Dear friends and colleagues,

 In the past few days, many developing countries have increasingly vocally voiced their frustration and disenchantment with the Seattle preparatory  process because they have been left out of the most important  negotiations----those going on in secretive small groups selected by the WTO  Director General Mike Moore.

 These so-called "green room" meetings discuss specific issues and paragraphs  of the Ministerial Declaration draft. They have not been officially  mandated by the General Council. Those not invited (ie the majority) are  not informed of what meetings are going on, when or where, or what is being  discussed, and who has proposed what language.

 The dissatisfaction has spilled over from the corridors to the General  Council and the heads-of-delegations meetings (which all Members are invited  to). There is talk among the diplomats of the developing countries, of the  Director-General having "hijacked" the General Council's Seattle process,  and of the smaller developing countries counting for nothing in  decision-making.

 This development has seriously damaged the claims made by the WTO's major  powers and the secretariat about the transparent and democratic nature of  the organisation. It gives credence to the critics who have long claimed  that decisions are really made by a few, and that the process lacks  transparency. Whilst many NGOs have criticised the WTO's lack of  transparency vis-a-vis the public, just as serious (or perhaps even more  serious) is its lack of "internal transparency", ie that a large number of  Members themselves do not know what is going on and have no say in important  aspects of decision-making.

 Attached is an article by myself on this situation that was published in the  South-North Development Monitor (SUNS) of 9 November. We are distributing  it as a service to the public and the NGO community.

 For more information on the WTO negotiations and other subjects, check the  TWN website at www.twnside.org.sg.

 With best wishes,

 Martin Khor,  Third World Network

 Geneva 8 Nov (Martin Khor) -- A groundswell of concern and unhappiness  by many developing countries over the lack of their participation in  the WTO preparatory process for the Seattle Ministerial and its  increasingly non-transparent nature built up at the end of last week  and spilled over into the informal heads-of-delegation (HOD) meeting  last Saturday.

 Diplomats of many delegations, especially of smaller countries, are now  openly and vocally airing their grievances over their not being  informed about or invited to the "Green Room" meetings, of a small  group of countries, that have proliferated at this late stage of the  negotiations towards Seattle.

 "The Director-General has hijacked the General Council process," said  the Ambassador of one developing country, speaking on background basis.  Added another: "It is assumed that a few countries can be invited to  resolve the issues, and that the rest of us will accept the results as  a fait accompli."

 The target of the growing criticisms is the series of small-group  meetings, called by and usually chaired by the WTO director-general  Mike Moore, at which the developed countries and a few selected  developing countries are supposed to intensely discuss their respective  positions and try to work out new compromise language in attempts to  bridge differences in the draft Ministerial Text.

 What meetings are being held, which issues are being discussed, which  delegations have been invited, what has been discussed, and what new  texts on which paragraphs of the draft Declaration have been submitted  at the meetings or being worked out, are not known to the general WTO  membership.

 Except for a few countries, the vast majority are kept utterly in the  dark on what constitutes the most vital aspects of the pre-Seattle  negotiations.

 Those attending such meetings also say that often one or two opposed to  the views of the majors and the secretariat are sought to feel  isolated, and only a few could stand up against such a process. And on  top of it, the meetings are held well into night, and sometimes till  the early hours of the morning - in an effort to get consensus by  exhaustion and wearing out.

 Last Thursday, at the formal General Council meeting, five delegations  for the first time openly complained about the "green room" process,  which has not been mandated by the General Council. Neither the  Chairman, Amb. Ali Mchumo of Tanzania nor Moore gave any response.

 According to diplomats, Moore and Mchumo met with about 14 delegations  on Friday to listen to their grievances. But the meeting failed to  yield any positive results. Although Moore listened to the complaints,  said the diplomats, he failed to respond in any satisfactory way,  instead only reiterating that the small-group process could not be  avoided.

 "He did not even assure us he would find some mechanism of keeping  those of us who are not part of the green-room process briefed about  what is going on, which is the minimum we expect," said a senior  diplomat last Saturday.

 "The Director-General and the major countries are making the assumption  that only a small group comprising themselves and a few developing  countries can resolve the issues, and they take for granted that in the  end all the others will be told the results, and we have to accept that  as a fait accompli."

 Said another Ambassador of a developing country: "The Director-General  has hijacked the General Council process. He is behaving like the  Managing Director of a company and we the majority of developing  countries are being treated like non-voting members because our  shareholding is deemed to be too low."

 He said that the green-room process in which most Members are excluded  has not been mandated by the General Council. He added that the process  is also in violation of the Ministerial Declaration of Geneva (20 May  1998), in which Ministers instructed the General Council to prepare for  the Seattle Conference with full respect for decision-making by  consensus.

 (The relevant part of para 9 of the Declaration states that: "We  decide that a process will be established under the direction of the  General Council to ensure full and faithful implementation of existing  agreements, and to prepare for the Third Session of the Ministerial  Conference. This process shall enable the General Council to submit  recommendations that will enable us to take decisions at the Third  Session. In this regard the General Council will meet in special  session to ensure full and timely completion of its work, fully  respecting the principle of decision-making by consensus.")

 On Friday, Moore had sent a letter to the Chairman, which suggested  that the 'green room' consultations was in pursuance of a request from  Mchumo. On Saturday, there was some reference to this apparently, with  some participants saying that Mchumo had confirmed this, while others  said that Mchumo's references were more ambiguous and merely said that  he had asked Moore to conduct the consultations in Mchumo's absence.

 But either way, said a trade diplomat, with some knowledge of the past  including the mid-1980 GATT, it was not something that in terms of the  WTO and its specific rules could be decided by an arrangement between  Mchumo and Moore, but needed authority from the General Council. Also,  agreements among a small few as in the old GATT days could not be  pushed through in the new WTO, particularly with the public in many  countries sensitive to the fact that their own government  representatives are not involved in these 'consultations' and only get  to know at the end - as they saw at Singapore.

 On Saturday, at the opening of the informal HOD meeting, Moore tried to  assure delegations on the importance he attached to the transparency of  the negotiating process. But some delegations reiterated their grave  concerns about the green-room process, and even more delegates were  voicing their grievances, including about how the Director-General had  failed to provide any solutions beyond mere rhetoric, outside the  meeting room.

 "There should be no doubt about the importance both you and I attach to  the transparency and to the primacy of the General Council in all our  work," said Moore. "Let me add however that it is inconceivable that  progress can be made without a wide variety of consultations among  delegations. Delegations have been working to further convergence  bilaterally or in groups. This is both necessary and desirable.  Similarly I have been consulting with a wide range of delegations in a  variety of formats.

 "But it should be clear that nothing is agreed until it is agreed by  the membership as a whole, and consensus means all voices must be  heard. I understand the frustration of smaller delegations at the  complexity of the process. I will work closely with you for maximum  possible inclusiveness and openness. Likewise we must ensure all  Ministers at Seattle are fully and properly involved in the substance  of that Ministerial."

 In response, Amb. Alfredo Suescum of Panama said "many developing  countries are not satisfied with the level of transparency and openness  in the organisation. They are not being notified about what meetings  are taking place. They are concerned why there was a limitation imposed  on the number of delegations being invited to take part, why a general  notice on the meetings was not being given."

 He said that if there was a concern that the size of the negotiating  groups should not be too big, "our suggestion is that there could be  small meetings, but organised differently, where for example those  countries that had put forward proposals could be given the opportunity  to present them and answer queries. At present, small developing  countries making proposals are not even invited and thus could not have  the chance to explain them."

 He said it was not a good reason to exclude many developing countries  on the ground that they are unable to take part in many meetings. "I  would rather make the decision whether I want to go the meetings, and  each delegation should be able to make its own decision."

 He added that any proposal or compromise text arising from the small  meetings should be put forward to the general membership by the  relevant participant of the green-room meeting, before it could be  allowed to be incorporated into a new Draft Declaration. Otherwise  there was a danger that some things would go into the text without  having gone through a process of deliberation.

 Honduras and Cuba supported Panama's position. However, Morocco said it  would not be possible to reach agreement unless there were small group  meetings.

 But perhaps one result of the dissatisfaction with the 'green room'  process, and the DG undertaking it without an authorization from the  General Council, was that on Saturday when the US and other proposals  about 'transparency' of the WTO for outside world, and the so-called  'outreach programme', it met with a lot of opposition -- with some  suggesting that it was for each government to find ways of consulting  its civil society. And, Panama and others said that the WTO must first  resolve the problem of transparency within the organization.

 Outside the meeting room, an Ambassador of a small developing country  said that his greater fear was that the non-transparent and  non-participatory process would be repeated in Seattle, with even  graver implications.

 "Even in Geneva, where there has been more time for negotiations, the  process is already so non-transparent and most of us are blocked from  the small-group meetings," he said.

 "Imagine what will happen in Seattle, where a large part of the text  may still be in square brackets. I fear that we will have a repeat of  what happened in Singapore. A few Ministers will be called into small  meetings to negotiate parts of the disputed text (and will be sought to  be outnumbered and awed by the majors and their supporters), and the  rest of the Ministers will be left out. How will they feel? What will  we say when people ask about the transparency of the system and the  participation of developing countries?"

 At Singapore, Ministers of most developing countries were kept out of  the small meeting of about 30 countries that met over several days to  work out compromise language on several disputed issues. The night  before the Meeting ended, an informal meeting of all Ministers was  called, and asked to endorse the text agreed on by the small group.

 As a result of vociferous complaints by many Ministers (who  nevertheless went along with the "consensus"), the then Director  General Renato Ruggiero pledged that the non-participatory process at  Singapore would not be repeated.

 At the high-level WTO symposia on trade and environment and trade and  development in March this year, NGOs criticised the WTO's lack of  transparency, citing among other things the "green-room" and  small-group processes prior to and at Singapore.

 Speaking to NGOs, Ruggiero then admitted it was true that the  green-room process had been criticised by many Ministers and  delegations, but that he had taken note of these complaints. He  assured the NGOs that after Singapore, he had stopped holding such  small-group meetings and that henceforth all meetings were open to the  general Membership of WTO, and all Members were able to participate in  the negotiating meetings.

 Some of the small meetings were organised outside by the Quad (Canada,  EC, Japan and the US) in turn, inviting some others, and Ruggiero also  attended some meetings or dinner meetings. But the outcome there had to  be owned and presented by one or the other delegations, whereas the  'green room' process is often presented as a "chairman's text".

 It is unclear whether the assurances given by Ruggiero were on a  personal or institutional basis. Moore could be unaware of what his  predecessor had pledged, but it is difficult to believe that the  secretariat has no records of this and did not acquaint Moore.

 In any case, the present Director General is on to a very different  tune, justifying the green-room process that he initiated as necessary  and desirable, even as he assures that he shares the developing  countries' concerns about transparency.

 If the under-currents of grievances about the process are already so  strong, the situation may become even more problematic from this week  when it is expected that some meetings will be scheduled to be held  parallel to others. The problem will be especially acute if a HOD  meeting involving all Members is held simultaneously with one or two  "green room" meetings.

 Delegations not invited to the green room process fear that when this  happens, the green-room meetings would then supplant the general  meetings as the major countries would then concentrate on the "real  negotiations" in the green-room meetings and would pay less attention  to what the majority of developing countries have to say in the general  open meetings. The general meetings would then be more of a formality  whereas the exclusive green-room meetings would, even more than they  are already doing, undertake the real negotiations.

 Long-time trade observers say that the only way to end this rule-less  process is for developing country or several of them to refuse to take  even for consideration at the General Council, any document coming out  of such a green room process, and force de novo talks.

 Meanwhile, developing countries invited to some of the green room  meetings face the dilemma of which meetings to attend, as they too may  have a shortage of diplomats to adequately cover all meetings.

 If this process continues in Geneva and spills over to Seattle, it is  anybody's guess how the WTO would then be able to answer public  criticisms (let alone the criticisms of its own Member states) about  its non-transparent, secretive and undemocratic system of  decision-making.