It is my understanding that, in a paper circulated this morning, the provisions of the S&D Group were broadly divided into (a) provisions to improve trade opportunities, (b) provisions obliging WTO Members to safeguard the interests of developing countries; (c) Arrangements for developing countries to make fewer commitments; (d) provisions relating to transitional periods; and (e) provisions on technical assistance. I believe that the aspects related to increasing commercial opportunities and technical assistance were dealt with during the morning sessions. In my presentation, I will address only those provisions that oblige WTO Members to safeguard the interests of developing countries and those provisions that allow developing countries to make fewer commitments. Obviously, it is not possible to process all agreements. I believe that my colleague from the Dominican Republic has already mentioned a number of agreements, such as the agreement on textiles, the agreement on services, the agreement on subsidies, etc. I shall therefore confine myself to agreements which have important implications for access to developed countries` markets for products from developing countries, namely the SPS Agreement, the TBT Agreement and the Anti-Dumping Agreement. I would also like to comment briefly on Article XVIII.B) of GATT 94 and the Dispute Settlement Agreement because of their importance. The peace clause is a product of the Bali Summit. Article 13 of the AoA contains a “restriction due” or a “peace clause” that governs the application of other WTO agreements to subsidies. Under the terms, green box`s domestic support measures cannot be countervailed or otherly subsidized. Nor can they be supported by actions based on non-violation of infringements of tariff concessions under the GATT. The thrust of what I have tried to say is that the S&D provisions, as contained in various agreements, offer no benefit, relief or value to developing countries. If it were intended that these provisions would have no value for developing countries, I would propose to delete them.
By simply having these provisions without operational meaning or legal enforcement, we give the impression that developing countries benefit from them. Therefore, I believe that the existing S&D provisions should either be made operationally and legally enforceable or deleted. In future, we should not include non-binding S&D provisions in agreements. In this situation, developing countries are forced to evaluate their commitments without a false sense of complacency promoted by S&D regulations of the kind we currently have. .