SUNS 4350 Tuesday 22 December 1998



"NEW TIME-FRAME" FOR WTO-DG SELECTION

Geneva, 20 Dec (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- Members of the World Trade Organization agreed, after two sittings of the resumed General Council, on a "New Time-Frame" for choosing a successor to incumbent Mr. Renato Ruggiero, whose term ends on 30 April.

The WTO members had in July set themselves a deadline of sorts, naming a successor by December, but the two majors have been able to frustrate this process by not conveying their views and preferences to the two senior diplomats conducting the consultations to find a consensus:
Ambassadors Celso Lafer of Brazil and William Rossier of Switzerland.

After informal negotiations whether there should be a new deadline, or anything else, the phrase "new time frame" was agreed, and it was also agreed that the decision to appoint a new director-general will be taken at a regular session of the General Council, set for 16 Feb, to agree on future work and the organization of the next conference.

Lafer and Rossier, will resume the round of consultations with delegations on 13-14 January, and on 15th will consult with delegations who do not have representation in Geneva.

The General Council meeting itself was adjourned to meet again in January - probably 18 January, when the new assessment by the facilitators, increasing the pressure on the candidate trailing last to withdraw.

Lafer and Rossier are to send out over the next days a specific question or questions to each delegations on the next stage of the consultation process to elicit a consensus among the four candidates, to enable countries to send the questions to the capitals and get specific instructions.

At the outset of the resumed Friday meeting, Amb. Alejandro De La Pena of Mexico, who chairs the informal developing country group at the WTO, made a statement on behalf of the group, stating that developing countries were prepared to do whatever is necessary to fulfil the objective of naming a successor in December.

But if this is not possible at this meeting, De La Pena said, the developing countries consider that:

a deadline be established for those members that have not yet expressed their preferences to the facilitators to do so, and those who have expressed their preferences on such date is because they would be totally indifferent as to which of the four candidates is selected.
and the date of the meeting of the General Council to consider the issue should also be determined.

The Mexican representative added that the developing countries recognized that the task of Lafer and Rossier is complex and difficult and appreciated their ongoing efforts tao fulfil their mandate.

WTO members would need to hold consultations with the facilitators and among themselves with a view to reaching an early decision on the appointment of Renato Ruggiero's successor as Director-general of the WTO.

The developing countries, the Mexican diplomat added, understood that the four candidates are excellent and consequently the objective is to select one of the four and that on the basis of consultations made there is consensus that no WTO member will oppose any of those being
the next Director-General.

In various interventions and comments, Uruguay, the US, Norway and Hong Kong insisted on need for consensus in taking a decision. Among the other comments, Jamaica insisted that the decision on naming the D.G. should be made at a regular session of the Council (which would involve everyone getting adequate notice to be able to be present), and not by suspending a meeting and reconvening it at short notice.

This was agreed to and set in the final summing-up by the chairman of the General Council, Amb. Weekes.

But few doubt that the issue will await a solution until the US and EC cut a deal.

At one informal meeting of ambassadors of developing countries some days ago, the Egyptian ambassador, Dr. Mounir Zahran posed the question whether there was any link between a solution to the US-EC banana dispute and the choice of a successor to Ruggiero.

Even those allied with the US against the EC or with the EC against the US on the banana regime could answer him. And Zahran repeated that comment to newsmen after the informal General Council meeting where the deadlock could not be resolved.

The situation did not seem much different on Friday - excepting that there were more complications.

Though there was a US-EC scheduled summit meeting in Washington on Friday, it is doubtful whether any serious business could have been done then, given the impeachment proceedings in the Congress, and the US-UK bombardment of Iraq.

The DSB meeting on the banana dispute, set for Friday afternoon, had to be put off because of the General Council meeting, and is now set for Monday afternoon.

But behind all the amity and consensus which the WTO spokesman and other spin-masters of the WTO claimed was at the meeting, delegates privately were making many charges about the process, and claims and counter-claims of the backing for their respective candidates.

There was no way of checking any of these, and no one making such claims was ready to be quoted.

But most were agreed that the WTO "consensus decision-making" places an enormous power of veto, without saying so, in the hands of the majors, and enormous power and responsibility on those who conduct the consultations.

The only thing everyone was agreed on, inside the meeting and outside, was their praise for Lafer and Rossier and their difficult task, particularly in the face of the US and EC not disclosing their views.

But save for one or two delegations that want to press on with a vote to make decisions, most governments, and particularly the US and EC who can use the process to manipulate the secretariat and the decisions, are insisting on the consensus process, hailing this most undemocratic process as the most democratic since everyone has a veto - though not everyone can exercise it or the process held up until they make up their mind, as the WTO is doing now, to enable the US and EC to settle their quarrels.

Only Egypt's Zahran has been repeatedly challenging the claims of democracy for the consensus-process and doing so in public and on record.

Though almost everyone seems to have forgotten it, the same process was played out first in the selection of Sutherland as the GATT Director-General in 1993 to succeed Arthur Dunkel, then as the WTO's head until a DG could be chosen, and then have his term extended, until Ruggiero came in, and in the choice of the Appellate body and other such matters, where the US-EC accords became the Quad accord and then presented to others, challenging anyone to stand up and deny consensus.

But the US was never forced into such a situation ever. When it did not want Iran to be at Singapore as an observer, the issue was never formally brought up for a decision, but lack of consensus was found informally' and not brought on the agenda. But when the ILO head was to be invited to the Singapore meeting, as the US wanted, an invitation of sorts was issued and then the delegation heads were advised, hoping no one would object. But Africans objected, because their request for
an invitation to the OAU had earlier been denied.

If WTO members find themselves in the same situation in 1999 over the selection of a successor to Ruggiero, as they did in 1995 over Ruggiero's selection (which the US cleared only after he had visited Washington and cut a deal of sorts) they can only blame themselves.

The public interest groups in many countries, developed and developing, no longer take the words of their governments about the democratic decision-making in the rule-based WTO system.