ONE MORE FINAL SPRINT TO SUCCESS OR FAILURE.

Jan 15, 1992

ONE MORE FINAL SPRINT TO SUCCESS OR FAILURE.

GENEVA, JANUARY 13 (CHAKRAVARTHI RAGHAVAN) – The Arthur Dunkel "global package" of accords in the Uruguay Round got some mixed and muted reactions Monday, but with all participants agreeing to make the final efforts to conclude the Round by the mid-April (post-Ramadhan pre-Easter) deadline.

But the endorsement by the TNC to the process and procedures over the next few months still left many of the delegations in a confused situation which could help a successful conclusion or result in the Round just fading away.

In his capacity as Chairman of the official-level TNC, Arthur Dunkel had put forward the package on December 20, adjourning the TNC immediately thereafter for governments to consider the package and come back in the New Year with their views.

The comments at the formal private meeting of the TNC (with copies of speeches that delegates provided made available to the media) put on record the appreciation of everyone to Dunkel and his secretariat and the chairmen of the negotiating groups in having put together the "package" and presented them to governments.

But the effusive and extravagant phraseology of some of the comments and encomiums also seemed more on the lines of the customary diplomatic niceties at multilateral meetings.

Under Dunkel's proposals (virtually endorsed by the TNC) bilateral and plurilateral negotiations are to start and be completed over the next few weeks on market access concessions in goods and initial commitments in services - all of which will be multilateralised at the end.

Simultaneously, work is to begin on cleaning up the text, presented by him to the TNC on 20 December, to ensure legal and internal consistency, while the TNC will be engaged in considering whether it would be possible to adjust the package by consensus.

While there was no disagreement on his first three points, and everyone agreed on the need to press ahead on them, there was considerable division of opinion within the TNC on the fourth - with several delegations expressing opposition or serious reservations.

At the end of the discussion Dunkel could only say in summing up and responding to some of these concerns, that he and the secretariat would do their utmost to maintain transparency.

He also appealed to the delegations themselves to exercise self-discipline and self-restraint in making use of the fourth track to attempt changes - which in practice would mean that he would actively discourage other participants, except the majors, without whom no accord could be concluded, seeking changes.

The fourth track of negotiations, Dunkel said in his summing up (according to the GATT spokesman) would be at the level of the TNC and would follow a global approach, with negotiations at the level of persons responsible for the totality of the talks and not at the level of specialists (whether agricultural or intellectual property rights or finance, etc.).

The draft final act, he reportedly underlined, had its weaknesses; and the main one was that in some areas the process of arbitration and conciliation by the Chairman had substituted for negotiations among the participants.

Dunkel called on the delegations at this point of time to engage in negotiations and reach a consensus, adding he himself would be available to be a honest broker.

The GATT spokesman quoted Dunkel as telling the TNC that while there was agreement to push the process forward and conclude the negotiations in the weeks ahead, "the sincerity of that decision will be made clear in the next few weeks" - a reference to the tariff and non-tariff negotiations for market access in goods and negotiations on initial commitments in services.

But it was not clear how the market access negotiations could in fact move ahead when some of it - those in the areas of agricultural products- including tropical products which have been held hostage to the agricultural reforms - cannot proceed ahead in view of the EC stance on agriculture.

Dunkel and his officials were due Tuesday morning to consider how this process could be made to move forward - without the market access negotiations on goods being stalled over fourth-track approach of changes in agriculture demanded by the EC.

The spokesman in fact would not expand on how and when the process would move forward, noting that it was left to delegations to undertake the bilateral and plurilateral market access and initial commitments in services negotiations.

The EC though might try to use the market access negotiations to hold out trade benefits that could crack the opposition to its demand for changes in agriculture rules and thus isolate the U.S.

It was clear at the end that several of the delegations seemed to have considerable reservations and saw the first task of Dunkel as one of trying to find out whether there was a consensus for making changes and adjustments in the agriculture text.

On 20 December, Dunkel had described his draft Final Act as a "global package" of draft agreements and understanding covering all the areas of negotiations and incorporating as he claimed largely agreements negotiated among participants and in a few key areas the result of "conciliation and arbitration" by Dunkel.

The TNC meeting Monday was the first opportunity for delegations to comment on the proposals and some 35 delegations took the floor to make broad comments.

All of them made clear that they would make a final judgement only when the outcome of the negotiations on market access in goods and initial commitments in services were available and they could find an overall balance.

While several of them specifically opposed "opening the package" partially or otherwise, the comments of the U.S. and Japan would suggest that while against "unravelling the package", they would be trying to change it for their benefit in a few areas.

Earlier, in his introductory remarks, Dunkel discouraged delegations putting forward detailed comments, asking them instead to confine themselves to comments of a "general and political nature", and then approve of his negotiating strategy.

Dunkel set out his negotiating strategy of a four-track process, with the fourth-track of TNC consideration of the substance of the package to be an exercise "very precise and concentrated" on what could be collectively agree without unravelling the package as a whole. He repeated his view that his December proposals represented the most informed and conscientious evaluation of the level of consensus achievable, but was ready to serve as an honest broker to resolve outstanding differences.

Despite these remarks which some of the Third World countries found reassuring, they seemed to leave the door open for methods of functioning by which what the majors would agree to could be pushed through the same process of an assessment as before Xmas, namely, that it represented "the most informed and conscientious evaluation of the level of consensus achievable".

Given that a very large number of developing countries in fact got to know the proposals, whether based on "protracted negotiations" or the outcome of "conciliation and arbitration" only when they were presented on 20 December, the ruling out of detailed comments meant that their voices would again remain muted and they would at the end of the day again be faced with another fait accompli in the shape of a new final act.

The remarks of the majors and some of the leading Third World countries also suggested that with all their reservations and private comments to the contrary, the Dunkel process is the result of an element of an acquiescence by them at the level of the Geneva negotiators, and their current postures could perhaps be more for home consumptions than for negotiating purposes.

At the outset Dunkel made clear the meeting was not intended for governments to accept or reject the results of the round. Nor was it "intended to be a "negotiating meeting" and so delegates should not spend their time to enumerate detailed lists of their specific concerns.

If that were to happen that would be counter-productive and they would be sitting here for days for delegates to bring up their own shopping list. Even more this would result in an "uncontrollable unravelling of the package" and would rule out conclusion of an expeditious end to the Round.

Rather, the governments must agree either to push the negotiating process forward and conclude the Round in the weeks ahead or admit that the stage reached in December did not offer the basis for an early conclusion.

All the signals received by him suggested that the governments preferred the first option and the TNC should hence approve a work plan for the period ahead.

He had no new or better solutions to offer than the package put forward in December, representing the best possible balance across-the-board, based to a major part on protracted negotiations and on some outstanding, but where arbitration and conciliation seemed unavoidable, on informed and conscientious decisions he and other chairmen of negotiating groups had to take.

The negotiations from now had to be on a global approach, and as a single undertaking on the principle that nothing was final until everything was final.

Dunkel then outlined his four-track approach - intensive negotiations on market access, on initial commitments on services and work to ensure legal conformity and internal consistency, and as he put it "work at the level of the TNC with a view to examining whether and if it is possible to adjust the package in certain specific places".

He was even hesitant to mention this fourth track for fear of creating misunderstandings.

This exercise must be very precise and concentrated entirely on what we all can collectively agree to without unravelling the package. It must be conducted in a low-key and professional manner in full consciousness of the very limited time available.

The package presented in December was the culmination of the most informed and conscientious evaluation of the level of consensus achievable after a one-year extension of the deadline for finalising the Round.

But he considered it his duty however ready "to serve as ‘honest broker’ in the resolution of outstanding differences should this be considered necessary".

Dunkel appealed for a brief meeting, with interventions from delegates of a general and political nature rather than one devoted to all kinds of specific points, and for approval of the negotiating strategy outlined by him so as to enable them "to resume work immediately in a business-like manner".

The TNC, he added, would remain on call to meet periodically to review progress and take such decisions as might be necessary for the future of the Round.