have been a handful of countries and we will be expanding this and a much more global reach. it is one of the things i'm focused on doing. they try to bring them -- >> last few questions. , ambassador, for your time. last week that christians in the middle east feel that the west has abandoned them? how do you respond? how can we help? >> sometimes there are competing truths. two things that are absolutely true. there is a robust effort of the democratic world to help her checked the christian community. doing the efforts we are

-- iraqi refugees working with iraq and along the lines i was talking about in the , day inional community and day out there isn't a single -- and respected advocate for religious freedom, the u.s. commission for research on international religious -- widely respected in the field. he hit the ground running when he came on and he will be working side-by-side with me and with our international counterparts and with every arm of our government that it is doing programs dealing with defense and training and working with countries in the area and the intelligence communities, all of the human rights work we are doing here to help

strengthen the work on behalf of these minorities. i could talk for hours about what is being done. beingogrammatic work done, the relief and humanitarian work, etc.. they are in the middle of a horrific war situation. every day their lives could be imperiled. there is the magic button that can fix this. it is going to be long and steady progress here until we can reach a kind of goal that we want. if you live there and fear for the well-being of your family every day, you will feel like the world isn't doing enough. we recognize that reality and we do everything we can to offer that protection and meet the needs of these communities and we will not cease doing so until they are able to live in freedom

with -- in accordance with their conscience. >> does the state department consider efforts by western countries to ban the muslim headrest as a repression of religious freedom? iranuickly, if you can, and saudi arabia. which one is more respectful? both of them are on the list of countries of particular concern and continue to be on that list. we don't make judgments about which are better or worse. both of those countries, structural, systematic, egregious violations. no one other than muslim communities can worship openly or participate in the religious life openly.

even when they do it privately they are harassed and interfered with. these are very serious challenges and problems. , we have very serious problems as well. the muslim interpretation of islam dominates the legal structure and culture, other muslims find themselves in trouble. -- this community will systematically oppresses every community so they both have very serious problems. read the report and make the judgment yourself which is the worst yet. >> the headrest issue? >> yes. inhave taken the position our approach to this that

exercise of freedom of religion and belief allows people to make determinations about what their appropriate religious garb would be. if women feel that they have to have their heads covered or if siekhs believe they have to wear turbans, if jews believe they , thiso wear yarmulkes should be the determination that each and every person makes. there may be circumstances in which there are compelling reasons such as the need to identify someone or safety reasons, you cannot wear a turban working around equipment that could catch a turban. if you have to wear a safety helmet, you have to wear a safety helmet. asommodations should be made far as possible but those exceptions are few and far between. .

we believe that people's right to live in accordance with their conscience includes the right to use religious garb and religious dress. we have been critical of the democratic countries and the nondemocratic countries and we hope in the future that things will ease up and we will be seen in a different perspective and this restriction of religious freedom will be allowed to fade away. . >> thank you all, i appreciate it. >> on the next "washington journal," a look at how the media has been covering campaign 2016 with matthew boyle. also, maria of the democratic socialist of america talks about their support for bernie sanders. and a discussion with author matthew green at the current race for house speaker how similar situations have played throughout the speakership's history.

thus we will take your call and look for your comments on facebook and twitter. >> known as the city of good neighborhoods, this weekend our c-span cities to were joined by time warner cable explores the history and literary life of hello new york. on book tv, we will visit the mark twain room whose centerpiece is pages of the original handwritten manuscript of the adventures of huckleberry finn and we will speaker tim boland's book "against the grain." >> the irish settled in this they were hood because they were desperate and came across the atlantic and in the years after thing still were not great. it would take maybe one relative to find out about these plentiful jobs along the waterfront and then word would go back to ireland that you want

to come to follow. you would not become rich but you would have steady employment. so they came to this employment and call the first ward. it has its name because when buffalo was first created as a city, it was divided into five political wards. in this area along the waterfront it has always been the first ward. tv,n american history president william mckinley was assassinated in buffalo. tour theo work -- history museum that features the gun used. , this is aw collection of grain elevators in the buffalo river originally built for different companies but all owned by rick smith over

site isstreet and the being regenerated for many different purposes for art and music and we do history tours where we take people around. there are a theatrical productions down here with opera and poetry readings and all sorts of different uses for these historic silos. stories from our buffalo today at 2:00. -- c-span cities to her, tour, visiting cities across the country. next, a look at the transplanted trade agreement. speakers discuss implications for the world trade organization and how the current multilateral trading system would work. from the cato institute, this is one hour 15 minutes. i am theget started. organizer and am invited in my

current capacity as the secretary-general. by me first start off congratulating you for such an interesting conference. particularly would say it would be rather interesting and trying to broaden the perspective but what we're hoping to discuss here is the broad lateral trading system. we have with us three very eminent speakers to address this . that, joost from the georgetown university law center these and many other things. -- we start by saying will work on the presumption that this will be a resounding success. it may be a tall hypothesis sent

assumption, but i would request all panelists to work on that assumption as we progress. let me try to recall the fact that the current global trading system was created, maintained and developed by those participating. and they don't take that assignment likely -- lightly. so obviously the effect is something that presumably they also care about. secondly, just recently they two weeks ago committed to the sustainable development including the commitment to eradicate poverty.

the development of the world is of course a relevant one. third, developing countries with mitigation strategies to after agreements to which there are nonparties. i hope that the panels will be able to have a conversation to what would be the infeasible mitigation strategies. the bedrock it is on which all nations build their insurance system for global trade. i would like the panel to address what could be the mitigation strategies for the system. i have been selected to be both moderator and to give an introductory speech but these are the parameters given to the panel as concerns my own speech let me say a number of things

that from my perspective would need to be taken into account. put this in ao bit of a context. oversoldw it is often and your mixing apples and oranges. if you remember from the first panel, it is a very important for participants, and the world because the cost of participants are so incredibly important but in the end it is fda. effect ofescribe the you have to understand we are not starting from scratch. there are 362 free trade agreements officially enforced. when it comes to the global trading system and i would like to distinguish that start with

the effect on third countries and in my point of view, i have to differentiate between terrace and the regulatory agenda. serious free-trade agreement providing for a number of substantial trade limitations of tariffs, it is interesting to note that contrary to some of the concerns by developing countries, on an aggregate level would be quite limited trade diversion. and u.s. andu stimulant and their economies, it is on that supply-side, it is a separate conversation about what they should be doing on the demand side is not in a good , but because it will stimulate the increased trade flow and they both are sourcing heavily from developing countries, you would imagine on

the aggregate level would be a positive effect on the nation. on specific factors they can have quite a negative effect. these fisheries industries in ghana it would be one example of an agricultural you sold to the eu market, it could be the displacement effect on the market which needs to be taken into account. as you know, the individual products matter. you do care about the negative to placement for individual products. in our view they are that eu and the eu could do more. it is important to have liberal and signified rules so as not to disrupt the value chain that these companies are part of. unfortunately, the track record of the eu when it comes to allowing for the non-original

material to be counted as part of the preferential treatment is not encouraging and we would encourage both parties to do more. the second thing is to expand the current preference schemes. current coverages 86% and a number of products are excluded where the eu producers would have better access to the u.s. market than african producers or for that matter ldcs. if the parties are serious about the development impact on the core developing countries, these are measures they can take. with respect to the regulatory field, this is an area were a lot of people are very concerned. our line is basically, you could be worried if talking about harmonization to a higher level. that's just not realistic.

harmonization is not in the cards and raising standards are very unlikely. the most negative effect you could assume theoretically is not going to materialize. where we come up as almost to the opposite where the worst scenario is the status quote. case, should there be a regulatory approximation? under the condition that these are extended to nonparticipants that seem to fulfill the requirements that they have to meet one test for both markets ,nstead of currently two tests worst-case, status quote with no improvement. case, developing countries would probably benefit. my third thing is on the global here, weystem arid actually view the effect more psychological than factual in

fearsnse that because have been rising, people are starting to think about whether they're approaching their own trade agenda in the right way. effectspes of spillover are positive for example in the way that africa has started to think about its own continental free-trade agreement. there is enormous untapped potential for trade growth in developing countries. asia it iswith east 50% and with the eu it is 65%. there is in or miss untapped potential and the reason they haven't tapped it is the many barriers that exist between african countries. basically, conductivity is extremely limited. if they feel there is a game change going on, thereby seeking

close regional integration in africa this is a good thing for african producers, consumers and general development. strategy would certainly be to accelerate reintegration efforts elsewhere. another one is the fact that .here is a growing gap the solution is not to put a bar on regional trade agreements but to start seriously discussing how to raise the level of innovation. and i'm sure we have a number of very smart points on this one. one of the ways is to put more of an agenda into it. the third mitigation -- mitigation strategy is whether countries would be interested in talking into the agreement.

this is a question that for example, norway, switzerland, turkey and we heard in the previous panel, a version of that is to be inspired by the provisions that you're seeking with one of the partners, the economic partnership agreement between the eu and its former colonies. personally not convinced that people will be prepared to sign the dotted line individual provisions or the agreement as a whole. the reason i say that is i see it partly as a reaction to the change and distribution of power , it isou multilateralist highly unlikely that people will forget about the fact that they have more power.

i would never sign up for something someone else had negotiated in a closed room that i was not part of. that was my attempt at starting. and now now my colleague will continue. >> thank you very much. i appreciate the invitation to speak. have two preparatory remarks, one is that after reading the various papers by dr. saying -- adage thatn see the great minds think alike may be true, so we do have a lot of them -- similarities. the second remark is that my usual role as a political economistss to tell

why would they want to do can't be done and to show all the political impediments in front of them despite the wonderful economic models that show these great gains in trade. in this case i have to say i am pleasantly surprised. i actually think i have more optimism on this. i would not have thought tpp would go as smoothly as it did. if you think about it there are a lot of differences between the countries so if anything it would be quite unlikely to have an agreement. the fact that you can get tpp done suggests that there might because for optimism. now i can revert back to my old style which is to say let me tell you why tpp is problematic. ironically i think there are a number of strong similarities between the two countries. both groups are very large. and they have been engaged in pitched battles for some time. i think the most important point

is to look at the fact that regulators in both countries are extremely strong. the we really have is disjunction between what trade negotiators want to do and what regulators want to do. that could be regulators in the eu or it could be regulators such as the treasury or fda who don't want anybody touching their turf. there is a turf battle going on between regulation and trade negotiators. they may wish to make these trade agreements that regulators say stay away from finance. moving forward, i think what other points that is useful to think about is the fact that we talk -- we need to think about andonly tpp but also arcep the fact that it is moving along and provides a different forum in which both india and china are involved. we really need to do a on tpptive assessment

and are set. directly to tpp and think about the impact on third and ways we can think about the way in which you might have third parties trying to engage in the process. the first is they could just join the negotiation. why can't you have the canadians, why can't you have the mexican taco i think jerry pointed out -- why can't you have the mexican straka -- the mexican's? when the canadians said that lists join tpp i was shocked by how much opposition there was in the united states to the canadians joining given that we already have nafta. it took me a long time to understand, dairy and pig farmers.

go thatkind of a no other countries will join these negotiations. they were actually quite reluctant. anytime somebody wanted to join tpp they were quite reluctant. they told the canadians you had your big chance before and he lost it. i think that option of joining the negotiation is not likely. could waitis you until the negotiations are concluded and you could join it then. that is what you had from nafta. it is a free trade agreement. it was subsequently added to that. me, located. they could try to do that. it is not obvious that there is any mechanism to join, unlike tpp which is actually encouraging countries to join on. at least give other countries and option to do that.

the third option is that countries may respond by trying to negotiate with either the eu or the u.s.. it depends on rules of origin and things like that. and then there is a fourth option, you may just simply wait and then try to multilateral multilateralize. we can go back to the u.s. agreement and nafta, where the u.s. introduced things that were subsequently kind of multilateral. that is another possibility. you consort of wait for the u.s. to multilateral eyes. you can also try to negotiate on separate accords. if you don't have a single undertaking, or even if there is , and thenndertaking

you could try to join specific parts of the agreement. part of that.d be , can you unilaterally adopt the same rules so that you concern get mutual recognition? i think a lot of this is based on the issue about three elements. we have market access negotiation, we have negotiations about rules, and we have negotiations about regulatory issues. i think there is a difference in third-party sessions and the implications of the third-party being excluded. it has been repeatedly pointed out -- here we have to exclude agriculture and textiles -- for the most part tariffs are very

low. market access is not the biggest deal in the world. standards,t to labor if you look at labor and environmental standards, i think the u.s. has increasingly been pushing those issues. there was a congressional agreement that was very clear that you can have all these with environment and labor standards. and the third and last one is regulatory. here i think that is are you -- a lot of problems. u.the u.s the u.s. is now in ths seat with respect to trade negotiations. the u.s. did this. we did a lot of bilateral trade agreements with key local training partners like morocco and bahrain, so clearly there is

a insecurity element to that. but i think with respect to regulatory issues, that is where we really see potential for third parties to join the agreement. and if they are not part of that, and essentially regulatory standards in the 21st century will be set by the u.s. and the eu, which may or may not meet the interests of third parties. it may not be very good for global trade in some respects. thank you. [applause] >> good morning. thank you for having me here. table with two specific perspectives, so i am not a negotiator. i am not involved in the key negotiations, but i come to it wto perspective and i am based in switzerland which you know is one of those

outsiders. switzerland has a deal with the eu. i think going back to your six options, they have hardly in mind unilaterally an idea of what may come out. the other perspective i have is i am a lawyer. i used to work in the wto legal staff. i'm involved in the street settlements. i am a law professor. my talk will be somewhat more technical, i will try to keep it understandable. this panel really deals with how ttp mayand interrelate. thinking about it i was thinking about this famous paradox of what happens when and in stop mobile force meets an immovable object.

this is very much how i see the relationship playing forward. obviously the on stoppable force ttp andoppable force is wto.mmovable force is the it could be that they are just two ships passing in the night. basically what i will try to show is that what we will need is to have some type of control over the unstoppable force, and level we willo have to make this immovable object a little more flexible. i will first say why this movement is pretty much an unstoppable force. i will say a few things about wto is immovable, and then go through a number of issues by way of conclusion that we will have to address moving forward. -- thereppable force

are close to 300 preferential trade agreements out there. i waseaching in this aria always using the example of mongolia as the only wto member out of 161. the bad news is that last year they also signed a preferential trade agreement, of all countries, with japan. japan is very hesitant to conclude pta deals. if we have mentioned five or six years ago that there would be an eu u.s. pta, this is a huge game changer. in termsle force, also of what kind of preferential agreements are talking about. the term is also a -- often used, make a regional. -- mega regional. looking at this from geneva this is really undermining the wto centrality.

force, also in terms of the coverage. in 2000 there were only four preferential trade agreements in the area of trade and services. last year there were 127. this is really a force to be reckoned with. a few points on why the wto is really this immovable object. wto is celebrating its anniversary. a lot of people a geneva are excited to see what has happened. the lastty is that in 20 years very little has moved on the negotiating side. the amendment is not even enforced yet because the majority has not been achieved. decisionscommittee that have had an influence on ministerial declarations. the gpa revision. but other than that we have not

really seen a lot of movement. why is that? 161 countries, and it is not just a number it is also the diversity. you have now china, russia part of the members of the membership. many more countries to factor in. the other issues on the table are far more difficult. normal that we moved to iron out the differences but i think frederick mentioned this morning issuey, there is also the environmental imperatives in the end of the washington consensus. immovable in an different way. keep anyally failed to kind of check or control on

preferential trade agreements. there is a committee on regional trade agreements that has not been able to make decisions either way. settlement, but somewhat the presently in 20 years there has only been one looking at the compliance with preferential trade agreements. the customs union between the eu and turkey, some people are saying that means that all these are consistent. i think most people would agree we should go in the other direction. wga -- pdas are not complying with the rules. immovable also in another way. i think that is what was alluded to. , it is one ofk

trade diversion. the question that you asked me is really updated. tbp,u look at this on there is some trade diversion potential in there. there is some discrimination. -- most of it is hard to implement on a discriminatory platform. look at some studies of the korea u.s., korea eu ptas and it is surprising by how many of those will have to be extended on msn basis. if you talk about transparency, because the member states have options to implement this on a nondiscriminatory basis. p for example, needs to be extended. you do not have a pta exception.

a lot of u.s. msn provisions are included in bilateral investment. you have msn for the -- provisions and other fta's, so whether you like it or not a lot of that will have to be extended. the last element in terms of the wto being immovable, and there i get a little more technical, is that the body is open to look at these issues but it has been very strict when it comes to interpreting for example, gas article 24 or wto rules are very rules.on bringing in recently when i worked in guatemala, they have really put a number of breaks in terms of outside agreements, making it a .it more adaptable so where does that leave me in terms of challenges ahead of?

as i said, i think we will need to find ways to keep ptas, including ttip, in check. make sure that they are transparent to third parties, including developing countries. and at the same time find ways to update this wto which is really a little bit frozen in time. perspective is that we need to stop looking at it as a fight between the wto and ptas . this clearly has to become a division of labor. i was talking to an ambassador from a developing country who like the trade facilitation agreement that the u.s. is so vulnerable. there might be something wrong about it. i think you need to have an agreement that actually benefits both sides. mentioned by several

people this morning, in the wto we used to work with hard law, treaties enacted with the settlement links as gary was mentioning. i see ttip as a long-term process, and as much as i am a lawyer and i like litigation i think we will have to have soft there to move- in this forward. two very brief points on legal issues. what i am worried about is double ptas. tcp is not precluded you have nasa. the legal issues of how these -- not the wto's, the regional trade agreements -- interrelate is becoming a very serious issue. there has been a case on this already, looking at how cap that cafta relates to the central

american governments. and the last one i would like to wto busts were have an agreement like -- agreements like ttip, the more we will think about workable dispute settlements. today most disputes that could regional handled as trade agreements go to the wto. i think over time this will change, but regional trade are really dysfunctional in many ways. we don't even have clear provisions on how to deal with wto, as iand the said, has really put a block on looking at outside agreements, even agreements to tell you about settlements. i will stop there. thank you. [applause]

[indiscernible] >> thank you. and otherthank cato friends here who have invited me and giving me this opportunity. it is a wonderful event, very high quality produce a patient. and this has been commented about. hearing the various statements today about ttip i was reminded about two years ago when i started working on a project, trying to sensitize will how its markets ttp.e after tcp --

we can discuss that separately. but when i was working on that, includingom everyone, washington, ttp has not going to happen. as late as may this year. i think the reason it has happened is because the countries concerned recognize the fact that without that we are talking about really difficulties in cost. it might be even higher. expand thereally scope of what is the cost of doing something and not doing something. i come froming -- -- i have a wto perspective. in a world with major interdependence and

interconnectedness. forre far more dependent our prosperity on others. and we also have a highly fragmented world at the same time. one could say this fragmentation is temporary, it is like a locomotive. but what i would like to emphasize is that the earlier we move toward multi-lateralization , the better it is for everyone concerned, including the united states. when we have discussed various issues we have talked about the eu, the u.s.. china came up a few times. concern about others because the action is actually and a lister circle

of concentric circles. of those concentric circles are one integrated whole. the second point is that even though we are discussing new issues we are discussing them from the perspective of old ideas like trade. today's investment changes the whole manner in which this country interacts. you can have an agreement here ,etween the u.n. and the u.s. and the countries which i excluded can change this at the relative opportunity. with this perspective i now just want to get into another option. -- its impact was

overestimated. seven members are already part of tpp. korea has applied. and my assessment is that china is also thinking about joining. so the only country that is really not thinking about moving on to our standard of tpp is today there is an editorial in a very influential newspaperer -- arguing that we follow that court -- course. this will be determined by tbd. the problem i want to look at is, how do we move

multilaterally towards the result of ttip? something around the corner is waiting to happen with china and the u.s.. that by virtue of the fact that they are negotiated between the u.s. and the eu, less of the world will have to look at them as a kind of regulatory principle. another is the framework. there can be a regulatory but we need to have some specific efforts. this is going to be the process.

the negotiators have to keep in they have to that come up with a system which is inclusive rather than fragmenting and exclusionary. where certification becomes very important. seer that we have to also -- it is not that ttip itself is going to move into multilateralization. even more specific efforts have , and inclusion of forums because trade today is not just the issue. you go to world customs counsel, they are discussing issues which .re part of ttip

a coherence mechanism is far more relevant than what we have is what is required. -- you have a whole levelsre of different amongst different members. --t makes it multilateral what has prevented that is the freight -- fear of a free rider. if i give something that i am giving as a liberalization of my market and i don't get the same ,ind of things from the others that is not identical reciprocity. that is not fair. actuallyroducers are going to lose out. we have to identify who are the , that these key

economies are very concerned about. there are very few. it is not that there will be one member who will be limited to multilateralization. it is the free riders or potential concern for free riders. the interesting thing is, my understanding of china is it does not see itself as benefiting that which is outside it system. which actually prepared in a major way. investment is prepared. it has a fight agreement with the eu on labor standards. we are dealing with a china that sees that it is independent from the rest of the world. it's investment is going out.

all that is a very essential it. of this is evidence from the effort it wants to make. that is a preparatory route. you have actually these two so-called free riders, which if thenddress their concerns, the process of multilateralization will become that much easier. but how to address those concerns? you have about 160 members. and ttip comettp together, you still have about , and what one has to

determine is how to really cast an additional limit. that can be possible if you have a transition phase. the safeguards -- actually you need much less than that to make it happen. there is access between developing nations which provide you breathing space and a review system to give you what i call manageable situations. -- manageable discomfort.

and you take a look at that you have the kind of -- and michelle had mentioned the other international initiatives -- that is enough to make a move toward multilateralization. interest in some of those so-called potential free riders to make those adjustments. and once that happens, then we have to address something -- some other things which are less -- yet to be addressed. i prefer to talk in terms of whether the impact will be positive or negative, and that my country is affected by private standards, and private standards by their very nature are not constant

because there are various reasons why they come into being. it is not the mandatory standard. the disciplines or some kind of effort to bring more predict ability to that process that will be acquired later. .hat is a place we will not be really ask whether some standards from jacob will be leaving towards multilateralization. wto will have to exchange it, and yes, they may see that if you are very poor you

have that feeling. they basically are asking how do we prepare to link up with the rest of the world, which is developing in ways that are very difficult for us to manage. thisyou combine with all with increasing development in developing countries and from developing countries, you have the incentive system for moving zoned some kind of landing where everyone is included in the system. nations will say hey, i contribute to your prosperity. that is the situation which will both those whoe are not thinking about this debate in the context of tdp and those were outside it. thank you.

[applause] before i open the floor for questions from the audience, maybe throw out to questions if there are any takers of these. the question i have is, what are the incentives and under what conditions will third-party countries accepted. to make that more specific. all ofond question is, us talked about in some way how wto has to change. -- we did not mention-- -- none of us -- things that are not which still require global solutions meaning fuel agriculture

subsidies, fish subsidies, none of which are appropriately addressed in any trade agreement. so i would like you to comment on the fact that there will never be a solution to these things unless it is a global if there is an industry that is truly are megad, our mega -- regionals actually that interesting? i want to throw that out as a starting point. do you want to start? >> sure. i agree with you that we are likely to see this development where we have both central agreements taking place like the ita and telecom agreement and so on, at the same time as we have mega's. we really need

to handle agriculture and fisheries subsidies in the wto. it is not clear to me that there agreementy be a ttip giving these regulatory issues that we have. i think that is going to be very problematic. on the other question that you abouti am less optimistic these countries accepting standards that are put out. take for example the question of tdp. tpp, they can't join tpp because i have so much policy that they simply cannot meet the standards. it is not clear to me that despite some progress on the chinese leadership in terms of regulation but the chinese don't

have a completely cynical view of this. the policy in china has simply shifted from the national level to the state level, and you can do what you want to do at the provincial level, state level, and not have to do it at the national level. so you can still engage in a lot of the same industrial policy approaches. convergence with no state intervention, despite what cato may want, i don't think this is taking place in china. i am very skeptical that they will go along with these ideas. agree with the bigger point. we keep talking about china and outsiders, how they would be left out, discriminated. if you look at it from a different perspective -- as i said, a lot of these provisions are kind of public goods.

privatization, ip rights. if i am china i get all of this for free and i don't have to give anything. the question then is, what are the incentives for china? that they arech being discriminated victims. in many ways they have become free riders. countries. 12, 15, younother can very easily get a critical mass of close to 90%. just by adding a handful of countries you could really make an action that covers critical mass. that must be held in a multilateral setting, that

was the point i was trying to make. i think it will be hard to do this with all 161. ist i would like to see plural laterals, but that is hard to do. subsetuld like to see a of wto members negotiate subsidies. the other big thing that happened last week was brand-new tax rules. this is 90 countries. this will have a huge impact on trade investment as well. ways toto find translate these changes. as i said, the appellate body seems to be very hesitant about this. to the wto changes only through formal wto

amendments or waivers, and that i think would be a mistake. >> thank you. each of these are certain concepts that we have such upon, and the key concept laterals a plural agreement not happening in wto? that is what the agreements are all about. it has not happened because of the difference of opinion between some who would make a critical difference, not being .art of the agreement the so-called free riders are all part of it.

it is being negotiated because all the free riders or potential free riders are part of it. india haveies like not stopped there. it is still being negotiated. seeissue is, when you it is notlike tpp -- the question of u.s. and china. china has asked many times, please let me the part of this. it has not happened. now let's see what happens. asking once it had a bad experience with its pizza -- with its application. since 2013 china has kept out of these negotiations precisely for the time -- for the reason china was not allowed to enter anything that was significant in

the tbp. is, chinasting thing actually is prepared to be prepared. it is conducting state enterprise reform. it is lamenting environmental standards in a very big way. in labor standards it has moved away. it is no longer with india. i had a side agreement with the u.s. -- they have a side agreement with the eu, and they way isalized that the through high-value technology. i have had discussions with them. they are going to go through high-value technology, and in order to protect their own investments they want to have a strong investment, maybe eventually, and also start producing

state-of-the-art technology. when you see all of this, they endorse theseto generic exchanges. they may be managed in part, but the change in china does not happen like that. it has the incentive to parts. to part the way for others will also be, what do i lose out if i am not part of this? today with tpp actually being there are incentives. however they have to be managed. because the countries which are outside don't really have the capability in the same way to take on multilaterally. they have to be brought up to that level of confidence. the wto sectoral basis, again, the issue is in terms of

trade there is a very strong and a very strong viewpoints that ok, let's all we just give whatever we have agreed together . it does not matter if india is not part of the deal. of the wto,ructure if there is a mandate to do something, allows that. you can pass an agreement between two parties, and if you are willing to have msn you can exit make it hard of wto. the reason why it did not happen was because of the political consequences. india was actually trying to work things out with the mexicans, and the wto members realized this was the case and they did have a consultation agreement with india.

today i see a change in perspective where members say, fine. if you don't want to come with us go away. we will do it just by ourselves. and we give msn. so that is the way it will go if those who find that disincentive to hire will be part of the system. aspect, onec good is the rules and the promulgation of rules, and the second is how you actually implement them very it is a limitation where this will come. if you are discriminated against of have zero capability questioning them in a dispute settlement system if you are not a member. issuesct, even these have to be multilateral eyes to give full effect.

that is something we have to keep in mind. >> thank you very much. i will use the authority to just respond partially where i disagree with you, because it is not part of trade negotiations. i think this is a very important trade the problem is that negotiators are too afraid of dealing with it. it is true, it is a very important issue, but i have yet to come across a single trade negotiator -- >> can i deal with a short point to that? if you see the e -- d7 ,egotiating -- negotiation global value chains are created by our enterprises. the government, through that becometion, has actually

party to private standards also. so my point is that this is impactful upon whatever -- however global business is conducted, and if you are already monitoring and ensuring that the standards are actually implemented throughout the value chain, you might as well start talking in any agreement, be it an fta or the multilateral one, about how to make sense for everyone, so that global trade and investment does not bear the additional burden. that is the point. >> but we are still waiting to see that happen in any trade negotiation. >> i open the floor. you have a question? c? kind asou could be so

to introduce yourself when u.s. your question. wonder if you can really address the problem, i think when we are seeing the free market we are seeing a sense of fairness to all people. a special interest group takes whatever they want and it is free for them without fair cost to them. groups areworkers

doing things, buying things making things from other countries. some poor countries -- [indiscernible] say don't think you can aat this is in -- not problem. this is an issue with public-private partnerships. it is unjust. will you address those problems? >> just a question. are you addressing your question to any particular person? >> all of you.

you are in a very good position to comment. >> do you have more questions? yes, when here. >> first of all, thank you for a very good panel. support hers just point on the role of public standards. in a lot of sectors government mandated access is it dependent on the compliance of private matters, so this is not just an anymore,private nature it is an issue about government increasingly having to find regulations. i would like to put this in somewhat proper terms. if the point is to use the sort tailwind from mega regionals in order to shake the

wto system into action, isn't it favorable than that mega regionals are going to be as much diverted as possible? they so far have either refused becauseed global trade the state's quote is politically more favorable. history, howe global or multi-natural -- multilateral success and created, it was not so much about trying to deal with obviouson or protectionism existing between different countries, but much more an issue about trying to take away preferential effect that existed through various

types of economic agreements. you can go back to sort of the kennedy round and rawls praising the common market in the eu. you can go to the nafta and the creation of the stable market and see the very strong political effects of these trade diverting initiatives had on building fear among other countries that if they -- if these initiatives were not going eventually it was going to create a lot of trade diversion. from anolitically -- political economy viewpoint we should try to make these trade agreements as diverse as we can. >> i will start with the second question is no one disagrees with that.

is -- it depends on who. the politically correct answer is no. the reality is yes. negotiators think like that. i used to be a negotiator. poorer countries are not the ones hijacking the system or preventing progress. there are groups that are incapable of moving forward. so why would you divide the trade agreements into a regional that adds to the already heavy burdens on their shoulders, which does have a direct toll? this makes a lot of sense if you think you can engineer an effect on one developing country as opposed to another one. however it is very difficult to do so without having huge collateral damage just happens .o be the majority that is my view.

i would like to raise one issue. there is all this enthusiasm for mega-sectoral and -- agreements, but in many places we forget that what we actually want to do is sectoral trade-offs. case many countries have actually complained that there has not been agricultural liberalization in advanced countries. i heard an economist to said isy lovely that the wto against developing countries, and i think in many senses that is right. .here are always exceptions but we have this whole history youxport restraints that if become competitive in some sector, they were imposed on you by the u.s. and europe. economy, itlitical sounds very good to me to regulate economy to trade

diversion, but the reality is that i don't think that is , and theretable probably will not be very clear rules. it is going to be hard for them to get movement on a lot of these issues, and on other issues they may just agree to not deal with issues like agriculture and the like because they are both very protectionist. i might just point out that we are in the midst of a massive drought in california. so clearly there is some protectionism for agriculture in the u.s.. i don't see how those problems are going to be addressed, and even if they cut a deal how will that multilateral eyes into the wto? on private standards i think creative lawyers -- and i am one of those -- could argue that it is already comment under tdp.

there are standards from nongovernmental bodies that you could go after. on fredericks point, i think you are spot on. if you look at the eu, even in we havewe have -- eu all kinds of provisions that apply to a subset only. it just does not make any sense. >> thanks. it is very important to have multiple speeds. that is the only way you can multilateral eyes --

multilateralize. the structure is open. about, whether there is an incentive to make it possible actually depends on which agreement you are talking about. if it is the tdp, it is not the trade diversion to affect the nonmembers. it is more to attract the members to be part of a deal through agreements that develop value chains, and this is something which the ustr has said many times. ofagree to a certain kind situations which otherwise would not be as attractive. think both of the u.s. and the eu would like

others to follow the system now the system is they would like to emphasize in order to create a fair and level in terms ofd standards on environment and labor. the so-called competitive neutrality conditions. if that is the case, they have andalance those issues greater acceptance by those who are also objective of the entire system. berefore i expect there to some kind of mechanism for this to be extended to include others.

that was actually and advice to q-tip -- ttip negotiators. i think that is very good advice. on the other hand, as far as multilateralization -- when we think of multilateralization we have to think of the poor and then the rest, and then i think the systems -- which are agreed -- you could see what ever it is as ais agreed in ttip recommendation package. there are many ways it could be done provided the free rider problem is addressed. withwill leave everyone the last question that we are not supposed to respond to, but think about it, because the question was how to remake -- how do we make the system

compatible. are we talking about multilateralism things that should not be multilateralist at all? i leave that question with you. and then i will have an announcement by the organizers which is that the luncheon will be held on the second floor in m eagerge and -- george conference room. restrooms on the second floor on the way to lunch. thank you very much. i would like to thank the organizers. [applause] >> more now on the trade agreement with a look at public opinion and the current political environment in the u.s. and european union. this discussion was also from the