1. We would like to thank those Members that jointly submitted this paper to discuss how to effectively implement the objectives of Articles IV and XIX:2 of GATS, as it provides concrete suggestions with which the Members could evaluate initial offers during the negotiation process. In this light, Chinese Taipei would like to highlight certain points for Members to take into consideration.
2. Firstly, we would like to ask Members to consider the suggestion by Mr. Hamid in July’s special session, which advocated the publication of Members’ initial offers on the WTO website. We believe that their publication would encourage the involvement of the private sector and NGOs, which would increase the WTO’s transparency and could introduce innovative ideas to our services negotiation.
3. Secondly, regarding the scope of the multilateral review on initial offers, we hold the view that the review method suggested in this paper would not be suitable for all sectors or modes of supply. For example, for MODE 4 of services trade, most Members have commitments for a very limited number of sectors, and the commitment formats for which have yet to be unified. We think it would be more efficient to review MODE 4 initial offers after the Members agree upon the commitments’ scope and types for MODE 4. Therefore, we suggest keeping the review of MODE 4 initial offers to be held bilaterally.
4. Thirdly, we would like to register our concern about the third category of questions which refers to the evaluation that each Member should undertake individually according to its particular interests and commercial priorities. In other words, as the interests of one country with regard to the country being evaluated would probably differ greatly from those of other countries, the other countries would need not to be present during the evaluation process. Therefore, we are afraid that it would be excessively time-consuming to review offers by asking these questions in a multilateral setting. We would instead encourage Members to proceed with their own individual evaluations bilaterally using the framework suggested by this category of questions.