TRANSCRIPT: DUSTR FISHER 3/11 BEIJING PRESS CONFERENCE
(Taiwan WTO accession not dependent on China)

Beijing -- Taiwan's accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) will be made on its own merits and is not dependent on China's accession, according to Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Richard Fisher.

"We have it very clear over the years that each country or each customs territory that petitions for accession to the WTO will do so on its own merits," he said.

During a press conference in Beijing following his meetings with Chinese officials March 11, Fisher said: "We have, as you know, completed our bilateral discussions with Taipei or Taiwan, on their WTO accession. There are 26 countries with whom they were negotiating. I believe we were the twenty-fourth. And then, of course, they have to do their multilateral aspect of that work as a secondary follow-up round. Again, we have made it clear to everybody that everybody proceeds on their own merits as long as it is commercially meaningful."

Fisher said that he discussed WTO accession with the Chinese, but declined to get into details. Discussions did not cover permanent most-favored-nation (MFN) status for China, he said. "I will tell you that most-favored-nation status, if it were to occur, would not occur unless China moves forward on WTO accession."

"China realizes," Fisher said, "that there will be no quick accession to the WTO -- that it will require hard work on their part. They fully acknowledge in their discussions with us that their proposal was not complete, and they promised to forward their proposal in completion at the earliest possible date."

Following is the transcript of the question-and-answer session that followed Fisher's opening statement:

(begin transcript)

TRANSCRIPT OF PRESS CONFERENCE WITH
DEPUTY U.S. TRADE REPRESENTATIVE RICHARD FISHER
CHINA WORLD HOTEL -- BEIJING, CHINA
MARCH 11, 1998

FISHER: ... I would be happy to take any questions that you have. Any questions? Yes sir, in blue:

Q: Bob Saiget with Kyodo: I wonder if you could kind of go through that again, the part about the Wu proposal and then the proposal on Saturday, I mean ...

FISHER: We have prepared for you in writing what I just read. I would be happy to share that with you. Let me just summarize, that Wu made macro-proposals as to market access in Vancouver in her discussions with Charlene Barshefsky. The first step was to decide on tariff matters as they affected manufactured goods. We received on Saturday, that is, this immediate past Saturday, a schedule of tariffs and tariff reductions. This week, in addition to introducing myself to my counterparts, we discussed the specifics of that proposal. We informed them that it fell short of what Minister Wu had proposed in Vancouver, and we are awaiting the completed proposal of tariff productions on manufactured goods, so that we can review it and decide if it is serious to pursue.

And I am sorry to have spoken so fast, I am a Texan and I tend to speak very quickly.

Yes?

Q: Lorien Holland, Agence France Presse: Could you explain what you mean by the offer "fell short"? Do you mean that it wasn't complete, or that the rates weren't rates you would consider negotiating on?

FISHER: I mean that it was not complete, nor was it in keeping with what Madame Wu had proposed in Vancouver. So it was neither complete nor did it meet up with what we had been lead to believe would be forthcoming. Yes sir?

Q: Rone Tempest, LA Times: Would you characterize this then as a regression on the part of the Chinese government? And secondly, just for my curiosity, what were you doing talking and negotiating with the Chinese in Hong Kong?

FISHER: First of all, I am the new deputy to the United States Trade Representative. Until December 31st of last year I was a private businessman. I was introducing myself to my counterparts in Hong Kong, just as I was introducing myself to my counterparts here in China. I don't believe that my appointment as Deputy USTR, by the way, is a regression. But as far as the conversations with this government here, this is not so much a regression as it is a first step. That is we want to see -- a complete first step. Thus far, on tariffs, on manufactured goods, we are still standing at the starting line. We have yet to take that first step. We wish to see from the Chinese government a proposal that gives us a basis to believe that they are serious about negotiating on tariffs for manufactured goods. We have yet to see a complete proposal. In the back, please?

Q: Jurgen Kremb, Der Spiegel: You have taken a couple of first steps for the last almost ten years or so, so I wonder how long the race will still go on? Do you have any estimation how long it take, because the Chinese side is quite optimistic that they can join the WTO soon. So what is the consideration on the American side, or the guess on the American side, how long it will take?

FISHER: Well, first, there has been progress made in some areas, particularly in the rules areas of trading rights and transparency, judicial review, non-discrimination, and these rules that surround the question of WTO accession. But on this matter of timing, as to tariff cuts on manufactured goods, and also non-tariff barriers, and all the other items that we have to review, the ball is in the Chinese court. That is the question -- the rapidity with which they wish to proceed is up to them. We have made clear throughout the years that we want a commercially meaningful agreement. And we have certain expectations to meet that requirement, at least in terms of our bilateral expectations as part of that process. As to timing, I can't tell you. That is up to the Chinese. When they get serious about negotiating, we will be serious about negotiating in turn. Yes, sir?

Q: Peter Hannam, Bloomberg: A couple of questions. Does the timing of the Clinton visit to Beijing at all hinge on the progress of WTO? For instance, if you are not anywhere near any kind of break-through agreement, is that likely to mean a later visit by President Clinton? And secondly, do you see China's restructuring of various government ministries at all interfering with their ability to come up with complete plans, or is it likely to delay the sort of programs that would make a commercially viable program possible?

FISHER: Well, first I say this about President Clinton's visit. He will not discuss WTO accession or sign off on WTO accession -- unless he is ready to do so -- unless we are at a point where the US Government has reached an agreement with China. We are far from that.

As far as the restructuring of the government under the National People's Congress that is currently underway, clearly ministries are being consolidated, and changes are being made. I just discussed with Minister Wu these matters and to clarify that WTO accession was still a priority in the minds of the government here. She assured me that WTO accession was a priority in the minds of the government. We had a discussion about the fact that WTO was left out of the working statements of this current People's Congress, and she assured me that in their effort to keep these documents to 20,000 characters, Chinese characters, that I should not read into that the fact that WTO was not mentioned -- that they had not still placed it as a priority for their government. So in that sense we know that they still wish to discuss accession, and they still wish to negotiate with us, and again we are waiting for those first documents to show us how serious they are in terms of the line-by-line nitty gritty of the negotiation on tariff reductions. Yes sir, yes?

Q: Italian News Agency, ANSA, Manuela Fontana: Has the position of China within the WTO been mentioned at all, or is it implicit, I mean as a developed country or as a country in development?

FISHER: Well, again, we believe that there are commercial guidelines that must be met for all countries that wish to join the WTO, and we have not discussed that differentiation over the last two days. Yes sir?

Q: Steve Mufson, Washington Post: (question inaudible)

FISHER: I would prefer not to give you the details, if you'll forgive me, about their proposal because it is incomplete. It dealt with tariffs on individual manufactured goods; it also dealt with peaks in tariffs; it also dealt with phase-in periods; but what we saw from the Chinese government was a partial list. It was incomplete, to reiterate, and I don't think it would be fair to my Chinese counterparts to discuss the specifics on those lists. As to piracy in this discussion these last two days on the tariff schedule -- that subject was not covered in our discussions. We are of course deeply interested in intellectual property rights here in China. We discussed that matter frequently over time, and to answer the gentlemen on your right's question -- that was one of the matters that I discussed in Hong Kong while I was there.

Q: Peter Wonacott, Dow Jones: You said this WTO is not a political union. Do you think that the Chinese were looking for a softening in the US stance because of the Jiang and Clinton visits, and because of their recent decisions -- they are making a lot of not devaluing the yuan?

FISHER: Well I think clearly the two presidents have given us impetus to move forward, and that is one of the reasons we are engaging in this discussion. I think the two presidents' decision to consider WTO accession for China led to Minister Wu's proposals to Madame Barshefsky on these very broadly defined plans of market access, and that of course precipitated this visit here to discuss a specific tariff schedule recommendation. But as to making a political decision that makes no commercial sense, this will not be the intention of the United States, and it will not happen.

Q: Stephen Chang, United Daily News, Taiwan: I want to ask, as you just mentioned, China's access to the WTO has a long way to go -- and Taiwan reached an agreement with Washington this February. There is a consensus that Taiwan accession to WTO will come after China's accession. Do you think this will affect Taiwan's accession to the WTO's timetable?

FISHER: We have it very clear over the years that each country or each customs territory that petitions for accession to the WTO will do so on its own merits. We have, as you know, completed our bilateral discussions with Taipei or Taiwan, on their WTO accession. There are 26 countries with whom they were negotiating. I believe we were the twenty-fourth. And then, of course, they have to do their multilateral aspect of that work as a secondary follow-up round. Again, we have made it clear to everybody that everybody proceeds on their own merits as long as it is commercially meaningful.

Q: Bob Saiget, Kyodo News Service: You mentioned something earlier about beginning intense discussions now, so after you get these market access tariff proposals out of the way then you begin intense discussions. Can you again go through maybe what those intense discussions would contain, or what would they be like?

FISHER: Well the first intense discussions would contain an intense discussion of those line-by-line items on tariffs, and that is what I was referring to. That is we must first receive this on manufactured goods as that first step. And we have agreed that once we have received a complete proposal on tariffs on manufactured goods, on the ancillary issues on peaks and phase-in periods -- then we would engage in intense discussions if it was a serious proposal. That is if it was in keeping with what Minister Wu had proposed in Vancouver. We are not there yet. I mentioned in my opening statement which you will receive a copy of -- that this is one small step and we have a long journey ahead of us.

Q: BBC: Two things: one, could you just clarify whether or not the issue of Taiwan's accession was raised by the Chinese side. And secondly, could you explain at all what was missing from what they had given you to understand would be included in these proposals, when you actually saw them?

FISHER: Taiwan was raised, and I answered the question on Taiwan in the same manner that I answered to the gentleman that asked it earlier -- that is, each proceeds at its own pace. As to what was missing, again I think that would be unfair to the other side. There were insufficient tariff items. The entire list of manufactured goods covered was not complete. Therefore, we don't have a basis for making a judgment. Specificity as to peaks was not included; therefore we don't have the basis for making a complete judgment. So there are several items left out of the proposal. The proposal is therefore incomplete, and we will await its completion before deciding if it is serious and is the basis for proceeding.

Q: Chito Romana, ABC News: Did you get an indication from the Chinese side as to when they would be prepared to give you a complete proposal?

FISHER: Again, I think this is a matter of their working through the changes that are taking place in their current ministries -- and just a simple matter of the People's Congress, that finishes on the nineteenth, being able to collect the right authorities and the right decisions makers. We did not get a specific date, although we did get a promise that it would be forthcoming and in quick order. So I want to emphasize again -- this issue is in the hands of the Chinese, in terms of when they wish to proceed. The ball is in their court, as I said earlier, and if they are serious about discussions with the United States Government, then we will participate in those discussions.

I believe the gentleman from The Washington Post had another question.

Q: Steve Mufson, Washington Post: I just want to come back to the IPR issue again, because I thought that sometime soon USTR needs to make some sort of recommendation under 301 as to how to proceed from here in terms of treating China -- whether or not to recommend sanctions, and maybe you could just give us an indication of what you expect to happen in that area, and also whether the situation is worse or better than it was a little less than two years ago, when we narrowly averted trade sanctions.

FISHER: We have made very strong representations and communications to the government of the People's Republic of China about piracy and about intellectual property rights and the protection of those rights. They have taken actions towards addressing some of our complaints. And, by the way, it is a moving target because sometimes you will close down an illegal line here, and it moves to Hong Kong. Close it down in Hong Kong, and it moves Macau. Close it down in Macau, and it may move to Vietnam or move to another country.

In each case we have made it clear that this is a responsibility that must be undertaken by the Chinese Government. Recently some of these manufacturing facilities that were closed down because they were illegal have been reopened for legal purposes. In the case of Hong Kong, laws are being changed in order to have more effective treatment of this piracy problem. But in the end it all comes down to a matter of enforcement. The laws can be rewritten, rules can be promulgated, and in the end it is a question of enforcement.

The demand numbers are quite high in this region of the country. The production numbers are very, very high, and this is a problem that we continue to fight here, in Hong Kong, in Macau, and elsewhere throughout this region of the world -- and by the way, not just in this region of the world. So we did not discuss that matter on this trip. That was not the purpose of my trip. We have continual discussions with the Chinese, with the Hong Kong Government, and with others in the region on this difficult matter of intellectual property rights and piracy.

Q: Akinori Hashimoto, NHK TV, Japan: Did you talk about the extension of most-favored nation status for this year in this trip? Thank you.

FISHER: We talked about WTO accession. I will tell you that most-favored nation status, if it were to occur, would not occur unless China moves forward on WTO accession. That is my personal belief. Of course this issue is a sensitive issue here in China. But the reality, politically, in the United States is that it is unlikely to occur unless they meet the conditions for WTO accession. And then it is still a question. But nonetheless we know this much -- that permanent MFN status is unlikely unless they achieve a successful WTO accession package.

Q: Peter Hannam, Bloomberg: I'd just like to have your feelings about this trip, if you can. Are you disappointed that the Chinese gave you less that you were expecting? And secondly, the next round of Geneva-based talks -- I think to begin the end of this month or early April -- how do the talks you have been having relate to those.? It that likely to put back their agenda because there is not progress made with the US side?

FISHER: Well I think trade representatives are always disappointed with what they receive. I must tell you that, again, the spirit of these conversations in part for me were introductory. For the first time I met with Minister Wu and with the various vice-ministers. In terms of the offer received on tariffs, I was disappointed that it was incomplete. I do not yet have the basis to tell you that I'm disappointed with the offer, because I have not seen the whole offer. I was hoping to have it sooner. I would have liked to have received the entire offer on Saturday. The word 'disappoint' may be too strong. But in terms of their expectations in Geneva, again, they have a long way to go, and the EU and others have similar questions to ourselves. So this matter of WTO accession will not be decided on political grounds.

Again, the WTO is an organization that sets rules and rules of the road for commercial transactions and commercial intercourse amongst nations, and there are no politically expedient ways to gain access to the WTO. So I would imagine the same types of discussions and line-by-line coverage would have to be reviewed with others.

Q: BBC: Do you think that the Chinese side thought that their offer was complete? And do you think that China in general has an unrealistic view of its chances of quick accession to the WTO?

FISHER: I think China realizes that there will be no quick accession to the WTO -- that it will require hard work on their part. They fully acknowledge in their discussions with us that their proposal was not complete, and they promised to forward their proposal in completion at the earliest possible date.

Q: Lorien Holland, Agence France Presse: Did they give any indication of why they gave you a proposal that wasn't complete -- if they said that they hadn't had time to finish it -- or that they hoped you wouldn't notice? Was there any reason for that?

FISHER: This, apparently, is a very active time in terms of the activities of the Chinese Government. For all I know, it was a negotiation ploy. But it was unsatisfactory, and in very straightforward yet diplomatic terms we told them that it was unsatisfactory. As to why it was incomplete, I do not know. But I do know this -- that we don't have a basis to assess their seriousness of proceeding towards WTO accession -- until we have firmly in mind, on a line-by-line basis, what their proposals are for tariffs on industrial goods. And once we receive that proposal, then we will be able to assess how serious they are. The spirit of our discussions, by the way, was open and friendly and direct. And in that sense I was encouraged by the tone and openness with which they were willing to meet with me and discuss this matter.

But, in summary, the initial proposal falls short. We will wait for it to be completed. Once it is completed, we will assess the seriousness with which we will proceed.

Thank you very much.

(end transcript)

Return to The United States and China.

Return to IIP Home Page.