Currently released so far... 97115 / 251,287
Articles
Brazil
Sri Lanka
United Kingdom
Sweden
00. Editorial
United States
Latin America
Egypt
Jordan
Yemen
Thailand
Browse latest releases
2010/12/01
2010/12/02
2010/12/03
2010/12/04
2010/12/05
2010/12/06
2010/12/07
2010/12/08
2010/12/09
2010/12/10
2010/12/11
2010/12/12
2010/12/13
2010/12/14
2010/12/15
2010/12/16
2010/12/17
2010/12/18
2010/12/19
2010/12/20
2010/12/21
2010/12/22
2010/12/23
2010/12/25
2010/12/26
2010/12/27
2010/12/28
2010/12/29
2010/12/30
2011/01/01
2011/01/02
2011/01/04
2011/01/05
2011/01/07
2011/01/09
2011/01/11
2011/01/12
2011/01/13
2011/01/14
2011/01/15
2011/01/16
2011/01/17
2011/01/18
2011/01/19
2011/01/20
2011/01/21
2011/01/22
2011/01/23
2011/01/24
2011/01/25
2011/01/26
2011/01/27
2011/01/28
2011/01/29
2011/01/30
2011/01/31
2011/02/01
2011/02/02
2011/02/03
2011/02/04
2011/02/05
2011/02/06
2011/02/07
2011/02/08
2011/02/09
2011/02/10
2011/02/11
2011/02/12
2011/02/13
2011/02/14
2011/02/15
2011/02/16
2011/02/17
2011/02/18
2011/02/19
2011/02/20
2011/02/21
2011/02/22
2011/02/23
2011/02/24
2011/02/25
2011/02/26
2011/02/27
2011/02/28
2011/03/01
2011/03/02
2011/03/03
2011/03/04
2011/03/05
2011/03/06
2011/03/07
2011/03/08
2011/03/09
2011/03/10
2011/03/11
2011/03/13
2011/03/14
2011/03/15
2011/03/16
2011/03/17
2011/03/18
2011/03/19
2011/03/20
2011/03/21
2011/03/22
2011/03/23
2011/03/24
2011/03/25
2011/03/26
2011/03/27
2011/03/28
2011/03/29
2011/03/30
2011/03/31
2011/04/01
2011/04/02
2011/04/03
2011/04/04
2011/04/05
2011/04/06
2011/04/07
2011/04/08
2011/04/09
2011/04/10
2011/04/11
2011/04/12
2011/04/13
2011/04/14
2011/04/15
2011/04/16
2011/04/17
2011/04/18
2011/04/19
2011/04/20
2011/04/21
2011/04/22
2011/04/23
2011/04/24
2011/04/25
2011/04/26
2011/04/27
2011/04/28
2011/04/29
2011/04/30
2011/05/01
2011/05/02
2011/05/03
2011/05/04
2011/05/05
2011/05/06
2011/05/07
2011/05/09
2011/05/10
2011/05/11
2011/05/12
2011/05/13
2011/05/14
2011/05/15
2011/05/16
2011/05/17
2011/05/18
2011/05/19
2011/05/20
2011/05/21
2011/05/22
2011/05/23
2011/05/24
2011/05/25
2011/05/26
2011/05/27
2011/05/28
2011/05/29
2011/05/30
2011/05/31
2011/06/01
2011/06/02
2011/06/03
2011/06/04
2011/06/05
2011/06/06
2011/06/07
2011/06/08
2011/06/09
2011/06/10
2011/06/11
2011/06/12
2011/06/13
2011/06/14
2011/06/15
2011/06/16
2011/06/17
2011/06/18
2011/06/19
2011/06/20
2011/06/21
2011/06/22
2011/06/23
2011/06/24
2011/06/25
2011/06/26
2011/06/27
2011/06/28
2011/06/29
2011/06/30
2011/07/01
2011/07/02
2011/07/04
2011/07/05
2011/07/06
2011/07/07
2011/07/08
2011/07/10
2011/07/11
2011/07/12
2011/07/13
2011/07/14
2011/07/15
2011/07/16
2011/07/17
2011/07/18
2011/07/19
2011/07/20
2011/07/21
2011/07/22
2011/07/23
2011/07/25
2011/07/27
2011/07/28
2011/07/29
2011/07/31
2011/08/01
2011/08/02
2011/08/03
2011/08/05
2011/08/06
2011/08/07
2011/08/08
2011/08/10
2011/08/11
2011/08/12
2011/08/13
2011/08/15
2011/08/16
2011/08/17
2011/08/19
2011/08/21
2011/08/22
2011/08/23
2011/08/24
2011/08/25
Browse by creation date
Browse by origin
Embassy Athens
Embassy Asuncion
Embassy Astana
Embassy Asmara
Embassy Ashgabat
Embassy Apia
Embassy Antananarivo
Embassy Ankara
Embassy Amman
Embassy Algiers
Embassy Addis Ababa
Embassy Accra
Embassy Abuja
Embassy Abu Dhabi
Embassy Abidjan
Consulate Auckland
Consulate Amsterdam
Consulate Alexandria
Consulate Adana
American Institute Taiwan, Taipei
Embasy Bonn
Embassy Bujumbura
Embassy Buenos Aires
Embassy Budapest
Embassy Bucharest
Embassy Brussels
Embassy Bridgetown
Embassy Brazzaville
Embassy Bratislava
Embassy Brasilia
Embassy Bogota
Embassy Bishkek
Embassy Bern
Embassy Berlin
Embassy Belmopan
Embassy Belgrade
Embassy Beirut
Embassy Beijing
Embassy Banjul
Embassy Bangui
Embassy Bangkok
Embassy Bandar Seri Begawan
Embassy Bamako
Embassy Baku
Embassy Baghdad
Consulate Belfast
Consulate Barcelona
Embassy Cotonou
Embassy Copenhagen
Embassy Conakry
Embassy Colombo
Embassy Chisinau
Embassy Caracas
Embassy Canberra
Embassy Cairo
Consulate Curacao
Consulate Ciudad Juarez
Consulate Chiang Mai
Consulate Chennai
Consulate Chengdu
Consulate Casablanca
Consulate Cape Town
Consulate Calgary
Embassy Dushanbe
Embassy Dublin
Embassy Doha
Embassy Djibouti
Embassy Dili
Embassy Dhaka
Embassy Dar Es Salaam
Embassy Damascus
Embassy Dakar
DIR FSINFATC
Consulate Dusseldorf
Consulate Durban
Consulate Dubai
Consulate Dhahran
Embassy Guatemala
Embassy Grenada
Embassy Georgetown
Embassy Gaborone
Consulate Guayaquil
Consulate Guangzhou
Consulate Guadalajara
Embassy Helsinki
Embassy Harare
Embassy Hanoi
Consulate Hong Kong
Consulate Ho Chi Minh City
Consulate Hermosillo
Consulate Hamilton
Consulate Hamburg
Consulate Halifax
Embassy Kyiv
Embassy Kuwait
Embassy Kuala Lumpur
Embassy Kolonia
Embassy Kinshasa
Embassy Kingston
Embassy Kigali
Embassy Khartoum
Embassy Kathmandu
Embassy Kampala
Embassy Kabul
Consulate Krakow
Consulate Kolkata
Consulate Karachi
Consulate Kaduna
Embassy Luxembourg
Embassy Lusaka
Embassy Luanda
Embassy London
Embassy Lome
Embassy Ljubljana
Embassy Lisbon
Embassy Lima
Embassy Lilongwe
Embassy Libreville
Embassy La Paz
Consulate Leipzig
Consulate Lahore
Consulate Lagos
Mission USOSCE
Mission USNATO
Mission UNESCO
Mission Geneva
Embassy Muscat
Embassy Moscow
Embassy Montevideo
Embassy Monrovia
Embassy Mogadishu
Embassy Minsk
Embassy Mexico
Embassy Mbabane
Embassy Maseru
Embassy Maputo
Embassy Manila
Embassy Manama
Embassy Managua
Embassy Malabo
Embassy Madrid
Consulate Munich
Consulate Mumbai
Consulate Montreal
Consulate Monterrey
Consulate Milan
Consulate Merida
Consulate Melbourne
Consulate Matamoros
Consulate Marseille
Embassy Nouakchott
Embassy Nicosia
Embassy Niamey
Embassy New Delhi
Embassy Ndjamena
Embassy Nassau
Embassy Nairobi
Consulate Nuevo Laredo
Consulate Naples
Consulate Naha
Consulate Nagoya
Embassy Pristina
Embassy Pretoria
Embassy Praia
Embassy Prague
Embassy Port Of Spain
Embassy Port Moresby
Embassy Port Louis
Embassy Port Au Prince
Embassy Podgorica
Embassy Phnom Penh
Embassy Paris
Embassy Paramaribo
Embassy Panama
Consulate Ponta Delgada
Consulate Peshawar
REO Mosul
REO Kirkuk
REO Hillah
REO Basrah
Embassy Rome
Embassy Riyadh
Embassy Riga
Embassy Reykjavik
Embassy Rangoon
Embassy Rabat
Consulate Rio De Janeiro
Consulate Recife
Secretary of State
Embassy Suva
Embassy Stockholm
Embassy Sofia
Embassy Skopje
Embassy Singapore
Embassy Seoul
Embassy Sarajevo
Embassy Santo Domingo
Embassy Santiago
Embassy Sanaa
Embassy San Salvador
Embassy San Jose
Consulate Surabaya
Consulate Strasbourg
Consulate St Petersburg
Consulate Shenyang
Consulate Shanghai
Consulate Sapporo
Consulate Sao Paulo
Embassy Tunis
Embassy Tripoli
Embassy Tokyo
Embassy Tirana
Embassy The Hague
Embassy Tel Aviv
Embassy Tehran
Embassy Tegucigalpa
Embassy Tbilisi
Embassy Tashkent
Embassy Tallinn
Consulate Toronto
Consulate Tijuana
Consulate Thessaloniki
USUN New York
USMISSION USTR GENEVA
USEU Brussels
US Office Almaty
US Mission Geneva
US Mission CD Geneva
US Interests Section Havana
US Delegation, Secretary
US Delegation FEST TWO
UNVIE
UN Rome
Embassy Ulaanbaatar
Embassy Vilnius
Embassy Vientiane
Embassy Vienna
Embassy Vatican
Embassy Valletta
Consulate Vladivostok
Consulate Vancouver
Browse by tag
AF
ADANA
ASEC
AFIN
AMGT
AE
AORC
AID
AR
AO
AU
ASEAN
AGOA
AFGHANISTAN
AFFAIRS
AMED
APER
ASECARP
APEC
AEMR
AS
AA
ANET
AFLU
ABLD
AL
ASUP
AJ
APECO
AMER
ABUD
AODE
AM
AFSN
AESC
AND
AG
ALOW
AROC
AVIANFLU
ATRN
ACOA
AEGR
AMGMT
AADP
AFSI
ACABQ
APRM
AZ
AIDS
ASE
AGAO
ADCO
ABDALLAH
ARF
AIDAC
ACOTA
ASCH
AC
ASEG
AGR
ACS
AMCHAMS
AN
AMIA
ASIG
ADPM
ADB
ANARCHISTS
ALOWAR
ARM
AUC
AINF
AINT
AORG
AY
AVIAN
AMEDCASCKFLO
AK
ARSO
ARABBL
ASO
ANTITERRORISM
ARABL
AOWC
AGRICULTURE
ALJAZEERA
AMTC
AFINM
AOCR
ABER
ARR
AFPK
ASSEMBLY
ASSK
AZE
AORCYM
AINR
AGMT
AEC
ACKM
APRC
AIN
ASCC
AFPREL
ASED
APERTH
ASFC
ASECTH
AFSA
AOMS
AORCO
ANTXON
ARC
AFAF
ADIP
AIAG
AFARI
AEMED
AORL
AX
ASECAF
AOPC
ASECAFIN
AFZAL
APCS
AMB
AGUIRRE
AEMRASECCASCKFLOMARRPRELPINRAMGTJMXL
AIT
ARCH
AMEX
ALI
AQ
ATFN
AMBASSADOR
AORCD
AVIATION
ARAS
AINFCY
ACBAQ
AOPR
AREP
ALEXANDER
ATRD
AEIR
AOIC
ABLDG
ASEX
AFR
ASCE
ATRA
ASEK
AER
ALOUNI
AMCT
AVERY
APR
AMAT
AEMRS
ASPA
AFU
AMG
ATPDEA
ALL
AECL
ACAO
ASECKFRDCVISKIRFPHUMSMIGEG
AORD
AFL
AME
ADM
ASECPHUM
AGIT
ABT
ASECVE
AGUILAR
AT
ABMC
ALZUGUREN
ANGEL
ASR
ANTONIO
BMGT
BEXP
BM
BG
BL
BA
BR
BTA
BO
BY
BBSR
BLUE
BK
BF
BTIO
BELLVIEW
BE
BU
BN
BH
BD
BC
BTC
BILAT
BT
BX
BRUSSELS
BP
BB
BRPA
BUSH
BURMA
BMENA
BESP
BIT
BBG
BGD
BMEAID
BAGHDAD
BEN
BIO
BMOT
BWC
BLUNT
BURNS
BUT
BGMT
BAIO
BCW
BOEHNER
BFIF
BOL
BASHAR
BIMSTEC
BOU
BIDEN
BZ
BFIN
BTRA
BI
BHUM
BOIKO
BERARDUCCI
BOUCHAIB
BORDER
BEXPC
BTIU
BTT
BIOS
BEXB
BGPGOV
BOND
BLR
CE
CG
CH
CVR
CASC
CU
CI
CD
CO
CDG
CB
CJAN
CPAS
COM
CVIS
CMGT
CT
CENTCOM
CNARC
CTERR
COUNTER
CHIEF
CDC
CTR
CBW
COUNTRY
CLEARANCE
CY
CA
CM
CS
CWC
CN
CITES
CF
CWG
CIVS
CFIS
CASCC
CROATIA
CONS
COUNTERTERRORISM
CASA
COE
CJ
CHR
CODEL
CR
CBC
CACS
CHERTOFF
CAS
CONTROL
CONDITIONS
CONDOLEEZZA
CITEL
CV
CLINTON
CHG
CZ
CON
CTBT
CEN
CRIMES
COMMERCE
CLOK
CRISTINA
CFED
CARC
CND
CTM
CARICOM
COUNTRYCLEARANCE
CBTH
CHINA
CSW
CICTE
CJUS
CYPRUS
CW
CAMBODIA
CENSUS
CIDA
CRIME
CBG
CBE
CMGMT
CAIO
CEC
CARSON
CPCTC
CEDAW
COMESA
CVIA
CWCM
CEA
COSI
CAPC
CGEN
COPUOS
CGOPRC
COETRD
CKGR
CFE
CQ
CITT
CIC
CARIB
CVIC
CLO
CAFTA
CVISU
CHRISTOPHER
CACM
CIAT
CDB
CIS
CUL
CHAO
CNC
CL
CSEP
COMMAND
CENTER
COL
CAN
CAJC
CUIS
CONSULAR
CLMT
CIA
CBSA
CEUDA
CAC
CROS
CIO
CPUOS
CKOR
CVPR
CONG
CONTROLS
CEPTER
CVISCMGTCASCKOCIASECPHUMSMIGKIRF
CDCE
DPOL
DEMARCHE
DHS
DR
DA
DISENGAGEMENT
DEMOCRATIC
DEFENSE
DJ
DY
DARFUR
DHRF
DEA
DTRO
DPRK
DO
DARFR
DOC
DRL
DK
DOJ
DTRA
DOMESTIC
DAC
DOD
DEAX
DIEZ
DEOC
DELTAVIOLENCE
DCOM
DMINE
DRC
DCG
DPKO
DOMESTICPOLITICS
DE
DB
DOT
DEPT
DOE
DHLAKAMA
DHSX
DS
DKEM
DAO
DCM
DANIEL
DEM
DAVID
DCRM
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
FR
FREEDOM
FINREF
FJ
FI
FRELIMO
FOREIGN
FAA
FETHI
FAS
FTAA
FRB
FAO
FCS
FINANCE
FWS
FTA
FEMA
FDA
FLU
FRANCISCO
FBI
FORCE
FO
FARC
FK
FT
FCSC
FAC
FM
FMGT
FINV
FCSCEG
FARM
FERNANDO
FINR
FIN
FINE
FIR
FDIC
FOR
FOI
FCUL
FKLU
FMLN
FISO
FIXED
GM
GMUS
GG
GR
GE
GAZA
GT
GH
GZ
GJ
GLOBAL
GV
GABY
GOI
GA
GCC
GB
GY
GATT
GC
GUAM
GEORGE
GTIP
GOV
GOMEZ
GUTIERREZ
GL
GKGIC
GF
GU
GWI
GARCIA
GTMO
GN
GANGS
GIPNC
GAERC
GREGG
GUILLERMO
GASPAR
GERARD
GI
HK
HR
HUMANR
HUMAN
HO
HA
HUMANRIGHTS
HU
HHS
HIV
HUM
HRKAWC
HILLEN
HILLARY
HDP
HUMRIT
HSTC
HUMANITARIAN
HCOPIL
HADLEY
HURI
HL
HRETRD
HOURANI
HG
HARRIET
HESHAM
HI
HNCHR
HARRY
HRECON
HRC
HOSTAGES
HEBRON
HUMOR
HSWG
HYMPSK
HECTOR
HN
HYDE
HUD
HRPGOV
HIGHLIGHTS
ID
ILC
IS
IZ
ICAO
IMO
ITU
IR
IAEA
ICRC
IPROP
IT
IBRD
ISRAELI
IRAQI
ISSUES
ITRA
IV
IO
IGAD
IRAQ
IN
IMF
ICTR
ISCON
IADB
IDB
IEA
INR
IWC
ICCAT
ILO
INMARSAT
IOM
ICJ
IQ
ISPA
ITRD
IPR
INTELSAT
ISN
IAHRC
INTERNAL
IFAD
IICA
IHO
IRAN
IL
IRCE
IC
INTELLECTUAL
IRM
IE
ICTY
IDLI
IFO
ISCA
INF
INL
ISRAEL
INV
IBB
INFLUENZA
ISPL
ITER
ITIA
INRA
ISAF
IACHR
INTERPOL
IFR
IRS
INRB
IEF
ISAAC
ICC
INDO
IIP
IATTC
INAUGURATION
IND
INS
IZPREL
IACI
IEFIN
INNP
ILAB
IA
IMTS
ITALY
ITALIAN
IFIN
IRAJ
IX
ICG
IF
ITPHUM
ITA
IP
IACW
IK
IUCN
IZEAID
IRPE
IDA
ISLAMISTS
ITF
INRO
IBET
IDP
IRC
ISO
ICES
IRMO
ITPGOV
IQNV
IMSO
IRDB
IMET
INCB
IFRC
JA
JO
JP
JM
JCIC
JOHN
JE
JEFFERY
JS
JUS
JN
JOHNNIE
JAMES
JKUS
JOSEPH
JML
JAWAD
JSRP
JIMENEZ
JOSE
JKJUS
JK
JAPAN
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
LE
LU
LH
LA
LG
LO
LY
LANTERN
LI
LABOR
LORAN
LTTE
LT
LAS
LAB
LAW
LVPR
LARREA
LEBIK
LAURA
LS
LOTT
LOVE
LR
LEON
LAVIN
LGAT
LV
LAOS
LOG
LN
LB
MOPS
MO
MARR
ML
MASS
MZ
MR
MNUC
MX
MV
MCC
MY
MEDIA
MTCRE
MG
MCAP
MOPPS
MP
MI
MK
MC
MD
MA
MU
MASC
MW
MT
MEPP
MN
MTCR
MH
MEPI
MIL
MNUCPTEREZ
MMAR
MICHAEL
MUNC
MDC
MPOS
MONUC
MAR
MGMT
MAS
MEPN
MENDIETA
MARIA
MONTENEGRO
MOOPS
MSG
MARITIME
MURRAY
MUKASEY
MOTO
MCA
MFO
MEX
MRSEC
MMED
MACP
MAAR
MINUSTAH
MCCONNELL
MAPP
MGT
MARQUEZ
MANUEL
MNUR
MCCAIN
MF
MOHAMMAD
MOHAMED
MNU
MFA
MILITANTS
MINORITIES
MTS
MLS
MILI
MIAH
MEETINGS
MERCOSUR
MED
MARAD
MNVC
MINURSO
MNUCUN
MIK
MARK
MBM
MPP
MILITARY
MAPS
MNUK
MILA
MTRRE
MACEDONIA
MICHEL
MASSMNUC
MUCN
MQADHAFI
MPS
MARRGH
MRCRE
MTRE
MORALES
MAP
MCTRE
MHUC
MOPSGRPARM
MOROCCO
MCAPS
NL
NU
NS
NI
NPT
NATO
NO
NG
NATEU
NSF
NZ
NAS
NP
NDP
NLD
NGO
NEPAD
NAFTA
NASA
NEA
NGUYEN
NIH
NK
NIPP
NONE
NR
NANCY
NEGROPONTE
NRR
NERG
NSSP
NSG
NSFO
NE
NATSIOS
NFSO
NATIONAL
NTDB
NT
NCD
NTSB
NRC
NELSON
NAM
NH
NPG
NEC
NSC
NFATC
NMFS
NATOIRAQ
NAR
NZUS
NARC
NCCC
NA
NC
NEW
NRG
NUIN
NOVO
NATOPREL
NEY
NV
NICHOLAS
NPA
NW
NARCOTICS
NORAD
NOAA
NON
NTTC
NKNNP
NMNUC
NUMBERING
ODIP
OIIP
OPRC
OSCE
OREP
OTRA
OPET
OSCI
OVIP
OECD
OCII
OUALI
OPDC
OEXC
OFPD
OPIC
OFDP
OPCW
OECV
OAS
OM
OMIG
ODAG
OPREP
ORA
OIC
OEXCSCULKPAO
OIG
OASS
OFFICIALS
ORTA
OSAC
OIL
OIE
OEXP
OPEC
OPDAT
OMS
OES
OHI
OMAR
OCRA
OFSO
OCBD
OSTA
OAO
ONA
OTP
ORC
OAU
OXEC
OA
ODPC
OPDP
OVIPPRELUNGANU
OASC
OSHA
OPCD
OTR
OPPI
OPCR
OF
OFDPQIS
OSIC
OHUM
OSTRA
OASCC
OBSP
OFDA
OPICEAGR
OIM
OGAC
OTA
OTRAORP
OPPC
OESC
OCEA
OVP
ON
OPAD
OTAR
OCS
ODC
OTRD
OCED
OSD
ORUE
OREG
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
RS
REFUGEES
RW
RP
RELFREE
RO
REGIONAL
RIGHTS
REACTION
REPORT
RU
RENAMO
RIGHTSPOLMIL
REFORM
RM
REFUGEE
REL
RELATIONS
ROW
RREL
REGION
RATIFICATION
RBI
RICE
ROOD
RODENAS
RUIZ
RODHAM
ROBERT
RGY
ROY
REUBEN
RELIGIOUS
RUEHZO
RODRIGUEZ
RUEUN
RELAM
RSP
RF
RSO
RCMP
REO
ROSS
RPTS
RENE
REID
RUPREL
RMA
RI
REMON
RPEL
RFE
RFIN
RA
RAFAEL
RAY
RUS
RPREL
ROBERTG
RECIN
RAMONTEIJELO
SNAR
SP
SN
SMIG
SL
SOCI
SU
SG
SF
SENV
SZ
SOE
SCUL
SY
SO
SR
SYR
SE
SA
SW
SIPDIS
SCIENCE
SADC
SI
SCI
SOCIETY
SC
SAARC
STR
SECRETARY
SANC
SSH
ST
SNA
SGWI
SEP
SOCIS
SETTLEMENTS
SPECIALIST
SK
SHUM
START
STET
SCVL
SREF
SCHUL
SCUIL
SYRIA
SECURITY
SPCE
SYAI
SMIL
SOWGC
STEPHEN
SNRV
SKCA
SENSITIVE
SECI
SNAP
SPP
SCUD
SOM
SPECI
SMIGBG
SENC
SCRM
SGNV
SECTOR
SENVEAGREAIDTBIOECONSOCIXR
SENVSXE
SASIAIN
SACU
SENVSPL
SWMN
STEINBERG
SOPN
SOCR
SCOI
SCRS
SILVASANDE
SWE
SARS
SNARIZ
SUDAN
SENVQGR
SM
SNARKTFN
SAAD
SD
SAN
SIPRNET
STATE
SENS
SUBJECT
SFNV
SECSTATE
SSA
SPCVIS
SOI
SOFA
SCULKPAOECONTU
SPTER
SKSAF
SENVKGHG
SHI
SEVN
SANR
SPSTATE
SMITH
SCOM
SH
SNARCS
SNARN
SIPRS
SNARM
SIPDI
SCPR
SNIG
SELAB
SULLIVAN
SENVENV
SECDEF
SOLIC
SOIC
SPAS
SASC
SOSI
SEC
SEN
SENVCASCEAIDID
TU
TH
TW
TSPA
TRGY
TPHY
TBIO
TIFA
TS
TZ
TX
TSPL
TT
TK
TC
TINT
TERFIN
TERRORISM
TIP
TURKEY
TI
TECHNOLOGY
TNGD
TRSY
TRAFFICKING
TOPEC
TPSL
TP
TD
TR
TA
TIO
TREATY
TO
THPY
TECH
TRADE
TPSA
TG
TAGS
TF
TRAD
THKSJA
TVBIO
TNDG
TN
TBIOZK
TWI
TV
TWL
TRT
TWRO
TSRY
TTPGOV
TAUSCHER
TRBY
TRBIO
TL
TPKO
TIA
TGRY
TSPAM
TREL
TNAR
TBI
TFIN
TPHYPA
TWCH
THOMMA
THOMAS
TERROR
TRY
TBID
TPP
TE
THANH
TJ
TBKIO
UNGA
USUN
UN
UG
UNSC
UK
UP
US
UNCTAD
UNVIE
UNHRC
USTR
UNAMA
UNCRIME
UNESCO
UV
UNDP
UNHCR
UNCSD
UNCHR
UZ
USAID
UNEP
UNO
UNPUOS
UY
UNDC
UNCITRAL
UNAUS
UNCND
UA
UNMIK
USTDA
USEU
USDA
UNICEF
UR
UNFICYP
USNC
USTRRP
UNODC
UNRWA
UNOMIG
USTRPS
USAU
USCC
UNEF
UNGAPL
UNFPA
UNSCE
USSC
UGA
UEU
UNMIC
UNTAC
UNION
UNCLASSIFIED
USPS
UNA
UMIK
USOAS
UNMOVIC
UNFA
UNAIDS
UNCHC
USGS
UNSE
UNRCR
UNTERR
USG
UE
UAE
UNWRA
UNCSW
UNSCR
UNCHS
UNDESCO
UNPAR
UNC
UB
UNSCS
UKXG
UNGACG
UNREST
UNHR
USPTO
UNFCYP
USCG
UNIDROIT
UNSCD
UPU
UNBRO
UNECE
USTRUWR
UNCC
UNESCOSCULPRELPHUMKPALCUIRXFVEKV
VM
VE
VT
VETTING
VN
VZ
VIS
VC
VTPREL
VIP
VTEAID
VTEG
VOA
VA
VTIZ
VANG
VISIT
VO
VENZ
VAT
VI
VEPREL
VEN
WFP
WTO
WHO
WTRO
WBG
WMO
WIPO
WA
WI
WSIS
WHA
WCL
WE
WMN
WEBZ
WS
WAR
WZ
WMD
WW
WILLIAM
WEET
WAEMU
WM
WWBG
WWT
WWARD
WITH
WMDT
WTRQ
WCO
WEU
WALTER
WRTO
WB
WHTI
WBEG
WCI
WEF
WAKI
WHOA
WGC
Browse by classification
Community resources
courage is contagious
Viewing cable 05GENEVA1825, 11-15 JULY 2005 MEETINGS OF THE WTO RULES NEGOTIATING
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.
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. #05GENEVA1825.
| Reference ID | Created | Released | Classification | Origin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 05GENEVA1825 | 2005-08-02 10:22 | 2011-08-25 00:00 | UNCLASSIFIED//FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY | 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 07 GENEVA 001825
SIPDIS
SENSITIVE
PASS USTR FOR ALLGEIER, DWOSKIN
STATE/EB/OT FOR CRAFT
USDA/FAS/ITP FOR MTND/HENKE, FAA/SE/WILSON
USDOC FOR SPETRINI, JACOBS
E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ETRD WTRO USTR
SUBJECT: 11-15 JULY 2005 MEETINGS OF THE WTO RULES NEGOTIATING
GROUP
This cable is Sensitive but Unclassified - Please Protect
Accordingly
SUMMARY
¶1. (SBU) The WTO Rules Negotiating Group met formally and
informally 11-15 July 2005. Thirteen papers were submitted for
these meetings (nine on antidumping and countervailing duties,
one on subsidies and three on fisheries subsidies) demonstrating
a continued high level of interest in these negotiations; the
negotiating group ran out of time for discussion, so five of
these papers will be taken up at the September meeting. The
Chairman also continued his plurilateral consultations with a
smaller group of approximately 14 delegations; this has become an
important forum primarily for the discussions on antidumping,
although for the first time in the plurilateral consultations the
group took up a proposal on subsidies (a paper by the United
States on the allocation of subsidies). There were also
substantive discussions on papers from Egypt on currency
conversion in antidumping calculations, Canada on special dispute
settlement rules from antidumping and countervailing duty cases,
China on establishing post-initiation comment procedures, and two
papers from the Friends of Antidumping Negotiations, one on
limiting the number of exporters examined and one on introducing
a public interest test. A prior discussion of a paper by the
Friends on reviews of antidumping duty measures was also resumed.
¶2. (SBU) There were also fisheries subsidies papers from Japan on
illegal, unreported and unregulated ("IUU") fishing and from
Australia, Ecuador and New Zealand on aquaculture. However, the
most significant discussion of the week related to a very
ambitious paper by Brazil laying out a broad proposal on the
kinds of subsidies that should be prohibited or permitted, and on
special and differential ("S&D") treatment for developing
countries. Although there was much informal discussion about how
to intensify the negotiations in anticipation of the Hong Kong
Ministerial meeting in December, for example by lengthening the
meetings or forming smaller groups to address specific issues, no
changes were formally announced. The United States also used the
opportunity of the Rules Group meeting to meet bilaterally with,
among others, Brazil, China, Mexico and Norway, and
plurilaterally with the EC, Australia and Canada to discuss
countervailing duty and subsidy issues. The next Rules Group
meeting will be held 26-30 September 2005. End summary.
ANTIDUMPING
EGYPT PAPER ON CURRENCY CONVERSION
¶3. (SBU) Egypt presented in formal session its paper
(TN/RL/W/183) on clarifying the rules on conversion of currency
in antidumping calculations, specifically, by defining the terms
"fluctuation" and "sustained movement" of currency, as they are
used in Article 2.4.1 of the antidumping agreement. Most of the
comments by Members were supportive, although several Members
asked Egypt to describe its own methodology. Several Members,
including Brazil and Japan, noted that this would be a very
difficult issue to negotiate, and therefore tended to favor a
prior US proposal (TN/RL/GEN/5) which approached the issue as one
of transparency, by asking Members to report their practices to
ensure consistency, rather than attempting to define permissible
practices. Korea and Thailand both stated that they had no
experience with this provision in their antidumping practice.
The EC recalled the difficult negotiations on this issue in the
Uruguay Round, and said that it avoided the problem by using
average exchange rates; where there is a problem, the EC breaks
its averaging into sub-periods, such as months.
CANADA PAPER ON DISPUTE SETTLEMENT
¶4. (SBU) Canada presented its paper (TN/RL/GEN/48) in informal
session and in the plurilateral meeting on improving dispute
settlement procedures in cases involving antidumping and
countervailing duty measures. The proposal would require a
Member, promptly upon a finding by the dispute settlement body of
any WTO-inconsistency in an antidumping or countervailing duty
measure, to suspend the measure until a new, compliant measure is
put into place and approved by a panel. Unlike an earlier
proposal by Canada (TN/RL/GEN/37), this proposal was modified so
as not to require refund of all duties back to the time the
measure was originally put into place. (NOTE: This proposal
reflects Canada's concerns that its companies have had to make
large deposits of antidumping and countervailing duties during
the ongoing disputes relating to softwood lumber.)
¶5. (SBU) This version of Canada's proposal received much broader
support, particularly among some of the Friends of Antidumping.
However, from the tone of interventions, it is not clear how
seriously Members are taking this proposal. A number of Members
questioned whether this proposal goes too far in the case of
minor inconsistencies. Several Members, including Japan and the
US also asked why this proposal was limited to antidumping and
countervailing duty measures; the US noted that the economic harm
from measures inconsistent with other agreements could be just as
great; Mexico noted that in the DSU negotiations it had made a
similar proposal applicable to all agreements; Brazil, half-
jokingly, suggested it would like to see this proposal applied to
the agriculture agreement. Canada replied that special treatment
was justified by the high number of challenges to antidumping and
countervailing duty measures, and by the large amounts of money
involved. Japan also asked how the proposal would affect
prospective duty collection systems, which would not be able to
reach back and collect any duties if the Member taking the
measure is successful on appeal; they suggested that in light of
this problem, the proposal should be limited to retrospective
duty assessment systems. (NOTE: The US has the only clearly
retrospective duty assessment system for antidumping and
countervailing duties.) The EC described Canada's paper as a
move in the right direction, and it looked favorably on it;
however, it noted that there are certain details of the proposal
that need to be worked out.
FRIENDS PAPER ON LIMITED EXAMINATION
AND THE ALL OTHERS RATE
¶6. (SBU) Norway on behalf of the Friends of Antidumping presented
their paper (TN/RL/GEN/46) in informal session on conditions
under which an authority may limit the number of exporting
companies it examines in an antidumping investigation, and how it
calculates the "all others" rate applicable to non-investigated
exporters. While several Members said that the provisions of the
Antidumping Agreement in question needed clarification, support
for this paper was quite limited. Many Members questioned the
feasibility of the proposal to require examination of at least
2/3 of the exporters in every case.
¶7. (SBU) The US suggested that more clarification was needed of
the kinds of reasons that would justify a limited examination,
and also noted that the proposal to require authorities to accept
up to ten volunteered responses in addition to the 2/3 of
exporters it was otherwise required to examine seemed to require
the impossible, and effectively required examination of all
exporters in virtually all cases. Mexico argued that all known
exporters should receive a questionnaire, but those who did not
make themselves known and "remained in the shadows" should be
treated as uncooperative; after the exporters have responded, the
authority can decide for which of them it will calculate a margin
of dumping. (NOTE: Mexico recently lost a dispute settlement
challenge by the US to its antidumping measure on rice and was
criticized by the Panel for passively waiting for exporters, who
may not have known about the case, to announce their interest to
the authorities, and treating any who did not as uncooperative
parties subject to highest possible rate of duty.) The EC
delivered a long (over 30 minute) critique of the paper that drew
an equally long defense by Norway. (NOTE: Norway is reportedly
unhappy about the way the EC selected exporters in its recent
investigation of Salmon, which may, in part, have been the
genesis of this paper and would explain the tone of the final
exchange.)
CHINA PAPER ON ESTABLISHMENT OF
COMMENT PERIOD AFTER INITIATION
¶8. (SBU) China presented in the informal session its paper
(TN/RL/GEN/55) on establishing a formal 20-day comment period
after initiation during which all investigative activity would be
suspended while parties commented on the allegations in the
petition, the product coverage of the investigation, and any
other issue they thought needed to be addressed promptly. The
response to the paper was quite positive, although the Friends
clearly are of the view that the paper does not go far enough in
disciplining initiations, while most users of antidumping were
concerned about the disruption of their process. Korea and
Norway agreed that there should be a time set aside for comment
on the petition, but that time should be prior to initiation so
that improper initiations can be avoided. The EC seemed to echo
this view by observing that it may be more difficult for
authorities to end an investigation that has already begun than
never to begin one at all. Brazil wondered why this proposal is
necessary, as parties can already submit any comments they
believe are relevant; it asked if establishing a formal comment
period would preclude comments later. The US also noted that,
while it is not opposed to this concept, parties are already free
to submit comments at any time; the US asked for more details
about how this proposal would work in practice. Australia
expressed concern that this proposal would delay the
questionnaire, which is a serious concern given its relatively
short investigation period. China recognized the possible timing
implications of its proposal and indicated that it did not
believe that it would extend the procedure too long.
FRIENDS PAPER ON LESSER DUTY
¶9. (SBU) The Friends presented their paper on lesser duty
(TN/RL/GEN/430 during the plurilateral consultations, and India
also re-presented a paper it had submitted in the spring
(TN/RL/GEN/32). Neither Japan (for the Friends) nor India had
much new to say about their Lesser Duty proposals. The
discussion was dominated by the EC and Brazil (co-sponsor from
the Friends), each discussing their respective lesser duty
practices and methodologies. The EC, in particular, seemed
intent on seizing leadership of the issue, by criticizing the
Friends' proposal and methodologies at great length, and
explaining how the EC's methodology was the only real workable
one consistent with a high level of ambition. The EC also
criticized the technical level of the discussion of the proposals
before Members really had begun that discussion.
¶10. (SBU) The EC lost some of its bluster, however, when Korea
said that, unlike the inflexible US system, the EC "negotiates"
the lesser duty between exporters and the domestic industry.
The EC indignantly denied that they "negotiate" this, stating
that the Commission applies rules, although the administrators of
course have a certain degree of discretion. A continuation of
the discussion focused on the determination of an appropriate
level of profit when calculating a lesser duty and again
highlighted the high degree of administrative discretion in some
Members' practices. The US used these exchanges to point out the
dangers of "managed trade" posed by these proposals. Another big
focus of the discussion was the impact of the application of the
dispute settlement system on lesser duty methodologies, which are
currently discretionary and largely non-transparent. There was
also a discussion of how judicial review in the US would affect
the lesser duty methodologies. The US raised a number of other
concerns, previewing the issues raised in the US paper
(TN/RL/GEN/58) to be discussed in September. Egypt, Argentina
and Canada also raised concerns about a mandatory lesser duty
rule, but a number of Members, such as China, remained silent.
The Chairman stated that we will continue the discussion of
lesser duty at the September plurilateral session.
FRIENDS PAPER ON PUBLIC INTEREST
¶11. (SBU) On behalf of the Friends, Hong Kong presented in the
informal session the revised paper (TN/RL/GEN/53) on a mandatory
public interest test. Hong Kong pointed out that the proposal is
limited to requiring examination of a measure's economic effects,
rather than the broader public interest. The proposal also does
not define how those effects should be examined, although that
can be discussed at a later meeting. India noted that all
Members consider their public interest, but asked whether we
really need a legal obligation; it also asked Members to share
their experiences. Canada, which has an infrequently-used public
interest provision in its current law, indicated that it
supported the thrust of the paper, but believed that such an
inquiry should be distinct from the determination of AD/CV
duties. It believed that a public interest test should be
considered only after a Member has determined that antidumping
measures are otherwise appropriate. Reflecting comments by many
Members at the prior meeting, Brazil expressed concern about how
a public interest decision would be treated by a dispute
settlement panel. China complained that the new version of this
paper was limited to economic interests, rather than broader
public interest; in China's view Members should consider such
issues as public health, the environment and national security in
deciding whether to apply antidumping duties. At this point,
time ran out, but the Chair said he would return to this paper at
the September meeting.
FRIENDS PROPOSAL ON REVIEW
PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 9
¶12. (SBU) Korea presented in the plurilateral consultations the
FANs paper (TN/RL/GEN/44) on proposals for Article 9 procedures
(imposition and collection/assessment of antidumping duties).
This was the second time the paper was discussed during
plurilateral consultations. (Note: at the last plurilateral,
the FANs were having such difficulty explaining and justifying
their proposals that the Chairman stopped the discussion and
asked that proponents do some homework in order to better present
their case for the next meeting.) This time Korea was better
prepared and the discussions went more smoothly, although little,
if any convergence on issues was reached.
¶13. (SBU) The FANs' paper advocates that certain rules and
principles applicable to the investigation phase of a dumping
investigation be equally applicable to subsequent proceedings
(for example new shipper reviews and, in the U.S. system,
"administrative reviews," during which the final assessment of
antidumping duties is determined). Two central issues flow from
this proposal: (1) whether the practice of "zeroing" should be
disallowed in the context of administrative reviews and (2)
whether the "de minimis" threshold in investigations should be
applicable to administrative reviews. Because the practice of
zeroing in the context of administrative reviews is currently
being examined by two WTO dispute settlement panels, Members
recognized that further discussion of the issue should wait until
after the examination of the panel reports. As to the de minimis
issue, the FANs argued that there was no reason why the two
percent threshold applicable in investigations should not be
equally applicable to administrative reviews. The United States
countered by stating that the de minimis threshold was a
negotiated threshold without any substantive meaning and that, as
the WTO Appellate Body has recognized, nothing in the current
text of the Antidumping Agreement required the two percent
threshold to be applicable to administrative reviews.
¶14. (SBU) The FANs paper also proposed that the evidence and due
process provisions of Article 6 become applicable to Article 9
review proceedings. As an initial matter, several Members,
including the United States, made the point that the FANs should
clarify precisely which specific provisions of Article 6 should
be applicable Article 9 proceedings and for the provisions that
would apply, precisely how they would apply. More generally
however, the United States expressed some support for this
proposal given that numerous due process procedures are already
part of U.S. practice. Others with less transparent systems were
more argumentative. The EC, for example, asked the FANs to
explain their practice in this area, knowing that Korea, despite
being a significant user of the antidumping remedy, has conducted
very few, if any, reviews under Article 9. Korea's unconvincing
response was that their initial investigations were so thorough
that subsequent reviews were unnecessary. The EC also made the
relatively weak argument that Article 9 proceedings in the EC
system were only of concern to the importer and exporter being
examined, ignoring the fact that decisions made in one
determination might establish an important precedent in other
proceedings involving similarly situated interested parties.
Overall, given the vastly different systems of Members under
Article 9 (e.g., retrospective versus prospective duty
collection), it became abundantly apparent that the FANs
proposals would have varying ramifications and that Members were
reluctant change their particular duty collection system.
SUBSIDIES
US PAPER ON WHEN AND HOW TO ALLOCATE
SUBSIDY BENEFITS OVER TIME
¶15. (SBU) The US presented in informal session, and again in the
plurilateral consultations, its paper (TN/RL/GEN/45) synthesizing
and elaborating upon three earlier proposals (TN/RL/GEN/4,
TN/RL/GEN/12 and TN/RL/GEN/17) on the decision of whether to
allocate the benefits of a subsidy over time rather than
attributing them solely to the year of receipt. If benefits are
allocated, the US paper addressed the period and model of the
allocation. The US noted that there are at least three possible
bases for distinguishing subsidies to be allocated from those to
be expensed: frequency, size and use. There was broad support
for the US approach which identifies subsidies to be allocated
based on frequency with which the subsidy is granted, i.e., on
whether a subsidy is recurring or non-recurring, with the latter
subsidies being allocated over time. On this point, Canada noted
that it distinguishes subsidies based on the use and purpose of
the subsidy, and would want any rules or guidelines on subsidy
allocation to remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate
Members' different approaches. The US agreed that some
flexibility should be preserved, and noted that the Canadian and
US methodologies often lead to the same result.
¶16. (SBU) While there also appeared to be general agreement as to
the use of the average useful life of assets in the industry in
question as the allocation period, several Members commented that
they favored using an allocation period based on the average
useful life of industry assets in the exporting country rather
than on the assets of the importing company, as suggested by the
US. The US pointed out that this would mean that in a
countervailing duty investigation, similar subsidies given by
different exporting countries could result in different
countervailing duty rates and, moreover, the average useful life
of particular assets are generally the same regardless of the
country in which they are used.
¶17. (SBU) With regard to the US proposal that the time value of
money be factored into any allocation model, Brazil suggested
that, as in the case of the export credit rules, this would
disadvantage developing countries who generally have higher costs
of capital. The US responded that the time value of money is a
fundamental principle of finance, that the export credit rules
are an entirely separate issue, and that a GATT Panel and an
Informal Group of Experts has already endorsed inclusion of the
time value of money in any allocation formula. Finally, several
Members asked whether the US proposal would only apply to
countervailing measures, or would also apply to direct dispute
settlement challenges to subsidies. The US responded that it was
focusing on countervailing duties, but suggested that it may be
appropriate to apply these principles to other parts of the
Subsidies Agreement as well and that there should be a separate
discussion on this issue.
FISHERIES SUBSIDIES
¶18. (SBU) On July 15, meeting for almost a full day, the Rules
Negotiating group discussed the fish subsidies element of its
mandate, in what may have been the most substantive and technical
discussion to date. Three papers, from Japan, Australia, and
most importantly, from Brazil, addressed which kinds of subsidies
should or should not be permitted under a future agreement.
Japan's paper provided an overview of international efforts to
combat illegal, unreported and unregulated ("IUU") fishing.
Australia, Ecuador and New Zealand cosponsored an informative
paper to help Members decide whether new fisheries subsidies
disciplines should be applicable to acquaculture and whether
there might be a risk of circumvention of stronger disciplines on
wild (fisheries) if aquaculture were excluded. Brazil's paper
presented a detailed, revised proposal addressing which
particular subsidies should be actionable, and what special
provisions might apply to developing countries. While there are
many difficult issues ahead, it is clear that the negotiating
group is engaging at a technical level that is necessary to make
significant progress in the negotiation.
JAPAN PAPER ON "IUU"
FISHING
¶19. (SBU) In welcoming Japan's paper, Members acknowledged the
role of IUU fishing in depleting fisheries resources and
distorting trade but roundly questioned the WTO's role in
addressing the matter. Canada and Chile took the opportunity to
inform Members of their countries' successful conclusion of
national plans of action implementing the FAO International Plan
of Action on IUU Fishing. Many delegations pointed out the
obvious fact that no country explicitly subsidizes IUU fishing.
These delegations suggested that overcapacity was the primary
driver of IUU fishing, and that stronger disciplines on subsidies
that contribute to overcapacity would help address the causes of
IUU fishing. There was also an extensive discussion of the only
example given by Japan of the kind of subsidy that should be
disciplined to help address IUU fishing: subsidies associated
with transferring vessels from a contracting party of a regional
fisheries management organization (RFMO) to a non-contracting
party of an RFMO and vice versa.
AUSTRALIA, ECUADOR AND
NEW ZEALND PAPER ON AQUACULTURE
¶20. (SBU) Australia characterized its paper as an attempt to
spark debate on what aspects of aquaculture were within or
outside the scope of the Rules Negotiations. The Australian
delegate said it was important that new disciplines on fisheries
subsidies not weaken existing disciplines on aquaculture and
reminded delegations of the rapid growth of the sector and the
interplay between wild caught and farming operations (as feed
fish and as fingerlings for ranching operations, for example).
Although certain delegations, including the United States,
pointed out the importance of debating the implications of not
specifically including aquaculture as a focus of the
negotiations, there was a general sense that (1) wild capture
fisheries should be the focus of this negotiation and (2) any
subsidy element associated with wild caught inputs to the sector
would likely be captured by new and/or existing disciplines.
BRAZIL PAPER ON FISHERIES SUBSIDIES
AND SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL
TREATMENT
¶21. (SBU) Brazil's proposal has been the most ambitious and far-
ranging in the discussions so far, as it attempts to lay out a
broad plan of the kinds of subsidies which should be prohibited
or permitted, and of the circumstances under which special and
differential treatment should be granted to developing countries.
The proposal would prohibit all subsidies to the wild (capture)
fisheries sector (that is, excluding aquaculture and inland
fisheries), except for programs included in a non-actionable
green box. The non-actionable programs would include subsidies
for various conservation, health and safety purposes, programs to
reduce fishing capacity (i.e., buybacks) and retraining programs
for fishermen. Subsidies to artisanal and small-scale fishing
would also be non-actionable depending upon the state of the
stock (as determined by the FAO). The paper offers definitions
of "artisanal" and "small-scale" fishing. (Note: this exclusion
would apparently apply to developed as well as developing
countries.) However, if any vessel and/or company of a Member
were found to engage in IUU fishing, serious prejudice would be
deemed to exist for all of that Member's otherwise non-actionable
subsidies. Members would have three years to phase out or
eliminate all prohibited subsidies. Members would also have to
comply with more detailed notification requirements (including
information identifying the fishery receiving the subsidy,
subsidy amounts on a per vessel/fleet/fishery basis and the
management status of the fishery); if a subsidy is not notified,
it would be presumed to be prohibited.
¶22. (SBU) For developing countries, an additional list of
subsidies would be permitted under certain conditions (e.g.,
Members which are part of a regional fisheries management
organization would receive special flexibility), including
subsidies to fishing vessel construction, repair and
modernization, government-to-government payments for access to a
country's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and assistance to
disadvantaged regions. However, serious prejudice would be
presumed in certain circumstances (e.g., subsidies benefiting any
vessel not operating under the rules of a regional fisheries
management organization).
¶23. (SBU) The paper was very well received with many delegations
applauding the substantive work and level of technical
engagement. Virtually every aspect of the paper provoked
discussion as delegates responded to the many details offered in
the paper, mostly reacting to the text rather than questioning
the Brazilian formulation or assumptions. Developing countries,
such as India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, et al, welcomed the
S&D provisions but questioned the strictures involved. Japan,
Korea and Chinese Taipei in an apparent concern for the treatment
of China, criticized the two-tiered approach to disciplining
subsidies. Korea questioned whether the proposal was too
elaborate at this stage in the negotiations. Many countries
questioned the draconian nature of the one-strike-and-you-are-out
proposal on IUU fishing and the difficulties of meeting the
notification requirements, although many countries welcomed
strong transparency provisions, including the EC which has made
transparency its strongest objective. There were calls for
further refinement of distinctions between artisanal and small
scale fisheries. In every instance, Brazil described its paper
as a work in progress intended to stimulate discussion, and
expressed flexibility on the particulars.
¶24. (SBU) The United States reaffirmed its discomfort with a
green light category, and questioned if some of the proposed
greenlight programs could instead be simply exempted from the
contemplated stricter disciplines. New Zealand highlighted the
need to keep the approach simple and suggested that infusing a de
minimis threshold into the negotiated text might obviate the need
for an S&D response to every provision.
TECHNICAL GROUP ON QUESTIONNAIRES
¶25. (SBU) The technical group on questionnaires reconvened to
continue a discussion of Members' practices with regard to
antidumping questionnaires. For this meeting, the Group's
Chairman provided members with a matrix comparing the standard
exporter questionnaires of Brazil, China, The European
Communities, India, New Zealand, and the United States. The
Group reviewed sections of the matrix addressing company contact
information, corporate structure, and affiliation. The Chair
concluded that there was general agreement on two points: 1) E-
mail addresses should be requested and used to facilitate the
process of collecting data, recognizing that the medium may not
be appropriate for the transmission of certain information; and
2) an organization chart of the respondent company is a useful
tool which should be requested. Finally, the Chair noted that
Members' questions regarding affiliation differ significantly.
The level of detail contained in the United States' affiliation
questions became the focus of the discussion, but the session
concluded with no consensus on the requisite questions that
should be asked with regard to affiliation.
PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND BILATERAL MEETINGS
¶26. (SBU) The Chairman held a series of meetings with individual
Members and small groups to discuss ways to intensify the process
leading up to the Hong Kong ministerial in December. The Chair
made it clear that in his view the current process is working
well, but may need to be augmented. The problem with the current
process was illustrated by the fact that the Group did not have
time to discuss four of the papers submitted for this meeting.
Various ideas were floated including lengthening the meetings,
and appointing "facilitators" to guide the discussions on certain
issues. However, the Chair did not announce at the meeting any
specific decision regarding the details of such proposals.
(NOTE: In a subsequent report to the Trade Negotiating Committee,
the Chair stated that he expected to select "Friends of the
Chair" to advance the work on particular issues.)
¶27. (SBU) The United States had a bilateral meeting at the
request of Brazil in order to allow its administrators to make a
presentation on their calculation of a "lesser duty" in
antidumping investigations. The United States met bilaterally
with China and with Mexico to get a better sense of their views
on the progress of negotiations. The United States also met
bilaterally with Norway to discuss its proposal on transparency
and due process in antidumping investigations that it will be
presenting to the negotiating group in September. Finally, the
United States met plurilaterally with the EC, Canada and
Australia to discuss how to move the countervailing duty/subsidy
aspects of the negotiations forward. Shark