18. The representative of Switzerland noted that there were already various substantive proposals on the table which were the result of years of negotiations. Switzerland therefore did not see the need for a lengthy phase of study. While this certainly needed to have its place in the work programme for 2002, the Special Session should expeditiously move forward on the proposals already on the table and not waste time in discussing general issues not directly linked to the mandate of this body. Proposals for commissioning technical work to the WTO Secretariat on the implementation of obligations under Section 3 by WTO Members could distract time and resources from the negotiations mandated for the Special Session. As far as the suggestion for a brief note on issues or an annotated agenda was concerned, Switzerland wished to have such a paper for the June meeting and believed that it could help Members to have a more substantive discussion. Such a list of issues or annotated agenda should be oriented along the lines of the proposals already tabled. Switzerland expressed the wish to be included in the informal consultations to be conducted by the Chairperson. With regard to the real negotiating phase, Switzerland believed, with regard to timing, that this body should not wait until the beginning of next year. An earlier target date should be set and as a mental benchmark, delegations should be invited to submit proposals if not in June then, at the latest, in September so that a common negotiating basis, by the Chairperson on his own responsibility or by a group of Members, could be established for the last session in 2002 and then be substantively discussed and amended in view of the first meeting in 2003, which should be convened early in March. Such timing would allow account to be taken of the state of play and progress of discussions and negotiations in other WTO bodies and negotiating groups relevant to the negotiations in this body. Switzerland supported the suggestion made earlier by the European Communities for a Secretariat table comparing the three proposals so far received. He said that the table from the European Communities and the new one from the United States would probably not be acceptable to all Members as regards objectivity and neutrality. It seemed, therefore, that it was only the WTO Secretariat who could produce such a table.
