RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/40
5 May 1999
(99-1807)
General Council1
14 April 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 14 April 19991
Chairman:  Mr. Ali Mchumo(Tanzania)
Subjects discussed Page
1. Yemen – Request for observer status..................................................................................1
2. Request for Accession by Lebanon......................................................................................1
3. Appointment of the next Director-General ........................................................................34. Parting statement by the Director-General......................................................................13
1. Yemen – Request for observer status
The Chairman drew attention to the communication from Yemen requesting observer status in
the General Council and its subsidiary bodies (WT/L/296), in which Yemen had indicated its intention
to apply for accession to the WTO Agreement and had provided a brief description of its economy
and foreign trade regime, in accordance with the guidelines for observer status in the WTO
(WT/L/161, Annex 2).  He proposed that Yemen's request be granted.
The General Council took note of the statement and agreed  to grant Yemen's request.
2. Request for Accession by Lebanon (WT/ACC/LBN/1)
The Chairman recalled that the Government of Lebanon had submitted a request for accession
in document WT/ACC/LBN/1.  He advised Members that Lebanon had asked that its earlier request
for observer status, and document WT/L/283 in which such request was circulated, both bewithdrawn.
The representative of Lebanon, speaking as an observer
, said that his country had always been
keen to be an active member of the internationa l community and an active participant in efforts to
achieve the advancement and welfare of humanity.  Its decision to seek admission to the WTO, whichenjoyed the support of all relevant sectors in Lebanon, demonstrated its belief in and commitment to
international cooperation.  Lebanon had been characterized by an open market economy throughout
its history.  With an educated, skilled, industrious, multilingual and multicultural population, Lebanon
had succeeded in becoming a modern country.  However, since 1975 it had suffered the destruction of
its infrastructure and of much of its administrative capabilities and other productive sectors.Lebanon's liberal and open economic policy was based on the same principles as those advocated by
the WTO.  It had succeeded in rebuilding its infrastructure, and had embarked on a comprehensive
                                                     
1 This meeting was adjourned after consideration of the four subjects listed below, and will be
reconvened to consider the remaining items on the Agenda and to take up the item on Appointment of the Next
Director-General.  Minutes of the reconvened meeting will be carried in an Addendum to the present document.WT/GC/M/40
Page 2
updating of its administration and laws.  For example,  intellectual property protection laws were being
reviewed and drafted in cooperation with WIPO and in conformity with the TRIPS Agreement.  A law
on the Protection of Artistic, Scientific and Intellectual Rights had been passed by the Parliament, and
a new law updating the existing industrial property protection law was to be submitted soon for
adoption by the Parliament.  Lebanon was negotiat ing a partnership agreement with the European
Union, which would enable it to become a member in a Euro-Mediterranean Free-Trade Area.  It was
already part of an Arab Free-Trade Area and had signed many bilateral trade and free-trade
agreements with other countries in its region and beyond.  However, the price for the achievements in
the various sectors of Lebanon's infrastructure was a heavy debt burden.  The Government had
already started to implement the measures necessary to bring the country back to its full productive
capacity.  Lebanon looked forward with sincerity, confidence and commitment to the next phase in its
accession process, and hoped that the negotiations would achieve their objective, thus enablingLebanon to become a Member of the WTO.
The representatives of Egypt, Kuwait
, Tunisia , Bahrain , Bangladesh , Cuba , United States ,
European Communities, Pakistan , Malaysia on behalf of the ASEAN Members , Qatar , Japan ,
Morocco, Sri Lanka , Senegal , Nigeria , Czech Republic,  Bulgaria  and Turkey  welcomed and
supported Lebanon's request for accession.
The representative of Egypt2 said that Lebanon and other acceding countries should be
allowed to participate in the preparatory process for the next Ministerial Conference.  This would
accelerate the process of accession.
The representative of Tunisia underlined the need to accelerate the accession process and to
facilitate the procedures for governments that had been candidates for a long time.
The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note  of the statements and of the
expressions of support and agree to establish a Working Party with the following terms of reference
and composition:Terms of Reference:
"To examine the application of the Government of the Republic of Lebanon to accede to the
WTO Agreement under Article XII, and to submit to the General Council recommendations whichmay include a draft Protocol of Accession."
Membership:
Membership would be open to all WTO Members indicating their wish to serve on the
Working Party.
Chairperson:
Mrs. Laurence Dubois-Destrizais (France).The General Council so agreed.
The Chairman invited the representative of Lebanon to consult with the Secretariat as to
further procedures, in particular regarding the basic documentation to be considered by the Working
Party.  In keeping with established procedures, on behalf of the General Council he invited Lebanon
to attend meetings of the General Council and, as appropriate, meetings of other WTO bodies as an
observer during the period in which the Working Party carried out its work.
                                                     
2 Under this Agenda item, the representative of Egypt also supported Yemen's request for observer
status, which was carried under the previous Agenda item.WT/GC/M/40
Page 3
The General Council took note of the statement.
3. Appointment of the next Director-General3
The Chairman recalled that at the informal meeting of the General Council on 9 April 1999,
there had been a long but useful discussion of this matter.  At that meeting he had indicated that,
contrary to his earlier expectation, the difficulti es that prevented consensus on either of the two
remaining candidates were still unresolved, and he had appealed to all Members once again to do
whatever was necessary to bring this issue to a consensual conclusion.  His expectation had been that
at the present meeting the General Council could appoint the next Director-General.  He understood
that Members were actively interacting with one another with a view to resolving this long-standingissue.  Although a number of target dates and deadlines had been missed, the inevitable deadline of 30
April 1999 - when the incumbent Director-General woul d leave office - could not be missed.  He was
still optimistic that the next Director-General could be elected by 30 April, as he understood that it
was not unusual in the GATT/WTO tradition to reach consensus in the last hour before the ultimate
deadline.  In the remaining two weeks before th at ultimate deadline, he and Mr. Rossier would
continue to help Members reach a consensus on one or the other of the two candidates.
He reminded Members that it was they who woul d have to decide on the appointment of the
next Director-General by consensus.  He appealed  again to both sides to exercise the necessary
flexibility.  A leadership crisis in the organization had to be avoided, and a generally acceptable headof the Secretariat was urgently needed as Members prepared for the next Ministerial Conference and
the challenges of the years ahead.  He expected that in the next week Members would intensify their
dynamic interaction so that consensus could be reached during the last week of April, or earlier.  This
was the last time he would plead for more time for these consultations, as it was his firm intention to
ensure that by 30 April he would bring to the General Council a proposal for a decision on theelection of the next Director-General.  He informed Members that he would have to be away from
Geneva for a week for consultations in his capital.  During his absence, he would be in close touch
with the facilitator, Mr. Rossier, who would remain available for interaction with delegations in the
continuing process of consultations.  He noted that the contracts of the Deputy Directors-General
would also expire on 30 April 1999, and that even a new Director-General elected by 30 April would
need time to appoint his deputies and would, in the m eantime, need the assistance of one or two of the
current Deputy Directors-General.  He had asked the Director-General to take appropriate action inthis regard before 30 April, and he trusted that Members would provide the necessary support to the
Director-General regarding this matter.  In the light  of the long and useful discussion on the issue of
the election of the next Director-General on 9 April, and in the light of the long agenda before the
General Council, he suggested that another long discussion on this issue might not be necessary.
All delegations who spoke expressed gratitude and support for, and renewed their confidence
in, the Chairman's and Mr. Rossier's efforts.
The representatives of Sri Lanka, Malaysia on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, Panama ,
Argentina, Kenya , Mexico , Korea , Australia , Haiti , Trinidad and Tobago , and Hong Kong, China  said
that no third candidate could be introduced at this juncture.
The representative of the European Communities said that the process the Chairman was
engaged in was the right one and that it should be seen through to its conclusion.  Time was running
out, and the gap in leadership of the WTO would be difficult to sustain given the important things tobe done.  This should focus Members' minds on the nature of their difficulties.
                                                     
3 On the suggestion of Japan, the statements under this item incorporate interventions made at the
 9 April 1999 informal meeting of the General Council.WT/GC/M/40
Page 4
The representative of El Salvador said that the process generally had been transparent, but
that it would be useful to know what was meant by ["slight difference"] in the Chairman's oral report.
The only way to eliminate the uncertainty in the process would be to obtain accurate figures.
However, El Salvador would support the Chairman's decision if he felt this would not be useful.  The
consensus-searching process had a limit and a deadline.  He supported the proposal by Mexico at the9 April 1999 informal meeting of the General Council that Members should be soon asked whether
they could join a consensus on the leading candidate, and urged all to show flexibility so that
Members could focus on other important issues.
The representative of Zimbabwe said that the best way forward was to broaden the notion of
consensus to include the concept of no veto, no vote, and the principles of equity, democracy and
transparency.  Consensus should be based on positive rather than negative aspects, and it was logicalto begin addressing difficulties with the leading candidate.
The representative of Hungary, also on behalf of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Poland,
Romania, the Slovak Republic and Slovenia, said that from the very beginning of this process, these
countries had demonstrated flexibility and openness.  While some supported one candidate over the
other, the only precondition was the personal and professional ability to do this difficult job.  These
countries had been confident that a consensus could be reached on this matter in a few days' time.
However, the Chairman's latest report referring to difficulties around both candidates was a matter of
serious concern, as Members were engaged in a complex preparatory process leading up to a
Ministerial Conference the result of which would determine the course of action of the WTO formany years.  In these circumstances, one should not risk letting the election process become a source
of division, factionalism and distrust among Members.  The present impasse clearly implied this
danger.  Members should stick to the GATT tradition of pragmatism and concentrate on the positive
side of the problem.  The choice of the next Dir ector-General should not become a divisive issue
between developed and developing country Members, or among continents and differentconstituencies.  The decision had to be made by consensus.  Any other alternative would seriously
threaten the entire system.  These countries appealed to the Chairman to use his best judgement and to
present a name around which a consensus could be built, and would immediately and willingly follow
him.  This was the only way to end this process in a fair and dignified manner and to have a Director-
General who would enjoy the trust and confidence of the whole membership.
The representative of Norway supported Hungary's statement.  Much progress had been made
on choosing the next Director-General, and the last  hurdle was at hand.  Members should heed the
Director-General's advice in his letter of 8 April 199 9 to put the organization first and to avoid a crisis
for the system and the organization.  Norway had come out early in favour of Mr. Supachai and that
position had not changed.  However, Members had to reconcile national positions with the best
interests of the organization, which meant supporting whomever the Chairman named as theconsensus candidate.  Either candidate would be an excellent Director-General.
The representative of Pakistan said there was a need to examine whether the process engaged
in could be successful in producing a fair and equitable result.  Pakistan's understanding of consensus-
building was that one listened to objections and engaged in a process of interaction.  The currentsituation bordered on being a crisis for the organization, as it went beyond the question of selecting
the next Director-General.  Those with a larger stak e in the trading system had a larger responsibility
for ensuring that a solution was reached on the basis of equity, justice and democracy.  The consensus
to which so many attached importance should be built around the leading candidate.  All were aware
that for some time there had been only one leading candidate, and he trusted that consensus would bebuilt around that candidate.  If it was not possible by 30 April to build consensus around the leading
candidate, one would have to revert to the rules of procedure which provided for a vote.  It was
unfortunate that the Chairman would be absent, as this would bring the matter to the brink where there
were only two choices – consensus or a vote.  The Chairman's statement regarding the tenure of the
Deputy Directors-General was not clear, and he wondered what the nature of the "appropriate action"to be taken by the Director-General would be.  The appointment of the Deputy Directors-GeneralWT/GC/M/40
Page 5
depended on the appointment of the Director-General, and if there were to be any other arrangement
the General Council would have to be fully consulted.
The Chairman said it was his understanding that it was the Director-General who appointed
the Deputy Directors-General in consultation with Members.  Until 30 April, the current Director-
General would still be in office and would still have the mandate to extend the contracts of any of the
Deputy Directors-General.  It wa s not a question of appointing any new deputies from outside the
organization.  In light of the fact that there would be no Deputy Directors-General after 30 April, he
had considered asking the Director-General to extend the contracts of one or two of the existing
deputies beyond 30 April.  Clearly, the Director -General would consult with Members on this.
The representative of Pakistan said he wished to receive any decisions or written procedures
on this matter.  He understood that any action on this  matter would be taken only with the approval of
the General Council, and that Members would be consulted on any action that was proposed to be
taken.  His delegation did not wish to be faced with a last-minute proposal in the midst of a crisis.
The Chairman said that the relevant procedures would be made available and that the
Director-General would carry out his mandate in accordance with these procedures.
The representative of Panama said that his delegation too wished to know what the Chairman
had in mind regarding the reference in his statement to the Deputy Directors-General.  Panama was
concerned at Members' inability to meet the deadlines on the appointment of the next Director-General.  His delegation supported Mr. Supachai, but had always expressed its readiness to go along
with a consensus, should one emerge on another ca ndidate.  The next Director-General should be
chosen without a veto or a vote.  However, with only 16 days left before the contract of Mr. Ruggiero
expired, some Members had stated reservations on one or the other candidate and it was not clear that
these could be overcome.  The organization had to re-examine its transparency, since suchreservations had not been made public.  Panama urged the Chairman to work to form a consensus
around the leading candidate.  His delegation reiterated its flexibility and asked Members with
reservations to indicate whether they could go along with a consensus.
The representative of Sri Lanka said that Members had brought upon themselves the biggest
crisis of the organization with what appeared to be a dangerous game of brinksmanship.  Sri Lanka
had supported Mr. Supachai from the outset because it believed he was the best suited to the job.  Hewas the leading candidate to date and enjoyed wide geographic support.  Decision-making by
consensus required that all act with responsibility, and his delegation urged those with problems to
exercise flexibility.
The representative of Argentina said that the reality of the situation went beyond the worst
possible predictions.  Positions seemed to have been polarized.  It was hard to understand how there
could be substantive objections to either of the candidates as both were excellent.  Once the Chairman
announced his conclusion as to the candidate with the best chance of achieving consensus, Argentina
would join a consensus on that candidate.  Members had to concentrate on the crucial issues of
substance as they moved toward the Seattle Ministerial Conference, and not much more time could beinvested in the current process.  The search fo r consensus remained the best alternative and the
Chairman should continue his efforts.  Failure to reach a consensus decision would undermine the
credibility of the system.  Figures regarding preferences were useful if they showed big differences,
but this was not the case.  It was necessary to establish a clear and efficient process for choosing the
Director-General in future based on the clear criteria set out by the Chairman, which were the numberof preferences, the scope of geographic support and the level of tolerance enjoyed by the candidates.
Argentina was confident that by 30 April the Chairman would be able to present the name of the
person who could be elected to lead the organization.
The representative of Malaysia, speaking on behalf of the ASEAN Members
, said that in the
light of the unilateral withdrawal by Morocco of its candidate, the collective goal had to be to build aWT/GC/M/40
Page 6
consensus around one of the two candidates.  The selection process had taken considerable time and
effort, and had in a sense put the credibility of the organization at risk.  It should therefore be
concluded before the end of April, if not by the present meeting.  As the Director-General had said, no
interim solution or postponement could be justified.  It was a matter of course that whichever
candidate enjoyed the highest numerical support should be the candidate appointed to the post ofDirector-General.  To select a candidate who enjoyed less support would be illogical and
unreasonable, irrespective of who his supporters might be.  Sensibility, rationality and flexibility were
crucially needed at this juncture, and should be exhibited by all Members.  ASEAN appealed to all
Members to focus on the positive aspects of the candidates, and not negative responses.  As the
leading candidate who had consistently enjoyed the greatest and widest level of support, Mr. Supachai
deserved to be the candidate around whom consensus should be built and approved.  The selection of
Chairpersons of WTO bodies was entirely different from other processes of decision-making, and the
use of anonymous objection should not be construe d or understood as an accepted practice within the
organization.  Furthermore, anonymous objection had ne ver been used in the past with respect to the
process of selection of the Director-General, and only bred and promoted subversive and divisive
actions within the organization.  This seriously undermined the effectiveness and credibility of the
system, where accountability, responsibility and openness had to be respected at all times.  From theoutset, no Member had explicitly expressed its intention to object to any candidate, and since
anonymous objection could not be accepted under the present circumstances, the Chairman might ask
at the present meeting whether Members could agree to join a consensus around the leading
candidate, i.e. Mr. Supachai.  According to the ASEAN Members' extensive interactions and
communications with Members, and in their objective analysis, Mr. Supachai enjoyed no less than 65percent of the support of those Members who had expressed their preference.  If such was the case,
the Chairman should put the question to Members whether the latter could be a consensus candidate,
and let those wishing to raise objections do so openly in accordance with the customary practice of the
organization.  Only then would Members be able to identify and narrow down the differences –
should there be any – and to resolve them through a process of reasoning and compromise.  This wasthe transparent and democratic way in which the difficulties should be addressed.  If all adhered to the
principle of "no veto, no vote", there would be no objection, and the General Council could decide by
consensus on this matter.
The representative of Kenya said that both candidates were eminently qualified and respected,
and were capable of leading this organization.  Consensus should be built around the leading
candidate and not the candidate with the least opposition.  That candidate was Mr. Supachai.  Further,it was the turn of a candidate from a developing country to be Director-General.  Had Mr. Moore been
the leading candidate, Kenya would not have stood in the way of consensus.  Flexibility needed to be
shown by supporters of Mr. Moore.  He pleaded with the latter to do so, so that this matter could be
resolved in a spirit of democracy, equity and justice.  The selection process had been time-consuming,
burdensome and unpredictable, and a more credible process should be designed for the future.  Kenyaappealed to those not ready to join a consensus on Mr. Supachai to reconsider their position, and was
confident that a consensus could be reached within the deadline.
The representative of Uruguay called on the pragmatism and lucidity of all Members not to
repeat positions that were well known since the General Council had a long agenda before it at the
present meeting.  There were two excellent candidates who were very close in their levels of support.
This matter would not be resolved at the present meeting.  One was within the deadline and the
Chairman had made a clear proposal.  The matter should be left there.
The representative of Hong Kong, China said th at this matter had to be concluded in a way
that represented the positions of all Members.  He reiterated his delegation's strong support for
Mr. Supachai.  Consensus should be built around the leading candidate, who was Mr. Supachai.  His
delegation was disappointed that further transparency, such as that offered at the 9 April informal
meeting, could not be offered at the present mee ting regarding the levels of support for the two
candidates, and agreed with Australia that more information was needed.  Hong Kong, ChinaWT/GC/M/40
Page 7
supported the suggestion by Malaysia as to how be st to move forward, and urged the Chairman to
resolve this matter as soon as possible, preferably before 30 April.
The representative of the United States said th at while it was not possible to conclude this
process at the present meeting, much was being done by way of continued consultations to build a
consensus.  The Chairman had already stated that he would proceed with his consultations and hoped
to meet the deadline of 30 April.  Although every Member, regardless of size, was as important as
another in this process, some delegations had referred to a "US candidate".  This was not fair to
Members that had supported Mr. Moore early on, includi ng developing countries.  She noted that one
of the candidates had withdrawn only two and a half weeks earlier, thus leaving little time for those
who had supported him to reformulate their positions.  There had been efforts to intimidate the
Chairman and other Members to proceed in a particular way.  Since some Members had indicatedonly one preference at the time they had been asked, how could they know that their candidate was
leading?  Only the Chairman and Mr. Rossier could know this.  The Chairman had repeatedly stated
that there were difficulties with both candidates.  Mr. Moore had clearly demonstrated a positive and
dynamic gain in support and was the most acceptable candidate for this organization.  The United
States supported him.  The deci sion on the next Director-General would be made by Members on the
basis of consensus.  There was a need to find a candidate who enjoyed wide enough support to
represent all Members, and both candidates enjoyed support across developed and developing country
lines, and also across regional lines.  She recalled that during the selection process to appoint the
current Director-General, the United States had supported a candidate from a developing country.  In
the present process, numbers and figures had not led to a consensus decision and it had been agreed toabandon that approach.  She disagreed with Malaysia that there were secret and anonymous
objections.  She hoped that the selection process could be concluded before 30 April and said that
Members would have to work together to achieve this.  One had to keep the integrity of the
organization uppermost in mind.  The decision on who would lead the WTO into the twenty-first
century had to be based on consensus.  Her delegation would see the process through to its conclusionand remained confident that consensus could be reached on the candidate who shared the support of
the entire membership.
The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation was firmly committed to a decision on
this matter by consensus.  The rules and procedures for future appointments had to be worked out and
there should be consultations on this.  The Chairman and Mr. Rossier had made significant
improvements in the process whereby important decisions were taken, and one had to build on thesesuccesses.  He referred to the Director-General's address entitled "Beyond the Multilateral Trading
System", in which he had said that one was seeing the rise of a world trading system - rules-based and
not power-based - at a time when the call for an improved system of international governance was
more and more insistent.  This was needed in the WTO.  Members should heed the Director-General's
words in his letter of 8 April in which he had stat ed that no interim solution or postponement could be
justified, and that the choice was in the hands of experienced negotiators used to taking difficult
decisions at the appropriate time.  All had consistently said that they put full confidence in the
Chairman and Mr. Rossier.  The latter's further dynamic exchanges with Members should enable the
Chairman to make a proposal that all could accept.
The representative of Costa Rica said that the considerable progress made indicated that the
deadline could be met.  The next Director-General should have the qualities necessary to cope with
the difficulties of the job in a particularly complex period, independent of the level of development of
his country.  The proper leadership of the organization, given the concerns and needs of developing
countries, was not the exclusive prerogative of developing countries.  For this reason Costa Ricasupported Mr. Moore and regretted attempts to make this a north-south contest.  Neither candidate
was supported exclusively by developing or developed countries, as was shown by the fact that there
was growing support for Mr. Moore from all regions, including from developing countries.  This was
a search for the best person to lead the organization.  It was hoped that consensus could be achieved
before 30 April on the basis of no veto, no vote.WT/GC/M/40
Page 8
The representative of Mexico said that Members had to assume their responsibility, as the
Director-General had stated in his letter.  This was a critical year and a critical juncture, and the
current impasse in the process of selection of the next Director-General had to be unblocked.
Consensus meant that no one objected to the candidate chosen.  It had to be made clear whether
figures on levels of support were still being taken into consideration.  Mexico understood that theword "difficulties" used by the Chairman did not mean a veto.  If there was no veto, the problem
would have been solved.  The present meeting was an excellent opportunity to discuss and exchange
views on a matter of priority for the organization.  The informal meeting on 9 April had been useful,
but the present formal meeting was important as it would be reflected in the records of the meeting
and would eventually be known to the public, whic h would contribute to transparency.  In all the
reports made by the facilitators and the Chairman, Mr. Supachai had been leading in the support
expressed by Members;  one had never officially heard the contrary.  Thus, he assumed that thiscontinued to be true, as otherwise the Chairman would have so informed Members.  The Chairman
had stated that there were differences, but the scope and degree of these differences were still not
known, nor was it known whether they would impede  a consensus.  It was important to define
whether or not a veto existed.  One should not wait until 30 April to take a decision, as the
organization could not remain without a Director-Gen eral and his deputies.  The Director-General had
indicated that he would not continue beyond the end of his term, so to extend the contracts of the
Deputy Directors-General would be a secondary re medy and not a substantive solution and would be
contrary to what the Director-General had said in his letter.  He supported Malaysia's suggestion that
Members be asked at the present meeting whether they could join a consensus around Mr. Supachai.
Mexico shared the view that Mr. Supachai enjoyed 65 per cent of the support expressed.  Somedisputed this figure, and figures should be indicated by the facilitators to clarify this. He assumed that
during the Chairman's absence, consultations would be suspended, as only the Chairman could carry
out such consultations and make reports or suggestions.
The Chairman said that the reason it was important to have the contracts of one or two of the
Deputy Directors-General extended was that even if there was a new Director-General by 30 April, he
would need deputies to assist him.
The representative of Morocco, speaking on a point of order, said he had not fully understood
what the Chairman was suggesting regarding asking the Director-General to consider the possibility
of extending the contracts of the Deputy Director s-General.  For this to be a normal management
measure the Director-General should have started this procedure some three months earlier.  Hisunderstanding had been that the Director-General and his deputies would all leave at the same time
and that the new Director-General would have a free hand to appoint his own deputies.  The
designation of deputies was the prerogative of the new Director-General with the agreement of the
Members.  His delegation would have difficulties proceeding in the manner suggested unless the
situation was made considerably clearer.
The representative of Pakistan said that this matter had been raised at the present meeting for
the first time and was not on the meeting's agenda.  As Morocco had stated, the course of action
proposed by the Chairman was not contemplated in the existing procedures.  There was no provision
for an interim arrangement of this nature.  It would only seem fair that the Deputy Directors-Generalbe appointed by the new, rather than the outgoing, Director-General.  He hoped there could be
consultations to clarify this matter.
The Chairman agreed that one had to proceed according to the procedures.  However, it was
the General Council that established the procedures.  What had been suggested was a pragmatic
solution, and the General Council had the authority to approve this procedure.  It was his duty as
Chairman to indicate that such action might need to be taken.
The representative of Korea said it was unfortunate that consensus had not been reached by
the time of the present meeting.  Mr. Supachai remained the leading candidate with broad geographic
support, and consensus should be built around him.  As it was hard to determine which candidateWT/GC/M/40
Page 9
enjoyed the least opposition, one should go along with the leading candidate.  Members should show
more flexibility, and there should be a prompt conclusion to this process to avoid a leadership crisis.
The representative of Colombia said that now more than ever the Chairman needed Members'
support and confidence.  Some Members had expressed their support for and confidence in the
Chairman and had then proceeded to point the way to a final recommendation.  This was a form of
intimidation. The situation had reached a high degree of polarization and each side had made
arguments favourable to its preferred candidate. His delegation was prepared to give its unreserved
support to the name the Chairman would propose to  the General Council after the analysis and
assessment the latter would have carried out.
The representative of India said that transparency had to be respected if the credibility of the
organization was to be maintained.  When an important matter was being discussed, delegations
should express their views.  The General Council wa s meant for such exchanges.  It was the duty of
all Members to express their views so that the Chairman could assess the mood in the General
Council.  There was clear agreement that there could only be one Director-General, that there had to
be a quick decision and that there were only two candidates.  The present impasse was affectingindividuals, delegations and the organization, and a rapid conclusion to the process was imperative.
India had expressed a clear preference for Mr. Supachai, who was clearly in the lead, as all of the
facilitators' and the Chairman's reports had indicated.  Fairness, justice and logic demanded that a
consensus be formed around the leading candidate. It was not acceptable for certain Members to
express reservations which operated like a veto. Members who could not join such a consensus shouldsay so.  Regarding the US suggestion that more time was needed for Members to formulate their
positions, he had understood that all those who want ed to make their views known had done so.  If
this were not the case, the Chairman should so indicate.  India supported Mr. Supachai because it
believed him to be the most acceptable candidate on the basis of his qualifications and experience, and
not because he was from a developing country.  That was an added bonus, since it had been said whenMr. Ruggiero was elected that the next Director-Gener al should be from a developing country.  If a
consensus could not be reached by 30 April there would have to be recourse to a vote as provided
under Article IX of the WTO Agreement.
The Chairman reiterated that since the end of the process conducted by Messrs. Rossier and
Lafer, and especially since the withdrawal of the Moroccan candidate, numbers were not decisive in
leading towards consensus.  The definition of consensus in the WTO Agreement was lack ofobjection.  If there was objection to the leading candidate, the latter might not be the consensus
candidate.  This was why it was necessary to remove the objection to one or the other of the two
candidates.  This impasse would not be resolved if the two camps concentrated on increasing the
numbers supporting their respective candidates, because the objection precluding consensus would
remain.
The representative of Brazil expressed his delegation's concern over the consequences of the
prolongation of this process, which were detrimental to the process and to the organization as a whole.
Delegations were spending considerable time and effort trying to reach a consensual solution to this
issue at a time when they should be focusing on the preparations for the third Ministerial Conference,a meeting on which significant expectations had been placed.  A second negative point was the
uncomfortable position in which this put the two remaining candidates, as the lack of agreement on
either name sent a wrong signal that one or both candidates were not qualified for the post.  Third,
since the beginning of the process Members had unanimously agreed that all four candidates could
perform the functions of Director-General and were men of personal integrity.  At no time had anydelegation indicated that one of the four candidates did not fully qualify for the job.  It was therefore
inexplicable that one or both candidates might not be acceptable to some delegations.  At the outset of
the process Brazil had stated its support for Mr. Supachai.  This decision had been the result of a
careful evaluation by his authorities, in which Mr. Supachai's profile had been deemed to be a proper
fit for the leader sought.  The fact that he was from a developing country was an asset to hiscandidature, as there was a widespread sentiment among Members that this was the turn of aWT/GC/M/40
Page 10
candidate from a developing country.  However, this was not a precondition, or even one of the major
parameters that guided Brazil's choice.  The WTO was a universal body and its Director-General had
to have universal support.  Mr. Supachai had this kind of backing, both in terms of geographical
diversity and level of development of Members supporting his candidacy.  It had been said at the
outset of this process that there should be no veto and no vote.  However, there were strongindications that the "no veto" part should also be revisited.  Brazil trusted that at the present meeting
the General Council could officially appoint a new Director-General.  With this goal in mind, his
delegation urged the membership, the Chairman, and Mr. Rossier, to try to obtain the necessary
flexibility from Members in order to permit a consensus.
The representative of the Dominican Republic supported the statements by India and Mexico.
The WTO was on the brink of an institutional crisis at a time when preparations were under way for
an important Ministerial Conference.  The way out of the present impasse required Members to
concentrate on positive aspects, such as the fact that one candidate had consistently enjoyed support
from the majority of Members.  Serious objections had been lodged but were not known to Members.
Therefore, the Chairman should follow up on Mexico's and Malaysia's suggestion – and his own
delegation's at the 9 April informal meeting – and ask whether any Member could not join aconsensus on the leading candidate, particularly bearing in mind the figures which had been indicated
regarding the level of support enjoyed by that candidate.
The representative of Cuba said that this issue was of the greatest importance and that it was
regrettable that the process had not yet been concluded.  Cuba supported the proposals by Malaysia
and Mexico as the most expeditious procedure and constructive approach.  He associated his
delegation with India's statement.  The consensus process could not be translated into a process in
which certain major economic powers exerted pressure in a bilateral way in order to obtain the results
they wanted.  It was the turn of a developing country candidate to fill the post of Director-General,
and the individual concerned had exceptional ability and talents. Members had agreed that all fourcandidates were of the highest calibre. Therefore, it was difficult to understand how it could be said
now that one candidate had a lesser degree of tolerance.  The principles of equity and democracy
would be clearly demonstrated by reaching a consensus on Mr. Supachai.
The representative of Australia said that while some had said that this discussion was
unnecessarily long and perhaps even unnecessary, meetings such as this were important for Members
to air their views and to indicate shifts in their positions, and contributed to transparency.  Efforts toselect the next Director-General should focus on the positive factor of level of support.  In a keenly
contested race, objections would be inevitable.  It was the job of the facilitators to test and probe these
objections and to see how widely and deeply they were held.  The numbers indicating levels of
support were not the only factor, but they were an important one.  The US had rightly said that the
only reliable numbers were those known by the facilitators.  Without accurate information it would behard, if not impossible, for Members and candidates to take the hard decisions necessary.  Australia
urged the Chairman to provide the necessary information.  The figures provided by Malaysia were
quite credible, and his delegation urged the Chairman to build a consensus around the leading
candidate.  Australia's strong preference was Mr. Supachai.  It was important to conclude the process
at the latest by 30 April, since the longer the process continued, the greater the frustration was.Australia could never accept taking this decision by a vote, and the objections that were prompting the
calls for a vote had to be removed.
The representative of Chile reiterated his delegation's gratitude for the open and transparent
way the different phases of the consultations had been conducted.  It was hoped that the decision
could be made by consensus and on the principle of no veto, no vote, and that differences would be
overcome in a spirit of flexibility.  She associated her delegation with the statement by Argentina.
Both candidates seemed to have similar levels of support, and the increase in the support for
Mr. Moore might create an imbalance in the more or less even preferences expressed thus far.
Preferences were just one of the relevant criteria, and other principles might have to be applied inorder to reach a final recommendation.  Chile reiterate d its support for the Chairman to complete thisWT/GC/M/40
Page 11
process as he best saw fit.  As Australia had said, if no consensus were reached by 30 April the
Chairman should continue to seek consensus.
The representative of Bolivia said that now more than ever consensus required constructive
interaction among all Members.  The difficulties encountered to date in this process would ensure that
the candidate chosen would have the support of all Members.  Experience had shown that figures
merely polarized positions and did not move the process forward.  Bolivia supported Mr. Moore and
had seen support for him grow.  The Chairman should continue his efforts without any instructions
from Members.
The representative of Guatemala said that his delegation would fully support whatever
candidate the Chairman would put to the General Council at the appropriate time.  The only important
criterion was that the candidate would be an effective Director-General.  A vote was not the way to
reach a decision on such an important matter.  All Members should demonstrate the flexibility
necessary to move ahead.
The representative of Honduras agreed that the process had to be concluded by 30 April.  The
figures on levels of support available at present should be provided.  There were two excellent
candidates, and his delegation urged those with difficulties with one or the other to go along with a
consensus.  Mr. Supachai had the highest level of support.
The representative of Haiti said that the best  way to unblock the current impasse was for all
Members to seek to build consensus around the candidate who had been in the lead since the start of
this process.  According to Haiti's calculation that candidate was supported by 62 per cent of Members
actively participating in the process, and those Members were spread over five continents and
included both developing and developed countries.  Haiti was determined to see that election by
consensus succeeded and had joined the majority supporting the leading candidate.  This processshould not be turned into a north-south division.  The new Director-General should be capable of
defending, in an equitable manner, the interests of all WTO Members and of speeding up the
accession process for the 32 candidate countries.  Members had to ensure that the principles of
democracy, equity and non-discrimination prevailed in this process.  At a time when the credibility of
the organization was in doubt in some quarters, there was a need to show a spirit of compromise, and
that Members adhered to the principle of democracy in which the minority joined the majority.  Any
other approach would expose the organization to considerable dangers.  Regarding the Chairman'sreference to the Deputy Directors-General, his delegation had certain reservations about what had
been proposed and wished to have the text of the relevant procedures.  It was for the new Director-
General to choose his deputies with the agreement of the Members.  Members should first appoint the
Director-General and then the process of appointing deputies could take place.
The representative of Turkey associated his delegation with Hungary's statement.  He had
hoped that discussion of this item could be kept short. It was important was to preserve the authority
of the Chairman, as Members would need him in the coming months to make difficult rulings in
difficult situations.  Some delegations were saying that if the Chairman did not follow what they
suggested he would be making a terrible mistake.  Mr. Moore was Turkey's first choice and Mr.Supachai its second choice.  The campaign being conducted in support of Mr. Supachai was not
helping his candidature.  Turkey was determined to preserve the principle of consensus and of no
veto, no vote.  Parallels should not be drawn be tween the method of consensus-building and that of
voting.  One was not electing a candidate from a particular country or region, but rather the individual
best able to lead the WTO.  There was a need to find a candidate who enjoyed the most tolerance.There was nothing obscure or secret about discretion.  Asking the Chairman for certain information
was a form of intimidation.  Some delegations made Turkey out to be a traitor because it supported
Mr. Moore.  It was on the basis of tolerance, understanding and interaction that one should try to find
the best candidate.  This was not a north-south battle, and a positive atmosphere should be created.
He fully agreed with Jamaica's statement on the systemic issues.  The Chairman's moral authority andWT/GC/M/40
Page 12
integrity were Members' best guarantee.  Without it there would be no consensus on this or on
anything.
The representative of Ecuador expressed his delegation's concern over the impasse in the
selection process for the next Director-General.  Ecuador was concerned that some Members were
suggesting that numbers and figures no longer counted and that the nature of the objections would
determine where consensus lay.  Mr. Supachai had received broad support as the next Director-
General.  He stressed the interactive nature of the selection process and said there was a need to have
accurate figures on levels of support and to know what type of objections had been expressed.
Holding back such information did not contribute to removing objections to one or another candidate,
did not contribute to transparency and created confusion.  It was necessary to know what those
objections were.  He reiterated his delegation's support for Mr. Supachai.
The representative of Trinidad and Tobago expressed concern over the General Council's
again missing a deadline.  His delegation had early on expressed its support for Mr. Supachai, who
was the leading candidate, and had hoped that the Chairman would be able to propose a consensus
around him at the present meeting.
The representative of Venezuela said that his delegation would have preferred that the present
discussion not take place, as it was impeding the process rather than advancing it.  However, it did
provide material for further reflection.  This was a dynamic process which was in flux.  It was not a
closed process and it would be irresponsible to try to close it before a mandate to do so was given.The General Council was becoming more divisive rather than more united, and the role of the
Director-General was to bring Members together.  It was wrong to see the candidates as representing
either developing or developed countries, since the person designated would represent all Members.
Figures and percentages – which only the Chairman and Mr. Rossier were authorized to give – were
not decisive factors in reaching consensus.  Members should contribute to the consensus-buildingprocess by maintaining a positive attitude.  This was not an election campaign but a decision on a very
important matter.  He recalled that Venezuela had appealed to Members that the choice of the next
Director-General be based on the qualities of the candidate and not on a regional basis.  The
candidates should be thanked for their patience and respect for Members' consultation process.  There
were several conditions that the selection proces s should meet:  support for the Chairman and Mr.
Rossier should be renewed;  the legitimate wish of Members to build support around their candidate
should be based on the merits of the candidate and not on whether he was from a developed or adeveloping country;  and efforts should be made to remove difficulties.  It was more important to
remove difficulties than to add support.
The representative of Egypt said that both candidates were excellent and that the selection
should be made on the basis of merit and capability, and based on the principles of equity,
transparency and democracy.  It was regrettable that another deadline had been missed.  His
delegation had not witnessed any division between developed and developing countries since the
process had started, and support for both candidates was shared among these countries.  It had been
agreed that there would be no vote as this would co ntradict the principle of consensus.  And it was
clear that the concept of veto did not exist in the rules, because if there was no consensus there wouldbe a vote.  His delegation was perplexed that there were objections to any of the candidates, as no
Member had said that any of them were not acceptable.  Egypt was concerned over the delay in this
process, which would affect the credibility of the organization and have an impact on preparations for
the Seattle Ministerial Conference.  It had been said that there could be no vote, but what had
transpired was like a vote.  The process had to be concluded before 30 April.  Otherwise there wouldbe a vacuum.  It was not up to the present Director-General to choose the Deputy Directors-General as
this was the prerogative of the new Director-Gener al.  Egypt had full confidence in the Chairman,
even if there had to be resort to a vote as provid ed in Article IX of the WTO Agreement.  The rules
were there and Members had to respect them.WT/GC/M/40
Page 13
The representative of Mauritius said that fundamental to consensus was the flushing out of
differences, where there should be discretion but no secrecy.  It had been reported that there were
difficulties in reaching consensus on either of the candidates, and Mauritius wished to know what
these difficulties were.  The system was built on the basis of transparency.  There was a need to
honour this and to make clear the difficulties.  The situation was very stressful for small delegationslike his, and transparency should be addressed before consensus could be reached.
The representative of Japan said that efforts to build a consensus on the leading candidate
should be intensified.  While it was agreed that there should be no voting, it was also agreed that there
should be no veto.  Those standing in the way of consensus-building should re-examine their
positions.  Consensus did not mean that one Member could block the process.  Flexibility and
responsibility were needed.  At the time there were four candidates no Member had indicated aproblem with any of them.  Now there were only two, but there seemed to be considerable difficulty.
There was a need to maintain the credibility of th e WTO and to resolve this matter.  Regarding the US
statement, he said that delegations who had su pported Mr. Abouyoub had had three and a half weeks
to reformulate their positions, and that only two w eeks remained before the deadline of 30 April.  In
order to reach a consensus, it was important for each delegation to state its views and positions, andalso to open its eyes and ears.
The representative of Uruguay said that the present meeting had not advanced the process.
His delegation could not accept the concept of institutional crisis.  The General Council was within
the deadline and Members had to be pragmatic.  Uruguay did not believe that there was a leadingcandidate or a majority candidate, and thus could not accept the proposal by some that efforts to build
consensus should be focussed on only one particular candidate.  The Chairman should have the
flexibility to continue his consultations on both candidates.  The situation had to be de-dramatized.
His delegation did not agree that Mr. Supachai was the most qualified candidate for the post, and had
supported Mr. Moore from the outset.  His delegation fully supported the principle of no veto, no voteand did not recognize the possibility of objections to either of the candidates.  The time had come to
ask the Chairman, on the basis of his and Mr. Rossier's consultations, to propose a candidate with the
least objections and most acceptable to all.  This was the only way to resolve this matter.
The Chairman clarified that with regard to the extension of the contracts of one or two of the
Deputy Directors-General, he had been trying to be practical and pragmatic.  None of this was directly
related to the appointment of the next Director-General.  Normally the latter would have beenappointed a month or two earlier and would thus have had time to select his deputies. He was merely
suggesting that the current Director-General, before he left on 30 April, might consult on the
extension of the contracts of one or another of the Deputy Directors-General.  He had not intended
this matter to provoke controversy and suggested that there be consultations on it.
The representative of Colombia said that his delegation recognized the good intentions
underlying the Chairman's suggestion.  However, Colombia was not prepared to consider this issue at
the present meeting, and proposed that the Chairman suggest to the Director-General that he consult
with Members on this matter.
The Chairman said that this was exactly what he was proposing.
The General Council took note of the statements.
4. Parting statement by the Director-General
The Chairman said that the Director-General wish ed to make a parting statement, as this was
the last regular General Council meeting before the end of his term of office.WT/GC/M/40
Page 14
The Director-General made a statement.4
The Chairman said that before giving the floor to delegations, he wanted to express to the
Director-General his deep appreciation for his outstanding contribution to the strengthening of the
multilateral trading system, the WTO as an institution and its Secretariat.  He was sure that all sharedthis high appreciation and esteem for the Director-General.  During the term of office of Mr. Renato
Ruggiero, the WTO had recorded a number of significant achievements which would not have been
possible without his leadership, political vision and determination.  The WTO had become one of the
most important international organizations.  And last but not least, it had a highly qualified and
independent Secretariat.  Those who had had the pr ivilege of working closely with Renato Ruggiero
were grateful to him for his invaluable assistance, cooperation and friendship.  He wished him all the
best in his future activities.
The representatives of Canada, Switzerland
, Egypt , Jamaica , Hungary , Colombia , Japan ,
United States, Turkey , European Communities , Bangladesh , Pakistan , Haiti , Chile , Korea , India ,
Australia, New Zealand , Norway , Malaysia , Venezuela , Bolivia , Barbados , Paraguay , Senegal , Malta
and Hong Kong, China and the Russian Federation  (as an observer) paid tribute to the Director-
General.2
The General Council took note of the statements.
At the end of the discussion on item 4, the Chairman said that since the General Council
would have to meet again soon to consider the a ppointment of the next Director-General, and since
there had not been sufficient time to consider the remaining items on the Agenda of the present
meeting, he proposed that the present meeting be adjourned and reconvened on short notice.
The General Council so agreed.
__________
                                                     
4 The statement, as well as the interventions by delegations that followed, was circulated in document
WT/GC(99)/ST/3.