. The representative of Senegal  said his delegation welcomed the resumption of work within 
the negotiating groups and hoped that, despite the failu re to conclude the Round at the end of 2008, 
Members would at least be able to adopt m odalities on Agriculture and NAMA.  Senegal also 
welcomed the Director-General's in itiative in establishing a task for ce to examine the impact of the 
financial crisis on the multilateral trading system.  His delegation wished to see particular attention 
paid to the impact on the most vulnerable Members.  It was particularly noteworthy that the countries 
concerned were continuing to suffer from the incr ease in the prices of food products and oil, even 
though a downturn in those prices had been noted in recent weeks.  His delegation suggested that, in 
the context of the terms of reference of the task force, a high-level panel could be set up at the WTO 
to consider the financial crisis and its likely shor t- and medium-term effects.  Such a panel would 
enable Members to obtain a better understanding of th e crisis, and this unders tanding would also – in 
the event that a meeting of the General Council were convened on the matter – facilitate a more WT/GC/M/116 
Page 10  
 
  rewarding debate leading to the formulation of rele vant recommendations on the path to be followed.  
In this connection, the President of the World Ba nk, in an interesting speech a week earlier in 
Washington on the crisis and the prospects it offe red for improving global economic governance, had 
also recognized the role of the WTO in this rega rd, and had even, he understood, established a focus 
group on the subject.  This provided an opportunity for the WTO, in the context of its cooperation 
with international financial institu tions, to seek synergies to enable it to make a contribution to the 
future work of improving the system. 
23. The representative of Japan
 said his delegation appreciated and supported the Director-
General's continuous efforts for the conclusion of the DDA following the July Ministerial meeting.  
Against a backdrop of global economic uncertainty tr iggered by the recent financial crisis, successful 
conclusion of the DDA had become even more important.  Japan welcomed the recent restart of 
negotiating group discussions led by the Chairs in  both Agriculture and NAMA.  His country was 
prepared to participate actively in the discussions on the basis of what had been achieved so far, in 
order to achieve modalities as soon as possible.  Pr ogress in Agriculture and NAMA would provide an 
impetus for advancement in other areas of negotia tion, and thereby create momentum for the overall 
DDA negotiations.  In this context, he wished to remind Members that they had started this Round on 
the principle of a Single Undertaking, believing th at agreement was possible only through a package 
that included trade liberalization and the improvement  of trade and trade-related rules, and that the 
WTO could contribute to the promotion of economic development through such a package.  Members 
should therefore also work towards progress in ar eas such as Services, Rul es and Trade Facilitation. 
24. The representative of Peru  said the Director-General's report set out priorities and contained 
valuable elements at this time of global uncertain ty.  He reiterated Peru's full commitment to free 
trade and the opening up of markets.  Although th e financial markets had reacted positively to the 
decisive intervention of the US Government, it was clear that one was witnessing the beginnings of a 
major transformation that could have a negative im pact on world trade, with particularly serious 
detriment to the developing countries, including  those which had succeeded in consolidating 
responsible and open economic and co mmercial policies consistent with the system and principles of 
the WTO.  As India and others had said, and as a ll well knew, there were issues of major importance 
to Peru and to many other developing countries which could not be left aside if Members wished to work effectively towards achieving modalities in Agriculture and NAMA by the end of 2008.  These 
were the TRIPS-related issues, which included bo th the register for wines and spirits, and the 
extension of protection for geographical indications , together with a topic of major importance to 
Peru, the relationship between the TRIPS Agreemen t and the CBD.  These issues had been advanced 
by the Director-General himself, who had appointed Minister St øre of Norway as facilitator during 
the July discussions.  With the latter, progress had b een made in understanding the issues, but not in 
negotiations on the basis of a text.  In this connec tion, his delegation wished to reiterate what India 
had also emphasized, that the discussion should be  transformed into real negotiations under the good 
offices of the Director-General and on the basis of document TN/C/W/52, which had been put forward by no fewer than 108 Members – more than two-thirds of the membership.  Peru hoped that 
this resumption of work would include IP-related t opics, since otherwise it was difficult to conceive 
of the Doha Round producing a meaningful  outcome in terms of development. 
25. The representative of Costa Rica
 requested that his delegation's statement at the 10 October 
informal TNC meeting be reflected in the records of the present meeting.3  Costa Rica supported the 
efforts of the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs and tr usted that the resumption of the consultations 
would enable Members to progress towards a su ccessful conclusion of the Round as rapidly as 
possible.  Time was pressing more than ever before.  However, when Members resumed the 
consultations, they had to be entirely clear, in particul ar as to where they were and at what point they 
were resuming, and they had to ensu re full transparency.  Members had to be clear that what they had 
                                                      
3 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.   WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 11 
 
 
  on the table was the Chairs' texts of July, which had been submitted following extensive 
consultations.  It was true that work had been  done, efforts made and progress achieved since then, 
and some delegations had suggested that the progress achieved at the end of July should also serve as 
a basis for these negotiations and s hould be preserved.  The progress th at had created a real possibility 
of reaching agreement should be preserved, but on all of these points the will of all Members needed 
to be tested.  His delegation would not venture to state which subjects were those on which this 
progress or convergence had been achieved, but ther e were areas which had not been resolved – 
preference erosion and tropical products, including bananas.  On these subjects, Costa Rica had said that the Agriculture Chair's July text was an acceptable basis for nego tiation, and that continued to be 
its position.  His delegation did not see how a new Ch air's text could alter the July paragraphs on 
tropical products and preference erosion on the basis of what had happened at the end of July, because 
there would be no basis for doing so.  Costa Rica wa s determined to continue  working constructively 
to resolve the pending issues, including those tw o, because it believed that the conclusion of the 
Round was urgent – much more so than earlier. 
26. The representative of Pakistan
 thanked the Director-General for his candid statement that had 
captured the salient features of the progress made  in the DDA.  While Pakistan recognized as a 
collective failure Members'  inability to complete the Round by the year's end, it was optimistic that 
Members could make conclusive progress in Agri culture and NAMA in the near future.  While 
making efforts to conclude the modalities, Members had to keep in view the guiding principle:  First, 
the outcome had to deliver the development outcome suited to the needs of developing countries and 
LDCs.  Second, the outcome had to be a result of  a multilateral and bottom-up process.  There needed 
to be a delicate balance between efficiency in  the negotiating process, and transparency and 
inclusiveness.  In this regard, his delegation acknow ledged the Director-General's efforts to take all 
Members on board.  Third, Members had to take stoc k of the progress made so far and try to build on 
it.  By now every delegation was clear where it coul d show flexibility and what  its red lines were.  
Members had to recognize that their individual c ontributions were for a collective gain.  Every 
delegation had to reassess its nego tiating position with a view to what it could contribute without 
crossing its red lines.  This was the only way to fight with courage the financial tsunami that 
threatened all.  Hopefully, the financial bail-out  packages for recapitalization would ease the financial 
crisis in a foreseeable future.  While Members ha d to strive for early conclusion of modalities in 
Agriculture and NAMA, they should be conscious that any attempt to close the deal without 
immaculate preparation ran the risk of failure.  In this regard, Pakistan suppor ted the intensification of 
multilateral negotiations both in Agriculture and NAMA.   His delegation also wished to reiterate the 
importance of taking on all issues in the TRIPS area, together with Agriculture and NAMA, and working towards a satisfactory solution.  This woul d be in line with the demand made by a coalition 
of more than 100 Members, developed as well as de veloping.  He associated his delegation with the 
statement by India for the G-20. 
27. The representative of Indonesia
, on behalf of the G-33 , requested that Indonesia's statement 
for the G-33 at the 10 October informal TNC mee ting be reflected in the records of the present 
meeting.4  The G-33 was encouraged that the multilatera l process on Agriculture had already been re-
started, and reaffirmed its support for the Chair-l ed multilateral process.  The G-33 would be engaged 
and work constructively to help find a balanced and fair compromise solution to the unresolved 
issues, and reaffirmed its commitment to work toge ther with all Members.  The Group's objective was 
clear – developing countries needed to provide the political and the real level of comfort for millions 
of small, poor and vulnerable farmers, their liveli hood security, and the food security of the country.  
The mandates were also clear in the July 2004 Framework and the 2005 Hong Kong Declaration.  Therefore, a simple, operational, effective and meaningful development instrument of Special 
Products and Special Safeguard Mechanism, as an  integral part of S&D treatment, should be 
established.  The G-33 supported the view and inten tion that continued negotiations be based on the 
                                                     
 
4 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records. WT/GC/M/116 
Page 12  
 
  draft text on Agriculture modalities in TN/AG/W/4/ Rev.3, whose structure and architecture were a 
good basis for further negotiations.  It was the latter' s contents that needed to be further discussed and 
agreed.  The Group also wished to stress that ther e were various elements, not only in SSM, but also 
in issues such as tariff simplific ation, Sensitive Products, TRQ creation, Green Box and especially 
cotton, which needed to be further discussed.  The G-33 expected that all issues and elements would 
be dealt with further.  It was a misperception that  apart from paragraphs 134-136,  all other elements of 
SSM had been settled or agreed, in terms of the way they were expressed in the text in 
TN/AG/W/4/Rev.3.  The G-33 reiterated that while  it stood ready to engage constructively in the 
negotiations ahead, it continued to call for significan t movement and flexibility by other Members on 
all outstanding issues, including on SPs and SSM.  It was only by this kind of constructive 
engagement that Members would be successful in completing their tasks a nd meeting the challenges 
by the year's end. 
28. The representative of Mexico
 said there was a big difference between the present meeting and 
the informal TNC the previous week, in that the world's stock markets had given their blessing to the 
various government rescue packages.  He understood that the word "crisis" in Chinese was made up 
of two words, "danger" and "opportunity".  Appa rently, the markets had opted for opportunity – the 
opportunity to recapitalize the banks and lessen or  overcome the general reluctance and unwillingness 
to lend to each other.  This might  be the beginning of the end of the financial crisis.  What would 
emerge in any case was a mended financial system  which, although weakened, would apparently 
continue to function.  The meeting convened by the Director-General on 12 November was important 
in this connection.  Although the worst of the fina ncial crisis might now be passed, there could be no 
doubt as to its heavy impact on the real economy.  Pr otectionist pressures were definitely on the rise.  
Members had to resist this trend, and the best wa y to do so was to conclude the Doha Round rapidly, 
and above all to adopt the Agriculture a nd NAMA modalities as quickly as possible, while 
progressing significantly in the other areas of negotiati on.  Mexico continued to believe there was a 
real possibility of working out modalities in Agricu lture and NAMA before the end of the year, and 
Members had to work towards that goal.  Clearly, the basis for continuing the negotiations in those 
two areas, as well as in the other areas, was the texts that had emerged from the July meeting.  However, Members should not disregard any progress that  would enable them to reach an agreement.  
He requested that Mexico's statement at the 10 Oc tober informal TNC meeting be reflected in the 
records of the present meeting.
5 
29. The representative of Bolivia  requested that her delegation's statement at the 10 October 
informal TNC meeting be reflected in the records of the present meeting.6  Bolivia endorsed the 
statements by Indonesia for the G-33 and by India for the G-20. 
30. The representatives of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela , Chile , Cuba , Lesotho for the 
LDCs , Thailand , and Hong Kong, China  requested that their delegations' statements at the 10 October 
informal TNC meeting be included in the records of the present meeting.7 
31. The General Council took note  of the Director-General's report and of the statements. 
2. Work Programme on Small Economies – Report by the Chairman of the Dedicated 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Development 
32. The Chairman  recalled that at its meeting in Febr uary and March 2002, the General Council 
had taken note of a framework and procedures fo r the conduct of the Work Programme on Small 
Economies, under which this Work Programme w ould be a standing item on the General Council's 
                                                      
5 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.  
6 The statement is reproduced in the Annex to the present records.  
7 The statements are reproduced in  the Annex to the present records .  WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 13 
 
 
  agenda.  The framework and procedures also pr ovided that the Committee on Trade and Development 
shall report regularly to the General Council on the pr ogress of work in its Dedicated Sessions on this 
subject.  Furthermore, Ministers at Hong Kong had instructed the CTD, under the overall responsibility of the General Council,  to continue the work in the Dedicated Session and to monitor 
progress of the small economies' proposals in the ne gotiating and other bodies.  In December 2006, on 
the basis of a report by the Chair of the CTD in Dedicated Session, the General Council had taken 
note that Members in that body would be pursui ng the substantive work under the Small Economies 
Work Programme. 
33. Mr Servansing (Mauritius), Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the CTD
, said the 
proponents of the Work Programme were pleased that  consultations were again under way to examine 
the outstanding issues in the Agriculture negotiati ons.  They were following with great interest 
developments in efforts to narrow the differences  that had kept Members from adopting modalities in 
Agriculture and NAMA in July.  They were also following other issues being discussed in regard to 
the Round and remained ready to engage in discussions of importance to them, such as the negotiations in Services and fisheries subsidies.  In addition, he underst ood that the proponents had 
met recently to discuss possible next steps for th e Work Programme and possible new issues which 
the Dedicated Session might address.  He would keep  the Council informed of any developments in 
this regard. 
34. The representative of Barbados
, on behalf of the SVEs , reiterated their appreciation for the 
ongoing work of the Chair of the CTD Dedicated Session.  They thanked the Secretariat for the ongoing updating of the monitoring document which reflected all their proposals as well as the 
proposed treatment offered to SVEs in the latest  texts and reports from the Agriculture and NAMA 
Chairs.  It was clear the CTD could only monitor progress in the DDA negotiations if there was, in 
fact, progress.  The SVEs also thanked the Dir ector-General for his continuing efforts, and 
encouraged Members to take responsibility for bringing these negotiations to a balanced and 
successful conclusion sooner rather than later.  There had been no meeting of the Dedicated Session 
for some time, as the focus had been, and continue d to be, on the negotiations.  However, the SVEs 
were examining possible ways to take advantage of the unique opportunity the Dedicated Session provided to continue finding effectiv e responses to the trade-related i ssues that would enable SVEs to 
achieve fuller integration into the multilateral tr ading system – an exercise that would become
 even 
more important with the current financial crisis a nd its implications on trade for SVEs.  One of the 
main reasons SVEs had been able  to engage in a large number of the negotiating issues was the 
progress achieved and the political and substantive legitimacy resulting from discussions in meetings 
of the Dedicated Session. 
35. The representative of Tonga  said that as this was the first ti me Tonga was attending a General 
Council meeting as a Member since its accession in D ecember 2007, he wished to reiterate Tonga's 
commitment to an open, transparent and rules-based  international trading system.  With the global 
economy facing a serious financial crisis, the significan ce of an international trading régime based on 
sound rules and regulations was even  more apparent.  As an SVE, Tonga was fully aware of the 
challenges it had to face in the WTO.  However, it was keen to work on all these challenges with a 
positive and proactive attitude in an effort to ensu re that each Member would get its share of the 
benefits of participating in the WTO system in a fair and equitable manner.  Barbados had expertly 
coordinated the SVEs' participation in the Work Programme on Small Economies.  Tonga reaffirmed 
its commitment to participate in this Work Programme along with other SVEs, acknowledged with 
gratitude all the trade-related technical assistance the Pacific Island Members had received to date, and looked forward to participating ac tively in the Aid-for-Trade framework. 
36. The General Council took note
 of the report by the Chairman of the Dedicated Session of the 
Committee on Trade and Development and of the statements. WT/GC/M/116 
Page 14  
 
  3. Non-recognition of rights under Article XXIV:6 and Article XXVIII of GATT 1994 – 
Communications from Honduras and Guatem ala (WT/GC/85, WT/GC/90 and Corr.1, 
WT/GC/100, WT/MIN(05)/9) – Statement by the Chairman 
37. The Chairman
 recalled that this matter had first been  raised by the delegations of Honduras 
and Guatemala at the Council meeting in December 2004 .  It had subsequently been considered by the 
General Council at each of its regular meetings sin ce then, without resolution.  In the light of the 
views expressed at these meetings, and the re quests for consultations made by Honduras and 
Guatemala and other delegations, his predecessors and he had held consultations in order to assist in 
finding a way forward.  The matter referred to the General Council concerned the non-recognition of 
claims of substantial interest in the specific cont ext of the EC's modification of its concessions as a 
result of enlargement from 15 to 25 members, and th e modification of its concession on bananas in its 
move to a tariff-only regime as from 1 January 2006.  This matter had been brought to the General 
Council in keeping with Paragraph 4 of the 1980 Procedures for Negotiations under Article XXVIII, 
under which, when a Member renegotiating its Sche dule did not recognize a claim of principal or 
substantial supplying interest, the Member making the claim "may refer the matter to the Council."  
He informed delegations that on 3 October, he had held further cons ultations to allow delegations to 
be updated on the further contacts that might have  taken place among the parties directly concerned 
since July with regard to the broader issues involve d, and of any further de velopments regarding the 
negotiated settlement on this issue that the partie s had been pursuing over the past year.  He had 
invited to the consultations all de legations who had spoken on this issu e at previous meetings of the 
Council, and had made clear that the consultations  were without prejudice to any Member's rights 
under the WTO.  Unfortunately, the issue remained unr esolved.  This situation clearly continued to be 
unsatisfactory from the point of view of the delega tions which had brought th is matter to the Council's 
attention.  He had once again urged the parties to c ontinue consultations with a view to finalizing this 
matter at the earliest opportunity, which was an obj ective all shared.  As he had indicated in his 
consultations, he stood ready to offer his good offices in this process. 
38. All delegations who spoke tha nked the Chairman for his report and for the efforts and 
consultations he had undertaken to he lp find a solution to this matter. 
39. The representative of Honduras  said that far from achieving recognition by the EC of 
Honduras's interest as a substantial supplier, it now  had a second issue of concern, namely the EC's 
refusal to honour the Geneva agreement on trade in bananas of 27 July 2008.  This agreement was 
final and binding, and, according to the EC itself, did not permit the slightest modification.  Honduras 
had been told at the time that neither a comma  nor a number would be changed.  Although his 
delegation knew that this arrangement was by far no t the best in terms of restoring Honduras' rights, it 
had received authorization at the highest government level for Honduras to accept the agreement at the TNC meeting of 29 July.  Such a decision had re quired flexibility and compromise on the part of 
his Government and should be take n as the expression of a genuine desire to resolve the banana 
dispute, which had been running for almost 20 years, and as a wish to settle its claim in respect of its 
interest as a substantial supplier as well.  In this regard, his delegation had had to place this item on 
the General Council's agenda again because of the EC 's refusal to honour the agreement of 27 July.  
As Honduras had said on previous occasions, the EC ha d an obligation to recognize Honduras' interest 
as a substantial supplier because the relevant calcula tion had to be based on trade levels that would 
have existed in a market free of discriminator y quantitative restrictions.  According to the 
Understanding on the Interpretation of  Article XXVIII, rights deriving fr om market share were to be 
determined in a flexible manner in  the case of small and medium-s ized developing countries that had 
been adversely affected by the withdrawal of a tariff concession.  His country's interest as a 
substantial supplier was not a question of percentage  of trade, because despite being the subject of 
trade discrimination, Honduras was among the leadi ng suppliers to the EC market, as had been 
recognized by a number of WTO dispute settlement pa nels.  Honduras was one of the countries which 
from the outset had been actively seeking a fair, e quitable and honourable so lution to the banana  WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 15 
 
 
  issue.  However, it regretted that, just as it had fi nally reached an agreement, those who insisted on 
maintaining discriminatory measures had prevailed yet again.  His country once more called on the 
EC to implement its legal commitment to comp ensation by recognizing Honduras's interest as a 
substantial supplier. 
40. The representative of Guatemala  said his delegation agreed with Honduras, and likewise 
wished to reiterate what it had been emphasizing in  the General Council for nearly four years, which 
was that Guatemala had a twofold interest in this  matter – commercial and systemic.  His delegation 
had repeatedly said that Guatemala's commercial inte rest was not limited to bananas alone.  However, 
a comprehensive solution to the banana issue was key to facilitating the settlement of this matter.  The 
ability to resolve the problem clearly lay in the hands of the EC.  As all knew, on 27 July the leading 
MFN banana-exporting countries and the EC had reach ed an agreement on trade in bananas.  The 
chief characteristic of th is agreement was that it was not lock ed into modalities or the Doha Round 
negotiations and thus, as was specified in the actual te xt of the accord, was a stand-alone agreement.  
One of its major consequences, the outcome of whic h primarily benefited the EC, was that its entry 
into force and strict implementation would bring to a close all disputes and legal proceedings on the 
banana issue to date, including those under GAT T Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII.  This showed 
beyond doubt the good will with which the MFN producer s had participated in the discussions, driven 
as they were by the desire to reach a satisfactory so lution for all the parties and finally put an end to 
disputes that had been running for years.  The agreement was the result of successful negotiation.  
Whatever success might be achieved in the current  multilateral negotiations depended, in the long 
term, on the moral integrity of those engaged in them, which was to say that all Members were 
responsible for the consequences of their actions.  Their capacity to conclude agreements was based 
first on their trust in the trading partners with wh om they negotiated, and second, on their confidence 
in the multilateral trading system and the rules that ap plied equally to all.  He  reiterated that the ability 
to finally resolve the question of non-recognition of Guatemala's rights under Articles XXIV:6 and 
XXVIII of the GATT 1994 regarding the banana issue lay in the EC's hands.  His delegation's 
mandate was to monitor Guatemala's commercial and systemic interests.  Guatemala would therefore 
continue to exercise its rights in the General C ouncil and any other relevant WTO body until the EC 
moved ahead with effective im plementation of the Geneva agreement on trade in bananas. 
41. The representative of Cameroon  said the present statement was a postscript to what his 
delegation had said on behalf of the ACP banana -producing countries on the banana issue at the 
31 July Council meeting.  He therefore requested  that that statement be included in the present 
records.8  He wished to return to a systemic matte r concerning trade in bananas as it related to 
Cameroon.  His delegation considered, and his Minist er had always said, that all Members who had an 
interest in this trade should be able to remain in it, and this trade should be encouraged.  In order to 
find a solution to the banana issue, Cameroon ha d always favoured a solution negotiated among all 
the players and stakeholders, not only between two types of players, because they were all concerned 
by the trade, production and distribution of bananas.  His delegation continued to believe that all the 
efforts that had been made and had not borne fruit up  to the present, even if it was claimed that they 
had, should be resumed and re-cha nnelled into a more integrative approach that was capable of 
guaranteeing the interests of all concerned, so that a fair and equitable solution for all could be found. 
42. The representative of Ecuador  endorsed the statements by Guatemala and Honduras.  The 
issue under consideration was a systemic one which w as critical for the recognition of rights of small 
exporters under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII.  It n eeded to be resolved, and Ecuador therefore once 
more urged the EC to find a definitive solution to it.  His country had been forced to maintain the 
legal claim it had filed regarding the EC's regime for the importation of bananas, because the EC had 
                                                      
8 The statement by Cameroon at the General Council meeting on 31 July, which is reflected in the 
records of that meeting in document WT/GC/M/115 (paragraph 6), is incorporated by reference into the present 
records. WT/GC/M/116 
Page 16  
 
  not signed the 27 July agreement on bananas, which would have put an end to the longest running 
legal dispute in WTO history.  His country was extr emely frustrated at the EC's failure to follow up 
on a commitment negotiated in good faith by Ecua dor following a lengthy process conducted by the 
Director-General.  He would not repeat the argumen ts put forward by his delegation at the July TNC 
and the General Council meetings in support of the fact that this agreement was completely 
independent of any agreement on modalities in the Doha  Round.  Indeed, a reading of the text, and of 
paragraphs 4 and 5 in particular , showed that Ecuador and the ot her Latin American countries were 
right, and it was unquestionably true that this commitment was separate from any modalities that 
might or might not be agreed.  He recalled that the object of the agreement was to have the EC 
comply with the DSB's recommendations and provi de compensation pursuant to Article XXVIII of 
the GATT 1994 in respect of the successive enlargem ents of 2004 and 2007.  Therefore, no Member 
that had not had legal claims or had requested co mpensation had any part in the negotiation of this 
agreement, in which Ecuador had undertaken to re nounce its legal rights in exchange for MFN tariff 
reduction for bananas.  The agreement allowed a c ountry such as Ecuador, with limited resources that 
could be devoted to poverty reduction, to save hundred s of millions of dollars in tariffs and huge 
litigation costs.  The EC held the key to the settle ment of this long-standing dispute, and Ecuador 
therefore reiterated that it was ready to sign th e agreement and put an end to a chapter that had 
become a constant irritant in its overall relations  with the EU.  Many Members, including some EU 
member States, had approached his delegation to  request the text of the 27 July agreement on 
bananas.  Ecuador stood ready to provide copies to any delegation that so wished. 
43. The representative of Mexico
 said that, as his delegation had stated on previous occasions, 
Mexico supported the requests by Guatemala and Honduras for recognition of their rights in this 
matter, and reiterated the hope that the consultatio n process would shortly conclude to the parties' 
satisfaction. 
44. The representative of Costa Rica  expressed sadness that this item was still on the Council's 
agenda and might continue to be for some time, when so much effort had been invested in a 
negotiating process under the good offices of the Directo r-General in order to resolve the banana issue 
and its different aspects, including the rights th at Honduras and Guatemala were claiming.  As 
Guatemala had said, if the EC had respected its co mmitments, this matter would not be on the agenda 
of the present meeting.  He wished to refer in pa rticular to the question of the EC's commitments, 
because many things had been said over the past few weeks, and it was important that further light be 
shed on what had been agreed and how that agre ement had come about.  There had been several 
months of negotiation under the good offices of the Director-General, which had initially been 
requested by Colombia under the DSU.  Colombia ha d gradually been joined by other Latin American 
countries to form a group comprised of Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and Panama.  For months, the EC and these five countries, under the good offices of the Director-General, had convened in Green Room sessions to negotiate an  agreement on the banana issue.  It had taken 
months to negotiate the agreement and all of its te rms.  Obviously, one of the key elements had been 
the nature of the agreement in the event that th ere were no modalities.  As all knew, the optimism-
versus-pessimism roller coaster of the July Minister ial week had started well before July, and had in 
fact marked the entire year.  Those Members who were negotiating the bana na agreement under the 
good offices of the Director-General had wondered ma ny times whether there would actually be any 
modalities.  The negotiators of the banana agreement had therefore in sisted that the agreement should 
be valid even if there were no modalities.  At one point, the Director-General had put forward two 
options:  the first an agreement that would apply with or without modalities and with or without a 
Round, and the second a proposal for an agreement li nked to the Round.  The parties had negotiated 
the issue for months on end.  The EC had been able to consult whoever it needed to consult, and at the 
close of extremely strenuous negotiations, in which the Director-General had done his utmost, the EC 
had said it could accept a stand-alone agreement i ndependent of both the modalities and the Round.  
This was the basis on which the Director-General  had presented a draft stand-alone agreement, 
independent of the modalities and the Round, on 12 July.  The text had been accepted by the EC on  WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 17 
 
 
  19 July.  Colombia had accepted it as well.  The EC  Trade Commissioner's statement that he could 
accept the text – the very text that would be valid  with or without modalitie s – had been published in 
various media.  When the Director-General had presente d his text, he had also told the parties that he 
was only a mediator, in case the parties agreed on different figures.  The figures and some other elements had been unacceptable to Costa Rica at the time, so it had decided to continue negotiating 
with the EC.  The negotiations had ended on 27 July , two days before Members had failed in their 
attempt to agree on modalities.  However, there ha d never been any discussion of whether the nature 
of the proposal would change as a result.  The agreement had always been understood to be entirely independent.  He would not, therefore, enter in to a discussion as to whether it was a matter of 
interpretation, or whether some of parties thought on e thing and some another.  It was very clear the 
agreement had been negotiated on that basis.  If Costa Rica had been misled by the EC, then the 
Director-General, who had acted as mediator, had al so been misled, because he was the one who had 
proposed a stand-alone agreement.  When the Ag riculture and NAMA modalities talks had collapsed, 
it had come as a surprise to hear the EC saying the banana issue was part of the package just like 
every other issue forming part of the Single Undertak ing, and that it was a shame that the banana issue 
had been among the victims of the failure.  The modalities negotiations had been a process in which 
Costa Rica had participated in good faith and in whic h it had made huge efforts to be flexible in areas 
such as preference erosion and tropical products, of which the ACP countries were well aware.  
Unfortunately, with what had happened on the bana na issue, no one could say whether any progress 
that might have been achieved in areas such as pr eference erosion and tropical products was valid at 
all.  There were two months left before January 2009, when the EC would have to implement what 
had been agreed in the banana agreement, but if there were to be any change prejudicial to Costa 
Rica's interests – any change to what had been agreed on bananas on 27 July  – whatever had been 
agreed on preference erosion would suffer the con sequences.  These were communicating vessels, and 
Costa Rica had resolved in writing that they shoul d be.  All of this was linked to an agreement 
independent of modalities.  If the EC implemented th e agreement, Cost Rica could be flexible in the 
other negotiations, and had shown that  it could be.  However, if the EC did not fulfil its commitments 
under this agreement, none could say whether Costa Ri ca would agree to any of the Chairs stating that 
there had been convergence on tropical products and preferences in the last week of July. 
45. The representative of Peru
 said that, with respect to the requests by Guatemala and Honduras 
under Articles XXIV and XXVIII of the GATT 1994, his country was concerned that more than four 
years later it had been impossible to find a solution acceptable to all.  Peru therefore urged Guatemala 
and Honduras, whose requests it supported, and the EC  in particular, to keep open the channels of 
constructive dialogue that had always marked the re questing countries' approach, in an attempt to find 
a mutually satisfactory solution to this problem, including by reverting once again to the Director-General's good offices.  The agreement conclude d on 27 July between the EC and the main MFN 
banana-exporting countries which, as had emerged fro m the previous General Council meeting, had 
not been recognized by the EC, was a matter of partic ular interest to Peru and was directly linked to 
the requests submitted by Guatemala and Honduras because, as Guatemala and Honduras had already said, it would clearly supersede those requests.  He  would not go into the details of the negotiations 
that had been so extensively and accurately describ ed in Costa Rica's statement on how the Geneva 
agreement had come about – an agreement the lette r and the spirit of which were obvious and clear 
and which, as Guatemala had said, had taken the form  of a stand-alone agreement.  He wished to 
repeat what his delegation had said at the July  meeting of the General Council – good faith and 
keeping one's word in negotiations represented the very essence of this organization and its greatest 
strength.  The past weeks had shown how serious the consequences of losing faith in one's negotiating 
partners could be.  Peru had lear ned this lesson from the world of finance, and had also seen what 
happened when confidence was restored, as had fort unately been the case in the financial world the 
past few days.  Hence, and also because the July banana agreement would put an end to the longest 
running trade dispute in the WTO, and the GATT which had preceded it, Peru hoped that the EC 
would recognize this historic agreement, crafted with so much effort, intelligence and commitment on 
the part of all the parties directly involved, not to mention the key role played by the good offices of WT/GC/M/116 
Page 18  
 
  the Director-General, which deserved full acknowledgm ent.  This was the kind of leadership the 
membership expected from the EC and which all Members would undoubtedly be willing to follow in 
order to ensure fair and satisfactory outcomes mark ed by mutual confidence  in all the negotiating 
areas. 
46. The representative of Panama
 welcomed the statements by Guatemala, Honduras, Peru, 
Ecuador and Costa Rica, and endorsed all of their comments in connection with the banana 
agreement. 
47. The representative of the European Communities  said that Members were discussing this 
matter under the Agenda item on non-recognition of rights under Articles XXIV:6 and XXVIII of the 
GATT.  Members had had this discussion on num erous occasions, on each of which his delegation 
had signalled that it had respected Article XXIV:6 provisions scrupulously in examining the 
negotiating rights of Honduras and Guatemala and did not see any possibility to accord negotiating 
rights to these countries in these negotiations.  Howe ver, the EC had clearly recognized there was a 
systemic issue and had indicated it would be ready to  look into this matter with a constructive attitude 
based on proposals that would need to be made in this respect.  The discussion was now deviating 
from the substance of the agenda item and going into the long-standing banana dispute.  He 
understood this politically, and therefore wished to recall how the EC saw the state of play.  His delegation was very grateful for the Director-General 's efforts in his good offices and in the paper put 
forward in that context, and had been ready to compromise.  On 19 July the Director-General had 
asked the parties if they were r eady to accept this as a stand-alone deal, and two countries had said yes 
– the EC and only one Latin American country.  The European Trade Commissioner had announced 
that this would be a stand-alone deal in the clear sense of the term, and his instructions had indicated 
that the intent was to get the banana issue out of the way for the Ministerial meeting.  The EC had not 
wanted this to be on the agenda of that meeting as  an unresolved issue, and had therefore been ready 
to accept the 19 July stand-alone ag reement.  However, others had not been not ready to do so, and 
had wished to go into the Ministerial meeting expe cting that in this framework, and under the time 
and political pressure involved, it would be possible to  negotiate a better deal on bananas.  As the EC 
had still wished to remove this item from the ag enda and not have it stand in the way of a 
breakthrough on modalities, it had negotiated further a nd had improved the deal by slightly changing 
the down payment and landing zone in favour of the La tin American countries.  On that basis, during 
the night of 27 July, the parties had come to an agreement which at that point had not yet been ready for initialling, for several reasons including technical ones.  He noted that Honduras had just said that 
its delegation had been ready to initial the agreem ent only after consulting its authorities about the 
deal, and had been ready to sign it only at the TNC meeting after the modalities negotiations had 
failed.  For whatever reason, there had been no representative of Honduras at the 27 July meeting. 
48. Another reason this agreement could not be initialle d in its form at the time was that one other 
country had not been ready to negotiate on this ba sis and to initial the agreement, because it had 
wished to have a side agreement, perhaps with simi lar content.  Thus the agreement, even as of the 
present, had not yet been achieved.  As he had said , some of the countries had wished to negotiate – 
he would call it more gambling than negotiating – and had failed.  The fact was – and here there was a 
huge disagreement – he had said on many occasions, including in the presence of the Director-
General, that if this issue were taken up as part of modalities, the deal would hinge on modalities.  
That was where various countries had wished to dr ive the process and where one had unfortunately 
ended up.  Having said that, he coul d confirm that if modalities were achieved before the end of the 
year, this deal would be a building block for an agreement on bananas in the framework of the modalities.  The EC would still stick to it.  The d eal needed some fine tuning for one country which 
did not wish to sign it, but the EC hoped this would be  achieved.  On this basis, he confirmed that the 
EC was ready to seek a solution to  this issue.  Ideally, if there were a breakthrough on modalities 
before the end of the year, the deal would be ther e.  Otherwise, the parties should start from where 
they were at present and find a mutually acceptabl e settlement, ideally based as much as possible on  WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 19 
 
 
  the substance and text of the 27 July agreement.  However, one had to be realistic.  Conditions had 
changed and Members had to work forward from wh ere they were now.  The EC was committed to 
finding a mutually agreeable settlement to this  longstanding issue and to removing it from the 
Council's agenda. 
49. The representative of Guatemala  said his delegation reaffirmed and fully endorsed the 
statement by Costa Rica reiterating that the Geneva  agreement on trade in bananas was not, and never 
had been, linked to the outcomes of the negotiatio ns on modalities or those of the Doha Round 
negotiations.  The agreement itself was sufficiently cl ear, as was confirmed by its negotiating history.  
There was no room for interpretation.  Whatever a pparent confusion or difference of interpretation 
might have arisen had come from the EC in order to  mask its intention not to honour its obligations.  
By denying the existence of a stand-alone agreem ent on bananas with the MFN banana producers, the 
EC not only belittled the good faith and flexibility of  those countries, but also disregarded its 
commitments vis-à-vis the entire membership.  If the EC decided not to comply with the 
commitments it had undertaken in this organization and vis-à-vis  the membership, it had to assume 
the consequences of its decisions.  Guatemala did not accept any of the EC's arguments concerning 
the linkage or attempted linkage between the ag reement on bananas and th e Doha Round modalities.  
These arguments were entirely groundless.  Settlement  of the banana issue depended on the EC, and 
on it alone.  In order to do so, the EC had to im plement the agreement on trade in bananas in the 
timeframes and under the conditions established in the agreement itself.  The conditions had been 
agreed by all the negotiating parties, including the EC .  This very delicate balance was the only viable 
solution. 
50. The representative of Colombia  said this agenda item was clear – it concerned a request to the 
EC by Honduras and Guatemala for recognition of th eir rights to participate in the negotiations 
deriving from the EU's enlargement.  However,  since Honduras and Guatemala had linked their 
request to the outcome of negotiations on the agre ement on trade in bananas concluded on 27 July, a 
brief comment on the subject was in order.  Ther e was no doubt that the core essential issue was to 
settle the banana dispute.  Colombia had invested co nsiderable efforts in trying to find a solution, and 
accordingly had requested the good offices of the Dir ector-General to secure an outcome that would 
benefit the membership as a whole.  Colombia cons idered it most important to resolve this problem 
and had done its utmost at political and legal levels .  It was currently looking into the possibility of 
calling upon the Director-General again with a view to achieving an agreement for 1 January 2009.  
Naturally, the agreement that Colombia wished to conclude was the one it had negotiated on 27 July. 
51. The representative of Costa Rica  said he wished to respond to the EC's statement that Costa 
Rica's negotiating tactics on this issue could be described as gambling.  His delegation tended to agree on this point, and had indeed learned a difficult lesso n in its negotiations with the EC – namely, that 
trusting some partners could be akin to gambling. 
52. The General Council took note
 of the statements and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
4. Appointment of the next Director-General –  Statement by the Chairman 
53. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", recalled for the information of Members 
that – under the Procedures for the Appointment of  Directors-General adopted by the General Council 
in December 2002 (WT/L/509) – the process for the appointment of Directors-General had to be started nine months prior to the expiry of the term of the incumbent Director-General with a 
notification from the Chair to the General Council.  In  the present case, since the term of office of the 
current Director-General would come to an e nd on 31 August 2009, the appointment process would 
begin on 1 December 2008.  In line with the agreed procedures, he would formally notify the opening 
of the process in a communication to all Members at that time.  He recalled some of the time-lines for WT/GC/M/116 
Page 20  
 
  the appointment process that had been set out in the Procedures of December 2002:  First, if the 
serving Director-General decided to seek reappointment , he should so notify the Chair of the General 
Council before the start of the process, and would ther eby be considered to be a candidate.  In keeping 
with the procedures, the Council Chair would inform  Members of the candidature of the incumbent 
Director-General in order that they might take this  into consideration in submitting their nominations.  
Second, Members would have one month after th e start of the appointment process to nominate 
candidates, i.e. from 1 December until 31 Decemb er in the present case.  Third, the candidates 
nominated would then have three months to make  themselves known to Members and to engage in 
discussions on the pertinent issues facing the organization, i.e, from 1 January until 31 March.  The remaining two months prior to the conclusion of the process would be devoted to selecting and 
appointing one of the candidates, and the process would conclude with a meeting of the General 
Council convened not later than three months prior to  the expiry of the incumbent's term, at which a 
decision to appoint a new Director-General had to be taken – in other words, not later than 31 May 2009.  Full details of the procedures coul d be found in document WT/L/509.  He would 
formally notify the opening of the appointment process in a communication to all Members prior to 
1 December.
9 
54. The General Council took note  of the statement. 
5. Chairmanships of the Working Parties on the Accession of Kazakhstan and Serbia 
55. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", informed Members that following 
consultations with Members of the Working Party on the Accession of Kazakhstan and the authorities 
of Kazakhstan, and in keeping w ith usual WTO practice, it had been agreed that Mr Hannu Himanen 
(Finland) would serve as Chairman of this Work ing Party, replacing Mr Vesa Himanen (Finland), 
who had left Geneva and was no longer available to serve in this capacity.  Also, following 
consultations with Members of the Working Party on the Accession of Serbia and the authorities of 
Serbia, and in keeping with usual WTO practice, it had been agreed that Mrs Swärd Capra (Sweden) 
would serve as Chairperson of this Working Party,  replacing Mr Nielsen (Denmark), who had left 
Geneva and was no longer available to serve in this  capacity.  On behalf of the General Council, he 
wished to thank both Messrs Himanen and Nielsen  for having served as Chairmen of these Working 
Parties. 
56. The General Council  took note  of the statement. 
6. Administrative Measures for Members in arrears 
57. The Chairman , speaking under "Other Business ", recalled that at its meeting in May 2006, the 
General Council had approved a recommendati on from the Committee on Budget, Finance and 
Administration regarding revised Administrative Measures for Members in arrears (WT/BFA/86).  
Among these Administrative Measures was a requir ement that at each meeting of the General 
Council, the Chairman of the Committee on Budg et, Finance and Administration should provide 
information with regard to which Members were  under Administrative Measures in Categories II 
through IV. 
58. Mr Stir ø (Denmark), Chairman of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration , 
said that since his last report to the Council in July, he had written, in his capacity as Budget 
Committee Chair, to all those Members concerned, reminding them of the arrears owing and 
indicating that the Budget Committee, in a task se t several years earlier, would be reviewing the 
                                                      
9 A communication from the Chair to Members notifying  the opening of the process, as well as the 
candidature of the incumbent Director -General, was subsequently circulated  on 4 November as letter reference 
No. 8473.   WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 21 
 
 
  effectiveness of the Administrativ e Measures, including with a vi ew to identifying options for 
extending or intensifying them.  In pursuance of th e revised Administrative Measures, he wished to 
inform the Council that as at 23 July 2008, the Members under Categories II through IV of the Administrative Measures were as follows:  Mali, Ni caragua and Peru in Category II;  Paraguay and 
Senegal in  Category III;  and the following Members in  Category IV:  Burundi, Central African 
Republic, Chad, Commonwealth of Dominica, Cô te d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, 
Djibouti, Gabon, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Malawi, Mauritania, Nige r, Republic of Congo, 
Sierra Leone and Togo. 
59. The Chairman
 then recalled that under the revised Administrative Measures he was also 
required at each Council meeting to request those Members in Categories III and IV of the Measures 
to inform him, before the next meeting of the Ge neral Council, as to when their payment of arrears 
might be expected.  In keeping with the Admini strative Measures, he would report on Members' 
replies to the next meeting of the General Council.   Since the July General Council meeting, he had 
not received any replies from the Members concerned. 
60. The General Council took note  of the statements. 
_______________ 
 WT/GC/M/116 
Page 22  
 
  ANNEX 
Statements by delegations at the informal meeting of
 
the Trade Negotiations Committee on 10 October 2008  
 
 1. Bangladesh  
 First of all, I would like to thank you for your report. I would also like to felicitate the Chair 
of Agriculture and the new Chair of NAMA, and I would also like to associate myself with the statement made by Lesotho.  I greatly support the new and renewed call for an early harvest for the 
LDCs.  My intervention is less of a statement and mo re of a reaction to the Director-General's report 
and the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs ' presentations.  The point is that we do support the Director-
General's effort to once again bring the major players to the table.  We have always suggested that we 
need to lock in the outcome of the July Minist erial and there should be no backtracking.  It has 
provided us with a benchmark and we need to build  incrementally on it. We have also noted with 
great satisfaction that Members have reverted back to  multilateralism.  It is very, very encouraging.  
The point I want to make here is that possibly this  is also the time to revi sit the process. This process 
has operated based on experience and often on expedi ency. However, my reflections on the outcome 
of the July Ministerial prompts me to say that we are possibly coming to a stage where the biggest 
owners of the trade volumes are not necessarily showing maximum ownership of the trading system.  Rather, those who have small export volumes ar e showing much bigger trust in a rule-based, 
transparent and predictable multilateral system.  So I would request that you take note of this and also 
use this time to reflect on the modalities through wh ich we have been pursuing our negotiations – 
whether this is the "concentric circles", "critical ma ss", or "variable geometry" approach.  I think this 
is a time when we may engage in introspection on  the process and should not think that the upcoming 
negotiations may move on a business-as-usual track.  I request you to take note of the statement by 
South Africa in this respect.  Two points regardi ng the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs' presentations:  
The Agriculture Chair mentioned that he would stick to  things that are manifestly more divergent.  I 
fully support this approach, but many of the issu es which are divergent in nature may not be fully 
exposed.  Perhaps some of them are still "embedded" .  So I would appreciate if the Agriculture Chair 
would also take note of the embedded ones, and not only the exposed ones in this case.  In his 
intervention, the NAMA Chair has mentioned that he will proceed to verification of the difficulties of 
the various Members which have been mentioned to  him.  I reckon that a fact-based and empirical 
evidence-based approach is the right way to proceed .  However, I will also call upon him to consider 
this empiricism within a logically consistent  framework based on the basic principles of the 
multilateral trading system.  Unfortunately, we have noted earlier that when the facts were in place, 
people have decided not to follow the rules of the ga me, and this has been particularly true in case of 
the weaker and marginalized countries.  You have mentioned the ma ndated sequence and the 
fundamental nature of the Agriculture and NAMA ne gotiations.  Nobody is going to dispute that, but 
that should not mean that we should not use this tim e to explore and move on other issues as well.  On 
the cluster 2 and 3 issues – whether TRIPS, Rules or Services – we should also give some attention to that.  
 Let me come to the final issue that relate s to the on-going financial carnage across the 
world.  As I was reading the other day, somebody  mentioned that I do not want any return on my 
money, I just want you to return my money.  We may be coming to a situation when we will have to say we do not want new market access, just protect our existing market access.  With respect to 
what you have mentioned regarding the financial cr isis and the WTO, I see there are two issues to 
be considered here.  Fi rst, what is the impact of an early conclusion of the Doha Round on 
stabilizing the global economic situation?  I have  heard many people repeating almost as a mantra 
that if you have an early conclusion of the ongoing trade talks, immedi ately something good is 
going to happen in the global economy.  I do admit there will be some signalling effect on the  WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 23 
 
 
  global economy if we can successfully conclude the Doha talks.  However, I have yet to see any 
evidence-based, analytical resear ch in this regard, particularly in the context of the ongoing 
financial meltdown.  In this connection, the second issue is possibly more important to me.  This 
relates to the impact of the current financial crisis and global economy on trade issues, not the 
other way around.  We are observing that there is di sproportionate impact of the financial crises 
on those who are not responsible for it, or possibl y on those who have the least capacity to bear 
the burden.  I will draw your attention in this context to the basic promises of the Doha Development Round and say – "This is the time to, once again, revisit the implications of or the 
interface with the emerging global economic crisis  and the development agenda of the WTO."  I 
feel encouraged that you are inviting the trade financiers and convening a very important 
meeting, but trade finance is not only bank credits.  Trade finance may also come through ODA 
and, as you yourself know best, Aid for Trade.  So what would be the implication of the global financial crisis for Aid for Trade?  I have heard last week, during the US Presidential debate, the prospective Vice-President Joe Biden mentioning that  it is going to affect ODA flows.  So I think 
it is time also to look at the whol e range of issues.  It is also time  to look at what is the aggregate 
demand prospect.  We are talki ng about recession.  Essentially  it will not only affect export 
volumes, but also the composition of exports.  It may mean that the developing countries and the 
LDCs will be affected more than many others.  We need light on these issues.  I will definitely call upon the Research Division of the WTO to pr epare analytical notes and research papers, and 
to provide the Membership with more information, more insights and more analysis in this area at 
an early date.  Finally, you have mentioned that  this is a time when we need to revisit the 
coherence issue.  I cannot agree more with you.  This is the time to look beyond sectoral, tariff-
related specific negotiating positions.  This is the time to look at the systemic issues.  We may have ignored the systemic issues  for quite some time.  The inte r-relationship between trade and 
monetary policy, credit policies, and other fina ncial policies needs to be further explored.  
Definitely we need to look at the relationships  between trade and the public expenditure system, 
including the current account and fiscal deficit issues.  I think this is the time to go back to the 
systemic issues and look for coherence and coordination.  Listening to all my colleagues this morning, I am fully convinced that the issues in volved justify a special session of the General 
Council to discuss the impact of the financial crisis on the Doha Round. 
 
2. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
 I wish to thank you for your report on the situa tion and status of the negotiations, and to thank 
the Chairmen of the Agriculture and NAMA Negotiating Groups for their reports.  In this context, we 
note an optimistic approach aimed at achieving m odalities in Agriculture and industrial goods by the 
end of this year.  However, as was pointed out by  Bolivia's chief negotiator in his statement, the 
current financial crisis has become a major financial tsunami, and this is no secret to anyone.  We are 
all aware of the difficulties and the consequences th is will have for the entir e world, including of 
course, the recession, financing difficulties and social  repercussions, such as unemployment.  It would 
be foolish to continue promoting a methodology and certain modalities without taking account of the 
ongoing crisis that started in May 2008.  As you know, the Doha Round was designed at a time when the current financial crisis had not arisen, and the circumstances are therefore totally different.  We 
wonder where those are now who called for liberal ization, those known as "free market apostles", 
meaning the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.  We wonder where the audit 
companies and the risk rating agencies are now.  Today, they are all calling for and promoting regulation and control of the financial system, whereas in the recent past they promoted self-
regulation and liberalization through the Basel Convention.  In this connection, I recognize your work, 
the path you have taken and your in telligence, and for this reason I invite you to reflect on the failure 
of last July.  Last May, the so-called G-7 met in Jap an and euphemistically said that the crisis could be 
solved once the banks determined the amount of the problem portfolios.  The crisis is more complex 
than they told us.  Lastly, I have confidence in your work and your good sense:  do not lose sight of the present financial context.  It might not be necessary to examine the form or the method of WT/GC/M/116 
Page 24  
 
  negotiations used, which was far removed from mul tilateralism.  Negotiations  were conducted on the 
basis of concentric groups.  This was the problem of form.  The problem of substance was not giving 
priority to developing countries in order to achieve  a more just and harmonious world order, while the 
celebrated Doha Round did not include development topics as such.  I see this as an opportune 
moment to consider why the negotiations collapsed a nd to note that conditions in the world today are 
different from those that prevailed in July.  Among other things, one of the topics of concern is the 
financing of world trade.  
3. Bolivia 
 
 We are all in agreement on the seriousness of the financial crisis, which is more than a crisis – 
it is a financial tsunami.  However, we are extremely concerned because we see no discussion or 
analysis, in the different statements, of what shoul d change.  How is this tsunami going to affect the 
Doha Round?  How does it influence the current ne gotiations?  What substantial changes should be 
made in the current negotiating pr ocess?  Everything changes, the world changes and the only thing 
we see proposed here is that we try to complete the negotiating modalities in the Round by the end of 
the year.  The Doha Agenda is out of step with hi story and reality.  We cannot overlook this fact, we 
must make adjustments based on the realities we are experiencing at global level, and we must change the substance of what we are doing in the WTO.  The only recipe proposed here to deal with this 
financial tsunami is not to return to protectionism and to continue on the path of trade liberalization.  
We agree that widespread protectionism at worl d level would be disastrous, but we cannot go on 
asserting that trade liberalization is always positive a nd that it is the remedy for any situation.  We 
cannot deny that the current financial tsunami is also  attributable to financial liberalization policies.  
That is a serious mistake which we must recogni ze and correct in the GATS negotiations on financial 
services.  We cannot continue acting as if we in the WTO did not have a share of responsibility for 
what is happening.  Many of those who preach lib eralization in order to conquer markets promote 
nationalization when it comes to saving their banks  from bankruptcy.  These are not nationalizations 
of the kind practised by the Government of Bo livia to recover natural resources and privatize 
enterprises with a view to improving the income of the population.  Rather they are nationalizations 
aimed at bailing out the rich, so that taxpayers foot  the bill for the collapse of banks and the wasteful 
extravagance of their wealthy owners.  It is socialis m for the rich at the expense of the poor.  We do 
not ask you to share Bolivia's views on the financia l tsunami and trade liberalization.  We know that 
we have different points of view.  But we do ask you to share one idea:  that we cannot continue 
acting as if nothing has happened in the world.  We  cannot continue with the current Doha Agenda 
which is totally out of step with the present r eality, and must make far-reaching adjustments and 
changes in the substance of the negotiation and th e negotiating procedures.  If the WTO does not wish 
to end up like the IMF in the midst of this global financial crisis, it must accept the reality and make 
serious and meaningful adjustments in the Doha Round.  We cannot continue beating about the bush 
while a financial tsunami shakes the world and strikes its poorest inhabitants. 
 
4. Chile   
 
 We are grateful for the status reports s ubmitted today by you and by the Agriculture and 
NAMA Chairmen.  Like everyone else, we are extrem ely concerned about what is happening in the 
world.  The situation we face is  unprecedented in the history of mankind.  Over the last 5,000 years, 
human beings have suffered many of the problems th at we face today, but this has always been at 
national or regional level.  The big difference is that today we are suffering all these ills simultaneously and on a global scale:  high energy pr ices, inflation, record prices for food and raw 
materials, recessionary trends in major economies, credit crisis, lack of liquidity and, above all, 
uncertainty and lack of confidence in the rules a nd institutions.  I am reminded of the book and the 
film called "The Perfect Storm".  We know that we shall all be affected in various degrees of 
intensity, but in such a globalized world there is only one boat and we are all in it.  Either we all help 
each other or we shall all suffer greater difficulti es.  We welcome the idea of a special meeting on  WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 25 
 
 
  financing for trade.  Experience shows that when this  kind of crisis occurs, the natural reaction is to 
take decisions in a framework of urgency and im perative necessity.  It frequently also happens, 
however, that in that process, measures are adopted  and long-term policies defined to address short-
term or cyclical situations.  In the search for the ch imera of security, one of the typical reactions is to 
try to reduce dependence on foreign countries, in particular by buying fewer goods and services 
abroad.  Protectionist forces are unleashed globally.  It is true that the WTO and trade are not the 
solution to the financial problem or the slide in the stock markets, but we can support a process of reorganization.  There is an old Spanish saying to the effect that "One grain does not fill the granary, but it does help your comrade".  As the Mexican Ambassador said, we can provide our grain of sand, and let us simply send a doubly positive signal to the world:  let us work to adopt the modalities in 
Agriculture and NAMA by the end of the year and let us maintain the firm commitment not to give in 
to the inevitable protectionist pressures to erect barriers and close markets. 
 
5. Costa Rica 
  I should like to thank you for your report and your efforts.  I also wish to thank the 
Agriculture and NAMA Chairs for their reports.  More than two months have elapsed since our 
Ministers met in Geneva, and they have not succeeded  in resolving serious differences which persist 
and have prevented agreement on modalities in Agricu lture and NAMA.  In the meantime, efforts at 
the G-7 level and broader consultations under the lead ership of the Chairmen have resulted in very 
limited progress.  We have heard expressions of support for the Round repeated today, and you have 
told us of an allegedly "positive" spirit, but we  have noted a familiar rigidity of positions which 
demonstrate the contrary.  We note t oday with concern that, despite the fact that all the alarm bells are 
ringing and all the lifeboats are being readied, we c ontinue to play games and waste valuable time.  
Lost time will result in more poverty.  The financial cr isis was already brewing last July.  At that time, 
many of us spoke of the need for a response based on greater trade liberalization, but we let slip the 
opportunity to help resolve the crisis.  Today the crisis has worsened dramatically and the WTO does 
not have the answer that we should give to the en ormous challenges our countries will have to face.  
That answer must be trade liberalization.  Inte rventions by governments and central banks in the 
financial crisis will not be enough.  It is absolutely necessary for the markets to react, not only in the 
coming hours or the coming weeks, but by means of  a sustained reaction that facilitates economic 
stabilization and a return to levels of growth, co nsumption and investment which in turn lead to 
economic recovery.  It is necessary for trade t oday to stimulate stagnant or recession-bound 
economies.  Trade liberalization has probably never in th e last 80 years been so urgently needed.  It is 
true that today's situation is different from that of July.  The situation today has changed because the 
financial crisis has grown worse, and it is precisely for that reason that trade liberalization is no longer 
merely a mandate of the Round adopted in 2001.  T oday, trade liberalization is a collective response 
we must give to help revitalize the global economy. 
 
6. Côte d'Ivoire (f or African Group) 
 
 On behalf of the African Group, I wish to thank you once again for the precise and concise 
status report you have submitted, in liaison with th e two Chairs, on developments in the process since 
the premature conclusion of the Mini-Ministerial in July.  Permit me nevertheless to reaffirm to you 
the African Group's political commitment to the succes sful outcome of this development-oriented 
Round of trade negotiations, which means that we st and fully ready and willing to work with you and 
with the various negotiating group Chairs to achieve  this objective.  On the question of form, the 
African Group welcomes the resumption of the cons ultations initiated by the Agriculture and NAMA 
Chairs, and in particular of the process in multila teral mode.  This approach, which satisfies the 
requirements of transparency and fairness, deser ves to be welcomed and encouraged, as it is 
appropriate for all the regional groups, or specific in terest groups, whether or not they have offensive 
or defensive interests on certain negotiating themes, to be represented in the different consultation 
formats.  The credibility and universal nature of the WTO is at stake.  You will recall the form and the WT/GC/M/116 
Page 26  
 
  terms of the reports by the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs, which were submitted after the 
mini-Ministerial in July 2008.  These general assess ments have been faithfully recorded in documents 
JOB(08)/95 and JOB(08)/96.  These documents re veal the following general breakdown of the 
substance of the negotiations:  first, issues on which a compromise was reached as a result of mutual concessions;  second, issues on which disagreement persis ts;  and third, issues not yet addressed.  This 
reading is more applicable to the negotiations on Ag riculture, but in fact, the perspective is not very 
far removed from that of NAMA.  Thus, at a time when the negotiations are resuming their course, the 
African Group is aware of the tremendous efforts ma de by senior officials and Ministers to achieve 
progress in certain areas of Agriculture and NAM A during the mini-Ministerial itself or on the 
sidelines, and the Group requests that the concessions  obtained, the gains undeniably recorded, should 
be consolidated, or at the very least credited to th e account of the mini-Ministerial.  It goes without 
saying that the consolidation of these concessions s hould enable the consultations currently under way 
to focus as a matter of priority, but not exclus ively, on questions which are still the subject of 
disagreement, including the special safeguard  mechanism, tariff quota creation and tariff 
simplification, to name only a few, and of course the questions which have not yet been given any 
consideration, on which there have b een no consultations, notably cotton. 
  The negotiating process has resumed following the flop of July.  The uncertainties which 
surrounded the desire to resume them, which were bound up with the political circumstances faced by 
certain major political and economic powers, seem to  have given way to the expression of a collective 
will and a common commitment to finalize this negotiating Round.  So much the better.  The 
cross-border financial crisis which indiscriminat ely affects all our countries has taken on such 
proportions that the contagion of the real economy is  today clearly established.  We may not yet be in 
a situation of economic collapse, but all of the expe rts agree that the foresee able slowdown in growth, 
with its attendant train of suppl ementary deficits, indebtedness, increased unemployment and threats 
to purchasing power, will be more damaging to developing countries, with the addition of some 40 to 
44 million victims of the food crisis which has not been alleviated despite the drop in oil and food 
prices.  The same experts also maintain that, am id this welter of less-than-encouraging news, relief 
could come from Geneva through the successful co nclusion of the negotiations under way, which 
would be a powerful factor for economic recovery.  Indeed, the current financial crisis clearly marks 
the advent of a new economic order.  Clearly, this  crisis signals the end of laissez-faire and lax 
regulation and heralds the return of the underlying pr inciples of market regulation.  As the WTO is in 
our view the regulatory hub of the multilateral trading system, and hence of the real economy, it 
would be helpful if, by December 2008, Members were to send out positive signals to the market, 
because it cannot be sufficiently str essed that trade is and remains a powerful factor of economic 
growth.  That having been said, I associate myself w ith the statement made by Lesotho on behalf of 
the LDCs and the statement that the representative of the ACP Group will be making. 
 
7. Cuba  
 
 The Cuban delegation wishes to thank the Dir ector-General for his opening statement as 
Chairman of the TNC on the Doha Round process, and the Agriculture and NAMA Chairs for their 
statements.  We should also like to reiterate our ap preciation for the Director-General's tireless efforts 
to conclude the Doha negotiations.  Cuba welc omes the resumption of the multilateral process, a 
process which must be maintained and strengthene d because it is the only one which has delivered 
any results and which complies with the Doha Decl aration mandates of transparency, inclusion and 
participation of all Members in decision-making.  The formats of small groups, such as the G-4, G-6 
and G-7, have all met with failure, for the simple  reason that they are not representative of the 
majority of Members or of the most vulnerable developing countries, such as the African, Caribbean 
and Pacific countries, LDCs and SVEs.  No horizont al or ministerial process should be recommenced 
until such time as agreement has b een reached on the overwhelming majority of outstanding issues in 
respect of both Agriculture and NAMA.  Furthermor e, any understanding that may have been reached 
in July by the key G-7 countries alone has to be submitted for the considera tion and approval of the  WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 27 
 
 
  rest of the Members.  All issues must be address ed, negotiated and approved in accordance with the 
principles of the mandate – namely, the Single Unde rtaking, full modalities, less-than-full reciprocity 
in respect of NAMA between the commitments of  developing and deve loped countries, and a 
comparably high level of ambition for Agriculture and NAMA, in accordance with paragraph 24 of 
the Hong Kong Declaration.  We agree with the Dir ector-General's diagnosis of the seriousness of the 
financial crisis in developed countries and the world food-price crisis, which will have adverse 
repercussions on the whole world, including develo ping countries.  However, according to an IMF 
report for 2008 published this w eek, developing countries will be the ones that continue to power 
overall growth, and their overall average growth, albe it lower than at present, is projected to remain 
above rates experienced in the 2001-2002 global downturn. 
 
 The FAO nominal food price index has doubled from 2002 to date.  The greatest impact has been felt by low-income food-importing devel oping countries and LDCs, which face a 40 percent 
increase in food import costs, a figure similar to the increased costs incurred for the same reason the 
previous year.  Understanding, cooperation and solida rity on the part of developed countries – also 
required by the WTO to be able to secure a successful conclusion to  the Doha Development Round – 
are, however, rapidly evaporating.  According to  the most recent FAO report, food-aid volumes have 
fallen to their lowest levels in 40 years.  Th ey decreased by 18 per cent between the 2005-2006 and 
2006-2007 crop years and by two-thirds since the 199 3-1994 crop year, while the number of countries 
in need is increasing as a result of the food-price cr isis and of the turmoil currently unfolding and yet 
to come.  The financial crisis will inevitably have a dverse effects on global trade, as a result not of the 
dynamics of trade, which has seen sustained gr owth in all countries in recent years, but of, inter alia , 
increasingly unequal terms of trade, the credit crunch and the slump in demand in the major markets of developed countries which are heading not merely  into an economic slowdown, but into recession.  
The financial crisis is the result of the combined  effects of liberalization, privatization and the 
deregulation of the financial and property markets, with the dismantling of the policies applied in the 
wake of the 1930s depression.  It is also a result of the speculation, totally disconnected from the 
production of and real trade in goods and servi ces, which, like a casino, created a huge bubble of 
artificial profits and securities many  times in excess of the real globa l economy.  For all of the above 
reasons, caution must be exercised as far as trade liberalization is concerne d.  Considerable thought 
needs to be given to, and a balanced analysis ma de of, both the potential positive and negative effects 
of such liberalization, in particular for developing countries.  However, it is at present difficult, if not 
impossible, to simulate or calculate the potential positive outcome ascribed by some to the possible 
conclusion of this Round in the absence of full data  or final agreements on reductions in domestic 
subsidies and the agricultural products that will be  designated as sensitive by developed countries – 
for example, the tariff quotas to be increased or new quotas to be created and the related in-quota 
tariffs for the agricultural products of export inter est to developing countries, which constitute the 
bulk of the volume of agricultural commodities in worl d trade.  Great caution is required with regard 
to the liberalization of trade in all financial ser vices, as required by developed countries.  In the 
current crisis situation, it would be suicidal if  developing countries were to open up their financial 
services sectors and import the anarchy and deb acle of the financial markets of industrialized 
countries, or if the latter were permitted to invest in futures and speculate with commodities and food 
in our countries in times of crisis and high fo od prices.  Studies have also shown that developed 
country financial institutions which are established in developing countries grant few credits to our 
countries' small and medium-sized enterprises and farmers.  The ten pages of recommendations proposed by the Financial Stability Forum show, inter alia , that many regulatory issues are pending, 
as the current financial crisis has clearly proved.  Th e latest version of the text by the Working Party 
on Domestic Regulation in services could furt her undermine governments'  domestic regulatory 
capacity to prevent financial instability.  Finall y, allow me to recall the words spoken at the 
International Monetary Conference convened by the United States in 1891, by José Martí, one of the 
most famous Latin American thinkers, a Cuban natio nal hero and man of the world – words which are 
equally applicable in the current international circ umstances and in the context of this organization, 
and which should form the motto of our negotiati ons:  "Whoever speaks of economic union speaks of WT/GC/M/116 
Page 28  
 
  political union.  The nation that buys, commands;  the nation that sells, serves.  Trade must be 
balanced in order to assure freedom.  A nation that wa nts to die sells to one nation only;  a nation that 
would survive sells to more than one.  The excessive influence of one country over another's trade 
becomes political influence.  … When a strong nation supplies another with food, she requires that the recipient serve her.  … A nation that wants to be free must be free in matters of trade.  It must 
distribute its trade amongst nations that are equally st rong.  If it has to give preference to any one of 
them, let it prefer the one that needs it least.  … Let us be in union with the whole world, and not with 
just a part of it;  nor with one part against another…."  
 
8. Hong Kong, China  
  Thank you for your report on the current st atus of the negotiations.  Hong Kong, China 
remains fully committed to the successful conc lusion of the DDA negotiations.  Despite the 
momentary set-back in the final days of July, we ar e very encouraged by the constructive spirit shown 
by Members over the past couple of months.  In pa rticular, some Members have indicated that they 
are prepared to stand by the July concessions, a nd we urge other Members to do the same.  The 
convergence reached so far should provide a sound basi s for our future work.  As we have heard, the 
Agriculture Chair has resumed his "walk in the wood s" talks on unresolved issu es in Agriculture, and 
the NAMA Chair has been undertakin g intensive bilateral consultati ons since his appointment earlier 
this month.  We support the Chairs' parallel proce sses and will continue to contribute to them.  We 
firmly believe that a deal is doable, and we stand ever ready to work with other Members to achieve 
full modalities in Agriculture and NAMA in the ne w window of opportunity before us between now 
and the end of this year.  I would also like briefl y to echo the point made by Mexico.  Global finance 
and the world economy are currently in a very difficult place, but Members must learn the lessons of the past and refrain from using protectionist measures to address our problems.  It is well established that trade liberalisation will bring significant sust ainable benefits to the world as a whole, whereas 
protectionism constitutes a race to the bottom.  In fact, opponents of the Smoot-Hawley Act at the 
time, such as Henry Ford, describ ed its proposed tariff increases as simply "economic stupidity", a 
view clearly borne out by subsequent events, culm inating in the Great Depression.  Separately, I 
welcome your initiative to reconvene the expert gr oup on trade financing on 12 November in the face 
of the current drought being experienced in the fi nancial markets and the serious impact this has on 
trade, particularly, as pointed out by Lesotho, for developing countries.  We also look forward to 
further consideration of this issue in the Work ing Group on Trade, Development and Finance.  
Finally, the best way we as WTO Members can help alleviate the pain brought by the current financial 
and economic crises is to concl ude the Doha Round as early as possible, and we can make a start by 
intensifying our efforts to reach modalities in Agriculture and NAMA. 
 9. Indonesia (for G-33)   
 The G-33 thanks you for convening this meeting and appreciates your briefing and 
explanation of our objectives and course ahead.  Let me therefore, at the outset, express the G-33's full 
support for your intentions and initiatives in the near future with regard to the Doha Round.  The G-33 
has always favoured an inclusive, bottom-up multila teral process under the Chairs of the negotiating 
groups – in place of small groups.  It is a fact that during the past one year, the only forum where any 
substantial progress has been made towards converg ence is under the Chair-led multilateral process.  
It is unrealistic, at this specific juncture of the negotiations, to expect that any small group could find 
solutions to the issues which concern all developi ng countries, including LDCs, SVEs and RAMs.  
The G-33 has always been of the view that in pa rallel or in conjunction with any small group, the 
Chair-led multilateral process must immediately begin from where it was left.  The Group is 
encouraged that the Agriculture multilateral process has already been re-started.  The G-33 therefore 
reaffirms that we will engage and work constructively to help find a solution to the unresolved issues, 
and reaffirms our commitment to work together with all Members.  While the G-33 stands ready to engage constructively, the Group calls for signi ficant movements and flexibilities by other Members  WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 29 
 
 
  on all outstanding issues.  For the G-33, it should be clear that all outstanding issues must be dealt 
with, without any exclusion.  The Group does not ag ree with the view that resolution of one issue 
would automatically lead to other issues falling into place towards the conclusion of a deal.  The G-33 therefore urges that all unresolved issues be addr essed equally in the Chair-led multilateral process.  
The G-33 underscores once again its strong commitm ent to securing operational, effective and 
meaningful development instruments of Special Products and Special Safeguard Mechanism as an 
integral part of S&D treatment.  
 
10. Lesotho (for LDCs) 
  Your account of events pertaining to the DDA up to this point is accurate and illuminating. 
Your relentless efforts and tenacity in encouraging,  cajoling and skilfully guiding the Chairs and the 
negotiators to work towards the successful conclu sion of this Round are both admirable and highly 
commendable.  You have not hesitated to carry out  your assigned mandate as the chief facilitator and 
motivator in the negotiations, and you have done it w ith great determination.  You have played the 
role which is expected of you with remarkable creativity and due diligence.  The same accolades 
apply to the Chairs of the various negotiating groups, even though their styles vary somewhat.  
Convening a Ministerial meeting in July, though it might have seemed premature to some, was quite 
understandable if the alternative is considered.  It  would have been a riskier option to have acted 
otherwise.  The stalemate that occurred on some i ssues during that action-packed and emotion-riddled 
two weeks in July should not by any means be cons idered to have dealt a fatal blow to the DDA 
negotiations.  It has been more a mere temporary setback.  What is needed, which is already being 
amply done, is to evaluate the situation, pick up the pieces, strategize and continue on the journey 
towards the successful conclusion of the DDA.  I sub scribe to the popular view that substance should 
lead the process.  However, every effort should be  made to produce that substance with deliberate 
speed, as time is of essence.  We are living in a highly dynamic world.  The Agenda was set and 
adopted to address particular situations obtaining on the ground.  With parameters changing, the 
agenda will be systematically rendered obsolete a nd stale, and will no longer accurately address the 
realities on the ground.  Its relevance will be comp romised.  Time does matter.  The world is now 
challenged by a food crisis and high fuel prices, both of which will affect the patterns of trade as food 
and fuel are necessities.  They will adversely affect  external current-account balances, especially in 
net food- and fuel-importing developing countries, particularly LDCs.  The ever-growing concerns 
with climate change have sparked adjustment in  transportation and productive methods, to mention 
but some of the effects.  The response to clim ate change is causing and will cause fundamental 
changes in production and trade.  The current financ ial markets crisis, which is occurring despite wide 
adoption of the risk-based Basel 2 financial superv ision approach, is causing havoc around the globe.  
Adequate trade financing for both imports and ex ports has become threatened.  The spectre of a 
downturn in the global economy will mean high unempl oyment and reverses in poverty reduction, and 
further delays in achieving the Millennium Development Goals.   Clearly, the world is changing, and so for the Ro und to be relevant it has to be concluded in a 
timely manner.  There are times when I wonder whet her the Single Undertaking approach adopted for 
the DDA is a blessing or a curse.  I say this because  in the DDA, which is so multi-faceted, there has 
been more progress in some aspects than in others , yet the gains made are to no avail unless the whole 
package is adopted.  This justifies the call for as much early harvest as possible, especially for LDCs, 
where attention to poverty reduction through the vehi cle of trade development has now been adopted 
as the strategy.  After all, LDCs afforded others an  even earlier harvest through liberalization dictated 
by the IMF and World Bank structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s and 1990s.  In addition, 
the economies of LDCs are so comparatively small,  their trade so relatively miniscule, that any 
special dispensations accorded to LDCs will not ha ve any noticeable adverse effects on any country, 
developing or developed.  This is a safe bet.  As we resume negotiations it is indeed our hope that the 
multilateral approach, which historically has borne mo re tangible results than attempts at relying too 
heavily on exclusive small groups, will be the way forward.  Inclusiveness and a bottom-up approach WT/GC/M/116 
Page 30  
 
  should continue to be our mantra and actual practic e.  I join those who call for a slightly augmented 
and more accommodating Room E or D process.  The development dimensi on of the Round should 
remain at centre stage.  For LDCs, a win-win outcome is imperative.  An appeal is made to all, including the Chairs, to honour and support the unity of consultative groups, as they play a crucial role in articulating issues and achieving tangible results.   Let us take stock of what transpired in July, 
do the necessary sifting, put chaff aside and continue with discussions, at the very least, technically.  
Chairs' reports have to be scrutini zed to ensure that they reflect acc urately what actually transpired in 
July.  The genuine special circumstances of some Members have to recognized and satisfactorily 
addressed.  When technical work has been done, it would be opportune to pass the baton on to 
delegations' principals at the political level.  Ther e seems to be no viable alternative to a new and 
commensurate multilateral trading order.  It is an  imperative dictated by the times.  The DDA, if 
faithfully adhered to, offers an opportunity for such  an order at its conclusion, especially if the 
submissions of LDCs and the special needs of de veloping countries are taken on board, as undertaken 
in Hong Kong.  Though well known, by way of a re minder they are, mainly , DFQF, market access, 
rules of origin, the delicate issue of preference erosion, cotton, SSM and monetization of food aid.  
There is a high probability that some of the items  on the negotiating table can contribute to some 
degree towards amelioration of the crises catalogued earlier.  Let the negotiations continue.  Be 
assured that the LDC Group remains committed to a constructive engagement in the negotiation 
process with a view to arriving at a logical conclusion that accommodates all commensurately, especially the poorest amongst us.  11. Mexico  
My delegation thanks you for your report on th e state of play in the WTO negotiations and 
especially for telling us what a positive impact a swift and successful outcome would have on the 
current economic environment.  Toda y, my delegation could simply re iterate the benefits of a rapid 
conclusion to the Round and make yet another call to the Members to achieve that goal.  On the other 
hand, as you yourself said, in the present economic ci rcumstances, such a call could and should not be 
made in the customary terms.  Exceptional ci rcumstances demand exceptional responses, and the 
WTO cannot remain on the sidelines.  We have been interested to follow your recent statements in 
various fora emphasizing how important it is to learn the lessons of the past and in particular that 
protectionism and economic isol ationism do not work.  A propos of the magnitude of the 
consequences of ignoring the lessons of history, we would mention two notorious names – Smoot and 
Hawley, whose actions led to the trade war that tu rned the financial crisis of 1929 into the Great 
Depression of the 1930s.  The fiscal balance policy o bviously did not help, nor did a non-expansionist 
monetary policy.  However, the fact of the matter is that the Great Depression was primarily caused by the protectionist measures adopted in various parts of the world.  Much has already been written 
about the similarities between the current econo mic situation and that of the 1930s.  The two 
situations are not comparable.  The financial crisis will be resolved through in struments that are being 
implemented by central banks and treasuries the wo rld over.  However, what would indeed cause the 
present situation to resemble that of 70 years ago would be the application of protectionist trade measures.  The voices that seek or offer protectioni st measures may be more alluring than those 
calling for action in support of an open and predicta ble multilateral trading system.  That is why we 
need collective action by Members to resist the temp tation to adopt new trade-restrictive measures at a 
time when the international financial crisis is alr eady starting to impact the real economy.  The WTO 
membership cannot remain silent in the face of a s ituation that remains critical and extremely volatile.  
It would therefore seem appropriate to us for Memb ers to reiterate their co mmitment to conclude the 
Doha Round as soon as possible and to preserve open ma rkets – especially in the developed countries 
– in these critical times for the global economy.  Mexico is committed to both these objectives. 
 
 
   WT/GC/M/116 
 Page 31 
 
 
  12. Thailand 
 
 We thank you for calling this me eting to update us on the current status of the negotiations, as 
well as to share with us your thoughts on the outlook ahead.  We have always subscribed to the merits 
of the multilateral trading system.  The multilateral tr ading system and its rules have helped contribute 
to the predictability, stability, and hence growth of world trade, and individual Member countries on 
balance have benefited from it.  At this presen t time, when major corporate institutions of many 
countries are experiencing the negative ripple effects of the global financial crisis, our efforts here at 
the WTO vis-à-vis the Doha Round negotiations can have a significant effect on boosting world trade, 
help keep potential protectionist sentiments at bay, and therefore bolster the general level of 
confidence in global markets.  This is why we con tinue to support the multila teral trading system, and 
will remain engaged with the multila teral negotiating process of the Doha Round.  In this connection, 
we are pleased to learn that the Chairs of the Agriculture, NAMA and other negotiating groups have 
recommenced their respective consultations processes.   Last but not least, Thailand wishes to assure 
you of our commitment to constructively engage in all efforts to accomplish a broad-based and 
equitable outcome in these negotiations.  We remain c onfident in your leadership to help facilitate us 
towards our common goal.   
__________