may or brown, rue and advised clients on trade issues along the river of the -- river banks of the river where he probably are a ride in the water in miss you'll a, montana. professor at the university of montana and writer, authoring two novels and two books of nonfiction and two screenplays. and i think ambassador punk' serves, as i mentioned, a lot of credit for pressing the wto to acknowledge at the december ministerial that it was at an impasse with respect to the dda and that he was able to begin to shift the organization towards a more productive discussion about the next steps in the multilateral trade agenda. so ambassador punk, thank you for joining us, thank you for your efforts, and we look forward to your remarks.

[ applause ] well, thanks, ralph, very much, for that kind spin on my resume. i will say that over the years, i've heard less charitable interpretations. including from my current boss, ambassador kirk. the very first conversation that i had with ambassador kirk, i had never met him before, and i was on the telephone in my office in montana, he said to me, i'm sit hearing and i'm looking at your resume, and you have done some interesting work in washington, but i also notice that you've gone off to montana to live for six years by yourself in the woods with a typewriter. he said, i can't tell if you're just the person i need for the job, or if you're the unabomber. so ralph, thanks for taking the kinder spin on my professional background. before i get started today, i wanted to do one thing very quickly. and that is to acknowledge my colleague, chris wilson.

chris, as you all know very well, is the assistant u.s. trade representative for multilateral affairs. he follows in a very long tradition at ustr of distinguished people holding that job. one of his predecessors, of course, is dorothy duwaskin, another not here today, also sitting in the sunshine is matt rhode. we are blessed with a fantastic cadre of career professionals. and chris is certainly in the great tradition of ustr professionals. so thanks, chris, and best of luck in your future endeavors. let me start my formal remarks today by saying thanks to the chamber and to business europe for the invitation to speak here today. this morning's discussions have stimulated some terrific thinking about the question, where do we want to take the wto. it's been an enriching day of conversation, and i'm glad to have been able to benefit from

your views. it's especially gratifying and important that this exploration of future directions for the multilateral trading system is a joint endeavor of american and european business organizations. it may be a bit of a cliche, but the fact remains that solid partnership between the united states and the european union is essential to finding viable paths forward for the wto. this has always been the case. but it is particularly crucial in light of the acknowledgment by all wto trade ministers last december that the doha round is at an impasse. this is a strategic moment. we should be thinking together about strategy. not just quibbling with each other about tactics. what is the firm view of the united states that the acknowledgment of doha's prospects was necessary and even overdue, and that it was the only way to begin to tackle more productive trade liberalizing work in the wto, we know it also creates some anxieties and certainties about the future.

the u.s. and the eu have a special shared responsibility to address those anxieties intelligently. and to create a new sense of momentum in geneva. yes, u.s. and commercial interests are in some cases different. our political systems and impulses don't always line up neatly when it comes to trade policy. and our emphasis on the wto as a venue for seek to go resolve really tough by lateral trade disputes has at times colored our collaboration. but we can't afford, either of us, to allow the development of an impression 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 our responsibilities as two of its key leaders. equally important, the u.s. and the eu need to reinforce each other in insisting that the wto must remain true to its fundamental missions. liberalizing trade, serving as a bulwark against protectionist

pressures, and generating enforceable rules that provide essential stability to the trading system. our partnership with the eu on wto affairs is strong. but we can always do better. and it helps us immensely that organizations like the u.s. chamber and business europe are pushing us constantly to find common cause. i should mention that the exploration currently under way in the u.s./eu high-level working group on jobs and growth is an excellent complement to what we are trying to rebuild multilaterally. this structured examination of ways we can further deepen transatlantic economic integration is well under way. although there is obviously much more work to be done. but it's clear that both we and the eu are approaching this exercise with an awareness that whatever we do, bilaterally, can and should reinforce and support the mission of trade liberalization at the multilateral level. let me try to provide a perspective on some of the

current focal points at the wto. building on the discussion earlier today. the enthusiasm within this group for the initiative we are exploring for an international services agreement is great to see. and a confirmation of the strong appetite among u.s. and european businesses to find practically, meaningful ways to advance the ball on trade liberalization. the discussions in geneva on services over the course of recent weeks have been exciting. frankly speaking it's been refreshing and sadly a little bit novel to engage with a group of members who active want to pursue an honest to goodness trade liberalizing initiative. there's a lot of work to be done to scope out how an international services agreement will come together. but 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 encompass the broadest possible circle of wto members the big emerging economies have made it abundantly clear that they are not ready to engage seriously in services liberalization. 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 plurilateral discussion --

should be a stepping stone for advancing multilateral liberalization. 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 negotiations 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 an ita expansion negotiation. from the u.s. perspective, what

makes best sense is a negotiating scope that allows for rapid progress, tangible deliverables and the reinforcement of the ita membership. while i can understand why my eu colleagues would like to use ita expansion negotiations as a platform to pursue long-standing aspirations on nontariff issues, the ita is fundamentally a tariff agreement. exceeding the current mandate is unlikely to garner the necessary consensus to move an ita expansion initiative forward. let me also offer a brief perspective on the wto's negotiations on trade facilitation. since the ministerial conference in december, we have been pleased to see a continuation of the workman-like bottom-up approach to this negotiation that has characterized it for some time. our intention is to continue contributing to the negotiation in the same spirit. the economic gains from an eventual tf agreement for the u.s. economy are important.

and merit our 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 country 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 pleased 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 acknowledgment of doha's current impasse. one is we have greater latitude to vitalize the work of the standing committees and working groups. the work of the committees in overseeing the various wto agreements on subsidies, ipr, tbt, agriculture, sps and others has perhaps suffered from some neglect in recent years due to

the overwhelming amount of time and resources devoted to the doha round. but this is critical work. and we need to make sure the committees are meeting their full potential. these bodies can and should be incubators for good ideas. and for members to discuss issues they consider relevant to the world we live and trade in today. 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, has 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 ourselves the trade and development are mutually reinforcing and deeply complementary. trade has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, expanded individual opportunity, and accelerated economic development across the planet.

it has become ever more clear, however, that a one size fits all approach to trade and development does not accurately reflect the world we live in. developing countries are not all the same and pretending that they are contributes to deadlock in our discussions, and as we've seen clearly, 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 in december is obviously a very big deal and extremely important for the united states, for russia, and for the entire wto membership. we know that welcoming this large, important and dynamic economy into the wto will involve adjustments. for russia, above all, but also

for the rest of us. clearly, though, having russia -- having russia's participation in the same system of 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 application of jackson banek to russia and to enable extension of permanent normal trade relations. 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. international economic interest. so that u.s. businesses and workers can benefit fully from the strong wto accession package negotiated laboriously over nearly two decades. second, most discussion of current trade issues would be complete without mentioning china. another area where u.s. and e.u.

interests and concerns very often converge. in the context of doha we work together closely developing and advocating tougher subsidy rules particularly involving state owned banks and state owned enterprises. while those efforts have not borne fruit to date they did lay the foundation for future work. currently the oecd is examining the issue of state-owned enterprises and competitive neutrality. while the united states is looking to advance new disciplines on state-owned enterprises in the context of the transpacific partnership. more broadly, we mist continue to monitor and take action to combat china's trade distorting industrial policies. whether that be with respect to china's policy of indigenous innovation or the plethora of five-year plans now being issued by china's economic planners. and, of course, our efforts regarding china's export restraints are well known 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 initiatives i've touched on today, all ultimately come back to a core truth. the wto and the potential it holds for producing market expanding trade liberalization is fundamental to creating conditions for strong global growth and job creation. while the existence of a positive link between trade growth and jobs may be self-evident to many, we policymakers, as well as economic actors, need to do a better job reinforcing this linkage in a way that we all talk about trade. put another way, trade liberalization is an essential complement to fiscal and monetary policies, as we seek to grow our way back to prosperity. ambitious market opening, and manufacturing, agriculture, and services is a critical piece of the multidimensional challenge of creating growth. and a multilateral trading

system embodied in the wto 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. thank you, mr. ambassador, for those excellent remarks. we're running a bit behind and i know you've got a schedule to keep. so, maybe i'll ask one question, just 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 non-mfn. i know that the u.s. and the european union right now maybe have a slightly different view of how to proceed on that. so i wanted to give you the opportunity to tell us a little bit more about how those discussions are going and kind of what your view is on in terms of whether mfn or non-mfn is the

best way to accomplish what we're trying to accomplish. >> well, it's an important issue. but before i get to that specific issue i think it's really important to emphasize something that some of the other speakers today have picked up on. and that's that we should not overlook the significance of the excitement in geneva right now about having this discussion about a possible services agreement. i've been in geneva for coming up on probably two years and this is the first time since i've been there that i've 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 eu, and the other participants in this discussion, i think, are all working together in a very constructive way right now to figure out how we resolve the various kind of sub pieces of

this puzzle. but just to give, offer our view on the issue of mfn versus non-mfn, i think it's our view it's our view that we wish that the broadest participation possibility can be achieved in this discussion. the unfortunate reality we have seen played out in the last two years and there are significant players, among them, the emerging economies that don't want to negotiate in this area. the very practical question we face, 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 willing to engage. one aspect of that is how broadly we share the benefits of a potential agreement. when it comes to major services

players and major services traders, we, the united states, have a real problem with negotiating a deal that then gets extended to others on a free riding basis. that's when it comes to major players. one of the things we have been looking at in this discussion that's separate from that discussion is whether there are ways of involving ldcs, for example, perhaps on a nonreciprocal basis. we have to have this discussion in a very open way that makes the types of distinctions between different developing countries that i discussed earlier today. >> excellent. let me open it up now. i have to give it to bob, coalition services industries. >> thanks. you don't have to. >> sure, i do. thanks very much. >> in discussing 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, where the growth is happening. what is it -- and i would like to know, i guess, how you response to that, because surely, you must have countered that argument in the counsels of the twto, and secondly, we hear there's no additionality, that failing to engage the emerging markets, and simply engaging the countries that are basically

open, basically engaged in global trade, those who can and will, isn't really getting us anything. so i think those are the two most -- 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 in 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. if the emerging economies have made the determination right now that negotiating on services is not something they want to do, then i think we have to be respectful of that, but what that should not mean is that because they don't want to negotiate right now, nobody else

can negotiate either. and what's clear from the discussion we're having is that there 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 eu, should be able to have that conversation. i'm very, very optimistic about the ability of the global trading system to walk and chew gum at the same time. over the decades, we have seen the ability of discussions to take place in multiplefo fora tt compliment each other. when i first started working in washington two years ago, i could remember the panic of some in the academic world that nafta would be the death of the trading system, and a year after we concluded nafta, we

concluding the uruguay round. there's a lot of capacity for agreements to have a positive synergy between each other. one of the other things we have frequently seen is using these bilateral and pure lateral discussions as a laboratory for expanding good ideas. and then later on, finding ways and multilateralizing those ideas. it's very much the model we would like to see with the services discussion, that we use that plural lateral discussion to bring together work that has been done bilaterally and use it as a stepping stone to multilaterally communication. >> dr. quick. >> thank you, ambassador. i think you have given me now

very nice suggestions to be made that let's negotiate a trade agreement so we can finish the wdda. and i would be the first to subscribe to that. but i think i would like to ask you a question on plural lateral within our outside. but i think if you look at the mfn issue from within and you don't want free right, because you can say i don't care about the rest, and you can have a pluralateral, and that's what has been done in the past. you can also go outside, exceptions for free trade agreements. in foods and services, and that's also fine.

i see quite a danger to use it from within to have a conditional on a plurlateral, to ask the wto for a waver so then you can do it. as far as i'm concerned, makes the whole wto implode from within. you will see plural lateral with request for waver on issues we would both like. >> you and i have had a lot of interesting conversations about trade issues over the past twor years. this is one where i don't agree with you. i'm not worried about implosion. i'll tell you an anneck dpoetec tell you why. we had an mca to the minotaurial meeting in december. the first thing we did at mc-8, this huge celebration to acknowledge and recognize the

fact that we had just concluded a non-nf, there plurlateral agreement called the gpa agreement. about 48 hours at the press conference concluding the ministerial meeting, there was this hemming and haing how there might be a new agreem that would somehow destroy the multilateral system, and i have never 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 rezil ynls and ability to sort this stuff out. and i should say as a starting point that 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 the decision that ultimately

is made will be a product of consensus inside of the group. but i do think there is infinite capability of the participants to carry on this one discussion and have that be a complement to the multilateral trading system. having the discussion in geneva, i think, is whether it's technically part of the wto or not part of the wto, 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 negotiate among members by taking advantage of their experts who are residents 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 we'll work out as the discussion moves forward. >> and we have time for one more questi es