tv Discussion Focuses on Global Trade CSPAN December 16, 2016 2:12am-3:39am EST
thus set the national committee spends time looking at chinese investment. even and though trade is controversial, i think there is a consensus that investment is basically good that it is job created that 18 if the president was sitting here to say creates jobs. yes foreign investment creates jobs. do you think it is a reasonable theory that the president-elect will conclude what president obama could not which is the bilateral investment treaty to look to a business person as the low hanging in fruit. it is the way to have a
having said certain things about the way the chinese are treated. i have been to think it's a good idea. idea. idea. there's a lot of infrastructure things that need to be done and don't run into the problem. it's also worth americans investing in china. the question is whether the atmosphere that has been created whether one could go forward with it at this point. >> dot or kissinger, anything on that? >> i don't think that it's funny to go into what should be in the immediate negotiation in the economic field where the secretary of treasury.
the economics was an argument against suffrage. [laughter] >> we talked about the economic infrastructure. let's talk about the security infrastructure, but i that has been discussion of kind of reevaluating the u.s. bases in japan and south korea. restructuring how they are paid for. does the architecture need to be changed because it is reliant on the cold are thinking anyhow?
>> let me say i teach at georgetown and it's trying to get the country to do what you want so the question is what are the tools we have. one is obviously the military tool which isn't just the fighting forces and the number of aircraft carriers, but in fact the bases and how they are used and who is on them and how they enable us to have a presence in countries. i do think some of the things president elect trump has said about what our allies have to pay or don't i think we do need to have a more cooperative
approach but we want the bases and we consider it important. i think that blackmailing allies is not a great idea and we know what our national interests are in asia. it's kind of a two-way street. they need to think of the bases as part of the toolbox to some extent. what i find interesting, there's stories in the paper today that they've said the chinese need a smaller and more effective military so they are also having questions in terms of how the money is spent generally and how they use the tool because we all have the same toolbox.
>> it has a particular assumption about the dangers of security. so it's inevitable that as time goes on its periodic considerations of the proper balance and also with the proper relationship is. so i consider it natural that such discussions have taken place and one will have to evaluate it in terms of the nature of the assessments that are made. what should not happen is that one ally makes it conditional
and the other countries that iss a last resort but we are here in a complicated situation. when i agreed to this, we were going to discuss the basic relationship between china and the united states. it is explained in many articles including a long interview in the atlantic and it's now become a discussion of specific statements that are being made. i just don't want to participate in that part of the discussion.
i believe that the united states and china must have a close and friendly relationship and it depends on the ability to do this and many principles have been established to achieve th this. it happens to be it was set at a moment nobody knew. they have to discuss. i would think normally we agree on the essence of.
>> we definitely agree and nobody has done more than henry kissinger. by the way, when he was still the vice premier, we had a meeting with all the people and he was explaining how he felt and that he had spent time here and wanted to know what he learned and what our relationship was. being in a meeting is like being with a demagogue and they said we felt the demi. i don't blame him for wanting to
comment on this, i however am free in that the things that have been said cannot totally be erased and it's something that i said initially is we forget how much they listen to what we are saying and when it looks that there is going to be -- there are going to be some different approaches to things when they talk about a nuclear japan. it's whether you can block it out from the consciousness of the people that we deal with. we have to be concerned about the importance of the u.s. chinese relationship. it is absolutely essential. i hope there is a learning
process but how do he race what has been said i think if i were going on the other side i would say what to did you mean by that so it's hard not to consider it. one of the bright shining moments in the u.s. china relations was the agreement between president obama and climate change. it was the view in the community was that this was an example of america and china jointly leading the world in that the myriad of global issues in the united states and china could clobber the movie would have a chance of solving them and if we don't cooperate, then we are doomed to failure.
the obama administration did a great job of getting that ultimately signing the agreeme agreement. what should we do going forward? >> we tried to deal with this during the protocol and one of the issues is that it was unfair that the countries had created a whole environmental mass and then the developing countries were going to suffer. we talked about leapfrogging with new technologies and get that continues to be an issue. i do think what has been done on climate change is remarkable and i think that it's quite different in terms of the various requirements. but the fact that they were able to do this i think is remarkable
and it would be unfortunate if it were not followed out. there is an article going out today that vice president gore had a meeting with ivanka because that's the thing she's interested in and there is progress on climate change and those people that think the earth is flat and don't believe in climate change actually are not the ones that influence president elect trump and he continues with it. >> this doesn't relate to recent news. after both of you served, the strategic and economic dialogue was created as a mechanism to strengthen the relations and build different ministries and agencies in the united states
and many cabinet members and ministers come. is this from your perspective is this an effective mechanism, should it be continued? >> to have a dialogue on these issues, it's important. the evolution of these institutions is that they usually begin with a group that is small enough to have an effective dialogue and then it gradually expands and creates the outcome that's influenced by the communiqué before they even
meet so i would say there is a critical site of membership that permits the effective dialogue. so for example there were only three people per minute on each side of the room. now it is a very large group. it still is useful because it permits side dialogues and focusing on the issues so what i think is needed is to keep the basic idea of the dialogue going but periodically examines what is kept as a symbolic subgroup
but the concept is useful and should be continued. >> i think it should be continued for a number of reasons. one is we know in our government and also other governments things are not just contained in one box so the strategic and economic go together, the military. the other part is we have a tendency to talk about how the leaders of the country along. the bottom line is if it is nice to have that personal relationship but it has to be carried out by bureaucracies in both the countries and institutions into service as a way for some of the people in the structure to get to know each other and then smaller groups to do drafting or whatever, but it does provide a useful mechanism.
we do it with some other countries in times of having big meetings of getting the ministries together and i do think that the important part here is how the low-level officials begin to work together under the leadership so i do think and i hope it continues. >> we have an illustrative audience here so let me open up the questions. right here in the front. and please, identify yourself and keep the questions short. >> i have a question for secretary. >> identify yourself. >> i am a partner and i currently conduct research. you said don't pay attention to
what is said that after the da date, we don't know what's going to happen tomorrow. to be honest, for the chinese businesspeople, the concerns in your view of the political issues influenced the economic relationship with china. >> i do have to say i think the campaigns are one thing but once the person has been elected, as i said, it does make you
question where this is going. i do think it is important for president elect trump and his people to know the reaction it has created and i think what will be important are the other people he chooses in the government and how they will look at it. i have to tell you at this moment it is unclear. the most important thing now is for everybody to stay calm and not too i believe that the relationship is the u.s. chinese relationship, whether it's economic, military security is the most important relationship and therefore to make decisions based on the lack of information is very dangerous and so, i would hope that beijing isn't
overtly insulted by what was said or that people are thinking this is the policy. we don't know what the policy is yet so that is my suggestion. >> i have a question for doctor kissinger. you placed the reaction and also secretary albright but my question is some people say the phone call was just a round up by the president elect. >> i think he made it clear he doesn't want to talk about the
issues you are raising so why don't we move to the next question. some people say it might be the move to test so that reaction might be interpreted as weakness and lead to even more so my question is how would you comment on that. >> i tried to explain to this group i have now seen ten american administrations and i believe that one of the big challenges to america has been the addition of the country on
many of these foreign policy issues. so i do not think it is to the beginning of the newly elected administration. to elaborate on the planes that can be made that are about which we can be divided. i believe it is possible to have a creative relationship between the two countries and really you shouldn't look for these questions to make me say something it's clear i don't have any intention of saying and that it's contrary to my view.
>> my question is for doctor kissinger. he is proposed u.s. and china must cooperate on the ones that policy. it would be collapsing the economy. further he said we could work together on space, science and the development of the thermonuclear fusion and i wonder if you have any comment. >> i never saw it in this
particular context but let me just say there are ways we can cooperate. one of the issues out there is either. the various possibilities and the question is how the countries can in fact cooperate in a way that requires a certain amount of trust so i hope very much there is a pursuit of cooperation but i don't think that we can underestimate what some of the difficulties are in that kind of cooperation. >> i think it's an important idea as i think china and the united states can and should find a way of talking about it.
it's one of these issues in which the cooperation is possible. asked question -- last question right here. >> now you're submitting 50 years of the national committee and i'm wondering what do you think the top three or four things we are looking at 20 years from now? >> first of all, many of our students learn to speak chinese,
that we have more and more educational exchanges, that we understand each other's history and culture, and about our work internationally is actually not in competition but in cooperation in terms of to pick up on the one in terms of infrastructure which brings people together in ways of understanding how dependent we are on changes in the climate and that we do in fact dropped the fact that we are enemies when we have to work together so neither of us will be here. i do think that we need to look forward to that kind of relationship.
the 20 years from now what can we celebrate in the relationship? >> i think we will celebrate a creative cooperation on the degree of tension that will be spread all over by forcing every country to make a choice. i think our obligation is to expect that which both sides are talking and have proclaimed both parties will continue. that is a perfect note to close. let me ask secretary albright.
she's famous for her pains as we all know. >> i've already bought mine rooster for next year. [applause] i want to thank secretary kissinger and secretary albright for giving so generously of their time. secretary kissinger has not only given us this evening that a week from thursday will be honored by the national committee with his lifetime achievement award for the contribution to the u.s. china relationship. [applause] my advice would be very simple watch this video. [laughter]
that's how he was as president. >> 8 p.m. eastern on c-span q-and-a. >> diplomats discussed the prospect for trade agreements prospects for trade agreements hosted by the international trade association. topics include how the election would affect the transpacific partnership and u.s. trade policy. this is an hour and a half.
[inaudible conversations] good morning everyone. thank you all for being here this morning. i am the executive director of the washington international trade association. we are delighted so many of you have joined us here and we are pleased to welcome c-span and their viewers who are interested in international trade and
learning about the future of trade. before we begin the program i would like to thank our part owners of the building who work with us on this event we are grateful for the partnership with them and i would like to give you a heads-up abou heads e coming of events including the ambassador giving his final keynote address at the u.s. trade representative on januar january 10 and that same evening we will be having the meeting welcome to the new year party. later in january and february we plan to hold discussions about some of the issues being talked about today including nafta, china and tax reform efforts we've been hearing a lot about these days. ever since, people have been asking about the future of the u.s. trade policy and the website america's trade policy.com which our next trade
initiative we are going to be reading a national trade policy and we have ideas about the direction that u.s. trade policy iisn't made in a vacuum it's mae in the context of the globalizing economy and that is today's discussion and why it's so important. in order to understand the future of the trade policy, we need to understand what's happening globally and the international investments. today's panel will shed light on that. i'm pleased to turn the microphone over to my friend the executive vice president of the american apparel association. >> thank you for coming out on this cold morning on washington, d.c.. i think there is no question that the next couple of years is going to be a time of change or anticipation on trade and international competitiveness.
i'm getting a lot of questions from the folks i work and i know people have a lot of questions out there as well on what's going to happen. we have a great panel of experts but i think those questions are going to come after january when the new congress takes office and after the inauguration we will start to see some of the campaign rhetoric become translated into the events and that will be an opportunity for folks to learn more about what's going to happen. what the panebut the panel can s understand what is the reaction around the world and how our friends and trading partners around the world in the key areas observing the events as they are unfolding in washington
on a daily basis how they react to it and what do they think should happen and what are their perspectives as well so with that, i'm going to introduce them and we will ask each of them to speak for about five to seven minutes and then we will have some questions afterwards. first to my immediate right is wendy cussler vice president and managing director of the asia policy institute of the dc office. she joined the policy institute following three decades as a diplomat and negotiator in the office of the ustr and served as the acting deputy working on a range of u.s. trade negotiations and initiatives in the asia-pacific region. anabel gonzalez is with the world bank group and surface coaster rica's minister of foreign trade which led efforts to join the oecd on the major
trade agreements to contribute to attracting over 140 new projects. her time has more than 15 years of service with the foreign trade which has various positions. damien levie is the head of the section of the european union delegation here in washington, d.c.. before coming here he was a member of the cabinet of the trade commission and also the head of the usa canada team of the director general fodirectort the european commission since 2001. bobby pittman is the managing director focused on africa most recently he was the president of infrastructure private sector and regional integration development bank from 2009 to 2012. he previously held the positions that the government agencies where he also worked on a variety of issues including the national security council, the treasury department, state
department and the white house and last but not least, smith ramos at the ministry of the economy of mexico washington, d.c.. prior to serving in the command post he was the coordinator general for the international general for the international affairs and the ministry of agriculture and previously he worked at the ministry of economy and started his professional career working for the negotiating team and is a fellow board member here so without further delay i'm going to turn the panel over. >> thanks to everyone for turning up this morning. out this morning. i just learned about the event. it should be very interesting. i wanted to share what i'm hearing from you.
i am in contact with my positions with the trade officials, current trade officials and other opinion leaders in the area so i wanted to share with you their perspectives recognizing that there isn't one but there are some common threads and i wanted to go through a few. first what we are hearing is the continued u.s. leadershithat cop and engagement on the trade agenda. second, they are very concerned about the protectionism. they are also concerned about maybe the robust use of u.s. trade law. third, they are concerned not only about things that have been set with respect to possible
actions or measures against the countries like china that they have brought concerns, for example about what would happen with nafta because let's remember a lot of the countries have moved production to mexico and they would be affected by nafta so i would say why all the panelists speaking at a different regions, there is a lot of overlap with respect to the impact of any measures taken on trade through the whole global trading system. also they want a stable relationship and this isn't just trade, its overall but remember for many countries, china is the biggest trading partner maybe the u.s. is second for certain countries but they feel they will be in the middle if there is any back and forth in terms of retaliation or measures
between the two countries. finally i would say like anyone in the community they are waiting to see who will be on the team not just at the most senior level that the deputy levels and others. i want to talk a little about how the countries are responding to the recent announcement that the u.s. will withdraw kind of on day number one of his administration. they feel they did a lot of heavy lifting and they expect a lot of political capital responding to u.s. priorities in the negotiations and so, right now they feel that they are not living up to what they had hoped for. i will say a number of countries are still going forward with the
ratification process most recently, japan passed tpp just last week and as someone that spends a lot of time negotiating in the agreement, if you had told me a few years ago that we would end up where we are now into that japan would be passing disagreement i wouldn't have believed you. so how are these countries or what options do they have to respond to what's going on in the region. first as i mentioned, a number plan to proceed with ratification. japan just a few weeks ago ratified tpp and australia announced they were going ahead. vietnam conversely announced it isn't going to proceed with ratification. but very interesting that you're
going to go forward with passing reform legislation in a lot of areas that have been called for. in other countries i hope as they upgrade in the region or enter into new will try to push the standards. a number of countries including the prime minister said they are going to try to persuade the president elect to take a look at how it advances the u.s. interestu.s.interests both on tc fund and geostrategic fund but also the regional interest. others are talking about the united states into keeping the door open to join later.
but most important right now i think a lot of countries are looking at plan b.. a lot of the countries rely on trade and recognize that it contributes to growth and jobs. they want to attract more investment and they don't want to stand still so they are looking at other negotiations in the region and i think what we are going to see and we are already seeing is that they are stepping up their activity in the ongoing negotiations but we are also going to see new negotiations announced in the coming weeks and months. as long as it is going on a lot of the countries didn't have the wherewithal to give all of their attention to a number of negotiations. but when it is sidelined they will have the personnel.
the partnership is the most viable negotiations underway for about five years now including 16 not including the united states but including china and india. they just met last week in indonesia and they are talking about concluding the talks next year. it is a central negotiation but they've got him a renewed interest in the negotiation and it's really stepping up its engagement as well. there's others that are under way. japan and the eu chief negotiator is en route to tokyo.
new zealand and china just agreed they are going to upgrade. canada and china are exploring. the malaysian trade minister expressed interest and the list goes on and on. one issue i want to put on the table when the president-elect announced he wanted to withdraw he said he was more interested in the bilateral deals so i know there's a lot of discussion in the trade community about the bilateral deals and i think they are also examining that and trying to think through these
issues. the one in particular is japan. they made it very clear getting the benefits of the deal are important and this is the course they want to go. thank you for having me here. it is of course diverse as we know. the important discussion is the structure with some countries more oriented to production and
others another difference relates to the trade policies and i will come back to this. but having said that, there are three key features. first there are 77 boston to attend, 12, 13 dot years. on average they covered about 50%. additionally as we know mexico, chile and peru are part of the tpp and i believe two more where it's becoming part of it,
colombia and now in addition to that, latin america has also been very active in terms of their relations with china. chile, peru, costa rica. they've also been active in the european union and there are agreements with a number of countries in the region and finally the integration has also been and i'd like to highlight the specific alliance. this effort that includes mexico, chile, colombia and peru but increasingly more latin american countries including argentina and it's a very interesting model because it is basically presenting a model of not only the free flow of goods but also services so this is an
interesting model to watch in the region. it's also interesting there were also 30 countries in the alliance so including those in asia and i think this is an important connecting point between latin america and asia. the second feature i want to highlight is there has been this backlash some countries are going in the opposite direction and in particular i would like to highlight the case of argentina because they've
reduced taxes and they've streamlined imports and they've eliminated control over the remittances and they are in a full-fledged effort to attract foreign direct investment and that is an important change in the region. as a matter of fact, they reignited the negotiations said the third feature notably venezuela, bolivia and ecuador. but there is a question at this point as to how sustainable the economic models are going forward. having said that, it's clear
most continue to face important challenges in terms of the commodities they need to further integrate and increase productivity. very recently the world bank came out with a study that says the future of latin america is actually trading more with the global economy so interestingly enough while all of this is happening in the u.s., there is a lot of excitement for what they have to offer. in terms of what the future means, i think that latin america is increasingly more and land of opportunities. despite the commodity slowdown and although challenges some
countries in the region are facing you see those from the perspective and the consumers in the middle class but have grown tremendously in the region and the class but i have to say buys more but still they've taken destiny in their own hands and they considered it a very important trade partner but they are also looking at other regions in the world. through just announced they would like to revise and i wouldn't be surprised if others in the region but also go that way. but remember china also has interesting investments so you will see a strengthening in the
region and finally, this integration process and particularly in the alliance will continue to grow and expa expand. you would have a more stable trading partner is interested in working in the united states but we would continue to look at europe and china and asia and the integration to find opportunities to grow. 2017 is kind of halfway through the cycle of five years and so
have one on the commercial policy and one internationally so it's not possible and still is the case today. next year we would harvest the results of the negotiations and we would expect the parliament in the first quarter very soon after and also the code of justice after where we ask the question on the sharing of where can we draw the line between the
and you may have seen the agreements for the first time in more than 10 years and in particular what type of exceptions can recreate? and also for the commission that has been an issue from. and 2016 will also be a year to reflect on the perception of globalization and what do we need to change it is with the member states of maurer and nonmarket integration of what has happened and i should mention next year if
we also launch the talks on poolsides from england about brexit and what they have in mind with these talks and also at the end of the year also looking at a future partners and the united states will have to be active to move forward. with uh good agreements we will continue and conclude next year. also achieving a lot of
results with of regulatory cluster and we stand ready with the news administration to issue talks whether or not they want to continue bin redo have the agreement for both and what is being done now is the snapshot in each of the areas. so we can properly resume and there are things to discuss with those challenges in the emerging markets.
somebody reminded me recently that to the initiation of 16 years ago that this is ahead of schedule. >> good morning. i think it is fair to say the most generous person would not consider me a trade expert. but as i thought about it i thought maybe that is appropriate it because i think that it is fair to say that we have not then having u.s. africa strategic policy your discussion for quite a long time. the policy discussion in this town over 20 years is
when is the renewal? that has defined the of policy for over two decades. but what i thought would be interesting to talk about those underlying dynamics that i think will change some of those discussions. they are not necessarily based in a vacuum but connected with the companies and the businesses that are happening. and that can take you in the wrong direction. in some places of the zero world but if you look at the diversity and change for us
we are very data focused as investors with a statistics tool to identify pockets of demographics and consumed per behavior. so what they are very dated driven where we drilled choices with both national over in the past five years is fairly present you can see them making bets across the spirit he will try that one the most. when living in general electric very rarely bed obviously publicly on the infrastructure side.
>> this is significant numbers of tens of billions of dollars and after that primarily european, italian european, italian, french and all of those countries and bear associated trade experts weakening griot the agreement. -- we can agree on the agreement. and that is expected to me 10 billion and i think when you think of the general lector growth that is rather growth is coming from looking to increase uh topline and what they are
not talking about as much with the anheuser busch the big time responders that his days that of where they think that topline growth will be but to talk about those trade dynamics to the consumer and other types of products. you don't have to look out to far to the most populous countries in the world. to be too as largest cities in the world. i am from south florida and
negotiated. and for me what is really driving the top also what i would mention maybe it will sound little bit out of left field but if we think about the sharing economy i think about it both ways of the supply chain but the aggregate of smaller items. with that luxury fashion from africa. most of those designers for not shipping to the united states.
and those who can aggregate small production one and do not have to hire a marketing firm to get the upper and out the ability to do that is used think about to play into the of policy discussion. to have a very small number of interested parties. and that is entirely fair because to be very aggressive and exports through the opportunity but this darkly a small handful and now we are moving to the democratic discretion of those players that will
building products together. and then where we should denies and with the impact of the trade agreements with the 5 million jobs depend on trade with mexico and other nine with trade with canada so they are related to trade with number-one and number to customers in the world. said that this a peculiar element sodium placement aspect -- so with mexico we
have almost $50 billion of foreign direct investment into the united states and these are in specific communities as to what are those benefits we must dig deeper not just the level that we hear about but steel manufacturers supporting 700 jobs in ohio and missouri that reduces construction materials to utilize mexican steel to be more competitive because the others do not have that linkage to mexico so the mining companies and arizona with 800 jobs were so examples like that are peppered throughout the united states and the
benefits that is to get up there and speak about. so where do we go from here? there are the three main pillars in the first that i discussed is to do a realistic fact based assessment of nafta and i have given the examples of benefit suspect -- specifically so distribute the information so they and stand the impact and the second big element of course is the rate trade agreement can be modernized with many of the disciplines that we incorporate did not even exist of those elements of intellectual property rights
, at the digital economy, all full list of issues to analyze and a strong agenda that exist already the corporate agenda for the competitiveness of the region. over 27 years of trade now the next 20 years have to be had to be reduced the cost? such as increasing border each efficiency regulatory cooperation camlet get elements and other key areas where we are negotiating with of the pacific alliance , something that we have not been able to but should definitely accelerate the pace of all these sullivans to build on what we have been strengthened
them. third come understand it is a win-win proposition did away from the argument is a zero sum game. is okay if i import or it is not okay added does not translate to the realities of the of marketplace and job creation. we want to have a very constructive battle along the lines of all we have described but we are not standing idle with the diversification and tpp in is analyzed in the next session began to analyze what will happen at almost
1.5 billion people to the middle-class. you want to be there when that opportunity opens up. it will be either through the tpp or looking at options bilateral or other arrangements. because for once they can engage in a fully open manner with countries in latin america and have the same values and pursuit one of the open trade environment so there's a lot we can continue in that region and a lot of these
countries want are interested what is happening . given the changes taking place domestically, and increasing gateman to to enhance trade with them and that effort we're making to modernize and strengthen with market access it can also be upgraded through the year 2000 but hours giving their act together with the rules of the game going for word. the that is why i say in history we have the chance but to book all the talent to the applicable sector we
need fact based analysis and how we could be more competitive going forward, . >> that was all some and also to the hall panel around the world than 30 minutes. and it is clear the rest of the world has a robust embrace of trade to create jobs and benefits to the country even with increasing concerns of globalization and particularly in africa with your perspective. we will throwed up to the audience for questions. just to build on what ken said, one of the things we need to do in the united states is a better job of educating the american
public in the american consumer and that is central to the mission to educate flocks on trade for the next and trade initiative to plot out where we well go with the next generation. so we ask you, drawing upon those perspectives of the region, what do you think we should be doing? so when we have elections 12 years from now the candidates try to outdo each other, it's they like trade as well as that rhetoric. >> i think that is the great
point and to everybody is talking about because we have not done a good job to communicate benefits. this is not a new recognition but there are efforts through the years to convey the benefits and a much more understandable form but with my perspective this is talking about specific plans, specific workers, small business out there but to convey that benefits any more tangible way bobby extremely helpful. also the time is coming for the global trading system partners to get together to talk about the issue of globalization to share information but though whole
social safety net issue really needs to be focused on and that is something that everybody can benefit when from what others do. >> one of the suggestions of course, are good points but to pd constructing is important because if you look at what is going on in the region, there are different elements that are at the basis of these part of a is related to the implication of the agreements