trade of the united states. and less than 2 point something of russian foreign trade. which suggests in turn that neither united states nor russia are to each other an important economic partner. just for example with our neighbor in ukraine our trade is 20% higher. with eu it is -- it is almost ten times hyper. -- ten times higher. so what it means, it means we are missing a good economic underpinning for political relations. and that leaves them still vulnerable to the politics of the day, to the crisises of the day, and, and unnecessarily so. we certainly have a lot of things that we have in common in terms of challenges that we face. and i, once drew a list of things that unite us.

it appears much longer. we don't see eye to eye. and i would submit important for russia and hopefully for the united states. we have progress aid lot through the last three years. reset has brought a lot of new things, a lot of new way of doing things. the commission that was established by the two presidents seems to be producing new ideas, new avenues for, for cooperation, both between the governments and also, creating framework for cooperation of nongovernmental operators. which its good. and we would look to see it progressing further. but still, the potential that does exist for, for our partnership is still intact. we want tight be developed in

full. it benefits us and benefits you and our countries have a role in defining world stability and obtaining the world stability especially in the nuclear field and we are members of the security council. good relations between the two of us, usually translate into better ability on the international community and the focus on the international issues of the day. so, what i am -- trying to suggest -- focusing on the subject matter of today's discussion, economics are important for the sake of economics. and in terms of building solid underpinning, political relations. making our relations less vulnerable for the differences, unavoidable. that they occur. even between the closest allies.

but we have learned to work on the issue respectfully to each other. and it's, another achievement. but i think that -- that wto to us means better and more strong integration of markets. and american market. and partners in the field are the ones we would look to develop. stronger ties. and hopefully we will. thank you. >> thank you very much, ambassador. i read vladamir putin's campaign article, february 27th, the one that dealt with foreign policy. and read the line, to the effect that -- that the trade and economic relationship between the united states and the russian federation is way underdeveloped. this is something we need to devote a lot more attention to. >> i agree. >> paraphrasing what you said and sound look a talking point right out of the state department. so let me transition to you,

john buyerly. >> andy, thank you very much. thanks to csis for convening this very timely panel. as the the u.s. ambassador to russia for the past 3 1/2 years up until january of this year the i was often asked, what exactly is the reset about? and i don't think i could put it any better than my friend sergei put it. about a much more normal relationship between the united states and russia. a more constructive, and a more productive relationship. i have worked most of my career in the state department and even before frying to help foster that more constructive and more productive approach. and i and i was very fortunate over the past threeafter years to be able to play a part in some of the successes that sergei and andy talked about. i recall early on when president obama first took office and

reached out in a letter and a phone call in an early meeting, making clear for the united states the reset was not just about improving the tone of the relationship, which had gotten a bit scratchy, frankly, in the years before he took office. it was also about a substantive agenda which would fundamentally improve living standards and a lot of people in both countries. and clearly the start treaty, the cooperation that the united states and russia achieved on afghanistan, in particular russia's support for american's supply of its forces in afghanistan, those are two signal accomplishments that i think signaled very early on that both countries were serious about getting back to business and recapturing cooperation

which had atrophied. but probably the most difficult goal the two presidents set for themselves they set fairly early and that was wto. wto membership for russia did not depend on the united states alone. obviously it depended mostly on actions that russia itself needed to take. but president obama made very very clear in some of his early meetings with president medvedev very early on that he was willing to go the extra mile, to work with the european allies, to work with the european allies, to work with the u.s. congress, to work with the u.s. business community to ensure that every one saw the b benefits of w it to ex session for russia. the fact that russia was the only country in the g-8 not in the wto seemed to president obama to be incomprehensible. and i remember clearly when the

president obama and medvedev met in the summer of 2010 in the cabinet room and discussed the need to really get down to business and push this across the finish line in a very, very short time frame. the presidents turned to their advisors and said we're going to go to lunch now and we want you to come up with the plan that will make russian membership in wto a reality after 18 years. i look out in the audience and i see some of the people here from i ustr, betsy hartford, who were intimately involved in every step of this. the president had a strong team on his side led by ambassador ron kirk, and president medvedev also had a strong team. it was clear to us that first de deputy premier shuvolov would

have the main responsibility for the legislation that needed to be passed in a very short period of time. and also it was clear to us that both sides needed to work hard to solve the problem over chicken exports which had perennially bedeviled u.s./russia trade relations. to make a long story short, as we all know, in the fall of last year, russia was formally invited to join the wto. the negotiations were concluded after many, many hours in which russia, the united states, our european allies all identified the benefits to the world economy, not just to our own economy, not just to russia's economy, but to the world economy of having russia as a member of the wto. this to me is the achievement i'm the most proud of playing a small part in because the dividends from that will continue to pay out for years and even decades to come.

as sergei said and i couldn't agree with him more, the foundation for a sustainable productive relationship between the united states and russia is a strong economic relationship. when i was coming up through the state department, arms control was the center of gravity and sergei and i both labored in the trenches on arms control negotiations for many years and as he said it's still extremely important but now a strong commercial relationship, trade and investment, increasing trade volumes between the two countries, will create stakeholders on both sides who understand the fundamental importance of this relationship to the world economy, to the world as a whole, and will continue to push forward, sustain the momentum of the reset and also build on that to reach new achievements in the years to come. thank you. >> thanks very much, john.

you know, it is to vladimir putin's credit that i don't think the russians got serious about the wto until he became president back in 2000 and that leads me to turn to . you, susan, as you were directly involved in many of the negotiations for several years. what is your perspective on what this means for russia and for the wto? >> well, i must say this has gone on a very long time. speaking as one who put in several years, and betsy and others who are in the audience who were involved in the bilateral negotiation, the bilateral agreement phase of this. for those of you not familiar with the ins and outs of the wto exsession process would know that there are two stages. one, and this by the way is a miserable, miserable process for

any country trying to come into the wto. this is not easy for russia, it was not easy for vietnam or ukraine or any other country, china, when china came in. being a latecomer to the wto, you're expected to come in and in five or ten years, do what every other country that's a member of the wto got 50 years to do. so let's put it into some perspective here. i had the opportunity to negotiate on these matters over an extended period of time, and in 2006, november of 2006 to be precise, managed to conclude the bilateral russia/u.s. agreement on russia's accession to the wto, which is part of the series of bilateral agreements russia concluded in evaporates of the multilateral deal that was concluded oorps last year that paved the pay for the situation

where we are -- where we find ourselves today. the short version of my remarks is, one, russia is going it to become a member of the wto this year. two, whether the united states graduates russia from jackson vanik or not, and therefore, three, the sooner the united states can move ahead with our own process so that we can fully take advantage of the, of russia's joining, becoming a member of the wto, the better. that's sort of the short version. the slightly longer version is that it's somewhat more complicated than all this, as we know with implications for the various actors and i would begin by offering principle kudos and congratulations to the u.s. business community which has

been up on capitol hill day in and day out making the case why it is in the interest of the united states as well as russia for russia to join the wto. it is very much in the interest of u.s. goods, producers of manufactured goods, agricultural exporters, services exporters, for russia to join the w it to, for russia to lower its barriers to trade, to have disciplines on its intellectual property protections, for there to be dispute resolution enforcement opportunities. for those of you familiar with a website known as global trade alerts, the g-20 members all

said they weren't going to pose protectionist trade investment measures. two years out, gta measured -- was able to measure some 431 new protectionist trade and investment barriers that were imposed by g-20 members. of those 431, russia had imposed 85. of the g-20 members, only russia is not a member of the wto. i think the two are related. and it is in russia's interest to be able to have protections for its exports in the world, for russia to be able to diversify its markets, its production, away from just oil, gas, natural resources, but it is very much in the interest of u.s. producers, u.s. exporters. so, first, kudos to the u.s.

business community. i had the privilege of sitting on the boards of boeing, of caterpillar, of fedex. i know caterpillar is up on the hill, i see scott miller from procter & gamble, but quite frankly, the business community can't do this by itself. chairman baucus of the senate finance committee, chairman kempe, this is bipartisan support for moving for russia. they are very much on record for moving it. and if it is going to happen, the sooner the better. so what next steps? well, if this is going to happen, the sooner the better, this is a june-july equation that we should be talking about here. and for that we really need the white house to be stepping up and to engage with the leadership and the congress to

work to make sure that the votes are there. and here we get into the issue that -- and this is sort of the awkward moment for me. i'm an economist. i'm a trade policy person. i am not a for policy person. i am not a human rights person. but i am told by everyone who is counting noses on capitol hill that the way this legislation is going to move is that at some point in parallel there will be some other kind of legislation moving in the human rights area. this is not my lane. this is what i'm told. this is what i read. if that is the case, then the white house needs to be up on the hill working that part of the equation and doing it promptly and doing it with a decision makers who are going to be making those decisions as well. so i put that out there because nobody else has yet. and so, the sooner the better. >> thank you very much for those inspiring words, and putting it

out there. i think we'll continue to follow up on that. klaus, you've also been on the barricades on this issue. and i think you've seen up close and personal, probably through your long career with siemens before and also now with alcoa what foreign companies' engagement with russia means, what changes have taken place and what you see this most recent development possibly doing. >> yeah. let me give you basically four views. the first thing is what has happened on the commercial side. the second thing, not everything is rosy and what needs to happen and we should be open about it, and we have been open. the third thing is what are the opportunities. and the last thing is connecting what you said before is what needs to be done now together. i think you are absolutely right. it has to be done jointly between the political as well as the business community.

the business community has a clear view. so on the commercial side, i think you can't deny saying a lot of progress has been made. and human memory is usually very short, and frankly if you just look at the things that have happened over i would say the last three years, this is an unbelievable success. i mean, let's start with, we have had since the reset has been announced, four meetings, ceo to ceo and they have been super successful from both sides. if you look at the investment side of things, large investments have been made. we as alcoa have invested almost a billion over there and really successfully. coca-cola making a commitment. for $3 billion over five years. the exxon deal, $500 million over a decade. could go on $1.4 billion. this is not small change. this is big. and we shouldn't just consider that as normal.

you know, it is normal if it were a normal place, but under the conditions we have been operating under, especially pretty spectacular. i would say. so the business community has already voted. the business community says we're going to do business there. it's working out. we wouldn't put our money behind there and others wouldn't we wouldn't see there's opportunities today. not just tomorrow, today. and for most it has worked out very, very well. you see also from the russian side, they put this investment fund together and capitalized well, it was $10 billion. not many places have been able to do that. so that's all good. little things, and quotations marks, like three-year multiple entry visas. now we have it. we've always been complaining about it. both of you big time involvement, thank you very much to both of you. always had a great year. fantastic, fantastic job. highly qualified immigrants.

work visas can be on obtained and are great. the business community has always said, particularly for those ones that are new in russia, not the ones we have been dealing for years, what we do when we run into issues in the provinces. and the argument from the russian leadership has always been the country is really big and we don't know all the things that are going on. and we came up with a suggestion and good cooperation, why don't you establish a hotline. that's how it evolved. and the hotline became an ombudsman. and that, if you listen to the business community over what has worked very well, it's particularly those who have entered newly into russia which they can go to elevate an issue and the issue is taken serious. so that's happening. and i think we should not ignore that. we also should not ignore, let me come to my second point, that the picture isn't as rosy as you could walk away just looking at that.

and i try to be as objective as possible and not to step on anybody's foot here. you have some transparency international, it's considered a good indication for transparency, russia in 2011 has made it to the whopgs position on the same level of nigeria and uganda. knowing the aspirations of most russians that i've been dealing with, i cannot believe that is what anybody is aspiring for. world bank has come in 2011 and it's the fantastic position of 129 out of 183. it's on the same level as bangladesh and nicaragua and i don't think i need to say more. the commerce department has just come out on the ip protection right with a list and basically has put russia as the least ip protection for 16 years in a row. that's all not good. that's all i would say, as a

business person, room for improvement. big time room for improvement. we know, and i mentioned that a couple of teams, we in our facility in samarrah last year had to file 88,000 pages for the tech authorities. that's a substantial improvement where it was over 100,000 pages. the good news is those things work but they work slowly. there's now a process in place to change it over to electronic system and we will be one of the first that will be trying this out and i'm relatively optimistic that this will work out. but this is the non rosy side. so let me move on to the opportunities. because i think the business side wouldn't be as exciting, it wouldn't be going up to the hill and saying look, let's use this opportunity that has not been around for the last 18 years, now wto accession is there, this is now about us, it's about jobs

and business in the u.s. pntr has nothing to do really with russia. this is about u.s. business profiting from it. and the export council of the president has done a very very good job in looking at export opportunities and they came up with a nice study saying we can double exports from the u.s. to russia in the next four to five years, i mean with the pntr status and having looked at that, that's pretty credible. we have done with the coalition that we founded, dealing with the u.s./russia business side, we have done a profile by each sta state. and basically put a radar together, what businesses are in each state that today have business with russia, that export to russia. we have it by state. it's pretty fascinating to see this. if you go two states -- i have numbers from two states here. new york exports goods in 2011 of about 500 million to russia. and there's 1,400 behind.

so basically doubling would mean for the state of new york 1,400 more jobs. if you go to california, the number is 665 million of exports in the last year and 2,000 jobs behind it will double. can anybody really say today that we can afford to leave this on the table? and the other thing is, can you really think oh, we don't decide today. we probably have a chance to do it next spring. that's a total misassessment of how competition is today. because there are companies in other places in the world that are prepared to jump in immediately and basically take the opportunity. so i think, if it needs more convincing the arguments i think are very, very clear, and the business side is totally convinced. and i give you reasons why. i mean, john deere, sam allen, has been very clear about that and educated all of us in the business community, he has 9% of the world's land is in russia, 8% of the fresh water, 20% of the forest area.

and then you look at the automation in the farming and he believes very strongly, we've looked at that, that you can double the grape output per land if you automate it more. that's the opportunities we talk about. >> tractors? >> tractors. exactly, just basically getting more out of it. the auto industry, i didn't know that. gm, chevrolet is currently the top selling brand in russia. did you know that? i didn't know that. thinking about all the fallout that was there. the next point what needs to be done. i think it's absolutely clear. we want to hear and we have heard, but we'd like to hear it now from the new administration, absolutely unquestioned commitment to the modernization. because that's what i believe russia needs and that's what the business community needs and

that has a couple of facets but i think it would be good to clearly have that from the new leadership, clearly make that statement from the new leadership. we've heard it through some of the people that will be playing most likely a role in the administration, but it would be really important to hear it as a first message to the business community. a clear commitment from the new leadership towards modernization. and that also has the implication of good opportunities for business. the second thing is, the pntr, i think there's no question, i said it before. we need to make sure pntr gets passed. we've had over 100 meetings on the hill. you are right, there is now support from a number of important things. i talked to senator baucus this afternoon, i talked to him a couple of times, but i think he's behind it and others are, too, and this is all good. you mentioned dave cam. i think you are absolutely right to also address the elephant in the room.

and i totally agree with you, susan. this is critically important. it's also not my point to make it, but we have to be realistic that these things, these things, if they go parallel, it will politically be seen as one. and i close it with that. >> thanks very much. following up on the points that you were both making, that granting russia pntr, as senator baucus put it recently, it's a slam dunk. the argument from the economic commercial argument, the standpoint of u.s. national interest, it is a slam dunk. i wrote a piece last week where, in a very intellectual way i concluded that it would be idiotic for the united states not -- >> technical term. >> very highly technical term,

beat i beating around the bush. but there are two problems. one, this is a campaign year here. so getting congressmen and senators to make a vote that would be viewed by many as doing something positive for russia when in fact it's doing something positive for the united states is a challenge. and two, while the economic argument is clear, this is not just going to be about an economic argument. i think this is going to be a broad referendum about russia. and that takes us back to the realm of our ambassadors. that, you know, what is the argument to make about, i think there's a very strong argument to make about how improved relations with the russian federation have in fact served the u.s. national interest, and russian national interest. john, how would you characterize

that argument in a nutshell that would put this in a different light? >> well, i think it's clear that we, the united states, want to see a strong democratic -- a strong democratic russia that has an economy that's producing for its people. that's the kind of partner that we need in the 21st century, and that means that we like many russians that we know, many russian citizens have a stake in seeing institutions built inside russia that make russia more strong. there's no question that's in our interest. and we go about that in many different ways. as i said, i think the central way is trying to build a stronger economic relationship with russia, because it's good for both countries and it also serves as something as a shock aber