RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/52
3 January 2000
(00-0012)
General Council
17 December 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 17 December 1999
Chairman:  Mr. Ali Mchumo (Tanzania)
At the outset of the meeting, the Chairman said that the 3-4 November 1999 meeting of the
General Council that had been adjourned in order to allow for the completion of the item on the
Report of the Committee on Budget, Finance and Admini stration should be considered closed, as that
item would be taken up at the present meeting.
1. Committee on Budget, Finance and Administration
(a) Report of the Committee (WT/BFA/44)
The Chairman recalled that this item had been on the agenda of the General Council's
November 1999 meeting, but that the report had not been ready for consideration at that time.  The
report was now before the Ge neral Council in WT/BFA/44.
Mrs. Dubois-Destrizais (France), Chairperson of the Committee on Budget, Finance and
Administration, introducing the report in WT/BFA/44, said that the Committee had met six times
since 27 September 1999.  The Committee was submitting to the General Council a series of
recommendations in lieu of an actual report.  The latter would be submitted to the General Council at
the beginning of 2000.  The reason for this situation was that in spite of the numerous meetings held, a
final meeting had taken place only just before the present meeting.  As Chairperson of the Committee,
she regretted this.  The Committee had reached a consensus minus one on 29 October regarding the
draft budget for 2000 and the utilization of the surplus for the financial year 1998, and since then hadbeen waiting for one Member to obtain the instru ctions it needed to join the consensus.  The
recommendations submitted to the General Council concerned several items:  (i) the Director-
General's Financial Report on the 1998 accounts and the report of the external auditor thereon;  (ii)
utilization of the 1998 surplus;  (iii) assessed contribution of Estonia and advance to the Working
Capital Fund consequent to the accession of Estonia on 13 November 1999;  (iv) budget for 2000;and (v) level of the contributions to be assessed on the observer countries.  Regarding the budget for
2000, the Director-General had proposed in September 1999 a budget of Sw F 131 million,
corresponding to a 7.3 per cent increase over 1999.  Following discussions between the Members and
the Secretariat, a consensus minus one had emerged on Sw F 127.7 million, representing an increase
of 4.5 per cent over the 1999 budget.  She noted that the recommended budget included an importantelement in favour of the least-developed Members in the form of a reduction of the minimum
contribution from 0.03 per cent to 0.015 per cent.  After having examined this issue for several years
the Committee had arrived at a consensus that provided for more equitable contributions by the
poorest countries and reduced the discrimination against those countries.  This decrease aimed at
encouraging the least-developed countries to become more involved in the activities of the WTO.  SheWT/GC/M/52
Page 2
drew attention to the recommendation to utilize the surplus for 1998 (i) to cover the statutory
indemnities due to ICITO staff who had not taken up WTO contracts at the beginning of 1999, and (ii)
to replenish the Appellate Body Operating Fund.  Recommendation V was essentially technical, and
set the amount to be assessed on observers at 0.015 per cent instead of the current rate of half the
minimum contribution of WTO Members.  The Committee had not felt that the reduction in theminimum contribution should entail a reduction in the contribution of observers.
The representative of the United States said th at her delegation had joined in the consensus on
the Budget Committee's report.  Many of the difficulties concerning the budget had been due to US
questions about it.  However, these had nothing to do with the United States' support for the WTO or
its commitment to its trading partners.  Rather, these questions were based on US concerns regarding
all of its obligations to all international organizations.  She expressed appreciation to the Chairpersonand Members of the Budget Committee and to the Secretariat for their patience.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation wanted to underline the following
points prior to the approval of this report.  The WT O Secretariat needed to be restructured in order to
enable it to discharge the new and enlarged responsibilities entrusted to it since the adoption of theMarrakesh Agreements.  The composition and size of the Secretariat had to be responsive to the new
and broader functions of the WTO.  The commitmen t to free trade and to the multilateral trading
system had to be reflected both in the level of Members' financial commitments to the organization
and in the structure of the Secretariat.  His delegation intended to present concrete proposals and
recommendations on this matter in 2000.  Pakistan had long been concerned with the imbalance in thecomposition of Secretariat officials and staff.  There was lopsided representation of officials from
certain countries and groups of countries, and exclusion of other countries, particularly a number of
developing countries, including Pakistan.  This was unacceptable, and unless the situation was
rectified in 2000, Pakistan would not be in a position to approve the next budget of the WTO.  Given
the expressed commitment of the WTO and of the new Director-General to the interests andparticipation of the developing countries in the multilateral trading system, the budget of the WTO
would have to reflect this commitment in a more  tangible way, i.e. through the commitment of
resources from the regular budget to technical cooperation and assistance in larger and more tangible
ways in order to enable the developing countries to participate in the multilateral trading system.
The General Council took note of the statements and approved
 the Budget Committee's
specific recommendations in paragraphs 2 through 7 of the report in WT/BFA/44.
2. Accession of Jordan
(a) Report of the Working Party (WT/ACC/ JOR/33 and Corr.1 and Add.1 and 2)
The Chairman recalled that in January 1994, the GATT Contracting Parties established a
Working Party to examine the request by Jordan for accession to the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade.  Subsequently, in pursuance of the decision adopted by the WTO General Council on
31 January 1995, the GATT 1947 Accession Working Party had been transformed into a WTO
Accession Working Party.  The report of the Working Party was before the General Council in
documents WT/ACC/JOR/33 and Corr.1 and Add.1 and 2.
Mr. Chak Mun See (Singapore), introducing the report on behalf of Mr. Kesavapany
(Singapore), Chairman of the Working Party, said that following an intensive phase of preparatory
work the Working Party had held its first meeting in October 1996.  Jordan had tabled its initial offer
on goods in mid-1998, which marked the beginning of the intensive phase of the accessionnegotiations.  In September 1998, the Government and Parliament of Jordan had become actively
involved in the process in order to conclude a tremendous amount of work in a very short period ofWT/GC/M/52
Page 3
time.  As from early November 1998 Jordan had negotiated non-stop with Members to reach a
mutually agreed package of results.  The needed breakthroughs had been achieved, allowing the
Working Party to adopt, on an ad referendum basis and subject to technical clarification, Jordan's
accession package on 24 November 1999.  The rapid pace at which this accession process had been
concluded testified to the determination of the Jordanian authorities to carry through a high degree oftrade liberalization coupled with an impressive legislative reform process ensuring conformity with
WTO rules and disciplines.  Jordan's accession was testimony to the fact that the accession procedures
under the WTO did work rapidly and smoothly given the determination of the acceding government to
push ahead and the cooperation and flexibility of Members.  The results of these efforts were
contained in the report of the Working Party (WT/ACC/JOR/33 and Corr.1), in the Schedule of
Concessions and Commitments in Goods (WT/ACC/ JOR/33/Add.1) and in the Schedule of Specific
Commitments in Services (WT/ACC/JOR/33/Add.2).  The Appendix to the report, with thecorrigendum, reproduced the draft Decision on Jordan's accession and the Draft Protocol of Accession
of Jordan.  In accordance with usual WTO practice,  the latter incorporated specific commitments
undertaken by Jordan in relation to matters negotiated in the Working Party.  The results achieved in
this accession would not only contribute to the sustained economic development of Jordan, but also to
the strengthening of the multilateral trading system.
The representative of Jordan said that this was an historic moment for his country and a
turning-point in the continuing development of the Jordanian economy.  During the five years of its
accession process, Jordan had adopted a national programme for liberalizing its economy and for
creating a sound environment for trade and invest ment.  This exercise, led by King Abdullah II,
continued the vision of the late King Hussein in advancing Jordan and integrating it into the global
economy.  Jordan had always taken an active role in international trade, and would maintain its
credibility and live up to its commitments.  He expressed his delegation's appreciation to all those
involved in Jordan's accession process.  Jordan congratulated the Director-General on his appointment
and looked forward to his able leadership in strengthening and promoting free and fair tradeworldwide.
The representatives of the United States, Turkey
, Switzerland , Australia , European
Communities, Turkey , Malaysia  (on behalf of the ASEAN Members), Israel , Kuwait , Pakistan ,
Hungary (on behalf of the CEFTA countries and Latvia and Estonia), India , Japan , Egypt , Bolivia  (on
behalf of GRULAC), South Africa, Cyprus , Iceland , Morocco , Canada , Bangladesh , Uganda , Tunisia ,
Senegal, Cuba , Zimbabwe , Zambia , Venezuela , Qatar , Djibouti , Korea , Panama  and Madagascar
welcomed the accession of Jordan and supported adoption of the Working Party report and the draft
decision on Jordan's accession.
The representative of the United States said that her delegation had strongly supported
Jordan's accession efforts.  The approval of the terms of Jordan's WTO accession was the last step in a
long journey towards a new way of doing business.  Jordan had fully reformed its trade regime and
had negotiated commercially meaningful commitmen ts for market access.  The terms of Jordan's
accession bound Jordan to WTO provisions and established strong commercial guarantees to open
Jordan's markets, promoted the rule of law, and marked Jordan for a leadership role among economic
reformers in the region.  WTO membership based on implementation of WTO provisions and market-access commitments would build confidence in Jordan's economic future.
The representative of Bolivia, on behalf of GRULAC
, said that WTO Members would be
much enriched by Jordan's accession.  The Latin American countries and the Arab world had always
had a very close and special relationship, which would be further strengthened by the opening up ofnew markets and even stronger economic ties.
The representative of the European Communities sa id that as one of Jordan's largest trading
partners and with a specific and privileged trad ing relationship with that country, the CommunityWT/GC/M/52
Page 4
welcomed Jordan's accession to the WTO.  The Co mmunity favoured the integration of Jordan into
the world trading system and supported the adoption of Jordan's accession package.
The representative of Turkey said that given his country's geographic proximity to and
privileged relationship with Jordan, Turkey had always supported Jordan's accession efforts.  WTO
accession would contribute to the prosperity of the Jordanian people and of the countries of the
region, as well as to the universality of the WTO.  Turkey hoped that the other countries in this region
would become WTO Members as soon as possible.
The representative of Israel said that his country had strongly supported Jordan in its
accession process.  Jordan's accession would contribute to the development of trade and economic
cooperation in the region.
The representative of Malaysia, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that Jordan's
membership in the WTO would provide impetus to the multilateral trading system as Jordan
contributed to, and benefitted from, that system.  His expressed his delegation's appreciation for the
commitment and flexibility Jordan had shown in ame nding its domestic legislation to conform with its
new multilateral commitment, in addition to responding to bilateral requests for lowering trade
barriers.  This had enabled ASEAN to support Jordan's accession.  ASEAN had close relations with
Jordan and looked forward to working with it as a WTO Member.
The representative of Egypt, on behalf of the Group of Arab countries Members of the WTO ,
expressed these countries' satisfaction in welcoming Jordan as a WTO Member.  Jordan was the
seventh Arab country to join the WTO, and its accession would be an asset to the WTO's work and a
valuable addition to the Arab countries Members of the WTO.  These countries looked forward to
Jordan's contribution to the work of the WTO and to the multilateral trading system.
The Chairman proposed that the General Council approve  the text of the draft Protocol of
Accession and the text of the draft Decision on the Accession of Jordan and, in accordance with the
Decision-Making Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November
1995 (WT/L/93), adopt the draft Decision on the Accession of Jordan.1  He also proposed that the
General Council adopt the report of the Work ing Party (WT/ACC/JOR/33 and Corr.1 and Add.1
and 2) and take note of the statements and expressions of support.
The General Council so agreed.
3. Follow-up to the Seattle Ministerial Conference
The Chairman proposed2 that consideration of this item be postponed in order to allow
delegations time for consultations.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation could go along with the Chairman's
suggestion to take up item 3 at a later time.  However, there were a number of deadlines that came due
on 31 December 1999, and Pakistan had identified between six and ten issues that would require someform of decision by the General Council or by other WTO bodies before that date.  Members had to
be clear how they intended to address these so-called deadline issues before the deadlines were
                                                     
1 The Decision was circulated in WT/ACC/JOR/34.
2Following the Chairman's proposal the General Council met in informal mode to discuss how to
proceed.  Subsequent to the discussion in the informal meeting, the General Council decided that the statements
made at the informal meeting would be included in the record of the formal meeting, and they follow in the
present Minutes.WT/GC/M/52
Page 5
reached.  Pakistan was prepared to hold informal consultations with the appropriate WTO officials in
order to try to evolve consensus decisions regarding these issues during the remainder of December.
However, as some delegations might be absent during the holidays, it might be better to decide to
freeze these issues, to stop the clock on the deadlines, and to come back to these at the next meeting
of the General Council, thereby allowing time for consultations.  It was his delegation's understandingthat these issues were frozen until the consultations regarding this item were resumed.  An explicit
understanding on this was necessary in order to avoid a legal limbo.  This was a serious matter for
many delegations and clarification was essential.  The Chairman should make a statement regarding
the postponement of consideration of item 3 that co vered the deadline issues and made clear that those
issues were also frozen.
The Chairman said that the present meeting of the General Council would be adjourned and
would be resumed as early as possible in 2000 to take up this item.  It was his understanding that the
question raised by Pakistan concerning the provisions that would lapse and deadlines that would
expire on 31 December 1999 would be part of the consultations to be continued.  The General Council
would therefore revert to these matters when it resumed early in 2000.
The representative of Pakistan said that the Chairman's statement did not respond to the
concerns some delegations had over these issues.  First, there was some question whether the
deadlines included in the Uruguay Round Agreements, as well as other deadlines that flowed from
subsequent decisions at the Singapore and Geneva Ministerial Conferences, would lapse on
31 December 1999 in the absence of decisions taken by the Ministerial Conference or by the GeneralCouncil.  These issues were not entirely related to  the follow-up to the Seattle Ministerial Conference.
Therefore, it would be necessary for the Chairman to state clearly that the consultations would also
cover the issues of the deadlines that would expire on 31 December 1999, and of other decisions that
would leave open the continuation of certain agreements or obligations after that date.  Pakistan
would like to see an understanding in the Chairman's statement that there would be no legalimplications flowing, or not flowing, from Member s' failure to act before 31 December 1999.  In the
absence of that, all kinds of misunderstandings might arise in January 2000.  There was a need for
clarity and specificity in the Chairman's statement in order to respond to delegations' disquiet over
these issues.
The representative of Panama said that his delegation was concerned by the possible
repercussions, regarding the deadlines in question, of a decision to suspend the present meeting.
Panama would like to consider what the conseque nces would be of closing the present meeting and
having a new meeting in January 2000, given the valid concerns voiced by Pakistan.
The representative of Mexico said that Members needed a better understanding of this issue in
order to be able to finish the year's work in a serene frame of mind and to start the following year
positively.  On the one hand were the elements regarding the suspension of consideration of item 3,
and on the other was the fact that a suspension of this nature would allow for consultations to be held
and decisions possibly taken on any aspects of item 3, including proposals that had been put forward
regarding a possible extension of certain obligations, decisions and specific commitments.  A third
element related to specific obligations that would expire or come into effect on 31 December 1999.
Members needed time to deal with these issues without prejudging whether or not there would be an
extension of the deadlines or entry into force of the provisions concerned.  Lastly, such an
understanding should last until the General Council met again to take up item 3.
The representative of the European Communities said that his delegation supported the
Chairman's proposal to suspend consideration of item 3 until the General Council's next meeting, in
light of the fact that there were issues on which there was no consensus.  It was clear that if there was
a deadline of 31 December 1999 and the General Council did not meet again until January 2000,
whatever expired on 31 December would indeed have expired.  The Community was aware that thereWT/GC/M/52
Page 6
had been discussion of extending some of these deadlines or stopping the clock, but was not aware of
any formal proposals to this effect.  Therefore, the only thing that could be done to meet some of the
concerns that had been expressed was for Members to agree – when the decision was taken to suspend
the meeting – to exercise a certain degree of restraint until the next meeting of the General Council.
The representative of Pakistan said that the failure to reach decisions on various issues at
Seattle had created real difficulties regarding certain issues.  His delegation would be happy to make
at least two formal proposals at the present date regarding the extension of the deadlines under two
agreements – TRIMS and TRIPS.  If this were not considered feasible, some other way had to be
found to address the deadline issues.  Pakistan had suggested a general way of doing this through a
statement by the Chairman that those issues on which there were deadlines of 31 December 1999
would be the subject of further consultations and th at no action would be taken with respect to those
issues until the consultations had been concluded.  That would satisfy both the legal and political
requirements that flowed from the failure to reac h agreement on these issues in the context of the
negotiations.  These issues were of utmost importance to his and other delegations, and there had to be
clarity on them before the General Council adjourned for the holidays.
The representative of Switzerland said there was a need for a position that was neither totally
political nor totally legal, but pragmatic.  All had to accept a minimum degree of ambiguity that
would be constructive.  These issues could not be solved with any precision at the present meeting.  In
the constructive ambiguity of what was not said, all should accept some degree of disquiet.  The
Chairman's proposal was excellent and his delegation supported it.
The representative of Brazil said that his delegation agreed largely with Switzerland.  There
was ambiguity regarding several issues, one of whic h was the deadlines, including deadlines linked to
specific events.  Brazil did not see a big difference between what the Community had said about due
restraint and what Pakistan had said about no action.  Perhaps a formulation could be found thatpreserved this ambiguity, since the consultations envisaged had to cover both broad and specific
issues, on the understanding that Members would av oid any action that would prejudice the results of
those consultations.  This would enable delegations to reflect in peace on all of these matters.
The representative of Mexico said that his delegation could support either of the suggestions
by Pakistan, but strongly preferred the suggestion that the Chairman make a statement that those
issues on which there were deadlines of 31 December 1999 would be the subject of furtherconsultations and that no action would be taken with respect to those issues until the consultations
foreseen had been concluded.  It was not just a question of the deadlines falling on
31 December 1999, but also of other elements that had already expired.  Mexico was willing to
consider these issues favourably in order to have a more auspicious start of 2000.  It would be for the
good of all to enter into the constructive ambiguity mentioned by Switzerland so as to provide anopportunity to find creative solutions to these questions.
The representative of the United States said that as the host country for the Seattle Ministerial
Conference, the United States wanted to thank all delegations for their hard work leading up to Seattle
and for their contribution at Seattle.  All WTO Members were important and valued trading partnersof the United States.  While there had been many difficult issues at Seattle and many disagreements,
Members had come a long way in bridging the gaps between them, considerable progress had been
made, and all were committed to carrying forward and completing the work that had begun.  Members
needed to use the holiday break to reflect, and to return to Geneva with a commitment to resolve some
of the outstanding differences.  Her delegation's position on the transition periods was clear:  theseshould be taken up on a case-by-case, country-by-country basis, so as to ensure that the real concerns
of Members – and the balance of their rights and obligations – was preserved, as agreed to at the
conclusion of the Uruguay Round.  This was the best way to meet individual needs in an orderly and
efficient manner, since every situation was different.  The Community's suggestion that MembersWT/GC/M/52
Page 7
exercise restraint was a good one, as these issues would not be settled at the present meeting and a
complex procedural debate should be avoided.  The United States was prepared to be creative and
pragmatic in addressing concerns about deadlines, without prejudice to its rights.
The representative of Canada said that the Chairman's proposal to defer consideration of
item 3 was wise.  Members seemed to recognize that there was a need to have the discussion under
this item at the right time and in the right place, and that that time had not yet come.  There were three
options regarding the deadlines that were to expire on 31 December 1999.  The first was to be
indifferent, and let the chips fall where they may.  The second was to seek agreement on a formal
proposal at the present meeting, but that option was no longer possible.  A third option was to take the
time in the next weeks or months to consult creatively and constructively and to revisit the issues
regarding expiration dates and deadlines in a way that would seek to postpone the effect of those datesand deadlines.  Canada had an interest in a number of these issues and recognized that other Members
might be interested in other issues.  Thus, there was a need for constructive accommodation.  If that
spirit of accommodation could be found in addressing these issues in a way that the deadlines simply
did not lapse, this would begin the process of finding the necessary accommodation that had escaped
Members in Seattle.  Members should try to construct a bridge into the new year that would takeproper account of the lapsing of deadlines.
The representative of the Dominican Republic said that the solution to this problem was quite
simple.  The second of Pakistan's suggestions was a good one and provided the necessary elements.
The Chairman's statement on this matter should reflect Pakistan's suggestion.  This would create anatmosphere more propitious to finding the solutions Members had been unable to find at Seattle.
The representative of Morocco said that under the circumstances, the best solution would be
to proceed with the Chairman's statement on the basis of the understanding that Brazil had put
forward that until the consultations were concluded no action would be taken.
The representative of India said that his delegation intended to pursue all of its
implementation proposals in the new year.  Howeve r, India too was concerned about the lapsing of
deadlines.  Members had to agree unequivocally in a political sense that the consultations foreseen
would be meaningful and would be held in an atmosphere free from any pressure arising from
concern over the lapsing of deadlines.  These issues should be addressed multilaterally and not on a
case-by-case basis.  The Chairman's statement should make clear that there was a clear politicalcommitment that during the consultations due re straint would be shown, that there would be no
automatic lapsing of the deadlines, and that no action would be taken until the consultations had been
completed.
The representative of Egypt said that implementation continued to be a matter of priority for
her delegation.  Members were faced with a de facto situation because of what had not happened in
Seattle, and this made clarity indispensable.  The question of deadlines was an important one that
would have serious implications were it not addressed at the present time.  Many legal questions had
to be addressed.  While constructive ambiguity might be useful, destructive ambiguity should be
avoided.  Like Pakistan, Mexico, the Dominican Re public and India, her delegation would like to see
a statement by the Chairman on this issue along the lines outlined by India.  Egypt agreed with the
United States that there was a need to be creative in addressing the issue of the deadlines.  However,
there was a need to settle this issue before the holidays.
The representative of Panama said that another option was to decide that the present meeting
was concluded.  This might be the best path to follow in order to preserve the constructive ambiguity
to which several delegations had referred.  To suspend the meeting would be to introduce greater
uncertainty, as some delegations seemed to be interpreting this as stopping the clock.WT/GC/M/52
Page 8
The representative of Peru said that his delegation would prefer a decision on the following
basis.  The meeting would be suspended,  and the Chairman's statement to this effect would include
two further elements:  a general reference to the fact that the issue of the deadlines would be part of
the consultations to be taken up in January, and an implicit understanding by those delegations present
that there would be no legal consequences flowing from the Chairman's statement regarding thedeadlines, until the consultations were concluded.  This would open the way for a constructive
solution.
The Chairman said that it was clear from the discussion why he had formulated his proposal
the way he had.  Everything would be on the table in the consultations foreseen, including the issues
raised by Pakistan.  All Members had indicated the need to show understanding and restraint in this
regard so that all concerns were accommodated during the period of consultations.  However, anyeffort to be clearer than he had been in his statement might lead to other problems.  There was a need
for time for these consultations, and in the meantime restraint should be exercised by all.  He would
try to formulate an understanding on this politi cal commitment in the formal statement he would
make.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation had exercised restraint in suggesting
that item 3 not be discussed.  Pakistan's understanding of the restraint mentioned by the Chairman was
that there would be no actions or legal implications flowing from the fact that consultations were
continuing on the various issues, including the deadline issues.  Until those consultations were
concluded it had to be clear what this restraint was and how long it would be exercised.  He asked theChairman to formulate a text that would provide this clarity.
The representative of the European Communities said that the Chairman's statement was a fair
summary of all the points of view expressed.  The Community would not be able to join a consensus
on a statement by the Chairman that included references to legal implications.
The representative of the United States said that the Community had expressed the concerns
of many delegations.
The representative of Norway said that the Chairman had made a good suggestion.  If a list
were to be drawn up of specific legal implications it would have to be done on a case-by-case basis.
There could be no general waiver.  It was not possible to have 100 per cent clarity on the issuesraised, and there was a need for Members to trust one another.  He appealed to all delegations to end
the year on a constructive note.
The representative of Switzerland said that his delegation agreed with the Community's
statement on legal implications.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation had simply sought to clarify "restraint"
and "understanding", which his delegation took to mean that no action would be taken to prejudice the
rights of any Member with regard to the various deadline issues.  If certain Members reserved the
right to take action on some of these issues, Pakistan would suggest a full discussion of item 3, andthat Members establish the status of various agreements in the light of the failure of the discussions at
Seattle and discuss what would happen subsequently.
The representative of Hungary said that Members had to preserve a minimum level of good
faith in their negotiations, and the present discussion was not going in that direction.  Hungary could
support the Chairman's proposal because it seemed to be the best proposal at the present time.  The
Chairman's statement, with the clarification by Brazil, provided sufficient assurances for all
delegations.WT/GC/M/52
Page 9
The representative of Brazil said that while his delegation shared Pakistan's concerns, there
was only so much clarity that could be obtained at the present time.  The summary of the discussion
the Chairman had just made was useful and provided his delegation sufficient assurances as to what
was meant by "restraint".  Given the current sensitive political situation, any Member – no matter how
powerful – would think twice before taking to dispute settlement any of the questions that were beingdiscussed in the last moments of the Seattle Ministerial Conference, before the consultations foreseen
had been concluded.
The representative of Mexico said that the solution outlined by the Chairman, together with
the statement by Pakistan, should enable Members to resolve this matter.  He suggested that the
meeting be suspended briefly in order for the Chairman to draft a statement.
The representative of Cuba supported the suggestion by Pakistan and Mexico and said there
was a need for clarity regarding the issues raised by Pakistan.
The representative of Ecuador said that Pakistan's proposal aimed at responding to the
concerns of several countries.  Members had to address the needs of developing countries in good
faith.  A case-by-case approach would not be practicable and would require considerable time as well
as considerable resources on the part of developing countries who would have to demonstrate, in the
various committees and councils, their need to ma intain the transition periods.  Therefore, there
should be an understanding at the present meeting that there would be no legal consequences or
implications for Members as a result of the deadlin es that would lapse on 31 December 1999, and this
should be included in the Chairman's statement.
The representative of Singapore said that there seemed to be wide support for the Chairman's
statement and his approach to the deadline issues.  Suspending the meeting would not help.  More
important than the actual wording of the Chairman's  statement was the spirit in which it was accepted.
The Chairman should make his statement, and delegations could then state their interpretations of that
statement for the record.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation understood that the restraint called for
would be of a nature that no action would be taken that would compromise the position of any
Member with regard to the issues that had been referred to.  These issues were all the matters related
to the Seattle Ministerial Conference, including the issue of the various deadlines and other mattersthat required decision or clarification.  While the spirit of any text was important, the text itself was
also important.
The representative of Uganda said that his delegation had shown maximum restraint both at
Seattle and at the present meeting.  Uganda's understanding of restraint in the context indicated by the
Chairman was that Members undertook a political commitment not to invoke dispute settlement
regarding the rights and obligations related to the issues under consultation.
The Chairman said that he appreciated the frankness of the discussion.  It was understood that
during the consultations to be held and until those consultations were concluded – which would
include all issues that needed clarification – Members would show the necessary restraint in order to
accommodate the difficulties of other Members.  He could not be clearer than this without causing
problems for some Members.  This matter involved understanding, good will and restraint, and the
political accommodation of others' interests.  He then declared the informal meeting closed and
reverted to the formal meeting of the General Council, in which he proposed that consideration ofitem 3 be postponed and read out the following statement:
" As I have proposed, this meeting of the General Council will be adjourned and resumed as
early as possible next year to take up item 3 of the Agenda.  It is my understanding that theWT/GC/M/52
Page 10
question raised by a number of delegations concerning the provisions which lapse and
deadlines which expire on 31 December of this year will be part of the consultations to be
continued.  The General Council will therefore revert to these matters when it resumes early
next year.
It is understood that all Members will exercise restraint on the matters under consultation so
as not to prejudice further fruitful discussion and decisions on these matters, or the position of
other Members.
Members have made it clear that informal consultations are necessary on a wide variety of
issues, including the issue of deadlines.  Ma ny Members urged understanding by all Members
in those consultations, and they urged due restraint on the part of Members.  This approachwould be without prejudice to the position on rights and obligations of Members."
He appealed to delegations not to insist on changes to the text of this statement and to accept
it in a spirit of compromise and on the basis of good will.  He called on delegations, in the coming
consultations, to take into account the good will and the restraint that had been urged at the presentmeeting, so as to allow Members move forward in a cooperative spirit.
The General Council so agreed, took note
 of the statements, and adjourned .
__________