RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/71
13 December 2001
(01-6315)
General Council
31 October and 1 November 2001
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 31 October and 1 November 2001
Chairman:  Mr. Stuart Harbinson (Hong Kong, China)
1. Accession of Iran............................................................................................................ ...........2
(a) Communication from Iran .................................................................................................... ......2
2. Attendance of observers at the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference ...................2
(a) International intergover nmental orga nizations ...........................................................................2
3. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement................................................................3
(a) Harmonized System – Requests for extension of  time-lim its.....................................................3
(i) Nicaragua .................................................................................................................. ................3
(ii) Sri Lanka ................................................................................................................. ...................3
(b) Zambia – Renegotiation of Schedule LXXVIII..........................................................................3
(i) Request for extens ion of ti me-lim it ........................................................................................ ....3
4. Work programme on el ectronic commerce............................................................................4
5. Proposal to Amend Certain Provisions of the Understanding on Rules and
Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes Pursuant to Article X of the
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization ..................................4
(a) Submission by Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Co lombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Japan, Korea,
New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Switzerland, Uruguay and Venezuela for Examination
and Further Consideration by  the General Council ...................................................................4
6. Proposals to review and to amend the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settleme nt of Disputes.....................................................................................6
(a) Communication from Thailand ................................................................................................ ..6
(b) Communication from the Ph ilippines and Thailand ..................................................................6
7. Reports of the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of the
Council for Trade in  Services ...............................................................................................10
8. Review of WT O activi ties..................................................................................................... ..11
(a) General Council, Dispute Settlement Body, Trade Policy Review Body, Sectoral
Councils and, Committees on Trade and Development, Balance-of-Payments
Restrictions, Budget, Finance and Admini stration, and Regional Trade Agreements..............11
(b) Committee on Trade and Environment ....................................................................................11WT/GC/M/71
Page 2
(c) Working Groups on the Relationship between Trade and Investment, the Interaction
between Trade and Competition Policy, and Transparency in Government
Procurement.................................................................................................................... ..........11
(d) Committees under the Pluril ateral Trade Agreements .............................................................11
9. Preparations for the Fourth Sessio n of the Ministerial Conference...................................12
1. Accession of Iran
(a) Communication from Ir an (WT/ACC/IRN/1)
1. The Chairman drew attention to the communi cation from Iran in document WT/ACC/IRN/1
requesting accession to the WTO Agreement. He noted that consultations were continuing on this
matter.  However, given the short time available to Members since the last General Council meeting
on 10 October 2001 when this matter was on the agenda, and given that delegations had had toconcentrate on the preparations for the Doha Ministerial Conference, he proposed to revert to this
matter at the next regular General Council meeting.
2. The General Council so agreed.
2. Attendance of observers at the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference
(a) International intergovernmental organizations
3. The Chairman recalled that at the General Council meeting on 10 October 2001, he had
drawn attention to five requests for observer status at the Fourth Ministerial Conference by
international organizations which had been neither observers in the General Council nor in other
WTO bodies.  These organizations were: the United Nations Institute for Training and Research, the
Indian Ocean Commission, the Indian Ocean Ri m Association for Regional Cooperation, the
Economic Community of West African States and the Inter-Parliamentary Union.  At that meeting the
General Council had agreed that unless any objection was received by the Secretariat from any
Member by 15 October 2001, these organizations would be granted observer status to the Fourth
Ministerial Conference.  Since no objection had been received by the Secretariat in relation to these
five requests, observer status at the Fourth Ministerial Conference had been granted to theseorganizations.  Moreover, since the last General Council meeting, the Secretariat had received
requests for observer status at the Fourth Ministerial Conference from the Union du Maghreb Arabe,
and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, which was a regional economic organization
promoting regional integration in the Horn of Africa.  He proposed that unless any objection was
received by the Secretariat from any Member by 1 November 2001, these organizations be granted
observer status at the Fourth Ministerial Conference.
4. The representative of Egypt said that her country did not intend to object to the new requests
for observer status.  It was not the habit of Egypt to do so, except on matters of principle.  Egypt
reiterated its disappointment regarding the objections to the request for observer status at the Fourth
Ministerial Conference by the League of Arab States and regretted that no consensus had yet been
reached on this matter despite the support for this request in the WTO.  Egypt was hopeful that the
objections to this request would be lifted before the Fourth Ministerial Conference and that theLeague of Arab States would be able to participate as an observer, especially given that this
Conference was being held in Qatar, which wa s a member of the League of Arab States.
5. The representative of Cuba said that his country did not intend to object to any of the new
requests for observer status at the Fourth Ministerial Conference, but wished to seek clarification with
regard to a request made by the Chairman of the Group of 77 countries in New York, the AmbassadorWT/GC/M/71
Page 3
of Iran, in a letter addressed to the Director-General in October 2001 regarding the possibility of being
granted the right to attend the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  As Chairman of the Group of 77
countries in Geneva, he wished to know what was the status of this request.
6. The Chairman said that the letter had been received and that the matter was currently under
consideration.
7. The General Council took note of the statements and agreed  to the Chairman's proposal with
regard to the two new requests from international intergovernmental organizations for observer status
at the Fourth Ministerial Conference.
3. Waivers under Article IX of the WTO Agreement
(a) Harmonized System – Requests for extension of time-limits
(i) Nicaragua (G/L/481, G/C/W/299)
8. The Chairman drew attention to the request from Nicaragua for an extension until
30 April 2002 of the waiver previously granted in connection with its implementation of the
Harmonized System, and to the related draft Decision (G/C/W/299).
9. Mr. Major (Hungary), Chairman of the Coun cil for Trade in Goods, reporting on the
Council's consideration of this request, said that the Council had agreed to forward the draft Decision
to the General Council for adoption.
10. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft Decision in G/C/W/299.1
(ii) Sri Lanka (G/L/477, G/C/W/298 and Corr.1)
11. The Chairman drew attention to the request from Sri Lanka for an extension until
30 April 2002 of the waiver previously granted in connection with its implementation of the
Harmonized System, and to the related draft Decision (G/C/W/298 and Corr.1).
12. Mr. Major (Hungary), Chairman of the Coun cil for Trade in Goods, reporting on the
Council's consideration of this request, said that the Council had agreed to forward the draft Decision
to the General Council for adoption.
13. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft Decision in G/C/W/298 and Corr.1.2
(b) Zambia – Renegotiation of Schedule LXXVIII
(i) Request for extension of time-limit (G/L/482, G/C/W/306)
14. The Chairman drew attention to the request from Zambia for an extension until 30 April 2002
of the waiver previously granted in connection with the renegotiation of Schedule LXXVIII, and to
the related draft Decision (G/C/W/306).
                                                     
1 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/426.
2 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/427.WT/GC/M/71
Page 4
15. Mr. Major (Hungary), Chairman of the Coun cil for Trade in Goods, reporting on the
Council's consideration of this request, said that the Council had agreed to forward the draft Decision
to the General Council for adoption.
16. The General Council took note of the report and, in accordance with the Decision-Making
Procedures under Articles IX and XII of the WTO Agreement agreed in November 1995 (WT/L/93),
adopted the draft Decision in G/C/W/306.3
4. Work programme on electronic commerce
17. The Chairman recalled that this was a standing item on the General Council's agenda.
However, since the consideration of this matter at the General Council meeting on 10 October 2001,
there did not seem to be any new elements that would warrant discussion at the present meeting.
18. The General Council agreed to revert to this matter at its next meeting.
5. Proposal to Amend Certain Provisions of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes Pu rsuant to Article X of the Marrakesh
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization
(a) Submission by Bolivia, Canada, Chile, Colomb ia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Japan, Korea, New
Zealand, Norway, Peru, Switzerland, Uruguay and Venezuela for Examination and Further
Consideration by the General Council (WT/GC/W/410/Rev.1)
19. The representative of Japan, on behalf of the co-sponsors of the proposal , said that as stated at
the General Council meeting on 10 October 2001, the co-sponsors had modified their proposal, and
had circulated it to all Members in document WT/GC/W/410/Rev.1.  In addition, Japan had circulated
a draft Ministerial Decision (WT/MIN(01)/W/6) wh ich included the revised proposal as an Annex,
and had requested the Chairman of the General Council to forward the entire text to Ministers in view
of taking appropriate action at the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  The changes made to the proposal
included mainly the introduction of a right of appeal to the process of "determination of compliance".
He recalled that in the original proposal the "Compliance Panel", whose role was to examine the issue
of compliance with the rulings or recommendations of  the DSB, was "the court of last instance".  The
revised proposal also included transitional provisions in order to make clear to what procedures theseamendments applied.  In order to assist Members in their understanding of the proposal, the
co-sponsors had prepared an additional informal paper indicating the proposed changes from the
current DSU text.  This informal document would shortly be circulated to Members.  As stated on
many occasions, the issue of clarifying the sequencing between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU had
long been considered as one of the most pressing issues in the context of improving the dispute
settlement proceedings, given that certain Members had had to resort to bilateral ad hoc arrangements
in order to cope with these shortcomings of the DSU.  This was a systemic issue, the resolution ofwhich would be in the interest of all Members, and would provide a multilateral solution to the
current situation where Members had to revert to bilateral solutions.  As noted in previous General
Council meetings, no objection had been voiced on the substance of the idea of clarifying the
sequencing between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU.  Therefore, the co-sponsors called on all
Members to take the necessary action so that a decision could be taken by Ministers at the FourthMinisterial Conference.  The co-sponsors once again appealed to those Members who favoured a
more comprehensive approach to reconsider their position and see the merit of taking action where
possible.  As suggested by the co-sponsors at an informal Heads of Delegations meeting on the draft
Ministerial Declaration on 22 October 2001, if it would not be possible to take appropriate action on
                                                     
3 The Decision was subsequently circulated as WT/L/428.WT/GC/M/71
Page 5
the proposal at the Fourth Ministerial Conference, the issue of sequencing should be highlighted in the
Declaration as an important element of the post-Doha work programme on the DSU.
20. The representative of Canada recalled that the proposal to amend the DSU had been updated
and improved with a view to broadening its su pport among Members.  The main change to the
proposal was the addition of the full right to appeal from the decision of a Compliance Panel.  InCanada's view, this change would significantly enhance the institutional integrity of the WTO, by
ensuring that critical issues of compliance and implementation could benefit from appellate review.
Canada called upon all Members to consider seriously the revised text and to support it.  Canada was
convinced that the amendment proposal, if adopted, would significantly improve the functioning of
the DSU.  Canada agreed with Japan that if the proposal failed to be adopted at the Fourth Ministerial
Conference, there should be a specific reference in the Ministerial Declaration to the work done to
date on the sequencing issue.
21. The representative of Bulgaria said that his country's position on this matter had not changed
and that the revised proposal did not address Bulgaria's concerns.  However, Bulgaria supported the
efforts to clarify the DSU on the issue of sequencing between Articles 21.5 and 22.  In Bulgaria's
view, the preferable way to address this issue was th rough an interpretation of the DSU.  Bulgaria did
not agree that the revised proposal be forwarded by the Chairman to Ministers for action at the FourthMinisterial Conference, nor that the issue of sequencing be highlighted in the draft Ministerial
Declaration, since there were more important issues which deserved attention and which should be
included in a possible amendment or interpretation of the DSU.  Bulgaria supported the Chairman's
revised text on this issue in the draft Ministerial Declaration.
4
22. The representative of Thailand thanked the co-sponsors for the revised proposal, which raised
an important new issue and contained some new elements that had not been discussed by Members in
detail.  Thailand was willing to study this proposal and engage in a constructive discussion with the
co-sponsors and other Members.  In light of the new issue raised in the revised proposal, and since it
was circulated only a few days before the Ministerial Conference, more time would be necessary to
consider and discuss this new proposal in substance before Thailand could make any binding decisionin this respect.
23. The representative of the United States said that her country welcomed the opportunity to
re-engage in a discussion of needed improvements in the DSU and appreciated the efforts of the
co-sponsors to keep this matter under continuous consideration through informal consultations with
other Members.  Although it did not entirely fulfil the United States' expectations with regard to
transparency, the original proposal by the co-sponsors was a step in the right direction and provided a
basis on which a consensus could be reached.  The United States was disappointed that theco-sponsors had chosen to present a revised text, which seemed to lose sight of the importance of
prompt compliance, thereby reducing the chances of reaching consensus amongst Members.  While
the United States did not support the revised proposal, it hoped that Members would continue to
positively engage in discussions on changes to the DSU that would improve its provisions on
implementation of panel and Appellate Body reports , and that would enhance transparency of the
dispute settlement process, including opening di spute settlement proceedings, and allowing for
appropriate technical amendments.
24. The representative of Brazil thanked the co-sponsors for their revised proposal.  While his
delegation wished to study it further, he noted that the revised proposal constituted an important
contribution to the discussion on the review of the DSU.  Brazil gave great importance to the questionof sequencing between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU, which it hoped could be resolved as soon as
possible.  Brazil would evaluate the revised proposal , particularly with regard to the right to appeal
                                                     
4 JOB(01)/140/Rev.1.WT/GC/M/71
Page 6
the report of the Compliance Panel.  In this respect,  Brazil shared Canada's view with regard to a full
right of appeal.  In light of the time remainin g before the Fourth Ministerial Conference and
considering the relevance of the changes proposed, Brazil supported a mandate to negotiate
improvements and clarifications to the DSU in line with paragraph 26 of the draft Ministerial
Declaration.  However, Brazil would not oppose an early harvest on certain subjects of specialinterest, such as the issue of sequencing.
25. The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note of the statements and agree to
revert to the matter after the Fourth Ministerial Conference, as appropriate.
26. The representative of Bulgaria said that his country had consistently objected to a decision by
the General Council to revert to a matter which had been proposed only by a group of countries.
Since this was not the only proposal to amend the DSU, and since the matter would be considered in
the context of the draft Ministerial Declaration, no decision should be taken in this respect until theFourth Ministerial Conference.
27. The Chairman proposed that in view of the statement by Bulgaria the General Council take
note of the statements.
28. The General Council so agreed.
6. Proposals to review and to amend the Understanding on Rules and Procedures
Governing the Settlement of Disputes
(a) Communication from Thailand (WT/MIN(01)/W/2 and Corr.1)
(b) Communication from the Philippines and Thailand (WT/MIN(01)/W/3 and Corr.1)
29. The Chairman drew attention to the proposal by Thailand to review the DSU, and to the
proposal by the Philippines and Thailand to amend the DSU contained in documents
WT/MIN(01)/W/2 and Corr.1 and WT/MIN(01)/W/3 and Corr.1 respectively.
30. The representative of Thailand said that the first proposal by Thailand sought an amendment
to paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the DSU with a view to increase the number of Appellate Body
members.  Thailand was aware of the financial implications of the proposal, but believed that any
budgetary increase ensuing from this proposal wo uld not excessively burden Members and that the
benefits gained, particularly in terms of increased efficiency of the system, would in any case
outweigh any inconvenience caused.  With regard to the procedural aspects, Thailand was not seeking
an immediate amendment decision by Ministers at the Fourth Ministerial Conference, but rather a
mandate for Members to begin negotiations on this matter after the Ministerial Conference, with a
specific time-frame.  Such a mandate could also include other relevant pending proposals, in
particular India's proposal concerning the term of appointment of Appellate Body members
(WT/DSB/W/117).  In this regard, paragraph 26 of the draft Ministerial Declaration appeared to be asuitable starting point for working towards that mandate.
31. The representative of Thailand, speaking also on behalf of the Philippines
, said that the
second proposal submitted by the Philippines and Thailand sought an amendment to paragraph 7 of
Article 22 of the DSU, with a view to regulate the so-called "carousel" practice.  The purpose was to
ensure that the level of any retaliatory action au thorized under Article 22 of the DSU was equivalent
to the level of nullification or impairment, both in law and in practice.  The proposal contained
specific language for Members' consideration.  Thailand and the Philippines were ready to provide
any further clarification on the proposal, and wished to share some thoughts that had led them to
propose this amendment.  As a matter of principle, the issue of "carousel" was part of theWT/GC/M/71
Page 7
"sequencing" issue, which had been generally understood as the order between the determination of
compliance under Article 21.5 of the DSU on the one hand, and compensation or retaliation under
Article 22 of the DSU, on the other.  The "carousel" practice, or the selection of products to be subject
to retaliation, was logically and legally an integral part of Article 22 of the DSU, and thus an integral
part of the sequencing issue.  For this reason, the two issues should not be considered separately.Moreover, the issue of the "carousel" practice was too important to be left out for political or tactical
considerations.  The issue could only be solved together with the question of sequencing as a whole.
The "carousel" practice was a systemic issue which concerned all Members, and perhaps particularly
developing countries.  It raised the question as to whether the multilateral dispute settlement system
could allow, in the context of a multilaterally authorized trade sanction, a unilateral determination of
products or services to be subject to the sanction.  In this respect, the "carousel" practice did not
concern only one or two major players in the WTO, nor was it a problem specific to previous WTOdisputes involving these major players.  It could have long-term implications with tangible economic
and financial consequences for bigger or smaller economies alike.  Guided by this position of
principle, Thailand had joined in a group of some 29 countries in proposing at the Third Ministerial
Conference, an amendment to the DSU which addressed, among others, the "carousel" practice.
5
Similarly, when the same proposal had been tabled again in September 2000 by a group of Members6
without any reference to the "carousel" practice, Thailand had decided as a matter of principle and onthe basis of this systemic consideration not to co-sponsor it.  Thailand was now proposing a new text
to address this systemic issue, which was based on the previous text but benefited from further
reflections and consultations, as well as from Member's practice since the Third Ministerial
Conference.  Thailand and the Philippines welcomed comments by Members, particularly ontechnical points, since the language proposed was intended as a starting-point for negotiation.
32. Thailand and the Philippines also believed that the timing of the proposal was right.  The
"carousel" practice was not a new issue, but since it had not been discussed by Members for some
time, they felt that it was their duty to remind Memb ers of the existence of this problem and to try to
suggest a remedy.  The Fourth Ministerial Conference was an excellent opportunity for discussing anddeciding on this issue, and they would therefore seek a Decision by Ministers to amend the DSU on
the basis of their proposal.  They intended the proposed language to be a modular component that
could be readily inserted into the current DSU Article 22.  For this purpose, they had circulated to
Members a draft Ministerial Decision in document WT/MIN(01)/W/4.  Alternatively, the language
proposed could also be inserted into a package intended for solving the issue of sequencing between
Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU, such as the proposal  by a group of countries in WT/GC/W/410, or its
updated version in WT/GC/W/410/Rev.1 which Members still needed to consider on its own merits.At the same time, the Philippines and Thailand also took note of the suggestion by certain Members
that the "carousel" practice be dealt with after the Fourth Ministerial Conference for substantive or
procedural reasons.  They were therefore prepared for the eventuality that Members would not be able
to reach a consensus on a DSU amendment at the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  In this case, and
although this was not apparent from their proposal , they would be open to consider a possible
mandate from Ministers at the Doha Ministerial Conference for subsequent negotiations on the
"carousel" issue, if such a negotiating mandate included all the amendment proposals concerning
Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU tabled at Doha, incl uding their proposal in WT/MIN(01)/W/3.  In this
respect, paragraph 26 of the draft Ministerial Declaration appeared to be a suitable starting-point for
working towards that mandate.  They hoped that Members would favourably consider their twoproposals in the light of systemic considerations and in the interest of the multilateral trading system.
33. The representative of Saint Lucia said that her country had an interest in the proposal by the
Philippines and Thailand and wished to reserve its comments on this matter.
                                                     
5 Footnote 11 of document WT/MIN(99)/8.
6 WT/GC/W/410.WT/GC/M/71
Page 8
34. The representative of Bulgaria said that his country welcomed both proposals which stemmed
from tangible problems faced by the dispute settlement system, and that it would study them carefully.
These proposals, along with the proposals on sequencing, as well as others that could be submitted by
Members in the future, could serve as a useful input for the future DSU amendment, interpretation or
review as foreseen in the draft Ministerial Declaration.  Therefore, there was no need for a specialmandate on any of these proposals, since they would all have a chance to be discussed in a
forthcoming review of the DSU.
35. The representative of Turkey said that his country welcomed the two proposals, which
pertained to important systemic issues, and that it would study them carefully.  The fact that such
constructive proposals had been submitted was a positive step in itself.  These proposals, together
with the other proposals already submitted, would enable Members to discuss in depth the dispute
settlement system.
36. The representative of Jamaica expressed her country's interest in both proposals and wished to
participate in any further discussions thereon, particularly in light of some concerns that it wished to
see addressed as part of a discussion on an expansion of the Appellate Body.
37. The representative of Mexico wished to express his country's interest in the two proposals.
These proposals, as well as any others that would be considered as part of the negotiations under
paragraph 26 of the draft Ministerial Declaration, should be taken into account in order to improve
and clarify the dispute settlement procedures.
38. The representative of the United States said that her country agreed with Thailand that the
increasing workload of the Appellate Body was a matter of concern, and that the expansion of the
Appellate Body was one of the options that should be considered as part of this issue.  However,Thailand's proposal should be considered as part of a broader examination of the DSU.  With regard
to the second proposal by Thailand and the Philippines, the United States believed that the
amendment proposed should be raised in the context of a broader review of Article 22 of the DSU,
and in an overall review of the DSU within the DSB.  The United States agreed that one of the major
areas for discussion in such a review would be th e relationship between Articles 21 and 22 of the
DSU.  However, the issue of equivalence of the withdrawal of concessions and the level of
nullification and impairment of benefits was only one of the many questions that had been raised in
this regard.  There was no basis for giving this issue any greater priority than to other proposals that
had been made in relation to Articles 21 and 22 of  the DSU and in the ongoing informal discussions
on the dispute settlement reform.  In addition, the proposed amendment was not acceptable to the
United States, as the co-sponsors were aware, amendments to the DSU could only be made by
consensus.  The United States continued to hope th at in the coming months Members would be able to
agree on changes to the DSU in areas where there was a consensus in order to enhance the
implementation of panel and Appellate Body reports and the transparency of the dispute settlement
process, along with other technical changes.
39. The representative of Singapore welcomed the proposal by the Philippines and Thailand
pertaining to the issue of "carousel".  In Singapore's view, this was an integral issue closely linked to
the issue of sequencing that should be addressed by Members and thus this proposal complemented
the earlier proposal in WT/GC/W/410/Rev.1.  Sing apore looked forward to  working with other
Members on the two proposals.
40. The representative of Indonesia welcomed the proposal by the Philippines and Thailand on
the issue of "carousel", which was one of the priority issues to be discussed by Members.  This was
not a new issue, as it had been discussed in the context of the preparations for the Third Ministerial
Conference.  Indonesia shared the view that the i ssue of "carousel" was also part of the sequencing
issue and should thus be given the same treatment.  Indonesia believed that the proposal onWT/GC/M/71
Page 9
sequencing coupled with the proposal on "carousel" would significantly improve the dispute
settlement system.
41. The representative of the Czech Republic thanked the delegations of the Philippines, Thailand
and Japan, along with the other co-sponsors for their efforts to improve and clarify the DSU.  While
the Czech Republic welcomed positively many of the elements contained in these proposals, the onlyviable way to proceed on this matter was the one suggested by the Chairman of the General Council
in his revised draft Ministerial Declaration. The Czech Republic believed that a broad mandate for
negotiations was needed in this area, as well as a clear understanding on how this issue would be dealt
with in a future work programme.
42. The representative of Canada said that with respect to the number of Appellate Body
members, his country took note of the fact that Thailand was seeking a review of the issue after the
Ministerial Conference.  Canada had an open mind on this matter and would participate actively inthese discussions.  All aspects of this issue would have to be studied, including the implications for
the WTO budget.  As for the "carousel" practice, the proposal by Thailand and the Philippines had
raised a number of important issues that would require careful examination.  Members were well
aware that this issue had already generated some debate and was one that warranted further study and
attention.  However, in Canada's view, there was little prospect of securing consensus on this issuebefore or at the Doha Ministerial Conference.  Members should seek agreement on the DSU issues on
which a consensus was possible, principally on the sequencing issue.  Other matters, including the
"carousel" practice should be addressed within a broader DSU review following the Ministerial
Conference.  In the time remaining before the Ministerial Conference, Members had to focus on
securing the broad consensus needed to advance those DSU amendments that had weatheredextensive debate and that commanded a certain level of support among Members.
43. The representative of the European Communities said in respect of Thailand's proposal, that
all Members seemed to accept that the Appellate Body was of paramount importance for the
satisfactory functioning of the dispute settlement system.  The Community was ready to discuss
actively different ways of ensuring that the Appellate Body could perform its task under optimalconditions, and Thailand's proposal was in this respect a useful option for consideration.  With regard
to the proposal by the Philippines and Thailand, the Community noted that "carousel" was a key issue,
and that it would be unable to accept any DSU revision that did not adequately address it.  The
Community therefore supported the valuable contributions made by the Philippines and Thailand
towards the improvement and revision of the DSU, and would actively contribute to the further
consideration of these proposals together with ideas of its own in the framework of the mandate for
improving the DSU contained in the draft Ministerial Declaration.
44. The representative of India said that his country had an important systemic interest in this
matter.  India believed that the issues of sequencing between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU and
"carousel" practice were both extremely important and that their resolution would contribute to the
security and predictability objectives of the disp ute settlement mechanism.  However, the changes in
the DSU should not adversely affect the time-frames provided in the DSU from a developingcountry's perspective.  India welcomed the proposal by the Philippines and Thailand on the issue of
"carousel" and would examine it carefully, together with the issue of sequencing.
45. The representative of Brunei Darussalam said that her country welcomed the proposal by the
Philippines and Thailand on the issue of "carousel", which it considered to be an integral part of the
issue of sequencing between Articles 21.5 and 22 of the DSU.
46. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that his country was still examining the two
proposals, but could consider them favourably.  However there were still some technical details that
required further study, particularly concerning the proposal to amend the DSU.  Hong Kong, ChinaWT/GC/M/71
Page 10
was not in a position to support a decision in this regard at the Fourth Ministerial Conference and
believed that the proposals could be considered as part of the review of the DSU after the Fourth
Ministerial Conference as suggested in paragraph 26 of the draft Ministerial Declaration.
47. The representative of Slovenia said that while his country was still studying the proposals, it
was generally supportive of their substance.  He recalled that Slovenia was a co-sponsor of the pre-
Seattle proposal to amend the DSU.  However at this stage, Slovenia was of the view that these
proposals should be considered after the Fourth Ministerial Conference, in the context of a broader
review of the DSU in which all the proposals submitted by Members would be taken into account.
48. The representative of Brazil expressed his country's concern regarding the issue of "carousel"
and its compatibility with the objectives of the DSU. Brazil was interested in participating in future
discussions on this matter and would be studying the proposals made by the Philippines and Thailand.
Brazil believed that paragraph 26 of the draft Ministerial Declaration provided an appropriateframework for future discussions on this issue.
49. The representative of Japan said that with respect to Thailand's proposal, his country was of
the view that it was worthwhile to consider increasing the number of Appellate Body members by
around two to four, and it would support this idea when the opportunity would arise to discuss this
issue.  With regard to the proposal by the Philippines and Thailand, Japan noted that the issue of"carousel" was an important and complex issue which required in-depth analysis and discussion and
which should therefore be left to future work after the Fourth Ministerial Conference.
50. The representative of Hungary thanked the delegations of the Philippines and Thailand for
their proposal on the important systemic issue of "carousel", which was not clear under the DSU.  In
Hungary's view, this proposal should be carefully studied and should be part of future negotiations asenvisaged in paragraph 26 of the draft Ministerial Declaration if Members were unable to address this
issue successfully at the Fourth Ministerial Conference.
51. The representative of Argentina said that both the issues of sequencing between Articles 21.5
and 22 of the DSU and "carousel" were of great importance to his delegation. Argentina was prepared
to participate in future discussions regarding these issues within the framework agreed by Members.
52. The General Council took note of the statements.
7. Reports of the Special Sessions of the Committee on Agriculture and of the Council for
Trade in Services (S/CSS/9)
53. The Chairman said that this was a standing item on the General Council's agenda.  He recalled
that at the last General Council meeting on 10 October 2001, there had been no report by the Council
for Trade in Services under this agenda item, since the special session of the Council for Trade in
Services, which had been held on the 7-8 October 2001, had to be continued and resumed on the12 October 2001 after the General Council meeting.  The report from the Council for Trade in
Services was now available in the form of a written statement by the Chairman of this Council
addressed to the General Council (S/CSS/9).
54. The Chairman proposed that the General Council take note of the report and agree to revert to
the matter at its next meeting.
55. The representative of Bulgaria said that it was not necessary for the General Council to take a
decision to revert to this matter, since this was a standing item on the General Council's agenda.
Moreover, if Members reached an agreement on a new mandate in the areas of agriculture and
services, this item would not appear on the agenda of future General Council meetings.WT/GC/M/71
Page 11
56. The Chairman said that as Bulgaria rightly stated this was at present a standing item on the
General Council's agenda, and therefore the General Council would necessarily revert to the matter at
its next meeting.
57. The General Council took note of the report in S/CSS/9.
8. Review of WTO activities
Reports of:
(a) General Council (WT/GC/W/448), Dispute Sett lement Body (WT/DSB/26 and Add.1), Trade
Policy Review Body (WT/TPR/101), Sector al Councils (G/L/492, S/C/14 and S/CSS/8,
IP/C/23), Committees on Trade and Developm ent (WT/COMTD/33), Balance-of-Payments
Restrictions (WT/BOP/R/59),  Budget, Finance and Admini stration (WT/BFA/55), and
Regional Trade Agreements (WT/REG/10)
(b) Committee on Trade and Environment (WT/CTE/6)
(c) Working Groups on the Relationship between Trade and Investment (WT/WGTI/5), the
Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy (WT/WGTCP/5), and Transparency in
Government Procurement (WT/WGTGP/5)
(d) Committees under the Plurilateral Trade Agreements (JOB(01)/147, GPA/58)
58. The Chairman drew attention to the annual reports of the various Councils and Committees in
the documents referred to in the proposed agenda in pursuance of the Decision concerning procedures
for an annual overview of WTO activities and for reporting under the WTO (WT/L/105).  He
suggested that exceptionally, and in the sole interest of allowing sufficient time for the General
Council to examine all pending matters for the Ministerial Conference at this meeting, the
Chairpersons of the various Councils and Committees were not required to introduce their reports
orally, unless they felt that they should draw attention to any particular aspect of the work carried out
in their respective Council or Committee.
59. Mr. Alejandro Jara (Chile), Chairman of the Committee on Trade and Environment, said that
he wished to make some personal comments on the Committee's work which were not reflected in the
report.  First, he noted that the attendance of CTE meetings was of about 25 delegations on average.
However, when the CTE meetings had been scheduled back-to-back with UNEP meetings, the
participation of LDCs had been made possible through financing, and the CTE had greatly benefited
from their input.  Members should thus encourage the continuation of this practice so as to improve
Members' participation in CTE meetings, particularly from developing countries.  Second, he recalled
that the issue of participation of international intergovernmental organizations as observers in CTE
meetings was a pending problem, as was also the case in other WTO bodies.  The current situation ofdeadlock on this issue had a negative impact on the work of the Committee, its credibility, and the
way in which it carried out its mandate.  Third, he noted that the scope of the CTE's mandate was
relatively broad and that perhaps certain adjustments were required at the Fourth Ministerial
Conference to enable Members to concentrate on aspects of the work on which little progress had
been made.
60. The General Council took note of the statement.
61. The General Council then adopted the report of the Committee on Trade and Development
(WT/COMTD/33), and took note of the following reports of the other WTO bodies, including the
reports of the bodies under the Plurilateral Trade Agreements:  report of the Dispute Settlement BodyWT/GC/M/71
Page 12
(WT/DSB/26 and Add.1), report of the Trade Poli cy Review Body (WT/TPR/101), report of the
Council for Trade in Goods (G/L/4 92), reports of the Council for Trade in Services (S/C/14 and
S/CSS/8), report of the Council for TRIPS (IP/C/23), report of the Committee on Balance-of-
Payments Restrictions (WT/BOP/R/59), report of the Committee on Budget, Finance and
Administration (WT/BFA/55), report of the Comm ittee on Regional Trade Agreements (WT/REG/10
and Corr.1), report of the Committee on Trade and Environment (WT/CTE/6), report of the Working
Group on the Relationship between Trade and Invest ment (WT/WGTI/5 and Add.1), report of the
Working Group on the Interaction between Trade and Competition Policy (WT/WGTCP/5), report of
the Working Group on Transparency in Governme nt Procurement (WT/WGTGP/5), report of the
Committee on Government Procurement (GPA/58), report of the Committee on Trade in Civil
Aircraft (JOB(01)/147).
62. The General Council adopted the draft report of the General Council contained in document
WT/GC/W/448, on the understanding that the Secretariat would make the necessary adjustments to
that draft report so as to include matters that had been considered at the present meeting.
9. Preparations for the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference
63. The Chairman recalled that on 8 February, the General Council had accepted an offer by
Qatar to host the Fourth Session of the Ministerial Conference and, at the same time, had authorized
him, in cooperation with the Director-General, to start consultations on both organizational and
substantive matters related to preparations for that meeting, and to report back to the General Council
on progress made.
64. Accordingly, he wished to report on the results thus far from the process he had been
conducting since early 2001.  As delegations were aware, the preparatory process had been conductedin informal meetings in which both the Direct or-General and he had made transparency and
inclusiveness a top priority.  A key element of this consultative process had been the open-ended
informal meetings of the General Council, where work undertaken in all of the consultations had been
brought back for consideration by the broader membership, and where Members had been able to
monitor progress on individual issues as well as the situation overall.
65. Following the early consultations in this process, the Director-General and he had circulated
on 20 April a checklist of possible issues to be included on the agenda of the Conference, which had
formed the basis for the intensive discussions in the subsequent months.  At the end of June, he had
convened an informal meeting of the General Council at the level of Senior Officials to evaluate the
state of the preparatory work and to try to develop a common understanding on the objectives and
parameters for the end-July "reality check" meeting.  The reality check meeting of the General
Council had allowed for a collective stocktaking of the state of preparatory work and for a sharperfocus on the elements of the challenge ahead.  Prior to that meeting the Director-General and he had
circulated a report (JOB(01)/118) which provided a frank and rather sobering assessment of the
results of the work until then.
66. Following that meeting, and on the basis of a series of intensive consultations held during the
month of July with individual and small groups of delegations, the Director-General and he had
circulated a first draft text of a Ministerial Declaration on 26 September.  As delegations knew,
certain areas of that text were more fleshed out than others, which reflected the level of development
of work in each area at that time.  In some areas, such as agriculture and TRIPS and health, fuller texts
remained to be developed, and he had indicated that this needed to be undertaken with a sense of
urgency.  He had also indicated that that draft text was a starting-point, a basis for further, moreintensive work that would be necessary before it could be finalized for submission to Ministers.  In
the weeks since then, he had consulted intensively with delegations in various formats, including very
frequent open-ended informal meetings at the Heads-of-Delegation level, with the aim of producing aWT/GC/M/71
Page 13
revised draft text before the end of October, including a draft text on TRIPS and Access to
Medicines/Public Health.  He had continued to rely in this process on the invaluable and
indispensable assistance of the Director-General and his Deputies.
67. These meetings had been extremely useful in identifying areas where language needed to be
modified, or specific issues needed to be amplified.  He had also benefitted from the more than fiftywritten submissions from individual and groups of delegations on various elements of the first draft,
many of which had highlighted ways to improve and clarify the text.  He expressed his appreciation
for these efforts, and assured Members that he had considered all views attentively.  He also wanted to
pay tribute to the enormous effort that had been put in by all delegations, as well as by the Director-
General and his colleagues, and also to the patience and cooperative spirit with which all had
participated in this process.  Many hours of sincere and serious work had been committed to preparing
the draft texts that would form the basis of Member governments' further deliberations, and to findingappropriate middle ground.  In the Secretariat's estimate, there had been over 100 meetings in total on
these issues since February, in a variety of configurations, and that number did not include the series
of intensive bilateral meetings held in mid-September.
68. Nevertheless, although delegations had shown a willingness to engage constructively and had
made considerable efforts to bridge gaps and increase comfort levels on key issues, the distancebetween positions in some critical areas had remained.  The Director-General and he had therefore
used their best judgement in putting forward draft texts of a Ministerial Declaration as well as a
Declaration on TRIPS and Access to Medicines/Public Health on 27 October in an effort to provide a
basis for meeting the concerns of a broad range of Members.  These texts clearly did not purport to
represent agreed elements in any way at this stage, although agreement might be closer in some areasthan in others.  However, nothing could be considered to be agreed definitively in the absence of
agreement overall, and that was a decision that would be for Ministers to take in Doha.   As far as the
process in Geneva was concerned, it was their judgement that they had taken it as far as they possibly
could, and that further consultations would not take them any closer to improving the texts.  For the
same reason, and while he clearly did not want to limit the right of delegations to speak, he believed itwould not help the process for delegations to en gage in a substantive discussion in the General
Council at the present stage on specific portions of the text.  The Director-General and he did not plan
to revise these texts further.  They intended to transmit them to Ministers on their own responsibility.
It was their hope and expectation that Ministers would be able to build on the good work that had
been done in Geneva, and create a basis for reaching agreement at Doha.  He proposed that the
General Council take note of the report he had just  made in cooperation with the Director-General on
progress in the preparations for the Fourth Session.
69. Delegations thanked the Chairman and the Director-General, as well as the Deputy Directors-
General and the Secretariat, for the enormous effort undertaken in the past weeks to present the
revised version of a Ministerial Declaration, the documents on implementation and the draft
Declaration on TRIPS and public health.  They commended them for their dedication and integrity,
and for the transparency and inclusiveness of the process they had managed.
70. The representative of Tanzania, on behalf of the LDCs , recalled that his delegation had made
a detailed statement on behalf of the LDCs on 2 October 2001 commenting on the Chairman's first
draft of the Ministerial Declaration (JOB (01)/140) and putting forward a number of proposals
reflecting the concerns of the LDCs as clearly put forward by LDC Ministers meeting in Zanzibar,
Tanzania at the end of July to take a common position with regard to the Fourth MinisterialConference.  While some changes had been made in the draft text to reflect some of those concerns,
the current text fell short of the kind of text the LDCs would be comfortable with, as it did not
sufficiently address their major preoccupations.  While they did not expect all of their proposals to be
included in a consensus text, they had expected their major proposals and reservations to be reflected,
even if in square brackets or as separate options.  He commended the Chairman's effort to avoid theWT/GC/M/71
Page 14
kind of text that had been submitted to Ministers in Seattle, but at least that text was clear on what had
been accepted by the membership and the differences that had to be addressed by Ministers.  The
failure in Seattle had been due not to the mere presence of brackets in the text, but to the lack of
political will to resolve differences.  The current draft text was seemingly clean, but as the cover page
stated, it was not an agreed text in any part.  Thus, while there were no physical brackets in the text,there were many mental brackets to be resolved at Doha.  In that sense, the current text might be more
difficult for Ministers to use as a basis for consensus than if the differences in key areas had been
made more explicit.  His delegation would submit more detailed proposals that would fully meet the
LDCs' expectations and would ask that this be transmitted to Ministers in Doha and circulated to
Members.  He highlighted the following major areas of concern to the LDCs:
- The centrality of development and the need to redress the imbalances in the
multilateral trading system:  although there was some reference to development in the text,the LDCs wished to see stronger language to express the tangible commitment to
development in the multilateral trading system  and the commitment to redressing the existing
imbalances.  For this reason they had already proposed a development agenda for the
multilateral trading system whose elements they had defined in a statement by Tanzania on
22 October 2001 which had been circulated to Members.  In their view, the multilateraltrading system needed a development agenda that would give priority to the needs of LDCs
and other developing countries in a framework of sequencing which would also accommodate
the preoccupations of developed countries after sufficient time was allowed for developing
countries to understand and prepare for the necessary adjustments.  For this reason they had
proposed adding a new paragraph or strengthening the existing paragraphs in the preambularpart of the text.
- The need to strengthen the development paragraphs 32-37:  to operationalize the
development agenda referred to above, there wa s a need to strengthen the paragraphs in the
text that dealt with development issues.  In this respect paragraphs 32 and 33 which dealt withtechnical cooperation and capacity building should be strengthened to sufficiently emphasize
the need to address supply-side constraints faced by the LDCs and other developing countries.
Similarly, the existing paragraph 35 on LDCs should be further strengthened to highlight the
need for more predictable market access for LDCs, fast-track accession for LDCs and a more
tangible commitment to implement in full the Programme of Action for LDCs decided at the
LDC III Conference in Brussels.  At the same time, there was a need to ensure that the special
and differential ("S&D") treatment provisions were made more effectively operational bymaking them binding.
- Trade, Debt and Finance and Transfer of Technology:  the relationship between trade,
debt and finance and transfer of technology was important for development problems and the
WTO had to address these issues urgently by setting up appropriate Working Groups to dealwith them, so that the relevant paragr aphs could be strengthened accordingly.
- Market Access for Non-Agricultural Products:  in their statement on 2 October, the
LDCs had expressed grave concern regarding the de-industrialization faced by many LDCs
and other developing countries as a result of industrial tariff cuts, resulting in closure of localfirms and loss of jobs.  They had stated that they were unable to accept the paragraphs on
industrial tariffs and objected to the launch of negotiations and to the sentence that "product
coverage shall be comprehensive and without a priori exclusions."  They had proposed
instead that a study process be initiated to examine the impact of previous tariff reductions,
and that this process should determine whether there should be future negotiations, andfurther that LDCs and other eligible developing countries should be exempt from further
liberalization in this area.  Unfortunately the current draft text did not fully take these views
into account, and the LDCs insisted that their views, which had been explicitly stated, beWT/GC/M/71
Page 15
included in a revised draft.  To this end they had provided the necessary language to
accommodate their preoccupation.
- Singapore issues:  LDC views on these issues were well known and they had
reiterated them when reacting to the Chairman's first draft text by stating again that LDCswere not ready to negotiate on issues that were complex and for which the development
implications for LDCs were not fully understood.  Regarding investment and competition
policy, they had preferred the option of the continuation of the study process and had taken
the same view for government procurement and trade facilitation.  They were therefore
surprised and disappointed that in the current text there was only one option, for negotiations
on all four issues.  It was clear that on these issues there had been no consensus and there was
thus no basis for a text that reflected only the view that there should be negotiations on allfour issues.  Their study of paragraphs 20 and 21 on investment and competition policy
indicated that in effect negotiations would begin immediately because there was already a
commitment to negotiate the modalities of agreements on these issues after the Fifth Session.
Therefore the work programme of the next two years on clarifying elements in these areas
was in effect already the first stage of negotiations.  As there was no consensus, there couldbe no negotiations, if the spirit and letter of the Singapore Ministerial Declaration was to be
adhered to.  The LDCs therefore proposed that the option of continuing the study process for
all four Singapore issues be included in a new draft text to be transmitted to Doha, which was
in line with the LDC Ministers' decision in Zanzibar.
- TRIPS:  as was well known, the TRIPS Agreement was of great concern to LDCs, as
evidenced by the concern they had expressed in Zanzibar.  In their statement of 2 October,
they had proposed several additions in the draft text.  Unfortunately the current text had not
improved much and the paragraphs on TRIPS (paragraphs 17-19) remained very
disappointing.  They therefore reiterated their proposal of 2 October and urged that theseparagraphs be improved accordingly.
- Organization and Management of the Work Programme:  when the LDCs had
commented on this part of the first draft text, they had reiterated the unambiguous views of
LDC Ministers that LDCs were not in a position to undertake broad-based negotiations
involving new issues, due to lack of capacity to negotiate and implement new commitments,
and they had requested the Chairman to review this matter with a view to evolving aprogramme that would be manageable and that would accommodate LDC interests.
Paragraphs 38 to 45 together with paragraph 11 of the current text left no doubt that the Work
Programme envisaged to be launched in Doha was a broad-based and expanded programme
of negotiations with the inclusion of a number of new issues for which the LDCs were not
prepared.  They noted that the current paragraphs calling for negotiations on the fourSingapore issues contained a provision for technical assistance to be made available
presumably to LDCs and other developing countries.  While such technical assistance was
welcome, it should not be assumed that the mere provision of technical assistance of the kind
and level that was normally provided would radically transform LDCs so that they could fully
implement the commitments to be undertaken as a result of such negotiations.  It could be thatthe implications of such commitments would be so far-reaching that a much more
comprehensive effort would be needed to tr ansform LDC economies so that they could fully
fulfill their obligations or fully enjoy the purported benefits of such negotiations.  For this
reason the LDCs once again called for a programme of work that fit their definition of a
development agenda where the priorities of LDCs and other developing countries would begiven priority, and which would not include new issues that would unnecessarily add to the
already heavy burden of the LDCs and other developing countries.WT/GC/M/71
Page 16
71. Regarding the draft Declaration on Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines/Public
Health, they would prefer the title to be "Declara tion on TRIPS and Public Health", and in paragraph
4 would prefer the first option. With regard to paragraph 10, they appreciated the move to exempt
LDCs from the obligations under Sections 5 and 7 of  Para II of the TRIPS Agreement with respect to
pharmaceutical products until 1 January 2016.  However, such extension should be made with respectto the implementation of the entire TRIPS Agreement,  and it should be made clear that this partial
exemption would in no way prejudice the right in future to request extension of a transition period or
even exemption from implementation of the entire Agreement.  He repeated that the text the
Chairman would present to Ministers at Doha was deceptively simple since it had no brackets, but it
hid major differences in some areas.  It would have been preferable, had there been time, to produce a
third draft that would have taken into account the present discussion and would even have put square
brackets in areas where there was no consensus.  Since time was not available for this, the Chairmanmight wish to transmit the draft text to Ministers with a very clear covering letter to explain the areas
where there were major differences and the rationale of the suggested compromise text.  This was not
a substitute for Ambassadors briefing their Ministers, but the explanatory note would be much more
authoritative and would make Ambassadors' jobs much easier.
72. The representative of Mexico referred to two general issues:  the process, and the draft
Declaration.  Regarding the process, he said that the Chairman had carried out his work in a
professional, inclusive and transparent way.  While his delegation might not agree with all of the
details of the final result, it had had a chance to express its concerns and to put forward its proposals,
and in this respect the process had been equita ble.  He had two comments regarding the draft
Declaration:  first, regarding th e cross-cutting issue of the development dimension, and second, the
way the draft text examined each of the topics.  As to the latter, the draft text undoubtedly gave
greater importance to the consolidation of the multilateral trading system and also gave priority to the
very delicate situation of the world economy.  Thus the text clearly established its commitment to an
open multilateral trading system on its way to greater consolidation.  If there was any bias in the text
it was towards the opening of markets and to the mu ltilateral trading system as a whole.  This was
particularly so in the area of agriculture, where there was a greater degree of consolidation and
integration of this sector into the multilateral tradin g system.  This was true also for rules, in which
the text recognized the need to make the system mo re fair and less inclined towards anti-dumping and
similar practices, and also regarding investment and competition policy, where the draft Declaration
promoted the need to establish clear rules that would allow investors and operators to frame their
long-term decisions in various countries.
73. Regarding trade and environment, which might be the most controversial issue, the text
recognized the tremendous importance Members attached to the protection of the environment, but
stated that this should not be used for protectionist aims.  Regarding the development dimension, the
text, although there was room for improvement, gave a great deal of importance to this topic in the
area of implementation, finance, technology transfer, technical cooperation, capacity building and
LDCs.  It quite clearly lay great emphasis on the role the developing countries had to play in future ina continued consolidation of the multilateral trading system.  As such, the text might well cause
concern to delegations which had a more protectionist attitude rather than a positive approach to
consolidating an open multilateral trading system.
74. The representative of Costa Rica said that the documents the Chairman had circulated were
the result of a tremendous amount of work in which all Members had been able to take part through a
transparent process in which the Chairman had created a climate of trust.  Members had collectively
completed an important stage on the road to Doha.  His government, as every government that had
taken part in these discussions, had sought to include in the draft Declaration its interests.  While there
were many areas in which the draft text fell short of its expectations, this was not the time to look
merely at one's own interests, but rather to take a broader view and to recognize that the text provided
an adequate balance, and that, in a general sense, it was the best possible result, not for each countryWT/GC/M/71
Page 17
individually but as a collective result of this effort.  His Minister was studying the draft text in the
light of Costa Rica's interests, but also in the light of other delegations' interests, because this was the
only way to understand the issues and to explain to all the different domestic groups the reservations
with the text.
75. He then indicated the areas in the draft text where his government had difficulties.  However,
in doing so he did not wish to introduce any change in the texts that would be submitted to Ministers
in Doha.  Paragraph 20 on Trade and Investment di d not reflect a clear mandate as to the immediate
undertaking of negotiations to establish a multilateral framework for investment in the WTO, as his
government had requested.  At the Singapore Ministerial Conference in 1996, Costa Rica had had to
accept a result that was not satisfactory.  Throughout the years it had continued to promote this idea,
and again in Seattle had seen its expectations frustrated in this area.  The draft Declaration proposed a
new intermediary stage so that negotiations would be undertaken only after the Fifth MinisterialConference.  This unnecessary delay was frustrating because Costa Rica considered this to be an
extremely important element in its development strategy.  His delegation would make the effort
necessary to participate in these negotiations in order to achieve a result that would be positive for
Costa Rica's development.  Regarding paragraph 21 on Trade and Competition Policy, for reasons
very similar to those just mentioned, the draft text was not satisfactory.  Regarding paragraph 23 onTrade Facilitation, although there was a mandate for negotiations in the draft text, this was much less
ambitious than what Costa Rica had hoped for, and here as well it felt frustrated to see that once again
negotiations were being put off.
76. Regarding paragraph 13 on agriculture, explaining this text to the different sectors of
government, to the legislature, to the private sector and to the public in Costa Rica would be a verydifficult task for his Minister.  The draft text met only half way his delegation's expectations, which
were not only reasonable but were in line with the letter and spirit of the Agreement on Agriculture.
The fact that the Cairns Group positions had not been incorporated in the draft text posed a serious
difficulty for Costa Rica.  However, this was not the time to introduce changes to the texts, but rather
to take note of other delegations' views and to reflect in capitals.  This was the time for all to take onthe collective responsibility to contribute, with a show of flexibility, to the strengthening of the
multilateral trading system and the achievement of its objectives – objectives that all had agreed to
collectively.  The texts had to be transmitted, as they were, to Ministers so that they could take
decisions in Doha.  Thus, Costa Rica hoped that  the Chairman and the Director-General would
transmit the texts to Ministers in the simplest possible fashion with a simple covering letter.  The texts
were self-explanatory, and highlighting any particular area would only create confusion.
77. The representative of Pakistan said that a successful Ministerial meeting would be a powerful
signal to world markets and economic factors that the world's nations were determined to work
together to restore, sustain and spread global pr osperity by preserving a nd enlarging th e opportunities
for open and equitable international trade, especially for the developing countries.  The draft Decision
on Implementation, which for Pakistan was the most relevant of the documents prepared for the
Ministerial Conference, stipulated that implementation proposals would be considered and decidedupon by the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  His delegation was therefore disappointed that the draft
Decision proposed action on only about half of the proposals relating to implementation issues, and
this after almost two years of deliberations.  Nevertheless, in a spirit of pragmatism and compromise
his delegation was prepared to accept that draft Decision as a package without any further change, and
hoped that the Special Session of the General Counc il to be resumed the following day would adopt
this package.  This was the mandate given by the 3 May 2000 Decision of the General Council, and
Members should act upon it.  Regarding the outstanding issues listed in JOB(01)/152/Rev.1, most
could have been decided and acted upon prior to the Fourth Session.  However, since there was no
agreement on these issues, Pakistan was prepared to agree to consider these issues a post-Doha
process.  As a further concession, it could even accept that these measures could constitute part of asingle undertaking if the latter was decided in the context of other negotiations to be initiated at Doha.WT/GC/M/71
Page 18
However, his delegation would insist that decisions on these outstanding implementation issues
should be taken within a year after the Fourth Session, i.e. by the end of 2002, and that unless these
issues related directly to ongoing negotiations they should continue to be considered in the special
mechanism established by the 3 May Decision.
78. Regarding the draft Ministerial Declaration, Pakistan acknowledged the best efforts made by
the Chairman and the Director-General in evolving this text.  However, the text did not adequately
reflect Pakistan's positions, priorities or proposals.  While there were improvements in some areas
over the first draft, overall the balance in the document had tilted further towards the proposals and
positions of the major trading partners and away from the positions of the Like-Minded Group and
other developing countries, including Pakistan.  If consensus was to be secured at Doha, the strong
views expressed by delegations, however small, whic h reflected their vital interests would have to be
accommodated in the drafting exercise.  A consensus could not be reached otherwise.  Therefore hisdelegation was perplexed to see that the paragraph on labour standards, which had been strongly
opposed by a number of developing countries, including Pakistan, had not only been retained but was
further reinforced.  This was inexplicable in a process of moving towards consensus.  His delegation
also could not accept the reference to negotiations in the context of trade and environment, which was
also a position that had been taken by a large number of countries in the discussions that had beenheld.  The paragraphs on the Singapore issues had also moved towards the first option rather than the
second option in the first draft.  Pakistan's position remained that on all four Singapore issues there
was need for further study and no consensus for negotiations.  Notwithstanding that position, his
delegation was prepared to display some flexibility on these issues if its partners were ready to be
responsive to its priorities.  Thus, for example, it could consider going along with some language on
investment and competition policy as long as there was no commitment ab initio  on negotiations.  It
was prepared to consider negotiations on transparency in government procurement and on trade
facilitation provided that the result of neither of these negotiations would be subject to WTO dispute
settlement.
79. Pakistan expected that such flexibility would be reciprocated, first and foremost in the
implementation area, and secondly on the several proposals on the development agenda which had
been put forward by his delegation and by other deve loping countries.  These included the following:
(i) the inclusion of tariff peaks, tariff escalation and the development box in the proposed mandate on
agriculture contained in paragraphs 13 and 14;  (ii) recognition of the priority for Mode 4 (movement
of natural persons) in services negotiations;  (iii) a development review together with a peace clause
in the context of the TRIMs and TRIPS reviews;  (iv) specific agreement to concretise and
operationalize in a legally binding form existing S&D provisions and negotiation of a frameworkagreement on S&D treatment for developing countries;  and (v) acceptance of working groups on
trade and debt, trade and finance, and trade and technology transfer, with the mandate to submit
recommendations on how the multilateral trading system  could contribute to advancing the trade and
development of developing countries.  His delegation also had serious concerns regarding the final
organizational paragraphs of the draft Ministerial text.  Unfortunately, its reactions to the first drafttext did not appear to have been taken into account.  There was no need to create a separate trade
negotiations committee and additional negotiating bodies, since this would be extremely burdensome
for developing countries with small delegations.  The concept of a single undertaking was still unclear
regarding its definition, scope and application.  In any case, Pakistan did not agree to the exclusion of
the Dispute Settlement Understanding from such a single undertaking.  It was unfortunate that theChairman and the Director-General wished to call a halt to the preparatory process in Geneva, since as
Tanzania had said, the current text might be more difficult than the Singapore text and perhaps even
more difficult than the Seattle text.  Members should pause and consider how best to proceed at the
present stage.  In the first instance, he hoped that a decision on implementation issues would be taken
expeditiously, and that the next few days would be used to take into account the most seriousobjections and reservations of various countries on the text.WT/GC/M/71
Page 19
80. Transmission of the texts under the Chairman's and the Director-General's own responsibility
presented a unique situation.  Normally such transmission could only be done through a decision by
the General Council, as WTO law did not appear to assign any special role to the Chairperson or the
Director-General regarding the transmission of recommendations to the Ministerial Conference unless
authorized by the General Council.  The Seattle text had represented a collective decision by themembership.  In the case of both Singapore and Seattle, the texts had included agreements and
disagreements on various issues, and there was no precedent for the Chairman or the Director-General
to transmit only one set of views or recommendations .  Therefore, there were only two options:  to
revise the text after further deliberations, or to evolve an accompanying letter with the text which
would set out the different views on various issues.  The letter transmitting the Singapore text offered
a model that could be used for this purpose.  Unless Members evolved such an agreed course of action
the process of the Ministerial Conference would start off on the wrong foot, and that would be a greatmistake.
81. The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation considered that the Chairman,
working with the Director General and the Secretariat, had exercised satisfactory judgment in relation
to the draft texts.  The Chairman had analysed and assessed carefully the collective views of Members
over many months.  This was not to say that all Members were fully content with the text.  NewZealand had reservations about some aspects and would be working hard during the Ministerial
Conference to enhance the text.  Its main worry was single-issue campaigning.  There were at least
three issues where proponents had been calling for language that would imply major structural
changes or introduce major systemic implications.  In the wider interests of the outcome of Doha,
Members in that situation had to be asked to reflect carefully and cautiously and to show restraint.  Allhad to recognise that the Chairman had been listening hard to Members and had produced a
constructive middle-ground text.  It was essential that all respect that text, having recognised that only
the Chairman, with the Secretariat's support, could make the most objective overall assessment.
82. While every Member, including New Zealand, naturally had national preoccupations and
concerns about the text, national positions would inevitably have to be moderated if a collectiveconsensus was to be achieved at Doha.  This was not to say that nothing would change at Doha, but
the Chair had provided the essential initial blueprint for Doha, a text upon which all could work at the
Ministerial Conference on a limited number of crucial elements.  The Work Programme that would
result from Doha had to replicate fully the 1998 Geneva Declaration in "achieving an overall balance
of interests of all Members".  On implementation, New Zealand supported recommending to
Ministers that they adopt the implementation Decision, together with the other vital components of the
Work Programme for the WTO.  His delegation looked forward to a meeting later that week on theorganization of work at Doha, as this was a vital area for discussion and preparation.  Effective and
transparent management of the process was important, alongside the substantive text which the
Chairman and the Director-General, on their own authority, were very clearly mandated to transmit to
Ministers as an essential and creative building block for further progress at Doha.  His delegation
looked forward to a positive outcome for all delega tions at Doha, one that would make significant
future contributions at both the national and global level to the world economy.  The WTO had to do
its job.
83. The representative of Singapore noted that the three draft texts represented what in the
Chairman's view and best judgement was a balance among delegations' interests, and what could
achieve a consensus among Members.  The key question was whether Members could live with thetexts as a whole.  The three texts constituted a good basis for Ministers to work on at Doha.  Ministers
at Doha would have to work on the main areas of substantive differences, but what the Chairman had
produced, in cooperation with the Director-General, w ould help the Ministers' task immensely, as they
had given them a sense of what could be acceptable as a whole package.  He questioned why there
were two sets of brackets in the draft Declaration on TRIPS and public health, and urged theChairman to continue to consult on these brackets so that he could report to Ministers at Doha on aWT/GC/M/71
Page 20
way to resolve them.  The present General Council meeting marked the end of the Geneva preparatory
process. Regarding transmission of the draft texts to Ministers, the Chairman should provide in a letter
his evaluation of the situation and indicate to the areas where there were substantive differences.  This
would help the Chairman of the Ministerial Confer ence in planning how the work at Doha could be
organised.  Ministers would clearly not be encourag ed to re-open every issue, as that would be a
recipe for definite failure.  However, they should be given an indication of where further
improvements could be made.  This would help focus their work in reaching a consensus on the future
work programme and negotiations post-Doha.
84. The representative of Brazil said that his delegation had taken note of the Chairman's
intention to transmit the three draft texts on his and the Director-General's own responsibility.  He
would not comment, as some previous speakers ha d, on whether the Chairman's text was balanced or
not, but would rather make his specific comments and allow the Chairman to make his ownassessment.  Some parts of the text were very obscure.  While he was not against constructive
ambiguity, as this might have been the only way out in some areas, it would probably create problems
in the future.  As far as Brazil was concerned, in some areas that obscurity could be seen as preserving
its interests.  Overall, the Chairman and the Director-General had made a commendable effort that
brought Members one step closer to a possible agreement.
85. Regarding the draft Declaration, the preamble should have been clearer in recognizing the
existence of a lingering development deficit.  On the paragraph on labour standards, the sentence that
had been added had initially been suggested as a replacement for the second sentence in that
paragraph.  Paragraph 12 on implementation represented a valiant effort to reconcile positions, and
although Brazil shared many of the developing countries' disappointment on the number issues thathad been solved, some of which had merely been sent to Committees, paragraph 12 went a long way
to avoid having these implementation issues forgotten or abandoned in the process.  While the
distinction created between (a) and (b) was an artificial one, Brazil was comforted by the fact that this
distinction was of a purely procedural nature and that all of the items for negotiations were an integral
part of the work programme, and even the items in (b) would be reported to the Trade NegotiationsCommittee.  All in all this was something Brazil had a positive feeling about.
86. On agriculture, it was clear that the mandate did not go as far as Brazil would have wished,
including in the area of specificity, as it still had the ominous reference to "long-term".  However,
given the long time that had already elapsed since this expression had first been used, the long term
was now coming to an end.  His delegation interpreted "long term" as being equated to the peace
clause, so as that date approached, Members would have to integrate agriculture into the whole WTO
system.  In the area of services, the draft text retained the reference to the guidelines and proceduresfor negotiations that had been approved, and that was an important point.  His delegation might have
something to say later on the question of time-frames, but would leave that for another occasion.
87. On market access, Brazil found the inclusion of the expression "high tariffs" a bit confusing
as there was no common understanding of what this was, but it was positive that the text had retained
other references in the paragraph.  On TRIPS matters not related to public health, paragraph 19 mixedup in a way that was not very appropriate issues that would be under negotiations because they were
foreseen under paragraph 12 of the Declaration.  There was also some confusion regarding the
"relevant new developments" raised pursuant to Article 71.1 of the TRIPS Agreement.  Investment
and Competition were areas where Members jumped into obscurity.  On investment, Brazil had
shown flexibility and would continue to remain flexible as to the possibility of some kind ofnegotiations on this subject, but it would have preferred to describe more clearly the parameters of
such negotiations.  It was not clear whether negotiations were being launched or not, or whether they
would be plurilateral or multilateral.  Leaving all of this to the process after Doha or even after the
Fifth Session would overburden the decisions that would have to be taken in the course of
negotiations themselves.  He recalled that in the past Brazil had raised questions about theWT/GC/M/71
Page 21
compatability of whatever Members were negotiating on investment with the GATS Agreement, and
whether these would override the GATS Agreement as far as Mode 3 was concerned.  It had raised
questions in relation to the Dispute Settlement Understanding and whether investment would be
included in the cross-retaliation provisions of the DSU.  It had expressed a preference for a
formulation that would clearly exclude any new limitations on performance requirements, forexample.  On trade facilitation, his delegation was not clear about the language on the nature of
additional commitments, and interpreted that to possibly mean non-binding guidelines.  While this
would probably be defined in the course of the negotiations themselves, Brazil would have preferred
to have defined them now.
88. One area in which the draft text was weaker than the previous version was rules.  The text
was less clear, and introduced confusion both in terms of timing and scope.  However, his delegation
was comforted by the expression that in any case Members were agreeing to negotiations, which wasthe fundamental point.  In the area of subsidies Brazil had several proposals and had pleaded to have
export credits explicitly acknowledged.  While this had not been done, Brazil understood that the
drafting in paragraph 24, especially combined with paragraph 12, give ample room to present
proposals on these matters as well as in other areas relating to subsidies.  On trade and environment
Brazil had kept an open mind and felt the Chairman had gone as far as he could in the text, given thatthe majority of Members were not persuaded on the desirability of negotiations.  Brazil shared the
concern reflected in the draft text about the LDCs.  Members had a common and differentiated
responsibility regarding the situation of these countries and could not be insensitive to their plight.
89. TRIPS and health was a vital issue for Brazil, and not one to be exchanged for a small favour
here or there.  This was an issue involving questions of life and death, to which his delegationattached the highest priority.  The Chairman had acted honestly in keeping the two options in the draft
text.   Option 1 represented an effort by the developing countries to move towards a compromise.
Option 2 was in fact not an option at all, as it contained language that was at best redundant and at
worst limiting.  Brazil had been prepared to work on the basis of what might be considered an
intermediary proposal – although in cases involving life and death that might not be the best solution– but others had not wanted to allow that.  He wanted to clarify what he characterized as certain myths
about Brazil's position on the TRIPS Agreement.  Some had said that Brazil wanted to destroy the
Agreement, when what it was asking was less than what the World Bank was recommending in a
report soon to be issued, i.e. that the TRIPS Agreement needed rebalancing, which implied
modification of its provisions.  Brazil was not asking for modification of the provisions, but merely a
clear political signal that public health came first, which had been Brazil's understanding when it had
ratified the TRIPS Agreement.  Further, it had been alleged that some developing countries wereproposing certain language because their real interest was not public health but the production of
generic medicines.  While there was nothing wrong in promoting generic medicines in some
situations, this was not the case for Brazil, and all of the cases involving patent medicines had been
negotiated.
90. The representative of Egypt noted that the Chairman, together with the Director-General, had
tried to make this preparatory process transparent, which was something that had been profoundly
lacking in past experience.  Transparency was not only a matter of flow of information or expression
of a Member's opinion.  It had to guarantee the participation of all Members in the process of
decision-making and ensure a sense of ownership by all Members in the final outcome.  Her
delegation was astonished that the revised draft Declaration seemed to ignore many of the views andpositions it, as well as many other developing countries, had expressed.  The views of one group of
countries should not have primacy over those of the others.  Her delegation recognized that the
Chairman's task was quite difficult in putting together a revised text that could serve as a basis for
further deliberations, but it was not an impossible task, given the extensive statements and
interventions by many Members, and given the Chairman's wisdom, sense of responsibility and longand widely acknowledged expertise on the issues under consideration.  Many of the views expressedWT/GC/M/71
Page 22
were not in agreement or were conflicting, whic h was to be expected when preparing for a major
Ministerial Conference such as Doha.  What was surprising and unexpected was to find that the
revised draft Declaration did not reflect the disagreement in many areas through, for example but not
limited to, providing options in the text to be transmitted to Ministers.  This approach would have
allowed Ministers to better assess the overall situation and decide on important compromises andtrade-offs that would be necessary to reach agreement at the end of the day.  In addition, despite all
that had been said about a so-called development round and developing countries' concerns, those
concerns had not been adequately reflected in the revised draft text.
91. Her delegation was not comfortable with the revised text and felt it was not a realistic
reflection of the intensive consultations undertaken in Geneva over the past few weeks.  For example,
on the Singapore issues, Egypt, along with many other countries, had repeatedly and explicitly
indicated that it was not ready to participate in negotiations on these issues and that it wanted thestudy processes agreed at the Singapore Ministerial Conference to be continued and concluded with a
view to achieving the institutional maturity of these issues.  The mandate given at Singapore was that
"[I]t is clearly understood that future negotiations, if any, regarding multilateral disciplines in these
areas will take place only after an explicit consensus decision is taken among WTO Members".  The
mandate on transparency in government procurement was "to conduct a study on transparency ingovernment procurement practices… and, and based on this study, to develop elements for inclusion
in an appropriate agreement". These mandates had to be fulfilled.  The revised draft Declaration put
aside Ministers' instructions in Singapore and provided for negotiations on all four Singapore issues.
On investment and competition, the two options included in the first draft of the Declaration and
which Egypt had requested be maintained in the text transmitted to Doha, had been replaced by oneproposal that implicitly committed Members to negotiations after the Fifth Session.  On transparency
in government procurement and trade facilitation, the only option given in the first draft, which was
for negotiations, had been maintained.  In addition, the revised text provided for the possibility of
what had been termed during consultations an "opt-in/opt-out" approach in the areas of investment
and competition, despite repeated warnings that proliferation of plurilateral agreements wouldundermine the multilateral nature of the organization and the very credibility of the multilateral
trading system.  Further adding to her delegation's apprehensions and despite its clear reservations on
the proposals, it was surprised to find that certain paragraphs, such as in the area of technical
assistance, had been further watered down in many re spects.  Another area that had been diluted was
the possible exemption of the proposed agreements from the dispute settlement mechanism.  This
approach added to Egypt's concerns and complicated an already difficult situation.  On trade and
environment, Egypt noted with appreciation that th e priority given to the work of the Committee on
Trade and Environment had been expanded to include elements of importance to her delegation as
well as to many other developing countries.  However, Egypt failed to understand why a reference
had been made at the end of this paragraph to the possibility or desirability of negotiations in this area
after the Fifth Session.  The Chairman himself had repeatedly mentioned that an overwhelming
majority of Members opposed such negotiations.  Having such reference undermined the interests ofmany Members and raised the question of how, and according to which criteria, the positions
expressed during the consultations had been reflected in the revised text.
92. On market access for non-agricultural products Egypt had supported a proposal put forward
by a group of African countries and supported by several other developing countries and the LDCs –
more than 50 countries in total – to precede any nego tiations in this area with a study of the impact of
tariff reductions on the production capacities of developing countries.  However, neither this proposal
nor the notion behind it had been reflected in the revised text, not even through proposing an initial
phase, as had been suggested for some other areas of work.  Neglecting a proposal by such a
considerable number of countries in this manner was difficult to comprehend, explain or justify.
Again, and notwithstanding her delegation's position, Egypt had been surprised to see in the revisedtext a reference to "high tariffs" when this had been opposed by many developing countries.  On core
labour standards, Egypt was greatly concerned that its repeated requests, and those of almost allWT/GC/M/71
Page 23
developing countries, for the deletion of this paragraph had simply been disregarded.  What was most
worrying was that Egypt had warned that this is sue had had serious implications for the previous
Ministerial Conference and had said it did not want to repeat that episode at Doha.  However, all of its
reasoning and objections had not prevented the paragraph being maintained and even further
strengthened.  This was alarming.
93. Egypt had welcomed the inclusion in the text of the necessity of improving market access
conditions for LDCs, and had stated clearly along with other developing countries that this should be
based on the fair and realistic approach adopted previously, i.e. a commitment to providing duty-free
and quota-free access to developed countries' markets and an endorsement of voluntary efforts by
other developing countries to improve market access for LDC products.  Egypt found it strange that
the revised text had included this issue in a way that implied that developed and other developing
countries were on the same footing when it came to granting duty-free and quota-free market accessto LDC products.  It could be asked whether this was feasible, particularly when attempts to obtain
such a commitment from developed countries had gone for a very long period with humble results.
Egypt fully shared the views expressed by Tanzania  on behalf of the LDCs.  Concerning the separate
draft Declaration on TRIPS and public health, Egypt commended the efforts exerted in the process of
elaboration of elements for this important subject, but felt it was regrettable that the extensiveconsultation process had left major issues to Ministers at Doha.  Regarding the use of WTO dispute
settlement against developing countries in parts of Africa, this proposal had been far from agreed, and
her delegation, together with other Members of the African Group, were surprised to see that it had
found its way into the revised text.  In this regard it was important to underline the fact that even the
implications of such a proposal on other related issues under consideration in the TRIPS Council,such as non-violation complaints, had not yet been assessed.  As for the options in the draft text, her
delegation did not consider that the second option was viable.  Egypt would support only a
meaningful declaration on TRIPS and public healt h. Regarding implementation issues, she wanted to
underline that Egypt's reaction to paragraph 12 of the draft Ministerial Declaration depended on the
fate of the draft Decision on implementation issues that had been circulated.  Her delegation expectedthat the resumed Special Session on implementation would adopt the draft Decision as a package and
would recommend it to Ministers at Doha in accordance with the 3 May 2000 Decision of the General
Council.
94. In addition to the comments she had made on the revised draft Declaration, she wanted to add
the following:  the absence of a reflection of the concerns of the net food-importing countries, tariff
peaks and escalations in the context of agriculture, accession-related problems and the need to further
clarify the scope of the single undertaking.  The revised draft text was full of what appeared to beminor drafting amendments, sometimes not exceeding one word, but which had far-reaching
implications.  Her delegation would not comment on those at the present meeting as it seemed in any
case unproductive at this juncture.  However, the methodology used in this process was very
worrisome, and she hoped that Members would be successful in containing its repercussions and
implications at Doha.  Egypt supported the proposal that the draft Declaration be accompanied by aletter from the Chairman of the General Council to explain and list areas of disagreement.  Her
delegation hoped that the revised text would bring Members closer to consensus by spelling out where
they did not agree, thus making Ministers' tasks throughout the Doha Conference clearer, if not more
simple.  Despite her delegation's severe misapprehensions, it was still committed to working tirelessly
to achieve an outcome that would and should satisfy all and preserve the principles of multilateralism,full participation by all Members, ownership and mutu ality of benefits in an atmosphere of true free
trade that was not politicised or politically motivated.
95. The representative of Cuba said that Cuba, like other developing countries, had participated
actively and constructively in the consultations organized by the Chairman on the draft Declaration of
26 September.  It had put forward its views, interests and concerns on various parts of the draft textand had hoped that the revised draft would take them into account.  However, it was veryWT/GC/M/71
Page 24
disappointed that they had not been taken into account.  An attempt had been made in the revised draft
to convey to public opinion that development was being made a priority of WTO and that there was a
true rapprochement of positions.  There was no real balance in the text, which was tilted in favour of
the interests of the industrialized countries.
96. The launch of a new round of negotiations had been included, and issues relating to the
environment and labour rules had been maintained and had even been strengthened.  At the same time
there no real commitments on developing countries' requests, such as on agriculture, a development
fund and a framework agreement on S&D treatment for developing countries, debt, finance, transfer
of technology and LDCs.  There had as yet been no satisfactory solution on the draft Decision on
implementation and the draft Declaration on TRIPS and public health, which increased Cuba's
disappointment still further.  Unfortunately, pressure had been put on developing countries and not on
those who were reluctant to make development, er adication of poverty and economic growth the real
objectives of the WTO.  This situation put developing countries and their Ministers in a very
disadvantageous position for the Doha Conference, which was something they could not accept.  The
correct course of action would be to offer two alternatives on each of the so-called new issues.  One
option, as proposed by those who wished to refer to the start of new negotiations, and the other option,
as proposed by Cuba and other developing countries, which would be to continue studying the matterwithout any commitment to start negotiations at a later date.  The positions of a large number of WTO
Members could not simply be ignored.  This was th e only way in which Ministers could, without any
prejudice or pressure, take a final decision.  He recalled that Ministers at Singapore had instructed that
possible negotiations on these issues would be based only on the explicit consensus of Members.
Those mandates were still in force.
97. Cuba also wished to see a strengthening of the paragraphs dealing with its interests.  At
present, these paragraphs did not reflect the viewpo ints of those who had proposed them, in particular
on debt and finance, where there should be a clear mandate for a programme of work in these areas
either by the General Council or, as had been proposed, by new working groups to be established by
Ministers.  Cuba objected to the possibility of ne gotiations on trade and environment, and this should
not be included in the work programme.  Reference to this in the preamble was more than sufficient.
Cuba had serious reservations on the proposed organization of future work.  The view of many
developing countries was that the work programme should and could be managed in existing WTO
bodies supervised by the General Council.  The proliferation of negotiating bodies was neither
necessary nor desirable.  Small delegations would in fact be excluded from negotiations if new
mechanisms were now created.  Consequently, Cuba in sisted that the option of holding negotiations in
existing WTO bodies under the supervision of the General Council be included in the draft text.
98. Cuba was concerned that the draft Declaration did not include a reference to the rejection of
coercive economic measures against developing countries which contradicted international law, in
particular attempts to apply national laws extra-territorially in violation of the United Nations Charter
and WTO rules.  The inclusion of this item in the draft Declaration was of vital importance to Cuba.
Regarding procedures, Cuba recognized and appreciated that the preparatory process had been muchmore inclusive and transparent than in the past, bu t the process counted for nothing if the result did
not also have these characteristics.  As it had not been possible either to propose amendments or to
have disagreements reflected through square brackets in the text, Cuba could not accept it as the basis
for any negotiations.  Further, there had been no decision by the General Council to transmit this text
to Ministers.  It was not provided in the General Council's Rules of Procedure that the Chairman orthe Director-General submit a document that had not been at least endorsed by the General Council.
Consequently, Cuba requested that a new version of the draft text be produced so that the text sent to
Doha truly covered all the concerns of all delegations.  All Members of the WTO were on the same
footing and all had the right to put forward their vi ews and have them taken into account.  Developing
countries had been repeating for several years that the benefits of the present multilateral tradingsystem had not reached them, that the Uruguay R ound Agreements had not resulted in better marketWT/GC/M/71
Page 25
access for their products, and that existing imbalances had not been corrected as promised.  It was
neither possible nor acceptable for these countries' economies to have to pay double or triple the price.
The world economy, which was going through a recession at present, would not really be
strengthened with the launch of a new round of negotiations that would increase obligations and
commitments for the developing countries and therefore marginalize their economies even more.  Ifthe developing countries' proposals were not taken into consideration, this would lead to mistrust of a
multilateral trading system that purported to have as one of its objectives raising the level of well-
being of all its Members, and at the same time would jeopardize the WTO's credibility.
99. The representative of Uruguay said that it was only fair to recognize that the drafting of a
Ministerial Declaration which satisfied the 142 Members of the organization on subjects where there
were divergent positions was a very complex and thankless task.  The Chairman had done his utmost
to table a text that struck a balance, even though that text did not reflect Uruguay's objectives orhopes, including in areas of vital interest for it such  as agriculture, where the level of ambition was far
below what Uruguay considered reasonable.  However, the situation seemed to be the same or similar
for all delegations, hence the draft text was a good basis for negotiations.  It was logical and inevitable
that at the present meeting, all Members would want to show their support for or disappointment with
certain parts of the text.  As there was not sufficient time to undertake new consultations to produce afurther revision of the draft Declaration, it was important for the Chairman and the Director-General
to transmit the text on their own responsibility to Ministers in Doha.  This was not an agreed text and
consequently its entirety would be in square brackets.  Delegations' positions on the draft Declaration
and the other documents presented would be included in the records of the present meeting and would
be a useful reference point in the negotiations to be undertaken by Ministers.
100. Regarding paragraph 12 on implementation, Uruguay had always underlined the enormous
importance of this subject and the need to find an adequate reply to these concerns.  The contribution
which the Group of Seven had made to this process had been useful and had provided a way out of a
very complicated and even conflictual situation that had dragged on for many years.  The proposal in
the draft Declaration and in the draft Decision on implementation were in line with the proposalsoriginally made through the Group of Seven and hence were satisfactory.  They would allow
Ministers in Doha to adopt a package of measures which replied to the various implementation
problems the developing countries had, and at the same time initiated negotiations on all of the
pending implementation issues as an integral part of the work programme.  It would thus be very
important for the process and for the strengthening of trust that the General Council recommend their
adoption.
101. Regarding agriculture, none of the Cairns Group suggestions had been incorporated in the
revised text, which was a matter of deep concern to Uruguay.  His delegation had thus far supported
the launching of a new round with a wider coverage than the mandated negotiations, and had done so
because it hoped that in the context of a new round, it would be possible to achieve a fundamental
reform of agricultural trade.  However, the draft text did provide certain guidelines in the right
direction for the negotiating process, even if these were notoriously insufficient and lacked ambition.The reductions in all types of export subsidies in order to progressively remove them did not
adequately reflect the position of the great majority of Members who wanted the elimination of export
subsidies.  Uruguay was not convinced regarding the other two pillars, which lacked specificity and
ambition.  Uruguay considered it indispensable to improve this text at Doha.
102. Regarding services, it would be useful to state at the end of the text that the negotiations
would be concluded as part of, and on the same date as, the conclusion of the negotiating programme
as a whole.  On trade and environment, his delegation appreciated the Chairman's efforts to try to
reflect what seemed to be the majority opinion of Members on the need to continue the work already
initiated in the Committee on Trade and Environment.  However, Uruguay was concerned that the text
had left doors open to negotiations, which it considered unnecessary.  On investment and competition,WT/GC/M/71
Page 26
in view of the various options, the Chairman had struck an intermediate point in the draft text, which
seemed the most prudent approach.  The option of participating or not, which had been termed "opt-
in/opt out", was dangerous and counter-productive, and might have serious consequences for the
strengthening and credibility of the multilateral trading system.
103. Regarding the various suggestions that had b een made for a letter transmitting the texts to
Ministers, he made the following comments:  (1) It would be impossible to reflect in a brief letter the
myriad positions which each one of the 142 delegations had defended during the preparatory process
on all of the various subjects included in the draft Declaration.  (2) The non-mention of some subject
might give the impression that the subject had been settled, whereas the entire package was pending
until approved.  (3) The objective of work at present should be to facilitate a consensus and to move
the process forward.  All delegations knew what the concerns of others were.  To underscore
specifically these differences in a letter from the Chairman would only make the negotiating processmore difficult.  (4) The records of the present meeting would reflect the divergences which still
existed.  It was thus not necessary for the Chairman to reiterate these in a letter.  Some delegations
had indicated that the utility of the letter would be that it would reflect the basis on which the
Chairman had presented the texts, including the different positions stated by Members.  These
objectives could be achieved by agreeing on the procedures for the discussion at the MinisterialConference.  For example, at the beginning of discussion on each subject, the Chairman, or his
representative, might sum up what had happened in Geneva.
104. The representative of Colombia said that his delegation was unhappy with the existing
situation in that a subject had recently been introduced in one of the documents circulated by the
Chairman which made Colombia's national interest  more vulnerable.  However, in spite of this
disappointment and discontent, his delegation recognized how valuable the preparatory process had
been and how well the Chairman and the Director-General had managed it by allowing for real
dialogue among delegations that had allowed for a text which would serve as a basis for a final
decision in Doha.  As Uruguay had said, that text  carried a mental bracket from beginning to end.
Members had had to build up trust among themselves and that could enhance chances for success inDoha in a framework which the Chairman considered  balanced.  Colombia, as other countries, had
hoped for greater ambition in agriculture and in rules, and less on environment.  What was most
important for developing countries was access to markets, and it was hoped that more progress would
be made in the forthcoming negotiations.
105. The point that had given rise to his delegation's deep dissatisfaction concerned
implementation.  Recently, a proposal had been incorporated in the draft Decision on implementation
in order to extend the deadline for the dismantling of export subsidies under Article 27.4 of theAgreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures.  Colombia had frequently said in meetings of
the Subsidies Committee and in various informal meetings that this proposal would create serious
problems because it made more vulnerable its interests as an exporter, but this had not been taken into
account.  This aspect of the draft Decision condemned  Colombia to lose export possibilities and thus
many jobs, in addition to losing investment from outside the country.  The purpose of theimplementation exercise was to try to rebalance some of the problems that had been generated by the
results of the Uruguay Round and not to resolve some Members' problems at the expense of other
Members.  Colombia should not have, at the end of the implementation exercise, fewer rights and
greater obligations than others. He asked the Chairman to look at this matter in greater detail, and to
give countries such as Colombia an opportunity to search for an alternative, rather than obliging them
to take up radical positions.  Colombia had to defend its national interests, the interests of its people
and the interests of its exporters, whatever the costs might be.
106. The representative of Jamaica said that for a rules-based organization, the WTO surprisingly
lacked certain kinds of rules and procedures, for example, the procedures to be adhered to in
preparing and transmitting draft Ministerial texts, how proposals were to be reflected and considered,WT/GC/M/71
Page 27
exactly what form consultative processes should take , how Members were to become aware of all the
specific proposals made by other Members, and how Ministerial meetings were to be structured.
These were all areas in which the informality of the WTO appeared to contrast conspicuously with the
weight and gravity of the issues at stake.  In other organizations with which Jamaica was familiar,
exactly the opposite was true, and there were precise and clear procedures in these areas.  In sayingthis he wanted to underscore what Jamaica regarded as a functional deficiency in the organization,
and how important the role of the Chairman could be in areas where organizational rules and
procedures were somewhat unsettled.  It was in this demanding context that Jamaica considered it
fortunate to have had the Chairman's help for much  of the important journey from Seattle to Doha.
He also wished to thank the previous General Council Chairman who led Members on the first half of
that journey, where the mile posts had been confidence building.  On the second part of that journey
the mile posts appeared to have been ambition.
107. Jamaica was somewhat disappointed that the revised draft Declaration appeared to fall short
regarding its treatment of the concerns of developing countries.  Jamaica had followed the
consultative process fairly closely and did not underestimate the difficulty of sifting through the views
stated and the concerns expressed so as to arrive at a balanced draft.  While balance was often in the
eyes of the beholder, it did seem clear that to a noticeable extent the revised draft text failed to take onboard concerns expressed and proposals put forward by a preponderance of developing countries.
The text was now ambitious in scope and structure, in that there were no square brackets and no
options.  At the same time delegations had been urged to take comfort from the fact that the entire text
was in mental square brackets.  It had often been said that the difficulty with the Seattle Ministerial
had been that the draft text had had too many square brackets and options.  Jamaica was not inclinedto indulge this false debate, because the question was not whether at Seattle there had been too many
square brackets and options, but whether the differences among the membership at the time needed to
be reflected by the use of such brackets.  The issue regarding the revised draft Declaration was
whether there were on some matters differences in positions and views so significant or profound that
they should be reflected in brackets or posed as options.  The choice was not between a heavilybracketed and option-ridden text and one with no options or brackets, but rather in the approach taken
in the first draft of the Declaration, an approach Jamaica had favoured, as that text accurately reflected
the state of play in the preparatory process and would best protect the interests of all parties until
Ministers took a decision.
108. The preamble was resistant to change in that the WTO as an organization appeared incapable
of admitting frankly that the gains from trade had regrettably by-passed most developing countries.
Despite numerous opportunities in paragraph 2 to st ate this in an honest and non-polemical manner,
the draft scrupulously avoided saying this, as if that would change the reality known by many
developing countries and indeed recognized by many other institutions, analysts and the public at
large.  In paragraph 6, the penultimate sentence was too open-ended and could be construed to cover
unilateral and arbitrary action in pursuance of health, safety and environmental protection.  The right
that needed to be recognized was not so much the right to take measures "under the rules", but ratherto take measures in accordance with the rules to enforce levels of health, safety and environmental
protection.  On paragraph 10, Jamaica shared the view of African Ministers and the African Group,
who had questioned the linking of internal transparency and effective participation of all Members to
an expanding membership.  These were matters to which commitment should be expressed without
qualification.  While it was good to have Ministers confirm Members' collective responsibility toensure internal transparency and effective participation of all Members, effective participation could
be concretely furthered by a balanced approach in treating Members' proposals, including their
submission for consideration by Ministers.  All Mi nisters, including Jamaica's, would confirm their
collective responsibility to ensure internal transparency and effective participation, but what would
this yield?  It was time that a report and recommendations be made to Ministers in this area for theiradoption.WT/GC/M/71
Page 28
109. On paragraph 11, Jamaica did not agree that the work programme set out was "broad and
balanced", and did not see the need to assert something on which Members might have a different
view.  The work programme spoke for itself.  People both inside and outside the organization would
draw their own conclusions.  Paragraph 13 on agri culture should include a specific reference to
measures to address the concerns of net food-importing countries.  The measures proposed in thisparagraph would have a substantial impact on the interests of preference-receiving countries, and
attention should be paid to the interests and concerns of these countries in this paragraph.  On
paragraph 16 on non-agricultural market access, Jamaica supported the call by a large number of
developing countries for a study on the impact of tariff reductions.  This had not been reflected in the
text.  It had been said that studies had already been done or could be done elsewhere, but Jamaica did
not understand why such an issue should not be a legitimate matter for the WTO to study, given the
undisputed claim that tariffs were a core business of the WTO.  This paragraph also included anumber of specific elements which would best be left to discussion on negotiating modalities if a
decision to launch negotiations was in fact taken.  Jamaica was disappointed that despite the
insistence of a number of countries, including Jamaica, that negotiations should be on the basis of
bound tariffs, this had not been stipulated, while other negotiating parameters had been.
110. In paragraphs 17 and 19 on TRIPS issues, the reference to the extension of the protection of
geographical indications was woefully inadequate.  Paragraphs 20 and 21 on investment and
competition policy were now crafted in such a way that decisions would apparently be taken at Doha
on negotiations, with only the modalities of negotiations to be decided at the Fifth Ministerial, and
with the question of participation in what were described as "possible multilateral frameworks" also to
be decided.  His capital had asked him to clarify whether it was only the frameworks that were apossibility or whether it was their multilateral character, and he had been unable to answer.  The Fifth
Ministerial Conference should decide not just the modalities of negotiations, but whether or not to
proceed to negotiations in these areas.  On gove rnment procurement, Jamaica took comfort from the
fact that the negotiations would be limited to transparency.  However, it was concerned about the lack
of clarity as to what exactly Members would be agreeing to negotiate on, as was also the caseregarding elements of a possible framework identifi ed in other areas.  The elements of transparency
that would be the subject of negotiations should be identified so as to preclude any surprises.
111. On trade facilitation, the text failed to take account of any of the concerns expressed by
delegations that they could not support a process that would result in new and binding commitments.
On WTO rules a new initial phrase had been added, which appeared to imply that all Members, or at
least a majority of WTO Members, were engaged in the increasing application of certain trade
instruments on the anti-dumping and subsidies agreements.  This seemed to be contrary to fact.  Hiscapital had wondered why the fact that a few Members had begun to use these instruments with
increasing frequency had led to the conclusion that this applied to the entire membership.  Jamaica
welcomed the changes that had been made to the paragraphs on trade and environment.  The
paragraphs on electronic commerce and on small ec onomies, while not drafted as Jamaica would have
chosen, contained essential substantive elements and were acceptable.  On trade and transfer oftechnology and trade and debt, working groups should be established and both issues examined
thoroughly.  The texts seemed to go out of their way to ensure that this examination could not be
completed by the Fifth Session, and placed no onus on the General Council to make recommendations
to the Fifth Session for future action, as had been done in other areas.  Thus, there was a certain
asymmetry in the way these two issues were treated compared with other issues.
112. On technical cooperation and capacity building there were a number of improvements, but a
vague reference to the drawing of benefits from an open rules-based multilateral trading system was
not the same as explicitly committing to building s upply-side capability.  In this context Jamaica
welcomed the reference to the International Trade Centre.  On S&D treatment, Jamaica hoped to see
work proceed expeditiously at the level of the Committee on Trade and Development and the GeneralCouncil.  He noted that in paragraph 37 Ministers would agree that all S&D measures would beWT/GC/M/71
Page 29
reviewed with a view to strengthening them and making them more operational, and would endorse a
work programme on S&D treatment set out in th e Decision on implementation-related issues and
concerns.  His Minister would want to have a full report at the Fifth Session on the implementation of
the review of S&D treatment provisions and on the work programme authorized.
113. On the organization and management of the wo rk programme, Jamaica did not support the
establishment of a trade negotiations body.  It was also unclear exactly what in the work programme
would be covered by the single undertaking.  There was also no need for the Committees on Trade
and Development and on Trade and Environment to be debating aspects of the negotiations in parallel
with the negotiations themselves.  Delegations were already sufficiently stretched, and other relevant
and demanding mandates had already been given to these bodies in other areas of the proposed work
programme and under the draft Decision on implementation.  Regarding transmission of the draft text
to Ministers, which the Chairman had indicated would be done on his and the Director-General'sauthority, the preparatory process had been a process of the membership as a whole, and this had been
an important strength of that process.  It was in the context of transparency, inclusiveness and clarity
that the text should be transmitted with an approp riate letter making known to Ministers, from the
Chairman's unique vantage point, the complexity of the process and the main alternatives and options
which he had had to weigh carefully, and which in some cases he had had to reject in favour of thecompromise language included in the text and acknowledged as not agreed.  This would assist the
process by focusing Ministers on certain key matters, and might also prevent a potentially chaotic
situation in which Ministers attempted to focus on every line and every paragraph, rather than on key
matters.  Such a letter could help the process on the ground.  Regarding the draft text on TRIPS and
health, in the absence of agreement Jamaica welcomed the submission of options to Ministers.Jamaica supported the first option, and looked forward to the resolution of this important issue by
Ministers.
114. The representative of Malaysia said that it was logical for Members to assess the results
achieved now that the Geneva preparatory process had ended.  This would give a sense of the amount
of work that needed to be done in Doha to enable Members to agree on a work programme.  Memberswere at a stage where a positive outcome was possible in Doha, although the path was still fraught
with uncertainties.  Hence, it was important to co me to grips with Members' fundamental difficulties
and to try to accommodate them.  Notwithstanding the fact that some Members could not accept the
texts on specific issues, the texts had to be transmitted to Ministers in their current form, and based on
the understanding that they had not been agreed either in part or in whole.  In order to avoid a
complete reopening of the texts in Doha, the Chairman should first assess the problem areas based on
the present discussion.  It should then be left to the Chairman's wisdom to indicate his assessment of
what Ministers might need to focus on.  Each Minister at Doha had the right to raise any issue
pertaining to the texts submitted.  Malaysia was agreeing to the future work programme on the
understanding that it would enhance the WTO system and not put unnecessary burdens on developing
countries.  His delegation acknowledged that the development dimension emerged in many areas of
the proposed work programme.  However, to ensure that the development aspect was acted upon, thelanguage in the text had to indicate a binding commitment.
115. In enhancing the WTO system, Members had to avoid the temptation to push for including
extraneous issues because of political pressures from domestic constituencies.  No particular
constituency in any Member should have a monopoly on the issues.  In this respect, it was difficult to
accept the reference to labour rights in paragraph 8 simply because certain domestic constituenciessought it.  If the matter had truly been resolved and the issue was within the competence and
jurisdiction of the ILO, there was no need to raise it.  Malaysia was also concerned that the domestic
problems of a few Members were putting unnecessary pressure on all Members to deal with the issue
of trade and the environment.  The WTO had sufficient provisions to deal with environmental
concerns, and clarification of WTO rules was not necessary.  The limited resources of some WTOMembers should not be diverted to issues that were not directly related to trade liberalization andWT/GC/M/71
Page 30
development, and Malaysia would have serious difficulties with any language that alluded to
negotiations on this subject.
116. On investment and competition policy, initiating negotiations on these subjects, albeit at the
Fifth Ministerial Conference, when it had been clea r that many developing countries were not ready
for such a commitment, was a cause of concern, particularly given the limited resources of thosecountries.  The two-step approach Malaysia had envisaged as a way out of the impasse would have
allowed Ministers to decide, based on a focussed study, whether negotiations would be undertaken.
That study period would give Members the necessary inputs to determine whether these issues would
be of benefit to them.  However, the approach proposed in the revised draft text would automatically
lead to negotiations.  The text as it currently stood presupposed an agreement to negotiate, and
Ministers at the Fifth Ministerial Conference would only have to decide on the modalities of
negotiations.  Malaysia had also requested that the two-step approach apply to transparency ingovernment procurement and to trade facilitation, but the draft text called for immediate negotiations
in these two areas.  Malaysia would need to reflect further on this.  Its concern was also based on
systemic grounds.  On issues where the membership was fundamentally divided, there should be more
thought and reflection, rather than imposing these issues on all.  The latter was an unhealthy trend.
Ministers should thus reconsider these matters in Doha.
117. S&D treatment remained an integral element of  the WTO that could level the playing field,
given the different levels of development.  Proposals to re-examine S&D provisions, including to
make them more effective and operational and, where appropriate, mandatory, needed to be given
priority.  S&D provisions should be made available to all developing countries, while recognising the
special needs of LDCs.  In this respect, Members should reconsider proposals that favoured only asmall group of developing countries, in order to avoid an imbalance.  Regarding the draft Declaration
on Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines / Public Health, the text seemed to be still out of
reach.  Malaysia would have preferred a Declaration that addressed public health concerns and
clarified the flexibilities within the TRIPS Agreement.
118. The representative of Norway said he wished to make some general comments on the draft
Declaration and its character.  The present discussion was partly a reflection of the fact that the
present meeting was the first formal meeting the Ge neral Council had held in some time and also the
first chance for delegations to register their reactions to the draft texts that had been circulated.  His
delegation was both surprised and disappointed by the sudden desire, expressed by several Members,
for the safe haven of square brackets.  There had been long and thorough discussions earlier in the
year about the character of the preparatory process and the desire not to repeat the experience of the
preparatory process before Seattle.  The current nostalgic expressions of how good it was to havebrackets was a step backward.  The revised draft Declaration would serve as a good basis for further
work because it represented the consultation process Members had followed and struck a middle
ground on that basis.  He was perplexed that some delegations had complained that their positions had
not been reflected in the text.  No one position was going to carry the day, and compromises were
necessary on each and every subject.  The revised draft text was a good basis for the final stage thatwould take place in Doha, as it reflected the Chairm an's and the Director-General's best judgement of
where a possible solution might be found on each of the issues.  As Malaysia had said, at the present
stage everything in the text remained open.  While some adjustments would be necessary, the
concepts in the text reflected a fair and independent assessment of the consultation process.  For
example, on investment and competition the text was perhaps the most flexible in the entireDeclaration, and fine-tuning and adjustment could move it in several different directions.  That was
exactly what was needed in Doha.  The text resu lting from Doha would no doubt not be the same as
the current text, but would likely not depart from the concepts laid out in that text.
119. His delegation had an open mind on the question of a letter transmitting the texts to Ministers.
However, any such letter should describe the process Members had gone through because the wholeWT/GC/M/71
Page 31
character of the draft Declaration reflected that process.  That process was very different in character
from preparatory processes for previous Ministerial Conferences, and should be explained, along with
the various concepts arrived at under the various chapters and the particular problems.  It was
important that the letter not give the impression of a hierarchy of outstanding problems, because no
one delegation's problems were more important than any other's.  Regarding the draft Declaration onIntellectual Property and Access to Medicines/Public Health, it was understandable that the text
provided options on one of the crucial paragraphs.  On the substance of the draft text, Norway could
not agree to formulations that seemed to say th at the TRIPS Agreement had a wider application than
what was apparent from reading the Agreement itself.  That was not the type of clarification that
should be sought in this Declaration.  Norway was not comfortable with the second option in the draft
text, from the perspective of the wider interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement.   Turning to
implementation, he said that the whole implementation package that Members would adopt in Dohawas central to the preparatory work and to the main Declaration itself.  His delegation understood that
there were still one or two problems in the draft Decision on implementation and hoped that an effort
would be made to resolve those problems so that Members could recommend that Ministers adopt the
implementation package.
120. The representative of Romania, also on behalf of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovak Republic and Slovenia, said these countries
agreed that the present meeting marked the end of a very important stage in preparations for what was
the accepted goal of all, namely, a successful Ministerial Conference in Doha.  Throughout the past
weeks and months Members had done their best, under the Chairman's skilful leadership, to express
their views and concerns, to listen to others, to bridge gaps and ultimately to come closer to aconsensual document that could be adopted by Ministers in Doha.  This process had been wrought
with difficulties, stumbling blocks and painful tests of self-discipline and understanding.  Learning
from mistakes of the past, Members had worked towards a manageable and substantial text that would
serve as a basis for the decisions to be taken by Ministers.  From this perspective, the process had
been successful.   There had been, and would continue to be, expressions of dissatisfaction anddisappointment regarding parts of the text put forward, and the Members for whom he was speaking
joined other countries in voicing some of these co ncerns.  However, what was essential was that the
text as it stood was a faithful expression of the range of positions expressed, and represented an
honest and valuable effort to grasp, in a transparent, balanced and forward-looking manner, the
comprehensiveness of the WTO constituency.  The current text was positive, manageable and
negotiable, and the Members for whom he was speaking welcomed the Chairman's decision to submit
it to Ministers in Doha.  Now that the Geneva process had come to an end, it was up to Ministers,briefed and supported by delegations in Geneva, to show the necessary political will and vision to
make Doha the success it had to be.  This was important both for the WTO as an organization and for
the world economy, at a time when the spectre of global recession and economic instability was very
real and palpable.  It was also important for every Member of the WTO, whether developed,
developing or transition economy countries.  The Members for whom he was speaking looked
forward to spending the remaining days before Doha preparing and organizing the important work
that awaited all in Qatar.
121. The representative of Australia said that with the draft texts and all of the qualifications
individual Members had made, Members were much closer to a successful meeting in Doha than they
had been a few weeks earlier.  This was in large part a result of the Chairman's untiring efforts to takethe temperature of the membership so that he co uld make well-balanced judgments about what the
market could bear and where consensus lay.  It also reflected the careful process he had been engaged
in since the start of the year, testing and building support for the positions reflected in the draft.  The
process undertaken by the Chairman had been willingly agreed by all Members.  It had involved
extensive and inclusive consultations carried out in a fully transparent and efficient manner, whichhad led to the Chairman's producing a balanced and well-crafted text.  Australia, like many other
Members, would have preferred a more narrowly framed future negotiating agenda which focussed onWT/GC/M/71
Page 32
the most significant barriers to international trade, the removal of which would have a more dramatic
impact on growth and development than some of the proposals included in the draft text.  However, it
was prepared to contemplate a broader agenda to accommodate the interests of its trading partners
who wanted to include newer issues such as investment, competition and environment, on the basis of
the Chairman's text.
122. This was not to say that Members would not have areas of concern and issues where they
would seek to negotiate changes in the text.  For example, the text on agriculture lacked the ambition
necessary to deliver the fundamental reform which a large majority of Members were seeking.  On
environment, the draft text went too far, and Australia remained unconvinced about the text on
geographical indications.  That being said, his delegation did not expect, and strongly discouraged,
any further changes to the text.  Australia accepted, and encouraged others to accept, that the draft text
was sufficiently balanced to form the basis for nego tiations in Doha.  It was surprised that a number of
developing countries, including LDCs, had said the text was unbalanced.  With the revised
enhancements in the draft text made to address the legitimate concerns of developing countries, and in
particular the LDCs, the text now dealt extensivel y with those concerns, and many of the concerns
expressed over recent weeks had been captured in some detail in the text.  The main point was that all
Members had to look beyond their narrowly defined concerns with particular aspects of the text toDoha, and to remind themselves of what was at stake if a new work programme was not adopted at
Doha.
123. The world would not come to an end if Doha failed, but all needed to contemplate the
consequences of another failed Ministerial meeting.  The world economy had entered a period of
lower growth and increased uncertainty.  Growth  in world trade was slowing dramatically.  GDP
forecasts were being revised down all over the world.  Business confidence was plummeting.  This
was a grim picture and underscored the need to launch a round of negotiations as soon as possible
both to underpin confidence that the WTO was engaged in its core business of opening markets and,
just as importantly in the short te rm, to help keep at bay the protectionist forces that were encouraged
by such a downturn.  It would also show that the WTO was capable of remaining relevant to the
evolving global economy.  One of the key messages delegations had to register with their Ministers as
they headed for Doha was that the potential downsides of failure at Doha were greater than they were
prior to the Seattle Ministerial.  While the failure of the Seattle meeting to launch negotiations
damaged the image of the WTO with important stakeholders and dented self-confidence, it happened
during a period of sustained economic growth and was soon discounted by the market.  A failure at
Doha would intensify those two negatives, and in the current and foreseeable economic
circumstances, would also have the more serious potential to worsen visibly the economic costs ofhaving no negotiations in train.  Therefore, Australia urged all Members to keep this bigger picture in
mind when assessing the draft text, and in particular when preparing officials and Ministers for the
Doha meeting.  Few of the interests delegations represented would thank them if the price for getting
every one of their drafting suggestions included in the draft text was to sink the prospect of launching
negotiations that could address the growing challenges and uncertainties of the global economy.
124. The representative of India said that his delegation had serious concerns relating to certain
issues in the draft Ministerial Declaration, the manner in which the four Singapore subjects had been
dealt with, and in particular the language suggested for trade and investment and trade and
competition policy.  India had repeatedly expressed its inability to accept commencement of
negotiations either explicitly or implicitly in respect of the Singapore subjects.  The text of26 September had provided two options each for investment and competition, and even then India had
pointed out that the second option did not reflect its views accurately.  In a number of consultations,
multilateral, plurilateral and bilateral, many delegations, including India, had voiced strong opposition
to the negotiating option as well as to the so-called the "opt-in/opt-out" approach on investment and
competition.  On competition policy, a large number of delegations, including India, had expressedserious reservations on a number of occasions about commencement of negotiations in this complexWT/GC/M/71
Page 33
area without first acquiring at least some experience in implementing domestic competition law.  It
was surprising and upsetting to find that the paragraphs in the previous draft giving options on these
two issues had been dropped, and that the text contained only the option of negotiations.
125. India strongly urged reintroducing the option of continuing the study process with a report to
the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  The way these two subjects were handled in the current text clearlyprejudiced India's interests, and India urged that its position be reflected as an option in the draft text,
especially given the Chairman's acknowledgement that the opinion of the membership was more or
less equally divided on these two subjects.  The absence of India's and many other developing
countries' preferred options on these two issues was particularly disturbing in the light of the fact that
the Singapore Ministerial Declaration gave a solemn undertaking to the effect that negotiations on
these issues would not be initiated unless there was an explicit consensus to do so.  It was clear that
such a consensus was nowhere in sight.  When a significant number of WTO Members had seriousconcerns, the system would not be well served by taking the route indicated in paragraphs 20 and 21
of the revised draft Declaration.  Regarding paragraphs 22 and 23 on transparency in government
procurement and trade facilitation, the draft clearly proposed negotiations, while India had all along
urged the continuation of the study process, inasmuch as there was no consensus as yet even on
elements such as scope and definition.
126. On trade and environment the revised text envisaged a phase for identifying any need to
clarify WTO rules and for deciding on "the desirability of negotiations" after the Fifth Ministerial
Conference.  In view of India's well-known positi on that existing WTO rules were sufficient to
address all legitimate concerns relating to th e environment, his delegation found the text
unsatisfactory.  India noted that certain items had been cited for particular attention;  however, allitems assigned to the Committee on Trade and Environment should receive due focus as envisaged in
its mandate.  Paragraph 44 was also worrying in that it appeared to mainstream environment.
Regarding market access for non-agricultural products covered in paragraph 16, India had repeatedly
pointed out that the word '"comprehensive" in the second sentence would create serious problems for
it and other countries in relation to some extremely sensitive sectors.  Moreover, India was not clearabout the inclusion of the phrase "high tariffs" in the text, as this could lead to asymmetry in the
outcome of negotiations regarding the developing and least-developed countries.  India was concerned
with the structure of the first sentence which seem ed to imply that the phrase "in particular, in
products of export interest to developing countries" did not cover non-tariff barriers.  In spite of all
these concerns, India did take note of the fact that the revised language of this paragraph attempted to
embody S&D treatment for developing countries in the negotiations as well as in their outcome, as
provided for in Articles XXVIII bis:3 and XXXVI:8 of GATT 1994.  Having said this, he wanted to
recall that in the most recent General Council meeting, his delegation had associated itself with the
suggestions by Kenya, Tanzania and others that there should be a study process to assess the impact
of tariff reductions already carried out by a number of developing and least-developed countries.  This
suggestion needed serious consideration.
127. On paragraph 12 of the draft text relating to outstanding implementation issues, the key
message was that it fell short of India's expectations and there was considerable scope for
improvement.  India had made specific proposals in this regard.  It took note that negotiations on
outstanding implementation issues would be an inte gral part of the work programme that was being
established.  However, it was anxious that no confusion be created by any delegation because of the
language in this paragraph.  The paragraph indicated that where a specific negotiating mandate in theDeclaration was provided, the relevant implementation issue would be addressed under that mandate,
and that the other outstanding implementation issues would be addressed as a matter of priority by the
relevant WTO bodies.  In fact, the draft Declaration was silent as to where the subjects mandated for
negotiations in paragraphs 24 and 25 would be addressed.  Regarding the outstanding implementation
issues, India was proceeding on the basis that these would be negotiated as an integral part of thework programme.  Regarding paragraph 8 on core labour standards, a third sentence had been addedWT/GC/M/71
Page 34
to the paragraph without deleting the second sentence, to which a large number of delegations had
raised objections.  India strongly urged deletion of the second sentence, as it was not necessary for the
WTO to take note of non-trade related issues being considered by other organizations.
128. He recalled that India had been requesting concomitance between the completion of
negotiations for the establishment of a system of notification and registration of geographicalindications for wines and spirits, and negotiations for extension of higher levels of protection of
geographical indications for additional products on a par with wines and spirits.  India found that the
issue of negotiation of the extension of higher levels of protection for geographical indications for
additional products had been included in paragraph 18 by reference to paragraph 12.  This would
ensure the concomitance between the establishment of the multilateral register for wines and spirits
and the completion of negotiations for the extension of higher protection for geographical indications
for additional products.  Regarding paragraph 24 which envisaged negotiations on anti-dumping andsubsidies, his delegation was proceeding on the basis that the phrase "while preserving the basic
concepts and principles underlying them" would not inhibit consideration during the negotiating
process of the outstanding implementation issues relating to the Agreements in these two areas.  India
would appreciate confirmation of this.  His delegation fully associated with Tanzania's observation
that the draft Declaration did not appropriately take note of the existing development deficit, and thatthis needed to be fully reflected in the Preamble.  The section of the draft text on organization and
management of the work programme continued to cause India concern, in particular because there
was no need for a separate Trade Negotiations Committee and the negotiations should be conducted in
the existing bodies under the direct supervision of the General Council.
129. Regarding the draft Declaration on Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines/Public
Health, the title should be "Ministerial Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health", as suggested by
other delegations.  Second, the most important issue in the entire declaration was in paragraph 4 as
two options.  India strongly suggested the retention of option 1 and the deletion of option 2.  India had
other concerns relating to other paragraphs, which it would raise at an appropriate time.  His
delegation had formulated some drafting changes reflecting its views and would transmit these forincorporation in the draft text.
130. He then made some general observations.  The draft text was without square brackets and
without options.  His understanding was that the pu rpose of the preparatory process was to agree as
much as possible, and where there was no agreement, to give options to Ministers or put controversial
language in square brackets so that Ministers could focus on the differences and take appropriate
decisions.  By opting for a text which did not bring out the differences in crucial areas, especially in
respect of new issues, many Members were forced to put the entire text in square brackets.  India hadserious problems with the suggestion that the text be transmitted as it was to Ministers.  Such a course
of action would not be appropriate.  It was not fair to disadvantage any Member through a Chairman's
text.  The WTO was a forum for negotiations.  Sometimes, Members acquiesced when a Chairman
came out with a text after wide-ranging consulta tions.  The work programme to be launched was
momentous and would have a tremendous impact on the commercial, economic and social life ofbillions of people.  While India appreciated the Chairman's constraints, it could not acquiesce in a
situation where a draft Ministerial Declaration was being transmitted to Ministers without reflecting
the concerns and objections of a large number of countries, including India.  The Seattle text had been
transmitted with the consensus of the General Council and contained various options relating to
various issues in square brackets.  While the text had been criticized as unmanageable, it had had themerit of not prejudicing any Member's position.  By opting for a clean text without appropriately
reflecting the different positions at least on major issues, the Chairman had swung to the other
extreme.  If appropriate revision of the text was not considered possible at the present stage, at a
minimum there should be a clear covering letter as an integral part of it, explaining the main
differences encountered and options suggested on critical issues during the preparatory process.  Indiavisualised this covering letter as dealing with substance and not with process alone.  His delegationWT/GC/M/71
Page 35
was confident that the Chairman's experience a nd commitment to the Member-driven nature of the
organization would help him find a way out of this s ituation so that Ministers would have before them
the full picture of the different positions on various subjects that would come up for consideration at
Doha.  His delegation wanted to emphasise again the need to accommodate the expressions and
positions of a significant number of countries in the draft Declaration when it was transmitted toDoha.
131. The representative of the European Communities sa id that it was not easy to try to square the
circle of very opposing interests, and the Chairman and the Director-General had done a professional
job, notwithstanding that the Community was sadly disappointed with some parts of the text and
seriously concerned about others.  Nonetheless, it accepted the rules of the game that had been agreed,
i.e. that the Chairman and the Director-General would transmit the draft text to Ministers on their own
responsibility.  Overall, the preparatory process had been transparent, inclusive and fair, and had beenincomparably better than the process in the run-up to the Seattle Ministerial.  There would be quite a
few issues that would need tough negotiations at Ministerial level, but that was what Ministers were
there for.  All were well aware of what was at stake, and which issues needed particular attention from
Ministers.  It had to be recognized that some of these issues were still the subject of important
divergences within the membership, and the Community had particular concerns in this regard withthe current text.
132. Nonetheless, Ministers would be in a position, building on the draft text, to enter into a
manageable final process of negotiations in Doha .  Members would have the opportunity in Doha to
take a meaningful step forward in terms of trade liberalization and strengthened rules.  They would
also have the opportunity to revisit rules in view of their improvement and clarification and to developnew rules to address the realities of globalization in an evenhanded manner, and to try to respond as
well to the concerns of the wider public.  Above al l, they would have the opportunity to address
development concerns in a substantive rather than a rhetorical way.  With the revised draft
Declaration, together with the draft Decision on implementation, Members were moving decisively
towards a real development agenda.  He was making this point as he did not share the assessment ofsome Members who had criticized the text, and in particular this aspect of it.  The development
dimension of the WTO was the one aspect that had been comprehensively covered in every
paragraph.  The text on agriculture stressed the need to address developing country concerns.  The
text on services singled out for special attention the issue traditionally flagged as a developing country
priority, namely, Mode 4.  The text on non-agricultural market access required special attention to
exports of interest to developing countries, singled out tariff peaks, called for special account to be
taken of developing and least-developed countries, and recalled the enabling clause.  The text onTRIPS provided a whole section devoted to development issues, trade and investment bent over
backwards to integrate all possible development aspects, as did government procurement and trade
facilitation.  On rules, there was an unambiguous and ambitious negotiating mandate that addressed
developing country priorities, even though this was a very difficult proposition for some Members.
Beyond that there were specific horizontal provisions on small economies, the least-developedcountries, S&D treatment, trade and finance and trade and debt, technical assistance, and transfer of
technology, not to mention a very far-reach ing and ambitious commitment to negotiate
implementation issues raised in the last three years, which would be hard for some Members.  He was
listing these items in response to the suggestion that everything in the text was anti-development or
failed to recognize the needs and interests of develo ping countries.  Indeed, the text did the contrary.
Those developing countries who had been unduly critical took on themselves a great responsibility in
rejecting a text that, far more than any other previous Ministerial Declaration produced either by the
GATT or the WTO, put the development agenda at its center and throughout.
133. He had listened carefully to those who had voiced their degree of unhappiness, and wanted to
assure them that the Community was equally unhappy, even upset, that some of its major concernshad failed to be addressed in any meaningful way in the revised draft text.  The Community had theWT/GC/M/71
Page 36
distinctive feeling of being the orphan of the current text, and this might be of some consolation to
other Members.  On environment, which was a polit ically very sensitive issue for the Community, it
had gone out of its way to provide all the necessary braces and belts to its trading partners. What it
had been and was looking for was a very limited and circumscribed negotiating mandate.  All that was
on offer in the draft text was a remote possibility of negotiations.  Bluntly put, the approach onenvironment fell far short of what the Community could accept in an overall package.  Agriculture
remained an equally sensitive issue, and the present text was not acceptable on two accounts:  the
stated objectives on export subsidies and the cursory treatment on non-trade concerns.  His delegation
had been surprised at the reactions of some Members on the revised text on investment and
competition.  This text was a big disappointment, in that it was both unclear and ambiguous.  The
Community had thought that following the consultations it would have been possible to have an up-
front decision on the modalities of participation in negotiations on a multilateral framework fornegotiations in these areas, as it had seemed that Members were close to a compromise formula.
134. On the social dimension of globalization, the present language was too anodine, and he
wondered why it was such a big issue to welcome the initiatives under way in the ILO, including the
opening of a substantive international policy dialogue among all interested parties.  What was at issue
here was merely preambular language, since the operative part of this issue was and remained in theILO framework.  On government procurement and trade facilitation, the text needed improvement,
particularly as the quality and nature of the commitments was put into question.  He also wanted to
flag the importance of trying to reach agreement on a broadly acceptable text on TRIPS and health,
where the Community would continue to work hard to bridge the significant gaps that remained.
Agreement on all issues was within reach, and it was the role of Ministers to achieve this.
135. The representative of Ecuador said that his delegation agreed that the present meeting
concluded a phase in the preparatory process.  However, this work had to continue intensively over
the next few days until Members reached the final phase during which they would initiate a new work
programme for the WTO.  The texts which the Chairman and the Director-General had circulated
came as close as possible to the most viable way to initiate a work programme that would include:  (i)negotiations under way;  (ii) final resolution of the implementation problems;  and (iii) the initiation
of new negotiations on trade issues in a globalized world.  For Ecuador that work programme should
ensure that Members complied with WTO objectives, i.e. the operative part should ensure and
implement all the points in the preamble.  Ecuador was aware that there was as yet no consensus on
the draft texts.  It was thus essential to get down to an intense negotiating process during the
Ministerial Conference.  This process should maintain the openness and transparency which the
Chairman and the Director-General had ensured throughout the preparatory process.
136. In negotiations to be undertaken in the future, Members had to take into consideration the
interests of all, and in particular the interests of the developing countries.  On several occasions an
attempt had been made to name the future work programme a "Working Agenda for Development".
Ecuador had always supported the agreements that we re part and parcel of the WTO as instruments
for development.  Trade, without any doubt, was an instrument that should help Members to solvetheir problems.  This was not the time to focus on the drawbacks in the draft texts, nor to try to
pinpoint issues of national priority.  There were areas where his delegation had hoped for much more,
such as agriculture.  It was time to recognize that  the draft text was, in general terms, balanced and
that it provided a clear-cut avenue enabling all Members to reach their goals.
137. However, Ecuador was concerned that Members had not been able to comply with the
commitment undertaken by all to resolve the implementation problems prior to the Ministerial
Conference.  In this regard, the organization owed a debt to those who had raised specific concerns on
implementation, and it was essential that during the Special Session of the General Council that would
follow a decision would be taken to recommend to  Ministers the adoption of all issues contained in
the draft Decision on implementation.  Regarding the implementation issues which were still awaitingWT/GC/M/71
Page 37
resolution, these issues should be addressed and solved in a definitive manner within a very short
time.  The relevant Decision should include mention of the fact that the resolution of these
implementation issues was a condition to be met before the Fifth Ministerial Conference adopted
decisions on issues contained in the work programme to be initiated in Doha.
138. The representative of Argentina said that the daft text represented the Chairman's and the
Director-General's best judgement of the situation.  His delegation appreciated the relevance and the
importance of all of the issues included in the text, and reiterated its readiness to work on these issues.
It also appreciated the prudent manner in which the Chairman had pointed out that the draft text was
not agreed text in any part.  The Chairman had also informed Members that the text would be
submitted under his own and the Director-General's responsibility.  With these two clarifications,
which were essential, the proposal constituted an extremely useful contribution.  This was not the
moment to try to flag individually those points of pa rticular interest to his country or what its position
on them might be.  Argentina simply wished to formally express its view that paragraph 13 on
agriculture and paragraph 18 on TRIPS were inadequate.
139. It was time to carry out an overall analysis and appraisal of the draft Declaration, paying great
attention to systemic implications and the impact on the world economy as a whole.  It seemed that
there were two obvious biases in the overall text.  One was toward what might be called the newissues, while absolutely no progress had been made in the area of agriculture.  A tremendous amount
of time and energy was being devoted to issues such as investment, competition, environment,
government procurement and trade facilitation.  While the system as a whole would not make any
progress if it ignored the new issues, it would make even less progress if it attempted either explicitly
or implicitly to leave behind the traditional issues of the WTO.
140. The second bias was related to the first.  Those Members who had asked for the new issues
were the developed countries.  Thus, there was an imbalance between the concerns and questions
raised by the developing world and those of the developed countries.  Whereas on many of the
developing countries' concerns, progress had been made in including these in the course of the
negotiations to be undertaken or in establishing working groups on issues such as debt, finance andtransfer of technology, no specific commitments had been made.  The imbalance became even more
marked if one included in this overall appraisal the issue of TRIPS and health, where it had not even
been possible to agree on the title of the draft Declaration.  There were many words in the text
regarding S&D treatment, but few decisions and specific commitments, or even operative decisions in
this regard.  One was very far from the concept of non-reciprocal commitments, which had been
explicitly and expressly included in the Urugua y Round agenda.  Given the existence of these two
biases, it was essential to address these concerns within the purview of the draft Declaration.  Thiswould add even more value to the work already done, and would mean introducing in Doha a series of
changes and improvements in the draft text with a view not to meeting individual interests but rather
the overall interests of the system.  That would be the best way to proceed and was the avenue which
offered the best chance of launching a new round.
141. The representative of Zimbabwe, on behalf of the African Group
, said that his statement was
without prejudice to the position of individual members of the African Group.  While they could live
with some elements in the draft Declaration, they were disappointed that the text did not take on board
a number of views expressed by African Members.  They noted that different formats were used in the
presentation of the main draft Declaration in JOB(01)/140/Rev.1 and of the draft Declaration on
Intellectual Property and Access to Medicines/Public Health in JOB(01)/155.  In particular, they notedwith concern that the absence of options in the main draft Declaration could convey the wrong
impression that there were no differences among delegations on substance.  The African Group had
participated actively in the consultative process conducted by the Chairman and the Director General
after circulation of the first draft text of the main Declaration.  They had also conveyed both within
the informal consultative process and directly to the Chairman in a letter the Declaration by AfricanWT/GC/M/71
Page 38
Ministers adopted at Abuja on 23 September 2001 expressing their positions and negotiating
objectives on issues of primary interest and concern to Africa.  The revised draft Declaration did not
reflect a sizable number of the positions taken by African Ministers and supported by a large number
of developing countries, which had been discussed after circulation of the first draft text.  They
appreciated the efforts that had gone into trying to resolve outstanding implementation-related issuesand concerns, and called for the adoption at Doha of the decision on the whole range of these issues.
142. They had taken note of the draft Declaration on TRIPS and Access to Medicines/Public
Health as a basis for advancing work in this area.  Clearly, there were some elements in that draft text
which had not been fully discussed in the General Council and which raised a number of complex
technical and political issues that still needed to be resolved.  Further, the African Group was
disappointed with the section on TRIPS in the main draft Declaration.  He recalled that the African
Group had made a substantive input on TRIPS which had been circulated to all Members during theconsultations but which had not been adequately covered in paragraph 19 of the draft Declaration.
They noted with concern that the revised draft text did not present options, particularly on sections
dealing with investment and competition policy.  Fu rther, a large number of developing countries had
indicated a specific preference for the development of non-binding rules and/or general guidelines on
trade facilitation and transparency in government pr ocurement.  The current draft text gave the wrong
impression that Members had agreed on the need to launch negotiations on binding rules in these
areas.  Members had also expressed differing views on the treatment of non-agricultural market
access, which the draft text failed to reflect.  The African Group urged that reference to the question
of core labour standards be deleted from the text, and would also want to see further improvements in
the text on agriculture.  He recalled that the Africa Group had also submitted substantive proposalsregarding paragraph 13, most of which had not been reflected in the revised text.
143. In view of the African Ministers' decision to limit the negotiating agenda, e.g. by excluding
the Singapore issues, they had not envisaged a comprehensive broad agenda.  Thus, the references, in
the section on organization and management of the Work Programme, to a greatly expanded agenda
would have to be changed.  This section should have a short and simple text, such as that the workprogramme would be carried out in the relevant existing bodies under the supervision of the General
Council, and that the General Council will present a progress report to the Fifth Ministerial
Conference.  Regarding the procedure for submitting draft texts to Ministers, the African Group's
preference was for the Chairman to obtain the consent and/or approval of the General Council.  While
there might not be time to produce a further revised draft text, a clear communication should be sent
to Ministers highlighting the lack of consensus in a more detailed manner than had been currently
suggested.  The General Council had a responsibility to submit a report to the Ministerial Conference.In this regard, statements by delegations on the draft texts should be submitted to Ministers as a
formal record of the present meeting.  The WTO was a Member-driven organization, and it would be
advisable to ensure the confidence of Members in the organization and in its decision-making process
in heading into the Fourth Ministerial Conference.  The views he had just expressed were intended to
assist the Chairman in achieving that objective.
144. The representative of Nigeria recalled that his delegation had already submitted its comments
on the draft Declaration (WT/GC/W/454) and said th at he wanted to explain two points in that
submission.  The first was the issue of making views known on the draft and the fact that there was no
consensus on it.  Among the interests missing in the draft were the following:  (i) implementation,
where in accordance with an earlier Decision of th e General Council, these issues were to be resolved
in Doha;  (ii) on the new issues, the study process should continue pending such time as there was
consensus to begin negotiations on them, as mandated by the Singapore Declaration.  This would
enable delegations to better understand these issues and to ensure that outstanding issues were
clarified.  Nigeria rejected the opt-out proposal in paragraphs 20 and 21 in whatever form it was
presented;  (iii) in the area of industrial tariffs, Members should initiate a study of the implications ofprevious negotiations on the economies of the developing countries in order to guide them on how toWT/GC/M/71
Page 39
proceed in the future;  (iv) nothing in the TRIPS Agreement should restrict Members from taking
action necessary to protect public health in their countries;  (v) labour standards was not an issue that
belonged to the WTO, which should not be over-burdened with issues that rightly belonged to other
international organizations;  (vi) S&D treatment for the developing countries and the LDCs should be
made mandatory and binding.  If a new round of negotiations was agreed in Doha it should beconducted within the existing negotiating bodies under the direct supervision of the General Council.
There was no need for the establishment of a TNC.
145. Given the Chairman's statement that he did not want to re-open the draft text, Nigeria did not
know how the Chairman would proceed with the c ontributions being made at the present meeting.
His delegation asked that the Chairman ensure that those issues on which there was no consensus be
indicated to Ministers in some manner, whether through an annex or an explanatory note or square
brackets in the text.  The concept of opt-in/opt-out  would not be acceptable to Nigeria, and a way
should be found to resolve this problem in order to have balance and consensus.  His delegation
congratulated the Chairman and the Director-General for the transparent consultations they had held.
But the draft texts being sent to Ministers did not have Members' consent, and this was why Nigeria
was asking that the Chairman re-examine them.  Nigeria hoped that its concerns would be reflected in
some manner to Ministers at Doha, and assured the Chairman of its support and collaboration so thatthere could be an equitable result in Doha.
146. The representative of Morocco said that opinion seemed to be unanimous that the preparatory
process for Doha had been conducted in a very transparent manner.  Members were now faced with
the product of that process.  He did not understand how it could be said that the process had been
good but the outcome was not.  This did not mean that Morocco was fully satisfied with the texts.  Itcertainly had reservations and things that it would improve.  However, the text should not be judged
by any national position, as this would be unfair.  How, for example, could one reconcile India's
position with that of the European Communities on some of the issues raised?  That was a thankless
job and illustrated well why the Chairman had had to make judgement calls on some of the difficult
issues.  Members had been well aware that such judgment calls would be necessary at the end of thisprocess, and should not now question them.
147. He then turned to Morocco's reactions to the revised draft Declaration.  Regarding the
paragraph on core labour standards in the preamble, this was a message from the WTO membership to
civil society and national constituencies, and said nothing more than what had been said in the
Singapore Declaration.  In that spirit Morocco could accept the text, in spite of its strong views on this
issue. Another sensitive issue for Morocco was trade and the environment, where it was strongly
against the idea of negotiating environmental issues in the WTO.  WTO representatives were notexperts in environmental matters and these issues should not be negotiated in the WTO.  However, the
draft text merely provided for more focussed work within the limits of the existing mandate of the
Committee on Trade and Environment.  The draft text did not prejudge any Member's position
regarding negotiations, which remained a matter to be discussed two years later.
148. On trade and investment, an issue on which Moro cco was a proponent, the text did not reflect
the proponents' preferred option, as it provided for a two-step process which did not in any way assure
proponents that there would be negotiations on this issue after the Fifth Ministerial Conference.
Rather, there would be a study of possible participation in the negotiations.  If at the Fifth Session
Members did not agree by consensus on the modalities for negotiations in this area, there would be no
negotiations.  While his delegation sympathized with  the situation of many countries who had serious
concerns over this issue, Members should try to de-dramatize this issue.  His delegation agreed with
those who had said that the letter transmitting th e draft texts should focus more on explaining the
process that had yielded the result than on trying to explain the result.  The latter was neither feasible
nor advisable, and would be confusing.  Regarding the draft text on TRIPS and health, more work was
needed to advance the text in order to ensure that a good result could be achieved in Doha, becauseWT/GC/M/71
Page 40
this issue was extremely important to all Members, particularly developing countries.   In closing, he
said that delegations should understand that for the Chairman to evaluate the present situation, they
would have to pinpoint their priorities in the curr ent draft text.  Extensive comments on all the points
in the text would not be helpful.  In Doha there would not be time to discuss eight issues.  These
would have to be narrowed down to perhaps tw o or three, where delegations felt that further
improvements were needed.
149. The representative of Zambia associated his delegation with the statements by Tanzania and
Zimbabwe.  Like other LDCs, Zambia had been an  active WTO Member and had made every effort to
fulfill and implement its obligations and commitments in the hope of gaining some share in the
expected benefits of the multilateral trading system.  This was why it shared the disappoint of so
many delegations at the present meeting with the text proposed.  This was not just because Zambia
had not seen any benefits directly, but also because it feared that given the way the process was going,it might never see any benefits at all, and that it would be perpetually marginalized.  The LDCs had
done everything they could, despite their limited capacity and resource constraints, to participate
constructively in the process of consultations which had taken place on the draft Declaration.  Its goal
had been to highlight some of the serious problems LDCs were currently facing, with a view to
finding workable solutions.  However, many LDC priorities and needs continued to be largelyignored.  At no time had the LDCs tried to place their views above others.  They had merely asked for
a balanced text that reflected the interests and needs of the range of the membership and not just the
few.  The current draft text seemed to do the latter.
150. The WTO could not continue to ignore LDC views if it was genuinely serious about
integrating LDCs into the global economy and putting development at the heart of the WTO's work.This would require a strong commitment across the board for urgent action.  While many of the points
Zambia wished to make had already been made by Bangladesh and Tanzania, he wanted to added the
following.  In the draft text the so-called new issues had been presented as subjects for negotiation,
but as the Chairman was aware, this did not reflect the wishes of a significant portion of the
membership.  Zambia was in a very difficult position to engage in negotiations on these issues at thepresent time.  Similarly, it supported the proposa l by Kenya, Mozambique, Nigeria, Tanzania, Uganda
and Zimbabwe for a study process to precede any negotiations on non-agricultural market access,
without any commitment to launch negotiations at a later date.  To leave out this option was not an
accurate reflection of the position of a significant portion of the membership.
151. On technical cooperation and capacity building, his delegation had expected, at a minimum,
to see a number of LDC concerns expressed in the language they had proposed.  Instead, certain parts
of the draft text had been expanded, the content and language of these sections had not beenexpanded.  Many important elements were missing, including the need to build institutional capacity
across the national policy framework among the spectrum of stakeholders, the need to have a
consultative open special process, the need to identify and raise problems with existing agreements
where they might be acting as barriers to ec onomic development, the need for enhancing LDC
participation in rule-and decision-making and agenda-setting in the WTO, and the need to addresssupply-side constraints.  Zambia appreciated the fact that a commitment had been made to provide
duty-free and quota-free market access for LDC products.  However, this remained an unbound
commitment.  Bound market access was crucial and should be accompanied by simplified rules of
origin and addressing other non-trade barriers impeding LDC exports, in order to make market access
meaningful.  There should be mention of LDCs' need  for the necessary flexibility in implementation
of obligations and policy space for development, wh ich they had been calling for in light of their
experience with liberalization policies thus far.  On the accession of LDCs to the WTO, the language
should be framed in a such a way as to facilitate and simplify the process and the rules of accession
for developing countries.WT/GC/M/71
Page 41
152. The points he had mentioned were crucial to the future of the WTO as a fair and equitable
rules-based system.  In view of the time constraints for making changes to the current draft
Declaration to incorporate the views expressed, Zambia joined Nigeria in asking that Ministers be sent
a letter explaining that the draft text had not achieved the consensus that might be read into it, and
why.  This would give Ministers a good basis for starting the negotiations in Doha.
153. The representative of Thailand said that her delegation recognized that it was a difficult task
to accommodate the interests of all Members in the draft Declaration and to include something for
everyone.  The revised draft text reflected the Chairman's fair judgments drawn from extensive
consultations with Members.  Although there were improvements in some areas, there was still much
to be desired in others, and this was a task for Ministers in Doha.  The immediate task was how to
transmit the text to Ministers.  The text was not complete without a cover note explaining the process,
and highlighting its inclusiveness, which had led to the present point, and also highlighting the issuesthat needed Ministers' attention.  However, the cover note should not upset the balance in the text or
reflect national positions, nor should it be a negotiated text.  Thailand trusted that the Chairman would
again use his best judgment to reflect these points in the most suitable manner.  On the substance of
the revised draft Declaration, Thailand had grave concerns on a number of issues.  On labour
standards, she recalled that during the consultations there had been strong objections from themajority of the membership to the inclusion of this  sensitive issue in the draft Declaration.  It would
not be wise to accommodate the concerns of a few developed countries at the expense of developing
countries, if there was going to be a development r ound of trade negotiations.  The additional sentence
on labour standards was therefore unexpected, inexplicable and unacceptable to most developing
countries, including Thailand.
154. On environment, after several consultations Members were close to reaching consensus not to
have negotiations in this area, especially on the precautionary principle, and it was time that the
proponents accepted this fact and stopped pursuing this issue further.  Instead, Members should
concentrate on win-win measures such as the elimination of subsidies in the fishery and agriculture
sectors, in order to rectify the adverse impact of subsidies in these areas on the environment, not tomention technical and financial assistance for developing countries to build their capacities to become
more environmental friendly.  This positive approach would be more effective and preferable.  These
were two issues where Thailand's position was not negotiable.  On other issues, Thailand was
prepared to enter into further negotiations with a view to reaching consensus and to allowing
Members to launch a round of negotiations.
155. TRIPS and health was an issue of utmost importance to most developing countries, and
Thailand was disappointed to see brackets in the draft text.  It was important to send a strong messageto the public that WTO Members genuinely cared about public health and human welfare, especially
in the poorer developing countries.  In this context, Thailand was pleased to hear the Chairman's
suggestion encouraging Members with differing views to continue to work out their differences on
this issue during the time remaining before Doha with  a view to reaching agreement on the draft text.
There remained considerable work to do in Doha in trying to bridge the gap between Members in
order to achieve a satisfactory outcome, and Thailand was certain that the draft text would serve as a
good basis for Members to settle their differences and to reach a conclusion acceptable to all.
Thailand would do its part to be as constructive and reasonable as possible in working with other
Members to achieve this goal.
156. The representative of the United States said that the open and inclusive process that had been
employed in developing the draft texts had been particularly important.  It was clear that hard work
lay ahead in finalizing these texts at Doha, and that some areas remained controversial among
Members.  The United States itself had significant concerns on a number of points.  However, the
texts put forward could be the basis for achieving agreement at Doha, and the United States was
prepared to engage in a constructive spirit to meet  its strategic objective of launching negotiations atWT/GC/M/71
Page 42
Doha.  The preparatory process had been long enough so that Members all knew each others'
perspectives quite well.  Thus, a line-by-line critique of the texts would not be the most productive
way to proceed.  She would focus on areas of the draft texts that needed to be strengthened.  At the
same time, and without losing sight of the elements that made up the texts, every Member had to look
at the text in the broader political context.  In this connection, to the extent that Members were tryingto send political messages to the outside world through the text, there was a need to reflect on whether
the texts were simple and direct enough.  More generally, Members needed to bear in mind that the
focus now was on launching the negotiations, not negotiating the final conclusion.  That was why
Members had been working towards a text where all Members could pursue their interests including,
as the Community had identified, a broad range of development elements.  While there might be a
temptation to simplify the task of launching negotiations by dropping more controversial issues, such
an approach would only lessen the chances of eventual success.  That was why the United States hadbeen willing to support the inclusion of issues in the negotiations that were not necessarily its
priorities but which were important to building a critical mass for success.
157. The text on agriculture was on the right track, but the United States hoped that it could be
strengthened further, particularly with respect to level of ambition.  On non-agricultural market
access, the United States was generally supportive of an ambitious agenda in which all Membersparticipated and contributed to the results.  The points were important as a matter of balance in
agreeing to comprehensive negotiations with no a priori exclusions.  With respect to WTO rules,
while there were some improvements in the text over the previous version, the United States
continued to have serious difficulties with this element of the text.  Further engagement would be
needed to achieve an approach all could agree to.  Her delegation had previously expressed the needfor a process for framing and filtering issues, since there were wide differences of view on the extent
of negotiations desired and on how disciplines on the underlying unfair trade practices would figure in
such a negotiation.  On implementation, her delegation appreciated efforts to make paragraph 12
respond to concerns of delegations with respect to future work. She wished to confirm the
understanding that under that paragraph, whether an issue was for a negotiating mandate or committeework, it was without prejudice to any result or outcome.
158. On environment, the current text broadly reflected the views of Members, but her delegation
was concerned that it might not be sufficient to address some of the issues raised.  The strong message
on sustainable development that had been added to the text was important and valuable.  The United
States also strongly welcomed the inclusion of fishery subsidies in the text, as this issue was important
to both trade and environment.  On investment and competition the texts had been carefully drafted,
but her delegation was concerned that they went a bit far in pre-negotiating issues and modalities thatcould be better considered in the preparatory phase of the negotiations.  That being said, the United
States was prepared to see those issues as part of the negotiating agenda and was ready to work to find
a constructive and positive result that met the needs of all participants.  On the issue of governance,
her delegation had hoped to see a clearer path for strengthening the operations of the WTO and
promoting internal and external transparency, as well as promoting its cooperation with otherinternational institutions such as, for example, th e international financial institutions and regional
development banks, including in the areas of capacity building and development.  The United States
was concerned, in particular, that a better balance was needed between, on the one hand, resources for
technical assistance and capacity building and, on the other, cooperation with other institutions and
making programs more demand-driven and responsive.  On organization of the negotiations, herdelegation would need to look carefully at the array of deadlines currently proposed in the text.  If
there was a relatively short negotiating period of three years, it would have to be seen how the various
deadlines worked together as part of a single undertaking.  It might be useful to take a horizontal
approach to deadlines, and to give a further ex planation of how the negotiating phases were to be
structured, including the general process for proposals to be submitted.WT/GC/M/71
Page 43
159. Regarding the draft text on TRIPS and access to medicines, her delegation had taken note of
the original concerns about responding to public health crises, including HIV-AIDS and other
pandemics, as well as the universally expressed desire in the consultations that the TRIPS Agreement
should not be weakened.  The United States would continue to work with others to find the
appropriate language that would address these issues while recognizing the flexibility under theTRIPS Agreement for Members to respond to public health crises.  Her delegation did not understand
why paragraph 9 had remained in the draft text submitted, since it had understood from the
consultations that there was a clear consensus to drop all references to exhaustion in this text.  She
agreed with Brazil's comment that this issue was about life and death, although one had to keep in
mind that it was not just life and death in terms of how present public health crises were dealt with,
but also life and death in terms of creating medicines that could respond to future public health crises.
All Members owed the Chairman and the Director-General a debt of gratitude for providing Memberswith manageable texts and clearly defined choices.  However, the truly hard part had come.  Members
would all face difficult decisions in the coming days as they made the final push to strike the proper
balance among their respective positions.  This was clearly a time when it would be critical for every
Member to distinguish between what was really necessary and what would be ideal.  A great deal was
riding on this shared endeavor, and failure was not an option.  The United States stood ready toengage constructively and to make the decisions needed to achieve success.
160. The representative of Gabon said that the preparatory process carried out had given rise to far
greater transparency than had been had prior to the Seattle Ministerial.  The draft Decision on
implementation and the draft Declaration on Intell ectual Property and Access to Medicines/Public
Health were the result of the long work that had been undertaken.  The task of finding a balancebetween Members' interests and those of the system had not been easy.  Urgent solutions should be
found to problems where political will had been absent.  Gabon wondered whether the draft texts to
be conveyed to Ministers really included the concept of development, and to what degree they
ensured that the weakest and most vulnerable countries could truly take an active part in the
multilateral trading system.  The ACP countries recogn ized that the Chairman had tried to take into
consideration in the draft Declaration some of their concerns, particularly in paragraphs 29 and 30
relating to small economies and with regard to trade and finance, but they were disappointed and
concerned at the absence of strong proposals which would address in an urgent manner the questions
grouped in paragraphs 29 to 37 and in paragraph 12.  For example, there was a need to establish after
Doha working groups that would examine these issu es and come up with a report before the end of
2002.
161. The ACP Group attached great importance to questions relating to implementation, S&D
treatment, technical assistance and the granting of the ACP-EU waiver.  The ACP Ministers'
declaration of two years earlier had identified area s of priority for the ACP Group.  These related to
implementation issues, especially relating to imbala nces and deficiencies in the existing agreements
and to the commitments by developed countries in favour of developing countries, especially the
LDCs.  This included a strengthened rules-based trading system which functioned in a manner thatachieved the greatest participation of developing countries, in particular the least-developed and small
and vulnerable economies, in global trade, thereby ensuring a more equitable distribution of gains
from trade.  There was a need to take fully on board the financial and trade needs of developing
countries, and to take full account of the trade and socio-economic circumstances of developing
country Members, especially by giving concrete operational content to commitments on S&Dtreatment.  There was also a need to ensure less onerous conditions of accession and notification for
ACP countries, especially small economies, and to address the needs of the net food-importing
developing countries.  The review of the TRIPS Agreement should ensure that developing countries
were not prevented from granting compulsory licenses for drugs listed as essential by the World
Health Organization, in the interests of assuring their supply at reasonable prices.WT/GC/M/71
Page 44
162. Gabon supported the statement by Tanzania on behalf of the LDCs and recalled that out of the
49 LDCs, 39 were in the ACP Group.  Zimbabwe on beha lf of the African Group had also detailed the
unsatisfactory elements of the draft text and where improvements could be made.  While the absence
of brackets in the draft text might allow for a unified presentation which might make it easier to
consider or examine the text, it would make it more difficult to accept.  Gabon also had concerns as tothe future work programme, which might be difficult to manage given its limited capacities.  It was
not in a position to negotiate on issues which it had not been able to fully appraise, and it could not
accept new commitments while it was preparing for commitments in the area of its economic
partnership with the European Communities.  Gabon had prepared a contribution which it would
submit to ACP Ministers at their meeting in Brussels on 5 and 6 November, where they would have
an opportunity to discuss the draft text and arrive at a common position reflecting their development
objectives.
163. The representative of Lithuania, on behalf of Albania, Croatia, Georgia, Jordan, 
Kyrgyz
Republic, Lithuania and Oman, expressed these Members' gratitude for the Chairman's and the
Director-General's efforts to accommodate the different concerns of Members in the draft Declaration
and to provide balance in the text.  These countries were in favor of progressive trade liberalization
and considered it a key principle of globalization.  The newly acceded countries had a commonconcern regarding the commitments that would come out of new negotiations and their interaction
with the commitments recently made during accession negotiations.  Recently acceded countries had
made substantial market access commitments, sometimes going far beyond those that had been made
during the Uruguay Round.  Taking on new commitments from a new round of negotiations would
have a negative impact on their economic development strategies.  However, there was no clearreflection of their concerns in the draft Declaration.  Croatia, Jordan, Lithuania and Oman had raised
these concerns during the process of consultations, and Jordan, Oman and Lithuania had submitted
proposals for additions to the draft Declaration.  Therefore, given the aim of basing further
liberalization on a mutually advantageous basis and an overall balance of rights and obligations, the
recently acceded countries sought flexibility and appropriate accommodation of their concerns in thework program to be established in Doha.  These countries were prepared to consider an appropriate
reflection of their concerns in the text of the Declaration and the subsequent negotiations.  On the
transmission of the draft texts to Ministers,  they recognized the need for flexibility.
164. The representative of Venezuela said that in Venezuela’s view the revised draft Declaration
and the draft Decision on implementation were steps in the direction of the delicate balance that had
to be achieved in the course of this very difficult process in order to meet the aspirations and
preoccupations of all the membership regarding the future work programme of the WTO.  That
process had been carried out in both an inclusive and transparent manner.  The draft Decision on
implementation showed clear progress compared to the situation in September, in particular regarding
the body of decisions to be adopted by Ministers and the inclusion of the outstanding issues as a
matter of priority in the negotiations in the overall programme of work.  The implementation process
had been arduous and had produced improvements in balance.  However, any weakening of thelanguage of paragraph 12 of the draft Declaration or any weakening of the draft Decision on
implementation would alter Venezuela’s approach to the broad-based programme of negotiations
suggested in the draft Declaration.  In addition, there was still a need to ensure clarity in paragraph 12
regarding the way in which the negotiations woul d be managed with respect to the outstanding
implementation issues.
165. Regarding how the preparatory process should be concluded in Geneva and how the texts
would be transmitted to Ministers, the draft text s, even though drawn up under the responsibility of
the Chairman and the Director-General, should be sent to Ministers only with the endorsement of the
General Council, even if there were a precedent to act in a different way.  There were still areas where
there were important divergences and lack of preci sion, and these should be clearly described and
cleared up when the texts were conveyed to the Mi nisters in order to avoid confusion.  Regarding howWT/GC/M/71
Page 45
to proceed between the present time and the start of the Ministerial Conference, there should be
opportunities to negotiate the texts which did not as yet show any consensus.  There should be
appropriate and transparent consultations to this end.  The draft Declaration contained text which
proposed broad-based negotiations advocated by the major trading partners.  If the texts were
submitted to Ministers in their current form, this could spell failure in Doha.  The purpose of Doha
was to negotiate, and not to merely endorse texts.
166. He then outlined the points important to Venezuela if it was to support to the broad-based
negotiations set out in the revised draft Declaration.  Regarding market access for non-agricultural
products, Venezuela would not object to a consensus for negotiations if the text clearly stated that
tariff reductions would be carried out on the basis of the bound rates stemming from the Uruguay
Round.  The current text not only did not include an express reference along these lines, but also
failed to include a reference to non-reciprocity on the part of the developing countries.  Oninvestment, Venezuela was ready to initiate negotiations for the establishment of a multilateral
framework in the WTO that provided both security and stability for investors, and guaranteed host
countries flexibility to implement their development policies.  The revised draft text represented a
significant improvement.  It provided the opportunity for Members not yet in a position to participate
in negotiations to prepare for such negotiations with more focused work on the fundamental elementsof a future multilateral framework.  However, there were two areas which were not as yet clear and
required clarification before Venezuela could support the draft text.  These related to long-term
investment and to taking into consideration bilateral agreements.  Regarding competition, although his
delegation understood that ambiguity could be useful to facilitate consensus on negotiating mandates,
Venezuela could not support initiatives aimed at establishing substantive disciplines on competitionunless these were clearly delineated.  Nevertheless, Venezuela could consider establishing at the
multilateral level basic principles like non-discrimination, the exchange of information and
cooperation among Members' competition authorities.
167. Regarding trade facilitation, he reiterated Venezuela's concern that the draft text contained a
specific mandate without any clarity as to whether the new commitments in this area would be subjectto dispute settlement.  This would have to be clarified before Venezuela, as well as other developing
countries, could agree to negotiations.  On services, Venezuela could accept the draft text except for
the inclusion of specific dates for the initiation of negotiations on market access.  The results of the
evaluation should work towards the initiation of such negotiations, and Venezuela would prefer
language similar to that at the end of paragraph 14.  On agriculture, Venezuela agreed with Uruguay's
statement on the section on agriculture.  On trade and environment, the revised draft text was even
more ambitious than the previous version.  Venezuela could not agree to paragraph 44 of the draftDeclaration because the terms of reference of the Committee on Trade and Environment should
remain unchanged.  Furthermore, the suggestion for future negotiations in this area was not
appropriate as it might lead to the opening of negotiations on a series of agreements without having a
clear aim.
168. Venezuela attached high importance to the draft Declaration on TRIPS and public health,
which should convey a clear political message that the TRIPS Agreement should be interpreted in
such a manner as to allow for the adoption of public health policies.  In this sense, only Option 1 in
the draft text conveyed this, and without it the text would no longer have any sense.  It was not a
question of trying to obtain the right to ignore or violate obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, but
rather to reach a political understanding whereby the flexibilities contained in the Agreement wouldhave practical expression through an appropriate interpretation of the relevant provisions of the
Agreement.
169. He then commented on how the development dimension was reflected in the draft text and on
the contributions made by the multilateral trading system to the legitimate aspirations of developing
countries.  Those aspirations were to strengthen their economies as an indispensable basis forWT/GC/M/71
Page 46
development, gainful employment, general wellbeing and equity, and not only for the growth of trade
in general.  Development should be described in the broadest terms.  Thus, being part of the
multilateral trading system was not an end in itself but rather an instrument, and developing countries
had to try to improve this system, baring in mind the contribution it could make to achieving their
development objectives.  The draft Declaration represented a form of progress towards whatdeveloping countries had in mind, but this was not to say that the draft text was the basis for a
development round.  It was simply the closest the Chairman could come to a consensus text that took
into account the positions of all Members, and it reflected positions that were totally contrary to what
was termed the development dimension.  One example was the way the paragraphs on non-
agricultural market access had gone backwards in terms of their development dimension.  Another
was option 2 in the separate draft Declaration on TRIPS and health, which the major pharmaceutical
multinationals opposed.  What was provided in the draft texts would not be sufficient to help thecountries which were lagging behind in development to catch up, and the developing countries had to
do everything they could to support their own deve lopment.  Members would have to see how the
system could be improved and how to best do this, in order to convert it into a better instrument for
achieving Members' development objectives and for ensuring their full insertion into the global
economy.
170. The representative of Georgia, also on behalf of the Kyrgyz Republic
, said that these
countries highly valued the Chairman's efforts to strike a balance among the numerous proposals
made by Members.  They generally agreed with the draft Declaration, even if there were some areas,
such as technical cooperation and small economies that did not fully meet their concerns.  They were
committed to comprehensive negotiations on agriculture and wished to see the extension of S&Dtreatment to countries with economies in transition reflected in the draft text.  This would enable
countries with low incomes and in a transition stage to have their transition and development needs
taken into account.  Language to this effect should be included in paragraph 13 of the draft
Declaration.  Small, vulnerable countries in transition should be an integral part of this element of the
negotiations in this area.  Georgia and the Kyrgyz Republic, each with a GNP per capita of less than$1,000 and a small share in world trade, suffered from a heavy burden of external indebtedness.  They
were not classified as either developing or least-developed countries, but their macro-economic
parameters were much lower than many developing-country Members.  Therefore, they sought a fair
reflection of their concerns in the section on trade, debt and finance in the draft Declaration, and
proposed the inclusion of language in paragraph 30 that would enable the application of this clause to
their countries as well.  They stood ready to cooperate with the Chairman and with other Members in
order to elaborate these ideas more precisely, since it was likely that the draft Declaration would inany case be modified to a certain degree.  He associated Georgia and the Kyrgyz Republic with the
statement by Lithuania on behalf of newly acceded countries, including Georgia, and strongly
supported the ideas proposed by those countries regarding concerns over new negotiation
commitments.
171. The representative of Switzerland said that he would not comment or criticise the draft text in
a piecemeal manner.  His instructions were to comment on agriculture, trade and environment, and
TRIPS and access to medicine, as well as the concern that the draft text might contain the seed of a
multi-tiered trading system, which could impact negatively on the bargaining power of small and
medium-sized countries, as had been the case prior to the Uruguay Round.  However, these points had
been made extensively during the long months which had preceded the present meeting, and repeatingthem would not contribute to the present discussion or to the Doha process.  The point had been made
that the text was not balanced, and all who had spoken had said that this balance was to their
disadvantage.  This raised the question of to whose advantage was the text.  The only answer he had
was that the text was to the advantage of the collective membership of the WTO.  The Chairman had
synthesized and reflected in the best way possible the result of Members' discussions, controversiesand negotiations.  In that sense, what appeared as good drafting in the text was certainly due to the
Chairman's skill, wisdom and experience.  On the other hand, the Members themselves shared theWT/GC/M/71
Page 47
main responsibility for the weakest paragraphs in the text, since these reflected the fact that Members
were unable to provide the Chairman with the n ecessary elements for a text that would satisfy
everyone.  Members had reached the end of a phase in the preparations for Doha.  The mandate given
had been fulfilled, as imperfect and unsatisfactory as the outcome might appear to most delegations,
including Switzerland.  Ministers would now take over  from the General Council to finalize the texts
that had been prepared under the Chairman's guidance.  His delegation was convinced that the
Chairman was committed to the texts he had submitted as providing Ministers with a good basis to
launch a broad and credible WTO programme, including a substantive negotiating agenda.  The draft
texts spoke for themselves, and they should be forwarded as such, with an appropriately short cover
note to Ministers on the Chairman's and the Director-General's own initiative.
172. The representative of Korea said that his delegation was not completely satisfied with the
revised draft text but considered it a good basis for Ministers' discussions at Doha. Overall, the
revised text was a fair and balanced reflection of the consultations held.  The positions of proponents
and the concerns of opponents had both been taken care of in a delicately balanced manner for most
of the topics discussed.  The concerns and the demands of the developing and the least-developed
countries had been reflected further in the revised draft.  In light of the events of 11 September and
their negative impact on an already bleak situation in the global economy, Members could not affordanother failure in Doha.  Failure to launch a new round of negotiations would significantly undermine
confidence in global economic institutions, which would further exacerbate the global economic
slowdown.  It was the duty of this organization to send a clear message about the health of the
multilateral trading system, in order to help revive global economic confidence.  In Doha, Korea
would continue to do its best to build a consensus on the basis of the draft text, and to help send thispositive signal to the global economic community.
173. Korea did have some difficulties with respect to a few areas in the draft text.  On agriculture,
some important elements Korea had been emphasizing had not been reflected.  It hoped that some of
these elements would be reflected in the final text as a result of further discussions in Doha. On
investment and competition, Korea's preference had been option 1 in the previous version of the drafttext, and it was not pleased with the dilution of the proponents' ideas or with the ambiguities in the
revised text.  It hoped to be able to get better results in Doha.  On fisheries subsidies, there had not
been enough development since the circulation of the first draft text to justify the inclusion of this in
the revised draft.  As Korea had consistently said, a sectoral approach was not the right way to do
business in the WTO, and singling out one specific sector in the text was not appropriate.  On TRIPS
and public health, although there were wide gaps among Members, Korea was concerned about the
brackets and options in the draft text.  Members should be very careful in dealing with this issue, sothat it did not become a deal-breaker for the overall work programme in Doha. In order to avoid these
risks, Korea hoped that in further consultations Members could agree on a clean text prior to the
Ministerial Conference.  Korea was committed to participating actively in this process.  Now was the
time for all Members to collectively adopt a spirit of constructive cooperation in order to make the
preparatory process successful.
174. The representative of Bangladesh said that the preparatory process had been a difficult
exercise and quite different from what had preceded the Seattle Ministerial.  In the latter process,
Members had had negotiated texts, and all countries knew very clearly the points of view of others. In
the present process Members had relied on the Chairman to reflect what, in his opinion, was the
middle ground.  Clearly, this text could not be treated as a consensus document.  The LDCs hadreceived the draft Declaration and the draft Decision on implementation of 26 September with a great
deal of dismay.  They had examined these texts and had voiced their concerns.  They had also
provided specific texts which reflected their interests, which had been circulated to all Members so
that they could also appreciate these concerns.  The texts circulated on 27 October were no doubt a
considerable improvement over the earlier versions.  However, despite the Chairman's efforts andWT/GC/M/71
Page 48
goodwill, the text still had significant shortcomings.  Tanzania on behalf of the LDCs had articulated
these countries' views which Bangladesh supported fully.
175. A report by the World Bank on Global Economic Prospects for 2002 said that the world's
poor, those living below the international poverty line of two dollars per day, could benefit from
reshaping the global architecture of trade.  According to the Bank's estimates, the average poor personselling into globalized markets confronted barriers roughly twice as high as the typical worker in
developed countries.  Furthermore, in general, tariffs in high-income countries on imports from
developing countries, though low, were four times those collected from developed countries.  After
reviewing the world trading environment, the report argued for reshaping the global architecture of
world trade to promote development and poverty reduction.  It urged the WTO Ministerial Conference
to launch a development round and encouraged high-income countries to unilaterally adopt pro-trade
development policies.  The report said that if high income countries were to allow low incomecountries duty free and quota free access to their markets, they would provide a strong stimulus to
trade that would help these poor countries overcome their past lacklustre trade performance. The
World Bank was finally adopting an approach which Bangladesh had been articulating from practical
experience for years.
176. Bangladesh had concerns on the draft Declaration and the two texts on implementation.
There was a great deal of attention to LDCs in these texts.  In fact, the length of the text devoted to
LDCs was clearly out of proportion to the LDCs' c ontribution to world trade.  If this attention
reflected a perception that LDCs had to be helped in trade by creating a congenial trading
environment, Bangladesh was grateful for that understanding.  The press releases of the WTO and its
website were very positive on LDCs and reflected a clear desire to help them.  The LDCs hoped thatthese would be translated into concrete and meanin gful action.  Their analysis of the text, however,
indicated clearly that the feelings and desire to help LDCs was not adequately reflected in the
provisions of the text.  There were no specific meaningful decisions to be taken to Doha for
agreement.  This left the clear impression that LDCs' future would be no different from their past.
The terms and conditions for assisting LDCs seemed to have become a subject of the workprogramme and negotiations.  The text on LDCs could easily be shortened to less than a third of the
space currently allocated to it, and still provide clear forward movement, with commitments or
assurances that reflected the desire of Members to create a level playing field for LDCs.
177. A fundamental issue for Bangladesh was meaningful market access, free of tariff and
non-tariff barriers, and with rules of origin that were realistic and graduated to suit LDCs' industrial
capacity.  Without appropriate rules of origin for their exports, it would be difficult to take advantage
of any market access that might be provided.  Textiles and clothing were important for any LDCproceeding on the track of industrialization.  They had requested the immediate lifting of all tariff and
non-tariff barriers on the exports of textiles and clothing from LDCs.  However, the new text on
implementation did not incorporate this provision.  The current text did contain a provision regarding
quotas on textiles and clothing, but the implication of this text and how it would be implemented was
not clear.  Furthermore, this was likely to be subj ect to future negotiations, making such a provision
meaningless in view of the time-frames of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.  The revised
formulation of the application of the TRIPS Agreement, particularly under Article 66.2, now had
elements that the LDCs did not want.  The text on customs valuation also required change in order to
incorporate LDC concerns on the way value was assigned to goods for customs purposes.  This aspect
could have been agreed upon in Geneva, and Mini sters need not have been overburdened with yet
another element for them to negotiate.  To make such an item subject to negotiations beyond Doha
would be sad indeed.  The question of acceptance of the principle of non-reciprocity, which was so
important for LDCs, had not been included.  Technical assistance had been addressed in the revised
draft text, and due attention had been given to the Integrated Framework approach, particularly the
Pilot Scheme.  The LDCs had repeatedly expressed appreciation for the role of the Director-Generalin energizing the Pilot Scheme.  However, they were concerned that in concentrating on the IntegratedWT/GC/M/71
Page 49
Framework approach, the WTO was indirectly stra ying away from the supply-side components that
were to be addressed in technical assistance.  The Uruguay Round Ministerial Decision on LDCs
specifically mandated that "LDCs shall be accorded substantially increased technical assistance in the
development, strengthening and diversification of their production and export bases, including those
of services."  His delegation hoped that in the Chairman's report to Ministers he would emphasize thismissing aspect of technical assistance.  In the texts circulated there were many aspects Bangladesh
could accept.  At the same time, it was important that the Chairman inform Ministers of the specific
areas of disagreement in these texts.  The present discussion, and those over the past month, had
clearly highlighted differing positions, and these should be reflected in the Chairman's report to
Ministers.  Although the texts were brief compared to the Seattle text, the difficulties ahead in the
negotiations should not be underplayed.  His delegation  looked forward to engaging other delegations
at Doha on matters of common interest.
178. The representative of the Dominican Republic said the fact that the draft text was being
attacked from all sides was perhaps a good sign.  The transparency and inclusiveness of the
consultations had been exemplary.  However, despite the best intentions, the draft text gave the
impression of a marked slant in favour of the six is sues of interest to the developed countries.  Only
two interests of his country had really been included and one of those, implementation, had beentaken up to the level of negotiations under paragraph 24 on rules and by the reference implicit in
paragraph 12 to the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  Regarding his country's other interests, there was
no mention of a development box in the framework of the agricultural negotiations, which was a
fundamental objective of all developing countries, as stated in the Declaration by the Group of 77.
There was not even a reference to his delegation's proposal to create the three working groups to studythe relationship between trade and debt, trade and fina nce, and trade and transfer of technology, or to
make the provisions on special and differential treatment binding.  Like the Group of 77 countries, the
Dominican Republic believed that the launching of negotiations on new issues should stem from a
decision taken by consensus.  It did not believe that such a consensus existed, despite the absence of
brackets around paragraphs 20 and 21 of the draft text.  Nor did it believe that the list of issuesidentified on investment and competition reflected a balance of interests of all Members.  The text
suggested, for example, that negotiations be initiated on trade and investment, but it was not clear
which of the issues proposed were relevant to the relationship between trade and investment.  Was
something going to be done about the impact on in vestment of rules of origin contained in the
regional agreements with developed countries?  Would the incentives granted at the sub-national level
to foreign investment be prohibited?  Would disciplines only be applied to foreign direct investment?
The drafting was far from clear in these areas.  On the other hand, what would the scope of disputesettlement be as regards investment?  Would private investors be allowed to bring cases against WTO
Members?  Would this not be the best possible way of completely seizing up the whole of the dispute
settlement mechanism?
179. It was also suggested that negotiations be initiated on trade and competition.  His delegation
had the following questions:  Which of the negotiation issues was relevant as regards tourism,transport or intellectual property?  What was going to happen to the sectoral exemptions which gave
immunity to anti-competitive practices carried out by tour operators, pharmaceutical multinationals,
airlines and shipping companies?  If Members were going to negotiate on trade and competition
policy in the WTO, they should assume from the very outset that they would commit to introducing
disciplines that were relevant to counterbalance the anti-competitive practices which had an impact ontrade, such as, for example, collusion, abuse of dominant position and mergers.  Furthermore,
Members should include a date from which there would no longer be an application of sectoral
exemptions which operated against the increase of participation in world trade.  Otherwise, Members
would be entering into negotiations on the basis of an unbalanced mandate in favour of the
expectations of developed countries that would enab le the latter to continue to control developing
county markets.WT/GC/M/71
Page 50
180. On non-agricultural market access negotiations, a group of countries had proposed a two-year
period for studies to determine modalities and the scope of these negotiations.  Since the revised draft
text did not include any such reference, the Dominican Republic, through its Minister in Doha, would
insist on a substantial revision of this paragraph.  Paragraph 24 on the possibility of negotiations on
the Anti-dumping Agreement created serious problems for his country, since in the next few weeks itwould be adopting new anti-dumping  legislation and did not see how it could justify to its Congress
the reopening of this Agreement.  Furthermor e, fishery subsidies had been included in the
negotiations.  He asked how many Members had a substantive interest in this issue.  This did not seem
to be an issue about which the majority of Members were enthusiastic.  On environment, reference
was made in the draft text to the possibility of negotiations.  Although the Chairman's efforts on this
point were commendable, his country had serious difficulties with the possibility that in future there
would be negotiations on this issue in the WTO.
181. Regarding the concept of single undertaking which Members were called on to undertake, this
had to be clarified.  His country had, since before the Seattle Ministerial, been suggesting, along with
other countries, the concept of a parallel single undertaking.  On the one hand, there would be
negotiations on market access in the area of agriculture, non-agricultural products and services, and
on the other hand, there would be negotiations on existing rules and on those new rules whichMembers might decide by consensus to negotiate.  Separating the single undertaking into its two
component parts would avoid unwanted results in th e negotiations, particularly since their long-term
effects were not equivalent.  For example, obtaining a tariff reduction would never compensate for the
acceptance of rules which jeopardized a country's ability to continue to apply development policies.
On the relationship between intellectual property rights and public health, the Dominican Republicsupported the statements by Brazil and India on the importance of this issue, and also supported
option 1 of paragraph 4.  His delegation regretted that there had been no reference to its proposal on
Article 39.3 of the TRIPS Agreement, which had been supported by a considerable number of
delegations, and in fact by a greater number than had supported the last two paragraphs of the draft
text.  His delegation was certain that with everyone's support, the text could be improved even furtherin Doha.
182. The representative of Honduras said that his delegation recognized that the draft Declaration
was the result of many consultations and the arduous  work carried out by the Chairman, the Director-
General and the Secretariat.  However, time had been a negative factor in this process and had
inhibited Members' ability to reach a balanced text.  That being said, the revised draft text contained
many aspects that should take Members in the right direction.  There were also other aspects on which
much more work would be needed, and it was on this basis that his delegation wished to set out itsconcerns.  One systemic concern related to the way the text, which had been put out under the
Chairman's and the Director-General's responsibility, would be transmitted to Ministers in Doha.
There had been no consensus on a text that would become the sole basis for negotiation at Doha, and
this would greatly limit the possibility of the final results of the negotiations to reflect Members'
interests in a balanced manner.  It would thus no t make it possible for the multilateral trading system
to effectively materialize its benefits, particularly for developing countries like Honduras.
183. On paragraph 12 of the draft Declaration relating to implementation issues, while Honduras
could agree to the adoption of document JOB(01)/ 139/Rev.1, it was concerned that this new version
diluted the drafting the previous version.  It was also concerned that the proposals on pending
implementation issues were subject to future negotiations and would thus become an integral part ofthe work programme yet to be established.  Such a situation should be avoided since the
implementation process had to continue within a special framework created for that purpose.  On
agriculture, Ministers should give very clear guidance so that the provisions on special and differential
treatment became an integral part of the negotiations, making it clear that they should not be given the
same treatment as non-trade concerns, since the situation of the agricultural sector in the developingcountries was totally different from that prevailing in the developed countries.  There should also be aWT/GC/M/71
Page 51
clear reference to the development box and to the need for solving the problems of food security in
the developing and least-developed countries.  On services, the text seemed acceptable.  However, it
should also highlight the liberalization of sectors and modes of supply of greatest interest to the
developing and least-developed countries, as provided for in Article 4 of the GATS.  Thus, a reference
should be made to the fact that negotiations had to be adapted to progress in the evaluation of trade inservices, and this evaluation or assessment should be carried out prior to the initiation of negotiations
on specific commitments and initial offers.
184. On non-agricultural market access negotiations, over and above making a specific reference
to the elimination or reduction of tariff peaks, mention should be made of the elimination of non-tariff
barriers.  Such negotiations should be initiated after having carried out an analytical and detailed
survey that would examine the prior and future impact of tariff reductions on local industries and on
the economies of developing countries.  As to paragraphs 20 and 21 on investment and competitionpolicy, his delegation was surprised to see that in this new version of the draft Declaration, it had been
prejudged that future negotiations would be held, despite the fact that a great number of delegations
had stated on several occasions that they did not wish to see negotiations initiated on these issues.  It
was clear that if there were no consensus, it could not be assumed that at the Fifth Ministerial
Conference any decision would be taken on the modalities for such negotiations.  On trade andenvironment, Honduras could not see the need for making a reference to this issue in three paragraphs
of the Declaration.  There was no need for an explicit reference to the holding of negotiations, given
that delegations had clearly rejected this, and it could not be claimed that the WTO should go into
greater detail on an issue where there were other specialized agencies to examine this topic.
185. On paragraphs 30 and 31 on trade and debt, trade and finance, and trade and transfer of
technology, Honduras's proposal for the establishment of working groups has been ignored.  The
revised draft text referred solely to an examina tion of the relationship between trade and the issues
mentioned.  His delegation wanted clear guidance as to the process for the review of these issues
under the guidance of the General Council, which should not only report to the Fifth Ministerial
Conference but also make recommendations on th e progress of this review.  On special and
differential treatment, these provisions should be effective and legally binding.  This was essential for
the developing and least-developed countries in orde r to bring them more fully into the multilateral
trading system.  Furthermore, this paragraph should include the establishment by the General Council
of a framework agreement on special and differential treatment for submission to the Fifth Ministerial
Conference.  The future work programme suggested ignored the concerns expressed by several
delegations, due to their limited resources, about the creation of further negotiating bodies.  The
existing bodies of the WTO, under the supervision of the General Council, were sufficient to carry outthis task.  His delegation trusted the Chairman's wis dom and hoped that in the next version of the draft
text the balance which all hoped for would be reflected.
186. The representative of Canada said that Canada very much agreed with the Chairman's opening
remarks about his intention to forward the draft te xts to Doha as he felt appropriate.  Canada
supported those delegations, like Uruguay and Australia, who advocated a very short covering note soas to avoid any further question marks or divisiveness.  The draft texts were a significant achievement
and provided an acceptable and generally balanced basis for Ministerial discussions and decisions at
Doha.  The texts were also the product of a very credible, intensive and inclusive preparatory process.
There had been reality checks, meetings at the level of senior officials, formal and numerous informal
meetings, and confessionals with the Chairman, with the Director-General and with one anotherbilaterally and plurilaterally.  Members had clearly learned their lessons from Seattle and were on
very firm ground for a successful Ministerial Conferen ce in Doha.  The draft texts, taken together,
accurately and fairly reflected the desire of the broad membership to go forward, and defined for
Doha a balanced negotiating agenda that met many  individual needs, respected the needs, space and
requirements of others, and above all strengthened the trading system in which all had such anenormous and high stake.  In addition to outlining a realistic negotiating agenda that would benefit allWT/GC/M/71
Page 52
Members, the draft Declaration also provided th e basis for the development and growth round that
Canada, together with many other Members, supported.  The development-related elements of the
draft Declaration were a clear reflection of a genuine commitment to try to help developing countries
realize fully the benefits of the world trading system and of the global economy.  At the same time,
the draft Decision on implementation clearly reflected the importance of the implementationchallenges faced by some of the membership, as well as Members' collective willingness to try to find
a solution, and the need to address outstanding issues post-Doha.  In Canada's view, the revised draft
text vis-à-vis  the development agenda had been strengthened rather than weakened.
187. The draft Declaration did not meet all Canada's aspirations.  For example, Canada had wanted
a more ambitious text on agriculture, and to bols ter the need for the WTO to have improved external
transparency and an improved public image.  Canada would have preferred more welcoming language
on labour standards, and regretted the elimination in paragraph 5 of the reference to effectivecooperation between and among intergovernmental organizations.  It had concerns regarding the
extension of the protection of geographical indications beyond wines and spirits.  However, as
Switzerland had said, there was a more important collective list of Members' interests, and Canada
was pleased with the collective list that would be sent to Ministers shortly.  One of the greatest
accomplishments of the draft texts was that they served to clearly identify those few but central issuesthat needed to be carried to Doha for resolution.  While some had argued that certain elements did not
go far enough and that other elements went too far, the texts represented fairly the sum of Members'
work, and the sum of that work was always bigger than the individual interests of Members.  Given
that all had agreed on the process entrusted to the Chairman and the Director-General, all should also
be prepared to take greater ownership of the product from a systemic perspective.  While eachMember still had its concerns to fight for in Doha, and while Ministers would go there to fight for
them, they should also individually and collectively recognize the numerous victories and
improvements that were laced and interwoven in the draft texts.  These draft texts were different from
those going into Seattle, and had been born from a better process.  As the Chairman had rightfully
said, all took some degree of responsibility for Seattle.  The present draft Declaration was not, assome had said, more complex than the Seattle text which had been a prisoner of Members' inability to
see some degree of collective and shared common denominators.  The collective membership had
worked hard to make the current text a very different product.  Now more than ever there was a need
for the stimulus that further multilateral trade libe ralization would provide for a strong, healthy global
economy.  Further, there was an urgent requirement to unleash the growth potential of the developing
world.  Canada therefore attached great importance to the launch of expanded negotiations at Doha,
and was willing to show continued flexibility, as that was the element required to achieve that goaland the hard work that lay ahead.  Finalizing and agreeing on texts at Doha would no doubt require a
healthy and honest give-and-take and, above all, compromise by all.
188. The past fifty years has shown the importance of an open, rules-based multilateral trading
system, a system that could not stand still in a changing world.  Moreover, never before had the
multilateral trading system focused its work so in tensively on the need to ensure that developing
countries benefitted from that system.  This was an accomplishment that should not be squandered.
Deep down all knew the tremendous cost to the trading system, and to the very credibility of the
organization, of a second successive Ministerial failure.  More importantly, the costs of that failure
had increased dramatically since 11 September.  The world community and the global economy
needed a successful Doha meeting, and Members were in a solid position to delivering what the worldneeded at a time it needed it most urgently.  Canada suggested, as it had when the first draft text had
been circulated, that in the interests of transparency and of sustaining domestic support for further
liberalization, the draft texts be made available on the WTO website.
189. The representative of Panama said that delegations should not be deluded into thinking that a
text which did not contain square brackets would be less controversial in Doha than a text along the
lines of the draft Seattle Declaration.  The discussions could be even tougher due to the fact that theWT/GC/M/71
Page 53
areas of disagreement were not identified, which meant that the entire text would be open to
negotiation and not just certain well-identified aspects.  The Doha Conference would certainly be
arduous, although his delegation believed that Members would overcome their differences and adopt
an expanded agenda for the post-Doha period.  Agreement on this agenda would depend on the
balance of costs and benefits it contained, including the resolution of at least some of the concernsraised by his delegation and others.  Panama had clearly stated that its major concern was to have
space to promote its development policies, particularly in the area of subsidies programmes.  These
programmes had no major impact on Panama's trading partners, but did have a considerable impact on
the social conditions in Panama's small economy.  Panama recognized the advantages an expanded
agenda could offer.  However, since the existing agenda covered a majority of its interests, it would
need to be convinced that it would be able to assume any new obligations without ending up with a
negative balance in terms of costs and benefits.  Panama was open to the inclusion of additionalnegotiating issues if its partners allowed it to feel that it had the space to assume them.  For its part,
Panama attached importance to issues related to the Subsidies Agreement and to the draft
implementation Decision on programmes in free zones and export processing zones which would be
submitted to Ministers.  His country counted on seeing valid results on these issues at Doha.
190. Some other issues were central to the work of the WTO and could not form part of the post-
Doha work programme.  His delegation believed they should be the subject of a new separate agenda,
along the lines of the built-in agenda in the Uruguay Round Agreements.  Among other issues, this
agenda would include agriculture, in the form of decisions which, after a given period of time, would
lead to negotiations with a view to the full integration of this sector into WTO disciplines under
modalities to be decided.  The current draft Declaration contained language suggesting the possibilitythat Members might opt out of some negotiations and would therefor not be covered by the results.
Panama did not believe this approach to be wise.  One of the virtues of the Uruguay Round
Agreements was that they eliminated the previous system whereby Members could choose not to
participate in certain agreements, which contained aberrations that Panama would not wish to see
proliferate.  The work of this organization was to negotiate multilateral rights and obligations, andPanama did not believe that plurilateral negotiations could fit in with this work.  The scarce resources
available for this multilateral work should not be diminished by the negotiation or maintenance of
plurilateral agreements.
191. On the draft text on TRIPS and health, the focus should be public health and not access to
medicines.  His delegation welcomed the recognition in the preambular part that the WTO
Agreements in general, and not just the TRIPS Agreement, affected public health administration.
However, the language needed to be reinforced, as suggested by Jamaica.  The two alternative
paragraphs in the draft text were a good basis for finding an acceptable outcome.  However, his
delegation wished to seek a clarification on which of the alternative paragraphs paragraph 6 and the
following paragraphs would depend, or whether they  would depend on a combination of the two.  His
delegation also welcomed the deletion of earlier language which would have turned developing
countries into customs agents for countries with lucrative markets.  Panama would have preferred anexplicit reference to the principles contained in Articles 7 and 8 of the TRIPS Agreement, but
understood that the present language included these Articles as elements of the context in which the
Agreement and its scope were to be interpreted.  The limitation to sub-Saharan African countries
caused some concern to his delegation, which believed that this was an opportunity to move on from
special and differential treatment based on limited time periods and to promote instead special anddifferential treatment based on objective development criteria.
192. Regarding the dispute settlement mechanism, his delegation was disappointed to see that the
only reference in the draft Declaration was a reference to negotiations to modify the Dispute
Settlement Understanding (DSU).  A statement reaffirming Members' commitment to the purposes of
the DSU would be an important element of the Ministerial Declaration.  It should refer to theimportance of the DSU for the rapid and orderly re solution of disputes, and reiterate its fundamentalWT/GC/M/71
Page 54
function as a mechanism to promote and protect the rights and obligations flowing from the WTO
Agreements.  The Declaration should also reaffirm Members' commitments to the objectives and
procedures of the DSU and strengthen these objectives and procedures.  In order to ensure that
Members' rights under the WTO Agreements were not simply an illusion, it should state that it was
necessary for Members to comply expeditiously with the recommendations and rulings adopted by theDispute Settlement Body.  Finally, his delegati on agreed with others that the Chairman should
transmit the drafts texts to Ministers with a covering letter setting out concisely the various points of
difference and the options suggested, which should include the proposal on programmes for export
processing zones and free zones.
193. The representative of Chile said that the starting-point for Chile's assessment of the draft
Declaration was that the WTO was an organization th at promoted free trade, or freer trade, and non-
discrimination.  Therefore, insofar as the present draft promoted trade liberalization and non-discrimination, it enjoyed Chile's support.  It was clear that no delegation would be a hundred per cent
happy with the draft text.  Chile was not happy with the text on agriculture for the same reasons as
those expressed by Australia, Uruguay and Argentina.  Nor was it satisfied with the paragraph on anti-
dumping and subsidies.  On investment, Chile would have been happier had there been a clearer
mandate to launch negotiations.  However, despite the dissatisfaction his delegation might feel withthe text in relation to Chile's in terests, the present text was an acceptable basis to be forwarded to
Ministers for a declaration with far-reaching results – not just through the content of the declaration
itself, but also in view of the present political a nd economic context.  The present text was the result
of an exhaustive process, where everyone had been heard, all positions had been considered, all
approaches had been explored, and in which there had been full transparency and participation.  Theprocess had been placed under the responsibility of the Chairman in cooperation with the Director-
General, and only they could see the globality of the collective will of Members with regard to the
Ministerial Conference.  The Chairman and the Director-General were in a unique position as only
they could see beyond national interests and lead Members towards a balanced package in compliance
with the aims and purposes of the WTO.  This was precisely what they had done.  Furthermore, in thedifficult areas where there were diverging views and choices to be made, they had not been neutral,
but had complied with the purposes of the organization, by setting out the option which tended to
promote freer trade and to avoid discrimination.  In this way they had fulfilled the basic
responsibilities of their functions, and his delegation was reassured by this.  The transmission of the
draft text to Ministers should be through a letter explaining the process which had resulted in the
present text, because it was the process itself that lent legitimacy and credibility to the text.  His
delegation agreed with Uruguay that no attempt should be made in the letter to indicate areas wherethere was greater or lesser consensus or a need for Ministers to focus their attention.  Finally, his
delegation had some concerns on the state of work on the draft text on TRIPS and health.  The WTO
had to send a message through this text, and delegations had not yet been able to agree on this issue,
to which Chile attached high political importance.
194. The representative of Indonesia said that her delegation could not agree with statements by
some delegations to the effect that the revised draft text was well balanced and that it accommodated
the demands of both developed and developing countries.  In the preparatory process thus far,
developed countries had tabled more proposals than developing countries, who had tended to be more
on the defensive.  For this reason, the revised draft text did not offer equal benefits for both developed
and developing countries, even if some of the developed countries' proposals were not fully reflectedin it.  In an effort to be constructive, Indonesia recognized that some positive changes had been made
in the revised draft.  However, it still had deep concerns that the text did not address the serious
problems faced by Indonesia on certain contentious issues.  Among the issues on which Indonesia had
strong reservations was labour standards.  It could not support the second sentence of the existing
paragraph and had previously called for it to be deleted.  Regarding the third sentence, the ILO wasthe competent body for a substantive discussion on labour issues but not on some aspects of the social
dimensions of globalization, as suggested in this sentence.  For this reason, Indonesia could not acceptWT/GC/M/71
Page 55
the last sentence of paragraph 8.  On paragraph 12, Indonesia appreciated the Chairman's efforts to try
to find a breakthrough on the stalemate on implementation issues.  Although it would be difficult at
this stage for her delegation to comment on this specific paragraph without knowing what actual
decision would be taken, it could agree to the Ch airman's suggestion to merge Annexes I and II into
one consolidated document.  Her delegation believed that if negotiations were to take place onspecific unresolved implementation issues, these issues  should be part of these negotiations and of the
single undertaking, and they should also be seen as a priority to be agreed at an early stage.  The
remaining unresolved issues should be addressed as a matter of priority under a special mechanism of
the General Council.
195. On TRIPS, while Indonesia welcomed the insertion of paragraph 17 which acknowledged a
separate declaration on TRIPS and health, it was unable to agree with the current formulation in the
paragraph, as it limited the scope of public health only to the promotion of access to existingmedicines and research and development into new medicines.  The separate draft text on TRIPS and
health was a political declaration, and option 1 in paragraph 4 was fundamental to the whole exercise
of issuing a separate declaration, as it would send a positive signal to Members' constituents and to the
world community that the TRIPS Agreement did not impede Members' ability to protect public
health.  On investment and competition policy, Indonesia had difficulty with paragraphs 20 and 21which contained commitments to negotiate.  Indonesia's interpretation of the text in these paragraphs
was that negotiations would begin immediately after Doha on clarification of elements.  Her
delegation had repeatedly and clearly stated that Indonesia was not in a position to begin negotiations
on any of these issues without first understanding the costs and full implications of such proposed
agreements for its national interests.  Furthermore, it was not clear what was meant by the phrase "thequestion of participation".  If this refered to a pl urilateral or opt-in/opt-out approach, Indonesia could
not agree, since such an approach would underm ine the multilateral character of the WTO.  Her
delegation regretted that the option of a more focussed examination in the existing Working Groups
had been removed from the present text, despite her delegation's having repeatedly stated its position
on this.
196. With respect to transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation, the option of
immediate negotiations had been retained as the only alternatives in paragraphs 22 and 23, and
Indonesia could not agree to this text.  It had repeatedly stated on government procurement that the
identification of elements to be developed for an  appropriate agreement should be completed before
commencing negotiations.  Indonesia held a similar position on trade facilitation, since it wanted to
understand fully the implications of negotiations before agreeing to them.  The reference to ensuring
that appropriate arrangements would be made for the provision of technical assistance and support forcapacity building would not remove these concerns.  On trade and environment, Indonesia questioned
the insistence on maintaining the high status of this  issue, where reference had been made in all three
sections of the revised draft text.  With regard to paragraph 27, Indonesia had serious problems with
the inclusion of the phrase "the desirability of negotiations", and could not support negotiations in this
area.  Her delegation was deeply concerned to see that the revised draft fully retained paragraphs 38 to45 without brackets.  She wished to reiterate that her country considered the paragraphs on
organization and management of Work Programme, which signified the launching of a new round in
the WTO, as still being controversial.  In conclusion, her delegation strongly believed that the
positions of delegations not reflected in the draft text to be transmitted to Ministers should not be
prejudiced in any way by the transmission of the text in its present form.  If this were to be the case,her delegation would urge the Chairman, for the sake of fairness, to include in his covering note a
brief summary reflecting the state of play of various issues and to incorporate this note as an integral
part of the draft Declaration.
197. The representative of the Czech Republic said the revised draft Ministerial Declaration, which
skilfully attempted to put all the issues, interests and concerns on the right path, was a good basis for
the final phase of discussions.  It was ample evidence of the extent of the work done thus far andWT/GC/M/71
Page 56
represented a valuable indication of the progress made in pursuing quite often widely diverging views
and searching for an approach acceptable to all.  There was no doubt that the draft contained offensive
and defensive elements for all Members.  It trod a middle ground where no Member could say that it
had fully attained all it was looking for, nor could any Member claim to have received nothing out of
the process.  Overall, the draft contained a text which incorporated the basic thrust of what the
Chairman saw as a possible viable compromise.  With only a few days remaining before the
Ministerial Conference, delegations were beginning to see more clearly where to go after Doha.  For
the first time, they had a text before them which was manageable and negotiable and which enabled
Ministers to face their full responsibilities.  The challenge was to build on the foundation that had
been laid not only by the Chairman in cooperation with the Director-General, but also by all
delegations.  However, these positive sentiments should not be interpreted to mean that his delegation
was happy with all parts of the present text.  There were areas in the draft which would require furthersubstantive work by Ministers to ensure that all were comfortable with the issues it contained.  For the
Czech Republic, the issue of agriculture belonged to that category, and the text needed to be fine-
tuned so that it would strike a better balance be tween trade and non-trade concerns.  His country was
also uneasy about the way in which the objectives of further reductions in protection and support were
presented.
198. The manner in which the issue of environment was reflected in the draft text was also a matter
of concern.  The text had once again relegated this important systemic issue to a work programme,
without giving any guarantee on the launching of negotiations.  It was in every Member's interest to
give more clarity to the interface between trade and environment, and that could be done through
negotiations aimed at clarifying the relationship between trade and environmental rules, and byfocusing on certain specific issues.  His country fear ed that if this was not done through international
cooperation, pressure would be put on the multilateral trading system for the introduction of unilateral
measures, which would not be in anyone's interest.  Simultaneously, his country was convinced that,
in view of public concerns regarding the social dimension of trade liberalization, it was important to
show to the outside world that the WTO was not insensitive to the need to deepen the global dialoguein this area.  However, the text in the present draft fell short of what most of the international
community had been hoping for.  Nor did it give any positive assessment of what was going on in the
ILO, which was the central body to deal with this issue.
199. There were other areas with regard to which his country wished to register its disappointment
at Members' collective inability to set a more am bitious mandate.  This certainly applied to the
Singapore issues, and in particular to investment  and competition.  Here again, his country would
envisage that Ministers, at a minimum, would be willing to shed more light on the mandates for these
two systemic issues so that everyone would have a better sense of the negotiating objectives of the
proposed two-phase approach.  Despite all the difficulties and concerns his country had in other areas,
such as TRIPS, his delegation would not ask the Chairman to make any changes in the draft text.
Instead, it encouraged the Chairman to use his authority and credibility to transmit the revised draft
Declaration, perhaps with an explanation of the pro cess, as proposed by Chile, for the consideration of
Ministers at Doha.  This way of proceeding should pose no difficulty to anyone since it was clear that
this was the Chairman's text which, as sufficiently explained in the cover note, did not purport to be
agreed in any part.  His delegation was confident that all delegations would be to able show a good
sense of responsibility, based on the global overview of their individual interests, but also of those of
the world economy.  Flexibility remained the order of the day.  He recalled the statement by thePresident of the Czech Republic which called for a new round of trade negotiations that could
promote moral, democratic and human values, and in which he had expressed his conviction that in
the end harmony, or at least a convergence of minds, would prevail.  His delegation was sure that
delegations were very close to this and that in the end there would be a good result.
200. The representative of Turkey said that in his country metaphors were use to express ideas.
For instance, it was said that the optimist looked at the rose but did not see the thorns, while theWT/GC/M/71
Page 57
pessimist looked at the thorns but did not see the rose.  In the case of the present draft text, his
delegation preferred to see both the rose and the thorns, but with three important caveats.  First, it
acknowledged that the rose was very thorny for a number of delegations.  Second, the rose was a
flower which could fade quickly.  And third, the rose was fragile and therefore had to be handled with
the utmost care.  His delegation also acknowledged the Chairman's efforts to address all the proposedissues in his draft text, the multiplicity of which inevitably created a broad work programme.  A
phased approach was proposed for some issues, so that the negotiations would not cover all the
proposed subjects in the period immediately after the Ministerial Conference.  However, the
negotiations would be gradually enlarged as the work on the other issues evolved into meaningful
results.  His delegation could agree with the unde rlying idea of a progressive or evolving round of
negotiations as long as a proper balance was maintained.  Regarding specific paragraphs, it was
comforting that the implementation exercise would continue in a meaningful way after the MinisterialConference.  His delegation wished to reiterate that the implementation decisions to be adopted at the
Conference should not address amendments to existing agreements.  Turkey was not in favour of
creating a trade negotiations committee and preferred that negotiations take place within existing
structures, since it could be technically difficult for many developing countries to cope with a
complicated architecture of committees.  Regarding agriculture, his delegation's understanding wasthat negotiations would continue on the basis of Article 20 of the Agreement on Agriculture.
Regarding market access for non-agricultural products, Turkey's negative position had not changed.
On geographical indications, his delegation appreciated the Chairman's efforts to create constructive
ambiguity.  However, at the present stage it seemed that the draft was more ambiguous than
constructive.  Turkey preferred a clear mandate for negotiations in this area and thus had strongreservations on the entirety of the text in paragraph 18.  His delegation hoped that this seemingly
marginal issue would not turn into an Achilles' heel at the end of the day.  On the Singapore issues,
his delegation had no difficulty with the present text, and commended the Chairman's efforts.
However, Turkey would not be able to support any move towards a plurilateral approach.  Apart from
these points, his delegation believed that the Chairman's draft constituted a good basis for Ministerialaction.  Much important work remained to be done, and it was up to the membership to follow the
Chairman's lead.  There was unanimity that nothing was agreed until everything was agreed.  This
meant the whole text was in square brackets.  Therefore, there was no need to introduce brackets in
the text itself.  The Chairman should warn Ministers, in an appropriate manner, to concentrate their
discussions on the essential, rather than opening up the whole text.
201. The representative of Saint Lucia expressed appreciation for the manner in which the
Chairman had guided the process throughout, particularly the consultations he had held with non-
resident representatives during Geneva Week.  Her delegation was also grateful to the Director-
General and the Secretariat for their efforts to k eep non-residents informed of developments in the
process.  However, her delegation hoped that the Chairman had heard the concerns expressed by a
large number of delegations, and that he would revise his initial position that no further revisions of
the text would be made before transmission of the texts to Ministers.  It was extremely important thatMinisters negotiate at Doha on the basis of a text which facilitated a sense of ownership on the part of
all concerned.  Some delegations had suggested that the Chairman might forward an accompanying
letter elaborating on the persistent differences among Members ' views on substantive issues.  Others
had resisted this idea and seemed to be suggestin g that any such letter should be nothing more than
mere window-dressing.  Her delegation wished to emphasize the need to address in a substantivemanner the serious concerns which many Members had with the revised draft Declaration.  The
proposed expanded agenda made Doha not merely another Ministerial Conference, but one where the
stakes were very high.  On the one hand, the burden for her delegation was a weighty one, while on
the other, the expectation of future benefits was virtually non-existent.  When her Minister had asked
her why he should go to Doha, and what St. Lucia would gain, she had explained to him that onlythose WTO Members who did go to Doha would be ab le to sustain any objections to the text.  Her
Minister was going to Doha.WT/GC/M/71
Page 58
202. She said that she was making this statement in  a constructive spirit.  The objective was not to
apportion or attribute blame with respect to the process per se , but to seek solutions.  Something had
to be wrong with a system which, after more than 100 meetings since February in a variety of
configurations, as the Chairman had noted in his opening remarks, had produced a draft text which
appeared to reflect a false and flawed consensus.  Fundamental national interests were at stake for hercountry.  The rules-based system persisted in failing to address her country's most vital needs.
Unfortunately, unlike some other delegations that had spoken, her delegation was not even in a
position to join a consensus on the revised draft Decision on implementation because the treatment of
issues of importance to her delegation was unsatisfactory.  Some adjustment of that text would be
necessary.  St. Lucia would make a more detailed contribution on this point in the Special Session on
Implementation.  Her delegation also had a number of difficulties with the revised draft Declaration:
the lack of brackets and/or alternative options;  the implicit plurilateral approach on certain newissues;  the absence of clarity on the limited, i.e. best-endeavour, basis on which negotiations could be
contemplated on other issues;  the absence of a development agenda at the forefront of the future
work-programme;  and the creation of new, seemingly needless negotiating structures which would
over-burden the multifaceted WTO processes.  Her delegation, as much as any other, would welcome
a successful Ministerial Conference, but Saint Lucia's definition of success was likely to differ fromthat of certain other Members.  However, the only way Doha would have a positive outcome was if all
Members felt they had a vested interest in such an outcome.  All Ministers in Doha, whether
representing major powers or one of the smallest Members of the organization, when assessing
whether there was a fair balance reflected in the texts would be informed by the extent to which the
texts had succeeded in accommodating the interests of their individual countries, as well as those ofothers in a similar situation.
203. The representative of Hong Kong, China said that the revised draft Declaration was an
improvement over the first draft.  For example, the revised draft rightly strengthened those parts
concerning development issues and matters of concern to the least-developed countries.  However, he
wished to highlight one area of particular concern to Hong Kong, China.  His delegation believed thelanguage on investment and competition should be improved.  With respect to the latter, his
delegation would not be able to agree unless an opt-out provision was included.  There had been no
outright opposition to the two-stage deferred opt-out/opt-in option floated in informal consultations
the previous week.  On the contrary, quite a number of Members, including both proponents and
opponents, had seen that approach as a pragmatic way out for Doha.  The preparatory process was
currently in a more advanced stage compared to prep arations for Seattle.  However, there were still
quite a few potential deal-breakers, including inve stment and competition.  The subject of TRIPS and
health was particularly worrying.  His delegation hoped that all delegations and Ministers would be
able to show further flexib ility and pragmatism in Doha.
204. The representative of Brunei Darussalam said that his delegation agreed with the Chairman
that, at the present stage, it was imperative that all delegations exercise restraint.  He wished to make
two comments, one on process and the other on substance.  On process, his delegation was verysensitive to the ultimate objective of reaching a consensus in Doha and would do its best to be helpful.
However, it wanted to be assured that smaller delegations would not be completely sidelined in the
decision-making process, either in the remainin g time before Doha or, more importantly, in Doha
itself.  Both the Chairman and the Director-General had done a commendable job in this respect, and
his delegation hoped that the views of Members such as Brunei Darussalam, which were not asdemanding on their few fundamental concerns, would not simply be given a hearing and then swept
under the carpet at Doha.  It was important to remember the lessons of Seattle and not push an
agreement in Doha that was never there to start with and thus risk another failure.  He was making
this point because, like many others, his delegation still had real difficulties, as opposed to merely
preferences, with parts of the draft text.  On substance, his delegation could not agree to startingnegotiations on competition policy, transparency in government procurement and trade facilitation.
Brunei Darussalam was not alone in these reservations , as could be noted from statements by variousWT/GC/M/71
Page 59
other delegations at the present meeting.  It was important to bear in mind paragraph 20 of the
Singapore Ministerial Declaration which clearly stated  that future negotiations in these areas would
take place only after an explicit consensus decision was reached among Members.  It was evident that
this point had not been reached, so the language in paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 of the present text was
unwarranted.  On paragraph 37, his delegation would prefer language that would ensure greatercommitment to working towards a Framework Agreem ent on Special and Differential Treatment, not
merely taking note of the proposal.  On paragraph 39, his delegation questioned the need to create a
trade negotiations committee to conduct the future negotiations which, as other delegations had stated,
would be so burdensome as to further undermine the effective participation of smaller delegations.
205. The representative of Bolivia said that her delegation agreed with Canada that a new failure in
Doha could not be allowed.  Doha had to be a success, and for this to happen the development
dimension had to be made more concrete.  Although it was difficult to strike a balance amongMembers' proposals, and while the present draft text took some of her country's interests into account,
for the majority of Bolivia's interests there was only the suggestion of starting studies or that they be
considered.  On agriculture, one of the most sensitive sectors for the majority of Bolivia's population,
the text was very weak.  It left the door open for developed countries to continue using considerable
sums of money to protect their production and distort international markets.  This situation wouldfurther worsen poverty, and it was not enough to have just a paragraph in the preamble on poverty
reduction.  Bolivia needed a clear mandate on the elimination of the protectionist and trade-distorting
measures applied in agriculture which affected the economies of developing countries.  Her
delegation was also concerned to see the possibility of launching negotiations on trade and
environment, as also the idea of establishing a trade negotiations committee.  As a small delegationBolivia would prefer that the present structure of the WTO be used.  Another concern was that
consensus had not been reached on the Declaration regarding the relationship between the TRIPS
Agreement and public health, and her delegation supported the statement by Brazil.  With regard to
the suggestion that the Chairman and the Director-General send an accompanying letter to Ministers,
her delegation shared the concerns expressed by Uruguay and others.  Bolivia supported the proposalthat specific procedures be agreed for the Ministerial Conference.  If Members really wanted the
expanded programme for negotiations to be considered pro-development, there had to be
improvements to the present text during the Minist erial Conference.  Bolivia hoped to count on the
political will of its main trading partners to achieve this.
206. The representative of the Slovak Republic said that since the views of her delegation had been
reflected in the statement by Romania, she would only offer some remarks concerning the future
deliberations in Doha.  In the light of the present discussion, it was evident that the present draftDeclaration was a good basis for decisions to be taken by Ministers in Doha.  The draft would need to
be further improved in many aspects in order to achieve consensus, which would be a difficult task for
Ministers since the draft had not been agreed by their representatives in Geneva.  It was also clear that
discussions in Doha would be more difficult than on previous occasions because of the wide scope of
issues to be addressed.  Efforts would have to be concentrated on the substance for the MinisterialDeclaration.  Thus, it would be important to look at  how to manage the work in Doha so as to allow
Members to participate actively in the process in full respect of their specific interests, and the
mistakes made at Seattle should be avoided.  The principle of transparency in the process was a
precondition for a successful result in Doha, and this principle should be preserved and used in future
work.  An efficient process, together with transparency, would lead to successful and balanced resultsin Doha acceptable to all.
207. The representative of Haiti said that he would restrict his comments to basic procedural
issues, since Tanzania had already spoken on substance on behalf of his delegation as an LDC.  The
covering page of the revised draft Declaration bo re the heading "General Council" and then read:
"The attached draft Ministerial Declaration has been prepared by the Chairman of the GeneralCouncil, in cooperation with the Director-General , for transmission to the Fourth Session of theWT/GC/M/71
Page 60
Ministerial Conference.  This draft does not purport to be agreed in any part at this stage."  At the
beginning of the present meeting, and even before having consulted with the General Council, the
Chairman had stated that he and the Director-Gener al did not intend to modify the text.  This was a
procedural problem.  Could a document bearing the General Council's name be transmitted without
approval by the General Council?  Furthermore, co uld the Chairman of the General Council and the
Director-General transmit a draft declaration to the Ministerial Conference without the agreement of
the General Council?  He would be tempted to answer no to both of these questions, but he would
rather hear the Chairman's reply.  In the meantime, he had consulted the Rules of Procedure for
Sessions of the Ministerial Conference and Meetings of the General Council, under which such a
practice was not justified.  Quite clearly, delegations were facing an unprecedented and unfortunate
situation.  The Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO did not provide for such a practice.  The
Rules of Procedure clearly defined the procedure to be followed for General Council meetings, andthe responsibility of both the Chairman of the General Council and the Director-General.  Rule 33 of
that text stated that, "The General Council shall take decisions in accordance with the decision-making
provisions of the WTO Agreement, in particular Article IX thereof entitled "Decision-Making".
However, Article IX stated that, "The WTO shall continue the practice of decision-making by
consensus followed under GATT 1947.  Except as otherwise provided, where a decision cannot bearrived at by consensus, the matter at issue shall be decided by voting."  Thus, the only two ways in
which to submit a recommendation to Ministers were on the basis of a consensus agreement or by a
vote.  Furthermore, regarding the roles of the Director-General and the Chairman of the General
Council, rules 17, 18, 21 22 and 24 defined the functions of the Chairman, who was empowered to
ensure the proper functioning of the General Council's meetings.  According to rule 2 of the sameRules of Procedure, the function of the Director-General was to convene meetings by sending a
convening note.  Neither the Chairman nor the Director-General could assume any additional
functions if they were not authorized to do so by the General Council following a decision taken
either by consensus or by a vote.  The WTO rules he had looked at gave no authorization to either the
Chairman of the General Council or the Director-General to transmit recommendations to theMinisterial Conference without the General Council's authorization.  The practice during the WTO's
five years of existence showed that the rules had always been followed.  For example in 1996, 1998
and 1999 the draft declarations had been submitted to the Ministerial Conference with the General
Council's authorization.  Even in the cases of  the 1996 and 1999 Conferences, where there had been
differences of view on a number of questions, the draft declarations had been submitted reflecting the
diversity of points of view.  This was the first time since the WTO had come into existence that the
Chairman and the Director-General wanted to transmit to the Ministerial Conference a text which hadnot obtained consensus in the General Council.  De spite the impartiality the Chairman had shown thus
far, the draft Declaration seemed to favour the views of certain Members while excluding the views of
others.  Tanzania, speaking on behalf of the LDCs, had offered the Chairman a dignified way out, by
suggesting that, due to the little time available to work on the draft Declaration, the Chairman should
submit it to the Conference with a covering page specifying that the text did not reflect the numerousdiverging points of view among Members.  He hope d that the Chairman woul d follow this suggestion.
In any case, Haiti wished to indicate that of the 45 paragraphs in the draft declaration, four should be
eliminated, namely paragraphs 8 on labour standards, 20 on the relationship between trade and
investment, 21 on the interaction between trade and competition policy, and 22 on transparency in
government procurement.  Sixteen of the paragraphs gave rise to no great difficulty for Haiti, namelyparagraphs 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, 24-26, 28, 32-36, 44 and 45.  The remaining paragraphs needed
improvement.
208. The representative of Paraguay welcomed the measured and balanced way in which the
Chairman had proceeded, which had enabled him to produce a draft text under very difficult
circumstances.  He wished to highlight the transparency of the preparatory process for Doha, whichwas quite different from the exclusion that had existed in the preparatory process for Seattle, since all
had participated and been able to put forward their points of view.  He wished also to highlight how
all delegations had shown flexibility and had frequent ly sacrificed their own views in order to reachWT/GC/M/71
Page 61
an understanding.  The present text was as close as possible to being acceptable.  While it did not
reflect all of the ambitions which had been laid ou t, it did provide a basis to continue negotiating in
Doha and to see whether it would be possible to reach an agreement on the main issues of interest to
developed and developing countries, including the least-developed.  This was important because it
was fundamental to achieve success in Doha in or der to strengthen the organization after the setback
in Seattle.  The WTO had recovered, thanks to the collective efforts of all Members, and because their
desire was to achieve trade liberalization which benefited all and not just a handful.  His delegation
endorsed the statement by Uruguay, and, as a member of the Cairns Group, also endorsed that of
Australia accepting the draft text as a basis to continue moving towards the development of free trade.
However, agriculture was a basic concern of his country, and the text in paragraph 13 did not contain
all the ambitions Paraguay had in this area.  The paragraph should be expanded so as to obtain the
elimination of subsidies, greater market access, to ensure that markets did not remain closed to his
country or under discriminatory treatment, and to ensure that domestic support did not distort
international trade.  Special and differential treatment should be recognized for developing countries.
His delegation could also not accept paragraph 18 as it was drafted, due to the implications it had,
particularly in relation to implementation.  That text was based on a point of view which his
delegation had long rejected.  Paraguay also endorsed the statement by Brazil regarding TRIPS andhealth.  This was a fundamentally important issue for developing countries due to the importance of
public health for their development and for the eradication of poverty.  His delegation wished to
express a reservation regarding paragraph 29 on small economies.  It accepted the explanation the
Chairman had given that the topic of landlocked countries would also be included in the work
programme on small economies, although this was not expressly stated in paragraph 29, sinceParaguay was also a small economy.  His delegation was confident that the studies done on small
economies would also benefit countries such as Paraguay, which had to deal with the considerable
disadvantages resulting from not having access to a coast.
209. The representative of Barbados said expressed deep disappointment with the end product of
the hard work that had gone into the preparatory process.  Depending on the vantage point from which
delegations viewed the text, they would react to it in a particular manner. Those who stood to benefit
most would describe it as a balanced text, and would encourage those who would benefit the least to
accept it as a good working document.  However, countries like Barbados, whose share of world trade
was so insignificant that the WTO Secretariat had quantified it as 0.00 per cent, were compelled to
regard the draft Declaration as falling short of what was necessary to enable them to rise above that
level.  This was the context within which Barbados  was going to Doha and within which it viewed the
draft text.  Regrettably, there was nothing in the text  which caused Barbados to feel that its situation
would be any different after Doha, except that it would come away with more obligations.  This was
not to say that Barbados did not acknowledge that at last there seemed to be a genuine attempt to
address some of the concerns of developing countries, especially the LDCs.  However, perhaps
because of a genuine underestimation and mis-interpretation of the nature and extent of the problems
of developing countries, the attempts to address them in the draft text, though laudable, were still farshort of what was required.
210. A careful examination of the language in the paragraphs of interest to developed countries
and the language in the paragraphs of interest to developing countries explained these concerns.
Barbados accepted the suggestion that Members should avoid focussing on national issues and should
instead focus on the wider interests of the global community, and it was doing just that when itpointed out that an outcome which would lead to  a more skewed distribution of the benefits of
international trade than currently existed would not  serve those wider interests and would not enhance
the public image of the organization.  For these reasons, it was necessary to carry out some analysis of
the draft texts.  Generally, Barbados supported the concerns raised by several developing countries on
issues such as the absence of clearly defined objectives and result-oriented language in what weremeant to be the operative paragraphs on development-related issues, the omission of references to the
necessity of preferences and the problems of net food-importing developing countries, the proposalWT/GC/M/71
Page 62
for negotiations on the Singapore issues, and the failure to set up a study programme on the impact of
industrial tariff reductions.
211. Regarding paragraphs 1 to 4, the minimal amendments that had been made in the revised draft
represented a rather feeble attempt to respond to criticism from developing countries that the draft
Declaration did not pay sufficient attention to de velopment issues, and that the preambular paragraphs
suggested, incorrectly, that all Members had benefited from the multilateral trading system.  Many
developing countries, including Barbados, had emphasized that a major lacuna of the text was the
absence of a concrete action plan on the development dimension.  These delegations had said that the
text should focus on the issue of the redressal of the imbalances existing in the multilateral trading
system and the objective of a more equitable distribution of the gains therefrom.  Regarding the
specific issue of regional trade agreements, Barbados would have preferred stronger positive language
that highlighted, inter alia, their usefulness as dynamic building blocs.  Regarding paragraph 5, thedeletion of part of the last sentence of this paragraph was unfortunate since it limited the coherence
debate to the Bretton Woods institutions.  Other intergovernmental organizations, such as UNCTAD
and FAO for example, had strong development perspectives in trade-related matters and should
therefore be included in coherence consultations.  Regarding paragraph 6, many delegations had
expressed concerns about the open-ended nature of the original paragraph.  The amendments in therevised text clarified the concept of sustainable development but did not otherwise address the
concerns expressed.  It should be recognised that the retention of the phrase "they deem appropriate"
to describe allowable measures for health, safety and environmental protection, might still allow
scope for the use of unilateral actions which might not be consistent with internationally agreed,
objective standards.
212. On paragraph 7, reference to the right to regulate should be incorporated in paragraph 15 of
the draft text.  On paragraph 10, the fact that no amendment had been made to this paragraph ignored
the concerns expressed by several developing countries about the need for clarification in the text, as
well as the need to emphasize the element of partic ipation.  Some developing countries had suggested
that this paragraph should focus on internal transparency alone and should address the question of atransparent and inclusive decision-making process.  The revised text was inadequate because it did not
acknowledge or seek to redress the existing problem of lack of inclusiveness and transparency in
WTO decision-making.  On paragraph 11, although there was still no consensus on a new round, this
text, which remained unchanged from the previous version, had been formulated with the objective of
launching a new round of multilateral trade negotiations.  Barbados still had significant concerns on
this matter.  On paragraph 12, Barbados shared the concerns of many delegations on the paucity of
results from the implementation review process and the lack of compliance with the 3 May 2000General Council Decision to complete work on implementation issues before the Fourth Ministerial
Conference.  On paragraph 13, Barbados agreed with the delegations who had noted that there should
be specific reference in this text to the concerns of net food-importing developing countries and
preference-receiving countries.
213. On paragraph 15, Barbados welcomed the revision of the language on the progress of the
negotiations, from "note with satisfaction" to "recognize the work already undertaken", since the
original language was inaccurate.  It was necessary for the modalities of credit for autonomous
liberalization and the assessment of trade in services to be completed before the starting dates of the
request and offer phases were agreed.  On paragraph 16, the revised text did not reflect the fact that
there was no consensus on the matter of these negotiations.  In the event of future negotiations, theremoval of the explicit reference in the text to "less than full reciprocity" for developing countries was
unfortunate.  Barbados was also concerned that the revisions to the text had ignored the repeated calls
by developing countries that any future industrial product negotiations should be on the basis of
bound tariffs.  The introduction of the reference to the reduction or elimination of "high tariffs" was
unfortunate.  Many developing countries had repeatedly called for the completion of a study processto analyse the effects of previous and future tariff reductions on developing country economies priorWT/GC/M/71
Page 63
to the launch of new non-agricultural market access negotiations.  Barbados had difficulty with the
fact that this call, which it fully supported, had been ignored.
214. On paragraph 17, this new paragraph has been inserted in response to concerns expressed by
many Members that there should be a reference in the main Declaration to the separate Declaration on
intellectual property and public health/access to medicines, a draft of which had been circulated asJOB(01)/155.  However, the phrase "by promoting both access to existing medicines and research and
development into new medicines" might be seen as seeking to prejudge the scope of the separate
Declaration.  It was important that the scope of the separate Declaration include TRIPS & public
health issues generally, since essentially what was being sought was reassurance that the TRIPS
Agreement did not undermine governments' ability to address public health needs.  On paragraph 18,
the deletion of the results-oriented language pertaining to the extension of geographical indications
was unfortunate, and concrete action should be taken on this issue at Doha.  On paragraph 19, theamendments served to provide some clarification to the text.  However, the issue of non-violation
complaints should remain as a matter to be addressed by Ministers at Doha.  Further, a separate
paragraph on non-violation complaints would be appropriate.  On paragraphs 20 and 21, the revised
texts ignored the fact that there was still no consensus on the matter of negotiations in these areas.
The new texts effectively ignored the positions articulated by many developing countries, includingBarbados, that (i) it was neither appropriate nor necessary, at the present stage, to commence
negotiations on these issues with a view to formulatin g binding rules, (ii) negotiations in these areas
should commence only on the basis of explicit consensus, and (iii) the existing study processes should
be continued on the basis of the mandates contained in the Singapore Ministerial Declaration.  With
respect to these issues, the Singapore Declaration stated that, "It is clearly understood that futurenegotiations, if any, regarding multilateral disciplines in these areas, will take place only after an
explicit consensus decision is taken among WTO Members regarding such negotiations".  While the
revised text did not contain any explicit reference to negotiations, the paragraphs nonetheless
effectively bound Members to preparations for negotiations on investment and competition policy.
The two-phase approach used merely delayed the launch of negotiations until the Fifth MinisterialConference.  Furthermore, the precedent of an opt-in /opt-out approach, i.e. plurilateral arrangements,
was extremely dangerous and might have grave systemic consequences in future.
215. On paragraphs 22 and 23, the amendments to these texts seemed to take into account the
concerns expressed by some Members on the issue of compliance.  However, the deletion of the word
"compliance" did not remove the spectre of this concept from the language.  Regarding the inclusion
of the linkage between, on the one hand, implementation of the outcome of the negotiations and, on
the other hand, developing countries' capacity and technical assistance provided, the commitment totechnical assistance was fatally flawed by use of the word "adequate".  In effect, it had to be
recognised that the substantially unchanged texts effectively ignored the lack of consensus on the
appropriateness or necessity of negotiations in this area and the opposition of many Members to the
formulation of binding rules in these areas.  On paragraph 29 on small economies, this text had been
supported by a number of delegations, and as drafted, was the minimum they were willing to accepton the issue.  Barbados expected that the conduct and results of the work programme on small
economies would be treated with the same level of commitment, focus and resolution as other
elements of the WTO's work programme being proposed.  On paragraphs 30 and 31, Barbados was
disappointed that only cosmetic amendments had been made, despite the views expressed by many
developing countries that the texts should be strengthened through the inclusion of a decision toestablish working groups on these issues as requested by the proponents.  On paragraphs 32, 33 and
34, the text could be strengthened, inter alia, through an affirmation of support of the work carried out
by UNCTAD.  On paragraphs 35 and 36, it LDC Members had indicated that they were not satisfied
with the revised text, which they considered limited, and Barbados supported their view.  On
paragraph 37, the language was weak, lacked conviction and should be more results-oriented. Thelanguage could be strengthened, inter alia, by making reference to the delivery of S&D on the basis of
size or level of development.  In addition, there should be reference to the need, raised constantly byWT/GC/M/71
Page 64
developing countries, to make S& D treatment binding.  Reference to concrete measures to be taken
with regard to the proposed framework agreement on S&D treatment should be included.  On
paragraphs 38 to 45, the revised texts remained effectively unchanged, barring the addition of new
language in paragraph 43. This lack of substantive amendment ignored many concerns expressed by
many developing countries, including that there was no need for the creation of a separate TradeNegotiations Committee, since any future negotiations could be conducted in the relevant existing
bodies under the supervision of the General Council.  Barbados had difficulty with the present draft
text and the manner, and format, in which it was proposed that the text be transmitted to Ministers.  A
concern for Barbados was that unless there were ch anges to the text in Doha, the marginalization
about which Ministers were so "deeply concerned" in 1998 in Geneva would become a reality under
the present terms of the draft Declaration.  Everyone present could understand the reason for
Barbados' apprehension, because having a share of trade of 0.00 per cent was certainly nothing for itto be proud of.
216. The representative of Hungary said that certain elementary and basic considerations had to be
kept in mind when examining the draft Declaration.  Several delegations had stated that Members
could not afford the luxury of a failure in Doha.  In the present gloomy conditions of the world
economy, when the spectre of a major recession was haunting the international scene, the repetition ofthe Seattle fiasco would have terrible consequences and would send a depressing, negative message to
economic operators, investors, farmers and service suppliers worldwide.  All would lose if the result
of such a failure was that the threat of a long and painful recession became more imminent.  Thus,
every precaution had top be taken to avoid the experience in Seattle.  The most important lesson to
draw from Seattle was the need to avoid, at any price, the repetition of the mistakes made on the wayto Seattle.  Against this background, Hungary had been astonished and disappointed to hear some
delegations propose the addition of square brackets or options in the draft Declaration.  While
Hungary did not question the good intention of those delegations who favoured this approach, it was
convinced that this was the surest way to sink the Doha Ministerial.  The addition of any square
brackets in the draft text would open the way for an avalanche of further bracketing, and the textwould soon become the type of text submitted to Ministers in Seattle.  This temptation had to be
collectively resisted, because while it might seem to facilitate the current task, it would put the kiss of
death on the text in Doha.  The same was true of the idea of a detailed cover note which would
smuggle in, in an indirect way, the same bracketing zeal.
217. One issue on which there seemed to be consensus was that the preparatory process had been
transparent, inclusive and even-handed.  The practically impossible task had been to find common
ground among 142 Members with very different interests, concerns and sensitivities.  In order toovercome the almost insurmountable difficulties in this task, Members had made a contract with the
Chairman, according to which they had accepted as a basic rule of the game, that in situations where
diametrically opposed positions were taken by a very large number of Members, the last resort for all
would be to rely on the Chairman's good judgement as to what a reasonable compromise would be in
a given situation.  The Chairman had respected this contract loyally and faithfully and had deliveredon it.  It was now up to the Members to deliver on th eir part of the contract, which meant two things:
on the one hand, accepting the draft text as presented without challenging a part or the totality of the
compromises suggested in it, and on the other, making every effort to sell these solutions to
authorities in capitals.  This would not be an easy or gratifying task, and his authorities were rather
unhappy with the draft text.  For example, they found the level of ambition for treating the Singaporeissues scandalously modest, as the draft Declaration seemed to be going practically back to the
concept of core market access negotiations, which was not Hungary's preferred version of a new
round.  In spite of this, Hungary was ready to accept the text as it stood, and strongly suggested that it
be sent to Ministers without any changes.
218. It was clear that the draft Declaration was not yet the end of the road.  There were some
important issues which were still the subject of considerable divergences among Members.  MinistersWT/GC/M/71
Page 65
would address these, and would negotiate and hope fully find appropriate solutions.  On TRIPS and
access to medicines, his delegation favoured a substantive Declaration on this subject that would
clarify the flexibilities in the relevant provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, but Hungary strongly
believed that there had to be a Declaration on this issue from Ministers at Doha.  Statements by some
delegations as well as some of the press reports indicated that this issue was becoming over-mystified,and that the gaps between positions were tending to be presented as increasingly irreconcilable.  This
could hardly be farther from the truth, as there was a very large degree of convergence on the
important and useful points of clarification addressed in paragraphs 5 to 9 of the draft text on this
issue.  Given the political will, Members should also be able to find appropriate language for
paragraph 4 of this draft text which would address the link between the TRIPS Agreement and
Members' undeniable right and duty to pursue public health policy objectives.  Ministers had to
address this issue in a substantive Declaration at  Doha, and this should not be beyond their reach.
However, it would require negotiating in a responsible  way with a view to making sure that the right
message got through to the outside world.
219. The representative of Sri Lanka said that while the covering note to the draft text stated that
the text did not purport to be agreed in any part at the present stage, on a number of important issues,
in particular the Singapore issues, the Chairman himself had stated in the informal consultations thatthe membership was divided and that differences remained.  Furthermore, on two issues in particular,
investment and competition policy, in the previous draft text options had been given either to
negotiate or to continue the study process.  However, such options were not given in the revised draft
text.  This was of great concern to her delegation, and as suggested by Tanzania, Pakistan, India and
others, the Chairman might wish to transmit this draft text to Ministers with a clear covering letterexplaining the areas where there were major differences, as an integral part of the draft Declaration, as
had been done in 1996 for the Singapore Ministerial.  Her delegation recognized that a strengthened
rules-based multilateral trading system was important for free and fair trade, and that a robust world
economy was a prerequisite for all countries to benefit from growth in international trade, in particular
for developing countries like Sri Lanka whose external trade comprised 68 per cent of GNP.However, many developing countries had expressed the view that imbalances and asymmetries
existed in the multilateral trading system and that developing countries had not shared the benefits in
an equitable manner in the purported growth in inte rnational trade.  These concerns should have been
reflected in the draft Declaration.
220. On paragraph 8 on labour standards, while many delegations had expressed the view that this
paragraph should be deleted, some delegations, including Sri Lanka, had shown flexibility to retain
only the first sentence.  In spite of many delegations' serious concerns about any reference to labourstandards, the revised draft text had in fact been strengthened with an additional sentence.  Her
delegation had serious difficulties in agreeing to paragraph 8 and strongly supported its deletion.  On
implementation issues and concerns, to which her delegation attached significant importance, Sri
Lanka had understood that all of these issues would be decided by the time of the Fourth Ministerial
Conference in accordance with the General Council Decision of 3 May 2000.  On paragraph  20 ontrade and investment, the draft was clearly biased  against developing countries and presented a
significant weakening of the language in the previous draft.  The earlier text had stated that special
developmental, trade and financial needs of developing and LDC participants shall be taken into
account and that negotiations shall pay due regard to the relevant WTO provisions and existing
bilateral and regional agreements on investment, whereas in the current text the word "shall" had beenchanged to "should".  Sri Lanka failed to understand why this had been done, as it made the language
binding.
221. On paragraph 22 on transparency in government procurement, it was not clear what specific
elements of transparency would be subject to negotiations.  The earlier text also had made specific
mention that issues related to compliance with any new obligations to be agreed would be addressedin the negotiations, taking into account the situation of developing and least-developed countryWT/GC/M/71
Page 66
participants.  This had been replaced by the phrase "matters related to the nature of commitments and
their implementation shall be addressed in the negotiat ions".  This clearly showed that there would not
be any flexibility on issues of compliance.  Furthermore, with reference to ensuring that appropriate
arrangements would be made for the provision of technical assistance and support for capacity
building, the phrase "both during the negotiations and as an element of the agreement to benegotiated" had been replaced with "during the nego tiations and after their conclusion".  Therefore,
the need to provide technical assistance and suppo rt for capacity building would not be an element in
the agreement to be negotiated.  Similarly, Sri Lanka had concerns regarding paragraph 23 and
whether trade facilitation would be subject to WTO dispute settlement.  It also had many serious
concerns on trade and competition policy, which was a complex issue that needed further study.  Her
delegation was concerned not only because there were no options on the Singapore issues, but
because of the significant weakening of the language in certain parts of the text.  On agriculture, anumber of delegations in the consultation process had made reference to net food-importing
developing countries and LDCs.  Article 16 of the Agreement on Agriculture dealt specifically with
these countries.  Therefore, the problems and concerns of 19 such countries and 49 LDCs, which was
a total of 68 Members, should be reflected in the text if there was to be a broad mandate on
agriculture.  There should also be a reference to development box proposals submitted by a group ofdeveloping countries, including Sri Lanka.
222. On market access for non-agricultural products, while Sri Lanka had indicated that it would
be flexible on negotiations in this area, it was important to have a specific reference to granting credit
for autonomous liberalization undertaken by developing countries, and any negotiations should be
based on bound tariffs.  In addition to the relevant provisions of Article XXVIII bis, there should be
specific reference to Article XXXVI:8 of Part IV of the GATT 1994.  Paragraph 18 on geographical
indications was an issue of significant importance to a number of countries, including Sri Lanka, and
the current text merely stated that issues related to the extension of protection of geographical
indications would be addressed in the Council for TRIPS.  Sri Lanka could not agree to this text as it
strongly supported negotiations on the extension of the protection of geographical indicationsprovided for in Article 23 to additional product areas beyond wines and spirits.  On paragraph 17 on a
separate Declaration on TRIPS and health, it had been repeatedly stated that the issue of intellectual
property rights and public health included, but was not limited to, the issue of access to medicines.
This paragraph therefore affirmed the commitment to implement and interpret the TRIPS Agreement
in a way that was supportive of public health without implying that it was limited to access to existing
medicines and research and deve lopment on new medicines only.
223. On trade and environment, paragraph 27 stated that the Committee on Trade and Environment
would make recommendations with respect to future action, including the desirability of negotiations,
to the Fifth Ministerial Conference.  Sri Lanka had difficulty in agreeing to an expansion of WTO's
environmental agenda to negotiations.  Therefore, there should be no reference to negotiations at the
present time.  On paragraph 29 on small economies, as a result of the problems they faced, small
economies were being increasingly marginalized in the multilateral trading system, and ways had tobe found to address these problems.  Therefore, her delegation fully supported a Work Programme to
examine issues relating to the trade of small econom ies, with recommendations for action to the Fifth
Ministerial Conference.  On paragraph 37, her delegation reiterated its position that S&D treatment
provisions should be made binding and mandatory.  On issues relating to LDCs, her delegation fully
supported the statement by Tanzania on behalf of the LDCs.
224. The representative of Kenya said that the preparatory process for the Fourth Ministerial
Conference initiated at the beginning of the year had been transparent, and his delegation commended
the Chairman and the Director-General for that.  Kenya also wanted to note with appreciation the
manner in which the Chairman had been reporting back to Members on the progress of his
consultations.  His delegation associated itself fully with the statement by Zimbabwe on behalf of theAfrican Group.  While the process had been correct, the end product fell short of Kenya'sWT/GC/M/71
Page 67
expectations.  Kenya saw the texts as a work in progress, since the Chairman had clearly stated that
they did not purport to be agreed.  His delegation would have expected the Chairman to point out in
the texts the divergent views held by different delega tions, in order to help Ministers take appropriate
decisions at Doha.   In the absence of an explic it consensus by the General Council to transmit the
texts to the Fourth Session, all of them remained bracketed.  Therefore, Kenya appealed to theChairman's good offices to highlight in the texts the main areas of disagreement and the different
views held by Members.  This had already been attempted in the draft text on TRIPS and health.  The
same standard should prevail in other texts as well.  It was the responsibility of the General Council to
ensure that the texts submitted to Ministers faithfully reflected the views expressed by Members
during the consultative process.  His delegation was therefore concerned that these texts were being
transmitted to Ministers without the General Council's agreement to do so.  Moreover, there was a
glaring contradiction in having texts on which there was no consensus, but which carried the headingof the General Council, being transmitted to Ministers.  Many delegations had said that the texts were
biased, and transmitting them in their present fo rm would have far-reaching consequences for the
credibility of the multilateral trading system.  The February 2001 General Council had authorized the
Chairman and the Director-General to start consultations on both organizational and substantive
matters related to the preparation of the Fourth Session and to report back to the General Council onthe progress made.  He quoted from the cover note to the first draft text of the Declaration as follows:
"The attached draft Ministerial Declaration is submitted for the consideration of delegations
by the Chairman of the General Council in co-operation with the Director-General.  It
represents what they judge to be the best possible basis at the present time for reaching an
eventual consensus on a balanced text to be put before Ministers in Doha.  This draft does notof course purport to be agreed in any part, and it is understood that agreement must be
reached on the text as a whole.  The present draft presents options in certain areas, and in
other areas text remains to be developed.  Thes e are indicated by notes in italics which are not
to be read as part of the text proper.  Further intensive consultations based on this draft are
envisaged, with the aim of resolving outstanding differences before a revision is issued."
The revised draft text took a different route.  In spite of the fact that a large number of
developing countries, including Kenya, had supported the inclusion of a development box in
paragraph 13, there was no mention of this.  Given that all sought to place the interests and needs of
developing and least-developed countries at the heart of the WTO work programme, and recognizing
the importance of agriculture to these countries, Kenya urged the Chairman to reconsider the inclusion
of the development box as proposed by a large number of developing countries.  On paragraph 16, he
recalled that Kenya, on behalf of seven countries, had submitted a proposal on a study process toprecede negotiations on the issue of non-agricultural market access.  This proposal had been
supported by a large number of countries, and his delegation had been surprised to see that the revised
text remained silent on this.  The proposal simply reiterated the African Trade Ministers' decision in
Abuja that a study process to assess the impact of past and future tariff reductions in this sector should
precede negotiations.  Kenya asked that the proposal be circulated as a WTO document to Members inGeneva as well as to Ministers in Doha.  On the Singapore issues, Kenya was still committed to the
decision in the Singapore Ministerial Declaration that "future negotiations, if any, regarding
multilateral disciplines in these areas will take place only after an explicit consensus decision is taken
among the WTO Members regarding such negotiations."  The consultations held thus far had not
engendered a convergence of views and as such, the language in the revised draft text on theSingapore subjects was heavily tilted towards the viewpoint of those Members who had been seeking
negotiations.
225. Although Kenya agreed with those who had said th at the reduction of tariff barriers over the
past fifty years had boosted trade and economic growth, it did not agree that there was a need for a
round to stave off recession.  This was because it was difficult to establish a link between particularrounds of trade negotiations and economic boom or recovery periods.  If the WTO was committed toWT/GC/M/71
Page 68
improving internal transparency in decision-making , it should consider very carefully how it would
handle the future work programme.  Developing and least-developed countries with small missions
had consistently said that even with the current work programme, they were unable to follow all
deliberations in the WTO.  Small missions like Kenya's would be disadvantaged by the creation of
additional bodies to handle the future work programme.  The existing WTO bodies were competent tohandle any trade issues that might form part of the future work programme.  Kenya was also
concerned that the more issues on the agenda, the more meetings would be required, and it would be
very difficult for small delegations to effectively engage in the process.  Thus, pursuing what was
being touted as a broad and balanced agenda risked continuing the marginalization of poor developing
countries in the WTO, and carried an attendant risk that any final deal would not be perceived to be
democratic and would not be politically acceptable.  Kenya hoped that its contribution would help the
Chairman to reflect further on this matter with a view to coming up with a text that was acceptable tothe entire membership.
226. The representative of Iceland said that balance lay in the eye of the beholder.  Thus, he would
not comment on this aspect or on individual elements  of the draft text.  This did not mean, however,
that Iceland was totally satisfied with the text as it stood, as it had hoped for further improvements
over the previous draft.  The fact that all Members were relatively unhappy with the draft text meantthat the Chairman had managed to strike a certain balance of unhappiness, and that was the name of
the game.  The text reflected a middle ground which constituted a good basis for finalizing the
mandate for a new round.  Development issues were of major importance to all work in the
organization, and they were fairly reflected in the draft text.  At the UN Conference for Least-
Developed Countries in Brussels earlier that year, the UN Secretary-General had made a compellingcase on behalf of the UN family.  He had reminded all that the LDCs were caught in a vicious circle,
in that they needed investment but could offer little to attract it, and also that in order to break out of
this circle, poor countries needed to export and to have open markets in which goods could compete.
In this context, the need for a new round should be obvious, as it would advance vital opportunities
for developing and developed countries alike.  While trade liberalization was just one ingredient in acocktail of policies required for development, the cu rrent draft text and the intense focus given to the
development dimension provided a good platform and a good tool to pursue these goals further.
227. All Members had to show some flexibility if Doha was to succeed.  A new round was
indispensable to give impetus to the world economy.  Members should remember that negotiations
were an exercise in compromise, which was the heart of the matter.  The draft text was a compromise
between different views and policies, a middle ground that would serve as the vehicle needed to move
forward.  Iceland thus supported the Chairman's and the Director-General's forwarding the draft textto Ministers on their own responsibility.  Iceland welcomed the specific reference to fisheries
subsidies in the text, as this was an issue of great importance to it and a matter that needed to be
addressed urgently in negotiations.  Reference to this issue in the draft Declaration was recognition
that this was a win-win-win opportunity which would bring benefits in both the developmental and
environmental areas.  In view of the fact that no Member would get everything it wanted in Doha, allshould keep in mind that happiness was not having what one wanted, but wanting what one had.
228. The representative of the Philippines said that his delegation commended the Chairman, the
Director-General and his Deputies on the manner in which they had managed the preparatory process,
and their hard work and patience in ensuring that the process had been truly inclusive, meaningful and
responsive to the disparate concerns of the membership.  Since all who had spoken seemed to haveacknowledged this, it should not be so difficult to accept the draft Declaration as a reasonably fair
basis for Ministers to work on and hopefully agree in Doha.  His country acknowledged the concerns
expressed by its fellow developing countries.  At the same time, the Philippines had been surprised to
find that the draft text did not require the need for his delegation to suggest major revisions, in that it
seemed to be sufficient on practically all of the contentious issues.  His delegation welcomed thesubtle changes introduced to the language on certain issues, primarily on trade and environment andWT/GC/M/71
Page 69
on labour standards.  These changes offered new language that allowed developing countries latitude
for favourable legal interpretation.  Perhaps not quite as subtle, but equally welcome, was the addition
of the provision of a work programme on subsidies in the fisheries sector under the section on WTO
rules.  This issue had gone through a long, focused process which had led to its inclusion in the
revised draft text.
229. The need for further fine-tuning and revision in order to provide greater clarity would
certainly be necessary, particularly on the provisions in the draft text on investment and competition
policy, and Ministers would be advised on this need.  The language in the first part of paragraphs 20
and 21, respectively, stated that in the period until the Fifth Ministerial Conference, work would focus
on clarifying the elements of a possible multilateral framework.  It thus appeared to indicate that
Members would have to decide at the Fifth Ministerial Conference whether or not there was a
sufficient basis to launch negotiations on investment and competition policy.  In other words, atpresent Members had not yet ascertained whether they would or would not initiate negotiations on
these issues.  The penultimate sentence in paragraphs 20 and 21 stated that at the Fifth Session a
decision would be taken on modalities of the negotiations, thereby implying that the launch of
negotiations on these issues at the Fifth Session was a foregone conclusion, and that the only matter
left for decision was the modalities of these negotiations.  This language was unacceptable to thePhilippines, and its Minister would propose that these sentences be revised in such a way as to
indicate that at the Fifth Session, a decision would be taken on the advisability, rather than modalities,
of negotiations.
230. Equally important for both the Philippines and its fellow developing countries was the issue
of TRIPS and health.  It had sought to achieve through the separate draft Declaration on this matter aconcrete and tangible foundation for ultimately affording the world's poor, reasonable and
inexpensive access to medicines.  In this regard his delegation supported and welcomed the
clarification made to paragraphs 6, 7 and 9, and likewise welcomed the establishment of the
mechanism under paragraph 8 to deal with the situation of Members with insufficient manufacturing
capacities.  While his delegation would have preferred a definitive solution to be agreed by Membersnow, it recognized the time constraints which had led to this compromise.  Paragraph 4 was crucial to
his country, and it supported option 1.  The Philippines could not support option 2, as this merely
stated that Members had the right to exercise their rights.  On the other hand. option 1 sent the
appropriate signal as to the importance of public health concerns to Members, particularly developing
countries.  The TRIPS Agreement as a whole had been subject to serious criticism by various sectors
of civil society, particularly as it related to Members' ability to adopt and implement measures to
promote public health.  It would be far preferable to send the correct signal that the TRIPS Agreementdid not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public health, rather than having the TRIPS
Agreement as a whole ultimately lose its legitimacy.  The Philippines commended the Chairman for
his wisdom and common sense in steering Members through this process, and called upon its fellow
Members to mirror these qualities at this crucial stage in the preparations for Doha.
231. The representative of Uganda said that his delegation commended the Chairman for having
held consultations that involved all Members and for having taken account of the views of the LDCs,
although in some cases there might have been attempts to sideline them.  There had been much talk of
Seattle and of the lessons it had provided.  References had been made to the brackets in the Seattle
text as if that element had been responsible for the failure of the Conference.  Blaming the Seattle text
was like blaming the mirror.  The Seattle text had been faithful in reflecting the different views, and
had those views been listened to and addressed, the Seattle scenario would not have happened.  The
experience in Seattle had at least generated a process of confidence building.  In Uganda's view, it
would have helped if the present draft text had indicated some of the differences, especially on critical
issues.  Delegations owed this to their Ministers, and it would be unfortunate to send them a text
without indicating the big issues on which they needed to focus.  Thus, Uganda agreed with those whohad said that the texts should be transmitted with a covering letter that would do this, and the modelWT/GC/M/71
Page 70
used in 1996 would be instructive in this regard as it had helped to focus Ministers in Singapore.  His
delegation strongly urged the Chairman to follow this course.
232. There were positive elements in the draft text.  Its acceptability would depend on how
implementation issues and the problems of LDCs were dealt with, and how effectively it
operationalized S&D provisions.  The work programme should fully take into account the concerns ofLDCs.  Tanzania had already articulated the views of the LDCs, as had Zimbabwe, and Uganda
endorsed those statements.  His delegation would look positively on the paragraph on capacity
building where it seemed there had been an improvement.  On the whole the text seemed to be on the
right track and a welcome improvement.  The section on LDCs stressed the importance of
incorporating the programme of action adopted in Brussels, but fell short of Uganda's expectation,
which was to move beyond that.  On the Singapore issues, he recalled that in 1996 the Singapore
Ministerial had stated that future negotiations in these areas would take place only after a consensusdecision was taken among Members to do so.  In the course of consultations and at the present
meeting it was clear that divergent views had been expressed and that there was clearly no consensus
to start negotiations on these issues.
233. The first draft text had provided options on investment and competition, and Uganda regretted
that these had not been reflected in the revised draft text.  Instead, paragraph 20 on investmentcommitted Members to focus work in the next two years on clarifying elements of a possible
investment agreement and to take decisions on the modalities for negotiations in this area.  Paragraph
21 on competition policy had the same format, in that negotiations would begin after Doha.  Uganda's
position was that there was no consensus on this paragraph, and it would have preferred presenting
options to Ministers.  This was a very contentious subject and could not just be glossed over.  It wouldhave helped Ministers if this paragraph had been presented as an option on which a consensus might
be achieved, rather than merely glossing over the di vergent views.  On industrial tariffs, the revised
draft text remained on the whole the same, namely, negotiations would be comprehensive and without
a priori exclusion.  Many countries had proposed a study process to examine how previous reductions
in industrial tariffs had hurt local industries and displaced jobs in developing countries.  However, thatproposal had not been accommodated in the draft text, and Uganda hoped that it was not too late to
resurrect it.
234. On the section on TRIPS, there was no reflection of concerns raised about the patenting of
plant varieties that protected the rights of farmers and local communities.  Uganda fully endorsed
Tanzania's statement on this issue.  Regarding the question of the organization of the work
programme, the text provided for the outcome to be treated as a single undertaking.  However,
elements of that work programme did not involve negotiations, so there was no need to create newmechanisms.  Whatever post-Doha agenda was agreed should be dealt with within the context of
existing WTO structures, since the WTO had been created as a forum for negotiations.  On the
question of how the texts should be transmitted, past practice was clear.  Where a process had been
initiated under the General Council, the Chairman needed the acquiescence of the General Council to
transmit the texts.  His delegation hoped that a pragmatic solution would be found and that theconcerns of Members would be taken into account, and noted the suggestion that the Chairman
transmit the texts with a covering note which would enable Ministers to focus on some of the core
issues being addressed.
235. The representative of Japan said that the Chairman had once again provided Members with a
draft text that was based on his best judgement of emerging majority views among Members on a
number of issues.  The draft texts would constitute  a good basis for successful discussion and decision
by Ministers in Doha.  Particularly conspicuous in the revised draft Declaration, compared with the
previous version, was a much stronger emphasis on the need for consideration of the developmental
dimension of trade matters and to the problems faced by the LDCs.  Japan could support this new
emphasis, and also supported transmitting the texts as they stood to Ministers.  While a few MembersWT/GC/M/71
Page 71
might be fully satisfied with the revised draft text, Japan was not, but felt that as much as possible had
been done in Geneva.  Delegations now had to ask their Ministers to address their unhappiness and
dissatisfaction in Doha.  At the present stage, he wanted merely to float some ideas on some of the
contentious issues, with a view to facilitating eventual compromise in Doha.  On agriculture, in spite
of strong demands by both agricultural exporting and importing Members, the language had remainedunchanged.  This might be one of the cases where there was a balance of unhappiness.  Japan would
pursue its case in Doha, but wanted to stress that the most important thing in Doha would be to agree
firmly to take up agriculture in the future work programme.  Members should refrain from engaging
in pre-negotiations.  Once negotiations started in the framework of the future work programme, each
Member would have sufficient room to pursue its position in the negotiations.  In any case, it was
only through negotiations that Members could agree to solutions on a number of difficult and
sensitive issues in agricultural trade.
236. On investment and competition policy, the revised draft text proposed a single option instead
of the two alternatives contained in the previous draft.  This new formula had no doubt been a difficult
decision for the Chairman.  To Japan's regret, the revised draft was ambiguous on the commitment to
negotiations.  However, it was a constructive decision to propose one single option for discussion
among Ministers in Doha, and his delegation commended the creative and courageous initiativestaken.  In the revised draft, the modalities of a negotiation was mentioned.  Some Members had
expressed concern over the opt-out/opt-in ideas in the course of informal consultations as well as in
the present discussion, saying that this might run counter to the multilateralism which the WTO was
supposed to uphold.  There would certainly have to be creative efforts to preserve as much as possible
the multilateral nature of any possible rules in this area.  For example, in the case of investment, it
might be an idea to agree on a set of rules a part of which were for all Members and the other part of
which were only for those Members who were prepared to make specific commitments.  At the same
time, the benefit of these specific commitments might be shared by all Members on an m.f.n. basis,
regardless of their degree of commitment.  He wa s not insisting that this was the only approach.
There might be other creative ways to bring as many Members as possible on board in thenegotiations.  In any case, Japan was convinced that the negotiations on investment and competition
policy would in the long term be in the interests of all, as long as care was taken not to obstruct the
legitimate development policy objectives of developing-country Members.
237. On rules, an attempt had been made in the text to strike a delicate balance, and Japan
appreciated that effort.  Japan had stated that the first draft text on anti-dumping was a bare minimum
for it, and the revised draft text was pushing Japan to the limit of flexibility.  Clarifying and
improving anti-dumping rules was an integral part of liberalization efforts, and Japan was convincedthat all Members would benefit from clarified and improved anti-dumping rules and disciplines.
Furthermore, now that Members were close to consensus on the procedure under which they would
address the remaining implementation-related issues, it was vital to agree clearly to take up rules
concerning anti-dumping, subsidies and countervailing measures in the negotiations, as it was
particularly in these fields that developing-country Members had registered a large number ofimplementation concerns.  On fishery subsidies, Japan had repeatedly stated that it did not oppose
addressing trade-distorting aspects of subsidies in general.  Once agreement had been reached on the
clarification and improvement of the relevant provisions in the Subsidies Agreement, they would
certainly be applied, if relevant, to fishery subsidies as well.  However, his delegation did not
understand why a particular section of subsidies should be singled out in the draft text.  There had notbeen sufficient discussion of this issue to warrant such special and preferential treatment, and Japan
would raise this point in Doha.
238. On TRIPS and health, it was unfortunate that Members had not been able to produce a draft
Declaration without brackets.  The important message  to send to the public in the Declaration was that
the TRIPS Agreement was not part of the problem but part of the solution of public health crises suchas those caused by HIV/AIDS.  Regarding the rather strong remarks reported to have been made inWT/GC/M/71
Page 72
public the previous day by a senior US trade negotiator on Japan's stance on launching the future
WTO work programme, because Japan's position on some issues was not supportive of the US
position it had been alleged that Japan was not eager to launch that work programme.  It was true that
Japan's position on a number of issues was not identical to that of the US, but this did not mean that it
was not serious about launching the future work programme.  It was Japan's firm intention to work fora successful Doha meeting.
239. The representative of Peru said that his delegation wished to highlight the very inclusive
nature of the consultations, which had led to a high level of transparency and confidence, and which
had established a very healthy working climate in the WTO.  In Doha, Peru wanted to strengthen
politically the world's multilateral trading system.  It was convinced that international trade could
create major opportunities for progress and wellbeing for all, and there was no more powerful vehicle
than trade to bring about growth and economic de velopment.  However, strengthening the system
implied several things.  The starting-point was experience, and the result of previous agreements led
rapidly to the conclusion that it was necessary to correct major imbalances.  The principle of equity of
benefits meant that developing countries should be the main actors in the forthcoming negotiations.
Therefore, if Members really wanted to strengthen the multilateral trading system, not only did they
have to make progress in the requisite establishment of rules and disciplines which establishedpredictability to facilitate trade, but the participation of developing countries in world trade had to
increased through improved access and fewer obstacles, both tariff and non-tariff.  Subsidies and
protectionism on the part of the developed countries had to be reduced and eliminated.  In addition,
Members had to go beyond this and to ensure that the system took into consideration the structural
disparities and the inability of many countries to enjoy the benefits of free trade.  This was the onlyway to achieve a multilateral system which was an ef fective tool to ensure sustainable development in
an overall inclusive framework.
240. The WTO, more than ever before, could play a fundamental role in promoting the objectives
shared by all, which pointed to greater stability in the international economy.  The draft texts of the
Ministerial Declaration and of the Decision on implementation contained some good signals.  Themain emphasis in determining the scope of S&D treatment, as well as important provisions on
technical cooperation and special measures for LDCs, highlighted that Members had taken the right
direction in this text.  Although not all expectations had been met, the text represented a considerable
effort that would enable Members to achieve a bala nced basis including many of the issues raised in
the course of consultations.  Peru wanted to stress the importance of TRIPS and health because of its
tremendous social impact.  The lack of health infrastructures and recurring emergencies in developing
countries gave rise to situations of the same type as those involving trade in other goods.  Peruexpected a very clear statement that would enable it to interpret the flexibilities offered in the TRIPS
Agreement in this regard.  The draft texts were leading in an encouraging direction for developing
countries, and his delegation hoped that this would be borne out by political will during the
negotiations.
241. The representative of Poland said that it was the Members who had chosen the process of
building the draft texts and that the Chairman had performed his role in it excellently.  The process
had been transparent and efficient.  Every delegation had had a chance to communicate its position.
Those positions taken together had had a good deal of commonality, but also contained substantial
and, in certain instances, self-excluding assumptions.  This had provided the substance from which the
Chairman had elaborated the texts.  In the process agreed on, the Chairman had been expected toserve as a catalyzer and not as an accountant making an inventory of contradictions.  That was why
instead of a Christmas tree adorned with an infinity of brackets, Members had, except to a very
limited extent in the draft text on TRIPS and health, a one-option text that would serve as a good basis
for finalization in Doha.  The bracket option would not be more conducive to consensus, nor would it
make the perspective of the Fourth Ministerial more optimistic.  His delegation understood that theresults of efforts to try to reconcile often irreconcilable objectives could provoke in many delegationsWT/GC/M/71
Page 73
sentiments of concern or even dissatisfaction.  It had listened with attention and understanding to the
various statements, and would report those sentiments to capital.  As for many other delegations, the
draft text was far from Poland's expectations on various issues, but Poland would not engage in an
exercise of drafting a compendium of disagreements on the texts.  This was not realistic, feasible or
necessary.  Delegations had been informing their Ministers about mutual positions and mainproblems, and at the present stage had to consolidate the path leading to an agreement.  Delegations
should not pre-negotiate now what was supposed to be negotiated by Ministers.  All needed a fresh
look at the draft texts.  The Geneva mandates had been exhausted, and the issues should now be taken
to Doha.  Nevertheless, Poland was not opposed to a cover note accompanying the texts which would
clarify better the nature of the process, and would generally underline the complexity of and
controversies over many issues.  Members should be pragmatic on this procedural issue, and his
delegation could agree to the Chairman sending the draft texts to the Fourth Ministerial Conference
without any conditions.  Time was very scarce, and Members should concentrate their attention on
other issues and end the present meeting constructively.  His delegation was convinced that from the
post-Doha perspective, Members would be assessing the results of the preparatory process with more
objectivity and satisfaction than was possible at present.
242. The representative of Bulgaria said that the Chairman's input in the preparatory process had
been useful, and that he had found a middle ground that could be a good basis for further work in
Doha.  There was one area of issues to which Bulgaria and others had repeatedly drawn attention and
to which no opposition had been expressed, but which had not found a place in the draft text.  These
were institutional issues, including internal and external transparency and the procedures for selection
and appointment of Directors-General.  His delegation could understand if there had been somerationale behind leaving these issues out of the draft text because the latter concentrated more on
subjects which required changes in existing agreements, or if there was some logic to leaving those
issues out of the Declaration.  However, these issues belonged to the existing WTO work programme,
and leaving them out of the future work programme raised the question of what would happen to
them.  Thus, Bulgaria would continue to insist that these issues be included in the WTO workprogramme, either in the Declaration or in a statem ent at Doha reconfirming that they remained on the
WTO agenda.
243. The Chairman said that he and the Director-General had been taking very careful note of
delegations' interventions and would be reflecting on them.  There seemed to be a tendency, which
was perhaps natural given the way the process had been set up, for delegations to negotiate with the
Chairman.  However, delegations were negotiating with each other, and this should be kept in mind
with regard to what the draft Declaration did or did not contain.  He confirmed that, as he had stated at
the beginning of the meeting, the Director-General's and his intention was to forward the texts they
had been working on to the Chairman of the Mini sterial Conference on their own responsibility, on
the basis, of course, that the texts were not agreed at the present stage in any part or as a whole.
Having heard all of the views around the room, he believed it would make sense and be helpful to the
Chairman of the Conference if the draft texts were forwarded under the cover of a letter.  Differentviews had been expressed as to what might be put in such a letter, and the Director-General and he
would need to reflect very carefully, bearing in mind the clear positions that delegations had put
forward, before deciding on the contents of that letter.  Any such letter could not prejudice in any way
any delegation or group of delegations.
244. The representative of India recalled that in the statement his Vice-Minister had made at the
present meeting, he had said that on investment and competition policy, India strongly urged
reintroducing the option of continuing the study process with a report to the Fifth Ministerial
Conference.  He had also said that if appropriate re vision of the text was not considered possible at the
present stage, at a minimum there should be a clear covering letter as an integral part of the draft
Ministerial Declaration, explaining the main differences encountered and options suggested on criticalissues during the preparatory process.  And he had said that India visualized the covering letter asWT/GC/M/71
Page 74
dealing with the substance and not the process alone.  The fact that India's position was not reflected
was prejudicial to its position.  India was not against the draft text reflecting other delegations'
positions.  Its initial position was that the draft Declaration should be revised to take account of the
various points of view.  However, a covering letter highlighting and explaining the differing points of
view for the Chairman of the Conference would be adequate.  He asked for assurance that thecovering letter would provide a flavour of the differences and options suggested by different
delegations during the course of the preparatory process, so that India could have the necessary degree
of comfort.
245. The representative of Cuba asked if the letter would indicate those issues on which there was
no consensus, as well as the different views of delegations on those issues.
246. The Chairman said that the minutes of the present meeting would fully reflect all delegations'
views.  It was up to delegations to decide whether they would reiterate those views at the Ministerial
Conference.
247. The representative of Pakistan said that like India and Cuba, his delegation had certain
concerns it wished to place on the record.  Pakistan had suggested in the informal meeting the
previous day that the letter transmitting the Singapore draft Declaration offered a model that could be
used.  His delegation appreciated and respected the Chairman's judgement regarding the transmissionof the draft text to Ministers with a covering letter.  However, the views expressed by delegations
since the previous day and the dissatisfaction expressed by a large majority of Members over the
contents of the draft text should be appropriately and adequately reflected in the covering letter, since
this was not an agreed text.  He recalled the language in the covering note of the previous text of the
draft Declaration in JOB(01)/140 which stated that the draft text "… represents what they judge to bethe best possible basis at the present time for reaching an eventual consensus on a balanced text to be
put before Ministers in Doha.  This draft does not of course purport to be agreed in any part, and it is
understood that agreement must be reached on the text as a whole."
248. The representative of Morocco said that the Chairman's summary covered all the concerns
expressed thus far.  The minutes of the present meeting would reflect the views expressed at the
present meeting.
249. The representative of Egypt recalled that there had been requests by several delegations in
recent informal consultations and in many of the st atements made at the present meeting, including by
Tanzania on behalf of the LDCs, Zimbabwe on be half of the African Group, India, Pakistan, Cuba
and others, that when the draft Declaration was submitted to the Ministerial Conference it be
accompanied by a letter explaining the areas of disagreement on the text.  Her delegation trusted that
the Chairman would draft a letter that reflected the areas of disagreement where these were not, in theopinion of several delegations, adequately reflected in the revised draft text.
250. The Chairman said that he and the Director-General were willing to send a letter that would
indicate clearly that the text was not an agreed text , and that would also indicate that the text did not
reflect many of the proposals that had been made by Members.  He could not be explicit regarding the
exact style of the letter due to the different points of view that had been expressed at the presentmeeting.  Some delegations wanted a full commentary paragraph by paragraph, while others felt that
the letter should just pick out the most contentious issues and comment on those, and yet others said
that it should merely provide a description of the process with some general caveat that the text was
not agreed.  It was his view that it would be very difficult to reach a consensus on this.  He suggested
that delegations allow him to reflect carefully on what had been said.  He would then, together withthe Director-General, fashion an appropriate letter.
251. The representative of St. Lucia supported the statements by India, Cuba, Pakistan and Egypt.WT/GC/M/71
Page 75
252. The representative of Uruguay said that his delegation could go along with the Chairman's
suggestion.  He noted that the 1996 letter transmitting the draft Singapore Declaration spoke of areas
where consensus had been reached in the process and areas where issues had not found a solution.
However, in the present case nothing had been solved.  As the Chairman had said, the text was going
to Doha in an overall square bracket, and therefore the approach was different.  His delegation trustedthe Chairman's and the Director-General's judgement and ability to draft a letter that would reflect the
approach of both sides.  The minutes of the present meeting could be produced in time for the
Ministerial Conference or, alternatively, representatives at the Conference could briefly outline their
views on the issues in the draft text.  There should not be negotiations on this letter, on which there
were very divided positions.
253. The representative of the European Communitie s said that he was in the same position as
India, in that in some areas in the text the Community's position had been prejudiced.  There were one
or two areas where its position was not reflected at all.  He was ready to make copies of his statement
available so that Members would not have to wait for the minutes of the present meeting.
254. The representative of India said that the draft text represented an honest, bona fide  assessment
by the Chairman.  However, his delegation had been disadvantaged because some positions and
options were not reflected in that text.  It was important that concerns be reflected so that his andother delegations were not disadvantaged at the outset of the Ministerial Conference.  While it was his
understanding that the transmission of any texts to Ministers had to be authorized by the General
Council, his delegation did not want to engage in unnecessary procedural wrangling.  India merely
wanted to be assured that its concerns would be reflected
255. The representative of Malaysia said that his de legation took some comfort in the fact that the
draft texts would be transmitted with a cover letter.  While the content of that letter should be left to
the Chairman's judgment, it was important to provide a certain level of comfort to at least those
countries which had spoken at numerous meetings to outline their difficulties in respect of some
issues.  A large number of delegations had expressed extreme difficulties with some subjects like
investment, competition policy and even the two other Singapore subjects.  The letter should at least
reflect those issues where there were fundamental differences, in order to provide the degree of
comfort necessary for many developing countries as they went to Doha, so that they could negotiate
as effectively as possible, and so as to ensure a successful outcome.
256. The representative of Chile supported the statement by Uruguay.  The best reflection of the
different opinions voiced would be the minutes of the present meeting.
257. The representative of India said that normally  the minutes took two to three months to come
out.  His delegation therefore needed a clear indication that there would be a covering letter that
would indicate the different points of view to the Chairman of the Ministerial Conference.  The draft
text itself would not be sufficient.  He said that at least thirty delegations had made this request.
258. The representative of Brazil said that the only point on which there seemed to be consensus
was that everyone relied on the Chairman's judgement.  The Chairman should thus be left to exercise
that judgment.
259. The representative of Pakistan said that the first step towards a successful outcome at Doha
would be to properly present to Ministers the proceedings that had taken place at the present meeting
and at the informal meeting the previous day.  His delegation fully agreed with the Chairman's
thoughts on how he would convey this to Ministers,  supported the points raised by India regarding the
contents of the letter, and would leave this matter in the Chairman's hands.WT/GC/M/71
Page 76
260. The representative of Uruguay said that he wanted to make absolutely clear that those
delegations, like Uruguay, who were not insisting on a letter setting out differing positions, were not
taking this view because they were satisfied with the draft text.  There were many areas of the draft
text that his delegation was not satisfied with, and which it would try to improve at the Ministerial
Conference in Doha.  His delegation had serious concerns that a letter reflecting the multipledivergences on many issues would in fact be counter-productive.
261. The representative of Jamaica said that his delegation hoped that the minutes of the present
meeting would be available before Doha.  However, a letter from the Chairman transmitting the draft
Ministerial Declaration to the Ministerial Conference should be placed on a somewhat different
footing from the minutes of the meeting.  That letter would be transmitted on the Chairman's and the
Director-General's own authority, and should highli ght the divergences and the differences of view.
The minutes alone would not be sufficient.
262. The representative of Djibouti said that the developing countries wanted to know whether the
Chairman was going to reflect their concerns in the letter.
263. The Chairman said that this discussion would be helpful to him in deciding how to transmit
the text, because it had highlighted certain difficulties and points of view.  Given the strength of
feelings that had been reflected, he would have to consider very carefully the contents of the letter,perhaps not only explaining the process, but at least enabling there to be some appreciation of the
different points of view underlying some of the main issues.
264. The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation was confident that the letter would
reflect as fully and objectively as possible the discussions on this matter.  The precedent of the letter
transmitting the Singapore texts, as well as the pr ecedent of the Chairman's evaluation of the Doha
preparatory process in July, could be useful guides as to the nature of the letter to be prepared.  He
also understood from Tanzania that it planned to ci rculate its own comments, on behalf of the LDCs,
at Doha as a conference document.  Other delegations  might wish to do the same.  That would also be
useful in providing the comfort necessary for delega tions to be able to live with the transmission of
the Chairman's and the Director-General's draft text.
265. The General Council took note of the statements.
____________