Statement by Secretary of State Clinton, October 12, 2011Footnote 1
Secretary Clinton made these remarks in Washington, DC
Secretary Clinton. The Free Trade Agreements passed by Congress tonight will make it easier for American companies to sell their products to South Korea, Colombia and Panama, which will create jobs here at home. The Obama Administration is constantly working to deepen our economic engagement throughout the world and these agreements are an example of that commitment.
The stakes are not just economic. South Korea, Colombia and Panama are three important partners in strategically vital regions. With the passage of these agreements, America has delivered for our friends and allies. I want to thank Presidents Lee, Santos and Martinelli for their patience and willingness to partner with the Obama Administration as these agreements moved through Congress.
But our work is not yet done. We will not be content until these agreements are fully implemented so that American exporters can reap the benefits as soon as possible.
For more information about the trade agreements, how they will protect workers, and contribute to our economic growth and recovery, please visit the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative's website at www.ustr.gov/FTA.
Statement by Secretary of State Clinton, October 14, 2011Footnote 2
Secretary Hillary Clinton made these remarks in New York
Introductory Remarks Omitted
Secretary Clinton. I know some of you might have wondered: Why is the Secretary of State coming to the New York Economic Club? I could see the Treasury Secretary or the Commerce Secretary or the chair of the Ex-Im Bank, but why is the Secretary of State here? And it is because, as he just said, the economic is strategic and the strategic is economic.
Now I suppose that should go without saying, to some extent, it is true, it has been true, and it will always be true. But there is an urgency to that formulation in this early part of the 21st century that has everything to do with America's leadership now and in the years to come.
It was, after all, Harry Truman who said: “Our relations, foreign and economic, are indivisible.” Because President Truman understood that if America wanted to shape the postwar world, America had to lead—not just diplomatically or militarily, but critically, and maybe most importantly, economically. And so we marshaled our economic strength to rebuild friends and even former enemies, we led the charge to create a new international economic order, and we made the investments we needed here at home to advance our ideals and promote shared prosperity.
Well, today, it's just as true. Our foreign and economic relations remain indivisible. Only now, our great challenge is not deterring any single military foe, but advancing our global leadership at a time when power is more often measured and exercised in economic terms.
Here at home, it's no secret to any of us that these are difficult times for Americans. Families across our country are struggling to get back on their feet after the worst economic downturn in my lifetime. The protests, just a few miles from here, is a reminder to all of us that we have a great deal of work to do. Whether you come from the left or you come from the right, the challenge is how do we all get on the American team? How do we work together to help our country continue to advance and meet the expectations of the American people?
And yet this is not happening in a vacuum. Around the globe, economic forces are transforming foreign policy realities. We have seen governments toppled by economic crisis. Revolutions born in a Tunisian marketplace have swept across an entire region. Europe faces arguably the most severe economic test since the Second World War, thanks to recession and debt. And everywhere I travel, I see countries gaining influence less because of the size of their armies than because of the growth of their economies.
And I don't think I need to tell a roomful of New Yorkers that we still face serious threats. We always will. But we have to position ourselves to lead in a world where security is shaped in boardrooms and on trading floors as well as on battlefields.
Simply put, America's economic strength and our global leadership are a package deal. A strong economy has been a pillar of American power in the world. It gives us the leverage we need to exert influence and advance our interests. It gives other countries the confidence in our leadership and a greater stake in partnering with us. And over time, it underwrites all the elements of smart power: robust diplomacy and development and the strongest military the world has ever seen.
Right now, the challenges of a changing world and the needs of the American people demand that our foreign policy community, as the late Steve Jobs put it, “think different.” Our problems have never respected dividing lines between global economics and international diplomacy. And neither can our solutions. That is why I have put what I call economic statecraft at the heart of our foreign policy agenda. Economic statecraft has two parts: first, how we harness the forces and use the tools of global economics to strengthen our diplomacy and presence abroad; and second, how we put that diplomacy and presence to work to strengthen our economy at home.
Following this speech, tomorrow I am issuing updated instructions on economic statecraft to every single embassy around the world. We have made it a core diplomatic mission to enhance our economic leadership in the world and to drive domestic economic renewal. Under President Obama's leadership, our National Security Strategy is focused on shoring up the sources of our global strength.
Now, it is certainly the case that economic recovery is mostly a matter of domestic policy, political will, and the willingness of the American people to really keep focused on tomorrow. But while our efforts may begin at home, they cannot end there. And today, I want to talk about how we are modernizing our economic statecraft to rise to this challenge.
We simply have to get this right. Because, despite all the problems, the world still looks to America for leadership. In nearly every country I visit, I see what is sometimes missed amid all the noise in Washington: I see the fact that we have a very strong presence, we have still an amazing amount of goodwill and admiration, but we also have doubts—doubts about who we are, about our staying power, about our willingness to lead economically, politically, and every other way.
When I think about the power of our example and the work we do in every country on every continent, I am reminded that we still have the best economic model that remains the single greatest engine of growth and shared prosperity that the world has ever known.
Now, the events of the past week offer a powerful reminder of what's at stake at the intersection of economics and foreign policy. On Tuesday, the Senate passed a bill signaling its concern about misaligned exchange rates around the world, including in China. And on Wednesday, the Congress passed free trade agreements with three critical partners. And throughout the week, our European allies have been in urgent negotiations to stabilize the Eurozone. These economic developments are having a major impact on some of our most important strategic relationships.
This is the fourth in a series of speeches that I've been giving on economic statecraft. In mid-July in Washington, I explained how diplomacy and development contribute to our own economic recovery. In Hong Kong, I laid out our economic values and our expectation that all who benefit from the global economy must respect the rules of fair competition. And in San Francisco, I gave a speech on the role of women in the global economy. And here in New York, I want to talk about how our foreign policy priorities and our capabilities are evolving to meet challenges that are both strategic and economic.
First, we are updating our foreign policy priorities to include economics every step of the way. Emerging powers like India and Brazil put economics at the center of their foreign policies. When their leaders approach an international challenge, just as they do when they approach a domestic challenge, one of the first questions they ask is: How will this affect our economic growth? We need to be asking the same question, not because the answer will dictate every one of our foreign policy choices, it will not, but it must be a significant part of that equation.
Now, there will always be times when we put cost aside to keep Americans safe or to honor our principles. And for the last decade, our foreign policy has, by necessity, focused on the places where we faced the greatest dangers. This week brought a fresh reminder that responding to threats will always be central to our national security. But it cannot be our foreign policy. In the decades ahead, our foreign policy must focus just as intensely on the places where we have the greatest opportunities. And often, those will be economic in nature.
As we end the war in Iraq and begin bringing troops back from Afghanistan, we are making an important pivot. The world's strategic and economic center of gravity is shifting east, and we are focusing more on the Asia Pacific region. One of America's great successes of the past century was to build a strong network of relationships and institutions across the Atlantic—an investment that continues to pay off today. One of our great projects in this century will be to do the same across the Pacific. Our Free Trade Agreement with South Korea, our commitment to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, are clear demonstrations that we are not only a resident military and diplomatic power in Asia, we are a resident economic power and we are there to stay.
Now, of course, Asia's tigers aren't the only large economic cats out there. We are also making it a priority to engage with the Latin American jaguars, if you can call them that, which grew by more than six percent last year. Our free trade agreements with Panama and Colombia move us closer to our ultimate goal of a hemispheric trade partnership reaching from the Arctic to the tip of Argentina. We believe in the power of proximity to turn growth across the Americas into recovery and jobs here in the United States.
We are also committed to strengthening the economic dimensions of our closest relationships. Together, America and Europe account for half of the world's economic output, but just one-third of global trade. We can and we should be trading more. At the Trans-Atlantic Economic Council, too often we re-litigate regulatory differences when we ought to be resolving them and avoiding new ones. And this frustrates companies on both sides of the Atlantic. The Trans-Atlantic Economic Council is the forum where we try to resolve these differences, and I believe harmonizing regulatory schemes between the United States and the EU is one of the best ways we can both enhance growth, enhance exports, and avoid duplicative costs. But if you spend weeks arguing about the size of a jar for baby food, that's not exactly facing up to the potential of the payoff that comes from resolving these issues.
So we need to forge an ambitious agenda for joint economic leadership with Europe that as every bit as compelling as our security cooperation around the world. In every region, we are working to integrate economics into our diplomacy. Even in a U.S.-Russia relationship dominated for decades by politics and security, we are now focused on helping Russia join the World Trade Organization, and we are putting a special premium on protecting freedom of navigation and a rules-based approach to resource development in places like the South China Sea and the Arctic Ocean.
And of course, you can't talk about our economy or foreign policy without talking about energy. With a growing global population and a finite supply of fossil fuels, the need to diversify our supply is urgent. We need to engage traditional exporters and emerging economies alike, to bolster international energy security, and ensure that countries’ natural wealth results in inclusive growth. So we are establishing for the first time in the State Department a Bureau of Energy Resources, to make sure all of our relationships include advancing our vital national interest in a secure, expanding, and ever cleaner source of energy. I plan to address these issues also in a later upcoming speech. But it's important to point out that when we decided, after I commissioned a study about what we were doing well, what we needed to do better, what we needed to add to the portfolio, what we could afford to drop, energy just stood out as an area that we had not focused on in all of its complexity and importance.
As we embrace economic statecraft, it's not just our priorities that are changing. The way we pursue them is evolving as well. And this is my second point. We are honing our ability to develop and execute economic solutions to strategic challenges. A belief in the strategic power of economic forces is not new in American foreign policy. What is new is the reach and complexity of global markets; the expertise, sophistication, and creative cooperation needed across the whole of government for us to remain effective.
Consider the transitions underway in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. If we want to see democracy take root, which we do, we have to bring advanced tools to bear to help countries reform economic systems designed to keep autocrats and elites in power. And we know that aid alone, no matter how generous, is not enough. We need a sophisticated effort to integrate the region's economies, to promote investment, and to assist in economic modernization. This is the logic behind the Middle East proposals that the President laid out in May, which I have been urging Congress to support. To succeed, the Arab political awakening must also be an economic awakening.
We're supplying similar tools in Afghanistan, where any successful endgame requires a viable economic vision that helps stabilize the country and gives its neighbors a greater stake in its success through greater regional trade and integration. And in our development efforts in Africa and elsewhere, where we are insisting that our dollars reinforce, not substitute for, what markets can achieve on their own, we are pushing an investment agenda.
We are aiming for that same market-minded creativity and sophistication in addressing security challenges. When Iran threatens global security or Syria threatens its own people, we are responding with ever more targeted and hard hitting tools, not only sanctions against leaders and generals but more sophisticated measures to cut these regimes off from insurance, banking, and shipping industries as well as the shell companies that they depend on. We are committed to raising the economic cost of unacceptable behavior and denying the resources that make it possible.
If sanctions are among our more powerful sticks, our culture of entrepreneurship is one of our most effective carrots, an often overlooked element of our economic statecraft and a source of American power. At a time when there are compelling visions for the future of the global economy that are competing visions, this is a part of the American brand that speaks to people and wins them over to the values we promote around the world—the free markets, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas. That's one reason we created a global entrepreneurship program that builds networks of innovators in strategic locations around the world. We're very well aware of the fact that we're not only in a political and economic competition; we are in a competition for ideas. If people don't believe that democracy and free markets deliver, then they're going to be looking elsewhere for models that more readily respond to their daily needs.
And we happen to believe that our model is not only the best for us; we think it embodies universal principles, human aspirations, and proven results that make it the best model for any country or people. Now, there can be variations on how it's implemented, but we are in this competition to win it. We want to make clear that it's not only good for America but it's good for the rest of the world to pursue democratic and economic reform.
Third, we are modernizing our agenda on trade, investment, and commercial diplomacy to deliver jobs and growth for the American people. Now, I can imagine that some of you know that we have our work cut out for us there, because what is the connection between what we do in the State Department every day and what is happening here in New York or anywhere else in the country? And I know there are some who believe that America, after taking our lumps in recent years, should turn inward. But we can't call time out in the global economy. Our competitors aren't taking a time out, and neither can we. What we can do is fight to build and enforce a system of rules that apply equally to everyone.
Now, of course, no nation is perfect, including our own. But we don't fear a system that is open, free, transparent, and fair, because we know American companies will thrive when the playing field is level. And a level playing field is not just a timeworn rhetorical device. Countries that benefit because we honor our commitments should know we expect them to honor theirs. That principle must be a cornerstone of our approach to economic statecraft, not an ideal that we strive for case by case but a universal expectation everywhere and always. All who benefit from the rules of the global economy have a responsibility to follow them.
Enough of the world's commerce now takes place with developing nations that exempting them would render the whole system not just unfair but unworkable. And that would end up harming everyone. One example of just such an unsustainable approach is China's currency policy, which does, in fact, cost American jobs, but it also costs Brazilian jobs and German jobs and other jobs, and it denies the Chinese people the full fruits of their own labor. China has been gaming the trading system to hold down the value of its currency to give its companies a leg up. It's currency has appreciated, but not enough. And currency is just one unfair practice.
President Obama has made clear that whatever tools we put in place in response must actually work, and must be consistent with our own international treaties and obligations. At the same time, we need to be assertive in securing the win-win economic relationship we can and should have with China. The State Department is determined to help our companies seize opportunities around the world and bring down the barriers to trade, investment, and fair competition. Our ambassadors are leading whole-of-government efforts to drum up new business and fulfill the goal of doubling America's exports by 2015. Under Secretary Bob Hormats, once very involved in this club, is coordinating with the Export-Import Bank, OPIC, and others to support our investors and exporters in emerging economies.
By passing the trade deals with Panama, Colombia, and South Korea, thanks to the leadership of U.S. Trade Rep Ron Kirk, we are proving that even in today's Washington, leaders from both parties can still come together to deliver results but also to send a message to the rest of the world.
These agreements will allow us to compete in important emerging markets, creating tens of thousands of jobs for the American people. These victories also give us new momentum to take on a broader agenda of promoting fair competition around the world and updating our economic took kit.
So we are moving forward in negotiating a cutting edge multilateral free trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Our goal is not only to lower barriers but to raise the standards of economic competition, from Vietnam to New Zealand to Peru and many places in between. And we will continue to use the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Forum, which President Obama will host next month in Hawaii, to push the envelope on open, free, transparent, and fair trade across the Pacific basin.
Now, we have to be nimble and creative because we are confronting new barriers that are emerging not at borders but behind borders, denying our companies a chance to compete on their merits. And this is not just an issue for trade negotiations; it is a challenge for our diplomacy around the world. For example, when governments impose a so-called tollbooth that forces unfair terms on companies just to enter or expand a new market, we push back. And for me, it's clear that when countries turn a blind eye to piracy or other problems, we have to demand that they protect intellectual property. And our embassies are there on the front lines. We step in when we see corruption, red tape, or bullying of small or medium-sized businesses.
And when companies want to compete, then countries have to open up their government contracts and not just expect us to open ours. We are pushing the procurement—the international procurement standards so that it's not just, again, a oneway street. Because when American companies are not given a chance to compete fairly, that costs us jobs at home. Just as the WTO eliminated the most harmful tariffs in the 1990s, today we need institutions that can provide solutions to these new market distortions that go beyond tariffs. Countries that share the same economic values need to create and enforce new agreements and mechanisms to guarantee fair competition.
And let me speak briefly about one barrier we urgently need to address, and that is the participation of women in the global economy. Because when half of the world isn't invited, that makes a mockery of the ideal of free, open, and fair economic competition. According to the economists over the last decade, women's increased participation in the global labor market in the developed world accounted for a greater share of global growth than China's.
So this is not just about somebody else; it's about all of us, to keep tearing down these walls that prevent business and individuals from seeking their own full potential. But it's not just enough for us to defend against bad behavior and barriers that block people and companies from global competition. We have to get better at playing offense. Every year, the population of the world's cities grows by 65 million people. That's the equivalent of seven Chicagos. The idea of a new world order with seven Mayor Rahm Emanuels should be enough to get all of us moving.
American businesses, though, have a major opportunity to help build new ports, stadiums, and highways, and to shape the sustainable cities of the future. I've asked Assistant Secretary Jose Fernandez to help American companies compete where growth is the fastest.
It's also not enough for our commercial diplomacy to promote the flow of goods and services. We also need to promote the free flow of capital, too. Investment in both directions, backed by well-enforced rules, is vital to creating growth and jobs here at home. For example, last year, the Kentucky-based company that owns KFC and Pizza Hut, two iconic American brands, actually made more money selling pizza and fried chicken in China than in the United States. But this creates jobs at headquarters in Louisville and it creates jobs as well in China. When Tom Friedman warns that the Chinese will “eat our lunch,” I'm not sure that's what he had in mind.
But it is true that we expect fair treatment for our investors overseas. And if we do that, we have to welcome foreign investment in America. Through the President's Job Council, which I chaired a meeting of last week, and a whole of government paradigm called SelectUSA, we are focused on attracting billions of dollars of new investment to create American jobs. The State Department and the U.S. Trade Representative's Office will also lead negotiations on next-generation of bilateral investment treaties, the so-called BITs that protect and encourage investment. And I am pleased to announce we will soon resume technical level discussions on a new BIT with India.
To make the most of open markets, however, we have to make sure that all companies play by the same rules, whether their owners sit in corporate boardrooms or government ministries. Now, let's just be very clear here: Too often, national favorites enjoy preferential access to government resources and special protection from competition in their markets. That gives these companies, whether they are wholly owned or partially owned by a government, an unfair advantage and harms foreign competitors and local entrepreneurs alike. We are working to include a chapter on state-owned enterprises in the Trans-Pacific Partnership and to finalize new OECD guidelines. Our premise is simple; the rules must apply equally to all companies. We call this commonsense principle competitive neutrality, and we promote it all over the world.
But these challenges to our economic interests are not the whole story. My fourth point is that we also confront a special set of strategic challenges from the growing wealth in state hands today. Governments are entering markets directly through their cash reserves, natural resources, and businesses they own and control. And they are shaping these markets not just for profit, but to build and exercise power on behalf of the state.
Now, there is nothing new about countries using economic power to force others to bend to their will. But today the resources at their disposal are unprecedented, and interconnected global markets present new avenues to deploy them. A decade ago, the governments of emerging nations added a combined $100 billion a year to their reserves. In 2009, they took in $1.6 trillion. Sovereign wealth funds now control 12 percent of investment worldwide.
And increasingly, state-owned and state-supported enterprises operate not just in their home markets, but around the globe, sometimes in secrecy, often lacking transparency and accountability that would come from shareholders and regulatory schemes and boards. We also see hybrid companies masquerading as commercial actors, but actually controlled by states and acting with strategic consequences. The dividing lines just aren't clear anymore.
When states participate in markets directly or through the companies they own and control, their behavior is often benign. They are doing what they say they are doing, making an investment. Sometimes it's even beneficial, as when energy suppliers work with consumers to stabilize global markets; sometimes, but not always. We also see states bullying their neighbors. For example, national oil companies tightening gas supplies in the dead of winter. Or they restrict access to critical minerals after a dispute.
The way states deploy their cash, companies, and natural resources, especially in global markets, is of critical concern to us, and I hope it will be also to you. We need, therefore, to develop international rules and norms that set the boundaries, police bad behavior, and require transparency so that state-owned entities are clear about their intentions and their actions.
As we respond to this challenge, however, we must not respond in kind. When the international community grew worried about sovereign wealth funds, countries, institutions, and the funds themselves came together to agree on the Santiago Principles, a code of conduct designed to reassure all stakeholders that these funds would act responsibly. Today we need to broaden that discussion, to seek similar commitments, perhaps even binding agreements, about the behavior and intentions of state-owned companies. And this is an ambitious agenda, and we need to ensure that the State Department and the U.S. Government are on the right footing to get it done.
After 9/11, we realized that we had to break down the silos that prevented our intelligence and law enforcement agencies from working together. Today, many of the responsibilities of economic statecraft are similarly split among many government agencies. So we all need to bring our unique strengths to the same table. And under the leadership of the President and the White House, we are taking part in a genuine whole of government effort.
For our part, the State Department has talented, tireless diplomats engaged in economic outreach around the world. At every level, we are trying to up our game. We are reorganizing to break down old bureaucratic silos, creating a new under secretariat for economic growth, energy, and environment, and appointing the first-ever chief economist to the State Department. We will also do more to train our diplomats to understand economics, finance, and markets, and more to promote those who do. We should be aiming for universal economic literacy and widespread expertise. We need to be a Department where more people can read both Foreign Affairs and a Bloomberg Terminal.
Finally, let me underscore that for all that we can do beyond our borders, the choices that we make here at home will be most crucial to shoring up the source of our leadership. And it's not only choices by our government and our political leaders; it's also choices by our businesses. We need to recognize that our dependence on imported oil and our national debt are foreign policy challenges, not just economic ones. In the short term, they create volatility and give others leverage against us. In the long term, they pose a generational challenge to our global leadership.
We are working to respond with new thinking and a renewed sense of common purpose to get our economy growing, modernize our infrastructure, bring down our debt.
And as we do, we must resist the temptation to slash our investments—not only our investments in infrastructure, education, R&D, but also in diplomacy and development. As I've said before and I'll repeat again today, the one percent of our budget that we spend on diplomacy and development is not driving our deficit or our debt. Either we invest now in what keeps us safe and secure, or we should expect to pay the costs of living in a more dangerous and economically more chailenging world. I don't think that is a choice we can afford.
Washington has to end the culture of political brinksmanship, which, I can tell you, raises questions around the world about our leadership. When I was in Hong Kong, I was just barraged by questions about what I thought would be the outcome of the debt ceiling negotiations. And having been around Washington now for longer than I care to admit, I was able to assure all of the business leaders and government leaders that we would get to a solution probably at the very end. And like Winston Churchill said, we have the best system, but we didn't get to a solution until we exhausted every other alternative.
And that American democracy will always be a little messy—that goes with who we are. But that messiness cannot outweigh the imperative of delivering results. We have to recognize every decision we make now in this totally 24/7 interconnected world is followed around the world. A lot of people don't understand our system very well, but when they see that we can't make decisions on something as fundamental as to whether the United States of America will default on our debt, you've got to know it raises questions in their minds about where we're headed as a nation.
But as I say, it's not only our government; our businesses also need to lead. Many companies today are sitting on large cash reserves. And in many countries I visit, leaders ask me, “Where are the American businesses? How come they're not here competing for this contract, for this mining deal, for this business opportunity?” Well, we are working to create an environment where American companies, large and small, at home and abroad, have the tools and the confidence to go full-bore. But ultimately, it's up to all of you, businesses yourselves, to hire, invest, take the kinds of informed risks that have always been essential to America's success.
Yesterday, at the state lunch for the Korean president, I sat with a group of American businesses who do business in Korea, and we started talking about this. And one of them said—one of the business leaders there said, “There's a lot of risks in the global economy today, and we have to evaluate those risks because we owe our shareholders a very well-thought-through investment policy.” He said, “But there's also a new element.” He said, “We now feel like we're competing not only against other companies; we're competing against countries.”
And it's the obvious countries that we all know, where state-owned enterprises or hybrids are out there competing, but it's also other countries that are much more on the same team between business and government, and we need to be back on the same American team. We have to work together to address these challenges.
In the 1990s, businesses used their supply chains to take on the problem of child labor in the developing world, and it was American businesses that began to change the terrible picture of five-, seven-, nine-year-old children in what amounted to forced labor. Today, I am encouraged that a new coalition of major companies is coming together to keep global supply chains free of pirated software and counterfeit goods. That gives innovators their rightful reward, but it also creates American jobs. Because nobody outworks us, and nobody out-innovates us. We just have to be out there competing to deliver what we do best.
To be sure, the challenges facing our companies, our government, and our people are sizeable. But this is not the first time that America has faced adversity, and we have to be just prepared to get out there and fight hard for what we know we can achieve. We have to overcome our adversity at home and around the world.
You see, I believe confidence is a commodity, and we need to remember that at our very best, America remains the opportunity society. A place of idealism, possibility, and pragmatism, a country where an idea hatched in a college dorm room or a garage can still grow and flourish into a multibillion-dollar business. And I also believe that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths. No place in the world shows that better than New York. America today is as well positioned as any nation to adapt and thrive amidst all of this complex change. And just as we always have, we will seek our success in a way that helps others succeed as well.
Because I know that somewhere in New York or elsewhere in America today, somebody is creating a business with an idea that could be a billion-dollar company if that idea can find its way into the marketplace. I know that somewhere in the developing world, there's an entrepreneur who could succeed if they're given a chance and then to keep trying even if they fail at first. And I know that in some of the places we're following most carefully in the news, Middle East and North Africa, we have to help create that culture of entrepreneurship that will give people a belief in themselves and the possibility that they, too, can have a better life.
Everywhere across this country, we have hardworking, talented people who are ready to be part of America's recovery. It is my commitment that our economic statecraft will help Americans first and foremost live up to their own God-given potentials and then spread that opportunity society broadly.
America's core belief that everyone should have the chance to succeed is one we've come closer to meeting than any country, ever, and we cannot afford to lose that. So in the century ahead, we need to make it true that for every American, and hopefully, eventually for every person around the globe, we're going to build a stronger economy that will provide more prosperity more broadly. We will rise to this challenge, we will answer the questions that are being asked around kitchen tables and cooking fires, and we will ensure that American leadership will be there for decades and decades to come. And not only will that be good for America, but it is my conviction it is absolutely essential for the world we want to live in. Thank you very much.
Remarks by President Obama and Korean President Lee, October 14, 2011Footnote 3
President Barack Obama and President Lee Myung-bak gave these remarks in Detroit, Michigan
President Obama. Hello, Detroit! Hello! Everybody, please have a seat, have a seat. It is great to be back in the Motor City. I notice the mood is a little brighter on this particular visit. I'd like to think it's because everybody is excited about the Korea Free Trade Agreement, but I suspect it might just have a little bit to do with your Lions beating up on my Bears. All right, all right, all right. Don't get carried away now. Not to mention your Tigers hanging in there last night.
As you can see, President Lee is a pretty good politician. He knows how to get on your good side. Today I brought a good friend and one of our closest allies, President Lee of South Korea. Some of you may know, President Lee has got a remarkable story. He grew up a little ways from Detroit, but he embodies that same spirit that Detroit is all about. Through sheer grit and determination, he worked his way from the humblest beginnings. The South Korea of his childhood was an extraordinarily poor country. But he worked his way up, worked his way up, went to school while cleaning streets, and eventually went on to run a Hyundai machinery plant—so he knows a little bit about cars—then the whole company, and ultimately was elected the President of the Republic of Korea. And this is a country that's staged one of the world's greatest economic comebacks that we've ever seen.
So President Lee knows what it's like to go through tough times. He knows what it's like when folks have counted you out. And he knows what it's like to make a big comeback.
So with that, I want to welcome President Lee to Detroit and have him say just a few words.
President Lee. Thank you. Folks, I'm a little bit shorter than President Obama, so I'm going to adjust the microphone. I hope you'll understand.
Well, first of all, ladies and gentlemen, it's a great pleasure visiting your factory here in Detroit along with one of my closest friends, President Obama.
Well, folks, as you know, the global economy is going through some tough times, and so there's one thing on the minds of both President Obama and I, and that is jobs. It is about creating good, decent jobs, and it is about keeping those jobs. And this is what keeps us awake.
Ladies and gentlemen, before I came here to see you, I just had a brief tour given to me by the members of this factory and I heard about the history, and I also heard about the danger of how this factory was on the brink of being closed. But now, as you can see, we have so many people here, like all of you here working here and earning a good living. And I think more than anyone else here in this factory, I think it's President Obama who's the happiest man to see this factory being so energetic and enthusiastic.
Ladies and gentlemen, it was three years ago when I first met with President Obama, and back then I still remember how we talked about a lot of things. And one of the things that was on President Obama's mind was how to revive the U.S. automotive industry. Because we all know that the U.S. automotive industry was, and is, the leader in the world, and President Obama was concerned what he can do to revive Motor City and the United States automotive industry. And we talked a lot about that. And, folks, I know a few things about automobiles because back when I was in the private sector, I used to build cars myself. So I know a thing or two about automobiles, and I think perhaps this was the reason why President Obama raised the subject. But we talked a lot about how to revive the U.S. automobile industry.
Ladies and gentlemen, President Obama just briefly talked about my past, how I really worked hard throughout my life. And I was once just like you—I did work in factories, and I was also in the boardroom, as well, as a CEO of one of the largest companies in Korea. But one thing I learned throughout my experience in my life is this: During times of challenges, when you're faced with difficulties and if you want to create good jobs and maintain these good jobs, there's only one thing and the surest way to do that is for the workers and for the managers to work together. It is about cooperating together, and that is the surest way to ensure good jobs and for you to keep your jobs.
And, ladies and gentlemen, we are here with President Obama because when I was a worker I knew that, more than anything, for all of us to enjoy good life is for all of us to have a good, decent job. And I know how important it is for anyone to have a good, decent job. And the factory here—as I was looking around, I felt once again how important it is for all of us to work together because I know that three years ago GM Korea and GM Orion, you guys worked together to set up this factory. And today, you are building models here and you're manufacturing cars that three years ago, GM Korea and your company has been working together. And that is the reason why I came here, so I can see with my own eyes the good work that all of you are doing here.
Folks, when I was President, as soon as I became President of Korea, I visited a GM Korea factory not once, but twice, which was quite unusual for the President of Korea to do so. But I came here today—and as I watch the factory and I took on a tour, I was very, very—deeply impressed by the way you're operating this factory. I was impressed by the fact that this factory is very pro-environment. You take care of the environment. Also you've adopted the latest IT technology so that efficiency is up. You have the highest standards, and you're building excellent cars here in this factory. And I am confident that this factory is going to continue, and it's going to make good cars, and your lives are going to be good. And I'm sure—and I'm confident in the future.
Lastly, folks, I just want to say one thing before I go. As you know, the KORUS FTA will soon be implemented. I know, folks, that some of you here may think that with the implementation of the KORUS FTA, that somehow your jobs may be exported or go somewhere else. But let me tell you one thing—that is not true. I am here with President Obama today because I want to give this promise to you, and that is that the KORUS FTA will not take away any of your jobs. Rather it will create more jobs for you and your family, and it is going to protect your jobs. And this is the pledge that I give you today.
Soon, folks, Motor City is going to come back again, and it's going to revive its past glory. And I have all the confidence in the world that you are going to do that. Thank you.
President Obama. Give President Lee a big round of applause.
All right. Well, thank you, President Lee.
Thank you, to everybody who has joined us here today. A couple of people I just want to mention. First of all, the CEO of General Motors, Dan Ackerson, is here. Where is Dan? There he is. The UAW President, one of the key people who helped make this agreement possible— that is my dear friend, Bob King. And my U.S. Trade Representative, who spent a lot of long nights with his Korean counterpart—Ron Kirk is in the house.
I just want to follow up President Lee's remarks with a few words about what the Korea Free Trade Agreement will mean for American jobs and for the American economy. In the last decade, we became a country that was known for what we bought and what we consumed. And a whole bunch of goods poured in here from all around the world, and we spent a lot of money and took on a lot of debt, in a lot of cases, to buy those goods. But it didn't necessarily produce a lot of jobs here in the United States.
So when I took office, I was determined to rebuild this economy based on what this country has always done best—not just buying and consuming, but building; making things, selling those goods all around the world, stamped with three proud words: Made in America. And that's why one of the first decisions that I made as President was to save the U.S. auto industry from collapse.
There were a lot of politicians who said it wasn't worth the time and wasn't worth the money. In fact, there are some politicians who still say that. Well, they should come tell that to the workers here at Orion.
President Obama. Because two years ago it looked like this plant was going to have to shut its doors. All these jobs would have been lost. The entire community would have been devastated. And the same was true for communities all across the Midwest. And I refused to let that happen.
So we made a deal with the auto companies. We said if you're willing to retool and restructure, get more efficient, get better, get smarter, then we're going to invest in your future—because we believe in American ingenuity. Most importantly, we believe in American workers. And today, I can stand here and say that the investment paid off. The hundreds of thousands of jobs that have been saved made it worth it.
President Obama. An American auto industry that's more profitable and competitive than it's been in years made it worth it. The taxpayers are being repaid. Plants like this are churning out groundbreaking fuel-efficient cars like the Chevy Sonic—the only one of its kind that's made and sold in the United States of America.
And for folks who haven't tried it, you've got to sit in that car. There's a lot of room in there. Felt—even for a pretty tall guy like me, I felt pretty good. They took away the keys, though. Secret Service wouldn't let me—I checked in the dash. It wasn't there.
Now, here's the thing. We live in a global economy, and that means most of the potential customers for American companies like GM won't just be here in the United States; they'll be all around the world. And the more goods and services we sell abroad, the more jobs we create here at home.
In fact, every $1 billion in exports supports thousands of American jobs. And that's why I've set a goal of doubling our exports—and that's a goal that we're on track to meet. That's why we worked with Panama and Colombia, as well as South Korea, to resolve outstanding issues with these trade agreements, and that's why I pushed Congress to pass them as soon as possible.
Now, Korea is one that is critically important, because understand Korea has 50 million people; it's one of the fastest-growing countries in the world. It's one of our closest allies and our closest friends. And—President Lee and I talked about this when we had dinner the other night— our trade is basically balanced between the United States and Korea. They buy as much stuff from us as they sell to us—and that's how fair and free trade is supposed to be. It's not a one-sided proposition. That's how trade is supposed to be. And I know President Lee doesn't mind me saying this, even though he's a Hyundai guy. If Americans can buy Kias and Hyundais from Korea, then I know Koreans should be able to buy some Fords and Chryslers and Chevys that are made right here in the United States of America.
The other thing that happened was—this took a little longer than some people expected because I wasn't going to sign just any trade deal. President Lee wasn't either. We had to work hard to reach an understanding. It was like a scene from a GM dealership, where folks are negotiating about the heated seats and the extended warranty, and you're going back and forth and trying to figure how does it fit together so that it works for everybody. But when all was said and done, President Lee and I walked away with a trade agreement that is a win-win for both of our countries.
Here in the United States, this trade agreement will support at least 70,000 American jobs. It will increase exports. It will boost our economy by more than our last nine trade agreements combined. And as I said, the good thing is we've got a balanced situation. It's not just a matter of folks sending a bunch of stuff here. Koreans are also buying American products. That's what makes it a win-win.
And by the way, I also held out on sending this agreement to Congress until they promised to renew a law called the TAA—Trade Adjustment Assistance—that helps American workers who've been affected by global competition so that they are able to help transition.
Now, it's because of all these benefits— it's because of all these benefits that this trade agreement won the support of business and labor, from automakers and auto workers, from Democrats and Republicans. That doesn't happen very often. And it was good to finally see both parties in Congress come together and pass legislation that is good for the American people—an agreement that will not only build on our strong economic relationship that's been existing for years to come, but also promises, as we've seen at this plant, the capacity for us to exchange ideas and technologies and systems, which will improve productivity on both sides.
Nearly a decade ago, when a Korean business named Daewoo Motors went bankrupt, it was General Motors that stepped in and saved that company, which is now known as GM Korea. And years later, it was the engineers from GM Korea who helped make the Chevy Sonic possible, and the collaboration with that company that's helped save this plant and these 17,050—1,750 jobs.
So on a larger scale, the closer economic ties between the United States and Korea are going to lead to more jobs, more opportunity for both nations. Already, Korean investment—and by the way, it's not just in the auto industry. Already, Korean investment is creating jobs here in Michigan, with LG Chem planning to make lithium ion batteries in Holland, Michigan; and Hyundai manufacturing suspension modules in Detroit; and Mando opening a new research and development center for brakes and steering in Novi. In Korea, American businesses are going to be pursuing those same investments and opportunities. So it's truly a win-win for everybody involved.
So I just want to say thank you to President Lee for his cooperation and for his leadership. I want to thank the members of Congress who fought so hard to get this done—especially the delegation from this state. I want to especially thank the people of Detroit for proving that, despite all the work that lies ahead, this is a city where a great American industry is coming back to life—and the industries of tomorrow are taking root, and a city where people are dreaming up ways to prove all the skeptics wrong and write the next proud chapter in the Motor City's history.
And that's why I came here today. Because for every cynic that's out there running around saying it can't be done, there are a whole bunch of folks that are saying, “Yes, we can.”
Yes, times are tough. Times are tough and they've been tougher in Detroit than just about anyplace else. But we've made it through tough times before. We do not quit. We've rolled up our sleeves. We remembered our history. And we said to ourselves there's nothing that we cannot do when we're willing to do it together.
You are all a testimony to the American spirit. These cars are a testimony to the American spirit. And if we can take that same spirit and apply it across the board to all the challenges we face, there is nothing that we cannot do.
God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. Thank you.
Remarks by Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Liser for African Affairs, November 4, 2011Footnote 4
Representative Florie Liser made the following remarks in Tanzania
Today, the United States launched exploratory discussions during a meeting with the East African Community (EAC) in Arusha on a potential new trade and investment partnership. Ambassador Alfonso Lenhardt, the U.S. Ambassador to Tanzania who is also accredited as the U.S. Ambassador to the EAC, opened the meeting. Assistant United States Trade Representative for African Affairs, Florie Liser, led an interagency team of representatives from the Departments of State, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), in the day-long consultations.
Representative Liser. The possibility of a new trade and investment partnership between the East African Community and the United States has generated a high level of interest and excitement on both sides. This excitement is largely due to the recognition that greater trade and investment between the United States and the East African Community has the potential to increase economic prosperity and create jobs in America as well as in the EAC member countries.
The EAC Partner States include Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Uganda. Total two-way goods trade between the United States and the EAC was $1.1 billion in 2010, with $632 million in U.S. exports and U.S. imports totaling $437 million. Kenya was by far the United States’ top trading partner within the EAC with two-way trade totaling $656 million, followed by Tanzania with $201 million, Uganda with $143 million, Rwanda with $51 million and Burundi with $17 million. Top U.S. exports to EAC countries were machinery, aircraft, and used clothing last year. Top imports included coffee, apparel, nuts, and semi-precious stones.
Today's meeting follows on a proposal made by United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk to the EAC Secretariat and Partner States at the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) Forum in Lusaka, Zambia earlier this year. At the Forum, Ambassador Kirk proposed a new partnership between the United States and the EAC that would include the exploration of a regional investment treaty, creation of trade enhancing agreements in areas such as trade facilitation, and the development of stronger commercial engagement between the United States and the EAC. During the meeting in Arusha today, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Liser discussed the United States’ proposal in greater detail and solicited views from the EAC.
As part of her visit to the EAC this week, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative Liser and the rest of the U.S. delegation also visited Uganda on November 3rd and will be in Burundi on November 7th to discuss bilateral trade and investment issues, as well as the proposed U.S.-EAC trade and investment partnership.
Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, November 11, 2011Footnote 5
Ambassador Ron Kirk made these remarks in Honolulu, Hawaii
Ambassador Kirk. The United States welcomes Prime Minister Noda's important announcement expressing Japan's intention to begin consultations with Trans-Pacific Partnership countries towards joining the TPP negotiations. In close consultation with Congress and our domestic stakeholders, we look forward to engaging with the Japanese in these discussions. To join the negotiations, Japan must be prepared to meet the TPP's high standards for liberalizing trade and to address specific issues of concern to the United States regarding barriers to agriculture, services, and manufacturing trade, including non-tariff measures. Japan's interest in the TPP demonstrates the economic and strategic importance of this initiative to the region.
Press Release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, November 12, 2011Footnote 6
The leaders of the nine Trans-Pacific Partnership countries released this as a joint statement
We, the Leaders of Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam, are pleased to announce today the broad outlines of a Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement among our nine countries. We are delighted to have achieved this milestone in our common vision to establish a comprehensive, next-generation regional agreement that liberalizes trade and investment and addresses new and traditional trade issues and 21st-century challenges. We are confident that this agreement will be a model for ambition for other free trade agreements in the future, forging close linkages among our economies, enhancing our competitiveness, benefitting our consumers and supporting the creation and retention of jobs, higher living standards, and the reduction of poverty in our countries.
Building on this achievement and on the successful work done so far, we have committed here in Honolulu to dedicate the resources necessary to conclude this landmark agreement as rapidly as possible. At the same time, we recognize that there are sensitive issues that vary for each country yet to be negotiated, and have agreed that together, we must find appropriate ways to address those issues in the context of a comprehensive and balanced package, taking into account the diversity of our levels of development. Therefore, we have instructed our negotiating teams to meet in early December of this year to continue their work and furthermore to schedule additional negotiating rounds for 2012.
We are gratified by the progress that we are now able to announce toward our ultimate goal of forging a pathway that will lead to free trade across the Pacific. We share a strong interest in expanding our current partnership of nine geographically and developmentally diverse countries to others across the region. As we move toward conclusion of an agreement, we have directed our negotiating teams to continue talks with other trans-Pacific partners that have expressed interest in joining the TPP in order to facilitate their future participation.
Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Kirk and U.S. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Hamburg, November 12, 2011Footnote 7
Ambassador Ron Kirk and Commissioner Dr. Margaret Hamburg gave the following remarks in Honolulu, Hawaii
On the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings being held this week in Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk welcomed the news that an innovative public private partnership has pledged $1 million for the creation of the world's first Global Food Safety Fund for capacity building. To be managed by the World Bank, the proposed fund will leverage the tripartite approach pioneered in APEC that enlists a wide range of stakeholders in training programs designed to enhance food safety and to facilitate trade. These programs will enable more growers, more producers, and more food safety officials to understand and utilize preventive controls—resulting in safer food for consumers, and fewer safety incidents in food trade.
Ambassador Kirk. I am pleased that such a wide range of stakeholders has come together in APEC to advance this ground-breaking approach to strengthening global food supply chains. The creation of a Global Food Safety Fund will help prevent food safety incidents, protect public health, and lead to greater confidence in trade, thereby creating a more prosperous region. I expect that this powerful collaboration among food safety officials, industry experts, academics and other stakeholders can have an enduring impact on food trade, as well as on public health and food security, and I encourage continued efforts by these stakeholders to mobilize additional resources towards these goals.
The creation of a Global Food Safety Fund has been made possible by generous seed money from the private sector, including Mars Incorporated and Waters Corporation, as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development. Once implemented, it will take forward the strong collaboration between APEC Food Safety Cooperation Forum and the World Bank, which was formalized through a Memorandum of Understanding signed at the APEC meetings in Big Sky, Montana in May 2011. This collaboration seeks to improve food safety competencies, laboratory proficiency, and risk-based management systems in APEC economies and then, globally. These goals support “Feed the Future,” the U.S. global hunger and food security initiative, which supports countries in developing their agriculture sectors as a catalyst to generate broad-based economic growth that increases incomes and reduces hunger. USTR is a Feed the Future partners. The goals also support the Obama Administration's food safety regulatory objectives:
Commissioner Hamburg. It is truly gratifying to see the great progress that has been made since Big Sky. The food supply is global. Even a single food safety incident can have a significant worldwide impact. This calls for a new strategy, one being pursued by the FDA. We must help build strong food safety systems around the world, and create global coalitions of regulators and information networks that promote prevention-focused, risk-based assignment of resources and leverage the efforts of public and private partners. This partnership is a step in that direction.
The APEC Food Safety Cooperation Forum and its Partnership Training Institute Network have been working to develop reproducible training modules that address high priority food safety issues since 2008. The Partnership Training Institute Network was a U.S.-led initiative endorsed by APEC Leaders in 2008. Additional information is available at http://fscf-ptin.apec.org.
Ambassador Kirk also noted that advancing regulatory cooperation and convergence are key priorities for the United States during its APEC host year, and called the work of the Food Safety Cooperation Forum and its Partnership Training Institute Network an example of the regulatory cooperation that the United States would like to see across APEC.
Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, November 13, 2011Footnote 8
Ambassador Ron Kirk gave the following remarks in Honolulu on the signing of a trade agreement between the U.S. and the Philippines
Today on the margins of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum in Honolulu, Hawaii, United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Philippine Secretary of Trade and Industry Gregory Domingo signed a customs administration and trade facilitation agreement between the United States and the Philippines, demonstrating our countries’ commitment to improving our trade relationship. The agreement includes specific commitments on trade facilitation, including on simplified customs procedures and transparency of customs administration, which will promote increased bilateral trade, benefitting both the United States and the Philippines. The Philippines is already an important U.S. trading partner, with two-way goods and services trade last year of $20 billion.
Ambassador Kirk. The Philippines is a vital market for U.S. exporters seeking to sell Made-in-America products overseas and support jobs here at home. This agreement is a meaningful step in our efforts to elevate the U.S.-Philippine trade relationship. The commitments in this Protocol will provide transparency and consistency for our exporters, including small and medium-sized businesses. We hope this step will expand trade and boost job creation in both our countries.
Also today, Ambassador Kirk briefed Secretary Domingo on progress being made in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, an ambitious regional agreement that the United States and eight other Asia-Pacific countries are negotiating and in which the Philippines has expressed interest. Conclusion of this customs administration and trade facilitation agreement can be a building block toward Philippine participation in the TPP; it includes high standard commitments similar to those being negotiated in the customs chapter of the TPP agreement. The two ministers also looked forward to Secretary Clinton's upcoming visit to the Philippines to launch the U.S.-Philippines Partnership for Growth, an initiative aimed at supporting broad-based economic growth in the Philippines and policy reform in areas that would better position the Philippines to join the TPP in the future.
Press Release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, November 13, 2011Footnote 9
Ambassador Ron Kirk gave the following remarks in Honolulu, Hawaii
Ambassador Kirk. The United States welcomes the interest of Canada and Mexico, our neighbors and largest export markets, in seeking to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks. We look forward to initiating consultations with them and with Congress and our domestic stakeholders and to discussing the TPP's high standards for liberalizing trade and specific issues of concern to the United States. These will include stronger protection of intellectual property rights, additional specific opportunities for U.S. goods, services, and investment, and the elimination of various non-tariff barriers. Along with Japan's similar announcement this week, the desire of these North American nations to consult with TPP partners demonstrates the broadening momentum and dynamism of this ambitious effort toward economic integration across the Pacific.
Remarks by U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, Secretary of Commerce Bryson, and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack, November 21, 2011Footnote 10
Ambassador Ron Kirk and Secretaries John Bryson and Tom Vilsack made the following remarks in Chengdu, China
Today marked the conclusion of the 22nd session of the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT) in Chengdu, China. United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk and U.S. Secretary of Commerce John Bryson co-chaired the JCCT along with Chinese Vice Premier Wang Qishan. U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack also participated in the discussions.
Ambassador Kirk, Secretary Bryson, and Secretary Vilsack announced meaningful progress on key elements of the U.S.-China trade relationship but also underscored that much more work remains to be done to open China's market to U.S. exports and investment. Today's progress will help boost U.S. exports and jobs through the removal of important barriers related to electric vehicles, strengthened measures to eliminate discriminatory indigenous innovation policies, and stricter enforcement of intellectual property rights in China.
Ambassador Kirk. The JCCT gives us a mechanism to address the toughest issues in our trade relationship, and we must judge it by our ability to make concrete progress. We have reached agreement on a number of important outcomes, though we had hoped to accomplish even more. In our discussions with our Chinese counterparts, we spoke frankly about the need to redouble our efforts going forward.
Secretary Bryson. Both sides worked hard to produce some meaningful progress that will help provide a needed boost to U.S. exports and jobs. This is a step in the right direction. But we must continue to actively engage our Chinese counterparts to open additional opportunities for U.S. businesses.
Secretary Vilsack. China is one of the most important agricultural trade partners for the United States and the meetings and discussions in recent days have helped to strengthen this partnership and build greater export opportunities for our farmers, ranchers and growers. We intend to continue these discussions in the months ahead on beef and other agricultural products to break down additional trade barriers so Chinese consumers can benefit from the high quality products that are produced in America.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
China agreed to make a significant systemic change in its enforcement of intellectual property rights. Through a high-level central government enforcement structure led by Vice Premier Wang Qishan, China will make permanent its 2010 Special IPR Campaign. China will continue high-level involvement that will enhance its ability to crack down on intellectual property rights infringement.
In addition, China's leadership committed to increased political accountability— the performance of provincial level officials will be measured based on enforcement of intellectual property rights in their regions.
Secretary Bryson. For the first time, China will establish a permanent leadership structure to enforce intellectual property rights. As enforcement becomes effective, those who infringe will no longer be able to lay low until a crackdown is over and then simply resume their illegal activities.
In addition, Vice Premier Wang Qishan personally committed to continue the software legalization program. Specifically, he committed to ensure that the provincial legalization efforts would be concluded by the middle of 2012 and at the local and municipal levels by the end of 2013.
The Chinese government also agreed to continue working to develop solutions to combat the sale of infringing goods on the Internet, while at the same time moving forward to develop additional protections for legitimate trademarks. All of China's commitments on intellectual property rights will enhance the protection of U.S. innovative products and promote job creation in the United States.
Indigenous Innovation
China also announced a new high-level central government mandate requiring provincial and local governments—by December 1st 2011—to eliminate any policies that are not consistent with President Hu's commitment to sever the link between China's innovation policies and government procurement.
Ambassador Kirk. This issue has been a top priority of the American business community. We are continuing to press China to eliminate any other policies that discriminate against foreign intellectual property.
Electric Vehicles
China confirmed that it does not and will not require foreign automakers to transfer technology to Chinese enterprises nor to establish Chinese brands in order to invest and sell in China's fast-growing market. China also confirmed that foreign-invested enterprises are eligible on an equal basis for electric vehicle subsidies and other incentive programs for electric vehicles.
Ambassador Kirk. I am pleased that China specifically confirmed it would not force U.S. auto manufacturers to transfer electric vehicle technology to Chinese partners.
Agriculture
USDA and China's Ministry of Agriculture are finalizing the framework of a five-year strategic plan focused on food security, food safety and sustainable agriculture to build a stronger foundation for critical cooperation in agriculture. In discussions also including the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, progress was made on beef market access. The parties agreed to expand discussion beyond technical to the conditions that include scope of products available in the market. China also committed to make progress on removing avian influenza-related bans affecting several U.S. states, to finalize work on a longstanding market access request for U.S. pears, and to complete work on a new dairy certificate to maintain existing market access.
Investment
Secretary Bryson. U.S. firms can compete and win when they enjoy non-discriminatory access in China. In today's meeting, China committed to create a fair and level playing field for all companies in its strategic emerging industries, including clean energy, biotech, and new generation information technologies. A strong business presence in China helps create more opportunities for exports from the United States, supporting good jobs at home.
According to published reports, in the next five years, China plans to invest $1.5 trillion in its strategic emerging industries which China defines as high-end equipment manufacturing, energy-saving and environmentally friendly technologies, biotechnologies, new generation information technologies, alternative energy, advanced materials and new energy vehicles.
Tourism
China expanded the U.S.-China Tourism Memorandum of Understanding to three additional provinces for a total of 27 provinces. Spending by Chinese visitors is expected to grow 232 percent to $16.6 billion by 2016, moving up from the seventh largest U.S. market in 2010 to the third in 2016.
Signings
In conjunction with the JCCT, U.S. companies signed commercial agreements that will result in nearly $40 million in U.S. exports and support jobs for American workers. The U.S. and Chinese governments also signed agreements related to intellectual property, high-technology trade, statistics and tourism and agreed to public-private partnerships in the areas of energy and U.S. export promotion.
Established in 1983, the JCCT is the main forum for addressing bilateral trade and investment issues and promoting commercial opportunities between the United States and China.
Press Release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, December 1, 2011Footnote 11
U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Rwandan Minister of Trade and Industry François Kanimba today ratified the U.S. Rwanda bilateral investment treaty (BIT) by exchanging treaty instruments of ratification signed by President Obama and Rwandan Prime Minister Damien Habu-muremyi. The ratification took place at a ceremony hosted by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR). The treaty will enter into force thirty days after ratification.
Ambassador Kirk. I am proud to participate in the ratification of this treaty with our Rwandan partners today because U.S. investment in Rwanda and elsewhere supports the U.S. economy and jobs here at home. This treaty will strengthen our two countries’ economic ties and enhance the confidence of U.S. investors in Rwanda, as well as Rwandan investors in the United States. It will also help to promote the new investment that is critical to Rwanda's economic development. We see Rwanda as a leader in seeking to transform its economy through open trade and investment. We hope that the U.S.-Rwanda bilateral investment treaty will serve as a model for future agreements with other African countries.
In his remarks, Minister Kanimba affirmed the strength of the U.S.-Rwanda trade and investment relationship and the importance of the newly ratified Bilateral Investment Treaty.
Undersecretary of State for Economic, Energy, and Agricultural Affairs Robert D. Hormats, who also participated in the event, added that “bilateral investment treaties that help forge strong economic ties between countries are beneficial for the United States and our developing country partners. The capital inflows help developing countries grow and in turn they become important consumers for U.S. goods and services.”
Total two-way goods trade between Rwanda and the United States totaled $51 million in 2010. U.S. exports to Rwanda were $29.5 million and imports from Rwanda totaled $21.5 million. Top U.S. exports in 2010 were vaccines, medical devices, and electronics. Coffee comprised over 85 percent of U.S. imports from Rwanda in 2010. Other leading imports from Rwanda were tungsten, pyrethrum (a natural insecticide), and baskets.
The U.S.-Rwanda BIT is the first BIT that the United States has signed with an African country in nearly a decade. It will be the sixth BIT to enter into force with a partner in sub-Saharan Africa. The United States currently has five BITs in force in sub-Saharan Africa, with Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique, the Republic of Congo, and Senegal.
Statement from U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, December 1, 2011Footnote 12
Ambassador Kirk. We have received the EU's compliance notice today and will review it carefully before announcing our next step. We will base our next steps on a careful evaluation of that announcement, and whether it demonstrates that the EU has in fact taken the steps necessary to bring itself into full compliance with the WTO decision. The WTO ruling on Airbus requires that the EU withdraw its subsidies or remove their adverse effects. The continued success of the American aerospace industry, and the jobs of hundreds of thousands of Americans who work in this highly competitive sector depend on the ability to compete on a level playing field—the level playing field assured to them by our WTO agreements. The United States intends to ensure that our valued trading partner, the EU, keeps its commitments in this and all other trade matters.
Press Release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, December 8, 2011Footnote 13
United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced today that the United States is requesting that the World Trade Organization (WTO) establish a dispute settlement panel to address China's imposition of antidumping (AD) duties and countervailing duties (CVD) on imports of chicken “broiler products” from the United States. China imposed these duties in August and September of 2010, claiming that U.S. broiler products were subsidized and sold at less than fair value (i.e., “dumped”) into the Chinese market. Prior to the imposition of these duties, the United States was the largest exporter of broiler products to China. Since the imposition of duties, U.S. exports have fallen by nearly 90 percent.
Ambassador Kirk. The United States will not stand idly by while China appears to have misused its trade remedy laws and put American jobs at risk. We are serious about holding China accountable to its WTO commitments and ensuring that there is a level playing field for American businesses— including our farmers.
Although WTO rules permit China to impose duties on imports of merchandise that are subsidized or dumped—provided those imports cause injury to the domestic industry—they also require WTO Members to follow specific procedures and apply defined legal standards when conducting the investigations that determine whether duties are warranted. The U.S. panel request alleges that Chinese authorities failed to abide by applicable procedures and legal standards, including by finding injury to China's domestic industry without objectively examining the evidence, by improperly calculating dumping margins and subsidization rates, and by failing to adhere to various transparency and due process requirements.
Requesting a panel is the next step in the WTO dispute settlement process after requesting consultations. On September 20, 2011, the United States requested consultations with China regarding China's imposition of AD and CVD duties on chicken broiler products. Consultations were held in Geneva on October 28, 2011, but were unable to resolve the dispute.
Background
On September 27, 2009, China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) initiated AD and CVD investigations on chicken broiler products from the United States. Based on its findings, MOFCOM imposed on these products AD and CVD duties on September 26, 2010 and August 30, 2010, respectively.
In the AD investigation, MOFCOM imposed dumping duties ranging from 50.3 percent to 53.4 percent for the participating U.S. producers, and set an “all others” rate of 105.4 percent. In the CVD investigation, MOFCOM imposed countervailing duties of between 4.0 percent and 12.5 percent for the participating U.S. producers and an “all others” rate of 30.3 percent.
Press Release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, December 9, 2011Footnote 14
Today, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk announced that the United States is requesting that the European Union (EU) enter into consultations regarding the notification it made on December 1, 2011, claiming to have fully complied with the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruling that subsidization of Airbus aircraft is contrary to WTO rules. The United States has reviewed carefully the limited information in that notification. It appears to show that the EU has not withdrawn the subsidies in question and has, in fact, granted new subsidies to Airbus’ development and production of large civil aircraft.
The United States is also requesting authorization from the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in Geneva to impose countermeasures annually in response to the EU's claim that it fully complied with the ruling in this case. The amount of the countermeasures would vary annually, but in a recent period would have been in the range of $7-10 billion. This step will preserve U.S. rights, but any actual imposition of countermeasures would not occur until after further WTO proceedings.
Ambassador Kirk. The WTO clearly found that every single grant of launch aid to Airbus, for every single aircraft that company produced, was a WTO-inconsistent subsidy that caused unfair adverse effects to U.S. industry and jobs. Our action today underscores what we have said all along—that the United States cannot accept anything less than an end to this subsidized financing. The United States remains prepared to engage in any meaningful efforts, through formal consultations and otherwise, that will lead to the goal of ending subsidized financing at the earliest possible date.
Press Release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, December 14, 2011Footnote 15
In advance of the 8th Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization, United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk today announced steps aimed at enabling Least Developed Country (LDC) members of the WTO to benefit more fully from global trade. Building on already robust programs providing preferential access to the U.S. market for LDC exports, as well as ongoing contributions in Aid for Trade and trade-related capacity, new, additional initiatives include:
Renewal of a successful technical assistance program for West African cotton producing countries, Expansion of duty-free-quota-free treatment for certain cotton grown in LDCs, and
Additional help for countries seeking to make maximum use of existing U.S. trade preference programs.
More information on these new measures can be found on the fact sheet, “New U.S. Initiatives to Boost Trade and Investment Opportunities for Least-Developed Countries.”
Ambassador Kirk. For decades, the United States has been a strong partner to least-developed countries. We want to see these partners have a greater stake in global trade and overcome constraints inhibiting faster progress. This is why, even before the announcement of these new initiatives, the United States has been one of the largest single-country providers of trade-related technical assistance, and why President Obama has made partnerships with developing countries, including LDCs, a key component of his trade agenda. We look forward to pursuing new trade initiatives in close cooperation with our LDC partners at the WTO Ministerial Meeting this week and in the future.
Earlier this year, the United States also announced a new African Competitiveness and Trade Expansion initiative, as well as a Partnership for Trade Facilitation through USAID. The U.S. Administration has also announced that it will work energetically with the Congress in 2012 to enact legislation extending AGOA's “third country fabric” provision to 2015, thereby sustaining existing benefits available to African exporters of apparel.
The United States already offers duty-free treatment to many countries’ products, while promoting high standards of accountability, transparency, and good governance. U.S. programs make special efforts to link trade and economic opportunity for countries ravaged by disaster or violence. The United States also leverages public-private partnerships to achieve the maximum impact for communities in poor and developing countries.
Press Release from the Office of Commerce Secretary Bryson, December 16, 2011Footnote 16
U.S. Commerce Secretary John Bryson welcomed the recent decision by the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to approve the terms of Russia's accession and to issue a formal invitation for Russia to join the trade body. In order to join the WTO, Russia has committed to lower tariffs on a wide range of goods, to open its services markets, and to bring its trade regime into conformity with WTO rules. Russia will become a member of the WTO once its parliament ratifies the accession package.
Secretary Bryson. The expansion of the WTO to include new members strengthens the global trading system and opens new and more secure markets to American exporters. Russia's membership will give American companies greater and more predictable access to an important and growing market, which will spur new opportunities for U.S. exporters and create jobs for American workers.
In 2010, the United States was the fourth-largest supplier of goods to the Russian market. With more than 140 million consumers, Russia remains one of the most promising markets for U.S. exporters.
For U.S. industry to get the full benefits of Russia's WTO accession and have the same access to Russia's market as other WTO members, it will be necessary for the United States to establish Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status with Russia. In order for this to happen, Congress will need to terminate the application of the Jackson-Vanik amendment to Russia.
Secretary Bryson. Establishing PNTR with Russia will expand exports and support American jobs, and keep our manufacturers and farmers on a level playing field with their foreign competitors in Russia's market,” Bryson added. “The Obama administration looks forward to working with Congress to achieve this goal.
Press Release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, December 17, 2011Footnote 17
United States Trade Representative Ron Kirk and Trade Ministers and WTO Ambassadors from Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad, and Mali—the “Cotton Four” or “C-4” countries—held a meeting Friday on the margins of the 8th WTO Ministerial Conference in Geneva, Switzerland, to discuss cotton issues, including new initiatives announced by the United States. Attending the meeting were Ms. Madina Sephou, Minister of Industry, Commerce, and Small and Medium Enterprises for Benin; Mr. Mahamat Allahou Taher, Minister of Commerce and Industry for Chad; and WTO Ambassadors from Burkina Faso and Mali.
The new U.S. proposals to help boost trade for least developed country (LDC) Members of the WTO, particularly African cotton-producing countries, include expansion of duty-free-quota-free treatment for upland cotton grown in LDCs; multi-year renewal of the West Africa Cotton Improvement Program (WACIP), a successful technical assistance program for West African cotton producing countries; and additional help for countries seeking to make maximum use of existing U.S. trade preference programs such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA).
Speaking on behalf of the C-4 group, Chadian Minister Allahou Taher thanked the United States for support already given to the African cotton sector through WACIP and AGOA, and for the new initiatives, saying that once implemented, they will have a very important impact on African farmers.
During the meeting, Ambassador Kirk and C-4 officials reaffirmed their mutual commitment to working for positive outcomes on cotton at the WTO, and noted recent successful collaboration on cotton language in the consensus statement to be issued at this week's Ministerial Conference.
Ambassador Kirk. The new cotton initiatives announced by the United States this week are part of the Obama Administration's broad and steadfast commitment to work with the C-4 and other least developed countries to boost their economic growth and development. We look forward to further coordination in Geneva, in Washington, and in all of the C-4 capitals as these new initiatives are implemented.
Press Release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, December 19, 2011Footnote 18
Ambassador Kirk met today with Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs Koichiro Gemba and discussed a range of multilateral, regional, and bilateral trade issues. Ambassador Kirk welcomed our two countries’ close cooperation in Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and under the bilateral Economic Harmonization Initiative.
Regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), Ambassador Kirk welcomed Japan's interest in entering into consultations toward participating in the TPP negotiations and updated Minister Gemba on the domestic stakeholder and Congressional consultation process underway at USTR to consider this interest. Ambassador Kirk explained that the U.S. would also assess Japan's readiness to meet the high standards of TPP and to address issues of concern in the manufacturing, services, and agriculture sectors.
With respect to beef, Minister Gemba updated Ambassador Kirk on today's announcement by the Japanese Government to reassess import restrictions through the launch of a risk assessment process. Ambassador Kirk stated: “I welcome this important step which puts us on a path to address the longstanding issue of beef trade with the United States.” Ambassador Kirk urged that Japan further open its market to U.S. beef exports as quickly as possible based on science, international standards, and commercial viability.
Press Release from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, December 29, 2011Footnote 19
Today, Ambassador Kirk announced President Obama's decision to designate 40 sub-Saharan African countries as eligible for AGOA benefits in 2012. During this year's review process, the President determined that all of the countries currently eligible for trade preferences and other benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) would remain eligible and that no new countries would be added as AGOA beneficiaries.
Ambassador Kirk. President Obama's determination today is good news for the people of these African nations, as well as for the American businesses and workers trading with these countries. We are proud to announce, after a thorough review by the Obama Administration, that all 40 of these important U.S. trading partners will continue to receive benefits under the African Growth and Opportunity Act—a vital and growing pillar of U.S.-Africa trade policy.
The President's determination is based on the annual review conducted by the Administration to examine whether the countries named in the Act had met AGOA's eligibility criteria. Those criteria include establishing, or making continual progress towards establishing, a market-based economy, rule of law, economic policies to reduce poverty, protection of internationally recognized worker rights, and efforts to combat corruption. Countries eligible for AGOA also may not engage in activities that undermine U.S. foreign policy interests, or engage in gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.
On October 25, 2011, President Obama signed a presidential proclamation designating Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, and Niger as eligible for AGOA benefits. Each of these countries was previously ineligible, but during a separate review process, the President determined that they had met the Act's eligibility criteria.
Total two-way goods trade with sub-Saharan Africa countries during 2010 was $82 billion. The top U.S. export markets in sub-Saharan Africa for 2010 were South Africa, Nigeria, Angola, Ghana, and Ethiopia. The top export categories in 2010 were machinery, oil, wheat and rice, and aircraft. U.S. imports under AGOA (including GSP) totaled $44.2 billion in 2010. Non-oil imports under AGOA totaled $4 billion and included value-added products such as apparel, footwear, processed agricultural products, and manufactured goods. The top five beneficiary countries were Nigeria, Angola, South Africa, Republic of Congo, and Chad. Other leading AGOA beneficiaries included Gabon, Lesotho, Kenya, Mauritius, and Swaziland.
AGOA was signed into law by President Clinton in May 2000, with the objectives of expanding U.S. trade and investment with sub-Saharan Africa, stimulating economic growth, promoting a high-level dialogue on trade and investment-related issues, and facilitating sub-Saharan Africa's integration into the global economy. At the center of AGOA are substantial trade preferences that, along with those under the Generalized System of Preferences and Most-Favored Nation tariff treatment, allow almost all goods produced in the AGOA-eligible countries to enter the U.S. market duty free.
