Inside US Trade | March 16, 2001
In a meeting last week with European Union Trade Commissioner Pascal Lamy, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick signaled that the U.S. would not be ready by July to decide whether there is sufficient agreement among trading partners to go forward with a new trade round in the World Trade Organization, informed sources said.
In a joint press conference on March 9, Zoellick signaled that summer is the time to review the preparations for a new round, but did not identify it as a firm deadline. "My hope is that if we move on a number of fronts - built-in agenda, informal working with developing countries - then by some time in the summer we should be in a much better position to determine what sort of final push can make this happen," Zoellick said.
He also emphasized that the U.S. is interested in improving the transparency of the WTO to illustrate that the organization is committed to democratic values. Zoellick's comment echoes the position of U.S. officials in Geneva who have made it clear that any rewrite of the dispute settlement rules has to open up the process, according to a Geneva source. It is unclear whether the U.S. would demand making public submissions to panels or insist on a more controversial demand to let non-governmental organizations submit amicus briefs in a panel proceeding, sources said.
WTO Director General Mike Moore last month suggested July as a possible deadline for such a decision on a new round, and British trade minister Richard Caborn endorsed the idea last week. Speaking to the European-American Business Council, Caborn said that the U.S. and EU should try to reach a consensus on a new negotiating agenda by June in order to allow a decision in July on whether there is enough consensus to proceed by July.
Lamy also downplayed the importance of a summer deadline and questioned the wisdom of trying to focus on getting a firm understanding between the U.S.-EU on the new round. "I have no problem with Caborn's idea that we should be there as soon as possible," he said. But he said he would "probably" be "a bit less committal" than Caborn had been on the idea that the upcoming U.S.-EU summit would agree on the agenda for the Round.
In addition, Japan has signaled to Moore that July is too early as a firm deadline to make a political decision on a new round, one official said. For Japan, July is an important benchmark to review how much progress has been made, but it is not the cut-off point, the official said.
In the press conference, Zoellick also emphasized said that the U.S. and EU cannot bring about new negotiations alone, and that Japan, Canada, and developing countries will play an important role. "We are both committed to it, and now others are going to have to also move forward so we can make this happen this year," he said.
Lamy added that it is more important to focus on the substance of the negotiations, instead of the procedure for preparing them. The preparation process should create enough understanding between the EU and developing countries as well as between the EU and the U.S. on the substance of the talks to allow the launch of new negotiations.
Merely working out an understanding between the U.S. and EU is not advisable because that is not the way to convince developing countries that they have a stake in the system, Lamy said.
Neither Lamy nor Zoellick addressed the need for a Quad ministerial level meeting, but one informed source said that would not likely take place until it is clear officials can agree to a broad agenda.
On fast track, Lamy told Zoellick last week that the EU cannot be called on to make trade concessions as a way of building congressional support for passage, according to trade officials. Lamy said the U.S. does not technically need that authority to launch negotiations, but warned that failure of the initiative that President Bush has said he wants to pursue would be detrimental to a new round, officials said.
In previous comments to EU officials, Zoellick had said that members of Congress would not extend fast track if he failed to change existing retaliation lists of EU products in the banana dispute.Inside US Trade:
