|
||||||||||||||||
PRESS CONFERENCE BY AMBASSADOR PETER ALLGEIER: Thank you very much for waiting. I’m assuming that you all have our statement so I’m not going to start off with any statement. I think probably you’d just rather ask questions. So, if you’ll identify yourself and who you represent QUESTION: Sir, do you think you’ll have enough time to get over the differences that are currently hindering some agreements and are you hopeful that you will not have a failure in Hong Kong? ALLGEIER: Yes. Yes. (laughter) Well, you asked two questions. Obviously we are going to have to work very, very hard, not just when we come back in September but actually starting now as we go back home, and we work on our negotiating instructions for when we return in September. And the ‘we’ refers to all of us within the WTO. We are very, very, committed to achieving success at the end of 2006 for the overall negotiations and that requires success at the Hong Kong ministerial. We feel that we got a huge push forward early this morning when the House passed the CAFTA. Many of you may say well ‘what does an agreement with five central American countries and the Dominican Republic have to do with the WTO?’ It has a lot to do with it, because basically, this fight over CAFTA was over much more than just a free trade agreement with these countries. It was about going forward with the President’s trade agenda, the centerpiece of which is the Doha negotiations. So we are really moving now. I think we have a very strong wind at our backs as we go into the next phase of negotiations here in Geneva, and we look forward to seeing you all at the end of a successful Hong Kong ministerial. QUESTION: You know, Peter Mandelson just now said, commenting on domestic support, that while the EU’s domestic support is large, it is falling, while the US domestic support is small, it is rising, and he also cited President Bush who is cutting out more domestic support in his last term than as well as in the coming days. He says that the US has to do more on domestic support. Is this a valid argument? ALLGEIER: Alright. The US has to do more on domestic support, but so do all of the others who are providing domestic support including the European Union. Listen, we and the European Union have both embarked on paths of reform including reform of our domestic support regimes. They are going about it in one way. In their way, there still is a linkage between the support that is given and the production, there’s a production limitation. There’s a linkage between production and support. They do not have a price link. We on the other hand, we have a price link, but we don’t have a production link. What do I mean by that? In order for a farmer in the European Union to get the subsidy, he has to raise crops. Now, the amount of subsidy he gets doesn’t depend on fluctuating prices. In the United States, the farmer, in order to get the payment, does not have to produce anything. The farmer can move to Florida. However, the amount he gets depends on the world price of his product. So, there are two different ways of reform. Both of them partially decouple the linkages between the support and what the farmer has to do. So, it’s very hard to compare them. We think that what we’re doing is actually less trade-distorting because, as I say, the farmer doesn’t have to produce a thing. Now, this may not be something that American taxpayers want to hear, but it is a major decoupling between the payment and the production. So, we both need to keep on our paths of reform and I can tell you that—I’m not sure where you’re getting figures because the President the budget he put forward originally— QUESTION: He said that, I’m not saying that--
ALLGEIER: O.K. The budget the President put forward was to get a reduction in the subsidies and it was our President, by the way, who at the G8 challenged everyone to eliminate trade-distorting subsidies, period. QUESTION: Mandelson’s talked quite a lot about having to change the way the negotiations are handled when we come back in September. It’s not terribly clear what exactly he means in detail about how that would be done, but do you see that there is some need to change the way these negotiations are being handled if we’re going to get to Hong Kong with a deal? And if we do have to change, how? ALLGEIER: I think we do need to look at various ways of negotiating, some of which we’re using already, but I think there really has to be a lot more of small, very informal group meetings, not to thrash out texts that are imposed on others but for us to each speak more candidly with each other about what we’re going to need in a negotiation in terms of ambition and it’s very hard to talk about ambition in a large group. So I think we all need to do a better job of networking, as I say, not with fixed groups, back and forth with each other, with different countries, and start having candid discussions about levels of ambition that we all either need or can live with. QUESTION: If I may just follow up, you’re talking about the missions here in Geneva or senior officials coming here or— ALLGEIER: Well, I think those will take place in different ways. They need to take place among Ambassadors here and the Missions here. Senior officials need to have contact and then Ministers need to have these conversations too and they can have them by visiting with each other, by meeting in different places—less formality, really, and more candor. QUESTION: Do you think that the developing world should be made to put forth concessions so that then the developed world will push ahead with its farm reform? Should they be linked? ALLGEIER: I think it is in the developing countries’ interest to open their markets so they have more growth and economic development. I don’t think it’s a question of quid pro quo. Although, the more advanced developing countries will need to make significant contributions, that’s where a lot of the market access benefit is going to come, not just for us, but for other developing countries. That doesn’t absolve us from responsibilities, but there are about a dozen advanced developing countries that are going to have to make significant contributions to market access. QUESTION: Following-up to my colleagues question, what you just said—a lot of developing countries think that the US and the EU are negotiating in bad faith given the clawing back of the textiles and clothing quota liberalized on January 1 and being hit with safeguards left, right, and center, rules of origin rules. So, they’re saying they don’t trust you. ALLGEIER: Well, excuse me, but we have not withdrawn any openness of our market to developing countries. We have used the procedure that China agreed to as part of its accession to deal with an enormous upsurge in imports of certain products from China. But we’re not imposing safeguards on any other developing countries, on their textiles, not at all. And I don’t consider that using the rules of the WTO that a country signs on to is bad faith. QUESTION: I’m wondering if you expect any range of shifts in the US negotiating position for new initiatives as a result of the CAFTA vote in regards to the negotiations here in Doha, are we going to see a new US negotiating position now that this vote has been cleared? And could you comment on all on the reported dispute that Uruguay is going to file against the US on rice subsidies? ALLGEIER: OK, first, I understand that Uruguay probably will go and file a case against us on rice and until I actually see what the case is, I wouldn’t really want to comment on it. On your first question — all of the countries here need to go back and over the break think very carefully about what we’ve heard from each other and read in the chairmen's reports. We know what issues are going to be difficult for us to deal with when we come back in the fall. We need to start talking to our legislatures, to our other stakeholders, to our other agencies, so that when we come back in the fall, we have the kinds of negotiating instructions that will enable us to bridge differences. So, that is what needs to happen. It is not as if we’ve had a bunch of position papers that we’ve been keeping in the safe until the CAFTA vote is over and now we’re going to unlock the safe this afternoon and bring out these papers. It’s really a much more deliberative process that we all need to go through. QUESTION: You mentioned earlier the informal smaller groups, earlier, so does that mean …(inaudible) ? ALLGEIER: Well, I’m not suggesting that there should be a dismantling of the FIPs, I think that’s one very useful group. But there should be other, informal consultations and certainly direct bilateral consultations, for example with China and other countries as well. Not only we need to be doing that, but other countries need to be doing it, so we all get a better sense of where the ambition landing zone is. QUESTION: Two questions. First, what are you expecting from developing countries in September. Can you clarify, you said market access, but what exactly? Cuts, in applying tariffs, what are you exactly envisaging for this and then this question of the effect of CAFTA, in your position, if you could elaborate perhaps on the FTAA as well, what can happen. Would there be a new wind, as you said, for FTAA as well? ALLGEIER: Ok, well first of all… QUESTION: Since you’re still the co-chair… ALLGEIER: …First of all, what is expected, or desired, of developing countries, is real, new market access and that inevitably implies reductions in applied rates. Now, we’ve already agreed we’re going to start applying the formula from the bound rates and countries which don’t have full bindings, we need to find a way in which they have full bindings and then apply a tariff formula to it and this is true in both NAMA and agriculture. There needs to be real, new market access opportunities and in services there needs to be real, new market access opportunities, a real opening of services in the developing countries and I said particularly those that are more advanced developing countries and there’s no specific category called ‘advanced developing countries,’ but it doesn’t take a genius to look around at economies and figure out who are the top twelve or fifteen developing economies. QUESTION: Second question— ALLGEIER: Oh I’m sorry, about the FTAA. Well we need to look at that situation and especially as we approach this Summit of the Americas and determine what the future is for the FTAA. We still believe very strongly that a free-trade zone encompassing the entire Western hemisphere is very much in the interest of all the countries of the Western hemisphere. QUESTION: But, the wind that blows there, is not the same one that blows here? ALLGEIER: I don’t know, I’m not a meteorologist! I’ve gotten to the very edge of my knowledge of the atmosphere. QUESTION: What can you tell us about Ambassador Portman’s schedule here, when he’s arriving, is he going to the General Council, is he staying Saturday…? ALLGEIER: Would you like to know what he is having for lunch? We are working on his schedule. He very much wants to come here. He will come here. Let me be clear. The purpose of him coming is not to negotiate. The purpose of him coming is to assess what the situation is in a way that is first-hand and personal. We are working on the schedule so I don’t have the precise details. And frankly the other purpose is to show – if there was any doubt – that the U.S. is committed to the success of the Doha negotiations. QUESTION: I wonder if in the next three months of negotiations, come September, we’ll start to see numbers on the table in the various sectors. And secondly, everybody is putting a brave face on what have been very disappointing meetings over the past few days. What on earth is there to be optimistic about? There seems to be as much to do over the next three months as there has been in the last four years. ALLGEIER: Well I don’t find that, that there is as much to do in the three months as the last four years. We have an awful lot to do in the next three months. More than we would like for sure. In terms of what is the reason for optimism, I don’t know whether it is so much optimism, or determination to make this a success. And I think the reason is that countries, deep down, realize that we need this kind of market opening now and that if we don’t achieve it through the Doha round, who knows when we will be able to achieve it. Countries desperately need these new opportunities. From the U.S. standpoint, and I realize that this depends on all of the countries, we have less than two years of trade promotion authority. We were able to get an extension of two years. The way the law works we were only allowed that one extension. So after July 1st of 2007, we would have to go back to the Congress and start from scratch with trade promotion authority. So that, and other factors, make people aware that the time is coming, that we need to finish the agreement. The other thing is, those countries that are concerned about agriculture, and agricultural reform in the United States, need to be aware that come the beginning of 2006, Congress is going to be involved in rewriting our farm legislation. And if the Doha Round is going to have an impact on that, we need to be pretty far along in our vision of what the agricultural reform package will be in Doha, for that to get factored in by our Congress, as they work on the next farm legislation. Typically farm legislation is put in place for five to seven years. QUESTION: Are we going to see numbers before Hong Kong? ALLGEIER: We’d better, yeah. QUESTION: The effort at the beginning of September is to concentrate on agriculture first? ALLGEIER: No. In September we need to be working on all the areas of the negotiations. Now I think that progress on agriculture has spill-over effects into some of the other areas, but we cannot be sitting on our hands in the other areas waiting for the Aggies. QUESTION: Can you indicate who is your choice for the Ag chairman tonight when the General Council chair speaks out, because we know that you were in favor of (inaudible) but is that the official stand? ALLGEIER: I am assuming that we will be supportive of the person the General Council Chair identifies. She has great wisdom, she has done broad consultations, and she did such an excellent job with her colleagues on the Director General selection. We have full faith in her. QUESTION: On services, the chairman said that what’s on the table provides no meaningful commercial access. So what is the state of play? And secondly, the heightened terrorism threat, is that likely to adversely affect some areas of the negotiations or can it propel more advancement in areas like trade facilitation? ALLGEIER: First, I wouldn’t agree that there is no new market access in services. QUESTION: But the quality… ALLGEIER: I would say it is merely inadequate. So we would certainly want to find ways to work with others to raise the quality of the offers in services, and whether there are other methods of negotiation that can raise the openness, generally, of the services regime internationally. On the security question, obviously, compared to five years ago, we have a much more difficult balance between security and keeping the flow of new legitimate products. And I think the countries are actually doing a very good job of that. Trade facilitation actually can help on both sides. You get a much more efficient system of customs. You can focus more on the more risky shipments, and be less intrusive for the legitimate shipments. QUESTION: Members are calling for political leadership right now. I wonder if the United States has the same plan over the next few months, as with the July package, taking a much bolder or aggressive position. ALLGEIER : We intend to exercise our traditional leadership throughout the rest of the Doha round. We are very strongly committed to this and will be extremely active and working to bridge differences starting the first day of September. QUESTION: On the Saudi Arabia accession, where do we stand now on the bilaterals with the United States and when do you think it could accede to the WTO? ALLGEIER: We have moved very far on our bilateral with Saudi Arabia. We have had very good work done there. One of the things that we will be doing over August is consulting with Congress on where we think we are with Saudi Arabia and what few things we have left to do. Then we will work constructively with other countries here in the multilateral part of the accession and we are hoping that there will be good news about Saudi Arabia and the WTO at the Hong Kong Ministerial. QUESTION: If the U.S. ready to make progress on anti-dumping and move forward in services until Hong Kong and propose on Mode-4? ALLGEIER: These are two difficult issues for the United States. By the way if you’re looking for an article for your newspaper or magazine, take a look at how open the U.S. market is in Mode-4, that would be very helpful if someone would do that. We realize that there are a lot of countries, both developed and developing, that are interested in Mode-4 that is going to be one of the tough issues for us and That is something that we are going to have to consult with our Congress, similarly with anti-dumping. We’re under no illusions as to where the tough issues are for us. I hope that other countries are under no illusions about the tough issues that there are for them. That’s what we need to buckle down and do. (End text) |