Secretary of Commerce Donald L. Evans and Ambassador Linnet Deily, U.S. Permanent Representative to the WTO, at the January 23 press briefing. Photo: WTO

Press Conference by

Donald L Evans
U.S. Secretary of Commerce

U.S. Participation in the DOHA Negotiations

Thursday, January 23, 2003

World Trade Organization

SECRETARY EVANS: Welcome, I'm Don Evans. I'm delighted to be here. This is my first trip through Geneva as Secretary of Commerce of the United States of America. It's a chance to see the progress that we are making with the Doha Round which our country is very focused on. We all know how how important it is to this global economy and for this economy to grow in the years ahead. I would be glad to entertain your questions, but as I said I have a brief statement I would like to read to you first.

Earlier this morning I had a very productive discussion with Dr. Supachai. I will also meet with a number of the chairmen of the negotiating groups and take their pulse on the state of the negotiations. The United States takes these negotiations extremely seriously. President Bush understands how improtant trade is as a source of growth in the US and the world economy. The president is committed to using every opportunity to liberalize trade because he understands that trade isn't just about economics, it's a moral imperative.

Free and open trade is a foundation for democracy, social freedom, social responsibility and political stability. It's all about human freedom and a higher quality of life for all. That's why the US has made bold proposals and ambitious proposals in services, industrial tariffs and agriculture to open up markets and grow the global economy. We are committed to meeting the WTO Doha development agenda deadlines and slashing barriers to trade, including our own. Under our industrial tariff proposals, 76% of all developing countries' exports to the US would benefit from the permanent elimination of duties by 2010. We have excluded no sectors from our proposals and believe that all other WTO member countries need to participate in market opening measures as well.

Six billion people live on the planet. Three billion of them live on less than 2 dollars a day. There's too much poverty in this world. There's not enough hope in this world. There's not enough oportunity in too many parts of this world. It's not right and it's not good and we should do something about it. Trade speaks to those needs, trade unleashes economic potential and economic growth. Trade creates and reinforces the institutions and framework that sustain democracy and freedom.

As Commerce Secretary I know that from our pharmaceutical and telecommunications industries, and from grain to machinery, American businesses and workers have a stake in a positive outcome of the talks. And these negotiations are part of the President's overall strategy for economic growth, not only in the United States but obviously around the world. The talks are about opening up opportunities to build infrastructure, promote development, induce investment and improve lives. So I want to be sure that all of us on the President's team are doing what we can to keep these negotiations on track, and I'm certainly here reminding all that out attitude about these negotiations is that a rising tide will lift all boats. Nobody wins unless we all win.

These negotiations should not be about one group has to lose so another wins. That's not how the President approaches decisions. The President heeds a basic fundamental belief that nobody wins unless we all win, and if we accomplish a successful round I indeed believe that everybody on this planet will win.

Let me take any questions that you may have.

QUESTION: Secretary, there's some concern here in Geneva about the US commitment to the WTO. The concerns focus on two areas. First of all President Bush's focus now on regional trade agreements, and the second, on U.S. response to WTO dispute settlement rulings and the perception that the U.S. is not complying with some of the rulings that have gone against the United States. Can you tell us your views on whether U.S. remains committed to the WTO and in regard to the dispute issue, will it show its commitment by withdrawing the so-called Byrd amendment legislation which the WTO ruled against not too long ago.

EVANS: There should be no question, no doubt in anybody's mind that the United States is committed to the WTO and the Doha round. We understand how critical it is to creating the conditions in this world for economic growth. We give it highest priority, and in our country our President fought very hard the first 18 months he was in office to achieve trade promotion authority, which gives him the authority to negotiate trade agreements. Without that, America is not a serious player at the negotiating table. But we do have that now, although we did not get that until the summer of 2001. So with that, that puts America in a position to be a serious player in the negotiations of WTO and the Doha round and we intend to do so. I think we've clearly laid out our intentions and our commitments by the bold ambitious proposals we put on the table. We put a very ambitious proposal on the table with respect to agriculture, we put a very ambitious proposal on the table with respect to industrial products and goods, and so we think that's the way you can best accomplish the goal of what we're trying to accomplish which is economic growth around the world. And so I think those ambitious proposals alone should demonstrate the seriousness we give to these negotiations.

With respect to other bilateral negotiations that we have underway, I think it's properly consistent with our goal to open up this global economy, and you must be mindful of the fact the President has not had the negotiating authority to negotiate trade agreements for the last 9 years, therefore America is a signatory to three free trade agreements. Europe is signatory to 33 or 32 or 35, I don't know what the exact number is, but we're well behind the rest of the world when it comes to signing free trade agreements. We have three with four other countries and so we feel like it is consistent with our overall goal to open up markets all around the world. We are focused on several bilateral and regional discussions in our home hemisphere, obviously the FTAA, and we've just have reached the initial state of agreement with Chile, and we are working, beginning negotiations on a FTA with Central American countries, but we feel like we have the capacity to negotiate these agreements at the same time we're working very hard on WTO.

We understand the global nature of the WTO and we believe that that is where the most opportunity exists for improving global economic conditions and so we're going to push very, very hard for that, but at the same time I think it's only right to our American businesses, our American workers in our own country that we do what we do what we can to open up markets for them. We have a very open market in America and as Commerce Secretary of the United States, you know I want to be doing what I can, the President wants to do what he can, what he is able to do, to open up markets for our own businesses.

With respect to dispute issues, we absolutely will comply with whatever decisions have been handed-down by that body. We will work with Congress to comply with those decisions, that takes a little bit of time, it takes some legislation in some cases. On the Foreign Sales Corporation issue, I appreciate Europe's understanding and patience on that issue, they know we're working with Congress on that issue, we will deal with that issue. But we will absolutely honor the decisions that come from the dispute resolution process. Yes Sir.

QUESTION: The U.S. has been criticized for blocking a deal on access to medicines. I was wondering what you make of the European Union's proposal to use the World Health Organization as a go-between and arbitrator on those questions. And secondly, I wonder whether you are supporting USTR, or Zoellick's call, for a case against the European Union on genetically modified organisms.

EVANS: Well, first on the TRIPS health issue, we are disappointed that that has not been resolved yet. We don't want anybody to misunderstand America's commitment that we clearly demonstrate in a variety of ways to deal with the incredible human challenges that this world faces in the area of AIDS and malaria and tuberculosis. AIDS in particular. I just got back from Africa myself and America's commitment to dealing with that human challenge that this whole world faces right now is very real and very substantial and will continue and in fact will grow. I think that it is also important that we make sure that we deal with this issue of how patents are protected and how they are treated in the world where we make sure that companies and intellectual property that people have now and in the years ahead is protected. That is fundamental to innovation. It is fundamental to new kinds of drugs and new kinds of treatments that will help not only people of today but people for years to come. It is an issue that we obviously will continue to work on. I am disappointed that it has not been resolved yet. I am confident that it will be resolved, and Bob Zoellick and his team will continue to deal with that issue. The other issue was on?

QUESTION: GMOs.

EVANS: GMOs. Yes, I agree with Ambassador Zoellick's position totally, having just got back from Africa, as I mentioned. While I was down there I was taken by an article on the front page of the paper where a mother was selling two of her children so that she could feed her other five children. It is something that I can't quite understand myself, how people that are starving in that part of the world would be denied food that Americans have been eating and that have been on our kitchen tables for years. So this is a moral issue, as Ambassador Zoellick has said, as far as I'm concerned. I'm disappointed that the European Union has had a moratorium on the approval of biotech products from our country for four years. It seems like after a four-year period they would be able to make some decisions on what they think is safe and what isn't safe. But I think the biggest concern that I have is that we have people in this world who are starving and are dying because of malnutrition and yet they are being denied some food that we put on our table and eat every day in America.

QUESTION: I wondered if you had an comment about the domestic textiles industry putting pressure on the administration to implement new safeguards in light of surging imports from especially East Asia and Southeast Asia. I'd like your views. And also a similar call for a new round of tariff hikes for steel imports from the domestic steel industry which feel that last year's tariffs were not sufficient? What's your view on these two issues?

EVANS: Well I am not aware of new safeguards from our textile industry.

QUESTION: Sorry, the industry's calling for them.

EVANS: Well I, you know our commitment which has already been laid out our industrial goods proposal that has been presented and tabled here that will reduce tariffs on textiles globally to zero eventually by the year 2015. We think in the area of textiles as we go through these negotiations market reciprocity is key, important and essential to any agreement. But what we have tabled here is what will lead to reduction of tariffs, in not only our own country but around the world. With respect to steel, I would say that the 2201 safeguard that was of course WTO compliant and consistent, that was imposed March 2001, is temporary and declining and did last for a maximum of three years. We not only have provided a number of exclusions but it's a declining tariff year by year and we have been working very hard within the OECD to deal with some of the underlying trade distortion practices that have been going on around the world. We have been discussing that issue right here as well. I think that we've made great progress as a matter of fact in the OECD within the last number of months, bringing the world together to deal with some of these trade distorting practices that have been occurring around the world and so I'm very optimistic that we are continuing toward leveling the playing field for the global steel industry.

QUESTION: You didn't answer my question whether the administration will resist new calls by the steel and textiles industry for new sets of safeguards.

EVANS: Quite frankly, I haven't sensed them, I haven't felt them. I know the direction we are going. What we put on the table is to reduce tariffs. We're not trying to figure out ways to increase them. We are reducing them. And I have not sensed a big cry from either industry quite frankly that they be increased.

QUESTION: You say that the opening of trade can enhance democracy and political stability. Are you saying that for example in the case of FTAA the block itself could help Latin American countries like Venezuela and Columbia to have a stable situation?

EVANS: Over a long period of time, yes, absolutely.

QUESTION: Why?

EVANS: Because opening up trade means jobs for people. It means a higher standard of living for people, it means better quality of life for people, it means lifting up people out of poverty and I think that is fundamental to political stability: economic growth, economic development and improving standard of living for everybody. Trade leads to business development and it leads to jobs and a job is where somebody goes to pursue his or her dream. A job is where people go to provide for their families, to provide for the needs for their families. As I travel around the world, what I learn is we all want basically the same thing. We all want security, we all want to be able to feed our families, to put a roof over their head, provide them with education. And where you go to provide that is you go to your job, and your job is what created economic development, and business is growing and that's trade, that's investment. So you know when you get down to the basics of what people want in the world it's that they want to be able to provide for their families and the people that they care about and for their loved ones. And the way you provide for that is you provide them with a job and a means to support them. And so I'm one that would argue that opening up trade will help foster that economic development. And so it's trade that leads to prosperity and peace and you know I think those all kind of enhance the democracy and political stability.

QUESTION: When do you think the administration is going to take a decision on the GMO question? Which way do you think it will go? And given the problems facing the DOHA round, couldn't this be the last thing that really just sinks it given the differences between Europe and the United States over trade that exist already and over Iraq and other things.

EVANS: One thing everybody should understand is that you talk about disputes a lot and the issues we are challenged with resolving, but when you look at the whole picture we all have a lot more, we all gain a lot more in this world because of the trade that occurs in this world than we certainly lose. There is a lot more that we benefit from because of trade in this world and the disputes that we talk about are minor relative to the overall trade. And so I want to keep the disputes that often hit the headlines in perspective.

You know, I don't know the answer with respect to GMOs, no decision has been made on that yet. But I'm one that's very optimistic about the round. I'm very optimistic about the focus of all of the countries, the developing countries. I have been encouraged by what I have heard in terms of their commitment to this round and so I'm one that believes that the more people focused on the importance of this round, the realization that if this round is not successful, I don't know when we would ever be able to launch one again, but really just focused on the benefits that will come out of this round for all mankind I'm one that's very optimistic that we will have - this will be a successful round and all countries will sit down in January of 2005 and an sign agreement.

QUESTION: My question concerning an initiative to link the Jackson-Vanik amendment with Russian accession to the WTO. What is the administration position towards this initiative.

EVANS: Well, we have been encouraging Congress, the President has been encouraging Congress for a long time to remove Russia from the Jackson Vanik amendment. And the President will continue to encourage such. When they do it is their decision. But the President has been very clear on it.

QUESTION: Could I just come back to the question of my colleague concerning the EU proposal on the TRIPS case. Do you think what the EU proposed , WHO as a kind of mediator,...

EVANS: I 'm not that familiar with USTR's current view on that.

End