As a result, divergences continued up to and through Seattle. Add to this recipe the lack of time available for serious negotiations, difficulties in the management and organisation of the conference, disruptions on the streets, and the exclusion of many developing countries from the discussions, and it is not surprising that we found it hard to bridge differences. Lessons to be drawn What lessons can we learn from Seattle that will help launch a Round for let's be clear we still want and need to launch a comprehensive trade round. One lesson is a procedural one. We need to ensure fuller participation by developing countries.
Work also needs to be organised more efficiently.
We have some ideas on this we have floated with Mike Moore to help him. In the longer term, we may need to examine options for more fundamental improvements to the system. Nor should the WTO system be made the scapegoat for failure to bridge gaps on the substance of negotiations. The second and key - conclusion from Seattle is on the substance of discussions. Despite continued differences on several points of the negotiating agenda, it would be wrong to conclude that those differences could not have been bridged given better preparation in Geneva, more time in Seattle, and more flexibility all round.