*EPF207 02/15/00
Text: Deputy Administrator Babbitt Feb. 14 Bangkok Press Conference
(Babbitt stresses Clinton pledge on debt relief) (5960)

President Clinton is dedicated to helping developing countries participate more in the global trading system, says Harriet Babbitt, deputy administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

In a February 14 press roundtable in Bangkok, Babbitt acknowledged the concerns that many developing countries have "about the pace of globalization, and about their ability to keep up with the pace of change and the growth in the global economy."

Babbitt, who is heading up the U.S. delegation to the Tenth Quadrennial Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), noted the variety of ways the United States is trying to help less-developed countries, including spending $150 million dollars this year in trade-related technical assistance.

The United States, Babbitt said, is "looking very positively at special market access for the least developed countries."

President Clinton also has said the United States "will give 100 percent relief of official debt to the heavily indebted poor countries," and has been successful in getting congressional authorization for that debt relief, Babbitt said.

The ability of developing countries to join the global trading system also depends in part on their own actions, according to Babbitt.

"Developing countries that, from the '70s to the early '80s, chose to open their markets had six times higher growth than those that chose not to," she noted.

Babbitt also drew a sharp contrast between the role of UNCTAD and the World Trade Organization (WTO), "which has the responsibility, as the regulatory body, (to be) the place where trade negotiations are carried on. There are some in the world who think that there's a role for UNCTAD in that, and my government's position is that it is confusion of roles."

UNCTAD, she said, "has a very important role to play, but not that role."

When pressed on the issue of the role of the two organizations, Babbitt reiterated her point that "the WTO is the regulatory body in which the trade negotiations take place."

While that doesn't "diminish in any way the important role that UNCTAD plays in providing the kinds of research and analytical tools that are needed by countries in order to participate in the global trading system," Babbitt stressed, UNCTAD and WTO are "two different entities with two different mandates."

Following is a transcript of the press roundtable:

(begin transcript)

Press Roundtable with Ambassador Harriet C. Babbitt
Head of Delegation
US Delegation to UNCTAD X
February 14, 2000
Bangkok, Thailand

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for coming, and for getting here on time in Bangkok traffic. It's always amazing to see a whole roomful of people at the beginning of a press event. Usually it takes twenty minutes before everybody can make it in, so thank you all.

MODERATOR: I'm Michelle Logsdon, the Press Attache here at the U.S. Embassy, and I'm here to welcome you to our roundtable with Ambassador Harriet Babbitt, who is the Head of Delegation for our UNCTAD delegation here this week. For your information, the ground rules are that we're on the record, so you can quote Ambassador Babbitt today by name. I'll dispense with any further ado and turn it over to Ambassador Babbitt.

Babbitt: Good morning. My name is Hattie Babbitt. I am the Deputy Administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, and I am here as President Clinton's and Secretary Albright's representative for the UNCTAD meeting. The delegation is a large one and contains people from USAID and from the State Department and from the U.S. Trade Representative's office, so that it is a multi-agency delegation. And I'm pleased to be here and able to answer questions that you may have with regard to the UNCTAD meeting and related kinds of issues.

MODERATOR: Why don't we take our first question.

Q: Madame Ambassador, we've had a few questions in Thailand; why the President himself didn't come. It seems a pretty big event for the Thais. They're billing it as a second WTO. They felt a bit miffed that somebody like President Clinton or at least Vice President Gore didn't make it.

Babbitt: The delegation that I head is the highest-level delegation that the United States has sent to an UNCTAD meeting in about two decades. The multi-agency aspect of the delegation reflects the breadth of interest that the United States has in UNCTAD's activities. The fact that it is headed by the U.S. Agency for International Development reflects the President's very strong commitment in Seattle to building the capacity of developing countries to participate in the global trading system. So I think there was a very conscious decision to send a delegation headed by the President's agency which focuses on technical assistance and assistance to developing countries.

MODERATOR: Could you please identify yourself by agency as well?

Q: Yeah, Nick Cumming-Bruce -- Asian Wall Street Journal. There have been a number of calls from both participants in the conference and from the IMF and other multi-lateral agencies to get developed countries to open up markets to unrestricted access for the exports of the poorest countries. Could you just set out what the U.S. position is on that?

Babbitt: We certainly share the belief that access by every country in the world to the global trading system is a useful and worthwhile goal. The United States' system is more open than most of the rest of the developed countries in the world. Can I turn to you, Bob, for statistics?

Bob Fitts: Sir, my name is Bob Fitts. I'm with the Embassy here. Just to provide a few numbers, we have ten-month numbers through October of last year; these are the latest ones we have. The U.S. trade deficit with the developing world was 140.5 billion dollars, which is 53 percent of our trade deficit. So, while you can take issue with various individual products, I think it's quite a misrepresentation to say that the U.S. market's not extraordinarily open. I might (give figures) for Thailand, since this is a press conference in Thailand. Last year, for every dollar that Thailand bought from the United States, we bought three dollars worth of exports from Thailand. So our market is indeed quite open.

Q: Good afternoon, Ambassador I'm Bob Evans from Reuters in Geneva. What's the U.S. latest thinking on the LDC initiative? Mr. Moore has been very forceful here in pleading for big powers to declare no tariff for all LDC products. Yet, there doesn't seem to be very much movement from the U.S., the E.U., or even from Japan. So, could you give us some idea of where the U.S. stands on this one?

Babbitt: Well, I can. We, the United States, are very much interested, and are looking very positively at special market access for the least developed countries. The United States is committed to that, and we are very much interested in examining the quota in the same regard.

Q: This is Pat McDowell from AP. Can you expand on that a little bit more?

Babbitt: (Laugh) What I can tell you is that we are very forward leaning on expanded market access for the least developed countries, and looking very hard at the quota issue as well. I really cannot get into more detail there. It is a process of consultation and negotiation that's on-going.

Q: But there is a big "but"in what you're saying here. There does seem to be a big but underlying your response here. Could you just tell us what your reservations are about this particular question?

Babbitt: I am the Deputy Administrator for the United States Agency of International Development. The issues that you are asking for detail on are really issues dealing with the WTO. So I'd really rather stick to the UNCTAD issues if I can.

MODERATOR: Do we have a question from my Thai colleagues?

Q: Bangkok Post. What about the debt relief? Some major powers, like Japan, are also calling for other countries, like the U.S. and E.U., to give debt relief for the HIPC countries. Thank you.

Babbitt: President Clinton has announced that the United States will give 100 percent relief of official debt to the (heavily indebted poor countries) HIPC countries, and the President has recently been successful in getting congressional authorization for that. So we are very much on board.

Q: Where are the discussions on how to build up confidence among the developing countries and also the least developed countries in terms of how to get into the multilateral system? Because the Seattle meeting had deteriorated. There may not be discussion to get on with the new round of negotiations. What is the U.S. position on that, and how possible is it for the confidence building to happen from the UNCTAD meeting?

Babbitt: The United States is very much interested in moving toward a new round, and firmly believes that it is in the interest of developing countries to join the global trading system. The statistics with regard to the developing countries and how they have prospered, depending on how open their markets have been to the global trading system, are quite dramatic. Those developing countries that, from the '70s to the early '80s, chose to open their markets had six times higher growth than those that chose not to. So the developing country markets which were most open grew six times faster than those which weren't.

Having said that, I'd like to add something, if I may, that I think perhaps goes to the heart of your question -- which is the concern that many developing countries have about the pace of globalization, and about their ability to keep up with the pace of change and the growth in the global economy. It's a very real concern, and it's a very understandable concern. The systems are moving very quickly and the changes are quite rapid. There are a number of things that we in the developed world can do and should do to help developing countries, particularly the least developed countries, but not just the least developed countries, move into a global trading system. The United States, on a bilateral basis, will provide this year approximately 150 million dollars in trade-related technical assistance to developing countries, most of it through the agency that I represent. We obviously also provide technical assistance and capacity building through multilateral organizations, such as UNCTAD. There are a variety of different ways and variety of different needs by different countries. But President Clinton is very much committed to being part of helping the developing world enter as easily as possible into the world trading system. There is something that Dr. Camdessus said yesterday: it's the moral thing to do, it's the right thing to do economically, and it's right thing to do from a developmental standpoint. So we, the United States, are very much committed to participating in the various mechanisms to help developing countries be part of this globalization process.

Q: Jeerawat from The Nation newspaper. So what should UNCTAD do to prevent the downside from globalization, and what is UNCTAD's role?

Babbitt: UNCTAD provides a number of useful ways to be of assistance in this. There is some very good analytical and research work, which is heavily relied upon by many developing countries in crafting their own economic plans, their own trading plans, their own ability to deal with some of the issues of accession to the WTO system in compliance with the WTO commitments. UNCTAD also provides some technical assistance to developing countries. It importantly provides a forum for the discussion of just these issues. These are rapidly moving issues, they're issues that are difficult to follow no matter what stage of development your country is in. A great deal of discussion in consensus building is needed so that all of the members of the world community feel comfortable and can credibly participate. UNCTAD is a very useful forum for that participation.

Q: Tom Crampton from the International Herald Tribune newspaper. I was wondering if you could comment a little bit on the increased politicization of aid assistance, and conditions set on it, for example in terms of good governance and other aspects, if that's a clear question.

Babbitt: I started listening to your question thinking that you were talking about HIV/AIDS. Would you mind restating it?

Q: Just that there is an increasing trend now in terms of setting conditionalities on assistance to countries. We, the United States, are only going to give this money if we are sure that there is good governance, if we are sure that there are certain checks, getting more involved in it?

Babbitt: My agency tries very hard to work with what we call "good partners." I think some of the World Bank studies, particularly one done by Mr. Dollar, the incredibly named Mr. Dollar, point out that assistance dollars which are spent in countries where there's a pretty good, and "pretty good" is the term that's used, a pretty good environment, can be extraordinarily useful in terms of development of the country in which they're spent. Funds which are spent in countries that don't have the right regulatory systems, that have the right laws but don't enforce them, that don't have the right laws, that have corrupt or ineffective judiciaries, are much less well spent and have much less success. So, with limited assistance money it makes sense to spend it in those places where the governments have provided an adequate framework for the dollars to be well spent. We apply that as much as we can in terms of deciding how to use our very limited assistance dollars. I say very limited, (when in fact) we have a significant budget, but it's a very large planet with very great needs.

Q: What is your sense of the reaction from the developing world, with this assistance, and these new conditions?

Babbitt: Oh, I think that there is an enormous need for, and demand for, development assistance.

Q: I'm sorry, in terms of the conditions.

Babbitt: I think there's generally an understanding, in terms of assistance from bilateral assistance agencies like mine. If your question is with respect to the World Bank and IMF conditions...

Q: No.

Babbitt: I think there's an understanding that the enabling environment, the environment into which assistance dollars are put, matters, and that it will be most usefully spent in a good environment. Of course, many countries that very much want more assistance say "if you will give us this assistance we will improve our systems." Sometimes that's the case, and sometimes not. We're placed in a position of needing to make very hard decisions about where we can best use the assistance funds we have, and we use as one of our criteria, the kind of partners we will have in the host countries in which we work.

Q: And you see assistance going more this way? More conditionalities involved?

Babbitt: Conditionality, that's your word, not mine. I understand the shorthand. There's not a check list that my agency uses. What we do is make an assessment on the ground about individual programs. For example, we have many programs in many countries where we work with the NGO communities, trying to strengthen civil societies where the governmental environment is not as good as we would like, so that we can be useful in building up a civil society, helping build a civil society in places where the environment's not good. So we don't necessarily leave a country when they just choose to work in a different environment. For example, we'll work on banking reform but stay away from the health sector, or work in the health sector but stay away from the financial sector. We make individual kinds of decisions. And I think host countries understand the process, and we try very hard to work with our partners so that the assistance program that we have is one that we've jointly decided on.

Q: In your address yesterday you expressed some suspicion that UNCTAD is still hankering after the role that it tried to play in the '60s, '70s and '80s. For example, an operational role for UNCTAD in trade negotiations would involve a confusion of institutional roles. Isn't this rather old-fashioned approach to UNCTAD? I mean, Mr. Ricupero for five or six years has been saying that UNCTAD has no intention to move in this direction. In fact rather the opposite, to work as a complementary body with the WTO, rather as the developing countries' OECD, as he said recently. So, on what are your suspicions of UNCTAD based?

Babbitt: I'm not familiar with Mr. Ricupero's statement, I won't comment about him, but I'm most happy to comment on my statement. That is, we are all working on the various competencies, the various mandates, the various strong suits of each of the agencies engaged in this trade and development scenario in which we're involved. It is the WTO which has the responsibility, as the regulatory body, (to be) the place where trade negotiations are carried on. There are some in the world who think that there's a role for UNCTAD in that, and my government's position is that it is confusion of roles. UNCTAD has a very important role to play, but not that role.

Q: In terms of concrete examples: in the next four years, for UNCTAD, what do you see as the projects, or what are the activities UNCTAD should play a role in?

Babbitt: Well UNCTAD, we believe, can be very useful in playing to its strong suits. It has a very strong analytical and research component which is viewed with a great level of comfort by many of the developing countries in the world, and provides very useful information to them, and assistance to them, in that regard. That is role which is increasingly important and can be built upon.

Q: Mr. Kofi Annan said the UNCTAD, the U.N. in general and especially UNCTAD, is also broke. Will there be a possibility for the U.S. to have, like a special concession, to give more money to the U.N. or to UNCTAD in this regard?

Babbitt: The United States is current on its payment to the U.N. system, and UNCTAD receives its money through the U.N. system. The United States pays twenty-five percent of the U.N. budget, and thus twenty-five percent of the UNCTAD budget as a result.

Q: Is the U.S. really current on all UN payments?

Babbitt: I found after I said that, I probably said that wrong. It is current in this year's payments.

Q: What is your sense of relations between donor countries and developing nations right now? Has that relationship worsened in recent months? Is it the same?

Babbitt: There are various levels of assistance. The multilateral groups like UNCTAD and others in the U.N. system, the other bilateral donors, and the European Union. What there is, in our opinion, is a great need to bring coherence to this system, to have some kind of process, some kind of dialogue, so that it is clear who's doing what, who has the greatest competence to do what, so that the divisions are made in a more coherent way. We meet in a variety of different ways and a variety of different situations: there are consultative group meetings, there are meetings in the development assistance committee of the OECD, "friends of"kinds of meetings, if there's a specific country need then three or four countries will group together to be supportive. But there's a continuing need to keep at that, because the coherence within the assistance community is not as crisp and clear as it ought to be.

Q: In these meetings that you go to often, how would describe the mood. How has the mood changed in recent months, since in, light of Seattle, or even before that?

Babbitt: I would, I don't know that the mood's changed since Seattle, but I would say that the whole process of the change caused by globalization causes an anxiety, or a level of concern among most of the people in the world. The United States, with a very strong economy, eliminates nine million jobs a year, and creates nine million jobs a year, more than nine million jobs a year. For the people whose jobs are eliminated, that's a source of anxiety, even in an economy like the United States', so we are all citizens of the planet, learning faster than we ever thought we'd have to learn, about how to deal with these new realities. I think there'll be some bumps along the way, but that the overwhelming desire of most of the countries of the world is to participate as quickly and effectively as they can in this global trading system. That's why I'm here at UNCTAD: to say that the United States wants to, bilaterally and multilaterally, assist developing countries in moving into this system as quickly and effectively as possible.

Q: In your opinion, is there more or less enthusiasm for globalism now among these developing countries talking here, these countries that you give money to?

Babbitt: I would say that there is a greater acceptance of the reality of globalization, that people are searching for ways to participate, but that the language and the context in which the discussions take place is a language of acceptance of the reality of the globalized trading system, and a desire to participate in that. I don't want to understate the concerns that individuals have and that countries have, but I think there's a great acceptance of the reality of the situation, and from our perspective we are very much convinced that the quicker and deeper that the openings come, the more the developing countries will benefit from the system.

Q: Steve (?) from AFP. If you listen to the speeches and the debates, it's clear that for some people, although they accept the realities of globalization, they still see it, perhaps, as more of a threat than opportunity for the developing nations. Not just Mahathir's well-known quarrels with mega-mergers and whatever. Do you think it might be time to allow developing nations a more institutionalized role in talking about this? For instance, what's the United States position on Michel Comdessus' suggestion yesterday that every two years the G8 Summit could be expanded to deal with these kinds of issues?

Babbitt: I don't have any response to Camdessus' suggestions in particular, but I do think that we in the United States, President Clinton and all of the rest of his folks, are working very hard at a variety of ways to make sure that all of the citizens of the planet are engaged in this discussion in one way or another. The specifics of how to go about that I don't have any comment on. But I can certainly convey that the President and his cabinet members who are engaged in these issues directly are very actively looking for ways to make certain that all of the voices are heard.

Q: Veerawan from the Thai News Agency at the Mass Communications Organization of Thailand. There is some saying that regarding the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, they don't have the opening ceremony, so it means that they also don't have an end of the meeting. So what is your comment on that? Another question is that, from the speech from Mr. Ricupero, he was talking about the fact that he sees no need for the meeting of G7 or G8 group, but he suggests that there should be some other kind of meeting, like maybe IMF and developing countries and other developed countries to get together for that kind of meeting. And my third question, I'm just quite confused. Yesterday we heard Camdessus praise Thailand that Thailand is approaching to graduate from IMF university. But you look at the speech from (Malaysia's) Mahathir Mohammad. He mentioned that he criticized the head of the IMF and he mentioned that's why his country did not follow IMF's steps. So what is your view about economic recovery between Thailand and Malaysia. I'm confused - which approach is better-Thailand's or Malaysia's? Thank you.

Babbitt: Let me first comment on Seattle. I'm not sure I understood your questions, but what we all saw on television and read about there was a very obvious desire by many to participate in the discussion who were not inside the buildings. That is a reality, and one which, while we may not embrace the tone of the discussion, certainly embrace the need for openness, for greater transparency in the way the WTO operates, and a need for the inclusion of more voices in these issues. The issues discussed in Seattle were trade issues, but they have such enormous impact on individual people's lives, on the environment, on the whole host of issues represented, that we need to look for ways to open the discussions so we don't appear to be listening but are hearing the concerns of the citizens from the United States and around the globe.

I don't have any comment on the Thailand versus Malaysia issue, specifically.

Q: What about the G-8 and Camdessus' comments?

Babbitt: I don't have any comment on that specific suggestion. I think we all need to look for opportunities.

Q: It was noted in your prepared statements that were issued before your speech yesterday, you were going to be addressing issues like labor, the environment, similar things that were kind of touchy issues in Seattle. In your actual delivery you cut quite a bit of your speech, and I wondered if it was you just didn't want to stumble over those issues?

Babbitt: My slot had me speaking about 7 p.m. and I was hosting a party that began at 6:30 p.m., so I though I was being kind to my party and to my guests, as well as all those listening to all the speeches.

Q: I wonder if you have any reaction to the tone of Kofi Annan's speech, which appeared to be targeted very much at the United States, although he didn't say so, and other powerful developed countries. Do you think his attack on developed countries for stalling the WTO talks was helpful, or did it stir up another hornets nest that could probably better be left alone?

Babbitt: I didn't hear his speech. I don't have any comment.

Q: One of the great concerns of the conference has been the fall-off in the flows of ODA to the developed world. Could you just tell us, what percentage of U.S. GDP provides, and how that compares with five years ago? And do you see this as a major concern for you? Do you see any likelihood of your ODA flows increasing in financial terms?

Babbitt: I thought maybe I had the sheet here but I don't, so I can't answer the percentage question. But I can tell you that last year the United States' ODA increased by twenty-five percent. It wasn't enough, it isn't enough, and it won't be enough in the near future to have anywhere near the kind of impact that is needed. But there's no ODA flow that's going realistically from the United States or from the developed world that can possibly provide the kinds of funds that foreign direct investment can provide. So our hope is that we can use our still limited, even though increased, development assistance to help countries create the kinds of environments that attract foreign direct investment, which is where the real money is for development.

Q: Has anyone ever complained to you about conditions set on United States development assistance?

Babbitt: (pausing) I'm certain they have. Yes.

Q: Have there been an increase in complaints, in light of this World Bank Report? As people concentrate on this, have you found that there have been louder complaints against it from developing nations, or donor recipients?

Babbitt: I would say that, by and large, host governments and civil society partners with which we work, understand that the assistance will come with conditions - and a variety of kinds of conditions. One of the conditions that people find difficult is the accounting requirements. These are United States tax dollars and we have very strict audit requirements, with respect to funds. So far as I know, no one says to us, gosh we really enjoy providing all of the paperwork necessary. But it's just as accepted as a condition.

Q: What I want to know is has there been a change? Has there been any increase in the complaints about this? Is there a decrease in the complaints about this? Are people less happy about this?

Babbitt: I'm struggling with answering your question, because obviously you've asked the question in a variety of ways several times, and I'm struggling trying to answer it, because I really don't think so. I think there's an understanding that (there's) a partnership between the provider of technical assistance or the provider of assistance funds and the host government or civil society entities with which we work, that's it's a partnership. It's just part of the relationship. I don't sense a huge outcry.

Q: So you've received complaints but there has been no increase?

Babbitt: Yes, complaints but no increase.

Q: And how would you comment on the trend toward conditionality in aid-giving?

Babbitt: I don't know that I'd characterize it as a trend toward conditionality. It's a part of what we think is an effective assistance program. If you use your assistance dollars in an environment which isn't the right environment, which doesn't have a strong judicial system, or doesn't have accountability, or doesn't have the kinds of factors that make assistance work, then the results don't happen. And so it's not a good use of assistance dollars. You can waste assistance dollars which could be usefully used in a neighboring country with a better environment. Our job is to try to get the best results with our assistance dollars.

Q: The other day Burmese foreign minister was calling for international community assistance to help his country develop infrastructure, and he said this is the agenda for his country. Also, the well-being of his people, because if there is no economic development, in infrastructure development, they cannot be democratization, something like that. What is your comment on that?

Babbitt: I'm sorry, I didn't hear who you were referring to?

Q: Burmese foreign minister, when he addressed the issue during the ASEAN U.N. summit.

Babbitt: I didn't hear his statement, and I don't have any comment with regard to his statement. Different countries provide assistance to different partners in the different sectors. U.S. Agency for International Development provides no large infrastructure assistance, and modest, small infrastructure assistance. We provide technical assistance, we provide money for institution building, building stronger health care systems, developing securities and exchange commissions in economies in transition, that kind of thing. So we are not a provider of large infrastructure dollars in any event.

Q: How do you feel about the meeting so far, and do you think (UNCTAD) can achieve something concrete in terms of trade and development that will be complementary with the WTO, or against it?

Babbitt: We think that UNCTAD in general, and this conference in particular, plays a very important role in this process of accommodation to globalization and the world trading system. The need for all of us to better understand how the global trading system affects our countries and how we can better enter into it is something that everyone on the planet is grappling with. These meetings provide a very useful exchange of information, provide opportunities for developing countries to learn more about the analytical and research tools that UNCTAD provides. It's a very useful venue for sharing information.

MODERATOR: We can take one last question before we close.

Q: I do have one. Is it fair to characterize your view of UNCTAD then as, this is basically a teaching institution and that WTO is where the real talks are going to be taking place? Are there going to be any trade discussions with the United States taking place at this conference that have an impact on the WTO directly?

Babbitt: Each of the organizations has its own mandate and its own contribution. The WTO is the regulatory body in which the trade negotiations take place. That doesn't diminish in any way the important role that UNCTAD plays in providing the kinds of research and analytical tools that are needed by countries in order to participate in the global trading system. But they're two different entities with two different mandates.

Q: I would like to know if this meeting will be able to convince the U.S. to increase more aid to the developing countries and the LDC countries?

Babbitt: Well, one of the things that I go away with from having listened to many of the discussions, and having had many meetings with the participants from various parts of the globe, is an urgency in the need to provide technical assistance to countries. I've spoken with many people here who represent countries that very much want to enter the global trading system, but need some assistance in order to figure out how they can accede to the WTO system. Or if they've acceded, how they can comply, how they can change their countries, their systems, their institutions in order to comply. They want to. They just don't have the capacity internally to make the changes that they need to make. And UNCTAD can, I think, be extremely important in that role. The United States, through its bilateral technical assistance program, can be very helpful. So I go back with a new commitment for U.S. Agency for International Development to help developing countries in that regard.

MODERATOR: All right, Nick. This is the final question.

Q: Well, sorry to come back to WTO, but you have USTR on the delegation. Here WTO is one of the big concerns of a number of delegations from both the developed and developing worlds. Is there the possibility of jump-starting a new round, or at least jump-starting a limited round. What do you saying to people who want to start a limited round, or an early round? Can you give any comfort to the prospect of having some kind of a round going this year?

Babbitt: I don't have any predictions with respect to time. I can tell you that the United States is very much interested in the start of a new round, and history shows us that the beginning of new rounds of negotiations in the WTO often take a few false starts. We are not discouraged in any way. We are eager to continue discussions about the beginning of a new round.

Q: The British are here looking for a timetable. They're canvassing support for the possibility of getting a new round going before the middle of the year. Do you think that's a realistic possibility? Is that a fruitless exercise?

Babbitt: I don't want to comment on the British consultations here, but we're eager to engage in discussions about a new round, and interested in starting a new round.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much, everybody. We'll have a transcript done as well of this. There are copies of Ambassador Babbitt's speech over here on the table, if you haven't picked them up, in both Thai and English. Thank you.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)

NNNN