11:00 A.M. EST
Real Audio of Briefing
MR. PRINCE: Good morning, and welcome to the Foreign Press Center. We're very pleased this morning to offer you a 30-minute discussion on U.S. trade policy with Richard Mills, the Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Public and Media Affairs.
Mr. Mills will have an opening statement and then he'll be pleased to take your questions.
MR. MILLS: Well, thank you, Dale, and thank you all for coming. I appreciate the time. I know you all are pretty busy.
I just wanted to take an opportunity to lay out some ideas and suggestions about where the Administration is going to be going on trade, where we've been and how that will lead into the next term, and then open it up to some questions that I know some of you may have.
Let me just begin by saying that the President presented to the American people a record of achievement, strong convictions and a direction for the future. Trade has been an important part of his agenda and record and his conviction to advance that strategy in a second term.
We will continue to work to level the playing field for American workers: farmers, ranchers, businesses and consumers, and open foreign markets to our world-class goods and services. We will continue to work to solve problems that block U.S. exports, including by aggressively defending U.S. interests in the WTO and in other dispute arenas so as to make sure that Americans are treated fairly.
We've worked closely with Congress to build support for our agenda. We've achieved great successes on trade this year, getting big, bipartisan majorities for our FTAs [free trade agreements] with Australia and Morocco, and for expanding benefits for Africa.
This full agenda continues with agreements such as CAFTA and Bahrain, which must go before Congress, as well as with our ongoing negotiations with Panama, Thailand, the Southern African Customs Union, and the Andean countries of Colombia, Ecuador and Peru. We will continue to customize our work in the Middle East country by country to open markets and achieve the President's vision of a Middle East free trade area by 2013. And as some of you may know, yesterday we announced the Administration's intent to negotiate FTAs with United Arab Emirates and Oman.
We will continue to provide strong leadership in the Doha global trade negotiations, where we first launched the negotiating mandate and then forged the framework to reform global farm trade and guide the future negotiations. Indeed, we hope our efforts on agriculture globally offer an opportunity to advance with our co-chair partners, Brazil, the ongoing FTAA negotiations. And we also expect to move ahead with negotiations for Russia, Vietnam and Saudi Arabia for their accession to the WTO.
Last, but not least, though, I just want to mention about China. You know, we'll be continuing to work on various issues related to our trade with China, making sure that American exporters and Americans have a level playing field into the Chinese market, to make sure that the WTO accession commitments that they agreed to are being met, and that there is a transparent and fair process for resolving issues and concerns that we may have with the Chinese.
As some of you may know, earlier this year, we, the Administration announced the STOP Initiative to deal with intellectual property protection. That's an issue globally, but it's also an issue of big concern in China, and so we will be working on that as well.
So with that, I'd like to just open it up for whatever questions you may have.
MR. PRINCE: Yes, right here in the back please.
QUESTION: José López of the Mexican News Agency.
Can you give us an update to the status of the negotiations of the FTAA and whether the U.S. believes that it is possible to conclude it in its original calendar if there is no agreement on agricultural subsidies in the WTO?
MR. MILLS: Well, as you know, we hosted the FTAA ministerial last in Miami -- in Miami last November. And in Miami there was basically a consensus amongst the participants in the FTAA about a way to move forward. And that called for a sort of two-track approach within the FTAA, where in all the core areas of negotiations there would be detailed work on determining the level of ambition within each of those areas.
That was the whole point of the framework agreed to in Miami and we are still committed to that framework from what happened in Miami, where everyone will have a certain baseline, and then those that are prepared to go further can go further. So that's where we are, and part of the difficulty over the last year has been translating that mandate from Miami into the practical negotiations.
As some of you may be aware, the Doha negotiations were at a critical point this year and many countries were focused, including the United States, on getting to Geneva in July and developing a framework for continued work on those negotiations; and a big part of that was the agricultural piece.
So that's where a lot of energies were put. I think right now we're in the stage now of looking forward as to see where we can go. It's our view that we want to continue to be moving forward on the FTAA and to try to bring together that negotiating mandate. But we'll just have to see how it plays out in the near term. I think that reaching the original goal of completing the FTAA fully by January 1 has obviously been a challenge for quite some time and is not realistic at this point, so I think we'll be looking, along with others, to see how we can advance things.
MR. PRINCE: Right here in the front row, please.
QUESTION: Malcolm Brown from Feature Story News.
On the bilateral front, I'm wondering whether New Zealand, which is still strongly interested in starting negotiations for an FTA with the United States, what are their prospects? Are they any better in a second term than they were in the first? And if not, what's the issue?
MR. MILLS: Well, we enjoy a good and strong trading relationship with our friends in New Zealand, and we've been pleased to work with them on the multilateral trade negotiations where New Zealand has a strong and influential voice for opening markets within the WTO. And as you know, Mr. Grosser played a key role in those discussions in Geneva.
I think the relationship between the United States and New Zealand on the trade front is strong. We have signaled our views related to the FTAs that we're doing and the FTAs that we are looking towards doing, and suffice it to say we will continue to talk with our friends in New Zealand, but I'm not sure if I can speculate for you and give you a hypothetical about when or if we might have a further announcement.
QUESTION: But they're not -- just to clarify, they're not on the list currently?
MR. MILLS: I'm not sure which list you're referring to.
QUESTION: The one you --
MR. MILLS: Right. If you're asking are we currently in negotiations with New Zealand, we're not. The list I gave you is a description of the ones that we are negotiating or have announced our intention to negotiate. We don't put out a broad list of countries that we may or may not want to do them with. When we've reached the point after an assessment within the Administration and an assessment with our trading partner, we then can make a decision about how to move forward.
But, for example, in negotiations with Panama and in negotiations with Thailand, our announcement yesterday on the UAE and Oman, those are definitive negotiations that are either in train or have been officially announced.
Other questions, whether it be with New Zealand or Egypt or any other country that isn't in that basket, you know, I'm not going to be able to go further on.
MR. PRINCE: Let's go right here to the lady in black.
QUESTION: Naichian Katz with Hong Kong Phoenix television.
My first question, do you have a preset date to review China's special 301 status? And second, on the textile issue with China, will the U.S. take safeguard measures to prevent China from pulling the textile products into the U.S. markets starting next year? The last one, some -- sorry, very quick -- some U.S. manufacturers are currently bidding the sale of civilian nuclear reactor to China. And can you tell us how the U.S. restrictions have changed recently to permit such sales? Thank you.
MR. MILLS: Okay, if I have it right, you have a question on the 301 process in regards to the intellectual property? Is that correct?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR. MILLS: And then the second question was about the safeguards? And third --
QUESTION: Textiles.
MR. MILLS: Yeah. Textiles.
QUESTION: And the third one, nuclear objective.
MR. MILLS: The third was about a nuclear -- okay. Well, let me start with the easy one first. I don't -- I'll have to get back to you regarding the nuclear issue. I'm just not prepared to give you an answer or provide some context for you on that.
With regard to the safeguards on the textiles issues, as you know, the Commerce Department takes the lead on a lot of these issues, so I would refer you to them for specifics about how that would roll out. There's a number of moving parts with various issues related to that that they would be best handled to answer.
And as far as the 301-process, as you know, that's an annual process. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking about that. Maybe if you could repeat your question.
QUESTION: The annual review is the end of April. Last April, because the Chinese Vice Premier Wu Yi was coming.
MR. MILLS: Right, to the JCCT.
QUESTION: So they put off the review to, I believe, early this year, so I'm just wondering --
MR. MILLS: Early next year, you mean?
QUESTION: Next year, yeah.
MR. MILLS: Okay. I'll have to get back with you on that. I don't know the direct answer on that. So why don't we just see you afterwards and get your number.
MR. PRINCE: Let's go here to Russia, and then Brazil after that.
QUESTION: Hi, thank you, my name is Andrei Sitov. I'm with the Russian News Agency, ITAR-TASS.
I wanted, obviously, to ask you about the thing that you referred to about the negotiations with Russia on its accession to the WTO. The Russians seem to be more optimistic than the Americans about the -- at least about the time frame of the negotiations. And I spoke to some American officials here. They said, "Ask us after the election." So this is what I'm trying to do. I'm asking you after the election.
MR. MILLS: Do you have their names?
QUESTION: I'll give it to you after the briefing. And also, I remember, I think, for the whole first term, Ambassador Zoellick was planning to go to Russia. It kept being postponed. What seems to be the problem there and when do you expect a visit like that to happen? Thank you.
MR. MILLS: Well, first, I'll have to get back to you, but I think that Ambassador Zoellick did go to Russia in the first term, but it may have been in 2001. But I will double-check that for you. So I think he --
QUESTION: Is there anything new (inaudible)?
MR. MILLS: I'll have to get back to you. I'm not prepared to go into that level of detail on his schedule, but I'd be happy to check for you.
With regards to Russia's accession to the WTO, as you know, this has been playing out for quite some time. There's been lots of different rounds and I think that we're pleased to be engaged with the Russians on this. We see this as an important part of building the types of economic reforms and setting the types of goals, I think, that the Russians view as part of their economic growth strategy.
As far as the negotiations go, it's -- the pace has really, we feel, has been -- is set by the Russians as far as how fast or how deep they are going. I don't have an update for you recently, but that's where it's been.
QUESTION: In what sense is it being set by the Russians? In the sense that -- does it go only as long as they are giving concessions, or is there any other sense that can lead into this?
MR. MILLS: Yeah, I think what I mean by that is that at times, not so much in recent -- the period, but previously, there had been an on again, off again level of engagement, and so I think the engagement has picked up this year and so we've been working with the Russians. But that's what I mean about the pace being determined. It's not so much into the negotiations about necessarily concessions; it's just about the engagement and working together to resolve the issues outstanding.
MR. PRINCE: Right here in the middle of the first row.
QUESTION: Tatiana Bautzer with Valor Econômico, Brazil.
I'd like to know when will be reached a decision over, if Brazil will be excluded or not from the SGP countries due to intellectual property?
Second, is it already confirmed that Zoellick will stay on second term? Third, is it true that developed countries intend to shift the strategy, to shift the focus in Doha round negotiations instead of focusing only on agriculture, trying to get more open access to non-agricultural goods by (inaudible) some countries like India, Brazil and China? And if, after the election, has the U.S. changed any position on what the main disagreements were with Brazil in FTAA negotiations?
Thank you.
MR. MILLS: Okay. I'm not sure if there is a three or four question rule here, but we'll -- fair enough.
On the GSP, as you know, Ambassador Allgeier was recently down in Brazil and had discussions with his counterparts, and was there as part of gathering information and talking to his counterparts related to Brazil's efforts.
I don't have a date for you as far as an announcement or anything, really, in that level of specificity about when or how we will be coming to a decision. But I would look for that in the near future. But I don't have anything to say specifically about that.
As far as Ambassador Zoellick, Ambassador Zoellick is focused on implementing the President's trade agenda. And I'll just leave it at that without getting into speculation about cabinet issues in that regard.
With relation to Doha, I'm not sure I understand your question. I think it to be that you want to understand if, in this phase of the negotiations there is going to be a concerted movement to talking about other issues besides agriculture, with relation to goods access, services access, and what not. And, you know, I think from the United States' perspective, we have all along believed that the promise of Doha and the best that you can get out of Doha, as far as market opening initiatives, lies across the three areas of agriculture, of goods and of services.
And so from our perspective, that's been an important part of the negotiations throughout. Now obviously, in three areas there may be differing speeds and levels with which they're worked on. I think clearly in the last, you know, year, a big focus for everyone was on the issue of agriculture. We were very pleased to work with Brazil and others to develop the framework for the negotiations and move them forward into this next phase. That was the outcome in Geneva. But all of the issues are part of the Doha negotiations, and so they'll have to be part of the negotiations as we move forward.
With regards to the FTAA, you had a question about disagreements with Brazil?
QUESTION: There were lots of points in which both countries didn't agree on, and I would like to know if there is any flexibility or change in any position in which there are lots of subsidies and also the possibility of signing intellectual property agreements.
MR. MILLS: Well, as you know, we, like many other countries, prefer to negotiate with our trading partners rather than through the press, but that doesn't mean that the question's not fair, but I just want to make clear: We will be bringing this up with all of the countries involved in the FTA process, as well as our co-chair partners, Brazil.
I think one of the difficulties that we've had this year is trying to translate what was achieved in Miami, as far as the framework into a concrete way to move forward on the negotiations. I think everyone correctly viewed this year as critical for the WTO in moving forward with the framework, and a lot of energy was put into that; again, with the United States and Brazil and others playing a role.
And then I think, as you know, the Brazilians were also focused on their negotiations with the European Union, and they had a date set that they wanted to finish for that in October. So obviously, a lot of energy was put into that.
And so now that we're in this phase we are in, I think it's an opportunity for folks to take a look at the FTAA and to see how we can move forward in the near term. But I'm not going to have any kind of an announcement today of a shift in the U.S. negotiating position.
We would like to see as ambitious an agreement as possible. And throughout the region, we've demonstrated that by negotiating FTAs with our Central American partners, and also being in negotiations with Panama, three Andean countries, and as you know, we have in effect an FTA with Chile.
And so, these FTAs, whether they're completed, or the goals of the FTAs themselves show a deep level of ambition in reflecting the kind of economic integration that you need to have in this increasingly globalized economy.
MR. PRINCE: Right here please. Yeah. One row back. Thank you.
QUESTION: Chris Cockel with the China Post of Taiwan.
I wonder if you can talk a little bit about current U.S.-Taiwan trade relations. It's been reported that Taiwan has agreed to begin importing U.S. beef again. But does the U.S. intend to buy Taiwanese chickens again?
And also, does the U.S. plan to remove Taiwan from the special 301 priority watch list, as I believe there was a period review due to come up any time now?
MR. MILLS: What I can tell you with certainty is I'm not prepared to make news on either of those with a big announcement related to what we're going to do as far as their status or whether the United States is going to, as you said, buy chickens from Taiwan.
Taiwan is an important trading partner of the United States. And we will be continuing to work with them on a number of issues that we have related to intellectual property and other areas, to make sure that Americans are treated fairly.
Did you have a question -- what was the other question you had? I'm sorry.
QUESTION: Oh, just regarding the 301, just a kind of update on where things stand on other, a number of outstanding issues that on the Taiwanese side, at least, seem to have been sorted out. I just wonder whether you share the view on issues, such as --
MR. MILLS: I will have to get back to you regarding the specifics of the 301. As you can tell, there is lots of interest from a lot of different countries as to the 301 process and where each country fits in. I can talk to you later today or tomorrow with any further details I can gather, but I don't have any specifics on Taiwan with relation to the 301.
MR. PRINCE: Okay, right here in the fourth row, in the middle.
QUESTION: Jordan Heiber, Asahi Shimbun.
I was wondering, on the topic of Asian regionalism, should East Asia take increased steps toward economic integration, whether the Bush Administration would view this more as an opportunity or threat, and how they would envision their role could be in that process?
MR. MILLS: I'm sorry.
QUESTION: East Asian economic regionalism. If there are steps taken toward increased regionalism in East Asia.
MR. MILLS: I’m sorry. What do you mean by regionalism?
QUESTION: Either anything, be it a Free Trade Agreement for East Asia, common currency, anything along the lines of moving toward more economic integration in the area?
MR. MILLS: Well, as you know, we have some APEC meetings this week in Santiago. The President and other leaders will be attending later in the week. Ambassador Zoellick will be leaving and has meetings tomorrow and Thursday. And we'll have an announcement from USTR related to his trip in a couple of hours.
But just in general I think that we see APEC as a constructive voice within the global debate about globalization and about opening markets and about freeing up trade. And if you may recall, following what happened in Cancun, the meetings in Thailand last year, the APEC members called on the WTO members to get back to the table on negotiations and to work from the text that had been prepared in Cancun. And I think that was viewed as a good boost to try to get people back to the table.
APEC spans a lot of different economic development levels and economic size members, so it's a broad, diverse group, and when they can constructively call for action on things, that can help.
As far as our views related to, as you put it, regionalism and other things, there's lots of different discussions about different ideas about integration in the region. I think, in general the U.S. view is that we go out and look towards crafting high quality, ambitious, free trade agreements and we know that others as well are working on FTAs or are thinking about FTAs. And I think our view, in general, has been when you can open markets and when you can integrate economies, that's a good thing, but I think I'll just leave it at that.
MR. PRINCE: Right here in the third row, and then we'll go to the back after that.
QUESTION: Abdl-Aziz from the Egyptian Television.
I'm asking about the FTA. So such an agreement for the United Arab Emirates and Oman, and before that it was Jordan and Israel, I want to ask or my question is --
MR. MILLS: Don't forget about Morocco.
QUESTION: Okay. (Laughter.) I'm asking about why Egypt's delayed for a couple of years ago, especially that Egypt is one of the effective countries in the Middle East, and especially the -- I can say the strong and the deep relationship between the United States and Egypt?
Thank you.
MR. MILLS: Sure. No -- good question. As you may know, Ambassador Zoellick met with Minister Rashid yesterday from Egypt and they discussed a number of issues related to deepening U.S.-Egyptian trade ties.
Ambassador Zoellick was glad to meet with the Minister and I think appreciated hearing the Minister's views and descriptions of the reform and economic plans of the new Egyptian team. I think Ambassador Zoellick was also interested in seeing how trade liberalization fit into those reform plans. And they both discussed and talked about continuing discussions about moving towards getting on the track of doing a possible FTA negotiation.
With regards to some of the countries you mentioned, the Israel FTA goes back to the mid '80s. Jordan we put forward in the earlier part of our Administration. But as I mentioned at the outset, there's a vision here for the region called the MEFTA, with the Middle East Free Trade Area, and what that calls for is an approach where we work with each country bilaterally to bring them higher up as far as opening markets.
So, for example, for countries that are not in the WTO, such as Saudi Arabia, our efforts are working with them on their accession where they're joining the WTO. For countries that are in the WTO but where we want to deepen our trading relationship or we have particular concerns, we have what's called a TIFA, which is a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement. And if we have a TIFA, which we do have with Egypt, and we can work through a number of our issues and show progress, and both countries really want and have the capacity to move towards doing a possible FTA, then we would make an assessment about going down that track.
So I think the meetings yesterday were good and constructive and we will be looking forward to working with our friends in Egypt to deepen the trade ties.
MODERATOR: Okay, last question goes to the gentleman in the back row.
QUESTION: I'm Hideo Keson from Sankei Shimbun.
Agricultural subsidy is so most important issue over the WTO negotiation. Does the United States prepared to deal with agricultural subsidies with developing countries the next meeting also?
MR. MILLS: Sure, thank you. I think the Administration's record on farm and agricultural subsidies has been clear. We have wanted to see global trade and agricultural reform. We want to see that all over the world, including with ourselves. So we have put forward proposals in the WTO that we believe contributed positively towards the level of ambition that we have achieved in the framework but also are trying to achieve further along.
We want to see reductions in agricultural subsidies. The initial U.S. proposal in the WTO called for cutting the annual trade-distorting support globally by about $100 billion for everyone, and we would have been part of that. We have called for the reduction in tariffs. You may know the average agricultural tariff in the WTO is about 62 percent. The U.S. average tariff is 12. So we definitely want to see reform in agriculture, include capturing the lowering of those tariffs.
And we support the idea of the elimination of export subsidies, which is one of the types of support that most directly affects exports in developing countries.
So I think our record has been clear if you look back, and I think I can assure you that the United States will continue to work to achieve a good, real, and strong ambition in the Doha negotiations on agriculture that includes reform and reduction of the agricultural subsidies.
MR. PRINCE: Okay, thank you very much.
