 RESTRICTED  
  
S/CSC/M/88  
 
10 May 2022 
(22-3664) Page: 1/8 
Committee on Specific Commitments    
 
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 10 MARCH 2022 
NOTE BY THE SECRETARIAT1 
The Committee on Specific Commitments (CSC) held a meeting on 10 March 2022 chaired by  
Mr. Thomas Nauta from the Netherlands .  
 
The Chair mentioned that he would address the issue of the appointment of the Chairperson of the 
Committee u nder Other Business.  
 
The agenda for the meeting, contained in document WTO/AIR/CSC/1 7, was adopted  as modified . 
 
Before moving on to the substance of the meeting, he drew Delegation s' attention to the hybrid 
mode  meeting format . He thank ed all for their patience and efforts in following the arrangements 
and for their understanding on the requirements and limitations imposed by the situation.  
 
The representative  of Ukraine  informed delegations that it was already 15 days that the Russian 
Federation continued to commit  a blatant act of aggression against Ukraine . Its un provoked and 
unjustified military invasion and attack of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine was a 
brutal violation of the principles of international law as well as the purpose  of the principle of this 
Organization. He thanked the Members  who spoke up at different meetings within the WTO and 
stood along with Ukraine in countering Russian military invasion . He hoped that other WTO Members 
would consider the possibility of imposing further trade -related restrictive measures against the 
aggre ssor state, as it was stated in the communication of Ukraine addressed to the Chair of the 
General Council and WTO Members. Ukraine, being devoted to core principles of the WTO as well as 
to the multilateral trading system in general, was convinced that th e military aggression of one WTO 
Member towards another WTO Member was putting the trading system in  ab unprecedented situation 
that could  not allow to conduct business as usual. Ignoring current circumstances was to turn a blind 
eye on the suffering of pe ople, the struggle of civil society  and entrepreneurs , and the rights and 
interests in general .   
 
The representative  of the Russian Federation  raised a point of order . She noted that the comments 
of some delegations, including the previous speaker, d id not fall within the competence of the WTO . 
The issues that they had raised were not part of the mandate of the Committee on Specific 
Commitments  and were not relevant to the agenda. She asked the Chair to confirm that the 
Committee  was follow ing the agenda as reflected in the document WTO/AIR/CSC/17 circulated on 
28 February  2022 and that was agreed by all the Members at the beginning of the meeting . 
 
The Chair confirmed that the agenda which had just been adopted was still valid.  
 
The delegate of the Russian Federation  asked the Chairman to moderate the discussion in a strong 
accordance with the agenda and tak e into account the procedures of the working bodies  of this 
organization.  She then asked all participants to follow the agenda.  
 
The Chair took note  of the comment made by the Russian Federation.  
 
The representative  of the United Kingdom  thought that these discussions were relevant to the work 
of the Committee and to all Committees of the WTO. Russia's assault on Ukraine was an unprovoked 
and premeditated attack against the sovereign democratic state and a fellow member of th is 
 
1 This document has been prepared under the Secretariat's own responsibility and is without prejudice 
to the positions of Members or to their rights and obligations under the WTO.  S/CSC/M/88  
 
- 2 - 
 
  Organizati on. The UK and its international partners stood united in condemning the Russian 
government's reprehensible actions which were an agreed violation of international law and the UN 
Charter. As a permanent Member of the UN Security Council, Russia ha d a parti cular responsibility 
to uphold international business security. Instead, it was violating the borders of another country 
and its actions were causing widespread suffering. The Russian government ha d shown that it was 
never serious about engaging in diploma cy and it deliberately worked to mislead the world in order 
to mask the carefully planned aggression. Russia must urgently de -escalate and withdraw its troops  
and be held accountable and stop undermining democracy, global stability , and international law.    
 
The representative  of the United States  thanked Ukraine for its statement and reiterated its strong 
support for Ukraine during this unimaginably difficult time.   He paid tribute to the heroism of the 
Ukrainian people, their armed forces, and their leaders.  He also express ed his appreciation to the 
many Members around the globe that were taking action in cooperation and coordination with the 
United States , adding that their important work together w ould continue.  The United States 
condemn ed Russia’s premeditated and unprovoked attack on Ukraine, and the United States equally 
condemn ed Belarus’ regime for aiding Russia’s war of aggression.   President Putin’s premeditated 
war ha d brought catastrophic loss of life and human suffering.  Russia was solely r esponsible for this 
death and destruction, and the world must hold Russia accountable.  He added that Russia’s actions 
constitute d a clear violation of Article  2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which state d that all 
member states shall refrain in their in ternational relations from the threat or use of force against 
the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. He called upon Russia to immediately 
cease its use of force against Ukraine and refrain from any further unlawful threat or use of force 
against any UN member state.   He reminded that the United States w as united with its allies and 
partners in its commitment to ensure the Russian government pay a severe economic and diplomatic 
price for its further invasion of Ukraine.  He reminded  that work at the WTO focuse d on trade, but 
this organization c ould not be neutral toward the struggle at hand. The WTO was predicated on 
certain values, among these that a fair and just international order was one built on rules, not power , 
on reciprocity , not predation, and on transparency, not perfidy.  The actions of Russia were 
incompatible with the rules -based system the world  had built and work ed to improve.    
 
The representative  of Norway  condemn ed in the strongest possible terms the unprecedented military 
aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. She express ed Norway’s concern for the 
severe destruction and human suffering this illegal act of aggression was causing. By its unprovoked, 
unjustified , and premeditated military actions, the Russian Federation was grossly violating 
international law, the core principles on which the international rule -based order was built and the 
fundamental principles of the UN charter that ha d prevailed sin ce the second W orld War . It was an 
attack towards what the UN, WTO , and Geneva as a capital of multilateralism, st ood for. She 
conclude d by expressing Norway’s full solidarity with Ukraine and the Ukrainian people .  
 
The representative  of New Zealand  strongly condemn ed Russia’s unjustifiable and unprovoked 
invasion of Ukraine.  Russia’s action had breache d international law and the sovereignty and 
territorial integrity of a neighbouring state.  New Zealand strongly support ed Ukraine in opposing the 
Russian assault.  The attacks were causing widespread humanitarian consequences and resulting in 
the senseless d eaths of innocent people.  New Zealand support ed collective action by the 
international community to impose costs  on Russia and on those in Russia who b ore responsibility.  
 
The representative of Japan  was very much  concerned with the situation in Ukraine. The invasion of 
Ukraine by Russia was an attempt to unilaterally challenge the status quo by force.  It was an act 
that undermine d the very foundation of the international order. It constitute d the infringement o f 
one of WTO Members’ sovereign right and terr itorial integrity, and a clear violation of international 
law. It was totally unacceptable , and Japan condemn ed it in the strongest terms  and joined the 
international community and stood alongside with Ukraine and its people.  
 
The representative  of Australia  joined others in thanking Ukraine for its statement and noting that 
the issues it ha d raised were wholly relevant to the substance of this meeting and this organisation’s 
work. Australia condemn ed Russia’s unprovoked and unjusti fied attack on Ukraine in the strongest 
possible terms. Russia’s actions breach ed international law, the UN Charter and the sovereignty and 
territorial integrity of a neighbouring state.  Australia strongly support ed Ukraine in opposing Russia’s 
hostilities  and called on Russia to withdraw its forces from Ukrainian territory and seek a diplomatic 
solution.  Australia support ed collective action by the international community to impose costs and 
increase leverage on Russia and those in Russia who b ore responsi bility. Australia ha d imposed S/CSC/M/88  
 
- 3 - 
 
  significant economic sanctions on Russia and Belarus  and w ould continue to support international 
measures to sanction Russia’s behaviour.  
 
The representative  of the  European Union  and its member states expressed full solidarit y with 
Ukraine and the Ukrainian people . It condemned in the strongest possible terms Russia's unprovoked 
and unjustified military aggression against Ukraine, which grossly violated international law and the 
UN Charter and undermined international security  and stability. This continued act of aggression had 
enormous implications on all the possible spheres of policy and economy , including trade and the 
international rules -based system. The EU demanded Russia to immediately cease its military actions, 
withdr aw all its troops from the entire territory of Ukraine and fully respect Ukraine's territorial 
integrity, sovereignty and independence within its internationally recognized borders. The E uropean 
Union resolut ely support ed Ukraine 's inherited right of self-defence  and the Ukrainian s' efforts to 
defend Ukraine's territorial integrity and population in accordance with article 51 of the UN Charter. 
At all times, Russia must respect its responsibilities under international humanitarian l aw and stop 
its disinformation campaign and cyberattacks.  
 
The representative  of the Republic of Korea  wished to echo the previous speakers on the situation 
in Ukraine. The Korean government also strongly condemned Russia’s armed invasion against 
Ukraine as a violation of principles of the UN Charter. The use of force s that cause d innocent 
casualties couldn't be justified under any circumstances. Ukraine’s sovereignty, territorial integrity 
and political independence must be respected.  
 
The representative  of Switzerland  condemn ed the Russian military attack on Ukraine in the strongest 
possible terms. This attack constitute d a violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of 
Ukraine and thus a clear violation of international law, in particular of the UN Charter.  Switzerland 
called on the Russian Federation to respect its international obligations , to reverse its act ions, as 
well as to withdraw its troops and contribute to de -escalation.  Switzerland call ed on all actors to 
respect international law, including international humanitarian law.  
 
The representative  of the Russian Federation  stressed that delegations should  refrain from discussing 
in the WTO and its bodies, issues and events which were out of the scope of the WTO and were 
under the focus of other international organizations and diplomatic agencies. She reminded that the 
WTO, as the cent ral piece of the multi lateral trading system, was created to raise standards of living, 
with an objective of sustainable development. The WTO had proved to be an organization that was 
primarily guided by economic considerations and solid legal norms. Unfortunately, the increasi ng 
pressure for its politi cization had already brought inefficiencies to the operation  of the  WTO. She 
requested the Secretariat to exclude from the report of the meeting the comments unrelated to the 
agenda of this meeting and going  beyond the mandate of this Committee.  
 
1  ITEM A – IMPLEMENTATION OF SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS  
1.1.  The Chair noted that a new subitem had been included under this agenda item upon a request 
from Turkey. Turkey had propose d that the Committee discuss implementation issues related to 
specific commitments and Article II (MFN) on cross -border supply of road transport services under 
the GATS. Turkey's proposal, contained in S/CSC/W/73, had been circulated to all Member  before 
this meeting.  
1.2.  Before presenting the proposal, t he representative  of Turkey  noted that Turkey was deeply 
saddened by the situation in Ukraine.  She believe d that humanitarian pause, dialogue and diplomacy 
were urgently needed.  In that regard, and upon their intensive diplomatic efforts, the Foreign 
Ministers of Ukraine and Russia had met on 10 March in Antalya -Turkey on the margins of the 
Antalya Diplomacy Forum.  Turkey always believe d in and support ed peace, stability , and 
international cooperation, in its reg ion and beyond.  
1.3.  Turkey explained that the disruptive effects of such situations on the world economy  could  not 
be disregarded , in particular for international trade and logistics which was the focus of its proposal 
that had been circulated to be discussed at th e meeting. The proposal of Turkey concerned  the 
questions arising from  different interpretations of GATS commitments and the MFN principle in 
relation to road transport services through the cross-border supply.  As mentioned in Turkey's  
commu nication, logistics was always a n important component of international trade  and logistics  
efficiency  was critical for predictable trade . Any export or import contract  contained  items  on delivery 
time and cost s. With the surge of electronic commerce , door-to-door logistics and road transport S/CSC/M/88  
 
- 4 - 
 
  services as being in the heart of this concept had come into the forefront.  Increased demand thanks 
to the rise of e -commerce and the effect s of the container crisis had put pressure on the modes of 
transport alternative to maritime transport.  
1.4.  At this juncture, road transport services had been discussed intens ively not only in the 
transport and logistics industry  but also during  free trade agreement negotiations.  Turkey attached  
particular importance to transpo rt and attempted  to lift barriers to trade in transport  services in FTA 
negotiations . During the negotiations, Turkey  observed that its partners  who ha d commitments 
under the GATS  might not share the same understanding of GATS commitments  with respect to  the 
cross-border supply of road transport services. According to Turkey 's observation , Members with full 
market access and national treatment commitments were still negotiating truck quotas, passage 
fees and other discriminatory treatments under bilateral r oad transport arrangements. Some  
Members with no MFN exemptions  under the GATS were still negotiating different truck quotas with 
different other M embers.  
1.5.  In this context , Turkey  brought  the issue to the attention of the Committee on Specific 
Commitments to initiate  discussion with a view to  exchanging  views with Members on the 
interpretation of specific commitments and the MFN obligation.  For now, Turkey had focused its 
proposal on three  main questions: the first one was the compatibility of imposing truck quotas to 
WTO Members with full market access commitments in Mode 1 o n road transport services.  Second 
one was about how to read  "Unbound " in market access and "None" in national treatm ent and what 
the boundaries between market access and national treatment were when it came to cross border 
supply of road transport.  The last question concerned  the interpretation of the MFN obligation. From 
Turkey's perspective, Members who had not listed any exemptions for road transport should have 
applied the same treatment to all other Members with respect to all measures affecting international 
road transport including truck quotas, passage fees, customs measures , etc. 
1.6.  Turkey was  aware that the communication had been circulated shortly  before th e meeting . 
Turkey would nonetheless  wish to hear the preliminary views of Members in th e meeting  and have 
further  discussion s in future  meetings. T urkey was  ready to cooperate with other Me mbers and 
revise the proposal depending on the feedback s it could get from this meeting's discussion.  
1.7.  The representative  of the Russian Federation  thanked  Turkey for its valuable contribution to 
the work of this Committee  and for its excellent presentation  on the initiative regarding the  cross-
border supply of road transportation services. Russia  would continue to assess it internally with all 
relevant authorities. As some preliminary comments, Russia  consider ed the Turkish proposal to be 
in line with the mandate of the Committee on Specific Commitments.  In general, Russia consider ed 
positively the idea to discuss possible approaches to the interpretation of Members’ commitments 
on road transport services to increase the transparency of trade rules in t he WTO. It would be 
important to flag that any conclusions expressed during the exchange of views and reflected in the 
possible outcome document “Understanding on Interpretation of Obligations in Cross Border Supply 
of Road Freight Transport Services” shou ld be advisory and not legally binding.  Russia looked forward 
to further constructive discussion s on the issues contained in the Communication from Turkey.  
1.8.  The representative  of the European Union  thanked Turkey for its Communication  which was 
still being assessed . She then offered general comments. She noted that the Communication 
included a number of examples from Members ' schedule s in abstract, which would require the 
interpretation of Members' commitments and the EU found it difficult to engage in makin g legal 
assess ment of commitments on their GATS compatibility through theoretical examples. Moreover, 
given the nature of road transport services, bilateral and multi -party agreements in this sector 
tended to be multifaceted with historic and geographical considerations. Noting that t he Secretariat 
had produced a useful background note on road transport services in 2010, the EU questioned the 
need for further work on this sector.  She request ed background information from Turkey on the 
objectives of the  Communication.  
1.9.  The representative of China  stated that the logistics sector was an important services sector with 
significant implications for Members’ participation in the global market. China attache d great 
importance to the discussions o n logistics serv ices. China had  previously submitted to the CTS -SS a 
proposal on logistics services and engaged in the exploratory discussions. China  appreciate d Turkey’s 
proposal on the  cross-border supply of road transportation services. China was holding  internal  S/CSC/M/88  
 
- 5 - 
 
  consu ltations with domestic authorities  and were willing to exchange views with Members on this 
issue in the future . 
1.10.   The representative  of the United States  thanked Turkey for its contribution.  Noting that more 
time was needed to consult on and fully analyze  it, he made general comments .  It seem ed that this 
communication was going a bit beyond the mandate of CSC to involve the  interpretation of Members’ 
commitments.  The US was wary of engaging in such an action.  The suggestion for  an understanding  
was probably an issue more appropriate in actual negotiations  calling for new commitments.  He 
recalled that the US had been  criticized for its proposal on transparency because some thought it 
was a call for new commitments.  The US  needed more time to examine Turkey's Communication  
before agree ing to further engage.    
1.11.   The representative  of Australia  joined others in thanking Turkey for its paper . Its capital  was 
still considering the details. As a preliminary comment, Australia  echoed the comments made by a 
few others on whether it was appropriate for Members to engage in specific discussions on the 
questions outlined in the paper and have the legal interpretation of commitments in this particular 
forum. Nevertheless, Australia  would furthe r consider the paper and revert with more comments at 
the next meeting.  
1.12.   The representative  of India thank ed the delegation of Turkey for its proposal on 
"Implementation of Specific Commitments and Article II (MFN) on Cross -Border Supply of Road 
Transporta tion Services ". She noted that her delegation  was examining the proposal, which w ould 
require more time.  
1.13.   The representative  of Sri Lanka  joined others in thanking Turkey for its proposal . Given the 
very short notice and the technicalities associated with this interesting and historical discussion, Sri 
Lanka  took note of the submission . Its capital was considering  the proposal  and would revert to it 
at the next meeting with more details. Sri Lanka had a  few initial questions for the benefit of 
understanding the Turkish proposal. C ould Turkey provide more background information on the 
specific challenges it faced in freight transportation ? Which specific Members was Turkey  referring 
to? Were the quotas menti oned in the submission (e.g.,  number of individual journey s or number  of 
permits)  issued on a discriminatory basis which made Turkey believe it had certain trade concern ? 
What were the allocation criteria for transit quotas  and whether had they been reflec ted in the 
schedule of commitments ?  
1.14.   The representative  of South Africa thanked Turkey for its submission. While her capital  was 
still considering it, at this point, she had two preliminary points to make. First, t he issue raised was 
an important one, especially to assess or understand what the commitment s in road transport were 
and to what extent a Member deviat ed from those commitments in its applied regime. Second, 
noting that the submission  was laid out in a  theoretical  manner, she suggested that  further 
discussion on this matter could benefit from a compilation of information  similar to the one conducted  
by the Secretariat for the exercise proposed by the USA on conditional commitment s.  
1.15.   Turkey  thank ed all the d elegations who had commented on its proposal  and underst ood that 
Members need ed more time to analyse  it. With respect to the question on whether the paper was 
appropriate for the mandate of the Committee, noting similar agenda items in this Committee and 
previous discussions in relation to  the implementation of specific commitments, Tukey believed it 
was appropriate to discuss its proposal  under the item on the implementation of specific 
commitments . Turkey sought the Secretariat 's view  on whether  the issue raised in its proposal  was 
appropriate for the mandate of this Committee.  Regarding the  questions raised by Sri Lanka , she 
noted that  Turkey was facing barriers in road transport services as being a transit country . The share 
of road transport was qu ite high in Turkey's imports and exports.  It was important for Turkey to 
discuss road transport services for the purpose of international trade. The barriers  Turkey was facing 
were not only about  the real market situation but also  related to  GATS commitmen ts. Turkey noted 
that some Members were  negotiating bilateral road transport  arrangement s, including those who 
had full market access commitments  on the cross -border supply of international road transport 
services . A full market access commitment on the cr oss-border supply of international road transport 
services would mean no numerical or quantitative restriction s. In Turkey's view, q uotas were explicit 
numerical limitations in that sense  and thus not  in compliance with full market access commitments. 
Through the exercise Turkey would like to know whether other Members had the same concerns 
which w ere about a real market situation and its reflection in commitments.  S/CSC/M/88  
 
- 6 - 
 
  1.16.   On the question about the allocation of transit quotas, this was also something Turkey  
struggle d to interpret within the context of GATS. GATT Article V and Article 11 of the TFA provide d 
for the freedom of transit , but there existed a  question on how much of transit was covere d by the 
GATS . This was a question that should also be discussed. On the last point raised by Sri Lanka about 
the relationship between the individual permit and quotas, permit s could  be applied if they were 
required for safety, environment , or other type o f reasons without  restricting market access . 
However,  if the permit system was tied with a numerical restriction like a quota, then the permit 
became a market access restriction.  
1.17.   Turkey  support ed the suggestion made by South Africa on having a compilation  of existing 
commitments and MFN exemptions as background for further  discussions. Turkey  asked the 
Secretariat to compile the specific commitments on market access for Mode 1 in CPC 7123 and also 
the Members who ha d MFN exemptions and the ones without MFN  exemptions.  The compilation 
would provide  a good background for discussions on  the issues raised .  
1.18.   The Chair thanked Turkey for this important contribution to the Committee 's work and for 
delegations' interventions. He underst ood delegations would need more time to review the proposal  
and therefore expect ed more substantive discussions at the next meeting.  
1.19.   The Chair then move d to another subitem under this agenda item , the implementation of 
conditional commitments.  He recalled  that, following a proposal from the United States 
(S/CSC/W/69, dated 5  March  2020), this Committee ha d been conducting a transparency exercise 
examining commitments with certain conditional language in  GATS schedules. This type of 
commitments usually ma de their entry into force, implementation or updating conditional upon a 
domestic process, such as the adoption of new legislation, policy reviews, or the review of pre -
existing regimes.  He also recalled tha t to facilitate the discussion on conditional commitments, the 
Secretariat had prepared a compilation of this type of commitments in GATS schedules 
(S/CSC/W/70, dated 13  November 2020) upon the request of the Committee. The Compilation ha d 
been updated three times with all sectors covered and implementation information added. He 
thanked the Secretariat for having circulated to Members t he third revision of the Compilation 
(S/CSC/W/70/Rev.3) on 25  February  2022.  
1.20.   Engagement in th is exercise so far ha d been on a voluntary basis  with Members provid ing 
updates on the implementation of their commitments listed in the Compilation.  Some Members 
indicated at previous meetings that they were holding internal consultations and would inform the 
Committ ee at a later stage. He encouraged  Members  to engage  further and have a meaningful 
exchange of information . 
1.21.   The delegation of the United States  thanked the Secretariat for the updated document  and 
reminded that the exercise  was on voluntary basis and for transparen cy purposes.  He welcomed  
inputs to the document provided by Members. He thanked Thailand for its updated Schedule of 
commitments on telecom . The United States had held a discussion with Thailand  on its certification 
request  and lifted the objectio n they had raised . He would welcome future updates from Members.  
1.22.   The representative  of Thailand  thanked the Secretariat for circulating the document S/L/437  
dated 9  March 2022 on the Certification of Specific Commitments of Thailand and to the United 
States for withdrawing their objection to Thailand 's request for certification concerning the 
modification of the GATS schedule. Thailand looked forward to working closely with all WTO Members 
pursuant to commitments under the GATS.  
1.23.   The representative  of China  thank ed the proponents and the WTO secretariat for their good 
work. China also appreciate d the pragmatic measures by Members to update relevant information 
and improve transparency of the implementation of specific commitments. Chin a believe d that 
implementing specific commitments was a basic obligation of all WTO Members. China  was open to 
discussing related issues. It was worth noting that the review and update of schedules should be 
limited to the implementation of Members’ existi ng commitments, without entailing further market 
opening obligations.  
1.24.   The delegation of India noted that , while this exercise of compilation of conditional 
commitments by the Secretariat was useful for the purpose of transparency, any updat e of schedules S/CSC/M/88  
 
- 7 - 
 
  should only be based on full -fledged market access negotiations which went beyond the purview of 
the CSC.  Therefore, India did not support taking this exercise any further.  
1.25.   The Chair thanked Members for their interventions  and expressed his appreciation to  the 
United States for their flexibility in withdrawing their objection  which  allowed  the certification 
procedure concerning Thailand's Schedule of Specific Commitments to be  concluded. He then 
congratulated the delegation of Thailand particular ly but also the entire Membership on this 
significant step.  
1.26.   He suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to this agenda 
item at its next meeting.   
1.27.   It was so agreed . 
2  ITEM B – SCHEDULING ISSUES  
2.1.  No intervention was made under this item.  
2.2.  The Chairperson  suggested that the Committee revert to this agenda item at its next meeting.  
2.3.  It was so agreed .  
3  ITEM C - CLASSIFICATION ISSUES  
3.1.  The Chairperson  recall ed that at the  previous meeting, the UN Statistics Division  (UNSD)  had 
provided a presentation on an additional tool to help visualize the correspondence between the CPC 
Provisional and C PC Ver.2.1. The presentation had been  welcome d by Members.  Members ha d also 
shown interest in adding the Services Sectoral Classification List (MTN.GNS/W/120) to the 
visualization tool.  
3.2.  The Secretariat  informed the Committee of the progress in this respect. Discussions were 
ongoing with the UN Statistics Division , with the  support of Secretariat colleagues dealing with IT 
issues, to explore possibilities on appending the vi sualization tool to add MTN.GNS/W/120 . The 
Secretariat would continue informing the Committee of progress made on this investigation.  
3.3.  The United States  intervened further to the suggestion made by the Russian Federation to 
amend the minutes of th e meeting.   The United States d id not support th is proposal.  They viewed 
the statements of the United States, Ukraine, and other Members to have been directly relevant to 
Ukraine’s ability to implement its specific GATS commitments. The delegate also humbly suggest ed 
that the Chair not be asked to make  a judgment call on the relevance  to this meeting .  He believe d 
that the minutes should reflect the full discussion of the meeting.   
3.4.  The representative  of the European Union  supported the statement by the United States and 
wanted to see all their statemen ts be fully reproduced in the minutes of the meeting.  
3.5.  The representative  of Australia  supported the US statement.  
3.6.  The Chair  noted that several delegations had rejected the Russian Federation's suggestion to 
exclude from the minutes of the meeting certain  statements made during the meeting. In his view, 
the minutes of the meeting should reflect the statements made at the meeting .  
3.7.  He suggested that the Committee take note of the statements made and revert to this agenda 
item at its next meeting.  
3.8.  It was so  agreed .  
4  ITEM D – OTHER BUSINESS  
4.1.  The Chair reminded that the handover of the chairmanship of the Committee should normally 
have taken place at this meeting. However, since the consultations conducted by the out -going Chair S/CSC/M/88  
 
- 8 - 
 
  of the CTS remain ed to be concluded, the handover w ould have to be postponed. He hoped that the 
process of appointment of the Chairpersons would be promptly concluded.   
4.2.  The meeting was adjourned . 
__________  