RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONG/SCM/M/35
26 April 2002
(02-2400)
Committee on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
HELD ON 31 OCTOBER 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Remo Moretta (Australia)
1. The Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures held a special meeting on
31 October 2001.
2. The purpose of the meeting, as set forth in WTO/AIR/1574, was to review the 2001 new and
full subsidy notifications of Cuba; Gabon; Hong Kong, China; Liechtenstein; Macau, China; Oman;
Paraguay; Switzerland; Thailand; Tunisia;  and Zimbabwe.
3. The Chairman recalled that at its May 2001 regular meeting (G/SCM/M/28), the Committee
had adopted procedures for review of 2001 new and full subsidy notifications (G/SCM/W/441).
Under those procedures, these subsidy notifications we re to be reviewed in three special meetings to
be held in conjunction with the regular meetings of the Committee in autumn 2001, and in spring and
autumn 2002.  This was the first of that series of meetings.  Pursuant to the procedures adopted by the
Committee, only notifications distributed in all three working languages not less than nineteen weeks
before a meeting could be reviewed at the meeting.  In this case, therefore, only notifications
circulated by 19 June 2001 could be reviewed.  Accordingly, the Committee had before it eleven
notifications which had been circulated before that deadline.  Further, the review of subsidynotifications was to be conducted on the basis of written questions and answers provided before the
meeting.  As indicated in WTO/AIR/1574, written questions regarding these notifications had been
due no later than 17 July 2001.  Written answers had been due no later than 18 September 2001.
Unfortunately, not all of the questions and answers were available in all three WTO working
languages, partly due to late submission of documentation by Members and partly due to translationdelays.  He hoped that this had not caused too much inconvenience to delegations.
4. Turning to the review of notifications, the firs t notification under review was that of Cuba,
found in G/SCM/N/71/CUB.  The United States ha d posed questions concerning this notification,
circulated in document G/SCM/ Q2/CUB/1.  Answers to those questions could be found in
G/SCM/Q2/CUB/2.  As these responses had been received past the agreed deadline, Cuba was invited
to present them orally at the meeting.
5. The delegate of Cuba stated that, before replying to the questions posed by the United States,
her delegation wished to raise a few points.  The objective of notification, or not, of certain subsidies
was to avoid the trade of countries being adversely affected by unfair trade that would distort the
actual flow and therefore the normal development of trade relations.  Therefore, regardless of the
rights of the Members to put forward questions to delegations concerning notifications, her delegation
considered that these rights should be subject to these considerations.  In this case, her delegation was
surprised to receive questions from a WTO Member, the United States, that had, since 1960, imposed
an economic, financial and trade blockade on Cuba that had affected adversely the Cuban population
and the economic and social development of her country.  This had worsened with the adoption ofG/SCM/M/35
Page 2
even more coercive and unilateral measures on the part of successive United States Governments, in
particular the Helms-Burton laws, which had extraterritorial coverage establishing sanctions against
countries trading or giving economic assistance to Cuba, and which tried to discourage foreign
investment in Cuba.  These elements did not correspond to the objectives of the WTO:  to promote a
more open and fair trading system for the welfare of all populations, substantially reduce tradebarriers and contribute to the integration of developing countries in world trade.  They also went
against the main objective of the WTO: to encourage the fluid circulation of trade with certainty and
predictability.  In the view of Cuba, it was inappr opriate and incoherent that the United States would
become interested in educational services provided for, among others, SME's and how these entities
provided financing for exports.  As the United States had broken off relations, including economic
relations, with Cuba over forty years ago, her delegation questioned the interests of the United States
that might be adversely affected here.
6. The delegate of the United States said that, as a general matter, his delegation did not see the
Committee as the appropriate forum to discuss US-Cuba relations.  The simple purpose of the
notification exercise was to increase transparency.  In that context, his delegation wished to thank
Cuba for its answers.
7. The delegate of Cuba stated that her delegation considered that its statement was relevant and
in accordance with the objectives of the Committee.
8. Concerning the notification of Macao, China, found in document G/SCM/N/71/MAC, the
United States had posed questions and Macau had provided written answers.  The questions and
answers could be found in document G/SCM/Q2/MAC/3 and Corr. 1.
9. With respect to the notification of Oman, found in document G/SCM/N/71/OMN, the
United States had posed questions and Oman had provided written answers.  The questions and
answers could be found in document G/SCM/Q2/OMN/2.
10. Concerning the notification of Paraguay , found in document G/SCM/N/71/PRY, the
United States had posed questions, f ound in document G/SCM/N/71/PRY/3.
11. The Chairman noted that the delegation of Paraguay was not represented at the meeting.  He
wished to remind Members that the Committee had adopted its procedures for review of the 2001 new
and full notifications only in May 2001 and that these procedures could not work if Members did not
follow these procedures.  The Committee would need to revert to the review of this notification at the
next meeting.
NO WRITTEN REPLIES TO THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED.
12. On the notification of Switzerland, found in document G/SCM/N/71/CHE, the United States
had posed questions and Switzerland had provided written answers.  The questions and answers could
be found in document G/SCM/Q2/CHE/11.
13. Regarding the notification of Thailand, found in document G/SCM/N/71/THA, the
United States and the European Communities had posed questions, and Thailand had provided written
answers, although the questions from the European Communities had been submitted one day after
the agreed deadline.  The questions and answers could be found in G/SCM/Q2/THA/13.
14. The delegate of the European Communities apologized that his delegation had submitted the
questions one day late and expressed appreciation to Thailand for having provided timely and
thorough responses to the questions.G/SCM/M/35
Page 3
15. Concerning the notification of Tunisia, found in document G/SCM/N/71/TUN, the
United States and the European Communities had posed questions, found in documents
G/SCM/Q2/TUN/5 and G/SCM/Q2/TUN/6, respectively.  Answers to those questions could be found
in document G/SCM/Q2/TUN/7, then available in French only.  The Chairman noted that, technically,
the questions from the European Communities and the answers from Tunisia had missed their
respective deadlines.  Under the Committee's agreed procedures, a Member receiving questions after
the agreed deadline was not required to answer t hose questions in writing in advance of the meeting.
Nevertheless, Tunisia had provided written answers to the questions of both the United States and the
European Communities several days prior to the meetin g.  The Chairman believed that the best way to
review this notification was for Tunisia to present its answers orally for the benefit of Members.
16. The delegate of the European Communities wish ed to thank the delegate of Tunisia for the
exhaustive replies and stated that his delegation was fully satisfied with the answers and had no
further follow-up questions.
17. Concerning the notification of Zimbabwe, in document G/SCM/N/71/ZWE, the United States
had posed written questions (G/SCM/Q2/ZWE/1), but no written responses had been received before
the meeting.  The Chairman invited the delegate of Zimbabwe to deliver answers to the questions
orally.
18. The delegate of Zimbabwe stated that while his delegation attached importance to working
within the procedures stipulated by the Committee, his delegation was not in a position to answers the
questions orally at the meeting.  However, they would submit written responses as soon as they were
received from capital.
19. The Chairman stated that the Committee would revert to Zimbabwe's notification at the spring
meeting.
20. Zimbabwe's written responses to the United States' questions were subsequently circulated in
document G/SCM/Q2/ZWE/2.
21. No questions were posed concerning th e notifications of Gabon (G/SCM/N/71/GAB);
Hong Kong, China (G/SCM/N/71/HKG); or Liechtenstein (G/SCM/N/71/LIE).
22. The Committee took note of all of the statements made and concluded  the review of all of the
2001 new and full notifications on the agenda, other than those of Paraguay and Zimbabwe.
23. The Chairman reminded delegations that, if they desired any written answers to any follow-up
questions that they had posed orally, they should submit the questions in writing to the notifying
Member and the Secretariat not later than 15 No vember 2001.  Written answers to any follow-up
questions should be provided not later than 7 January 2002.  This special meeting had been the first
scheduled meeting to review 2001 new and full notifications.  Unfortunately, many delegations had
not yet provided a notification.  An updated list of Members that had, and had not, submitted their
notifications had been made available to Members.  It was extremely distressing that only 23Members had thus far made this required notification;  104 Members had yet to submit their
notification.  These non-notifiers included numerous important trading countries in all regions of the
world.  He urged all Members who had not yet made a 2001 notification to make every effort to meet
this obligation as soon as possible.
24. The Chairman further recalled the Committee's agreed procedure for reviewing the remaining
2001 new and full notifications, that is, those that were received too late to be included on the agenda
for this meeting and any that would be received in the future.  For the Committee's spring special
meeting, 2001 new and full notifications circulated in all three languages at least 19 weeks before,G/SCM/M/35
Page 4
that is, by 18 December 2001, would be placed on the agenda of that meeting.  Written questions
would be due no later than 15 weeks before the meeting, i.e. by 15 January 2002.  Written answers
would be due no later than 6 weeks before the meeting, i.e. by 19 March 2002.  Discussion at the
meeting should focus on follow-up issues.  Members were not required to provide written answers in
advance of a meeting to any questions received after the deadline for questions.  A notifying Memberpresenting its written answers to timely questions af ter the deadline for answers would need to present
those answers in full orally at the meeting.
25. The meeting was adjourned.
__________