TRANSCRIPT: FISHER/ESSERMAN JUNE 28 PRESS CONFERENCE
(USTR officials say APEC meeting key to WTO agenda)Auckland, New Zealand -- The Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Trade Ministers' meeting presently underway in New Zealand will be significant for setting the agenda for the next World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial forum, according to Deputy U.S. Trade Representatives Richard Fisher and Susan Esserman.
"This APEC meeting will be a key meeting for helping to set the agenda for the WTO, the meeting in Seattle in December. At that meeting in Seattle we will be launching a global round of negotiations which will have immense benefits for workers and companies around the world, and this meeting will help to set the agenda for those negotiations," Esserman said at a June 28 press conference in Auckland, New Zealand.
While the "built-in" agenda of WTO is focused on agriculture and services, Esserman said many APEC economies -- including the United States -- are also interested in working on other trade liberalization issues via the WTO venue. She said the APEC initiative known as Early Voluntary Sectoral Liberalization (EVSL) -- a program focused on the gradual elimination of tariffs in the areas of chemicals, fish products, forestry products, energy goods and services, environmental goods and services, gems and jewelry, medical equipment, telecommunications and toys -- was high on their list of priorities.
"Consistent with the Leaders' message in APEC last year and with the message that we expect that will come out of the meeting this year, we will seek to achieve consensus on these ... sectors in 1999. It will not be a part of the broader round but we will seek to achieve to consensus on addressing these issues in the lead up to Seattle," Esserman said.
Fisher added that "one of the purposes of this (APEC) meeting is to move this ball forward," and that he expected to see progress regarding EVSL this week.
Fisher said reducing trade barriers with respect to automobile standards, aircraft, fertilizer, food, oilseeds, and rubber -- sometimes referred to as "the back six sectors" -- could become WTO topics as well. "We would expect that the back-six ... would be part of what would be forwarded to an exercise which would result in further trade liberalization through the WTO next round ... I think that it's important that broadly speaking, that we as American representatives here, would want to make sure that the back-six is indeed forwarded to be included in this agenda that will be put together, to press the envelope on trade liberalization beginning with the Seattle Ministerial."
Several reporters from New Zealand and Australia asked the trade officials about the current WTO investigation into the alleged dumping of lamb from their countries onto the U.S. market. Fisher stressed that "whatever's being decided on lamb (at WTO) does not impact our agenda here (at APEC) or vice versa."
Esserman and Fisher also fielded reporters' questions about resolving the leadership crisis in WTO, and negotiations related to China's accession to the trade body.
Following is a transcript of the press conference:
(begin transcript)
TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE
MONDAY, JUNE 28, 1999
HERALD THEATER, AOTEA CENTER, AUCKLAND
APEC TRADE MINISTERS' MEETINGAMBASSADOR RICHARD W. FISHER
and AMBASSADOR SUSAN G. ESSERMANOHTA: Good afternoon. My name is John Ohta. I am pleased to introduce Ambassador Richard Fisher who is Deputy U.S. Trade Representative with responsibility for Asia, Latin America and Canada. I'd also like to introduce Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Susan Esserman whose responsibility is Europe, Russia and the newly independent states of the former Soviet Union, Middle East, Africa and negotiations in the WTO. Both our speakers have opening statements. Ambassador Fisher, please.
FISHER: Well, first let me say that Sue and I are both here. Ambassador Barshefsky had a family situation and that did not enable her to come. As you have heard, we have different portfolios and that allow us to support Ambassador Barshefsky and cover all the responsibilities that we have within the USTR. I'd like to just make some very quick comments about this APEC Ministerial. First, that we very strongly support APEC's agenda, and in particular its role as a leader and as a catalyst for global market opening and trade liberalization. I think it's especially important to note that now that the region is recovering from its economic setback, it's very important for APEC to re-assert its dynamic role as a leader for open trade and indeed, APEC has played that very valuable role historically, and I think it is noteworthy that there is a sense of confidence in the different members of APEC that are here and certainly that confidence is embodied in the Chairperson, Lockwood Smith, whose grin can light up the darkest of rooms. He really is remarkable in terms of his enthusiasm and I think, again, it reflects the new situation as we recover from the economic setbacks that we have had.
Sue Esserman will speak shortly about the WTO matters. We, of course, because of the WTO Ministerial in Seattle, have a double interest in ensuring that APEC plays a strong role in supporting the launch of new WTO negotiations this year. You all know that historically APEC has been a leader in that front, both in the Uruguay Round in 1995 and also in fostering the World Trade Organization Agreement on Information Technology at its 1996 meeting. This meeting gives us a great opportunity to discuss issues relating to the WTO Ministerial which Sue is our leader, and we have a very strong interest in ensuring that APEC follows through on its sectoral liberalization agenda. We think, again, that Chairman Smith is doing an excellent job of moving this work forward. We have a very keen interest in New Zealand's 'Strengthening the Function of Markets' theme -- this is an effort to focus on measures that economic policy makers should take to improve market systems in their economies which the financial crisis has demonstrated is essential in a number of areas, for example, we think addressing such issues as transparency and good governance and business facilitation are critical to a sustainable recover in many countries. New Zealand has floated a good framework for APEC to address these types of issues and we look forward to working with the Chair and with the other participants and members here to flesh it out. APEC is also doing useful and important work in a number of other areas such as the APEC Food System Proposal, electronic commerce which is a subject where we have taken a very active interest in all fora and also APEC is doing useful and important work in addressing the Y2K problem, and we will do everything we can, representing the United States, to support Lockwood Smith's efforts to produce meaningful results in these areas. That's my opening statement ... Sue.
ESSERMAN: Let me briefly add to what Richard has said. This APEC meeting will be a key meeting for helping to set the agenda for the WTO, the meeting in Seattle in December. At that meeting in Seattle we will be launching a global round of negotiations which will have immense benefits for workers and companies around the world, and this meeting will help to set the agenda for those negotiations. As Richard has said, APEC is well known for its leadership and trade liberalization, but in particular for its leadership, its vision, its activism and its pragmatism in the WTO and we're hoping to draw upon that in the days ahead. Of course, the challenge will be in determining the WTO agenda is what negotiations will proceed in addition to the built-in agenda, that is negotiations on agriculture and services. In the months leading up to this meeting, we've been seeing a fair amount of consensus among our trading partners, that is a new round must be a manageable and digestible round. It should be completed in three years and we expect that this meeting will reinforce that notion. Another emerging area of consensus is that industrial tariffs are to be an area for negotiation. So, we will be, in the days ahead, seeking to determine the shape of the negotiations, the subject of negotiations. We'll also be discussing important themes of public outreach and transparency and openness and how the WTO can contribute to those issues -- issues that really complement the broader APEC agenda. APEC, I think, in particular can in the days ahead give boost to the launch of negotiations. They can show support for the WTO as an institution, that is a contributing force to addressing the financial crisis and bringing economic stability. APEC can be, and has been, a catalyst and in the days ahead we expect that it will re-affirm its commitment to sector liberalization, that is support for the accelerated tariff liberalization. And, again, we hope to draw on the experience of APEC so that the WTO can be more effective in reaching out to citizens around the world so that citizens understand more fully the benefits of trade liberalization. Thank you.
FISHER: May I just add on behalf of both of us that we want to thank New Zealand and Auckland and Chairman Smith for having this meeting here. These meetings are extremely useful for the purposes that Ambassador Esserman and I just reviewed, but also because it gives us an opportunity to conduct certain bilateral business, that is have bilateral meetings with different trading partners and not only compare notes on the subjects of the WTO Ministerial, the APEC Ministerial, other multilateral efforts but also on bilateral matters. So, we're appreciative of the people of New Zealand and of their Minister for hosting this conference.
Maybe we ought to take questions, Sue.
OHTA: Now we'll go to your questions. Who has the first question. Please identify yourself.
Q: My name is Richardson from the International Herald Tribune. You've both emphasized the importance that the United Stated attaches to the EVSL sectoral initiative that ran into trouble in Kuala Lumpur. Could you tell us what has happened with that initiative since Kuala Lumpur in the WTO context. Has Japan lived up to what the United States understands it commitment was in Kuala Lumpur, and have ...(inaudible)...and other members of APEC may have had some doubts about that initiative. What exactly are they doing pushing forward in the WTO?
ESSERMAN: There has been activism among the APEC members in bringing this program to the WTO. There have been a series of meetings in which APEC members have explained the benefits of each of these sectors. There has been a wide array of interest in these. There has been a series of meetings across Europe in the member states and we think this education outreach has been very effective in countries understanding the important and benefits and, ultimately, in reaching a consensus in the WTO.
Q: And Japan specifically?
ESSERMAN: Japan has joined the Leaders' statement in agreeing to seek to reach a consensus in the WTO in 1999.
Q: So, will these nine sectors be included as far as the built-in sector? I'm sorry, Bronwen Evans, Radio New Zealand.
FISHER: Will the nine sectors be included as well as the built-in agenda? The built-in agenda referring to agriculture and services.
ESSERMAN: Consistent with the Leaders' message in APEC last year and with the message that we expect that will come out of the meeting this year, we will seek to achieve consensus on these eight sectors in 1999. It will not be a part of the broader round but we will seek to achieve to consensus on addressing these issues in the lead up to Seattle.
FISHER: Indeed, I think what we'll see this week, and one of the purposes of this meeting is to move this ball forward, that the gentleman from the International Herald Tribune referenced and your follow up question to that. We also have an interest, as Sue mentioned I believe, in not just ... we have an interest in forwarding and the earliest possible way these eight ATL sectors but at the same time we also have an interest in non-agricultural or industrial tariff reduction. So, I think that you will find this week certainly a more harmonious ... we expect reference to these sectors and how they'll move forward again and to enriching and improving what will be done at the Seattle Ministerial and the WTO agenda. And we fully expect Japan to co-operate on this front and indeed to be an active participant.
Q: Simon ...(inaudible), ...New Zealand. Firstly, President Jiang from China made a statement a few weeks ago that China would not mind waiting 50 years for it to join WTO and yet today you said that you had a serious talk with the Chinese representative. What's the United States' viewpoint on that comment. And, secondly, China still insists that Taiwan should join WTO after China. What happens if China, let's say, did not join this year. What would Taiwan do and what's the United States' viewpoint?
FISHER: Well, first let me correct one of the operative words in the sentence you just gave. In the sentence you just gave you said I had a serious talk with my Chinese counterpart. We had a very informal, social get together. Long Yongtu has become a friend through this process. We've seen each other numerous times. Many times. I think more than I've seen my wife in the last year or so, or the last two years, and we've indeed had a non-negotiating pleasant discussion earlier this morning. So, I don't want you to read anything more into that than that. However, the ball's in China's court. They're well aware of the agenda that's required to, if indeed they wish to accede in this current calendar year, or as we in the United States had hoped would be possible had we been able to reach a thorough package which includes not only what we had agreed to the April 8th date, but also some additional items that need to be resolved and also, of course, the protocols that are associated with the exercise. And, frankly, presently as you well know we have not been engaged in discussions of late. We, on our side of the table, are certainly eager to re-engage in those discussions, but as I said just now the ball's in China's court. As far as Chinese Taipei is concerned, as far as Taiwan is concerned, we have made it very clear all along that we would proceed with each on it's own merits. That is that we would proceed in parallel. They have to commercially meaningful agreements. We are further ahead in the case of Taiwan. Taiwan now has taken their bilateral agreements to a working party and that process is now running that course and so they are more advanced than the People's Republic of China in the exercise.
Q: Ambassador, my name is Barnsley. I'm from Television New Zealand. In your opening remark you talked about trade liberalization. I'm wondering when Washington will make up its mind about lamb imports from New Zealand and Australia?
FISHER: Well, I cannot answer that question. That decision will be made by the White House and incidentally, as you may have read in the paper this morning, just to make it very clear, I am recused from these specific bilateral decisions in the case of New Zealand because of an investment I had previous to joining the Government. Let me just say that on this issue I think it is very important for your readers and your listeners that on a macro-economic plane, that first we are very good customers of New Zealand. We bought $2.8 billion of your exports in 1998. We have displaced Japan as your second largest trading partner. In agricultural products New Zealand has a net trade surplus with the United States of about NZ$2.4 billion and, incidentally, again just observing this from a macro standpoint I think it's important to bear in mind that your lamb exports to the United States over the last nine years, if my memory's correct, has compounded about 18.9% per annum and has doubled since 1995. We buy a lot of lamb from New Zealand. We buy a lot of beef from New Zealand. We buy a lot of products from New Zealand and of course over 50% of your lamb does go to Europe. The growth rates have not been as attractive because of their quota systems. So, we are good customers of New Zealand and we want to make sure that whatever the decision is on lamb, that it is put in the proper context.
Q: Ambassador, just one more question. A cynic might think that America is delaying the decision -- this public relations exercise, if you like.
FISHER: I don't think that's fair. I would say this, again, and not being part of the decision making here and I would invite Sue Esserman to make any further comments. I will tell you this much. I may be, because I'm not part of the decision making, the only member of my Government that your Minister Lockwood Smith has not called, that your Prime Minister has not contacted. Certainly the representatives in the New Zealand Government have been very active in explaining New Zealand's view and our President is, of course, taking that into consideration in whatever decision is made, and I'll let Sue make any other comments that she might care to on this very sensitive subject here in New Zealand.
ESSERMAN: Let me simply add that the time that it is taking to make the decision is reflective of the seriousness of the issue, the importance of the issue and the consideration that the decision makers have given to all viewpoints.
Q: Dennis Shanahan from the Australian. Australia has a trade deficit with the United States. Is the delay in the decision on lamb indicative of some optimism? ... The longer it goes is there more chance that there'll be a lower tariff raised by the United States and isn't this a bad symbol? Certainly everyone agrees on the CAP and ...(inaudible)... but isn't it a very bad symbol for the United States to be raising a new quota before the WTO ...(inaudible).
ESSERMAN: As I said before, the reason for the time devoted to this is because there has been at all levels in the New Zealand Government an expression of views and those views have been considered very, very seriously and there have been an expression of views by the domestic lamb producers as well. The reason for the time taken is because of the seriousness of the issue. Now, as to your second question, a safeguards action, or the filing of a safeguards action is one that is fully consistent with open markets and the World Trade Organization rules, and so if an action is taken pursuant to a 201 or a WTO sanction safeguards measure, then that would be fully consistent with the WTO and future market liberalization in the WTO.
Q: Also, the finding was that there was no damage occurring to the lamb industry in the U.S. at the moment.
ESSERMAN: Under the WTO safeguard rules, a decision, a relief can be imposed. They sign a determination of the injury or threat of injury.
Q: Lynn Robinson from the Financial Times. Firstly on the question of WTO leadership, which is becoming more urgent as Seattle draws closer. One of the compromise suggestions floating round and circuit breakers ...(inaudible) ... possibility of a term sharing arrangement. Can you see any other forms of circuit breakers that could resolve the issue and would you vote for progress to come out of the meeting in six weeks.
FISHER: I'm going to ask again Ambassador Esserman, as you learned during the introduction is the person responsible for WTO matters, to answer this question. She gets the easy ones.
ESSERMAN: First, it is very important that the issue be resolved as quickly as possible in the days or weeks ahead. This is an important issue and it needs to be resolved. Any resolution or proposal for resolution would have to be one that is consistent with the consensus process, the process that has been developed in Geneva and with the long standing WTO practice of no votes.
Q: With regard to the so-called back six sectors, there's a push by some APEC countries to see that (it be) given to the WTO to sort out and not to sort it out here. What's the U.S. stance on that and what would the U.S. like to see happen with the back-six sectors?
FISHER: Well, certainly, we do not expect the back-six to be discarded. We would expect that the back-six, as you refer to them, would be part of what would be forwarded to an exercise which would result in further trade liberalization through the WTO next round, or whatever you want to call the trade liberalization. So, obviously we have not, in the interest of time, achieved the degree of specificity that we did in the discussion of the front-eight or the front-nine, but I think that it's important that broadly speaking, that we as American representatives here, would want to make sure that the back-six is indeed forwarded to be included in this agenda that will be put together, to press the envelope on trade liberalization beginning with the Seattle Ministerial. Sue, do you want to add anything more on that?
ESSERMAN: That's fine.
Q: That would mean the idea of an APEC progress on these issues would disappear and become a WTO issue?
FISHER: Well, again, the purpose of the exercise in APEC or in any other for a is to increase trade liberalization, to push the process forward. I think, in and of itself, that's a tremendously valuable role.
ESSERMAN: And if I could add to that, that the way in which you achieve agreement is through the WTO. So, APEC has served a very important role in focussing on these sectors and then moving them to the WTO where there could be a basis for a broad range agreement.
Q: Wouldn't that delay things though. If you're starting a new process, I mean, it's going to be quite a long time before progress can be seen on those six issues?
ESSERMAN: Ah, no. The most ... in order to have an effective tariff liberalization agreement in which countries are bound, you need to do it in the WTO where you can get a critical mass of countries to implement the agreement.
Q: ...(inaudible).. Could you please explain to me why there is no tariff component on automobiles could be included in that statement?
FISHER: Why is there no tariff component on automobiles. What's the answer, Don?
USTR Official: Well, there are (inaudible)...various APEC matters, there are several ... (inaudible) ... We're developing ... basically something the countries got together and tried to work out what they thought would be a reasonable program and in the case of autos, ... (inaudible) ... APEC countries were ready to move forward on tariffs but they have built in to the auto section the idea of having a (inaudible) ... proceed ... (inaudible) ...
Q: Ambassador, in your friendly chat this morning with Vice Minister Long, did he indicate that China may soon be prepared to resume the discussions on accession terms with the WTO, with the United States?
FISHER: I think what China's doing is basically running the traps at home. We have different processes in our countries and we did not discuss a specific timeframe during our meeting. We did not discuss a specific timeframe during our meeting.
Q: Ambassador Fisher, you mentioned that APEC was trade liberalization. Are the meetings here at APEC this week going to have an effect on the New Zealand lamb decision?
FISHER: Again, I'm not involved in that decision but I don't know why it would have an impact. Neither way, by the way. That is, whatever's being decided on lamb does not impact our agenda here or vice versa. Look, I think it's very important to stress that New Zealand has been a tremendous leader within APEC and indeed within the WTO, both by setting its own example but also the activism. When Ambassador was talking about the consultations that have taken place, Lockwood Smith has been at the forefront of those consultations on the ATL agenda, for example. But, no, I see no correlation whatsoever between lamb and the success of this meeting.
Q: (inaudible)
FISHER: That's interesting. Let me tell you what we view our role as being. The world has been in a serious recession, certainly in this part of the world. We had a 40% shrinkage in global output. We had scores of countries having negative economic growth. Our job has been to grow and consume. We have an $8 1/2 trillion economy, we bought over a trillion US dollars goods and services from other exporters into our market, and we also have, if you look at our tariff regime, an average applied tariff in the 3+% range and very limited non-market barriers. Now, this isn't to say that there are issues that are irritants to specific countries, but I think we deserve a little credit for growing and for consuming. And in a sense we have become the marketers, as Ambassador Barshefsky often says, first last and only resort. We grow and bring Mexico and Canada along in our wake, our two largest trading partners immediately on our borders. Australia, of course, has been a great grower and it's rather miraculous what Australia's been able to achieve. But if you look around the rest of the world you don't see that kind of dynamic growth. I find it frustrating, this criticism that we have become protectionist. Let me remind you, that through the good efforts of Ambassador Esserman and Ambassador Barshefsky, and especially the President of the United States ... just last week we did not go down the path of steel quotas. In fact, we made it very clear that the President would veto a bill. When you looked at the count we won a resounding victory on that front. We're well aware of our responsibilities in the United States as the most forceful advocate of open and free markets, and, again, of pressing the envelope for further trade liberalization. But, bear in mind how much we buy from the rest of the world. Bear in mind how open our market is to the rest of the world. Sue, do you want to add something?
ESSERMAN: Let me just simply add to that I think the evidence of the openness of our market is what we expect to be a $300 + billion trade deficit.
Q: And so, Ambassador, are you arguing that the United States is doing the world a favor by buying things?
FISHER: Of course, just as the world does us a favor by buying the goods and services and output that we produce. That's what trade's all about.
Q: (inaudible)
FISHER: I'm not quite sure what your point is but my point is simply this, that I ask you to bear in mind, when you criticize us for protectionism, how open, how vast, how huge our market is for the output of New Zealand and Australia and any other country in the world. And, what we represent in the case of New Zealand, as I said earlier, we're now your second largest trading partner over Japan. What would you prefer? Slow economic growth? More closed markets? Higher tariff in non-tariff areas? I think we are playing a responsible role in the world and to be sure we can do better, we strive to do better.
Q: ... (inaudible) ... Financial Review, Australia. ... Do you have any solution to the WTO stalemate ...(inaudible) ... Would a term-sharing arrangement be consistent with that process?
ESSERMAN: We'd have to look at the specific terms of any particular proposal and what I'd try to do is to set out a framework by which we would judge that proposal. There would have to be a lot of specifics we'd have to take into account to determine whether or not it satisfies those criteria.
Q: Talk about a vote --
ESSERMAN: A vote in the WTO on Director-General or any other issue is totally unacceptable. We believe that if you start to vote on any issue it'll ultimately lead to the end of the WTO. The WTO has worked very effectively for the last fifty years based on consensus and we are determined that it continue to operate that way.
Q: What damage would a vote do?
ESSERMAN: Right now, countries participate, sign agreements and implement agreements based on a consensus. That has worked very well and largely countries implement the agreements that they sign. Once you get into a situation where you have a vote, for example a majority vote, as to whether or not an agreement should go forward, it will simply be unworkable. Because countries simply will not agree to go forward where a majority vote has decided whether or not agreement should go forward, and how would they explain to their country that this is something that is acceptable when they've voted against it. So, we see it as very important that we can continue the consensus process which has been enormously effective in yielding very important agreements which has brought the world important market liberalization.
OHTA: Thank you very much Ambassador Esserman, Ambassador Fisher.
FISHER: Thank you.
(end transcript)
Return to The United States and APEC.Return to IIP Home Page.