09 September 1999 Transcript: Barshefsky September 9 Press Conference in Auckland (U.S. looks forward to APEC members' input on WTO agenda) (2530) The United States looks forward to very productive Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum meetings in Auckland this year, particularly with respect to APEC members' input on the agenda for the upcoming World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in November, according to U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky. At a September 9 press conference in Auckland, New Zealand, Barshefsky called the APEC meetings "an important prelude" to the WTO meeting. "The United States will be chairing and hosting the Third Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Seattle toward the end of this year. At that Ministerial Conference we would expect to launch the next global round of trade negotiations, so it will be a very significant meeting," Barshefsky said, explaining that global rounds are launched roughly once every 15 years. According to Barshefsky, WTO members will have to discuss labor and environmental issues if they are to strengthen public support for a multilateral trading system. "The membership is going to have to come to grips with a significant change in essentially a global public response to trade liberalization and the phenomenon of globalization in particular," she said. "I think there is a growing distrust -- not just in the developed world, but long held in developing countries -- by our respective publics of market opening, concerns about a race to the bottom, concerns about the impact on jobs, of intensified competition in a local market, concerns whether wages can keep pace with the needs of workers." "If global market opening is to remain the hallmark of the multilateral trading system -- and I believe it should remain the hallmark of the multilateral trading system -- then it is going to be critical to recapture and then maintain public support for open markets. It is in that sense that the issues of labor, the issues of the environment become very important in the context of the WTO Ministerial Meeting and in the context of the next round," Barshefsky continued. In response to reporters' questions, Barshefsky said that the United States supports China's accession to the World Trade Organization on commercially meaningful terms. "We have always supported accession on the earliest practicable basis, provided the accessions -- whether China's, Taiwan's or the former Soviet Republics' -- are on commercially meaningful terms," she said. "We have said a number of times that the WTO is not a political institution. It is very much a dollars and cents institution under which members make market-opening commitments of essentially a contractual nature -- that is to say, bounded by this new settlement. So, our position in this Administration over the last six years has been that we will work assiduously with countries to complete their accessions, but accession itself can only occur on commercially meaningful terms." "China will need to consider whether it wishes to re-engage in substantive negotiations on its WTO accession. Certainly, the United States hopes that China will re-engage substantively on those issues," she said. "But, as we have said over the course of the last four months, that question is largely up to China." Following is the transcript of the press conference: (begin transcript) PRESS CONFERENCE BY UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE AMBASSADOR CHARLENE BARSHEFSKY Aotea Centre Auckland, New Zealand September 9, 1999 AMBASSADOR BARSHEFSKY: Having just arrived, I thought it might be appropriate to make just a couple of general comments on the APEC meetings and just a word on the question of talks with China on WTO accession, since most of you have called, apparently, over the last 24 hours. With respect to the APEC meetings, we are obviously delighted to be here. We look forward to very productive meetings, most particularly with respect to APEC input on the WTO agenda. As you know, the United States will be chairing and hosting the Third Ministerial Conference of the WTO in Seattle toward the end of this year. At that Ministerial Conference we would expect to launch the next global round of trade negotiations, so it will be a very significant meeting. As you know, global rounds are launched once, in this case, roughly once every fifteen years. So this will be very significant. This meeting is, I think, an important prelude to that conference. I think it's vital that APEC demonstrate leadership with respect to the WTO agenda and the manner in which it would wish to proceed on WTO talks following the Seattle meeting. I think we probably had said this in June, but let me simply reiterate that the work that Lockwood Smith, in particular, has put into the APEC process over this last year has been exemplary, and we look forward to his strong leadership during the course of this meeting. With respect to China's WTO accession: As you know, when Premier Zhu Rongji was in Washington in April, we came quite close to the conclusion of a bilateral WTO accession package between China and the United States. Of course, much more than just a bilateral agreement between China and the United States is needed for China's eventual accession to the WTO, but certainly an agreement with the United States is necessary. Following that meeting, there was one additional negotiating session that was held in Beijing, roughly about April 24 or so. And following that, as you know, there was the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. At that juncture, all discussions of WTO accession ceased, not because the United States wished it to be so, but because the Chinese broke off talks on that issue and, as you know, on a number of other issues with the NATO countries in general. Last week, the Chinese suggested that the United States send a technical-level team to Beijing to discuss the question of WTO accession. This was not intended to be a negotiating session and it was not a negotiating session in any respect. We sent a very small team to Beijing, and I would consider the meetings that were held this Monday and Tuesday to be essentially ice-breaker meetings. That is to say, we have not had any engagement with China on WTO in over four months, and this meeting broke the ice. I think the tone was good, but WTO issues were not discussed in specific, only in the most general of terms. I will be meeting with Minister Shi, my counterpart, later today, perhaps early evening, and we will obviously discuss the WTO issues, as well as a series of bilateral issues including intellectual property rights protection in China. I think China will need to consider whether it wishes to re-engage in substantive negotiations on its WTO accession. Certainly, the United States hopes that China will re-engage substantively on those issues. But, as we have said over the course of the last four months, that question is largely up to China. With that, I'm happy to take a few questions, and then I need to get back to the Ministerial meeting. QUESTION: Madame Ambassador, Timor. Is it possible that the United States could consider some kind of economic sanctions to hurry the process of peace along? AMBASSADOR BARSHEFSKY: I believe that the foreign ministers will be meeting on the Timor question today, and I don't want to make any comments. I think that's a question appropriately directed to the foreign ministers. QUESTION: It won't stop me asking another one, though. The IMF has put up $88 billion worth of funds for Indonesia. Is that help to Indonesia in its time of economic need likely to be affected at all by what's happening in Timor? AMBASSADOR BARSHEFSKY: I don't think I can answer that question. I think that that is something that the IMF may wish to consider, but certainly we have been supportive of IMF programs in Indonesia, as you know. We had been pleased that progress was being made under the IMF program, and we would hope that that progress would continue. QUESTION: From the US standpoint, are there still any significant issues still be to agreed with China beyond what was agreed in April to seal this WTO accession package, and, if so, could you just outline what those areas of concern to the US are? AMBASSADOR BARSHEFSKY: We indicated in April that there were some issues outstanding. Several were large, and several were small. Without characterizing which were large and which were small, I'll simply say that we noted at that time that certain issues with respect to banking, securities, with respect to textiles, certain protocol rules -- particularly with regard to trade remedies -- were all outstanding and would need to be addressed in a manner appropriate to those particular issues. Other than those -- and, let me say, also a certain audio-visual issue -- other than those, we did not perceive that there were any additional outstanding issues. QUESTION: From the US perspective, would it be, in the US view, essential for China at least to table, again, those offers that it made -- that you said it made in your April 8th statement -- for a deal on WTO membership to be possible? Can anything less than that be acceptable? AMBASSADOR BARSHEFSKY: Well, certainly, the April 8th package that was agreed when Premier Zhu Rongji was in Washington remains the starting point for the discussion. That package has never been taken off the table, and we would expect to, essentially, pick up where we left off. QUESTION: What's the U.S. position, final position, regarding the possible language in the Ministerial statement on the early accession of China and Taiwan and the other non-WTO members of APEC? AMBASSADOR BARSHEFSKY: We have always supported accession on the earliest practicable basis, provided the accessions -- whether China's, Taiwan's or the former Soviet Republics' -- are on commercially meaningful terms. We have said a number of times that the WTO is not a political institution. It is very much a dollars and cents institution under which members make market-opening commitments of essentially a contractual nature -- that is to say, bounded by this new settlement. So, our position in this Administration over the last six years has been that we will work assiduously with countries to complete their accessions, but accession itself can only occur on commercially meaningful terms. QUESTION: Ambassador, this afternoon you are going to meet with Mr. Shi, and the Presidents are going to meet. About China's entry in the WTO, what are the expectations of the U.S. side from these talks in Auckland? AMBASSADOR BARSHEFSKY: I don't think it's necessarily productive to talk about U.S. expectations. I think it is important that the United States and China begin talking again. As you know, relations over these last four months have been difficult. And so, first and foremost, re-engagement between the United States and China on the full range of issues, I think, is terribly important, and would -- in and of itself -- constitute a significant outcome to the meetings between President Clinton and President Jiang. And beyond the general notion of re-engagement and the fact that these two countries are talking once again, I would not want to predict any particular outcomes in any particular areas. QUESTION: How important is it for the U.S. to have environment and labor rights included in the next WTO round, particularly in terms of selling it politically to your constituency in the US? How difficult will it be to persuade other WTO members to include them? AMBASSADOR BARSHEFSKY: Well, labor and environmental issues in general, I think, will need to be addressed by WTO members in the sense that the membership is going to have to come to grips with a significant change in essentially a global public response to trade liberalization and the phenomenon of globalization in particular. I think there is a growing distrust -- not just in the developed world, but long held in developing countries -- by our respective publics of market opening, concerns about a race to the bottom, concerns about the impact on jobs, of intensified competition in a local market, concerns whether wages can keep pace with the needs of workers. These are global concerns. We see them at their peak in the United States and in Europe. We see them also emerge throughout Latin America, and indeed Africa. If global market opening is to remain the hallmark of the multilateral trading system -- and I believe it should remain the hallmark of the multilateral trading system -- then it is going to be critical to recapture and then maintain public support for open markets. It is in that sense that the issues of labor, the issues of the environment become very important in the context of the WTO Ministerial Meeting and in the context of the next round. Not necessarily to engender negotiation in those areas. As you know, the WTO has a large number of working groups, most of which are not negotiating groups, but I think it's necessary to have the discussion among the members of the WTO to underscore the fact that the single greatest threat to the multilateral trading system is the absence of public support for that system and for those policies which have created that system. And unless that public support is regenerated, I think the WTO is going to face tough sliding in the years ahead. QUESTION: Ambassador, given the limited time between now and the November meeting, even if China, given the momentum to speed up the talks and finally reach the agreement during the time, China has still need to do the negotiations with the Western European countries, with European Union. So, is it practical to assume that even (if) the U.S. and China can reach the agreement, China can be a full member at the time when the November meeting start in Seattle? AMBASSADOR BARSHEFSKY: I don't think anything is impossible. Certainly, China is under some significant time pressure if it wishes to be a member of the WTO by the time of the Seattle meeting, let alone by year end. You're quite right in pointing out that even were it to conclude a bilateral accession agreement with the United States, it would need to conclude, not only with Europe, but with a number of other countries that are in the China working party in Geneva which have expressed an interest to negotiate bilaterally with China on market access. I can't give you the precise number of countries, but it is considerably more than just the United States and European Union. All of those negotiations would have to be completed, and China would also need to complete the multilateral process in Geneva with respect to the rules -- that is, the protocol of accession and the legislative history to it, which is called the working party report. And all of that will have to be done for China to be a member. I don't think it's impossible, but the time pressure is plainly there. Thank you.