Remarks by Ambassador Peter F. Allgeier
at the General Council Meeting

Geneva,
May 7, 2008

First, I would like to welcome the new Ambassadors who were introduced to us today.  We are glad to have you join us.

I would also like to thank the DG for his report and comments on the WTO’s response to the world food crisis.

We agree on the urgency of concluding a successful, market-opening package.

We reiterate our commitment to the collective objective of concluding negotiations in 2008.  We must intensify our efforts to achieve that.  The United States is committed to make the effort necessary to realize the goal, but that will require contributions by everyone in this room, not just one segment of the membership.

Our most pressing immediate need is for the issuance of Chairs’ papers on AG and NAMA modalities that properly set up the horizontal process.

The WTO often is accused of negotiating an agenda that lags behind developments in the world economy that emerge during the negotiations.   But the points made today by the DG regarding the world food situation correctly point out that our current negotiating agenda – either by foresight or coincidence – does address the situation that the world economy faces at this precise moment, and offers substantive contributions to solving the problems being created by high food prices.  The items on our agenda demonstrate that clearly:   high tariffs, agricultural subsidies, export restrictions, monopolies in the agricultural sector and food aid.  As well as our parallel work on Aid for Trade.

We agree that the focus of our efforts – our highest priority – must be to agree on modalities for Ag and NAMA.

We also agree that we must provide reassurance that the other subjects in the mandate will be addressed successfully as integral parts of the final DDA agreement.

But solid reassurance does not mean making decisions prematurely on the content or outcomes of individual negotiating topics, let alone adding new topics to our mandate.  If we start down that path, even on what appears to be a relatively limited number of topics, we will not reach our immediate goal of providing the necessary platforms for scheduling our commitments on tariffs, TRQs and subsidies.

And if we don’t move promptly to the scheduling stage, we will fail to meet our urgent goal of concluding the Round in 2008.

So let’s not get distracted by issues that are indeed important (and which, therefore, must be resolved within the final agreement) but which do not need to be resolved – and cannot be resolved – in the few weeks that we have left to reach agreement on Ag and NAMA modalities.

I don’t know if it is a proper cricket term, but I assume it’s relevant to that sport – we need to keep our eye on the ball or we will strike out.  I leave it to the Chair to provide the correct cricket terminology, but I trust that my meaning is clear.

Thank you.