10:00 a.m., est
MODERATOR: Good morning everybody and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. As you know, we're delighted to have the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Susan Schwab, with us this morning. I will just turn it directly over to her. Thank you.
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: Thank you. I'm going to leave as much time as I can for you all to ask questions. This is a fascinating time for us to be talking about trade policy and trade agreements and I know that given your presence here, trade agreements probably has more than a passing interest for you.
We are very much into an electoral season and as you know, it started much earlier than it has ever started before. We were commenting, when we walked into the Foreign Press Center, on all of the decorations and it looks very festive and very patriotic. I've found --and have found over periods of time -- every time I go overseas, I get lots of questions about the electoral process and explain that Americans are watching this with as much interest as most of our international colleagues.
In terms of trade, I'm sure you had a chance to read if not see the President's State of the Union address and I believe we've concluded that the amount of time and attention spent on international trade and the U.S. trade agenda, particularly the free trade agreements - he also mentioned Doha, he mentioned trade adjustment assistance - that the amount of time on trade probably is a record for any President in any State of the Union address. And that is because the President, President Bush feels very strongly about our international trade ties.
Our trade agreements are not just an integral part of U.S. foreign policy. They're an integral part of our economic policy, our international economic policy, and the two are - really can't be separated. Now obviously, when I'm speaking, I'm normally speaking about the economic and commercial benefits to the United States or to Korea or to Colombia or to Panama or Peru or - you know, our trading partners in the Doha round. But we can't forget the foreign policy implications, the geostrategic implications, the implications of making further commitments to and bringing ourselves closer together with allies with whom we share ideals and values, commitment to democracy, commitment to markets and so on.
And so it is in that context that I'm particularly pleased to, you know, join you all today and answer whatever questions -- or try to answer whatever questions -- you might have.
QUESTION: I know that your policy is to treat - to ratify or handle these FTAs in the order that they were signed, but are you saying there's no flexibility whatsoever in changing that order depending on the situation developing in Colombia and (inaudible)?
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: I think that there's - there are no plans to change the order and I don't think there is any need to change the order. I think that really is - I think that is the real answer. The Peru and Colombia FTAs were signed, gosh, almost a year in advance of the Panama and Korea Free Trade Agreements. The Peru FTA, as you know, went through the United States Congress, end of last year, with a very strong bipartisan margin and the first time we had seen a strong bipartisan margin on a trade agreement for some time.
And now it is time -- in fact, past time -- for us to move on the Colombia FTA. In the meantime, you know, we're working to make sure that we're positioning all of the FTAs to move ahead. It isn't as though, you know, we only pay attention to one free trade agreement at a time in terms of its movement in Congress. When I go up to the Congress or when my colleagues - my cabinet colleagues go up to the Congress and talk about the free trade agreements, we're not just talking about the one that is immediately in front of members of Congress in advance of the Peru FTA vote. We were up briefing members of Congress on all four of the pending FTAs and we talked as much, you know, about others as we did about the Peru FTA.
Similarly, at this point, while the focus is on the Colombia FTA, in every meeting, I will - I also provide an update of the situation in terms of the Korea FTA, the Panama FTA, and the Doha round, as a matter of fact. So we use these meetings and this time comprehensively, not just -what's the best word, seriatim - I mean, not just one at a time.
QUESTION: I understand you met last week with Speaker Pelosi to speak about the Colombia FTA. Can you give us an update on what's the status at this point in the dealings with Congress? Is there any type of sign that they might be moving forward in the near future, meaning the next two months or so? Because time is running out and no one sees something happening if this is not (inaudible) before summer.
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: First of all, the conversations going on with members of Congress are going on almost continuously. I am not the only one involved in those conversations. There are other members of the cabinet: Secretary Rice, Secretary Paulson, Secretary Gutierrez; so all of us are having a variety of conversations. Most recently, I was up talking to the Senate Majority Leader Reid. I've had a chance to talk to a variety of Republicans and Democrats in leadership positions in the House and Senate.
And the focus has been, as I said, positioning the free trade agreements starting with the Colombia FTA. We've talked about some of the - you know, many of the same issues that have been in front of us for the last number of months, last year or so in terms of how - what more can be done to address levels of violence and impunity. I think there is a - I mean, there is a desire among many members of Congress, many Democrats, to see the Colombia Free Trade Agreement enacted into law.
I think the key at this point is the following. One, we need action in the near term; two, the Colombia FTA deserves a vote and deserves - you know, deserves an up-or-down vote, deserves a vote where members of Congress can vote their consciences. And that largely places it in the hands of a congressional leadership, particularly, as you know, the Speaker of the House.
MODERATOR: Can I remind everybody quickly if you could state your news organization before --
QUESTION: Yeah, okay.
MODERATOR: -- and your name before we move on with some more questions?
QUESTION: Sergio Gomez from El Tiempo. Just to follow up on that, are you considering the possibility of requesting an up-or-down vote if there's no green light from the Speaker? I mean, at some point, the Administration would have to make that decision if you're going to go ahead and present it into Congress, even though there's no green light from the Speaker. Just - it would be - we could reach that point.
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: Well, clearly, you know, under trade promotion authority, which governs the movement of all three of the pending free trade agreements, there is a theoretical option where the President could just send up the legislation. But I think everybody agrees that it is far preferable given how very important these agreements are to both the United States and to Colombia, to the United States and to South Korea, to the United States and Panama, it is far, far preferable for these to be sent in consultation with and in conjunction with and with the approval and acquiescence of the congressional leadership, Democrats and Republicans.
And that really is our intention. We know the other is an option. It is not the preferred option. And I think what you have seen over the last six to eight months has been an increasing awareness and an increasingly vocal support for these free trade agreements. In the case of the Colombia FTA, we've seen Democratic - former Democratic officials, members of Congress, former cabinet members, leadership figures from the Democratic Party writing a very, very strong letter to the Congress favoring the Colombia FTA.
We have seen governors and mayors weighing in on behalf of the KORUS FTA, on behalf of the Colombia and Panama FTAs. So we have - there has been a step up, I think, if you look at press, if you look at editorial support, if you look at letters, there has been an uptick in the level of support. I think we're reaching a point where there needs to be a decision and I think a lot - everything that's been - that has happened up to this point has been leading up to this decision and - you know, decisions that need to be made by the leadership, particularly now with respect to Colombia.
In the case of the KORUS and Panama FTAs, as you know, there are some other associated issues that we are hoping can be resolved in the near term so that that clears the way for us to have a more focused conversation about the two remaining FTAs. But Colombia's [FTA] needs to get done and there is serious discussion going on. I think there is a recognition that there is a danger of running out of time, but part of the thing you need to be careful about is because the -- you know, because the presidential campaign started basically the day after the 2006 congressional campaign concluded. I mean, because it's a much longer congressional - I mean, much longer electoral cycle than any of us are used to, you shouldn't lose sight of the fact that we have almost a year left in office, this Administration does, and has a very aggressive agenda. And as you can tell from the State of the Union message, enactment into law of these trade agreements is very, very, very high on the President's priority list.
QUESTION: How does the Panama - how does the Panama agreement position, both politically and within the timetable of the time you have left?
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: Well, if you go back to - well, let me go back to the midterm election 2006. And at that stage of the game, the Colombia and Peru FTAs had been signed -- right, both had been signed. We had a midterm election. The Democrats won control of the House, won control of the Senate. And everyone concluded the day after that election that the trade agenda was dead and nothing was going to happen. And that conventional wisdom turned out to be totally false.
And it turned out to be false, in part, because we were able, in conjunction with the congressional leadership, in May of last year to reach an agreement on the treatment of labor and, you know, labor standards and the environment. And in - ultimately, with the - you know, working with our FTA partners, our KORUS FTA partners, we were able to rework those parts of the agreement associated -- on a reciprocal basis -- associated with enforceable labor and environmental standards.
At that point in May, if you go back to the statements made by the congressional leadership, the Democratic leadership in the House in particular in May, they were very clear that as far as they were concerned, the Peru and the Panama FTAs were ready to move. In fact, the way they laid out their commentaries, the labor and environment provisions applying to all four meant that those issues had been addressed in all four of the FTAs. In the case of Peru and Panama, they saw - they foresaw no other issues. And in the case of Colombia, they specifically commented on the level of violence and impunity. In the case of Korea, there was concern expressed about beef and autos, to sort of go back to that.
As you know, since that time, developments in Panama had complicated matters and this is a - you know, this is an internal Panamanian issue and I'm just - I won't comment on it. I will say that at the point where the issue in Panama has been resolved, I think there is a - I think it's safe to say there are a lot of members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, who really are looking forward to acting on the Panama FTA. The current circumstances makes it difficult.
QUESTION: But I'm concerned about the timetable. That situation is not resolved until September. It seems likely now. It will be very late until that year that this President --
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: It does make it later in the year. It doesn't - it makes it later in the year. It does not make it impossible. I think it is still fully viable. I think it is still fully viable. And that is - I mean, that is - you know, the question implied by your question on timing and the KORUS FTA, it is fully viable. It is doable to see the enactment of the KORUS FTA into law before the end of this term.
QUESTION: Has Congress suggested at any point to move the Colombia trade agreement for the other ones to go forward because it seems more easy? I mean, the Panamanian issue seems to be more easily resolved because it's a specific issue, while the other one is something -- basically demonstrate progress in an area where, you know, it will take years or some time before they are happy about what progress means.
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: Well, there are two issues implied by your question. On the first one, there was some talk initially last spring that there were members of Congress who were advocating that the Panama FTA be acted on immediately after the Peru FTA and the position that the Administration took was we wanted to act on the FTAs in the order -- you know, traditionally we've done it in the order in which they were negotiated. That issue - I mean, that question and that debate was never joined. You know, it was never joined because of the issues in Panama because of the Panama situation. And so we really haven't heard that, so that they haven't - members of Congress haven't really been calling on us to change the order.
The more interesting question and the more salient question has to do with what is it that Colombia needs to show and - you know, if you have no intention of voting for a trade agreement, any trade agreement, you could always come up with excuses not to vote for a trade agreement. If, however, your objective is - if, however, you support a trade agreement like the Colombia Free Trade Agreement and you care about the issues related to violence and impunity, then you need to look at what has already been done and what commitments are there going forward.
And I think the first thing that - and this is the first point that we make and I will be making this afternoon - I've got a speech this afternoon specifically on the Colombia FTA that I'm doing on the Hill for the Woodrow Wilson Center. There's a special program on the Hill this afternoon sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center, where they've asked me to speak on the Colombia FTA and then there are two panels afterwards.
And the points - you know, one of the sets of points that I'm going to make relates to how much progress has already been made. And if you're looking at - if you're looking at assassinations, the rate of assassinations, murders are down 40-some percent. The rate, by the way, of murders associated with union leaders are down twice that much, you know, 80 percent. The rate of terrorist acts is down over 60 percent. The rate of kidnappings is down over 70 percent since, you know, the 2001-2002 era since - and this is very significant - since well before there was an FTA.
So you're talking about, in the case of Colombia, as you know, a country that has been wracked by violence for decades - decades, decades - that has since - you know, sometimes you can compare it to 1999, 2001, 2002 - by any measure made dramatic improvement and shown evidence that commitment to reduce violence has translated directly into the reduction of violence, to the alleviation of violence.
President Uribe has really been a transformational leader, has - President Uribe, his Administration, key individuals - you know, the mayor - the former mayor of Medellin, others who have been a part of this effort. And I might add, the United States in our commitment, in our activities associated with Plan Colombia and the money that we've contributed in the capacity building in the judicial system and so on. We have real results to show for that. Colombia has real and really impressive results to show for that. So first thing is members of Congress need to be made aware of the improvements of the dramatic changes for the better that have already been made.
In the matter of impunity, those numbers have started to turn around. There's not as much evidence, but the government has worked out with the labor unions and others 187 priority cases to be addressed. And there's a - there is a step up in funding for and resources for judges and prosecutors. And so we're starting to see more of those cases move through the system and more convictions and justice being meted out. And so one, there's already a very strong record. And then two, what more needs to be done and what more is on track? And there are a lot of things going on in Colombia right now that will contribute to a further improvement of these numbers and that's the word that needs to - you know, to get out and that is what - you know, a message that really should resonate.
QUESTION: Can I ask a question? Do you have - don't you have any priority among the three countries for the approval? Because there is a current limit; as you say, after September, it is impossible to be approved because of the presidential election campaign (inaudible). So as far as I know, Colombia and Panama has a serious obstacle to be - for the progress. So if the South Korean Government showed the (inaudible) issue or something like that, other kind of efforts -- the same question. Don't you have any -- put the priority toward other -
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: The President has a very clear priority, which is to see all three of the remaining free trade agreements enacted into law - all three of them. And as I said, that is doable and it is doable this year. And that includes the KORUS FTA. Clearly, had the former Korean Government lived up to its commitment to address the beef issue, and you'll recall the President going on record last year saying the beef issue would be resolved, we would have been able to spend the last six months, eight months, really accelerating the push to get ready for the KORUS FTA in the Congress.
But the point is, it is a really good free trade agreement both for Korea and for the United States. We know, and we've always known, that Congress would not take up the KORUS FTA until the beef issue was resolved. We also know that once the beef issue is resolved, there will be a real upswell of support evident on the part of U.S. constituencies, and we assume on the part of Korean constituencies, that favor this free trade agreement. And that will help change the tone of the debate, I think, and will affect the timing as well.
You know, the sooner the beef issue is fixed the more likely -- the more, you know, time we have to work with. But I think the issue is less the order than the picking up the pace and moving ahead expeditiously with all of the free trade agreements. And as I said, it is doable -- the year and the congressional year doesn't end in September. Certainly, we would prefer to be acting on these -- see Congress acting on these FTAs before the August recess. And we'll continue to push, you know, as hard and as quickly as we can, but we're hampered in the case of -- in the case of the Panama and the KORUS FTAs by factors over which we really have no -- we've got no control.
QUESTION: This is going to be the follow-up question. If U.S. said that even after going into September, do you mean -- do you think that if the beef issue is resolved by -- around maybe -- around the time of summer, then do you think even after summer does the Korean -- KORUS FTA issue can be put into congressional process?
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: I think it is a mistake to be -- I think it is a mistake to try to talk about the timing -- I'm going to back up here. The point that I was trying to make before was that if we had OIE-consistent -- and you understand the beef issue -- if we had OIE-consistent beef flowing today, or if we had had OIE-consistent beef flowing starting last May when the OIE declared that the United States is a controlled risk country, we would have a very different political equation today when it comes to the KORUS FTA.
So the point being, the sooner the beef issue is resolved, not only the faster we can see the KORUS FTA move but the stronger the push behind it will have become if we can have some time. So the point is -- the point is we should be talking about, you know, moving the KORUS FTA this spring. We shouldn't be talking about should it be this summer, should it be the fall. It should be the spring. But we're hampered in terms of our timing and not -- the current -- I mean, obviously, the new administration had no control over this whatsoever, so this is not a reflection of -- this is not a reflection of the new President and the new team. And there were many in the previous administration who really worked very hard to get the beef issue resolved. It just didn't happen.
QUESTION: And as I know that Ms. Cutler -- she's been to Korea.
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: Mm-hmm. She was part of the delegation for the inauguration.
QUESTION: And has she met with Mr. Kim Jong-hoon and -- I mean, the counterpart to talk about, because he's still in the office because there hasn't been any person nominated? So has she talked -- has the U.S. delegation talked about this issue with the new Jeon Man-bok administration? Because in Korea we think that in April, the government -- I mean, the two U.S. summit meeting will be held in here in Washington. And we think that unless there's kind -- whatever kind of breakthrough agreement made between those two presidents then it will be realistically difficult to have this FTA by the end of this year. That's what the Korean -- what the Korean Government officials, all the specialists, are keep saying. So unless there's a breakthrough by April and unless there's some kind of an action in the U.S. Government to put this FTA -- KORUS FTA to Congress by the end of May or early June then it will be very difficult for us to expect a KORUS FTA by -- in this -- I mean, during the Bush Administration. Is it --
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: Well, I mean, the point I was making earlier is the sooner the beef issue is resolved, the sooner we can be targeting timeframes to move it -- to move the legislation in the Congress. And the stronger -- the longer beef is flowing, OIE-consistent beef is flowing, the more time there is to build up constituency support for the FTA. I have not had a chance to see Assistant USTR Cutler yet. She -- I think she's getting back today, I don't think she -- she had some other traveling she was doing in the region, so I have not had a chance to see her since she got back. I'm assuming she talked to her old colleagues and talked to her potential new colleagues. I mean, there's always -- again, there are always conversations going on. I had a chance to see Minister Kim in January in Davos. So, you know, there are always conversations going on and there seems to be a rather healthy transition going on in terms of the economic and trade portfolio from what I can tell.
But, you know, everyone in the government knows what needs to be done. I mean, there's no -- there's no mystery there as to what needs to be done. The question is when will Korea bring its system into compliance with international standards. Sooner is better. But, you know, Korea -- the Government of South Korea is a sovereign government and we have to respect whatever process -- whatever process they want to go through.
QUESTION: I know you're running out of time.
MODERATOR: Just time for one more.
QUESTION: I know you ought to -- a quick question. On the Panama problem, is it that the Administration won't send the agreement up until that problem is resolved or that the leadership in the Congress won't take it up until the problem is resolved? I mean, where is the ball -- who has the ball right now?
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: I think there's pretty much a consensus. I think it's a consensus. I don't see a big split between Executive and Legislative.
QUESTION: I mean, you haven't talked a lot about the political situation in terms of how this is tied up to the election process. Just yesterday Senators Obama and Clinton were fighting each other to see who had better anti-trade credentials. You know, it has become -- and it's been called a populace stance by the Washington Post. And they actually said yesterday that they were renegotiating NAFTA in the first six months if they reach to the White House. So how is this election process in the primaries, specifically, is holding up -- I know that there's specific issues with Korea and also with Panama, but how is this affecting or holding up the Colombia one?
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: Actually, the -- it's interesting, the discussion last night had to do with labor and environmental standards that are already --
QUESTION: Which are already negotiated, yeah.
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: They're already in the Colombia agreement.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) That's why I --
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: Right. And both senators voted for the Peru Free Trade Agreement.
QUESTION: For the Peru one, so how --
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: So those -- I mean, so I think that answers the question. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: It doesn't.
QUESTION: Last question?
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: We're one beyond the last question. I mean --
QUESTION: What kind of work is being done by you and your government to persuade the Democratic Party?
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: To what?
QUESTION: What kind of work is being done by --
AMBASSADOR SCHWAB: Oh, before you arrived, we talked -- we were talking about -- there are a lot of conversations going on with the congressional leadership, Democrats and Republicans. These are really strong agreements for the United States and for our trading partners. I mean, these are agreements that, by any definition, really benefit workers in both countries, benefit the economies of both countries and both partners in these free trade agreements. Both partners in any one of these free trade agreements, you know, will be concerned about individuals who might face dislocations, but each of us has a responsibility and we'll take the responsibility to address that for our own citizens.
We are on the Hill constantly, and we're working with constituency groups, we've heard from mayors, we've heard from governors who were supportive, they're written to the Congress, agriculture, manufacturing, services, people who care about intellectual property rights protection. They are approaching the Congress. They are approaching us and saying they want to help. And we are, as an Administration, on a regular basis, up on the Hill talking -- addressing hearings, speaking one on one. And this is an Administration-wide effort by the way. This is not just the U.S. Trade Representatives Office; it's the Commerce Department, it's the State Department, it's the Treasury Department, Agriculture, so there is a lot going on right now. Thank you.
