USTR | October 3, 2003
Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago
Ambassador Wilson: A number of us have been in Port-of-Spain for the last week for a meeting of the FTAA Trade Negotiations Committee that has been here. This is an important meeting; it's the last scheduled get together of senior officials working on the FTAA until immediately prior to the Miami Ministerial that takes place November 20-21.
The core issues here had to do with the overall level of ambition and comprehensiveness that the FTAA agreement will strive for. As I think it is known for some months, Brazil and Mercosur have been making proposals to very substantially revise the framework that the countries have been working on for the last number of years, and to remove a substantial number of subjects from the discussions, from the negotiations, entirely.
At the outset of the TNC here, a large group of countries led by Costa Rica tabled a paper that strongly reiterated a commitment to a comprehensive and an ambitious FTAA - negotiated on a multilateral basis and concluded as a single undertaking. This group, led by Costa Rica, included El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Canada, Mexico, Chile, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia.
We strongly supported this initiative and obviously support the goal of a comprehensive FTAA that advances hemispheric integration and trade liberalization. And this Costa Rican paper also received support from Ecuador and Caricom. We also want to note Costa Rica's work throughout the proceedings here, its leadership and its articulation of the case for a comprehensive and ambitious FTAA on an issue-by-issue basis.
The discussions here really, I think marked, showed a clear division among countries. On the one hand, you had this group of, I think, thirteen countries that were speaking with one clear voice; strongly supported by the United States and supported in some qualified ways by Ecuador and Caricom, on the one hand. And Brazil, supported to some extent by Argentina, and somewhat less so by Uruguay and Paraguay on the other.
What was disappointing here was Brazil's unwillingness to engage on the substantive issues that are under discussion here. The Brazilian delegation was largely silent throughout a many hours, issue-by-issue discussion in which countries were invited to express, to describe their points of view on the relevant issues to indicate what their priorities are, what some of their limitations might be. Brazil and Argentina declined entirely to participate in that exercise. It was very disappointing.
On the substantive issues on the table, there were many more common elements in countries' positions among everybody else, including I might add, Uruguay and Paraguay, then there were divisions. And I think it sort of highlighted the fact that the division that Brazil is pursuing is one that does not have significant support in this group.
There was one area of consensus that I would note; and that has to do with a need to take into account differences of levels of development and sizes of economies. We and many other delegations spoke about the need to deal with that in every appropriate way in the FTAA agreement. Our intention is to remain engaged with all of the countries in the weeks remaining before the Miami Ministerial.
There will be some further discussions among the U.S. and Brazilian co-chairs of this process October 14 and 15, I'm sorry October 13 and 14, in Washington. We'll also seek to coordinate our efforts with those other countries, including the group led by Costa Rica, to see if we can gain a consensus on an ambitious and comprehensive FTAA that can get support among the broadest group possible.
Why don't I close at that, and I will respond to your questions.
Question: Ambassador, Mark Drajem here, Bloomberg news. Is there any thought on the U.S. side of acceding to Brazil's idea of cutting out some of these ideas on investment and intellectual properties that have raised their hackles.
Ambassador Wilson: Well I think that the clearest indication here was that neither the United States nor a very large number of other countries. . . Really almost all of the countries except for Brazil and to some extent Argentina, want a comprehensive agreement that negotiates disciplines, rules and obligations, across the entire gamut of areas under discussion: from market access and agriculture, to services, investment, government procurement, intellectual property, competition policy, subsidies, antidumping and countervailing duties, dispute settlement, and other issues. The entire range of issues that everybody wants to negotiate, we certainly want to be part of that.
Question: Mr. Ambassador this is Sam Gilston with Washington Tariff and Trade letter. Was there any action taken on that Costa Rican paper, or needed to be taken on the Costa Rican paper? And secondly, what is the meaning of this week's talks as far as preparation for the Ministerial? Does this mean that the Ministerial will be divided and not able to achieve of an agreement?
Ambassador Wilson: On the first question, there wasn't specific action required on that paper.
The TNC was not asked to approve it. It aimed, I think the sponsors probably should speak for themselves I guess, but I believe their aim was to frame the discussion and to make clear that there is a very, very large group here that remains committed to the comprehensive and ambitious agreement. Decisions in this body are made by consensus. There have been decisions made over the last number of years by our leaders, by trade ministers and in previous TNCs to this comprehensive agenda, and this statement was a way of reiterating that. It is in fact, Brazil with some support I think from Argentina in particular, that wants to deviate from that path.
With respect to the Miami Ministerial, I think our intention is to try to work toward making Miami a success. We will be discussing, both through the Brazilian co-chair channel as well as with other interested countries, to see if we can find ways to bridge the gap and make this a productive Ministerial that advances the process.
Question: Ambassador this is Cory Henry of Inside U.S. Trade. You mentioned that Brazil and Argentina had been silent during this process of identifying what countries' priorities were for the FTAA. You have just mentioned, of course that the FTAA works on consensus. So I am just wondering just where this leaves you for the Ministerial, if you have a situation where a large group of countries makes this push for an ambitious agenda but you have Brazil and to a lesser extent the other Mercusor countries essentially saying no that.
Ambassador Wilson: Well I think the effort here was to try convince Brazil, and as I said to some extent the other Mercusor countries, that there is strong support for this more comprehensive approach and that we would like to see them effectively drawing back into the fold and move toward an agreement that everybody in the hemisphere wants because of what it will do in terms of economic development and regional integration.
Question: Hi this is Tatiana from the Brazilian Newspaper Valor Economico. If there is no way of bridging that gap, does the U.S. think about making an FTAA without Brazil or Argentina?
Ambassador Wilson: Well, as I think that I indicated in a previous question, the purpose of our efforts is going to be to very vigorously continue to work on behalf of an FTAA that includes everybody. And I think that it was the clear consensus around the table that everybody wants to see Brazil, as well as Argentina and the other Mercusor countries, in this. It is really not useful to speculate on a "what if" basis. We are committed to that goal. And I think that President Lula de Silva made clear his commitment to concluding an FTAA when he was in Washington in July. There is that basis to work ahead and I think that we have to be optimistic.
Question: One more question about the meeting for 15 October, it will be only Brazil and U.S. or other countries also?
Ambassador Wilson: The meeting that will take place October 13 - 14 is a meeting of the two cochairs of this process, and it is specifically in fulfilling the co-chairs obligations to plan for the TNC that will take place on the eve of Miami, to further plan for the Miami summit itself, and to work through the documents and so forth. It is not, strictly speaking, a US -Brazil negotiation on the terms of the FTAA. That is something that would normally be done through national delegations.
Question: Mr. Ambassador, its Elizabeth Becker from the New York Times. Can you detail the way that Brazil wants to limit this discussion? The issues that they don't want on the table. And can you also say if there are any issues that they want to include.
Ambassador Wilson: Well, there are public statements by senior Brazilian officials that I think outline in general terms their approach here. What they have proposed is to either eliminate or very substantially reduce the coverage on issues related to services, investment, and government procurement in particular. The original proposal that was put down at the last TNC in El Salvador called for moving those and several other subjects to the WTO; for dealing with those other subjects in the context of ongoing WTO discussions. One of the set of subjects that they proposed to moving to that WTO set of discussions was the matter of agricultural domestic supports and export credit guarantees, food aid, and so forth. A position, that I might add coincides with our own. But these other subjects, its clear, are integral to creating an integrated economy. Everybody else wants to work on both market access and clear disciplines and all these areas. I think that Brazil finds itself somewhat isolated on this.
As for the issues it wants to include, clearly market access both for agricultural goods and for non-agricultural goods is a high priority for them. They have expressed a readiness to negotiate the appropriate rules of market access that go along with that; rules of origin, customs procedures, and so forth. They indicated a readiness to negotiate in the area of intellectual property, on dispute settlement mechanism, on the institutional issues of the FTAA. And I think that they have been prepared to consider market access in the areas of services and investments. [unintelligible] rules to go along with that, but market access on a limited basis.
Question: Ambassador Wilson this is Peter Shin with the National Association of Farm Broadcasters, you mentioned that Brazil is very interested in negotiating market access, and my question is what are your thoughts? Will this FTAA round reach a successful conclusion and will it have benefits for producers for both in South America and in the United States?
Ambassador Wilson: Well I am very optimistic that eventually we will achieve an agreement, and I am very hopeful that we are able to do it. It is certainly our objective of doing it by the January 2005 deadline that our leaders and Ministers have established. And I think that really all the countries here have expressed some commitment to that. As I indicated earlier, President Lula de Silva indicated his commitment to that when he was in Washington in July. We thought that that was very important, and still do. We believe that there are very important gains to be made for American workers, for American businesses, for American farmers through the free trade of the Americas. That is why we are negotiating it. I think that we expect also that there will be important opportunities created for workers, farmers, and businesses throughout Latin America. Both in the American market, of course, but maybe somewhat more importantly, in other markets across the region. Where currently a number of important barriers exist that stand in the way of economic integration.
Moderator: We will take two more questions.
Question: This is Marty Crutsinger with the Associated Press. Ambassador could you tell us, is this outcome of this week a surprise to you or did you expect that you would reach this impasse?
Ambassador Wilson: Well it has been clear that Brazil has indicated from the outset that Brazil was interested in a different sort of path here. I was somewhat impressed by the degree to which Brazil really finds itself, really, without the kind of support that I think it expected. Mercusor was clearly split on the issues related to the comprehensiveness and how ambitious the FTAA would be. And I think that is striking. And hopefully they will go, Brazil particularly will go away from these meetings reflecting on that, and reflecting on how that it can move forward on its economic objectives, hopefully through the FTAA.
Question: But you've heard nothing from them at these meetings suggests to you that they would be changing their position?
Ambassador Wilson: As I indicated earlier, in the issue-by-issue discussion and really throughout the very substantial parts of the rest of the meeting here, Brazil has been relatively quiet.
Question: Mr. Ambassador , this is Mike Smith, also from Associated Press. I have heard from some that there is not much negotiations going on at the meeting and more it seems to be people making statements and the US playing hard ball. What is your response to some of those concerns?
Ambassador Wilson: Well I don't think that the U.S. played hardball, first. Second, I think that there was a significant amount of negotiation going on here among countries. As I indicated, we went through on an issue-by-issue basis on each of these various areas under negotiation: market access, services and investment, we went through. Each country had an opportunity to indicate its priorities, to talk about where it had flexibility, to talk about where it had limitations on how far it could go. A number of ideas were raised by a number of delegations, including ours, of ways to possibly move forward and achieve progress in the near term. I think that it is our hope that countries will, everybody, including Brazil, maybe in particular including Brazil, will reflect on some of those ideas. And, perhaps in the coming weeks, we hope in the coming weeks, can identify an effective way forward.USTR:
