RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/GC/M/36/Add.2
31 March 1999
(99-1324)
General Council
24 March 1999
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 24 March 1999
Chairman:  Mr. Ali Mchumo (Tanzania)
1. Appointment of the next Director-General
The Chairman recalled that the General Council had adjourned its meeting on 17 March 1999
in order to allow for the continuation of consultations on the appointment of the next Director-
General.  Delegations had received a communiqué1 on 22 March from the Government of Morocco
announcing the withdrawal of the candidature of Ambassador Hassan Abouyoub to the post of
Director-General to the WTO.  There was now a new situation in that the number of candidates to the
post of Director-General around whom a consensus might be built had been reduced to two.  This wasthe kind of significant development he had promised to report to the General Council as soon as it
arose.  If  the General Council agreed, he and Mr. Rossier would continue their intensive consultations
with delegations on the question of the appointment of the next Director-General and would report
back to the General Council by the end of the month at the latest.
The representative of Morocco read out the text of his Government's communiqué which said
that the conditions of transparency and fairness on which a democratic consensus was to emerge no
longer existed and that under these circumstances it had decided to unilaterally withdraw the
candidature of Mr. Abouyoub to the post of Director -General of the WTO. The process of selection of
the Director-General had to be improved in order to ensure that the WTO met the standards of good
governance.  His delegation would be making proposals to this effect for the next negotiations.  He
appealed to all developing countries to support the developing country candidate.  Morocco's decisionto withdraw its candidate was not related in any way to any other posts in the senior management
structure of the WTO.
Mr. Rossier made a statement
2 on behalf of the Chairman and himself in which he paid tribute
to Mr. Abouyoub, whose qualities and courage had been recognized by all Members.  Morocco had
made a number of highly critical comments regarding the process undertaken for the selection of the
future Director-General which called into question the entire process and even its legality from the
standpoint of the principles of multilateralism.  The Chairman and he did not wish to take a position
formally on the views expressed by the Government of Morocco.  This process was not the making of
the Chairman or of the facilitator assisting him, but had been chosen by the General Council.  TheChairman was pursuing it by virtue of the mandate entrusted to him by the Marrakesh Agreement.
That process had received the overwhelming support of the General Council on 17 March.  The
Chairman and he wish to believe that the communication from the Government of Morocco did not
                                                     
1 Subsequently issued as document WT/GC/COM/5.
2 Circulated to delegations under Job No. 1705E.WT/GC/M/36/Add.2
Page 2
call into question the fairness and integrity of their action with a view to the selection of the Director-
General, although certain elements could be confusing.  On the basis of the new situation, the
Chairman and he had immediately stepped up their efforts to reach a consensus on the name of the
future Director-General by end-March, and urgently appealed to all Members to redouble their efforts
and the spirit of compromise so as to ensure that the decision could be taken within this deadline, onthe basis of the principle "no veto, no vote".
The representatives of the European Communities, Tunisia
, Egypt , Pakistan , Australia ,
Senegal, Argentina , Malaysia (on behalf of the ASEAN Members ), India , Nigeria , Zimbabwe , Chile ,
Hungary, Uruguay , Cuba , Mexico , Japan , Costa Rica , Bolivia , Brazil , Czech Republic , Côte d'Ivoire ,
the United States and Turkey  paid tribute to Mr. Abouyoub and welcomed the courageous decision
taken by the Government of Morocco which would considerably facilitate the process of selection of
the next Director-General.
The representatives of Pakistan, Senegal , Argentina, Malaysia (on behalf of the ASEAN
Members), India , Zimbabwe , Chile , Hungary , Uruguay , Mexico , Japan , Costa Rica , Bolivia , Brazil ,
Czech Republic, the United States  and Turkey  thanked the Chairman and the facilitator for their
diligent efforts to advance Members to a stage of consensus on the next Director-General and
reiterated their delegations' full confidence in and support for the Chairman and Mr. Rossier in their
task.
The representative of the European Communities said that a large number of member States
had supported Mr. Abouyoub and had noted his qualities for the post of Director-General.  He
suggested a 24-hour period of reflection for delegations to take stock of this latest development and to
consider how to proceed.
The representative of Egypt said that Mr. Abouyoub was an outstanding candidate whose
qualities had been widely recognized.  Morocco's decision would facilitate an early decision on the
next Director-General.  A new round of consultations should be held with all Members in the most
transparent manner.  Egypt shared Morocco's view  that the developing country candidate should
assume the post of Director-General.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation had emphasized that the process should
follow certain principles, such as urgency, transparency, democracy and fairness, and hoped that the
conclusion of the process would show that these principles had triumphed.  The current process
should not be influenced by rumours.  Pakistan reaffirmed its confidence in the Chairman, in
Mr. Rossier, and in the fact that the outcome of the process would be fair.  Morocco's decision had
made the task of achieving consensus simpler.  The approach to consensus was clear:  one candidate
had consistently been in first place in terms of overall support and geographic support;  he was alsofrom a developing country, and it had been generally understood that the next Director-General
should be from a developing country.  The trends, facts and numbers were clear and led Pakistan to
the conclusion that if any consensus was to be formed it would have to be around the candidature of
Mr. Supachai.  If consensus were not possible on his candidature but became possible on another, this
would raise the questions cited in Morocco's communiqué.  He proposed that the Chairman put thequestion to the General Council whether it could approve the appointment of Mr. Supachai as the next
Director-General.
The representative of Australia said that Members now faced a favourable situation for the
resolution of this issue.  There were two good candidates.  It was not a race between a candidate from
a developing country and one from a developed country, as both had support across these lines.  The
question was which candidate would be the best for the organization.  He suggested that the Chairman
and Mr. Rossier might report back to Members earlier than end-March so that Members could discuss
the recommendations made on the basis of this new situation.WT/GC/M/36/Add.2
Page 3
The representative of Senegal said that his delegation had always supported the candidature of
Mr. Abouyoub and would no doubt now support Mr. Supachai.  Senegal would scrupulously follow
the instructions from its capital.
The representative of Argentina said that too much time had already been spent on this
matter.  Not all could be equally satisfied with the timeframes and the results.  The combination of
objective factors identified by the Chairman had enabled progress to be made.  Members should focus
on the need to select the best candidate for Director-General.
The representative of Malaysia, on behalf of the ASEAN Members , said that Members should
be urged to express their preferences as soon as possible so that a consensus could be forged before
end-March, if not earlier.
The representative of India urged the Chairman and Mr. Rossier to ensure that the process
was concluded as soon as possible.  The trends were clear and it should be possible to forge a
consensus within the next few days.
The representative of Nigeria said that the process should be intensified so that a decision
could be taken on the basis of consensus as soon as possible.
The representative of Zimbabwe said that his delegation looked forward to finalizing this
process without further delay and in such a way that all could support the candidate chosen.  This
should not be seen as a north-south race, as the WTO was for both developed and developing
countries, but there had to be equity.
The representative of Chile reiterated her delegation's support for the way this process had
been carried out and hoped that it would conclude by end-March.  The next phase would be the most
difficult and would necessitate deepening the interaction and contacts between delegations.
The representative of Hungary agreed with Zimbabwe that one had to resist the temptation to
make a north-south issue out of the selection of  the next Director-General.  Mr. Moore was not
supported just by developed countries, nor was Mr. Supachai supported just by developing countries.
The new Director-General would be the Director-General of the entire membership.  He encouraged
the Chairman and Mr. Rossier to continue in their task.
The representative of Uruguay  congratulated the Chairman and Mr. Rossier for the important
results they had achieved in a short time.  The current situation should allow for optimism.  Both
figures and trends had been overtaken by events.  Uruguay agreed that this was not a struggle between
a candidate from a developed country and one from a developing country. Support had been shared.It was well-know that Uruguay supported Mr. Moore, but there were two excellent candidates.
The representative of Jamaica said that the Chairman had been given a task by the General
Council which had to be exhausted along the lines set out by the Chairman.  While this process was
clearly not the best one, he had taken note of Mr. Rossier's statement that nothing in Morocco'scommuniqué should be taken as questioning the legitimacy of the conduct of that process.
The representative of Cuba said that transparency, democracy and fairness should prevail to
the end of the process.  Consensus had been emerging around a candidate from a developing country,
and the time had come for a developing country to provide the next Director-General.  The processshould be concluded as soon as possible.
The representative of Mexico said that as a developing country, Mexico had received the
news of Mr. Abouyoub's withdrawal with sadness, as he was a candidate with all the necessaryWT/GC/M/36/Add.2
Page 4
qualities to be a good Director-General.  Morocco's communiqué reflected useful elements for the
current process and for the future.  Mexico agreed that there was a new situation in which ceratin
elements lost importance and others took on greater importance.  The progress report of 17 March
indicated that consensus would be sought on the most acceptable candidate.  The process under way
should not undermine fairness or legality, and its outcome would have to be impeccable if the nextDirector-General were to be perceived as the Director-General of all Members.  This was especially
important in the present year.  Mexico was confident that the Chairman and Mr. Rossier would reach
a solution satisfactory to all.  There was a need to proceed quickly, and the proposal by Pakistan
should be followed up.  Some seemed to have suggested that it was the Chairman who would be
telling Members who the next Director-General would be, but that was the responsibility of the
Members alone.
The Chairman said that his role was merely to indicate at the end of the consultation process
his sense of who the most acceptable candidate was.
The representative of Japan  said that there were two excellent candidates and that it was well
known that Japan supported Mr. Supachai.  Japan urged the Chairman to seize this occasion to
identify an emerging consensus.
The representative of Costa Rica said that his delegation recognized the high qualities of the
four candidates and the difficulties involved in interpreting the preferences of Members.  The aim was
to find the most appropriate person to lead the organization, and his delegation shared Zimbabwe's
and Hungary's views in this respect.  The process had to be speeded up but with the necessary caution.
Costa Rica could not agree to proceed in the way suggested by Pakistan.
The representative of Bolivia said that Memb ers were at the most difficult point in the
process.  Polarizing concepts had to be avoided.
The representative of Brazil said that from the outset his delegation had supported the way the
Chairman and Mr.. Rossier had conducted their work.  He stressed that it was not a question of
selecting a candidate from a developed or a developing country, but rather selecting the best
candidate.  The facilitators should be given time to develop a clearer picture in the consultations to be
held.  It was clear that with two candidates, the one selected would not have unanimous support, but
one needed to distinguish between consensus and unanimous support.  Brazil would join a consensusand hoped that others could do so as well.
The representative of the Czech Republic said that his delegation remained committed to its
statement at the September 1998 meeting of the General Council that the next Director-General
should be selected in such a way that he would represent all WTO Members.  His delegation sharedthe views of Zimbabwe and Hungary that this was not a north-south issue.
The representative of Côte d'Ivoire said that her delegation had supported Mr. Abouyoub
from the outset and was awaiting instructions.
The representative of the United States said  that Morocco had acted with integrity and
consideration for the WTO as a whole.  Members had a responsibility to proceed in a manner that
would help the Chairman accomplish the task with which he had been charged.  All agreed that the
WTO was a Member-driven organization and that the Members, not the Chairman, would select the
next Director-General.  The United States agreed with the Chairman's assessment at the 17 MarchGeneral Council meeting that there was a need for a more dynamic and intensive process and more
interaction among Members, and that it was the Members who would expedite or slow the process
and would play the decisive role.  In light of the latest developments, it was clear that another round
of consultations was necessary.  Members should  carefully evaluate who of the two remainingWT/GC/M/36/Add.2
Page 5
candidates was most capable of leading the organizatio n into the next century, in the interests of all
Members, large and small, developed and developing.  In any selection process, all the candidates
expected to win, but there had to be a point where steps were taken to build a consensus, particularly
in naming a new Director-General.  Her delegation had always said that regardless of what region the
candidate came from, it would support the best candidate.  There had been four very highly qualifiedcandidates for the post of Director-General.  She was confident that delegations would join in building
the consensus needed to conclude this process.
The representative of Mexico said that he had not meant to imply that the Chairman or Mr.
Rossier wished to take on the responsibility of the Members, but that it seemed some delegations had
said that the decision would be taken by  the Chairman and not the Members.  He reiterated that his
delegation had full confidence in the Chairman and Mr. Rossier, and that if it had any problem itwould speak out frankly.
The Chairman said that he and Mr. Rossier merely managed the process and that the ultimate
decision was the Members'.
The representative of Colombia  said that it  was inevitable that controversy and divergences
would arise in this process.  Morocco had criticized ceratin aspects of the process it did not feel were
appropriate.  He encouraged the Chairman to continue his efforts.
The representative of Turkey supported the statements by Zimbabwe and Hungary and agreed
with Bolivia that this matter should not be unduly rushed.  There should be cooperation instead of a
north-south confrontation. His delegation had supported Mr. Abouyoub and now supported Mr.
Moore.  If necessary, he was ready to make a recommendation to his capital that its choice be
changed.  Turkey's support for Mr. Moore proved that support for the candidates did not fall along
developed or developing country lines.
The representative of Canada said that it was clear from the discussion that Members strongly
supported the direction the Chairman and Mr. Rossier were taking in this process.  However, the
candidature of Mr. MacLaren had not been withdrawn.
The representative of Morocco said that his Government had tried to be as objective as
possible in its communiqué, and that its decision had been carefully weighed.
The representative of Pakistan said that his delegation had made a proposal that the General
Council might be in a position to form a consensus around the leading candidate based on the
information provided thus far.  However, some delegations had indicated that they supported the other
candidate.  It was encouraging that the pace of the process could be accelerated, and Pakistan hopedthat the current trends would be confirmed and a consensus reached very soon.
The Chairman thanked all delegations for their contributions.  The discussion at the present
meeting encouraged him to continue the process under way on the same basis, criteria and
understanding which had enabled progress thus far.  He took note of Canada's statement but said thatthere were now only two candidates under considera tion.  He thanked Morocco for having drawn the
necessary conclusions in deciding to withdraw its candidate, which had considerably facilitated the
process.  He called on all Members to help him reach a conclusion to this process that would yield a
consensus decision on one of the candidates.  The deadline for this remained end-March, and he and
Mr. Rossier would resume their consultations immediately and continue through the weekend.
The representative of Jamaica asked for confirmation that the notice for the meeting on 31
March would be the same as for the present meeting.WT/GC/M/36/Add.2
Page 6
The Secretary said that the present meeting was a continuation of the meeting from 1 March,
and that there would be no separate airgram convening the meeting on 31 March.  The present
meeting would be adjourned and resumed on 31 March.  The item under discussion at these meetings
was the appointment of the next Director-General, and a decision could be taken at any of the
resumed meetings.
The General Council took note of the statements and of the Chairman's proposal and
adjourned.
__________