Keep Us Strong WikiLeaks logo

Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287

Articles

Browse latest releases

Browse by creation date

Browse by origin

A B C D F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Browse by tag

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
ETRD EAGR ETTC EAID ECON EFIN ECIN EINV ELAB EAIR ENRG EPET EWWT ECPS EIND EMIN ELTN EC ETMIN EUC EZ ET ELECTIONS ENVR EU EUN EG EINT ER ECONOMICS ES EMS ENIV EEB EN ECE ECOSOC EK ENVIRONMENT EFIS EI EWT ENGRD ECPSN EXIM EIAD ERIN ECPC EDEV ENGY ECTRD EPA ESTH ECCT EINVECON ENGR ERTD EUR EAP EWWC ELTD EL EXIMOPIC EXTERNAL ETRDEC ESCAP ECO EGAD ELNT ECONOMIC ENV ETRN EIAR EUMEM ENRGPARMOTRASENVKGHGPGOVECONTSPLEAID EREL ECOM ECONETRDEAGRJA ETCC ETRG ECONOMY EMED ETR ENERG EITC EFINOECD EURM EENG ERA EXPORT ENRD ECONEINVETRDEFINELABETRDKTDBPGOVOPIC EGEN EBRD EVIN ETRAD ECOWAS EFTA ECONETRDBESPAR EGOVSY EPIN EID ECONENRG EDRC ESENV ETT EB ENER ELTNSNAR ECHEVARRIA ETRC EPIT EDUC ESA EFI ENRGY ESCI EE EAIDXMXAXBXFFR EETC ECIP EIAID EIVN EBEXP ESTN EING EGOV ETRA EPETEIND ELAN ETRDGK EAIDRW ETRDEINVECINPGOVCS EPEC ENVI ELN EAG EPCS EPRT EPTED ETRB EUM EAIDS EFIC EFINECONEAIDUNGAGM EAIDAR ESF EIDN ELAM EDU EV EAIDAF ECN EDA EXBS EINTECPS ENRGTRGYETRDBEXPBTIOSZ EPREL EAC EINVEFIN ETA EAGER EINDIR ECA ECLAC ELAP EITI EUCOM ECONEFINETRDPGOVEAGRPTERKTFNKCRMEAID EARG ELDIN EINVKSCA ENNP EFINECONCS EFINTS ECCP ETC EAIRASECCASCID EINN ETRP EAIDNI EFQ ECOQKPKO EGPHUM EBUD ECONEINVEFINPGOVIZ ENERGY ELB EINDETRD EMI ECONEFIN EIB EURN ETRDEINVTINTCS EIN EFIM ETIO ELAINE EMN EATO EWTR EIPR EINVETC ETTD ETDR EIQ ECONCS EPPD ENRGIZ EISL ESPINOSA ELEC EAIG ESLCO EUREM ENTG ERD EINVECONSENVCSJA EEPET EUNCH ECINECONCS ETRO ETRDECONWTOCS ECUN EFND EPECO EAIRECONRP ERGR ETRDPGOV ECPN ENRGMO EPWR EET EAIS EAGRE EDUARDO EAGRRP EAIDPHUMPRELUG EICN ECONQH EVN EGHG ELBR EINF EAIDHO EENV ETEX ERNG ED
KMDR KPAO KPKO KJUS KCRM KGHG KFRD KWMN KDEM KTFN KHIV KGIC KIDE KSCA KNNP KHUM KIPR KSUM KISL KIRF KCOR KRCM KPAL KWBG KN KS KOMC KSEP KFLU KPWR KTIA KSEO KMPI KHLS KICC KSTH KMCA KVPR KPRM KE KU KZ KFLO KSAF KTIP KTEX KBCT KOCI KOLY KOR KAWC KACT KUNR KTDB KSTC KLIG KSKN KNN KCFE KCIP KGHA KHDP KPOW KUNC KDRL KV KPREL KCRS KPOL KRVC KRIM KGIT KWIR KT KIRC KOMO KRFD KUWAIT KG KFIN KSCI KTFIN KFTN KGOV KPRV KSAC KGIV KCRIM KPIR KSOC KBIO KW KGLB KMWN KPO KFSC KSEAO KSTCPL KSI KPRP KREC KFPC KUNH KCSA KMRS KNDP KR KICCPUR KPPAO KCSY KTBT KCIS KNEP KFRDCVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KNNB KGCC KINR KPOP KMFO KENV KNAR KVIR KDRG KDMR KFCE KNAO KDEN KGCN KICA KIMMITT KMCC KLFU KMSG KSEC KUM KCUL KMNP KSMT KCOM KOMCSG KSPR KPMI KRAD KIND KCRP KAUST KWAWC KTER KCHG KRDP KPAS KITA KTSC KPAOPREL KWGB KIRP KJUST KMIG KLAB KTFR KSEI KSTT KAPO KSTS KLSO KWNN KPOA KHSA KNPP KPAONZ KBTS KWWW KY KJRE KPAOKMDRKE KCRCM KSCS KWMNCI KESO KWUN KPLS KIIP KEDEM KPAOY KRIF KGICKS KREF KTRD KFRDSOCIRO KTAO KJU KWMNPHUMPRELKPAOZW KEN KO KNEI KEMR KKIV KEAI KWAC KRCIM KWCI KFIU KWIC KCORR KOMS KNNO KPAI KBWG KTTB KTBD KTIALG KILS KFEM KTDM KESS KNUC KPA KOMCCO KCEM KRCS KWBGSY KNPPIS KNNPMNUC KWN KERG KLTN KALM KCCP KSUMPHUM KREL KGH KLIP KTLA KAWK KWMM KVRP KVRC KAID KSLG KDEMK KX KIF KNPR KCFC KFTFN KTFM KPDD KCERS KMOC KDEMAF KMEPI KEMS KDRM KEPREL KBTR KEDU KNP KIRL KNNR KMPT KISLPINR KTPN KA KJUSTH KPIN KDEV KTDD KAKA KFRP KWNM KTSD KINL KJUSKUNR KWWMN KECF KWBC KPRO KVBL KOM KFRDKIRFCVISCMGTKOCIASECPHUMSMIGEG KEDM KFLD KLPM KRGY KNNF KICR KIFR KM KWMNCS KAWS KLAP KPAK KDDG KCGC KID KNSD KMPF KPFO KDP KCMR KRMS KNPT KNNNP KTIAPARM KDTB KNUP KPGOV KNAP KNNC KUK KSRE KREISLER KIVP KQ KTIAEUN KPALAOIS KRM KISLAO KWM KFLOA
PHUM PINR PTER PGOV PREL PREF PL PM PHSA PE PARM PINS PK PUNE PO PALESTINIAN PU PBTS PROP PTBS POL POLI PA PGOVZI POLMIL POLITICAL PARTIES POLM PD POLITICS POLICY PAS PMIL PINT PNAT PV PKO PPOL PERSONS PING PBIO PH PETR PARMS PRES PCON PETERS PRELBR PT PLAB PP PAK PDEM PKPA PSOCI PF PLO PTERM PJUS PSOE PELOSI PROPERTY PGOVPREL PARP PRL PNIR PHUMKPAL PG PREZ PGIC PBOV PAO PKK PROV PHSAK PHUMPREL PROTECTION PGOVBL PSI PRELPK PGOVENRG PUM PRELKPKO PATTY PSOC PRIVATIZATION PRELSP PGOVEAIDUKNOSWGMHUCANLLHFRSPITNZ PMIG PREC PAIGH PROG PSHA PARK PETER POG PHUS PPREL PS PTERPREL PRELPGOV POV PKPO PGOVECON POUS PGOVPRELPHUMPREFSMIGELABEAIDKCRMKWMN PWBG PMAR PREM PAR PNR PRELPGOVEAIDECONEINVBEXPSCULOIIPBTIO PARMIR PGOVGM PHUH PARTM PN PRE PTE PY POLUN PPEL PDOV PGOVSOCI PIRF PGOVPM PBST PRELEVU PGOR PBTSRU PRM PRELKPAOIZ PGVO PERL PGOC PAGR PMIN PHUMR PVIP PPD PGV PRAM PINL PKPAL PTERE PGOF PINO PHAS PODC PRHUM PHUMA PREO PPA PEPFAR PGO PRGOV PAC PRESL PORG PKFK PEPR PRELP PREFA PNG PGOVPHUMKPAO PRELECON PINOCHET PFOR PGOVLO PHUMBA PRELC PREK PHUME PHJM POLINT PGOVPZ PGOVKCRM PGOVE PHALANAGE PARTY PECON PEACE PROCESS PLN PRELSW PAHO PEDRO PRELA PASS PPAO PGPV PNUM PCUL PGGV PSA PGOVSMIGKCRMKWMNPHUMCVISKFRDCA PGIV PRFE POGOV PEL PBT PAMQ PINF PSEPC POSTS PHUMPGOV PVOV PHSAPREL PROLIFERATION PENA PRELTBIOBA PIN PRELL PGOVPTER PHAM PHYTRP PTEL PTERPGOV PHARM PROTESTS PRELAF PKBL PRELKPAO PKNP PARMP PHUML PFOV PERM PUOS PRELGOV PHUMPTER PARAGRAPH PERURENA PBTSEWWT PCI PETROL PINSO PINSCE PQL PEREZ PBS

Browse by classification

Community resources

courage is contagious

Viewing cable 05GENEVA1384, MAY 2005 MEETING OF THE RULES NEGOTIATING GROUP TO

If you are new to these pages, please read an introduction on the structure of a cable as well as how to discuss them with others. See also the FAQs

Understanding cables
Every cable message consists of three parts:
  • The top box shows each cables unique reference number, when and by whom it originally was sent, and what its initial classification was.
  • The middle box contains the header information that is associated with the cable. It includes information about the receiver(s) as well as a general subject.
  • The bottom box presents the body of the cable. The opening can contain a more specific subject, references to other cables (browse by origin to find them) or additional comment. This is followed by the main contents of the cable: a summary, a collection of specific topics and a comment section.
To understand the justification used for the classification of each cable, please use this WikiSource article as reference.

Discussing cables
If you find meaningful or important information in a cable, please link directly to its unique reference number. Linking to a specific paragraph in the body of a cable is also possible by copying the appropriate link (to be found at theparagraph symbol). Please mark messages for social networking services like Twitter with the hash tags #cablegate and a hash containing the reference ID e.g. #05GENEVA1384.
Reference ID Created Released Classification Origin
05GENEVA1384 2005-06-06 12:39 2011-08-25 00:00 UNCLASSIFIED US Mission Geneva
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 GENEVA 001384 
 
SIPDIS 
 
PASS USTR FOR ALLGEIER, DWOSKIN 
STATE/EB/OT FOR CRAFT 
USDA/FAS/ITP FOR SHEIKH, MTND/HENKE, FAA/SE/WILSON 
USDOC FOR ALDONAS, SPETRINI, JACOBS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD WTRO USTR
SUBJECT:  MAY 2005 MEETING OF THE RULES NEGOTIATING GROUP TO 
DISCUSS REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
 
SUMMARY 
1.  On 17-18 May 2005, the Rules Negotiating Group met to discuss 
potential clarifications of substantive disciplines of regional 
trade agreements ("systemic issues") and a draft Chairman's text 
setting out possible reforms to improve the WTO's review of the 
agreements ("transparency").  In the context of transparency, the 
Group held a second discussion of the Secretariat's draft "mock" 
presentation of a services agreement, to assist Members to 
envision a possible future format for Secretariat-prepared 
factual reports of services agreements.  The next meetings of the 
Rules Group dedicated to regional trade agreements were scheduled 
for 13-14 June and 11-12 July 2005.  End Summary. 
SYSTEMIC ISSUES 
2.  The meeting began with a formal discussion of two Australian 
papers on "systemic" issues. (TN/RL/W/173/Rev.1 and TN/RL/W/180) 
Australia reiterated its four proposed criteria for determining 
whether free trade agreements and customs unions eliminate duties 
on "substantially all trade" (SAT) in accordance with GATT rules: 
(1) a required minimum tariff line coverage (70 percent at date 
of entry into force and 95 percent at final implementation); (2) 
a "highly traded products" test (prohibiting exclusion of any 
product comprising more than 0.2 percent of bilateral trade, or 
any one of an RTA partners' top 50 exports); (3) consideration of 
"but for" trade (products that would be traded, "but for" 
prohibitive tariffs); and (4) a maximum phase-out period of 10 
years for duty elimination. 
3.  The Australian papers stimulated good engagement from 
Members, but there was little explicit support for the details 
contained within the proposals.  Members split on the issue of 
the ten-year phase-out period, with Costa Rica, Barbados, the 
United States, and others emphasizing that additional time may 
sometimes be necessary to ensure comprehensive coverage.  Many 
Members, including China, Egypt, Costa Rica, Malaysia, Barbados, 
Kenya and Zimbabwe, focused their remarks on concerns over 
treatment of developing countries, reiterating the need for 
special and differential treatment. 
4.  The United States cited six additional possible "evaluative 
criteria" for assessing satisfaction of the substantially all 
trade requirement.  It also voiced concerns about Australia's 
reliance on 6-digit tariff lines to evaluate percentage coverage, 
the imposition of a test based upon trade coverage at the time of 
entry into force, the "highly-traded products" test, and a strict 
10-year phase in period, rather than the 15 years that the United 
States and others have needed to maximize coverage at the time of 
final implementation. 
5.  Norway, as on previous occasions, took the most overtly 
negative position, insisting that further elaboration on the 
complementary obligation to eliminate "other restrictive 
regulations of commerce" was a precondition for progress on the 
SAT criterion, based partly on the notion that preferential rules 
of origin can undermine the SAT test.  Switzerland opined that 
the 95 percent test, in effect, required duty-free treatment for 
all, not just "substantially all," trade.  New Zealand supported 
Australia's 95 percent tariff line test, but suggested that a 
single test was not sufficient, and suggested that a minimum 
percentage of trade flow also should be required.  New Zealand 
and some other Members also supported the 10- year phase-out 
rule. 
6.  Brazil appreciated the introduction of the "but for" test, 
but voiced concern about the highly-traded products test, 
because, for some small countries, such a threshold could 
effectively cover all trade.  In addition, Brazil and India 
agreed with the United States in questioning Australia's proposed 
use of 6-digit tariff lines for determining tariff line coverage. 
Barbados cited international principles of treaty interpretation 
to oppose Australia's view that regional agreements that had not 
been specifically notified to the WTO as "interim agreements" 
were not entitled to be phased in over ten or fifteen years. 
7.  The Rules Group also discussed a paper from the European 
Communities on systemic issues (TN/RL/W/179).  This paper appears 
to make significant changes in the EC position in a few areas. 
Notably, for the first time in 30 years, the EC accepts tariff 
line coverage as one possible criterion for evaluating 
substantially all trade, in combination with recent trade flow 
data. The EC paper also states that no subset of regional trade 
agreements (e.g., Enabling Clause agreements) can, a priori, be 
excluded from the Rules Group's discussion, and argues that 
Members should avoid drafting new rules to protect the lowest 
common denominator, (i.e., those RTAs with the least trade 
coverage). 
8.  On the issue of a combined average minimum tariff and trade 
coverage, Switzerland thought the EC submission needed further 
consideration.  Chile and Colombia voiced limited support, but 
Australia noted that it would tend to facilitate the exclusion of 
a major sector (such as agriculture).  The United States heralded 
the changes in the EC position on tariff line coverage, agreed 
with its ambitious aspects, but questioned why an average of 
tariff line coverage and trade flow coverage was necessarily 
better than each factor being assessed independently. 
9.  On development, the European Communities claimed there was a 
"lack of coherence" given that some developing countries had 
negotiated RTAs under GATT disciplines, while other developing 
countries, often having larger economies, negotiated their 
agreements under the Enabling Clause.  The EC argued that the 
size of the economies of the developing country parties, and the 
potential affect on third parties, should determine whether 
regional agreements between developing countries should be 
examined pursuant to GATT Article XXIV or the Enabling 
Clause.  By suggesting "we won't change it if you don't use 
it," the EC is trying to recruit support of smaller developing 
countries against the larger developing countries.  The EC made 
an obvious effort to permit its future agreements with the 
Africa, Caribbean and Pacific countries to be subject to easier 
disciplines than those that currently apply to agreements between 
developed and developing countries.   Barbados welcomed the EC's 
proposal to consider different levels of development, but Costa 
Rica and China rejected it entirely, with Costa Rica arguing that 
developed countries have a responsibility to insist that 
developing country RTA partners meet GATT standards.  Many 
delegations were interested in seeing further development of the 
ideas in the EC paper. 
TRANSPARENCY 
10.  The discussion of the Chair's latest draft note on 
transparency was held in informal mode.  In both the general 
discussion and in the section-by-section discussion, many Members 
focused on how new transparency rules would address agreements 
between developing countries notified pursuant to the so-called 
Enabling Clause, rather than under the GATT disciplines.  Chile 
noted that the discussion concerned transparency rules for 
Enabling Clause agreements, not a change to the substantive 
rules.  The section-by-section discussion was fairly technical. 
When addressing what information would be notified, most Members 
agreed that all data should be provided electronically.  The EC 
caused a stir by asking for the insertion of brackets in the 
draft text, with respect to the provision of information relating 
to tariff rate quotas, suggesting that it might not be willing or 
able to submit such information during an examination conducted 
by the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA).  The Chair 
concluded the discussion by reminding the delegates that the Note 
was a work in progress and by noting that he hoped to have a 
revision ready by the June 2005 meeting. 
11.  The Rules Group also discussed the Secretariat's Mock 
Presentation of a services agreement, which attempted to 
demonstrate how the Secretariat might undertake new 
responsibilities in the CRTA examination under the transparency 
reforms contemplated in the Chair's Note.  Introductory remarks 
noted the difficulty in obtaining data on trade in services, and 
a request was made (and supported by many Members) for a 
representative of the WTO's statistics bureau to attend the next 
meeting to discuss services statistics. 
12.  A few Members, including Chile, noted that it was not 
possible in every instance to rely on current voluntary 
classification tools, such as the UN CPC and the WTO 
Secretariat's W/120, when examining coverage in services 
 
SIPDIS 
agreements.  Most services agreements apply a negative list 
approach (all services sectors covered, unless specifically 
exempted) and the parties may choose to use domestic 
Classifications or one of the parties may use the CPC.  Hong Kong 
China insisted that some kind of standard form should be used for 
analyzing coverage for all agreements, so that there could be 
"comparability" between agreements.  The United States and Canada 
noted that comparability was not the appropriate reference for 
the determination of compliance of services agreements with WTO 
requirements.  Moreover, if an agreement had not been negotiated 
pursuant to a different format, it would be distortive for the 
Secretariat to try to fit a square peg in a round hole.  Canada 
 
SIPDIS 
recalled that Members are required to examine RTAs in accordance 
with GATS Article V, not against commitments under the GATT.  The 
United States reiterated the purpose of the Secretariat 
presentation is to provide further transparency concerning what 
is contained in the agreements, not to engage in judgment calls. 
Malaysia ventured to suggest that this discussion should 
preliminarily be taking place in the Council for Trade in 
Services.  The United States expressed appreciation for the 
Secretariat's ability to remain factual and objective in most 
 
SIPDIS 
parts of the draft, but also pointed out examples of where that 
may not have been the case.  The United States recalled 
difficulties highlighted by the Secretariat with the use of the 
available classification tools and the need for Members to assist 
the Secretariat by supplying data and information on their 
domestic services regimes.  Deily