[asia-apec 53] press conference

[Asia Pacific Center for Justice and Peace]

How about "APEC, What the Heck?"

The following is a press conference with US Ambassador to APEC and
others after the Cebu SOM in May.  There is one bit about NGOs
towards the end of the document.  There is also a little bit on
the International Action Plans (IAPs) which no one I know has been
able to get a hold of (not for a lack of trying might I add).

Ehito Kimura (Asia Pacific Center) coordinator:  US-NGO Working
Group on APEC


   WOLF: U.S. SEEKS 'FOCUSED OUTCOMES' FOR APEC
   (Press Conference following 5/25 APEC Senior Officials Meeting)

   Cebu, Philippines -- The Clinton administration wants the
   Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum to achieve
   greater focus in its efforts to strengthen regional economic
   cooperation and development through a "management by objective"
   approach, according to Ambassador John Wolf, U.S. Coordinator
   for APEC Affairs.

   During a press conference following the second meeting of APEC
   senior officials (SOM) under the Philippines' chairmanship May
   25, Wolf said the United States is looking for more focused
   outcomes in this process, setting objectives and the milestones
   to get to them.

   "We ought to bring the business sector in as a partner with the
   public sector," he said. "We ought together to identify those
   outcomes that would help us to strengthen economic cooperation
   and development. We ought to define some milestones to find
   some measurable criterion, some performance criteria, by which
   we can measure progress forward to the milestones and then we
   ought to work together to achieve our destination. And if we
   are able to do that, we believe that we can have the kinds of
   impact that really can help APEC to make a difference."

   Focused outcomes, he said, might involve specific projects that
   would lead to a particular destination. "It would be something
   like 21st century ports by a certain year, or a certain amount
   of power generation that's environmentally friendly. Or maybe
   it would be reduce on-shore sources of pollution by a given
   percent by date certain," Wolf said.

   Some of the milestones, he said, will be policy issues. "They
   will include trade and investment liberalization and
   facilitation. Some of the milestones will be putting in place
   the specific kinds of infrastructure that would be needed to
   carry on that activity. If it were cleaning up pollution, there
   would be a lot of equipment, a lot infrastructure that would be
   necessary to help do that -- retro-fitting and building new. If
   it were the ports, it would be building modern ports, cranes,
   intermodal communications links and the like. If it were a
   telecommunications initiative, it would have telecommunications
   infrastructure," Wolf said.

   "We were trying to introduce a concept -- call it management by
   objective," he said. "We need to consult with the other parts
   of APEC, the working groups. We need to consult with the
   private sectors. We've doing a lot of it, but this is a new
   idea for many of the rest of APEC and the Senior Officials need
   to consult at home. We do want to consult with ABAC. That was
   part of the decision that was reached at the SOM."

   Wolf said he thought APEC could get through some of the
   consultations by August. "I think some of it will stretch on
   into the fall and what we're hoping is that by November, we'll
   have a concept that we're ready to address to ministers and
   perhaps to leaders," he said.

   Following is the official transcript of the press conference:

   (begin official transcript)

   PRESS CONFERENCE FOLLOWING THE APEC SOM II MEETING
   IN CEBU, PHILIPPINES
   MAY 25, 1996

   AMBASSADOR JOHN WOLF, U.S. COORDINATOR FOR APEC AFFAIRS
   ASSISTANT USTR FOR ASIA PACIFIC ROBERT CASSIDY
   ASSISTANT USTR FOR MULTILATERAL AFFAIRS AND WTO DOROTHY DWOSKIN

   MODERATOR: Good afternoon and thank you for coming. I'd like to
   introduce some members of the U.S. delegation. Ambassador John
   Wolf, who is our Senior Official and Coordinator for APEC
   affairs, Mr.  Robert Cassidy, the Assistant U.S. Trade
   Representative for Asia-Pacific, and Dorothy Dwoskin, Assistant
   USTR for Multilateral Affairs and WTO.

   Ambassador Wolf will make a brief statement and then he'll be
   happy to take your questions.

   WOLF: Thanks very much for coming and we're sorry to keep you
   waiting but the meeting went over by a few minutes.

   I'm going to repeat a couple of things that I said to some of
   you at the last meeting in order to set a framework, and then
   we would be delighted to answer any questions that you have.

   At the last meeting, I mentioned that the United States has
   four goals for APEC this year. We want to have solid individual
   action plans from all 18 member economies as the first step to
   implementing the Bogor vision of free trade in the region by
   2010 and 2020. This meeting was a first step this year in that
   process and we're very encouraged that all 18 economies have
   plans on the table.

   Second, we want APEC to spur global liberalization at the first
   WTO ministerial in Singapore in December. There was a
   discussion today about that and Dorothy will be invited to talk
   a little bit more about that if people are interested.

   Third, we seek a new partnership between APEC and business, and
   I'll talk a little bit more about that in just a second.

   And fourth, we want APEC to achieve greater focus in its
   efforts to strengthen economic cooperation and development in
   the APEC region. We had excellent discussions, with a number of
   contributions from around the room, including especially the
   delegation from the Philippines. We have a work in progress
   about which we are very enthusiastic -- a proposal that looks
   at what APEC's role should be in terms of strengthening
   economic cooperation and development and we'll be working on
   that at the next meeting.

   On the business point -- we want business to be engaged in the
   APEC process. President Clinton at Blake Island strongly
   supported partnership between business and government in APEC.
   That is why we supported the creation of the Pacific Business
   Forum and that is why in Osaka the U.S. supported the formation
   of the APEC Business Advisory Council.

   The President demonstrated again this week that commitment by
   his appointment of three distinguished U.S. business people as
   members of the U.S. delegation to ABAC. They are Susan
   Corrales-Diaz, who is the Chief Executive Officer of Systems
   Integrated; Robert Denham, the Chief Executive Officer of
   Salomon Brothers; and Frank Shronz, the Chairman of Boeing. In
   this connection, we also applaud President Ramos' initiative to
   foster a dialogue between ABAC and the APEC leaders on the eve
   of the leaders meeting at Subic Bay.

   We have also welcomed and fully support President Ramos'
   initiative to host an APEC Business Forum in conjunction with
   the November meetings.  We were told at the meeting this week
   that the forum organizers will provide details on how the
   conference will be organized once they have completed their
   consultations with the private sectors around the APEC region.
   We are looking forward to hearing those results and to working
   with the organizers and the U.S. private sector to make the
   APEC Business Forum a successful event this fall.

   That's an overview of what we're doing. We'll have copies of
   this available for you at the end of the press conference.

   Q: Does the U.S. have a position on corruption as a barrier to
   trade?

   DWOSKIN: There have been some important developments outside of
   the APEC context, and outside of the WTO context, in terms of
   pursuing bribery and corruption, most recently at the OECD.
   There was an important step forward taken to pursue the issue
   in terms of denying the tax deductibility of bribes to foreign
   officials and work on criminalization.

   What we have said in the WTO context is that we think that the
   WTO can make some important contributions particularly in the
   area of government procurement where a lack of transparency and
   due process have led to some undesirable behavior in terms of
   corruption and bribery. What we have proposed for the WTO is
   that we pursue an interim agreement that would afford greater
   transparency in government purchasing practices. The idea is to
   bring some sunshine into the process that actually helps to
   mitigate the effects of bribery and corruption.

   The second area is just in the better operation of current WTO
   rules.  For example, in customs valuation or in pre-shipment
   inspection. If you have better adherence to the rules, then you
   take away some of the possibilities for corrupt behavior. Thank
   you.

   Q: Some delegations seem to have misunderstood your position on
   corruption...and on development cooperation. What is your
   position?

   WOLF: Let me answer the parts of the question that I can. We
   discussed in the Senior Officials Meeting a possible new
   initiative that APEC will consider to strengthen economic
   cooperation and development.  There are a number of elements to
   it which we are developing, and I can read some of the elements
   to you.

   We talked about how this would help build a new Pacific
   community, a term that comes out of the Blake Island
   communique. Parts of that relate to trade and investment
   liberalization and facilitation. It is designed to achieve
   sustainable growth and equitable development and it is designed
   to reduce economic disparity. We talked about some principles
   of cooperation. We talked about elements that would be part of
   the initiative. We talked about the approach of goal-oriented
   management by objective, and we talked about what the way ahead
   might be which is advancing something we called impact
   outcomes. Working on special outcomes -- special goals -- that
   will help us to make a real difference in what's going on terms
   of economic activity and the distributive effects of it. We
   want to remove infrastructure bottlenecks and we want to
   address issues of sustainability.

   Clearly, and an important part of all of this, is building a
   partnership between the public sector and private sector in
   order to accomplish those goals. That's what we talked about
   when we talked about strengthening economic cooperation and
   development in the Asia-Pacific region.

   CASSIDY: Could I just refer to the earlier question about
   government procurement and how it relates to APEC because
   within APEC there is a specific area of concentration in the
   work program of APEC on government procurement. And in relation
   to what Dorothy had said, a large component of that is a
   transparency process. APEC itself is looking at that not only
   in the collective actions that they are identifying but also in
   the individual actions of what are individual countries doing
   in the government procurement area to increase transparency.
   APEC has already established a work program in that area.

   Q: We understand that you have had bilateral talks China. Have
   you discussed the IPR conflict and did you come up with ways to
   mitigate the problem?

   WOLF: We came here to discuss APEC matters and that's what we
   discussed.

   Q: Do you think that the sort of process that goes on in APEC
   would help to facilitate the types of bilateral rows that you
   have had in the past over trade with both China and Japan? Can
   APEC help to smooth the path?

   WOLF: The goal is free and open trade in Asia Pacific by 2010
   or 2020 so, hopefully by 2010 or 2020, we'll be past all of
   these possible issues. I suppose in the long term, APEC will
   deal with the kinds of issues that we are also discussing in
   our bilateral relationships until we reach that destination.

   Q: Could you tell us something about the focused outcomes that
   you reportedly proposed?

   WOLF: I'll be delighted. I think focused outcomes is in some
   ways a state of mind. What we have been concerned with, and
   what senior officials have talked about at the two meetings at
   which I have been this year, has been a lot of discussion about
   how we can deal with the enormous range of issues that are
   being handled in what's known as the economic technical
   cooperation side of APEC. There is all the work that goes on in
   trade and investment liberalization and facilitation, and then
   there's a lot of economic and technical cooperation work. A lot
   of those projects going on are good projects and they are going
   forward.

   There is some overlap and the economic committee has been asked
   to take a look at the range of activities that are going on to
   identify where work is complementary, but where there are also
   problems of overlap. But unlike in the trade and investment
   liberalization side, which has a vision, and has milestones to
   get us there, there are not a lot of organizing principles for
   the economic cooperation side. So, focused outcomes was really
   designed to say that we ought to have some outcomes, and
   stretch objectives and milestones to get us to them.

   We ought to bring the business sector in as a partner with the
   public sector. We ought together to identify those outcomes
   that would help us to strengthen economic cooperation and
   development. We ought to define some milestones to find some
   measurable criterion, some performance criteria, by which we
   can measure progress forward to the milestones and then we
   ought to work together to achieve our destination. And if we
   are able to do that, we believe that we can have the kinds of
   impact that really can help APEC to make a difference. It's a
   new idea for most organizations and it's a new idea within
   APEC.

   Since this is a dynamic region, if we are able to remove those
   road blocks, if we are able to address problems that are
   occurring in greater or lesser degree around the region, then
   we will be able to accelerate the activity that's going on in
   the region. But we're determined to do it on a sustainable
   basis. So, focused outcome has been folded in to part of a
   larger strategy that we're now going to explore to see if we
   can make APEC work to strengthen economic cooperation and
   development.

   Q: Just a clarification. Do focused outcomes also include
   concrete projects? Is the U.S. proposing concrete projects?

   WOLF: We are not really making proposals because we want to
   work within APEC. Maybe this is something that ABAC will want
   to consider.  There would be specific projects within a focused
   outcome. An outcome would be a destination. It would be
   something like 21st century ports by a certain year, or a
   certain amount of power generation that's environmentally
   friendly. Or maybe it would be reduce on-shore sources of
   pollution by a given percent by date certain. That's the
   outcome and then there are milestones to get you there.

   Some of the milestones will be policy issues. They will include
   trade and investment liberalization and facilitation. Some of
   the milestones will be putting in place the specific kinds of
   infrastructure that would be needed to carry on that activity.
   If it were cleaning up pollution, there would be a lot of
   equipment, a lot infrastructure that would be necessary to help
   do that -- retro-fitting and building new. If it were the
   ports, it would be building modern ports, cranes, intermodal
   communications links and the like. If it were a
   telecommunications initiative, it would have telecommunications
   infrastructure. But the point is for this meeting, we were
   trying to introduce a concept -- call it management by
   objective. We need to consult with the other parts of APEC, the
   working groups. We need to consult with the private sectors.
   We've doing a lot of it, but this is a new idea for many of the
   rest of APEC and the Senior Officials need to consult at home.
   We do want to consult with ABAC. That was part of the decision
   that was reached at the SOM.

   So, there's work to be done. We'll do some of it by August. I
   think some of it will stretch on into the fall and what we're
   hoping is that by November, we'll have a concept that we're
   ready to address to ministers and perhaps to leaders.

   Q: Did you by any chance meet with the delegation from
   Indonesia, bilaterally? Did you take up the issue of
   Indonesia's car policy?

   CASSIDY: No, that did not come up. In general, we don't use
   these meetings in APEC for a lot of bilaterals on specifically
   bilateral issues. That issue did not come up at this meeting.
   No, it didn't.

   Q: There were reports that the U.S. would like to meet with
   Indonesia after the APEC meeting here in Cebu. Are you planning
   to do that?

   CASSIDY: That's right, but the appropriate officials who are
   responsible for those policies were not able to meet at this
   time so we'll have to set another date for that discussion.

   Q: Will that be here in the Philippines?

   CASSIDY: No, it won't. It won't be here in the Philippines.

   Q: And are you in favor a dispute mediation service here in
   APEC?

   CASSIDY: Dispute mediation is a very comprehensive issue in
   APEC.  There are many aspects that the various economies are
   looking at. In principle, the focus right now is on dispute
   mediation between private parties, between governments and
   private parties, and I think that's the area that has been
   concentrated on by APEC economies. Whether it extends into
   other types of dispute settlement mechanisms, that is something
   to be discussed at a future date. It has been something that
   has been proposed but the discussions on those issues have not
   advanced as far as the discussions on private party-type
   dispute resolution and government to private party-dispute
   resolution.

   Q: What is the U.S. position on the anti-dumping issue,
   vis-a-vis the Chinese position?

   CASSIDY: The Chinese have proposed a discussion on
   anti-dumping. At the present time, the Committee on Trade and
   Industry is continuing to review the proposal. Like many other
   proposals that have been advanced in APEC, and I don't think
   this is any exception to that, the committee looks at some of
   these proposals and they come back frequently for
   consideration.

   There are many issues to be examined in part because there is
   so much on-going work that is taking place in the WTO. The
   question is to what extent can an APEC review of anti-dumping
   create some value added?  These are some of the things that
   other countries are looking at as they examine this proposal.
   How does this fit in to the on going work that is going on in
   anti-dumping?

   As I said, this is not any different than any other issue that
   has come up in APEC. I know of many issues the Japanese and
   others have proposed where it has taken four or five meetings
   to work out a program that seems to be reasonable and reflects
   the value added that APEC hopes to add.

   Q: Just one further clarification on the concept of focused
   outcomes.  How does this focused outcomes concept dovetail with
   Philippine philosophy on development cooperation?

   WOLF: As we discussed it in the meeting, we have tried to fuse
   together several ideas into a new idea that we call
   strengthening economic cooperation and development in the
   Asia-Pacific region. What we're looking at is something that
   will take the best elements of both proposals and put them
   together into a new way of operating, a new modus operandi for
   APEC. Where can APEC create value, where can APEC address
   specific outcomes where we can make an impact, where we can
   move things forward?

   Q: Would you give us some information of your individual action
   plan which has 15 areas. What did you prioritize?

   CASSIDY: As you know all of these individual action plans are
   draft proposals, they're preliminary proposals. There is a
   whole process of consultations that will be taking place
   throughout the year before they are finally presented to
   ministers in November.

   I think the main story that I think all delegates found
   surprising and were pleased with was that all 18 economies
   presented individual action plans. I think that for us was the
   main story and the one that we were very pleased with. I don't
   want to get into a detailed discussion of these plans. But let
   me give some of the high points that I think are issues that
   will be the subject of further discussions throughout the year.

   First of all, the United States, in its plan, has been showing
   the liberalization that will be taking place through the year
   2000 and through the years 2004 and 2005. In addition, the
   United States has additional tariff-cutting authority that we
   are prepared to use in the context of APEC in achieving
   specific goals in liberalization in APEC.  And also within the
   WTO, in preparation for the WTO ministerial. There are some
   areas of particular interest in the Asia region because of
   products that are of interest to APEC countries. I would cite
   for example wood products, non-ferrous metals, oil seeds and
   oil seed products, and in particular, I would emphasize the
   information technology agreement. This is an area that I think
   Dorothy is well-familiar with in her discussions. These are the
   information technology products of the future, and the products
   that are exported by APEC nations. It has so many of the
   components that APEC has been focusing on. It has a small
   business component to it. It is a business component because it
   is part of the infrastructure of business. It has an
   educational component to it. As I said, it's an export item of
   interest to the whole region going from Taiwan, Korea,
   Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Indonesia. And in addition,
   it has a high technology component to it. So, these are all the
   areas that APEC has been concentrating on. The U.S. individual
   action plan looks forward also in looking at future
   negotiations in the basic telecommunications area, financial
   services and how APEC can move forward in further
   liberalization. These are the areas that we have looked at in
   developing our individual action plan in discussions with other
   economies in APEC.

   Q: What is the U.S. position on the moratorium and the
   participation of international organizations and NGOs in the
   working groups?

   WOLF: The membership question did not come up in the SOM and so
   we will see where we are when it does. On participation of
   non-members and international organizations in the working
   groups -- - there are existing guidelines that were first set
   in Seattle and then expanded in Osaka. The SOM discussed them
   and that's the basis on which we operate. I'm sure you can get
   a copy of them which will explain how ministers have already
   agreed to operate. I will be glad to confirm that I support my
   minister's views.

   Q: Are you worried that with these new bodies coming in --
   environmental and women's groups -- that you will...slow down
   the machinations of APEC?

   WOLF: The women's group event that was briefed to us I
   understand is a non-APEC event.

   Q: Please explain how the most-favored-nation status given by
   the U.S.  to China will affect the open regionalism advocated
   by APEC and specifically the relations of the U.S. with the
   other member economies of APEC.

   DWOSKIN: I think the U.S. has always taken the position that we
   want to move forward in APEC on the basis of open regionalism.
   Our situation with respect to China is reflected in the
   discussions that took place in Osaka. There is a difference in
   terms of treatment. The U.S.-China relationship is not one that
   is based on unconditional MFN at this time. I think that was
   reflected in the Osaka Declaration. I don't think that, at
   least in our discussions here, it came up. I would note that
   China has been an active participant in the discussions that we
   had today on the preparations for the WTO discussion at the
   Christchurch meeting. China is in the process of acceding to
   the WTO and the U.S. is taking a very active role in those
   negotiations. I would say that there was really no difference
   in the discussions or the tenor of the discussion here or in
   Osaka where this was discussed in some detail.

   WOLF: Thank you very much.

   (end official transcript)



   Return to Latest U.S.-APEC Issues and Texts



   Return to U.S.-APEC Homepage