31 January 2008
Doorstop Interview
Subjects: Doha Negotiations, FTAs
MINISTER CREAN: Well look, I’ll just make couple of points and then throw it out to questions. Obviously, this is an important part of the visit that I’ve done, which now has taken in India, Japan, Switzerland – Davos and Geneva – Brussels, and here in the States. The main purpose of the visit is to not just look at the bilateral relationships, but to see how we can use the bilateral relationships and the strength of them to advance and push the momentum for getting an outcome in the Doha Round.
The meeting in Davos, I think, sent a very encouraging signal to Geneva that a conclusion to the Round can be achieved by the end of this year – that an outcome is do-able. There’s a rough timetable to achieve that that essentially goes this way: that once the texts are released and they’re expected in the next week or so, in Agriculture and in NAMA, that there be a process to move to a mechanism of what’s called horizontal negotiations to finalize modalities in both of those areas, that you can’t get Agriculture without NAMA, and vice-a-versa. But there’s also the realisation that there are issues beyond agriculture and NAMA that are outstanding, and so a road map that builds in not just certainty in terms of a timetable, but comfort to the participants, to the other countries – to all of the countries – that their other issues will be addressed, with the aim being to conclude a singular agreement by the end of the year.
As I say, that’s do-able, it’s the momentum that has come out of the Davos meetings. It’s re-energized Geneva. Let’s just see how it plays out. The US of course is important because it’s got an election year, and the issue that we really need to establish here is that if we were to get an agreement, would it get passage, would it get the tick here, given that it is an election year? I’m encouraged with the discussions that we’ve had to date. I’ve still got a number to go through today and tomorrow, but I am encouraged with the discussions to date, that the political will, especially the one that was reflected the other day by the President in his State of the Union address, that the Administration wants to achieve an outcome. We have to try and ensure that that will is translated to the Congress. And that’s the purpose of a lot of my discussions in these two days.
REPORTER: Do we regard the provisions of the Farm Bill as an impediment to America complying with any agreement that might be reached as part of the Doha Round? And is that something that we’re kind of addressing with them?
MINISTER: Yes, these are issues that we’ve taken up, but I think that whatever the state of the Farm Bill is, around that deadline that’s the 15th of March, there is also a realisation that if there is an outcome from Doha, then the Farm Bill has to be compatible with it. Where that all ends up depends on the state of the negotiations in Doha more than it does where the bill itself might end up in the next couple of months.
REPORTER: During the presidential election, though, there’s been quite a lot of commentary from candidates on both sides that really sounds pretty anti-free trade, not so much from some of the leading candidates, but a couple of the minor candidates. Have you got a sense of what might happen if there’s a Democrat administration?
MINISTER: Well, we’ll find that out Anne, but can I just say, I think that the point you make is right, that it’s tended to come from – how do we put it – less from the leading candidates, that I think you’ve got to take some encouragement from. The second point is that those who have made the comments, and the sort of debate and the issues and the concerns tend to relate from what I can gather more to the FTAs that are outstanding and less so to the concept of Doha.
Now, does that mean that Doha isn’t on the radar? I don’t think so. Because in all the discussions that I’ve had here, there is the perception that Doha and now the potential for an outcome in Doha is a real possibility going to have to be factored in. Is Doha and therefore anti-Doha front-and-center in the domestic political scene? I don’t think so. Now I see that as encouraging, something to work with. Something to progress. Because now that if the view is right that we’ve got the political will to move forward, that’s what we’ve got to try and build on. That’s what we’ve got to try and capitalise on.
REPORTER: In parallel with your Doha discussions with Susan Schwab, will you also mention the idea of regional free trade agreements through Asia? Is that something that you’re interested in and will pursue?
MINISTER: Yes, but it’s interesting, it’s not just been with the US that those issues have been raised. Interestingly, it’s importantly been raised with us in Japan. Japan has argued very strongly for Australia’s involvement in the ASEAN+6 as a regional structure. As you know, were still trying to conclude the Australia-New Zealand ASEAN agreement. So, we’ve been putting a fair bit of effort into that recently to try and get that outcome. But, I’ve argued very strongly that as important as these other structures are, that APEC still remains our priority in terms of the most effective regional structure. So in turn, I’ve argued to the Japanese that we need to give focus to APEC, and that’s particularly pertinent, because Japan is hosting APEC in the year after next. So the next three chairs are Peru, Singapore and Japan. And so I’ve been actively engaging my Peruvian counterpart, my Singaporean counterpart, and now the Japanese counterpart to try and move, whether it leads to an ASEAN, an APEC-wide free-trade agreement – that could be a good outcome – but certainly to try and strengthen the basis upon which bilateral and regional agreements are reinforcements of multilateralism, not detractions from it.
So this whole regional architecture is very interesting for us. And of course, the significance of the visit to India was to also reinforce with the Indian government our desire to have them in APEC, to really argue for their involvement. Now, they are included in the ASEAN+6, so I think that there’s a number of dynamics moving in the right direction.
REPORTER: Does that mean less emphasis now on bilateral free-trade deals?
MINISTER: Well, I think the simple answer is yes, but you can’t ignore the importance of the free trade agreements. Labor never has. Labor has always understood and promoted the notion of free trade agreements, bilaterals. It was in 1983, for example, that the first of them, the best of them, the CER, was signed, and we’re trying to argue that FTAs have a role if they’re multilaterally consistent, if they are enhancement of the multilateral outcome. And if you go back to the strategy that we pursued last in government, it was the primacy of the multilateral outcome, the enhancement of that multilateral outcome. Uruguay through APEC. That was the Bogor Declaration. The Bogor Declaration not only was further trade liberalisation, but it recognised a differential commitment for developing countries versus developed countries.
APEC has been able to understand that differentiation concept a long time ago, when it had the political will. I make that point because it’s interesting when we look at the climate change debate of common but differentiated – somehow a formula is going to have to be found as to what that means.
But then in addition to APEC enhancing the WTO, we always saw the FTA as to be further enhancement again. That’s why we did welcome the Thai Free Trade Agreement, because it resulted in further trade liberalisation – it was WTO plus and plus again. And that’s the approach that I would still like to embrace. The trouble is, we inherit a structure that really reversed the order under the previous government, and it gave more prominence to the FTAs. So we still see them having a role, but the primacy is the multilateral outcome.
REPORTER: On the matter of bilateral FTAs, do you have a view, and have you done an assessment of actually how the FTA with the United States is performing? You know, your side was critical, influenced by Garnaut to a degree. My impression is that it achieved some of the aims, and on the whole has been a good thing.
MINISTER: Well, it’s there, and we’re not seeking to undo it Tony. Our criticism was the extent to which it allowed carve-outs, and that was inconsistent with multilateral principles. So, and given the analysis I’ve just taken you through, you can understand why the criticism was there. It’s consistent with our concerns. But there is the opportunity for the annual assessment of where the FTA is going. I’ll be talking with Susan, not in the detail of that, because that assessment is not due until more toward the middle of the year, but we will be having those discussions consistent with the agreement.
REPORTER: Is there anything specific that you will want to get done on this occasion?
MINISTER: Well, no I’d prefer to concentrate for the purposes of this visit, given that the timetable on the other thing is not as pressing, but I’d prefer to concentrate on this visit with seeking the outcome in Doha – the commitment to go forward on Doha.
REPORTER: Did you get any readout at all on what the Farm Bill is likely to look like when it finally emerges, and whether there’s any prospect – there have been suggestions that President Bush could veto it. Any updates on that?
MINISTER: Not really, I mean, you know that there are two different bills in the House and the Senate. As we understand it, the President is keen that the bill go through as close to his original one, and we’ll see how the process pans it out. I mean, you know our view that neither of them present us with the best of options, but to the extent to which we know that whatever the Farm Bill is, it’s going to have to comply with the WTO. That’s a different dynamic.
REPORTER: Are we comfortable with the requirement by the Gulf Cooperation Council, under the influence of, of course, the Saudis, that we are required to negotiate a multilateral agreement with the entire GCC, whereas the Americans are being given special treatment, and able to negotiate FTAs individually, with the Gulf states, which of course, is becoming much more important from a trade perspective, from our point of view. Doesn’t it make it more difficult for us to achieve agreements? Is that something you’re going to raise with them?
MINISTER: Yes, and I already have with the Saudi Finance Minister in Davos. We are concerned at the extent to which the preferential access, particularly for autos, could have implications for our auto industry, which is already exporting very strongly to the states. But that preferential arrangement seems at the moment only to apply to one of the Gulf states – I think Bahrain. So I’m getting further detail on that, but I’ve signaled to the automotive industry back home, who briefed me about this before we got into office, that the GCC, the Gulf Cooperation Council concept, we want to advance, but we also want to make sure that we’re not going to have our flanks exposed in the short term.
ENDS
Media Inquiries: Departmental Media Liaison 02 6261 1555