BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER

TWN Info Service on WTO and Trade Issues (Mar10/20)
31 March 2010
Third World Network

Dear friends and colleagues,

The Doha Stocktaking by the WTO Trade Negotiating Committee (TNC) that was just completed on 26 March revealed that the on-going impasse in the Doha talks prevails as the US continues to demand more market access commitments from certain emerging economies.  The WTO will now abandon the process of inviting senior officials to Geneva each month to break the impasse.

We are pleased to share with you a report by TWN and the full statements made at the TNC by South Africa, India, Brazil on behalf of the G-20 and Egypt on behalf of the Arab Group.

With best wishes,
Third World Network

1.  Key developing countries’ views of the Doha Stocktaking
(by Shefali Sharma, Third World Network)

Virtually all trade diplomats spoken to during and after the morning session of the Trade Negotiating Committee meeting on the Doha Stocktaking on Friday, March 26 said (in the words of one North African trade diplomat), “There is a realism that is reigning here now. [The members] don’t want to be in a situation where they are put to an artificial test in a process that doesn’t lead anywhere.” The afternoon session was very short—it was over in less than an hour.  

Indian Additional Secretary DK Mittal, who is the chief negotiator for India on the WTO, came out of the TNC meeting and said, “It is time I said this openly. No country has the mandate to demand more from emerging economies.  When they had the same per capita income that India has, what level of tariffs did these countries have?  I would like to see a list of their tariffs and protections at that time.

“This is not part of the (Doha) Ministerial Mandate of 2001.  They have delayed it to 2010 and it might go up to 2015, does this mean, we disregard the mandate?  There are countries who quote statistics about the number of poor that India has and at the same time they demand that India provide more market access,” he added.

When asked how India would deal with the continued bilateral pressure for more market access, he replied, “Nobody can force (us) to do anything.  There is no compulsion for (us) to accept any demands from anyone as long as it is not in the mandate provided to us.”

Many diplomats highlighted South Africa’s statement made at the TNC—the only one that clearly singled out the US as the reason for the impasse.  The full statement is pasted below.  South African Ambassador Faizel Ismail reiterated several points that South African Minister Rob Davies made in his statement at the November 2009 ministerial.  

But his following comments received the most attention from the WTO members on Friday:

“We therefore find it disconcerting that the US remains the most significant major player in the Doha Round that is unwilling to work on the basis of these multilateral texts. Its major constituencies and business lobbies are demanding more market access commitments from its trading partners, particularly from the major emerging markets; including China, India and Brazil, with a longer list of countries in this targeted group that includes South Africa.

This is the main reason for the current impasse in the Doha Round.”

He also proposed a way forward:  “It is clear to us that the only way of overcoming the current impasse and bringing the round to a successful conclusion will require a renewed dialogue amongst WTO members. This will require us to discard the mercantilist approach taken by some of the major players and an adherence to the principles or values of: a) Fairness, b) Respect for the Doha Development Mandates, c) a willingness to honour convergences and agreements reached during the multilateral process; d) a recognition of the value of a stable multilateral rules based trading system and e) a willingness to contribute to the strengthening of global governance.

All these values do not necessarily bring substantially more market access in the short term, nor can they be added up in dollars and cents but they are the basic ingredients required to secure the conclusion of the Doha Round in the shortest time and to build a more sustainable multilateral trading system.”

Ambassador Ismail invoked Albert Einstein again and said that doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results was “madness!”  And he warned that “a process that continues to work in the silos of single issues and that does not attempt to discuss the balances required to make the final package acceptable to all and that continues with “business as usual” will lead to debilitation, and will risk unraveling over 8 years of work.”

The US responded Friday afternoon with a very short statement.  Apparently, the one key point the US made was that all countries must contribute according to the role that they play in the global economy.

Brazil also made a short statement on behalf of the G20 with a couple of key points:

First, it said that the December 2008 draft texts had to be the basis of the negotiations and that “any marginal adjustments” would be “assessed in the context of the overall balance of trade-offs” with agriculture being the key to the Round.

Second, it stressed that eight years of negotiations had arrived at a “delicate balance” and that “This equilibrium cannot be ignored or upset, or we will need readjustments of the entire package with horizontal repercussions.”  This is a veiled reference to the idea that if the US wants more, then it will also have to put more on the table and therefore the texts will have to be renegotiated across the board.  It also specifically addressed the bilateral concessions the US seeks from emerging economies: “Such readjustments cannot entail additional unilateral concessions from developing countries”.

The G20 also supported a new process moving forward and in particular:

“That alongside the Negotiating Group’s work, the DG will also conduct consultations that will focus on the key issues that have led to a general negotiating impasse.  To move forward, we must no longer avoid these enabling issues.  We must identify and measure the existing gaps in those critical areas.”

But they stressed the multilaterlization of this process: “This exercise must be conducted by the membership as a whole.  Such horizontal discussions could potentially affect the whole membership and we must take collective ownership of the difficult political decisions that lie ahead.”

India’s statement responded to the elements in the Chairs’ summaries on major negotiating areas.  But India also made broader comments on the state of affairs.  It said, “There is nothing to suggest that the political constraints that have impeded our progress over the last six months will suddenly disappear in the next six months.  This has clear implications for what we can achieve this year.”

On the way forward, India said, “…given the circumstances, it is but appropriate that we begin a new phase of engagement with circumspection.”  It supported the approach Lamy outlined, but warned that the political situation will not change much in the next months.  It urged members to continue with the “Sisyphean” task.  (In Greek Mythology, Sisyphus was condemned for eternity to rolling a heavy boulder up a mountain only to see it roll back down again!) But India added, “The purpose of these negotiations cannot be to meet the unrealistic demands of one or more Members for new or additional market access, but to come to a balanced outcome in line with the development mandate.”

It stressed, “It must also be clear to all Members that a few developing countries cannot be the bankers of the Round.  If additional demands are made on us, we will weigh them against the requirements of the development mandate and deal with them accordingly.”

It also emphasized, “that any additional flexibilities from our side will require adjustments and contributions by other Members in various areas of the negotiations. Having said this we are ready to engage in any process that is decided…”

Egypt on behalf of the Arab Group of Countries said, " it is incumbent on us before we embark on a new phase of negotiations, that we caution from attempts to reinterpret the mandates, and any possible backtracking on commitments, or lowering the level of ambition at the expense of developing countries. The Arab Group shares the views of many developing countries on the necessity of upholding the mandates and building on the progress achieved so far, and the need to counter new notions introduced to the detriment of the development component of the Doha Round."

Way Forward

WTO members will not suspend the Doha Round. Lamy outlined the process on the way forward in his statement found at:

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news10_e/tnc_dg_stat_26mar10_e.htm

According to one diplomat, Lamy portrayed the discussion as if the gaps had been narrowed in agriculture but widened in NAMA (on the issues of sectorals) and fisheries subsidies.  But he also said that no one wanted to contest the Chairs’ reports at this stage or give them too much importance because it is in everyone’s interest to keep the process going.

Lamy stressed three ways the process will work. The first will be the chair-led process of the negotiating groups; second, his own initiative to hold meetings with groups and in the TNC.  Many countries gave statements about needing to make the process more transparent and multilateral and this seems to be in response to that; and third, small groups meetings in “variable geometry” and bilaterals.  

There was talk in the green room yesterday and in his statement today about also conducting negotiations through a “horizontal” approach.  In the Green Room yesterday, apparently one G20 member asked what was meant by horizontal—whether it meant focusing on the Hong Kong Mandate to resolve agriculture and NAMA as a priority or broadly across all negotiating groups.  Lamy’s response today was that he will consult “here and in capitals, to explore the horizontal stage of negotiations.”    

On the idea of the horizontal approach, Egypt on behalf of the Arab Group said, "any future process of negotiations, whether with or without a horizontal dimension, has to be sufficiently representative of developing Members’ interests, and that from the very beginning, in order to deliver on the developmental mandates and necessary flexibilities for developing countries in all the negotiating tracks. The multilateral track should always remain central in leading our work."

But it is clear that the process that began after the Delhi Mini-Ministerial in September 2009 with senior officials coming to Geneva every month is over.  Geneva negotiators will continue to do their on-going technical work and bridge the technical gaps in Geneva in areas such as trade facilitation, non-tariff barriers and in agriculture.  

Lamy will continue to “engage” countries on the political impasse and see how that can be broken.  Some of the political work will be attempted in ministerial meetings like OECD, Cairns, APEC and G20. Australia mentioned in its statement today that the Punta del Este Cairns group meeting in Uruguay in April should be the next place where the Doha discussions should continue.  But none of the trade diplomats spoken to envision that this will result in progress in the multilateral negotiations until the US can resolve its domestic problems back home.

On the G20 Heads of State Meeting in June and Doha

Some key ambassadors, including one very influential member of the “G7” in the WTO, were asked whether Doha might be addressed by Heads of States at the G20 meeting in June or be taken over by them.  The G7 ambassador had this to say, “Those that are saying that have no understanding of the process and how things work.  The heads of states have no time to deal with this.  And the members here will not allow it.  There is no way that will happen.”  

Another ambassador from a large developing country grouping said, “Nothing will happen at the G20. They will try and get another statement without mentioning deadlines. The G20 don’t even have a chapter to discuss on trade.  The G20 (statement) will only give a few lines on trade and these will be negotiated well in advance. It will be done before.  There may be a discussion on trade over lunch or dinner, but that is it.

Another senior official from a G7 country said, “What authority do the G20 have on the WTO? They can say something, but it will not be much.”+

2.  Statement by South Africa to the WTO “Stock-taking” TNC

26th March 2010

Mr Chairman,

For developing countries that began this round on the promise that it would address the inequities of the current trading system, and that it would create new opportunities for their development, the current impasse in the Doha Round has been frustrating and painful. The distortions caused by the high levels of protection and trade distorting subsidies in agriculture in rich countries continue to destabilize and undermine the productive potential of many developing countries, including South Africa. The plight of cotton farmers in Africa is a stark reminder of inequity of the current regime. LDCs are still waiting patiently for some dividends from the Doha Round, especially for the agreement we reached in Hong Kong to create new opportunities for their development by providing them with DFQFMA.

Mr Chairman,

As Minister Davies pointed out at the Ministerial Conference held in December 2009, “South Africa was not part of the agreements reached by some members in the July 2008 Package.” We continue to believe that the texts that emerged “are imbalanced and reflect too much accommodation of the sensitivities of developed countries in agriculture, while demanding too much from developing countries in terms of reducing their applied industrial tariffs and policy space for industrial development”.

However, Minister Davies also stated that, “Despite these reservations we have been willing to work to see whether, on the basis of the existing texts, the specific problems posed for SA and SACU, arising from the historic injustice of South Africa’s classification in the Uruguay Round as a "developed country", can be resolved in a fair manner.”

We recognize that the current recession has caused job losses in many countries around the world with developing countries suffering the major impact. South Africa which already had 23 percent unemployment before the recession has lost close to a million jobs since then.

We therefore find it disconcerting that the US remains the most significant major player in the Doha Round that is unwilling to work on the basis of these multilateral texts. Its major constituencies and business lobbies are demanding more market access commitments from its trading partners, particularly from the major emerging markets; including China, India and Brazil, with a longer list of countries in this targeted group that includes South Africa.

This is the main reason for the current impasse in the Doha Round.

As we go forward, Mr Chairman, it is clear to us that the only way of overcoming the current impasse and bringing the round to a successful conclusion will require a renewed dialogue amongst WTO members. This will require us to discard the mercantilist approach taken by some of the major players and an adherence to the principles or values of: a) Fairness, b) Respect for the Doha Development Mandates, c) a willingness to honour convergences and agreements reached during the multilateral process; d) a recognition of the value of a stable multilateral rules based trading system and e) a willingness to contribute to the strengthening of global governance.

All these values do not necessarily bring substantially more market access in the short term, nor can they be added up in dollars and cents but they are the basic ingredients required to secure the conclusion of the Doha Round in the shortest time and to build a more sustainable multilateral trading system.

Mr Chairman,

As Minister Davies stated at the Davos Ministerial discussions, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, was recognized a long time ago by Albert Einstein as the definition of madness! A process that continues to work in the silos of single issues and that does not attempt to discuss the balances required to make the final package acceptable to all and that continues with “business as usual” will lead to debilitation, and will risk unraveling over 8 years of work.

We therefore agree with you that what is required now is a process that is based on multilateralism, transparency and inclusiveness based on the work of the Chairs of the negotiating groups and the TNC, but that also allows for frank horizontal discussions on the trade-offs required across the negotiations to allow for a fair and balanced package that all members can sell to their constituencies. The current stock-taking exercise takes place in a political context. Ministers at MC7 recognized the impasse that the round was faced with and felt it wise to give us more time to find our way forward. They will require a report. It is clear to us that at some stage in the process we will require ministerial guidance and engagement. How and when such engagement takes place will require further consultations. We leave this to your judgement (sic).

What do we do in the meantime?

The question we should be asking is, (sic) How do we address the issues that confront the poorest countries, and those issues that are of clear systemic interest to all of us? It would seem to us that WTO members would be wise to use the time while we struggle to overcome the current impasse to address some of these issues. In this spirit we fully support the plea of the LDC group, the Africa Group and the ACP for an early harvest on issues they have highlighted such as DFQFMA, a services waiver for LDC preferences and an early resolution of the cotton issue.

It would also be wise to use the time available to us to reach interim understandings and agreements on some of the most important systemic issues that offer opportunities for all and that address the most harmful practices of members. These issues could include: trade facilitation, export competition and fish subsidies.

We urge members to begin a serious discussion in the coming weeks on these suggestions as a way forward and how to successfully conclude the Round.

I thank you.

Faizel Ismail

Head of Delegation to the WTO

(3)  Meeting of the TNC – 26th March, 2010

Statement of India

Thank you Chair for your measured and realistic assessment and your proposals for the way ahead which we support. I would also like to thank the Chairs for their factual reports which has helped us to assess the nature of the task that lies ahead of us. Given the waning confidence of the world outside about the prospects of the Doha Round, we believe this stock-taking week has provided us a good opportunity to work on three objectives – taking stock of where we are, redefining our negotiating objectives for the year based on the lessons of the last six months of engagement, and preparing for a new phase of engagement.  While we have clearly achieved greater clarity on the first and third objectives, we are somewhat intrigued with the loud silence on the second.  There is nothing to suggest that the political constraints that have impeded our progress over the last six months will suddenly disappear in the next six months.  This has clear implications for what we can achieve this year.  

Chair we believe our primary preoccupation in the stock taking exercise has to be to take stock, on the basis of Chair’s report of where we are on substantive issues. The future process follows from this and cannot be the dominant theme of our deliberations. Allow me therefore to first make some comments on the substantive aspects. 

Chairs’ Reports

Agriculture

  • We need to have a serious horizontal discussion regarding the demands for additional flexibilities by developed countries in agricultural market access. Accommodation of these demands will drain the agricultural negotiations of whatever ambition was achieved through the formula cuts.  The principle of buying your way out of commitments cannot be the basis of negotiations.  If we fail to draw a tight line on this issue, we cannot prevent downstream effects on the ambition in other areas.
  • We agree with the Chair that the SSM is a politically charged issue. It also happens to be a key determinant of the development intentions of the Round.  There are a number of equally politically charged issues in domestic support and market access which are barely being discussed.  If we are to have a horizontal process even within agriculture, we will need to come to terms with all these issues like OTDS, Green Box, Blue Box, developed country flexibilities, etc. We cannot focus our efforts on just one or two issues and set the rest aside on the ground that they are political. At this stage, everything is political. A horizontal discussion has to begin within a negotiating group itself.
  • On the issue of cotton, it is important that we take the covers off and have a serious political multilateral discussion.  The fact of the matter is there is only one proposal on the table, which is unbracketed and unannotated. If this is being challenged, it is for those who challenge it to put forward a counter proposal.  We cannot continue to deal with this important issue on tip toes.  

NAMA

  • We applaud the work the Chair has done in the last few months on NTBs.  The considerable technical engagement on these issues has paved the way for text based negotiations on a number of proposals.  We now look forward to a Chair led process to discuss the important outstanding issues like sectorals, country specific flexibilities, etc. in a manner consistent with the mandate.  

TRIPS

  • The proponents of W/52 view the three issues of the GI register, GI extension and the TRIPS-CBD relationship as an integrated whole.  We have found the DG led consultative process on the last two issues to be useful in clarifying a number of technical and other issues. It is important that we continue to make progress on these issues to prepare the ground for a Ministerial decision.  Needless to say we view an outcome on these issues as an integral part of the outcome on the Doha Round.

CTD-SS

  • We are disappointed with the lack of progress on the key issues under discussion in this group.  Fundamental differences remain on the mandate and scope of the monitoring mechanism. We also find it difficult to agree with the Chair’s assessment that there is progress on the agreement specific proposals.  There has been no discussion on these issues for about a year.  

Services

  • We agree with the Chair’s assessment that no significant progress has been made on market access issues since July 2008.  We have on earlier occasions provided specific details of the anomalous situation created by developing countries having made disproportionately higher commitments in this Round so far, compared to the developed countries.  The negotiations cannot end with the anomaly in place.  An outcome based on this anomalous situation would be a travesty of the development mandate.  It is important that in future engagements we focus more on the requests of developing countries for liberalizing sectors and modes of supply of their export interest, which have remained unresponded to so far.
  • Now that we have a draft proposal on the LDC waiver, we need to expedite our efforts to attain finality on this important issue.  
  • On domestic regulation, we continue to be disappointed.  Our negotiating objective has to be to build on the requirements of GATS article 6.4, not detract from them. Our future efforts have to be based on the 2009 text.
  • On subsidies, we welcome the information exchange work programme and hope that our major trading partners will fully participate.  

Trade Facilitation

  • On Trade Facilitation, we have progress of sorts through the consolidated draft text but it requires serious work before we can move towards closure.  In this area, we believe there are no losers – Simplification of trade procedures by reducing trading costs is in the interest of all Members.  However, we have to keep in mind the implementation capacities of developing and least developed Members.  The mandate developed in July 2004 and in Hong Kong, clearly links commitments to support and assistance for infrastructure development.  It is important that this linkage is respected and that adequate assistance is provided for implementation of commitments so that we can achieve a high standards agreement.  

Regarding the way forward, given the circumstances, it is but appropriate that we begin a new phase of engagement with circumspection.  The approach     outlined by you meets the requirement of the situation. It would be unrealistic to expect dramatic progress in the next few months given that the political situation is not likely to change for the better.  However, we have no choice but to pursue our Sisyphean task.  At the same time, it is important that we approach the new phase of negotiations with a clear understanding about their intent. The purpose of these negotiations cannot be to meet the unrealistic demands of one or more Members for new or additional market access, but to come to a balanced outcome in line with the development mandate.  The development dimension has to be the defining feature of all outcomes in the Round and the interests of smaller countries, especially the LDCs and SVEs, have to be firmly protected.  It must also be clear to all Members that a few developing countries cannot be the bankers of the Round.  If additional demands are made on us, we will weigh them against the requirements of the development mandate and deal with them accordingly.  We would also like to emphasise that any additional flexibilities from our side will require adjustments and contributions by other Members in various areas of the negotiations.  Having said this we are ready to engage in any process that is decided, to take the negotiations forward.  

Let me conclude with one last point, while we obviously have to continue to negotiate without deadlines, the process cannot continue endlessly without reaching closure. We have to deliver results at sometime to retain our credibility, given the widespread doubt about early completion. At some point therefore, we will have to come to terms with the demands of the LDCs and others for early outcome.

(4)  G-20 Statement on the TNC Stocktaking

Geneva, 26 March 2010

The G-20 welcomes the report and process outlined by the Director-General for the future of the negotiations.  Let me initially recall the two general principles stated by the G-20 in document JOB 09/174, of 23 November 2009:

  1. That the December 2008 draft modalities are the basis for negotiations and represent the end-game in terms of the landing zones of ambition. Any marginal adjustments in the level of ambition of those texts may only be assessed in the context of the overall balance of trade-offs, taking into consideration that Agriculture is the engine of the Round; and

2.   That the draft modalities embody a delicate balance achieved after eight years of negotiations. This equilibrium must be respected, or we will need readjustments of the entire package with horizontal repercussions. Such readjustments cannot entail additional unilateral concessions from developing countries

The G-20 regrets that, despite our best efforts, no meaningful substantive progress has been achieved over the past several months. We therefore support the new process announced today by the Director-General and welcome two elements in particular:

1    .That alongside the Negotiating Group’s work, the DG will also conduct consultations that will focus on the key issues that have led to a general negotiating impasse. To move forward, we must no longer avoid these enabling issues. We must identify and measure the existing gaps in those critical areas;

2.  This exercise must be conducted by the membership as a whole. Such horizontal discussions could potentially affect the whole membership and we must take collective ownership of the difficult political decisions that lie ahead.

The G-20 maintains the terms of its ministerial declaration issued on 29 November 2009. The Group is prepared to engage constructively towards the objective of achieving an ambitious and balanced outcome that delivers on the development objectives of the Round in accordance with the Mandate. The Group hopes that all WTO members will also be in a position to show the necessary political will to achieve these results.

(5)

Statement

by H.E. Ambassador Hisham Badr

Permanent Representative of the Arab Republic of Egypt

on behalf of the Arab Group

Trade Negotiating Committee Meeting

26 March 2010

___

Thank you Mr. Chairman,

I would like to thank you once again for your tireless efforts to advance the negotiations, and for your honest attempts to reach a compromise between Members on a process that would help with breaking the current stalemate, and hopefully entering the end phase of the Round.

Mr. Chairman,

It is my honour to take the floor on behalf of the Arab Group in the WTO, twice in the span of little more than one month, in order to reflect their hopes and concerns, which I believe are not very different from those of other groups and Members in this room.

The hopes of a stocktaking exercise that ushers the final sprint of the Doha Round may seem farther away than desired, but that doesn’t mean we have less of a responsibility in our upcoming meetings than if they weren’t. We should approach the negotiations with renewed spirit and a resolute unity of purpose to fulfil the goals that spurred us to embark on this journey 9 years ago.

Mr. Chairman,

This is not the time to challenge the necessity of Doha, not for developing and not for developed countries! The financial crisis and its ensuing effects cannot be used as an excuse for reneging on our promise of free trade. In reality, free trade is exactly what the world needs at this point. There’s no disagreement among economists on the positive effect of trade liberalization on growing the world economy and creating jobs; and isn’t that the holy grail of what this recovery efforts are all about?

Agreement in that respect is not lacking, nor should it also be on the single most important component of Doha, which is DEVELOPMENT. Here, too, we are unfortunately deadlocked, for no apparent objective reason. All we need to do is go back to the basics. The main global public good to come out of this round is development; we all agree on the need to increase global trade.

Dear colleagues, the writing is on the wall; if free trade is imperative for our future, then meaningful development that really manages to level the playing field for all players, has to be our unequivocal priority and focus for the road ahead. And if you allow me to be critical, development was conspicuously present by its absence from all discussions and consultations we participated in this week.

This cannot and should not be allowed to continue!

Mr. Chairman, while we acknowledge the difficulties that the current process has faced in advancing negotiations and achieving the desired progress, we consider that process alone cannot be blamed for the current stalemate. Whatever future route we agree on, will not bear fruit with the absence of real political leadership and engagement.

Many approaches have been suggested to circumvent this absence, to progress around it or to prepare trade-offs for that elusive moment of a breakthrough, but let me reiterate, nothing can be really expected to change without the will to make it change.

Moreover, opening up the negotiations should only aim at helping us achieve our desired level of ambition, especially on development. Finding compromises that barely get us ashore is not what the Arab Group, as I am sure many others, would consider a successful conclusion of our efforts over nine years. In this sense, we would be supportive of any effort that aims at building a much stronger boat to get us safe into harbour, without detracting from the progress that we have achieved so far.

In other words, any future process of negotiations, whether with or without a horizontal dimension, has to be sufficiently representative of developing Members’ interests, and that from the very beginning, in order to deliver on the developmental mandates and necessary flexibilities for developing countries in all the negotiating tracks. The multilateral track should always remain central in leading our work.

Therefore, it is incumbent on us before we embark on a new phase of negotiations, that we caution from attempts to reinterpret the mandates, and any possible backtracking on commitments, or lowering the level of ambition at the expense of developing countries. The Arab Group shares the views of many developing countries on the necessity of upholding the mandates and building on the progress achieved so far, and the need to counter new notions introduced to the detriment of the development component of the Doha Round.

Mr. Chairman, while reiterating the Arab Group’s commitment to support your efforts, and constructively contribute to the success of the Round, I would like to stress that Arab contribution to the negotiations and the multilateral trading system can be further enhanced, through expediting the process of acceding Arab countries, and positively considering the accession request submitted by Syria, as well as that of Palestine - as a separate customs territory – to obtain observer status at the General Council and its subsidiary bodies.

Thank you Mr. Chairman

 


BACK TO MAIN  |  ONLINE BOOKSTORE  |  HOW TO ORDER