Cancun - 5ème Conférence ministérielle de l'OMC - 10-14 septembre 2003
STILL IN THE DARK ON THE ROAD TO CANCUN
General Council Meeting
(24-25 July) Hears Concerns over the Process of Drafting
and the Contents of the Draft Cancun Declaration
Third World Network Report by Tetteh Hormeku,
TWN Africa and Africa Trade Network
1 August 2003
I: INTRODUCTION
The
following is a report of recent developments in the WTO in relation to the
preparations for the Cancun Ministerial Conference, and especially the issues
that emerged from the General Council meting of 24-25 July just before the WTO
took a short summer break (until 11 August).
Part
II deals with the process and procedures being planned for further discussion of
the many contentious issues, and especially on how the next draft or drafts of
the Ministerial Declaration will be formulated, and the process by which the
draft will be transmitted from Geneva to Cancun. It is shown that
the process remains untransparent and that developing countries will be the
likely losers.
Part
III deals with the debate that has emerged whether a decision on the Singapore
Issues is linked to development sin agriculture, or whether this would be on
their own merit.
Part
IV reports on the comments by some developing countries on the need to ensure a
fair process before Cancun, whilst Part V deals with fundamental differences
over the content of the draft ministerial declaration Part VI reports on
the General Council debate on several issues brought up by developing countries,
especially anti-dumping actions and textile quota phasing out; however
there was a generally hostile response from developed countries to the
proposals. A final Part VII deals with a few other issues that were
discussed at the General Council.
II:
SCENARIO BUILDING TOWARDS AN UNTRANSPARENT AND NON PARTICIPATORY PROCESS OF
DRAFTING AND TRANSMITTING THE DRAFT CANCUN DECLARATION
The
World Trade Organisation went into a two-week recess following the General
Council meeting on 24-25 July, leaving behind the distinct impression that vital
stages in the further elaboration of the "skeletal draft declaration"
for Cancun released on 18 July will be carried out in the dark, with little
chance for the majority of the (developing country) members to have their
imprint on the text as it is actually put together and transmitted to Ministers
in Cancun.
At
a briefing for the media on 25 July together with Dr. Supachai Panitchpakdi, WTO
Director-General, Ambassador Perez del Castillo (Uruguay), Chairman of the
General Council (GC) outlined what both he and Supachai were at pains to
portray as participatory and inclusive procedures for preparing the draft text
for Cancun.
As
it turns out, however, the procedure outlined would seem to be a punishing
schedule of "informal consultations", some involving all
members, others confidential and open to only small groups, and still others at
the bilateral level. At the end of it all the text is still likely to be
transmitted to Cancun over the heads of delegates in Geneva.
The
WTO convenes again on 11 August. On 22 August a second draft of the Cancun
Ministerial Declaration will be released by the General Council chairman.
Then on 25-26 August a formal meeting of the General Council will be held to
discuss the draft.
The
mechanisms by which the views of members can be brought into the 22 August
draft, by which proposals to revise this draft before the 25-26 August General
Council (GC) meeting, and by which the views at the GC meeting can be
incorporated into the text, have not been spelt out. The strong suspicion
is that there no such mechanisms have been planned. Thus, although all
kinds of views may be expressed at all kinds of meetings, it is likely that the
22 August draft will still be sent on to Cancun, on the "personal
responsibility" of the GC Chairman.
According
to the schedule outlined by Ambassador Castillo, informal open-ended meetings of
heads of delegations (HOD), to which all member countries are invited, will be
held every morning starting on 11 August, and these will examine specific key
issues contained in the first draft of the Ministerial declaration.
These
prominent issues (defined as issues on which ministers need to take decisions in
Cancun) include agriculture modalities, non-agriculture market access, registry
of geographical indications (Gis), the Singapore issues, implementation issues,
Special and Differential treatment (SDT) and TRIPS and public health. These
issues will be considered at the HOD meetings in the first week, and the other
issues contained in the draft text, such as services and rules, will be looked
at in the second week of consultations.
The
afternoons will be devoted to various consultations in different formats --
meetings in small groups and bilateral consultations - which would be in small
groups and are not open to all members. Some of the meetings be conducted
by the GC Chair.
By 22 August, as Mr. Castillo put it, "we will be putting to members a
final draft on what the text should be that will reflect the progress achieved
and the realities of the day."
A
formal General Council meeting has been scheduled for 25-26 August with senior
officials from capitals attending. Thereafter a final draft text will be
submitted to the Ministers.
It
is not known whether this text for Cancun will be the same as the 22 August
draft.
There
is little in the nature and schedule of activities as outlined that would give
confidence to the majority of developing countries that their issues and
perspectives will be properly reflected in draft Declaration that will be
transmitted to Cancun.
The
decision to convene a General Council meeting on 25-26 August is a change of
plans. In the WTO schedule of meetings, no GC meeting had been fixed fro
August. But some developing countries criticised the lack of opportunity
for members to voice their views or to adopt or revise the drafts. At
various meetings (including the recent Trade Negotiatons Committee meeting),
they requested for a formal meeting on the draft text before it is transmitted
from Geneva.
However
this apparent responsiveness to developing country demands is defective in one
critical regard. This concerns whether the final draft text will be a
consensus text agreed at the General Council meeting, or something that the GC
Chairman will send on to Cancun under his own responsibility. In the
latter case, the developing countries rightfully fear their views will not
be represented.
During
the media briefing, Amb Castillo stated that he was 'confident that there will
be ample time from 26 August till 10 September (when the Cancun ministerial
opens) for the ministers to consult among themselves, so that by the time of
Cancun there will hopefully be a text with a 'lot of flesh in it' that
will facilitate the task.' (as reported in SUNS 5393).
Thus,
after the GC meeting, the draft declaration may continue to evolve through
ministerial level consultations involving a few counties. This is not part of
the formal processes of the WTO. Most members, especially developing countries,
would be excluded. It is most unlikely that a draft that emerges in
this way will adequately reflect the views of all members, especially since
there is still contention over so many key issues which form the content of the
text.
Thus
it is not clear on whose authority such a final draft text will be placed before
Ministers at Cancun, especially if members at the General Council meeting
dispute various parts of the draft.
This
is a throw-back to the pre-Doha situation in 2001, which the draft Declaration
with which the majority of the members disagreed, was nevertheless sent on to
the Ministerial, on the personal responsibility of the then GC Chair, Amb.
Stuart Harbinson of Hong Kong, against the express wishes of many members.
Apart
from these problems with how the draft text is finally transmitted to Cancun,
the actual daily process of consultations which is supposed to input into
formulation of the text, does not offer much comfort to most of the developing
country members either. This is in spite of the reassurances of Amb.
Castillo and Dr Supachai to the contrary.
At
the media briefing, a journalist asked these two officials to comment on the
criticisms by NGOs that the decision-making processes, especially surrounding
Ministerials and their preparatory process, in the WTO are untransparent
and non-inclusive,
Supachai
stated that almost all the key issues have been addressed at the HOD level
and everyone had been part of the discussions and negotiations all the time.
He added there have been very few small group meetings and the ones he conducted
in the past two weeks have been mainly with the senior officials from capitals,
participating in the General Council and the TNC. He insisted that there has
always been full transparency in all respects.
The
issue, however, is which of the consultations will be decisive in making the
deals that will form the content of the text. On the evidence of the
expectations expressed by Supachai and Castillo, the decisive consultations will
be those carried out in the closed, '"confidential" small groups
and/or bilateral meetings from which most members are excluded, rather than the
large open-ended informal heads of delegations.
III:
DECISION ON SINGAPORE ISSUES LINKED TO AGRICULTURE OR DECIDED ON OWN MERITS?
For
instance, in response to questions as to when the modalities on Singapore Issues
will be ready, Amb. Castillo stated that he thought that the fate of the
Singapore issues "are very much linked to the package that we will be able
to take to Cancun." He added that if there could be 'some developmental
package' with substantial movement on agriculture and non-agriculture market
access by Cancun, then Singapore issues would be on the table. In that
event, he suggested, drafting modalities on the Singapore issues would be no
problem.
Amb
Castillo had earlier indicated that movement on agriculture in particular will
be the key to unlocking movement in all other areas. But for this vital
movement on agriculture, Amb Castillo indicated that he hoped that consultations
between the US and the EU would be ripe for them to give some signals at the
Montreal mini-ministerial, and this would be useful for pursuance of work in
Geneva'.
Thus
the fate of one set of issues -- the Singapore Issues -- on which all the
members have strong opinions one way or the other, is linked to deals between
some of the parties; and a key stage of the consultations is a mini-ministerial,
an informal structure which does not form part of WTO processes, and to
which most members are not invited.
As
reported in the SUNS 5393, the theme of linking progress in agriculture with the
Singapore Issues was replayed last week in Geneva at a small informal meeting
hosted by Japan in a Geneva hotel to which only senior officials from a few
selected countries were invited. This strategy of linkage is one being pushed
most forcefully by the Cairns group, the US, and even WTO officials. The
EU, which once was most prominently putting forward the linkage concept
("For us to make concessions in agriculture, we must get something in
return, especially Singapore issues") announced that it did not believe in
any such linkage
Most
developing countries in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean, are resistant to any
such linkage between agriculture and the Singapore issues. They believe the
Singapore issues should be decided on their own merits and not be used as a
bargaining chip. But few developing countries were invited to the meeting.
Both
Japan and the EU have come out with their versions of modalities for the
Singapore issues. These two proposed texts for decisions are very similar
to each other.
Thus
while most developing countries will be attending the open-ended morning
consultations, the actual deals that will impact on the draft are expected to be
worked out in small groups and bilateral consultations, to which most are not
privy.
These
countries excluded from the small consultations will continue to express their
views at the so-called open-ended informal head of delegations consultations.
Whether their views expressed at this level will be faithfully reflected in the
draft text is a big issue.
IV:
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SPEAK UP IN GENERAL COUNCIL FOR A FAIR PROCESS
Many
developing countries are already expecting a repeat of the pre Doha and Doha
experience, that on Singapore issues, their objection to the launching of
negotiations at Cancun, will be ignored.
Also,
after the draft is given out on 22 August, the counties whose views were
excluded have only very few days to give their views or make counter proposals
as the GC meets just three days after.
Many
developing countries recognise that such a process will put them at a
disadvantage and prejudice their capacity to influence the text. Some
voiced these concerns at the GC meeting of 24-25 July. Some have put
forward specific proposals to improve the process.
One
of the strongest countries on these issues was Cuba. While noting with
satisfaction that there would be August meeting of the GC, Cuba stated
"that that meeting should approve, by consensus, the draft text to be
presented to the Ministers in a clear and unambiguous language". To
this end, Cuba agreed with Jamaica in demanding that the secretariat should make
available before the meeting of the General Council, the draft text in all the
working languages of the WTO. In relation to the series of
consultations which the Chair of the General Council planned to undertake, Cuba
stated that the sequencing of the subject matters to be discussed should give
priority to the issues which had direct implications on development before other
subjects can be dealt with later.
Furthermore,
Cuba proposed that "regular written reports on the discussions of the
informal heads of the delegations meeting should be circulated to enable every
members to be equally informed as to the state of the process".
In
a similar vein, Bangladesh insisted that the principle of inclusiveness must be
cardinal to the process of preparing the draft declaration. The
consultation must be open-ended. In addition, the draft declaration must reflect
the areas of convergence, while areas of divergence must also be reflected and
not glossed over. Above all, the draft must not be sent to ministers
without the agreement of the WTO membership in Geneva.
India
also expected that "the draft text and the attachments will be developed in
such a manner that, at the end of the process, they fully reflect the views of
all Members, and that wherever there are divergence of views, they will be fully
and faithfully expressed"
The
fears behind the concern by many developing countries for a process which allows
them to reflect their priorities was summed up by one African country delegate
when he stated that "Adding flesh to the skeleton in the dark may end with
a deformed monster which will attack our interests." He
was making reference to the so-called skeletal first draft of the Ministerial
text.
The
need for a fair, balanced and democratic process is even more important in view
of the clear split between developed and developing countries on the issues
which would form the content of the draft ministerial declaration. This
came out most clearly in the discussion of the general council on the content of
the draft ministerial declaration.
V:
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCES OVER THE CONTENT OF DRAFT MINISTERIAL DECLARATION
At
the General Council discussion on the first-draft "skeletal ministerial
text", there was a fundamental divide between developed and
developing in relation to particular issues, and also to the prioritisation of
those issues.
According
to Switzerland, the draft ministerial text reflected the reality of the current
state of the negotiations. While it was less than what they would have
wanted at this stage of the process, nevertheless the process initiated by the
Chair of the General Council needed to be supported. On the content of the
issues, Switzerland stated that in relation to the question of agriculture, the
Uruguay round approach must be adopted. It also saw the Singapore issues
as important part of the WTO's work, since it is related to market access,
which, as shown in the case of non-agriculture market access, constituted the
core business of the WTO. It acknowledged that the issues of
implementation, S&D and TRIPS and public health had to be dealt with for a
successful outcome of the negotiations.
For
Japan, the Doha declaration had clearly mandated the start of negotiations on
the Singapore Issues after Cancun. While there was the need for consensus
on modalities, it was of the view that the negotiations will have to start after
Cancun.
Norway
supported the process adopted by the GC Chair and believed that progress on
agriculture, non-agricultural market access, and Singapore Issues were critical
for progress in Cancun. On the Singapore issues, it believed that even
though they were different, they must be seen in the overall context of the
other issues. In addition there was the need for quality offers in the
areas of services.
The
EU believed that overall the draft ministerial text was a useful working tool,
even though it was clear that a lot of work needed to be done especially on the
modalities in agriculture, non-agricultural market access, and the Singapore
Issues. It stated that the Singapore Issues were part of the single
undertaking, and therefore needed to be addressed as part and parcel of the
package that needs to be taken to Cancun. It undertook to assist the Chair
of the General Council, Amb. Castillo to draft the modalities. With regard
to the issue of modalities, it understood the need to address concerns of other
countries and was therefore ready to give more scope to substantive issues in
the formulation of the modalities.
On
agriculture, EU believed that progress had been made and much more can be made
before Cancun. It believed that on S&D, progress had been made even
though at times it seemed like a case of taking one step forward, two steps
back. It also believed that a solution could be found to the issue of
TRIPS and public health before or at Cancun.
The
optimism underlying most of the GC statements by the developed countries was
most captured by the US which stated it was ready to show leadership for
progress. It had already seen evidence of some additional substance
emerging to fill the skeletal text; however the final text would have to provide
more detail even as to the post-Cancun process.
In
contrast to this optimism, many developing countries expressed their serious
concerns at the GC with the present situation. Cuba said the draft ministerial
text was based on a level of optimism not matched by the reality of the
negotiations at the moment, especially given the short time left before Cancun.
In this context, it was concerned that pressures would be put on developing
countries to give up their interests. "It would be better to
recognise failure to fulfil the mandates rather than accept a bad deal"
On
TRIPS and Public Health, Cuba stated that even in relation the 16 December
Motta text, it was important to take into account that important elements that
should have been part of an effective solution, had been excluded from the
text. It also stated that on other aspects of TRIPS,
the text did not include the issues of implementation covered by paragraphs 18
and 19 of the Doha declaration.
On
Singapore issues, Cuba was concerned that the skeletal text bunched all issues
together, contrary to the position of the majority of the members that each
issue had to be dealt with on its own merits. Further, Cuba did not see
the basis for the phrase contained in the text referring to some work done in
the General Council on the issue of modalities. "To what work is the
text referring to?" asked Cuba, adding there had been no debate in the
General Council on the issue of modalities, and "we do not believe that in
the little time available it would be possible to develop these
modalities".
Cuba
stressed it did not believe that conditions had been created for the launch of
negotiations on any of the Singapore Issues. This required further studies
and a process of analysis and evaluation of the impact of the rules in these
subjects on the economic and social development of developing countries.
On agriculture, Cuba stated that the whatever agreement was finally reached on
the modalities should conform to the Doha mandate including the full integration
of the special and differential treatment for developing countries. In
this regard, the modalities should include among others, strategic products of
interest to developing countries as well as a special safeguard mechanism for
developing countries.
On
non-agriculture market access, the Cuban statement supported the demand that the
modalities should include effective measures taking into consideration the
special needs and interests of developing and least-developed countries, in
particular that there should be less than full reciprocity, the conduct of
studies on the impact of further liberalisation, as well measures to assist
least developed countries to participate effectively in the negotiations.
Nigeria
stated that modalities for the Singapore Issues must include substantive
modalities. It demanded to participate in the process of the formulation
of these modalities.
Brazil
stated that in the absence of a spirit of compromise and commitment, there would
no progress. Progress on the development issues was important for
overall progress, and while all countries had to make movement, some countries,
especially the major countries had to move faster. It
underlined that the issue of S&D was not a case of providing a free-ride for
developing countries as others had suggested; its importance stemmed from
the regressive nature of some of the rules of the WTO, for example the rules
relating to TRIPS and TRIMS.
For
China, the subjects listed in the draft text reflected the check list of issues
earlier circulated by Dr Supachai. However, they believed the subjects as
they appeared in the text needed to be adjusted. In this regard, the issue
of S&D needed to be given fuller reflection in the text, which should also
give a more prominent emphasis on the centrality of development.
The
Indian Commerce Secretary, Mr Chatterjee, said that on TRIPS and health, it was
regrettable that the compromise text of 16 December 2002, accepted by most
delegations, had still not been adopted unanimously. On S&D, he
complained that the draft text proposed by the GC chair did not specify a clear
deadline for completion of this work, and seemed to envisage a possibility of
work on these issues "continuing for years to come." He wanted a
deadline to be set, and work to focus on agreement specific proposals.
On
implementation-related issues, India referred to the missed deadline, and said
"We now get the impression that we are losing our way in addressing this
important set of issues. The manner in which the implementation issues has been
tossed about between the TNC, regular bodies and 'Friends of the Chair' fails to
give us confidence in the ability of the system to deliver meaningful
results." On Supachai's statement (as TNC chair) that he
intended to hold further consultations on implementation issues, the Indian
Commerce Secretary said that these should be properly structured and carried out
within a specified time-frame, and the DG should act quickly and decisively to
find progress.
On
agriculture, India said the draft should reflect the current state of play, and
reiterate the assurance to developing countries that their concerns will be met
as part of the core modalities. India also underlined that "the levels of
ambition are not similar in agriculture in all countries."
On
non-agricultural market access, India insisted that it had to be clearly
recognized that the starting point for tariff cuts is "where we left off at
the Uruguay Round, since that position reflected the rights and obligations set
by all of us" (thus rejecting the idea of somehow bringing in and cutting
applied tariffs./
On
Singapore issues, India stated that the Doha mandate was clear that explicit
consensus on the modalities was needed for negotiations. The modalities
had to substantive, and go beyond the elements listed in the Doha declaration.
India added that not all members were convinced of the need to adopt rules in
the WTO on the Singapore Issues. For members to make up their mind, all of
them had to aware of what questions were involved. This could only be done
on the basis of a full discussion of substantive modalities.
VI:
DEVELOPED COUNTRIES UNWILLING TO SHOW FLEXIBILITY OVER LEGITIMATE CONCERNS OF
DEVELOPING COUNTRIES.
In
addition to the disagreements over the draft ministerial text, the GC meeting
also a clash of wills between developed and developing counties in areas where
developing countries had specific problems and had made proposals to address
them. The developing countries were confronted with a generally hostile
response from developed countries, which while acknowledging the legitimacy of
the issues, were unwilling to show the flexibility necessary to adopt the
proposals put forward for addressing the problems.
Issues placed by developing countries before the GC in relation to which
decisions were either blocked or delayed by developed countries included
textiles and clothing, proposals for addressing the crisis of declining
commodity prices, Iran's accession to the WTO, and observer status for the
League of Arab States.
Kenya
and Tanzania presented to the GC a proposal (earlier submitted to the Committee
on Trade and Developmen) to deal with the crisis posed to primary commodity
dependent countries by the continued decline in the prices of these commodities.
They proposed a decision in Cancun to set up a work programme to deal with this
problem.
Kenya
argued that 50 member countries were dependent on primary commodities like
coffee, cocoa, cotton, jute and 30 of these countries were in the HIPC category.
For these countries, proposed solutions which simply depended on the free market
have not been a adequate. Specific proposals to address tariff peaks,
tariff escalation and other market access measures were relevant, but they are
not enough. More comprehensive measures were needed that would allow the
commodity dependent countries to manage supply and prices.
Benin,
Columbia, India, Indonesia, Jamaica, Malaysia, Paraguay and Uganda all spoke in
support of the proponent countries.
All
the major developed countries rejected the core proposal for market supply
management, some of them doing little more than using the issues raised as an
opportunity to press for their own specific demands for reforms of the Agreement
on Agriculture (AoA).
Australia
argued that the issues raised showed the need to reform the AoA, but it would
not support any proposal for the establishment of commodity agreements.
Similarly the US argued that the problem of primary commodities has to do with
domestic support and export subsidies. The solution was to seek reform in
these areas. The US supported Australia's view that prices should be a
function of the market, and that price management schemes were outside the remit
of the WTO.
On
its part, the EU stated that there was no single answer to the problem of
commodity prices. It was open-minded on the question of market access for
LDCs. However it doubted the relevance and efficacy of prices stabilisation and
management schemes. In any case the issue was already on the agenda for
UNCTAD XI and should be pursued there.
The developed countries showed a similar hostility on the issue of textiles and
clothing. Two proposals brought by textile exporting developing countries to
address fears of increased actions anti-dumping as well quota problems that
could arise from the anticipated phase-out of the textile quotas by the
developed countries were blocked by the Quad countries.
The
proposals in relation to textiles and clothing were jointly submitted by a
number of textile exporting developing countries. The proposal on quotas,
aimed to address the potential reduction in market access in the year 2004, was
submitted by Brazil, Costa Rica, Egypt, Guatemala, Hong-Kong China, India,
Indonesia, Macao China, Maldives, Pakistan, People's Republic of China, Sri
Lanka, Thailand and Vietnam. The other proposal, for short-term
dispensation on anti-dumping actions in favour of developing countries following
the full integration of the textile sector into the GATT from January 2005, was
submitted by the same countries except Bangladesh, Brazil, Costa Rica and Egypt.
At
the General Council, India (which chairs the International Textiles and Clothing
Bureau, the alliance of developing country textiles and clothing exporters)
spoke on both proposals on behalf of the sponsoring countries. On the
proposal on anti-dumping, Ambassador Chandrasekhar, explained that the fear of
the exporting countries was that as the quota system was phased out, there would
be an increase in anti-dumping investigations against developing country
exporters.
He
noted that in the EU at the moment, many such anti-dumping investigations are
instigated by industry associations. These investigations take a
long-time, call upon a lot of resources by the developing countries, leading to
disruptions and even decline in production. This has been especially harmful for
small and medium enterprises. He added that while the practice may
not be as wide-spread in the US as in the EU, even then, they have similar
effects.
Amb.
Chandrasekhar expressed the concern that as the quotas are abolished, leading to
a downward pressure on prices of textile products in the developed countries,
industry associations in the latter countries may be 'encouraged' to instigate
anti-dumping actions to protect themselves against developing country exporters.
To
address this, the sponsoring countries propose a two-year grace period,
following the full integration of the textile sector in GATT, during which no
anti-dumping actions would be initiated against developing countries.
India's presentation was supported by all the sponsoring countries.
Chile,
while not being a sponsor of the proposal, argued that the concerns expressed by
the proponents highlighted once more the need for urgent action on WTO rules on
anti-dumping.
However,
Canada countered that it cannot accept a measure such as proposed, which will
nullify its citizens' rights of access to its laws.
The
US also stated that it could not accept the proposal. In its view, the
issue had already been dealt with in the Doha decision of implementation to the
effect that developed countries would be considerate when undertaking
anti-dumping investigations.
Japan
noted that there was the need to reform the rules on anti-dumping but cannot
support the proposal. For its part, the EU stated that while it will
live up to its Doha commitments, it will not support the proposals.
The
General Council therefore took note of the proposal, but recorded that there was
no agreement.
The
proposal on quota concerned the practice of "carry-forward" currently
followed by the textile exporting countries which faced quota restrictions in
developed country markets. The practice enabled the exporting countries to
balance their export quotas in a current year against a subsequent year.
The fear of the exporting countries is that this flexibility would not be
available for the year 2004, since the developed countries are expected to phase
out their quotas in 2005.
The
proposal concerned mechanisms to avoid difficulties to exporting developing
countries due to this situation. This was especially important because, as
the countries explained, this is the time most orders for textile products are
placed, and therefore a certain amount of security was required as the producers
prepare their contracts.
While
the US expressed understanding of the concerns, it suggested that there are
other ways to address the problem, and therefore was unable to agree to the
proposal.
The
EU stated that it had received the proposals only recently, and that furthermore
such proposal was not foreseen in the Agreement in Textile and Clothing.
It was therefore unable to support the proposal.
Ambassador
Castillo, Chair of the General Council indicated he would undertake further
consultations on the issue.
The
above may be instructive in terms of the responses made by members to the report
submitted by Ambassador Castillo, Chair of the General Council on the progress
so far (or lack of it) on the Doha mandates on Special and Differential
Treatment. He reported that of the 83 items listed there under, 38 could
be resolved before Cancun. 14 out of these had been agreed to in
principle, and 12 of the 14 had been sent back to the friends of the Chair for
re-drafting.
Discussing
the report, Kenya and Zambia expressed their frustration at the lack of progress
on the issue of S&D, and at the failure to achieve the terms of the Doha
mandate. The US, however, stated that a lot of hard-work had been put into
the issue, and progress had been made. Cuba and Botswana disagreed with
the US. Malaysia registered its frustration, while noting that it was
confident that progress could be achieved before Cancun.
The
EU shared the views of Malaysia, while Norway agreed with India which shared the
widespread frustration and disappointment, but pointed to the need to work hard
if agreement is to be reached before Cancun.
Ambassador
Castillo summed up by saying that the work was difficult, but he was not
demoralised, and was committed to realising the Doha mandate.
On
the issue of Iran's request for accession to the WTO, the United States stated
that it was still reviewing its relations with Iran. It was therefore not
prepared at the moment to join the consensus on establishing a Working Party to
consider Iran's application.
Speaking
for the developing countries, Tanzania hoped that the US review will be
completed soon in order to proceed with Iran's request.
The
question of observer status for the League of Arab States at the Cancun
ministerial was considered under the agenda item of preparations for the Cancun
Ministerial. Similar requests were made by Council of Europe Development
Bank, the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation, and the
United Nations Human Settlements System.
Egypt,
speaking on behalf of the Arab states, and supported by Jordan, spoke on the
request of observer status for the League. Objection by the US and Israel
meant there was no consensus. Ambassador Castillo indicated that the issue would
be taken at the next meeting of the General Council.
On
the requests by the other bodies, Egypt stated that all the four requests should
be taken together. Therefore all the requests will be taken at the
next General Council.
VII:
OTHER ISSUES
The
other item covered under the preparations for Cancun was the election of
officers for the Ministerial. Mexico was elected the Chair of the
Conference, with Netherlands, Bangladesh, and Egypt elected as Vice-Chairs.
Other
issues covered on the first day related to the review of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding. The original May 2003 deadline having been missed, it was
agreed to extend the review till May 2004, with negotiations to continue on the
basis of proposals submitted by members as well as the text submitted by the
Chair.
A
report was also submitted on the Doha Development Agenda Global Trust Fund. Of
the $22 million dollars target, $20.2 million have so far been pledged.