SHARP DIFFERENCES AT HOD ON SMC DECLARATION DRAFT

11:49 AM Nov 22, 1996

SHARP DIFFERENCES AT HOD ON SMC DECLARATION DRAFT
Geneva 22 Nov (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- Sharp differences over both the substance and process for the draft Ministerial Declaration for the Singapore Ministerial Conference emerged at the informal Heads of Delegations (HOD) meeting at the WTO Friday.

The HOD meeting lasting for over three hours discussed the latest version of a draft put forward by the WTO Director-General Renato Ruggiero, with a large number of developing nations questioning the content as well as the process by which the draft has been formulated and how it would go before the SMC.

An earlier version of Ruggiero's had been discussed at a 2 November HOD meeting. Since then Mr. Ruggiero had held some "green room" consultations, as also some drafting exercises chaired by his deputy, Mr. Warren Lavorel. The latest draft of Ruggiero was circulated to delegations Thursday.

One trade official said that rather than a convergence of views, the discussions Friday showed a hardening of positions for and against individual paragraphs, and more so on the new issues including on labour standards, investment, competition, government procurement.

Several delegations also insisted that no issue that did not command a consensus should be included in the draft, and any report by the WTO Director-General should reflect only the issues on which there was a consensus. A few others said that on other issues he should make clear the lack of consensus.

Apart from sharp divisions over the labour standards and the new issues, the debate also showed divisions over the emphasis being placed on the socalled built-in agenda (of reviews and further negotiations) including on 'exchange of information and analysis' prior to the timetable set for reviews and future negotiations.

The objections related to the specific mention, and the way it has been done, on the financial services issue and the professional services questions, as well as to the (plurilateral) negotiations on information technology and pharmaceutical zero tariff negotiations.

Ruggiero opened the Friday meeting explaining how the saw the process and that the 27 November meeting would be the last of the informal consultations that had been going on since early this year. He promised to take note of the views of all the delegations on how to present the text to the Ministers and he will carry out his responsibility of reporting to the Ministers on the status of the discussions.

Several of the interventions and remarks from developing country delegations seemed to address this particular aspect, and in effect seemed to serve notice to the WTO head by emphasising the need for him to reflect the consensus only.

Ruggiero in opening the meeting is reported to have said that the draft given by him did not necessarily reflect a "complete consensus", but that it could be the basis for consensus.

But the views of several delegations from the floor made clear their objection to the inclusion of any reference to labour standards or investment and other new issues for a future work programme, and said these should be deleted from the draft.

India noted that the Marrakesh Ministerial Declaration, and the statement of the Chairman of the Marrakesh meeting -- listing items mentioned by one or other Ministers for future work, but no which there was no consensus -- had all been negotiated and agreed upon before Marrakesh. This, the Indian ambassador, Mr. S. Narayanan said, was a good practice and precedent to follow.

Tanzania's Amb. Ali Mchumo emphasized at the HOD meeting on the need for transparency, and complained that in the "green room" consultations that had taken place since the 2 Nov HOD meeting, there had been no transparency. There was not one least developed country represented there, even though they form a large group of WTO members and there was talk of integrating them into the WTO framework.

It is not enough to give LDC ministers airtickets to go to Singapore to enable them to participate in the decision-making there, but the LDCs participation in decision-making should be achieved at the WTO consultations in Geneva, Mchumo reportedly remarked.

Both diplomats and trade officials were not clear about what would happen next and what kind of draft would go before the SMC and how.

Some WTO sources said that Ruggiero may hold some further consultations early next week, before the next informal HOD meeting on Wednesday where he will indicate his mind.

Some delegations said that there would be need to reflect on this over the next few days so that there will be no controversies or confrontations over any report by Ruggiero to the SMC.

Some of these delegations who did not want to be identified said that several of them over the last few days had privately told the WTO head that his report on the informal HOD process should not give rise to controversies that would reflect on the institution or leave the impression that he was siding with or reflecting the views of a particular group of countries.

There are suggestions that both on labour standards and the new issues for a WTO work programme, there could be further consultations at level of capital level officials at Singapore on 7-8 December, just before the official start of the meeting.

Mr. Ruggiero, a very ebullient person who talks freely to the media after meetings, was reserved and reticent.

On the labour standards issue, many developing countries insisted it had no place in the declaration and should be deleted from the declaration draft.

These countries included Hong Kong, Egypt, Thailand on behalf of Asean, as also Indonesia and Malaysia, Tanzania which also noted that on this and the investment issue the countries of the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) had taken a common position at their recent meeting in Arusha, Costa Rica, Cuba, India, Pakistan, Ghana and Bolivia.

Some others, including a number of developed nations (like Australia and Canada) were wiling to go along with the formulation on labour standards, but on condition that there would be no post-Singapore process at the WTO on this issue. These included the Czech Republic, Korea, Morocco, Chile, Argentina, Brazil and some other Latin American countries.

The United States and Norway wanted also a post-Singapore process on the issue at the WTO.

A number of countries also reiterated their opposition to any of the new issues and insisted that only those commanding consensus should go before the Ministers. Several of them made clear their opposition to anything that would weaken the WTO's decision-making through consensus.

Many delegations also commented on the other parts of the declaration dealing with the implementation of the Uruguay Round agreements and the built-in agenda -- for review and/or further negotiations, specifically outlined in the individual agreements annexed to the WTO accord.

Mexico, India, Thailand on behalf of the Asean, Indonesia, Egypt, Malaysia, Tanzania were among those who said the draft Declaration should contain only issues commanding consensus and any report from the Director-Generla to the SMC should make this clear.