USTR Briefing
For any of you who may have missed it,
the main points of the daily USTR briefing were as follows:
Earlier briefing were videoed and can be
viewed on the USTR web-site.
Chris Padilla (? Asst USTR for Public
Liaison) talked about Zoeliick's schedule to start with.
He talked at some length about how agriculture continues to dominate and emphasized that the US is in "problem-solving mode". Described the G-21 proposal as an effort by these countries to avoid lowering their own tariffs and forcing pressure back on the US re export subsidies and trade-distorting domestic support. Said that the US was willing to compromise but that they needed something on developing country market access to be able to sell any agreement to the US Congress.
Chris also reported that the cotton
sectoral initiative was tabled by four African countries last night - USTR
intervened/ argued that it should go further to encompass all apparel,
textile-related areas.
In response to a question from an
American Federation of Teachers' delegate about Labour standards, Chris pointed
out that there was no mention of these issues in the draft ministerial text and
told the NGOs that he thought that "more salesmanship" was required
from them/ labour movement to persuade developing countries to at least engage
on this issue.
Noted the irony of countries like Brazil
(under worker party leadership) being unwilling to even talk about this/seeing
it as a disguised form of protectionism.
Some back and forth between questioners/
USTR on labour standards in Chile/ Singapore agreement - Chris first suggested
that these were "enforceable" - when challenged, he backtracked to
claiming that they fulfilled the mandate given in the 2002 Trade Act.
Chris also noted lack of prospects for
progress also the "new issues" - and that the US would like to see
each one considered separately (also not going to happen).
Next Mark Linscot (trade and environment
negotiator) gave a brief overview of his issues. Spoke in detail about observer
status (I'm assuming for NGOs - kept fading in and out - hard to follow) and
how it was unlikely that the Feb decision to allow observers on an ad hoc basis
would be consolidated into a more predictable process. Noted developing country resistance and how
this is tied up with a broader decision that needs to be made in the General
Council about observer status.
Indicated that some progress had been
made between the EU/US on fishing subsidies and the need to reduce/eliminate
those related to overcapacity. Also
referenced a panel on this by the World Wildlife Fund at the NGO center.
MArk then moved onto the issue of MEAs
and their relationship with WTO rules.
He said that delegates had agreed on a list of 6 MEAs that created
specific state obligations that should be examined in further detail. This
included CITES, the Montreal Protocol, the Rotterdam Convention of Hazardous
Waste etc.
He covered the issue of eco-labeling and
reported that it was still up in the air whether there would be any mention of
this in the declaration. Noted that it
was helpful that the EU had backtracked a great deal from their original
proposal that had been widely rejected by other countries. The EU has proposed
holding 3 dedicated sessions in 2004 on eco-labeling but there remains
significant opposition to highlighting this over issues that delegates feel are
much more important such as TRIPS/ medicines.
Finally, Peter discussed the new process
of environmental reviews of trade negotiations that are mandated by the 2002
Trade Act.
Fiona M. Wright
Research Director
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch