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 001227 
 
SIPDIS 
 
PASS USTR FOR BROADBENT, DWOSKIN, ROHDE 
STATE/EB/OT FOR CRAFT 
DOC ITA/JACOBS AND SJONES 
DHS/CPB/VBROWN, SPERO, SCHMITZ 
DHS FOR PATTON 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD WTRO USTR
SUBJECT:  MEETINGS OF THE WTO NEGOTIATING GROUP ON TRADE 
FACILITATION - MAY 2-3, 2005 
 
 
¶1.  Summary/Overview:  The WTO Negotiating Group on Trade 
Facilitation met for the third time this year on May 2-3 for a 
two-day highly substantive and constructive session.  It was 
characterized by the predominance of papers sponsored by 
developing countries, the presence of unusual alliances forged 
from common interest, and the active participation of land-locked 
countries, such as Rwanda and Paraguay, that normally maintain a 
relatively low profile in other WTO bodies.  The U.S. delegation, 
with Canada, held two well-received precedent-setting 'mini- 
workshops' to help developing countries understand our previously 
submitted proposals for commitments on Advance rulings and 
Release of Goods with a Guarantee.  On the margins, the U.S. 
delegation held bilateral consultations with the "Colorado Group" 
of countries that had helped launch the negotiations, with APEC 
members, Latin American free trade agreement partners, Rwanda, 
China, India, Chinese Taipei and Hong Kong.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  After submitting proposals at the first two meetings this 
year, the United States, Canada and Japan refrained from 
submissions this time, while the EU submitted only a list of its 
technical assistance activities and a general proposal on freedom 
of transit issues under GATT Article V that was eclipsed by other 
proposals on the same article submitted by developing countries. 
As a result, the countries that participated most noticeably and 
constructively at the May session, submitting substantive 
proposals for strengthened commitments, were those who tend to 
play a diminutive role, if any, in other WTO bodies.  Two papers 
supporting strengthened rules in Article V were submitted by 
landlocked countries: the first by Bolivia, Paraguay, Mongolia 
and the Kyrgyz Republic, and the second by Rwanda, Paraguay and 
Switzerland.  Both received substantial comment and support, 
other than some concerns expressed by (non-landlocked) Kenya. 
Korea's specific proposal to distinguish between "transshipped" 
and other goods in transit also drew comments and questions. 
Peru submitted a detailed list of proposed commitments, including 
required publication on the internet of all customs-related rules 
and regulations, echoing earlier U.S. proposals.  Singapore 
submitted a paper relaying the lessons from its recent positive 
experience in adapting an Advanced Rulings regime (as a result of 
its free trade agreement with the United States).  Papers were 
also submitted by New Zealand, Norway on Switzerland on trade 
document standardization, and by Hong Kong China on fees and 
charges, and transparency. 
 
¶3.  There were two papers of a cross-cutting nature. The first, 
by the African Group, set out in a fairly measured tone the need 
of its Members to receive technical assistance both during and 
after the negotiations for implementation purposes.  The paper 
was notable in drawing a connection between technical assistance, 
the identification of needs and priorities, and a presumed entry 
into commitments.  A paper by China and Pakistan elaborated on 
ideas the United States had begun raising earlier in the year 
about the need to undertake a 'bottom-up' approach by starting 
now to assess individual Member situations and needs for the 
purpose of implementing proposals. 
 
¶4.  Questions on proposals were constructive, seeking 
clarification, and again reflecting substantial engagement. 
Notably Uganda continues to be eager to push the benefits of 
trade facilitation reforms, seeking to preempt Kenya from 
appearing to represent its own negative views as representative 
of those of African countries as a whole.  India continues to 
pose the greatest number of technical questions regarding the 
feasibility of various proposals, but now giving the impression 
that it is searching for ways to adopt them.  In response to 
Kenya, China intervened to ask why any country should be afraid 
of binding rules.  In another notable statement, the ambassador 
of Jamaica, which had been reluctant to launch negotiations in 
2002, urged others to think not only of the effects of TF reforms 
on their imports, but also of the benefits for their exports. 
 
¶5.  The LDC group also submitted a paper, rumored to have been 
drafted by an NGO, that took a dissonant tone out of character 
from the rest of the meeting's engagement.  The statement also 
included barely-veiled criticism of U.S. proposals.  However, 
perhaps reflecting the success thus far in achieving constructive 
engagement in the NG deliberations from all ends of the 
development spectrum, a leading ambassador from the LDC group 
privately apologized for the paper, noting that the submission of 
the paper was the subject of significant debate among LDC's, with 
final agreement to go forward being simply a matter of 
maintaining group solidarity. 
 
¶6.  During the lunch break during the two days of NG meetings, 
the United States (along with Canada) conducted one-hour 
"interactive mini-workshops" concerning two of its previously 
submitted proposals regarding new WTO commitments to maintain an 
advance rulings regime, and to maintain a system for release of 
goods while customs formalities are still pending.  These 
technical presentations were made by two officials from the U.S. 
Customs and Border Patrol's Office of Regulations and Rulings. 
These U.S. events were roundly saluted by developing country 
Members, and appear to have established a precedent as another 
tool for achieving full engagement by all Members during the 
negotiations. 
 
¶7.  Comment: On the margins of the meeting, the U.S. delegation 
met with APEC members, Latin American free trade agreement 
partners, Rwanda, China, India, Chinese Taipei and Hong Kong. 
The highlight of the two days were the proposals that came in 
from landlocked developing countries from all regions, the 
significance of which was establishing such Members as 
stakeholders in the Trade Facilitation negotiations-- joining the 
United States in aiming toward results that will be in the form 
of new and strengthened WTO commitments.  Also notable was that 
many, particularly China, the Philippines (chair of the "Core 
Group" of former opponents of TF negotiations), and Malaysia, 
supported the U.S. view that work needed to start soon on 
assessing individual developing countries' situation regarding 
the proposals being made in order to develop a factual foundation 
for addressing Members' individual needs and priorities in terms 
of implementation.  End Comment.  Deily