Press Briefing by

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture

Dan Glickman

and

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative

Ambassador Rita Hayes

at the

World Trade Organization

November 16, 1999

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: Let me just thank Mike Moore very much for meeting

with me, and make a couple of quick comments.

I was in Rome at the FAO [U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization]

meeting and decided, at the request of Rita Hayes who is our US/WTO

Ambassador, to visit here to meet with Mike and talk to our

negotiating team about what was going on between now and the Seattle

meeting in a couple of weeks. I appreciate the tremendous and very

difficult job that Mike Moore has in leading the effort to facilitate

the countries to come together to develop a declaration which is

acceptable to member countries and then move ahead with a rapid and

predictable negotiation.

These are difficult, complex issues, as Mike Moore said. But I think

we are working hard to get a balanced result, one that takes care of

the needs and concerns of all to reach a consensus. Not everybody's

going to get their entire way in this regard. We are going into a new

century. These are complex problems. This is the first conference of

its type leading to the new millennium. But the process is to continue

the reforms begun in the Uruguay Round -- to engage in sensible trade

liberalization. We need to continue those reforms.

From the standpoint of agriculture, this is an extremely high priority

of the U.S. government to get continued reforms in agriculture. I am

not going to say that it is the highest priority because I am not the

Secretary of Everything. I'm only the Secretary of Agriculture. But it

is a very high priority. The President has mentioned it repeatedly in

the first paragraph of the things that need to be done at this WTO

conference, and in terms of our particular objectives. Our goals are

to move ahead with commitments on market access so that every country

can have access for their products into every other country. The

United States remains the most open country in the world for its

products and we would like to see reciprocal market access in a sense

around the world. And I don't use that term specifically; I use it in

a more general sense. We think market access generally is a high

priority along with eliminating trade distorting domestic supports as

well as reducing and eliminating export subsidies. All of those will

lead to a more fundamental agricultural reform. We hope to have

commitments to move the process along so that it can be finished

within a three-year period of time and not last forever and,

therefore, the time frame is very, very important. We did not

negotiate the declaration. That was not my purpose in coming here. I

want to make that clear. My purpose basically was to find out what was

going on, how the United States could be helpful to move the process

along, so that we can start the Seattle discussions and move them

aggressively and effectively ahead, and also to give moral as well as

physical support to our chief negotiator here, Ambassador Rita Hayes,

and her team who have done such a tremendous job. We all, in this age

of modernization, have an interest in making sure that not only the

developed nations but the developing nations participate in this era

of market access and trade liberalization. Not only is it important

for countries like the United States and the EU and Japan and other

countries to enjoy the ability of our products to have access into

other markets, but it is particularly important for developing nations

who want to become much more economically viable to have their

products have access into developing nations as well. That builds an

economic base, which tends to help everybody economically and we think

it is important. Now I would be glad to answer any questions that

anybody may have.

QUESTION: The U.S. farmers this morning have issued a statement saying

that they are unhappy about the prospect of having a special "early

harvest" on the APEC [Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation] initiative,

fearing that this could limit the prospects of a really good

agricultural agreement in the round. What is your view on that?

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: I would ask Rita to respond to that.

AMBASSADOR HAYES: We have responded to that and stated that what we

want to see is for the negotiation to start on time, to end on time,

and for there to be certain mid-term benchmarks in between. As you

well know, we have said, and Ambassador Barshefsky has said, and the

administration has said, that we want to see where there are areas

that could be set aside and agreed to, knowing that nothing would be

agreed to until the very end. So what we would like to see is

progress, as anybody would, at certain stages of the negotiation,

knowing that every sector would stay exactly where it was until the

very end.

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: I would just repeat that in every complex

negotiation not everything is going to run at exactly at the same

speed. And there are going to be certain things that are going to get

done faster. But that doesn't mean that you will formally agree to any

of those things until the whole kit and caboodle, so to speak, the

whole agreement is agreed. So I have told American farmers that the

fact that we may be discussing certain things in advance will in no

way prejudice any final outcome on those things or anything else.

QUESTION: With regard to the new draft for a Ministerial Declaration

at Seattle, Japanese and European officials are much concerned about

the treatment of multifunctionality. How do you think it should be

treated in the text of the Ministerial Declaration?

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: Let me just tell you this. I, again, did not come

to negotiate any declaration, so I do not want to speak to how any

subject is going to be treated. I was in the United States Congress

for eighteen years so I am going to pull out of my role as a

negotiator and talk a little bit in my role as the Secretary of

Agriculture. Every country wants to help its farmers survive. Every

country wants to preserve a structure of agriculture which permits as

many farmers as possible to stay in business. That is a given. It is

not called multifunctionality everywhere. But that is basically what

it is. And I spent eighteen years in Congress and almost five years in

this job to help the structure of American agriculture. That is a

legitimate aim for every country. What is not legitimate is to use

that aim to maintain programs which are trade distorting. So if I want

to help my farmers, let's say by providing them an environmental

payment, or if I want to help my farmers, theoretically, by providing

them other forms of assistance, research or whatever else, that's

fine. But if I help my farmers in a way to keep products of another

country out of my market, or if I help my farmers so that they have to

export their items at a reduced price as a subsidy, that is not fine.

And so that is why I am saying that caring about your farmers is one

thing, but trying to hurt other farmers in other countries. That is

not good.

QUESTION: (inaudible) What do you have for the developing countries to

speak on this in terms of providing some flexibility and market

access?

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: I am going to ask Ambassador Hayes to address

this, but I would say that the developing countries have actually more

to gain by expanded and liberalized world trade because it is they who

need to move their products into world markets. You see, the domestic

consumption of agricultural products in this world has been relatively

flat. The growth is in the export markets. Developing countries need

to be in a position to take advantage of those export markets, and, in

many cases, they have not been. So that is the philosophical base

under which developing nations need to be able to participate in this

new globalized economy. Now I would ask Rita to comment on anything

further.

AMBASSADOR HAYES: I think the Secretary has answered your question,

but I would add to that. I think that the greatest thing that we can

do for the least developed and the developing countries is to make

sure that we have real economic reform and real market access for them

in agriculture to be able to export their products. Thank you.

QUESTION: Have you had talks with members of the Cairns Group here in

Geneva and have you forged an alliance with the Cairns Group against

the EU [European Union]?

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: Well, first of all, I don't forge an alliance

against anyone. That would be not very productive if we are trying to

build consensus. And Ambassador Hayes has been doing a good job to try

to get agreement where possible. I am going to, if I get a few

minutes, going to stop by a Cairns Group meeting on my way to the

airport -- because I am flying back to Washington this afternoon - and

meet with some of their representatives. But again I point out that

this is not an "us versus them" perspective on my part.

DR. SIDDIQUI [Special Assistant to the Secretary for Trade]: The

Secretary met with the Cairns Group Ministers in Buenos Aires at the

end of August and had a very productive discussion with the Ministers

in Buenos Aires.

AMBASSADOR HAYES: This is a consensus organization, it is done by

consensus, and we work with all countries, small, large, least

developed, developing, and it is the role of the United States to

bring that consensus.

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: It is obvious that the United States has agenda

items in common with many of the Cairns Group members, in terms of

trying to reduce export subsidies and other things, but this is again

not an "us versus them" situation.

QUESTION: Can you shed some light on the U.S.-China deal? The

communiqu‚ seems to have sketchy numbers on the tariff reductions.

Compared with the April 8 agreement, what is on the communique seems

to be much higher. Can you elaborate what is the average for

agriculture cuts?

AMBASSADOR HAYES: I think I told you yesterday that until our

negotiating team gets back to Washington and there can be a thorough

briefing of exactly what is in that text, and after they have the

opportunity to sit down with the President, then those questions will

be answered.

QUESTION: In all due respect, the communique doesn't say if they are

applied, bound rates, we have no idea?

AMBASSADOR HAYES: Well that is one of those questions that they will

have to give when they get back.

QUESTION: Secretary, you have said that it is legitimate to protect

the rights of farmers.

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: It is legitimate to help farmers.

QUESTION: Now you have got the money to help them for environment

funding etc, and the EC [European Commission] says it will do so

through CAP [Common Agricultural Policy]. But developing countries

cannot develop their exports because the rules prevent them from doing

the kind of support that you all provided for 50 years from the time

of the first agricultural agreement until now. How do you solve that

problem?

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: First of all, the fact is that the United States

market is exceedingly open to exports of developing countries. If you

look through the last ten years, you will find massive increases of

imports by the United States of agricultural products from developing

countries. In addition, to that we are and will work with developing

countries on a whole assortment of capacity building measures to try

to help their agriculture as well. Let me make one other point if I

might: One of the things that disturbs us about export subsidies, is

when a country supports its domestic production so high, or a group of

countries does so, it increases production beyond the market and it

must then subsidize its exports in order to get rid of its products.

That is a dagger in the heart of developing nations, because for the

most part, those products are priced, in many cases, below what the

cost of production is in developing countries. It is one of the

reasons we have taken such a strong stand against export subsidies.

QUESTION: Have you in recent weeks been able to narrow differences

with the European Union on the issue of food safety and genetically

modified crops?

AMBASSADOR HAYES: Well I think that the process has been with smaller

groups and also in the Green Room and we will continue to work with

the EU but as Secretary Glickman said earlier, it is not just the EU.

We will look at this issue with our other trading partners to make

sure that we come together with a very clear understanding of how we

will address this issue.

QUESTION: Secretary, around the corner here you have got demonstrators

chained to the railings. Do you have any sympathy with them and with

the very many people who feel the same way in your own country and

what can you say to reassure them?

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: Well first of all I'm a big advocate of the First

Amendment. I am a big advocate of free speech, so as long as people

are peaceful and obey the law I think that they should be permitted to

express their opinions on any subject, and I expect that will take

place in Seattle as well. I would tell you that about three years ago,

I represented my country at the World Food Conference in Rome. And I

had a news conference like this and several people stood up, removed

all their clothes, threw what was claimed to be ungenetically modified

grain of some sort at me, and I just basically smiled and said, "Why

did I take this job?" The fact is that some of these subjects are

very, very controversial and evoke a lot of strong feelings. I would

say, however, my experience tells me that if protestors do not express

their views with a degree of dignity, they tend to loose their

audience very quickly in the world.

QUESTION: What can you say to reassure them about the WTO?

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: I think that our job is to try to reach consensus

among all the nations of the world and there are many, many, many

different opinions in the group. Under Mike Moore's leadership and

with the negotiating process, I think those views are being heard. I

would fully expect the people to exercise their right to continue

their free speech to continue to get their views into the process.

President Clinton himself has encouraged debate, has encouraged the

non-governmental organizations [NGOs], the private volunteer

organizations, to express their views in this process. We expect that

will continue to be done, and it should be done because if it looks

like you are trying to squelch people, you end up shooting yourself in

the foot.

AMBASSADOR HAYES: If I could just add, you know we have planned a very

successful NGO day in Seattle the Monday before the session opens. And

it will give an opportunity for the NGOs to participate. And I think,

following up what Secretary Glickman said, you have to ask youself a

question: If we did not have the WTO, how could we regulate the trade

we have and have the rules and procedures we do? That is what we want

to be able to have: certainty in trade, and this is what the WTO

offers us. One more question and then the Director General would like

to answer your questions.

QUESTION: Mr. Moore has already on several occasions raised the

specter of failure in Seattle, failure to agree on a mandate for the

new talks. I'm wondering if you share those views and in particular,

what would failure mean to the launch of the talks on agriculture. Can

you go forward without a clear mandate from Seattle?

SECRETARY GLICKMAN: I don't believe there is going to be failure. I

would just say it like that. I think that the countries will agree on

a declaration. It may not be as specific as I would like, but on the

other hand it is a beginning, not an end. We are not negotiating the

entire next round in Seattle. We are setting up framework, and I think

that will be done. I think most of the nations of the world will want

it. There will be a whole assortment of trade ministers, agriculture

ministers and other world leaders there, and my judgement is that

there will be consensus reached in Seattle. That is my belief. Now the

more serious question is, what happens then? Is there a commitment to

engage in a negotiating process which has a clear timeline to it, and

we get some sort of resolution -- we've sought a three-year time

period -- and how will that be done? I think that the real challenge

of Seattle is to go forward and provide some time-lines and some

predictability so that the process will conclude at a reasonable

point. Thank you.

(End transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.

Department of State.)

top

return