either of us to allow the development of an oppression that we are pulling apart at the wto, we have to stay focused on our shared commitment to the value of the institution and to of the response sorries of some of our -- the u.s. and the eu need to re-enforce each other in insisting that the wto must remain true to its fundamental missions, liberalizing trade and generating enforceable rules that provide equal trading. our partnership with the eu on wt affairs is strong but we can always do better. and it helps immensely that the chamber are -- i should mention that the exploration currently under way in the u.s.-e.u. -- to what we are trying to rebuild

multilat tray local. this trance -- trans-atlantic economic -- obviously there's a lot more work to be done. but it's-awareness that whatever we do bilaterally can and should re-enforce the mission at the multilateral level. let me try to provide a perspective on some of the current focal points of the wto, building on the discussion earlier today. the enthusiasm within this group for the initiative we are exploring for international services agreement is great to see. and a confirmation of the strong appetite among u.s. and european businesses to find practical, meaningful ways to advance the ball on trade liberalization. the discussions in again neve have over the course of recent weeks have been exciting. frankly speak it's been a little

bit novel to engage with a group of member who is actively want to pursue a trade liberalizing initiative. it there are strong core ideas already on the table and a common recognition of the tremendous benefits that can be shared through expanding services market access and developing new internationally agreed rules and standards. we need such work in order to deal with both new and long standing issues, especially in key areas that fuel growth, such as information communications technology services and global supply chains. i should mention that this is an area where closer coordination between the u.s. and the eu is particularly urgent. while i can appreciate the impulse of some of my eu colleagues to encourage the services agreement and recover the broadest possible -- have

made it dauntly clear that they are not -- to say nothing can be done without them means that nothing can be done. the united states does not support that view. we cannot afford to see the recent doha history repeat itself here. we must and we will approach international services agreement with a keen awareness that a plural lateral discussion -- this is possible, there are ways to do it and we are ready to move now. it's been no surprise to me that we have also heard a lot today about interest and expanding the information technology agreement. here again, your identification of a product area right for liberalizing work is hugely welcome and we're taking it very seriously. our team is working closely with like minded ita members to scope out the most viable approach to

negotiationses in this area, taking into account the need to expand product coverage, retain a commitment of existing ita members and expand the appeal of the agreement to wto members who aren't yet ita participants. here again close collaboration between the u.s. and the eu is essential. we're not quite yet on the same page particularly with regard to the scope of -- what makes best sense is a negotiating scopea allows for rapid progress, tangible deliverables and the re-enforcement of the ita membership. while my colleagues would like to use ita membership, the ita is fundamentally a tar rich agreement. to move an ita expansion

initiative forward. let me also offer a brief perspective on the wto's -- since the ministerial conference in december, we have been pleased to see a continuation of the work man like bottom up approach to the characterization that -- our intention has been to continue contributing to the negotiation in the same spirit. the economic gains from an eventually tf agreement are important and merit are continued attention. just as importantly, trade facilitation has huge potential to advance development and it's great to see that this is recognized among a broad range of developing wto members. there's real promise here. and the steady issue goes approach as the best potential to continue to build towards strong results. we're please to see work advancing in services, information technology and trade facilitation, but what about the rest of the wto universe?

i think there are important silver linings to be found in the frank and honest acknowledge of doha's current impasse. first we have great -- standing committees and working groups. the work of the committees in overseeing the various wto agreements, tbr, agricultural and others have suffered has neglect over the years due to the overwhelming amount of time and resources devoted to the doha round, we need to make sure that the committees are meeting their full potential. these bodies can and should be incubators for good ideas. so we'll be looking for ways to breathe new life into the wto's committees and to do so in a manner that reflects topical and meaningful u.s. trades interests. we expect and hope that other members will do the same and we

see signs that this is happening. brazil for example as identified an issue that both it and we consider important. the relationship between exchange rates and trade, along with the wto working group, where a discussion on that subject can take place. that's obviously a tricky area. surrounded by a lot of sensitivity for some members. we welcome the initiative to foster this discussion within the wto. the united states has been and will continue to be an active participant as this process unfolds. i should also note that the conclusion of a revised government procurement agreement presents important opportunities to explore valuable work in this economically significant area, notably through work on the accession of china and other wto members. as we look to strengthen the wto and set it on constructive new paths, a huge and complex intersection of trade and development will clearly to be

critical as indeed it must be. as ambassador kirk told his fellow ministers in december, for the united states, the starting point of any discussion of trade and development is to remind ourselvesa trade and development are mutually re-enforcing and deeply complete try. trade has brought millions of people out of poverty and accelerated economic development across the planet. it has become clear however, that a one approach fits all does not accurately fit the world we live in. developing countries are not all the same and pretechnding that they are contributes to deadlocks in our discussions and in our negotiations. levels of responsibility and contributions have to reflect the world we live in. we need urgently to start an honest discussion about this difficult but vital reality.

just a couple of more additional points before concluding and moving toward a more interactive discussion. first a word on russia. russia's invitation to join the wto is an extremely big deal and is obviously important for the united states, for russia and for the entire wto membership. we know that welcoming this large economy into the wto will involve adjustments, for russia above all, but also for the rest of us, but clearly having russia's participation in the same system with trade rules as most of the rest of the planet is going to be immensely beneficial. that's why the president and ambassador kirk have stressed that we will work vigorously and rapidly with the congress to terminate the application of jackson banek to russia. that effort is gaining steam and i know that the u.s. businesses

represented here today are actively engaged in this effort. a positive congressional vote on jackson banek for russia is a matter above all of u.s. economic interest so that u.s. workers can benefit fully from the strong wto accession package negotiated laboriously over nearly two decades. second no discussion of current trade issues would be complete without mentioning china. another area where u.s. and e.u. interests very often converges. in the context of doha we work together closely to develop subsidy rules particularly state owned banks and state owned enterprises. while those efforts have not borne fruit to date, comfortable the -- state owned enterprises and competitive neutrality, while the united states is looking to advanced new disciplines on state owned

enterprises in the context of the trance -- whether that be with respect to china's policy of and have been quite successful thus far which we hope and expect will continue into the future. finally and on a much broader note, the work that we're doing at the wto and the specific

critical pich of the -- multilateral trading system remains far and away the best and most important means of producing broad based market opening that benefits economies, companies and individuals around the globe. the u.s. commitment to the wto is founded on six decades of labor by 12 presidents, republican and democratic. we look forward to our ongoing labor along with all of you. our stake holders and our allies, as we continue with this generation's work to build a

stable world and jobs for our people. thank you again for your invitation today and i look forward to your questions and a good discussion. thanks very much. >> i could use a hand. >> all right, mr. ambassador for those excellent remarks. we're running a bit behind and i know you've got a schedule to keep. maybe i'll ask just one question

to start off and then we'll turn to the audience. we had, as you heard some discussions about the international services agreement, and a discussion about mfn versus nmfn, and i know that the u.s. and the european union might have a different view on how to proceed on that. tell me a little bit about how those discussions are going and your views on whether mfn or nonmfn is what's going to accomplish. >> before i get to that specific issue, it's really important to emphasize some of the other speakers today have picked up on and that's that we should not overlook the significant of the excitement in agageneva right n about having this discussion about a possible agreement. this is the first time since i have been there that i have

really felt that genuine sense that we have the potential to do something really significant and i think that intangible quality is something that we should take advantage of and really seek to build on. and so the u.s. along with the e.uu. and the other participants in this discussion are all working together in a very consti figure out how we resolve this piece of the puzzle. i think it's our view that we wish that the broadest participation possible can be achieved in this discussion. the unfortunate reality that we have seen played out over the course of the last two years, is that there are certain players, significantly among them the emerging economies, that don't want to negotiate in this area right now. and so the very practical

question that we face is do we do nothing, or do we do something that is less than all of us would like. and our perspective clearly is that we should do the best we can with those who are willing to engage. now one aspect of that is how broadly we share the benefits of a potential agreement. and when it comes to major services players and major services traders, we, the united states have a real problem with negotiating a deal that ttsn ex free riding basis. that's when it comes to major players. one of the things that we have been looking at in this discussion, that's separate from that discussion is whether there are ways of involving ldc's example, perhaps on a nonreciprocal basis. so i think we have to have this

discussion in a very open way, that makes the types of distinctions between different developing countries that i discussed today. >> let me open it up now. >> thanks very much. in discussioning the isa with colleagues in europe and europeans here and others, we commonly have a response that why do we wish to antagonize or offend the biggest emerging markets that are growing so fast that are indeed our future, in a sense, it's where the growth is happening, what is it -- and i

would like to know, i guess how you respond to that. because surely you must have encountered that argument in the councils of the wto. and secondly, we hear that there's no aadditionality. that failing to engage the emerging markets, the bigs and simply engaging the countries that are basically open, basically engaged in global trade, those who can and will, isn't really getting us anywhere. so i think those are the two most heard objections, maybe on the european side and elsewhere. could you respond? >> well, let me pick up on the issue of our attitude toward the emerging economies first. one of the realities of negotiations in geneva is that

every actor is their own sovereign. and every actor decides whether or not they wish to engage or not engage. and i'm fully respectful of that and if the emerging economies have made the determination right now that negotiating on services is not something they want to do, then we have to be respectful of that. but what that should not mean is that because they don't want to negotiate it right now, nobody else can negotiate either. and what's clear from the discussion we're having is that there's already a significant critical mass of countries that want to go further in liberalizing trade and services. and i think that those countries including the u.s. and the e.u. should be able to have that conversation. i'm very optimistic about the ability of the global trading system to walk and chew gum at the same time. or the decades, we have seen the ability of discussions to take

place in multiple forum that complement each other. when i first started working in washington 20 years ago, i can remember the panic in some of the academic world that nafta would be the death nail of the multilateral trading system. and, of course, what happened a year after we concluded the nafta is that we concluded the long-stalled -- i think there's a lot of capacity for agreements to have a positive synergy between each other. one of the other things we've frequently seen is using these bilateral and plurallateral discussions as a laboratory for expanding good ideas and later on finding ways and multilateralizing those ideas. that's very much the model we would like to see with the services discussion is that we

use that plural lateral combination, first of all, to bring together a lot of work that has been done bilaterally. but then use that as a steppingstone to multilateral participation. >> dr. quick? >> thank you, ambassador. i think you have given me now very nice suggestion to make -- to be made that let's negotiate an eu/u.s. trade agreement so that we can finish the dda. and i would be the first to subscribe to that. but i think i would like to -- to ask you a question on plural laterals within outside. because i think if you look at the mfn issue from within and

you don't want free riders, because you could see we have -- i don't care about the rest, then you can have a plural lateral and you apply same principles to everybody. that's a plural laterals which have been done in the past. you can also go outside, because wto provides for exceptions for free trade agreements in both goods and services. and that's all defined. but i see quite a danger to use the wto from within to have a conditional mfn on a plural lateral to ask for the wto for a waiver. because then you can do it. that could, as far as i'm concerned, make the whole wto implode from within because then you will see plural laterals with requests for waivers on issues which we certainly won't like. >> you and i have had a lot of interesting conversations about different trade issues over the

course of the last two years. this is one where i don't agree with you. i'm not too worried about implosion. and i'll tell you an anecdote to tell you why. we had at mc-8, this ministerial meeting last december, on the first day the first thing we did at mc-8, there was this huge celebration to -- to acknowledge and recognize the fact that we had just concluded a non-mfn plural lateral agreement called the gpa agreement. about 48 hours later at the press conference concluding the ministerial meeting, there was all of this hemming and hawing about how there might be a new mfn plural lateral agreement that would be able to destroy the plural lateral system. i've never quite been able to square those two thoughts.

look, going back to what i said earlier, i think that the system has an awful lot of resilience and ability to sort this stuff out. and i should say, as a starting point, that in the -- in the group of countries, this friends group that is currently looking at services, there's no decision yet on exactly what form an agreement will take. and -- and the decision that ultimately is made will be a product of consensus inside of that group. but i do think there is infinite capability of the participants to carry on this one discussion and -- and have that be a complement to the multilateral trading system. having the discussion in geneva i think is actually -- whether it's technically part of the wto or not part of the wto i think is a very useful way of providing transparency to wto members who aren't participating directly in the talks.

it's a way of facilitating negotiation among members by taking advantage of their experts who are resident in geneva. and so i think from a practical standpoint, it makes a lot of sense and some of the more technical legal things are issues that we'll work out as we -- as the discussion moves forward. >> i think we have time for one more question. but it has to be on trade facilitation. can you do that? >> sort of about that. a question of timing, really. we're in a campaign year. this process going forward that you've described, ambassador, is sort of -- sort of it strikes me as a bit ad hoc. what are your thoughts about whether anything will actually happen on this plural lateral approach this year versus should we in the business community be thinking about building up for

post-presidential election year activity? >> well, i think that -- i think as i mentioned before, i think there's a lot of energy, and we want to tap into that as much as we can. that said, i think -- i want to -- i would rather underpromise and overdeliver than overpromise and underdeliver since you've had a lot of that over the years in the wto context in particular. i think we should tap into the energy that i see in geneva today. i've been very gratified on this issue by the broad bipartisan support that has been expressed in washington. i've seen no distinctions whatsoever between republicans and democrats in terms of what they think about the -- the concept of promoting services liberalization. so -- so i think we should get

to work, continue the work that's going on. there's a meeting this week, the next round of discussions among the experts that are involved in this services discussion. i should mention one very positive sign. we will be joined in the friends group this week by two new additional members. costa rica and peru, two developing countries, approached the group about participating. we're very happy to welcome them into the discussion. we view them very much as being like-minded in terms of countries that have a demonstrated interest in services liberalization. so we're seeing a very positive dynamic here, and let's build on that as much as we can. >> all right. with that, ambassador punke, i want to thank you on behalf of the chamber for all the work that you're doing, for coming here to be with us today. i want to thank business europe

for helping to organize and sponsor this conference. of course, the chamber for hosting us. and finally, last but not least, of course, all of you for participating. and thank you again. and good luck. [ applause ] i mean, my friends, a new america where freedom is made real for all without regard to race or belief or economic condition. [ applause ]

i mean a new america which ev everlastingly attacks the ancient idea that men can solve their differences by killing each other. [ applause ] >> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the off and lost. go to our website, c-span.org/thecontenders to see video of the contenders who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> the profits of the radical liberal left continue to offer only one solution to the problems which confront us. they tell us again and again and again we should spend our way out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. this is c-span 3. with politics and public affairs programming throug t