Recently, many articles and interviews have been published in many mass media, the authors of which give assessments and explain the process of Ukraine's accession to the WTO, the procedures, principles and rules of the organization. \n \nOften these explanations and assessments are erroneous, which leads to incorrect coverage and, thus, the formation of an inadequate understanding and attitude toward this issue. And, unfortunately, only a few truly understand what they are talking about. \n \nAmong the unprofessional ones is the recently published commentary on the material "Disruption of WTO Accession – a Short Path to the SES" entitled "Three Myths about the WTO," published on UP. \n \nSuch an assessment is caused by the author's incorrect comments concerning precisely the technical and procedural aspects of Ukraine's accession process. At the same time, the author's right to express their own opinion regarding the actions of the government and parliament or the priority of one or another integration vector remains indisputable. \n \nHowever, before "authoritatively" commenting on important issues, did the author not familiarize themselves with the main provisions and practice of the WTO and the current situation regarding the country's accession to this organization?! \n \nStatement one: "...for accession to the WTO it is necessary to complete negotiations with all countries without exception that are part of the working group on consideration of Ukraine's application for membership in the organization." And further - "if negotiations with at least one country are not completed, it is impossible to acquire WTO membership. And Ukraine has not yet signed the relevant protocols with 10 countries..." \n \nThe procedure for a country's accession to the WTO is very generally and vaguely prescribed in Article 12 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO. The article states only that "any state or separate customs territory ... may accede to this Agreement on terms to be agreed between it and the WTO." \n \nThat is, this article does not separately require the signing of bilateral protocols with all member countries of the Working Group and, moreover, provides for the adoption of a decision on accession by the WTO General Council or the Ministerial Conference by a two-thirds majority of the votes of WTO members, in the case of objection by at least one country. \n \nIn the case of unanimous consent of all countries, approval and decision-making is based on consensus. It is another matter that in practice, which is not enshrined in any WTO legal documents, decisions on the admission of new countries are made on the basis of consensus. \n\nBut in the process of negotiations on Ukraine's accession to the WTO, there are three precedents when three countries declared support and consent regarding the terms of our country's accession without signing bilateral protocols. \n \nStatement two: "Myth No. 2 concerns the mandatory adoption of a full package of WTO laws to ensure Ukraine's accession to the organization. The purpose of the myth is to declare parliament (and not the government) the culprit of the failure of a strategic foreign policy task." \n \nAnd who actually says anything about adopting all laws before WTO accession? In fact, the government's actions in this matter are absolutely logical – a package bill was prepared that amends a number of existing laws in order to resolve priority problematic issues, without settling which it would have been impossible to complete negotiations by the end of 2005. \n \nIn addition, there are other draft laws necessary for WTO accession that are not part of the package bill and which to a greater or lesser extent require urgent adoption. \n \nThe government's desire to induce parliament to adopt individual drafts before WTO accession is dictated by the requirements of the member countries of the Working Group, and not by any political reasons. \n \nAs for "one of the not yet adopted draft laws of this package, which concerns the gradual reduction of the export duty on sunflower seeds," if the author had followed the course of events in the WTO sphere more carefully, they would know that this draft law was not part of the package bill. \n \nIn addition, it was voted on as early as July 7, 2005 under No. 2773-IV and is entitled "On Amending the Law of Ukraine On Rates of Export Duty on Seeds of Certain Types of Oilseeds." \n\nStill not adopted are the draft laws on reducing the export duty on ferrous metal waste and scrap, live cattle and raw hides, as well as the draft law on establishing an export duty on non-ferrous metal waste and scrap instead of a complete ban on the export of these metals. \n \nAs for the statement that "obligations regarding changes in export rates are not provided for by WTO rules and therefore our negotiating partners should not have put forward such a demand to us at all," it should be noted here that in the WTO there are generally no obligations that are or are not provided for by WTO rules. \n\nThere are no rules regarding obligations. \n\nA candidate country must necessarily comply only with the provisions of WTO agreements. The terms of accession of each country are determined separately in the process of negotiations between WTO members and the applicant country. \n\nFor each applicant country, the number and areas of obligations that will be contained in the Working Group report are different. Therefore, WTO countries, proceeding from their own interests, regard export duties as trade-restrictive measures (WTO rules require the reduction of such measures), demanding their significant reduction or elimination. \n\nAlthough export duties are not directly prohibited by WTO rules. That is, this is a subject of negotiations, the results of which depend on the argumentation of the parties and the ability to prove their position. At the same time, it should be acknowledged that WTO members far from always accept Ukraine's arguments, however well-founded they may be, which significantly drags out the negotiations. \n\nStatement three concerns the possible timeframe for Ukraine's admission to the WTO. The author denies the possibility of a decision on Ukraine's accession in the summer of 2006. \n\n"The authority to admit new members is vested in the WTO Ministerial Conference, which meets once every two years (next time at the end of 2007). The authority to admit new members is also legally held by the WTO General Council, which meets several times a year. \n\nBut it adopts decisions on the admission only of small countries, regarding which the members of the organization have no fundamental questions and disputes. Thus, according to a decision of the General Council, Armenia once joined the WTO. \n\nHowever, Ukraine should not hope for accession through a decision of the General Council, since it and Russia have been designated as two (out of about 30) main, priority candidates for membership, for which the accession procedure will be fully observed." \n\nBy whom have Russia and Ukraine been designated as priority candidates for membership? And why then will Saudi Arabia become the 149th WTO member in December of this year? There is no such approach and there cannot be! \n\nThe formal procedure in principle cannot be different for different countries, because this would be a violation of the basic principle of the WTO – the most-favored-nation regime (MFN) – that is, equal treatment and procedures for all countries, both small and large. \n\nHence the conclusion that Ukraine has all the legal grounds to count on accession according to a decision of the General Council, which could take place in the summer of 2006. \n\nIt is another matter whether such an issue will be considered at the Council's meeting in the summer. The analogy with Armenia, which "is a small country regarding which the members of the organization have no fundamental questions and disputes," also has no legal grounds/ \n\nNepal and Cambodia are surely also not among the giants of world trade, but were admitted to the WTO at the Ministerial Conference in Cancun at the end of 2003, and not according to a decision of the General Council. \n\nIt is another matter that they acquired final membership only on April 23 and October 13, 2004, respectively. But the WTO has nothing to do with it, because it was Nepal and Cambodia that took so long to ratify the accession protocol in their parliaments. \n\nThe Chinese parliament, for example, ratified the accession protocol the day after the procedure in Doha in November 2001. \n\nIn one thing the author is right – there will be no automatic cancellation of all anti-dumping measures against Ukraine. Their number will decrease, and the "room for maneuver" will also be significantly narrowed, which today allows WTO members to groundlessly, on the basis of unfounded procedures and mechanisms, establish effectively prohibitive rates of import duties set as a result of such investigations. \n\nSerhiy Lakhno, for UP \n \n \nRead also: \n\nThree Myths about the WTO \n\nDisruption of WTO Accession - a Short Path to the SES