|
|
|
|
|
I'd like to just take a minute to remind people of the points that Ambassador Zoellick said will be the points of emphasis by the United States in Cancun. There are three of them: One is, that we are seeking ambitious results of opening markets and eliminating trade-distorting practices. Second, we are pursuing an aggressive timetable, which is to say, to meet the target of January 2005 that was set at Doha. And third our focus is on market access in three dimensions: in agriculture, which itself has three dimensions; in non-agricultural market access; and in services. But we are also paying attention to issues that are of importance to other countries that are necessary to achieve an overall balance in the package. And even where the United States is not seeking specific objectives for ourselves, we are reaching out to help others bridge differences to accomplish this package.
We are working, obviously, on completing the Ministerial Declaration. And as we do that, certainly the United States is doing so consistent with three principles that the General Council Chairman, Carlos Perez del Castillo, enunciated today in his speech. Just to remind you, those are: number one, to comply with the Doha mandate on ambition; Secretary Derbez stressed this at the end of his speech, as well. Secondly, that development should permeate all the areas of the negotiation, which especially brings us back to the market access issues, which are the ones that can have the potential for providing the biggest impact on development. And third, that we need to achieve, a global balance of interests among the countries on the issues here.
Now, in addition to opening markets and agreeing to trade-expanding rules, we need to improve developing countries' ability to take advantage of the openings that we negotiate and to make the adjustments in their economies and their policies that are necessary to do that. Yesterday, Ambassador Zoellick announced that we, the United States, are providing this year $750 million in trade-related capacity building -- and this is an increase of 18% compared to what we provided last year, including an announcement that we made yesterday of an additional 1.2 million dollars that will be donated to the WTO on top of the million dollars that we gave earlier this year.
Also, we have been working with the World Bank, the IMF, and the Inter-American Development Bank as they look to focus their action on how they can support countries that are making adjustments to take advantage of trade liberalization , and where it's appropriate, where they have a problem, to cope with adjustments that would be needed as margins of preference are eroded as most-favored nation trade liberalization goes into effect.
Finally, we are very pleased to have worked successfully with many other countries to resolve the issue of TRIPS and access to medicines for those countries that do not have a capacity to produce such drugs. Prior to Cancun, if you go back and you look at your notes, I'm sure you'll see that many, many countries at that point were saying that this was the most urgent matter that needed to be resolved before the Cancun ministerial. We promised to do our best to resolve it, and we're very pleased that we have been able to keep that promise.
Those are my comments in opening, and I am happy to take questions. Again, if you would identify yourself and the organization that you represent.
Guy de Jonquiers, The Financial Times. Question: Does the United States believe that this meeting should decide whether to reaffirm the end of 2004-deadline for completion of the Round? And if the Ministers fail to reaffirm or pass over this issue, should that be read as meaning that the deadline is likely to be met or is unlikely to be met?
Allgeier: As I said, certainly the United States' goal is to agree on negotiating frameworks that will enable our negotiators to complete their work in the timeframe decided at Doha, that is by January of 2005. Our sense is that that goal is shared by the other countries here. So I think that you should be confident that the Ministers are working in that timeframe and I think that you can draw your own conclusions at the end of the declaration as to whether that is a realistic negotiating platform that we have established after this Ministerial.
Ian Swanson, Inside US Trade. Question: Ambassador Allgeier, sort of as a follow-up to that question: Do you think that the strong call by members of the G-20 or G-21 for their paper to be used at the basis for negotiations, do you think that is going to make it more difficult to come out of this Ministerial with a framework agreement on agriculture and meet the 2005 timeframe?
Allgeier: I think that the substance of countries' and groups' positions is more important than procedural matters in determining what kind of an outcome we have here. So that is what we will focus on in all of the areas: understanding the positions of all of the countries and groups of countries and trying to work with the chairmen of the different groups, the facilitators, to bridge differences in each of the subjects. And the focus of this delegation will be on the substance.
Nat Harrison, AFP. Question: Does the United States plan to introduce any specific initiative on cotton trade this evening or any other time during the conference?
Allgeier: We recognize, of course, that cotton is fundamental to a number of economies, particularly in Africa, and for us, and I think for everybody, this situation highlights the importance of getting ambitious results here at Cancun, both in market access and in dealing with trade-distorting measures. So we are engaged in discussions with the four countries who are sponsors of the cotton initiative, and we are looking with them at the entire situation that affects the trade in cotton. It is a rather complicated situation. Cotton, of course, is the beginning of a global manufacturing chain that stretches from fiber to textiles to clothing. And to find an effective response to the troubles in the cotton sector one needs to look at the whole range of issues in that value chain. So we are working with those countries to identify what we hope would be a comprehensive sectoral initiative to address and eliminate distortions in trade in cotton, but also in the associated products: man-made fibers, and in clothing and apparel.
Q. Fernando Ortega del periódico, con La Crónica. Q. El Director General de la OMC informó con cierta sorpresa, que Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea presentaron una propuesta para el tema agrícola y dijo que no era común que dos titanes se unieran para hacer una propuesta . Dos cosas - me gustaría saber ¿porqué ese unión, porqué presentaron una propuesta conjunta y cuál es el contenido de esta propuesta? Gracias.
Allgeier: Yes. Certainly, earlier in the summer, we were hearing from many, many countries that the United Status and European Union could best exercise our leadership by trying to develop a paper that both of us could live with, and that might energize the agricultural negotiations. We worked intensively -- and particularly I would like to mention J. B. Penn from the Department of Agriculture, working with his secretary, Veneman, and Ambassador Zoellick and Ambassador Johnson from our office -- with the European Union, with the Commission, put together a paper that would -- not be our preferred paper, not their preferred paper, but a compromise, and it was meant to be put before the whole membership, as I said, to energize the negotiation. It had that effect. And a number of countries, groups of countries that came forward with initial ideas, and so we now are here in Cancun, and we have, of course, a paper that was prepared by the Chairman of the General Council. But we're all aware of the positions of the different countries and groups of countries. So now we will be sitting down to try to find a consensus document among all of the countries. It will be important for everybody to approach those negotiations with some flexibility, and we think that frankly, the fact that we in the U.S. and the E.U. put together that paper shows that we have been willing to compromise. And we hope that we'll receive that kind of a response, or see that kind of response, from other participants in the negotiations. John Mately, The Observer. Q. Ambassador Zoellik said yesterday, and here I quote, "that the U.S. was willing to cut our domestic support significantly if we get market access". Can you clarify, please, which are the chief products you are looking for market access for?
Under Secretary of Agriculture J.B. Penn: We have been consistent all along in our position starting with the formal proposal that we tabled in July last year in which we said we would be quite willing to adjust our domestic supports if others were willing to do so and if we got market access at the same time. We are particularly interested in market access in major food markets, the European Union and the developed country markets. Fruits and vegetables, processed food products are of particular importance to us. But we are also very much interested in market access in the developing countries, the countries where most of the world's consumers reside and the countries where incomes are growing the fastest and diets are being improved the most, and that covers a wide range of products, both from basic commodities and also a variety of processed products, livestock products, things of that nature.
[name inaudible] Question: This is kind of the other side of that question. You have been very clear that one of the U.S. objectives in these negotiations is increased market access. I just wondered in terms of agriculture. The U.S. has relatively high barriers on certain sensitive products like sugar, peanuts, tobacco, dairy. Is the U.S. willing to provide meaningful market access for those products to developing countries?
Penn: Doug, we also have said all along that everything is on the table in this round. We have consistently pointed out that the U.S. market is relatively open for food and agricultural products. We have pointed out over and over that the average tariff on food and agricultural products in world trade is about 62%. The average tariff for such products coming into the United States is much lower, in the 12 to 15% range. And as you correctly note, we do have some products, such as those you mentioned on which the barriers are much higher, but we have said that everything is on the table and if others are willing to liberalize, then we are quite willing to talk about our sensitive products as well.
[Cross talk - non-journalist question]
Daniel Prusson [ph], Bureau of National Affairs, in Washington. Question: You mentioned the U.S. role as a facilitator on certain issues. The Singapore issues are one where the U.S. doesn't have a particularly strong interest. We have been led to believe that you are working with the Canadians on a possible compromise, to facilitate a compromise on these issues, or whether or not to launch negotiations. I was wondering if you could elaborate a little bit and tell us on which path you think a compromise on the Singapore issues will go.
Allgeier: Well, certainly Minister Pettigrew is the facilitator for the Singapore issues, and so we obviously are working very closely with him, will support him as we will support all of the facilitators, certainly in that case on the Singapore issues. I don't know whether, Grant, would you like to say something more specific on that?
UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE GRANT ALDONAS: Yes, I want to correct the premise of your question. It's not accurate to say that the United States doesn't have a strong interest in the Singapore issues. We are focused on market access, and there are two aspects to the Singapore issues which are directly complementary to what we want on market access, and that's transparency and government procurement and trade facilitation. There is a lot of value to be gained from trade facilitation, both for us and for our friends in the developing world, a strong commitment, really, from Europe, Japan, the United States, Canada, certainly, to try to ensure that we move that part of the process along.
On the other two issues, investment and competition policy, our goal, really, is to make sure that we can provide a bridge, if possible, to ensure that at the end of the day these issues are something where we can build a consensus and move forward on with a level of ambition that is consistent with the members of the WTO. And I think that really goes to Peter's point, which is that we have had our consultations with the Canadians. It has really been under the umbrella of Minister Pettigrew's role as facilitator. We have offered our services to him to try to be helpful where we can.
Joan Bean, USA Radio. Question: Could you just lay out for the average person that I report to, what kind of changes they can expect in their jobs or what kind of changes you expect the economy will have, as a result of the very aggressive, bold agenda here. Will 10% experience some kind of drop in wage or even job loss? Will it be 12%? Will it be 4%? What will it be? Thank you.
Allgeier: How many decimal points would you like me to carry it out to? Four? O.K. (Laughter) At this point, obviously nobody can give that sort of mathematical precision to what will be the impact of the negotiations. What we are confident of, though, is that if we are able to achieve an ambitious package of market opening in agriculture, in industrial products and in services, barriers both in the developed world and in the developing world, that there is the potential for raising the standard of living of millions and millions of people, particularly in the developing countries. And also, to promote greater efficiency in all economies, including the developed economies, that it will also enable countries to participate more fully and more productively in what is rapidly emerging as a global sourcing economy, where parts of a product are produced in different countries and then they are assembled and then distributed throughout the world. And an economy that is increasingly one of international services being provided across borders. So I can't give you today any mathematical number on that, but I can at least describe the kinds of outcomes that we would expect.
ALDONAS: Peter, if I could add. Obviously, one of the topics right now in the United States is where we are going with out manufacturing sector and the statistics often cited by the press about the number of job losses since the start of the recession at the tail end of the Clinton administration. If you look at it, what you will find that every manufacturing group is supportive of the very aggressive agenda that the President has put forward on something like non-agricultural market access, and there's a reason for that. When people think about out trade deficit, they think it is all an import surge. What has been happening since 1997 has been a fall off in our exports on the manufacturing side. For that you need two things: You need growth abroad, particularly in Europe and Japan, and what you have to see is, you have to see the market access barriers come down. There is one place, and one place alone, where you can take the greatest stride that would help American manufacturing jobs in terms of breaking down foreign barriers, and that's in the WTO. What the President has proposed under those circumstances is a very radical shift to move toward a tariff-free world. And the reason for that is, our tariffs are already so low relative to most other places in the world, you can see the automatic disadvantage, particularly for manufactured goods. The one way to address that imbalance and really level the playing field from the point of view of American manufacturers is here at the WTO in non-agricultural market access, and that means more jobs at the end of the day.
Sam Gilston of the Washington Tariffs and Trade Letter. Q. Grant mentioned manufacturing and jobs - is there some concern by the administration yet that whatever deal you come back with from Doha will be harder to sell next year, during an election year, because of the great loss of jobs in manufacturing and the general state of the economy?
Allgeier: We are confident that the kind of agreement that we will be able to negotiate will be one that it will be evident that it is offering such opportunities across the American continent, not just in manufacturing, but certainly in manufacturing - going back to Grant's point, certainly we are looking for a tariff-free world. We won't achieve that next year. We certainly expect significant openings in markets of manufacturing goods and also in agriculture and services. So we're confident that the kind of agreement we'll negotiate is one that will be evidently beneficial, not just to us, but to other economies, and that therefore, will be supported by Congress. Thank you all.
#
