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 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 checklist 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.
|
