 Good afternoon, I'm Robert Lawrence and I'm going to be moderating this session as you will see certain of our participants are on their way, apparently there are certain impediments to traffic currently that are preventing them making access instantaneously but as they arrive we will be absorbing them into our discussion. We have an important topic today which is basically the global trading system. What's striking if you look at the performance of the global trading system is that it is somewhat paradoxical because at one level it's actually been remarkably robust. We've really put the trading system under huge stress in the aftermath of the global financial crisis and while we have seen some protectionist measures being adopted I think many people have actually been surprised at the restraint which many governments have shown and the economists are starting to do some research into why has that restraint occurred and one of the things that the research is pointing to is the fact that today we operate global supply chains and so we are highly interdependent and from a political standpoint this seems to have made the system somewhat more robust. Nonetheless if we look at the trading system we do see that certain parts are flourishing and one particular part that is flourishing is the regional. We're seeing large numbers of regional agreements being negotiated between major participants in the trading system but at the same time the contrast is with the multilateral system where the negotiations are quite frankly at an impasse. So there's the striking contrast something is driving countries to negotiate free trade agreements. Protectionism has not risen and yet at the same time the multilateral system is not operating well. So what I hope to do in this session is to explore this strange contrast. Firstly what explains the difference in the outcomes that we're seeing bilaterally and pluralaterally versus multilaterally and then later what I hope to ask is how could we improve the multilateral system to really restore its centrality. So I'd like to start off with Pascal Lamy who's sitting at the end. After that we'll go through our panelists. Gladly we've been joined by Mr. Sharma who is the Minister of Commerce and Industry and Textiles from India. Next to Pascal Lamy the Director General of the World Trade Organization. We have Karl Degucht who is the Commissioner of Trade for Europe. On his right is Ron Kirk the Special Trade Representative from the United States. We then have Federico Curado who's the President and CEO of Embraer from Brazil who's our representative of the private sector and then we have Gita Weirjawan who is the Minister of Trade from Indonesia. So let's start with Pascal Lamy please. What explains this contrast between regionalism on the one hand and the negotiating processes in the Doha round? Bob I believe there's not as much as a contrast as you just painted it which I understand is necessary for moving the discussion forward. First because you're right there are many bilateral agreements being negotiated but bilateral agreements being negotiated is not bilateral agreements which are concluded. First and second bilateral agreements which are concluded are not necessarily bilateral agreements which are used. We've published these numbers in the World Trade Report which we issued last July. With all these bilateral trade agreements all over the place not more than 15% of world trade is de facto regulated by bilateral agreements. And why? Because business is reluctant to enter into the preference game in that it implies certificates of origin, rate tape. So there is a huge bit of process which in fact hampers the effectiveness of bilateral agreements. Now but true politically speaking it's a fact and this is by the way among the major players. That's one of the problems of this proliferation of bilateral agreements which is that if I'm US, EU or China and I negotiate with a 20 million developing country we know what the balance of forces is which in doing so creates a risk of debalancing the rules in favor of the big ones or leaving aside a large number of poor developing countries who have sort of no capacity to negotiate bilateral trade agreements whereas around the WTO table they have their say. Second I will totally agree with you and that's obvious that the rules making function of the WTO is for the moment not working. We have rules but we haven't yet succeeded in some areas in improving them, in adjusting them to the realities of what trade is today. But that doesn't mean that the multilateral trading system doesn't keep a comparative advantage vis-à-vis bilateral deals. We have a big comparative advantage in monitoring, surveillance. We have a big comparative advantage in dispute settlement. We have a big comparative advantage in technical assistance and aid for trade. So you're right for the moment, for the moment the rules making of opening more trade we have a problem in the multilateral trading system which is due not to technical issues which is due to political problem. If you go bilateral you can pick and choose your partners. When you go multilateral by definition you have to agree with everybody and that's maybe for the moment where the difference lies. Well thank you. Carl de Gucht, we've heard from the Director General that the problem is political when it comes to negotiating in the WTO. From where you sit would you agree and in a sense what I do notice is the vibrancy of your initiatives when it comes to negotiating with many other trading partners. So how do you experience this contrast? What is it that's leading to this difference? The problem within the WTO is certainly a political one and it has a lot to do with the fact that the Do-Around was initiated more than 10 years ago and in the meantime the world has changed dramatically. The emerging economies have largely emerged and especially China but also Brazil and India have become or fierce competitors in almost all of our markets. Now the starting point of the Do-Around was an asymmetry in efforts and the whole political discussion is about to what extent can that asymmetry in efforts continue? Do we have to narrow the gap and how can we narrow the gap? And then you have different appreciations. Some say look as long as the gap isn't bridged we are not making agreements and others say look let's never the less try to make a compromise. That's a big political discussion so some say it's because now there are more members in the WTO and then it's not any longer the four that dominated. No, I mean if there were a possibility to reach an agreement to negotiate an agreement between the major developed economies and the BRICS we would get to something but at this moment in time this cannot be bridged and we will see whether it would be the case in the future. Now about our own initiative on bilateral agreements there are two reasons for that the one that I'm just explaining but there is another one that we want to engage in a way with strategic partners that is much more deep and comprehensive which means that for example also regulatory approximation is part of the agreement so much more far reaching than you could ever aspire within the WTO so there are two reasons for that. Thank you. Mrs. Sharma I'd like you to pick up on this contrast between the multilateral and the bilateral and you have currently presumably negotiations taking place with Europe which are going towards deep and comprehensive and yet in the WTO we don't seem to have seen movement at all if you will and certainly not in that direction so from where you said how do you explain this this contrast? You see first of all let me put it that I agree in principle with Pascal and Carol de Gucht that it's a political issue political issue in the sense that the leadership of countries heads of states and governments and the ministers who are engaged in the process have to have absolute clarity and courage to take some decisions to say that the changing world had changed the developmental dimension of the debate with all respect I will disagree there for three reasons before I answer your bilateral and plurilateral. First we are talking of making a distinction between the developing countries already a distinction has been made in the developing countries block that is of the LDCs and there is a broad consensus amongst the developed and the developing countries that the LDC must get a package they must be assisted and this is what we discussed today. Secondly we are engaged in frank negotiations but to say that the emerging economies are present everywhere the Doha mandate was to correct the historical imbalances and distortions now for a country like India I'll say we are not an economy which is gaining from global trade we have less than 2% of the share of merchandise trade our goods and services trade put together is barely 4% now we are home to 20% of the world's children 17% of the world's population 1.2 billion people should that be a share fair share but to say that you know because we are emerging now should we remain submerged that's my second question suddenly where America is the per capita income is 48,000 US dollars UK is 36,000 average Europe is 3677,000 we are $3,000 we are still home to one third of the malnourished children of the world we are trying to create wealth and redistribute reinvest so that we can empower our people so to say that you know China has a different dimension but they too has some of the same social issues and challenges Brazil too has Africa has hasn't trade been a major source of dynamism in India but still I've said that you look at our share yes when it comes to India's external engagement economic engagement that has grown and the share of trade in proportion to a GDP which was barely 24 25% today's over 50% but at the same time the enormous pressure on our trade account itself our trade account deficit is huge we are not a trade surplus country at all and we are mindfully cutely so of our challenges and when there is a pressure on the trade account and which is more so difficult now after what has happened in the world in the last one year with the sky rocketing fuel prices and we are primarily a oil and gas importing country fertilizer importing country so it is impacting our agrarian economy it is impacting our current account deficit so let me I would like to urge you are that when we are analyzing this and also our position it should be put in a this wholesome perspective we are back home still not where the per capita incomes of the developed countries were there before the first world war the others may be somewhere there in 1940s but we are not so we are trying to reach we are trying to move forward but that we can do only if we get a fair share so there has to be a balance because the last observation I have to make on this that we are talking of countries engaged in difficult and complex negotiations coming from different levels of development different levels of challenges but we have a common aspiration because we are live we live in an integrated world so that's why we have to find some solutions and move forward well thank you Ron Kirk you've participated in both kinds of negotiations recently concluded successfully and indeed they implemented a range of free trade agreements now doing the Trans Pacific partnership what do you see why are you more hopeful in that direction or could you also do the Doha round well we certainly been more productive in the bilateral forum and I guess to try to lighten the mood a little bit at the risk of being non responsive when you started out asking why the I think the explosion of bilateral agreements one I just think it's a it's a more practical path whether we like it or not to an immediate challenge among all of our economies responding to this particular global economic crisis that some of us have come out of many of us are struggling with it's a fairly efficient way to use trade to help spur economic growth and grow jobs in a more direct path in which you can control I think notwithstanding the differences in the nuances you've heard from many of us having now been in this job three years and met and gotten to know all of the people on stage all of us share a very deep and abiding commitment to the integrity to the need of the World Trade Organization each of us if we had our preference would rather have trade rationalized in a multilateral form for the reasons you'll hear our business friend talk that would be much more sane but I think people do bilateral trade if I can use a story if I can be so crude for the same reason in my part of the world we grew up with a fellow by the name of Willie Sutton who was a notorious bank robber and he was very proficient at robbing banks but equally proficient at getting caught until he literally he he would rob a bank he'd get caught he'd rob a bank he'd get caught and he went to jail and finally the judge says Willie why do you keep robbing banks he said judge that's what a money is and I don't mean you know to be flipping but short term I think you're going to see more and more countries turn to bilateral regional engagements because of the difficulty of finding consensus among a hundred and fifty three very diverse economies and I would say to the defense of the WTO like other global forums at least we do move forward in some areas but whether it's climate talks or others we've seen how difficult it is to find consensus and I think the reality given the current global macroeconomic environment countries leaders have a responsibility to use all of the tools in their economic toolbox the good thing is trade has credentialed itself as a way to be able to move that needle to create economic activity and create jobs so basically you're saying that's where the money is well I mean in the sense that the company where what are the companies saying to you companies are saying create opportunities take cost out of the system now consumers increasingly and again it depends on where you said and I wish you know if you're my colleague from Singapore in which trade is a hundred and eighty percent of your economy you don't have to go sell trade to the public but if you're a trade minister from an economy like the United States in which trade is only thirteen percent of our GDP but contributing heavenly but which more in America more and more Americans frankly questioned the value proposition of global trade a minister Sharman talked about their deficit I don't need to go into our balance of trade but frankly more and more Americans of all persuasions believe that we have swapped jobs for cheaper t-shirts and iPads and say you know then today I need a little more of that and whether no matter where you are in the world now just showing up and saying trade is good doesn't sell with the public most places you have to be able to demonstrate how your trade policy sustains economic jolt growth with a direct line not a dotted line to job creation so as we hear about this it's interesting that you mentioned the iPad and Pasquale me had a fascinating op-ed piece in which he brought out that this product which comes labeled as made in China actually has more a huge amount of American value added in it and it comes from many many other countries the reality today is that we live in a world of global supply chains and I would be very interested Mr. Corrado in your take as you operate your aircraft business which we think of as a Brazilian aircraft how much value added do you actually have that comes from Brazil and how dependent on you are on you on global supply chains well we are very global by nature we are just for to make the general information we are in three businesses are commercial aircraft business aircraft and also the aerospace and defense and the aerospace and defense business is made is global so the supply chain is global to the number is something about 60 to 70 percent depending on the product that we source we outsource so the value added actually in Brazil is 30 to 40 percent this is the same number very similar number to Boeing or to Airbus and that says a lot about bilateral multilateral companies who we which are fundamentally trying to defend themselves in their domestic markets they tend to push probably as Secretary Kirk said towards bilateral where the money is more pragmatic approaches but I would I would try to make a present the other angle the more global we become and of course the door around is political for sure let's say the stall of the discussion process the governance mechanism does not help in my opinion the single undertaking need for consensus and everything so that I'm no expert of course but it is very difficult to find consensus in everything and without that do not move so maybe capturing partial agreements in the WTO in the scope of doha around could be a way to go but companies which are global they would prefer as we are frankly pro multilateralism we believe it's the only way to have a real equilibrium in the international trade so what I hear in this conversation so far is that when we look at the multilateral we have an intrinsic problem we have decision making by consensus we have a hugely diverse group of countries and in a sense they have very very different needs and demands meanwhile there are a lot of pressures from below from the companies to be able to integrate so there's an inherent tension here and I think those are important takeaways as we try to look forward you mentioned a kind of a more plural lateral type of approach so I'd like to hear from other people but I want to give everyone a chance to talk first is that the way forward a more multifaceted WTO that actually can accommodate both deeper agreements for some and yet nonetheless have common obligations for all please thank you Robert well first of all I'm in principle in support of what Pascal has said in terms of multilateralism being the way forward by way of the principle of single undertaking it is the only way to make sure that everybody gets treated fairly but unfortunately as as I said earlier today it's sort of like these 150 and odd countries are sort of like driving in their different cars each one of which might have its own GPS but some may not have GPS on board so some may know where they're going but some may not know where they're going but we're just going to have to wait for somebody that has a better mode of transportation that can basically provide the leadership and take everybody else forward I think there's reason to feel optimistic about getting a multilateral approach done for everybody but it's a question of timing I share the view of Anna and Sharma and that you know India has its own concerns in terms of they're having a GDP of three thousand dollars Indonesia is not far off from there and Indonesia is a country that's probably not in the same category of an emerging economy as China Brazil and India would be in that they have a lot more educated people they have the ability to produce airplanes iPads computers and what have you whereas we're only at the level of being able to produce footwear and garment because we have not produced equally the number of PhDs masters and bachelor's as we might see in those three other countries we have issues to go forward but we do have the desire of wanting to go up the value chain and to the extent that that gets understood in a plurilateral or a multilateral type of an approach I think there is a way to go for countries like Indonesia so in the meantime I think you're bound to see the seduction and addiction to bilateralism and regionalism at the rate that there is no political leadership that basically can think pragmatically realistically and reasonably for us to move forward maybe little steps at a time as opposed to being superly ambitious about some of the bigger goals that we've already articulated earlier so what I hear emerging you call for leadership but I also hear hints that there may be something wrong with the structure that is that is requiring all to accept all obligations I think fundamentally the structure is the right structure Doha was designed to make sure that the interest of those coming from the developing economies does get attended to and that I think is the right structure for anybody that comes from a developing country but there is another part of the structure which I think has to call upon the voices of those from the more developed economies to make sure that this give and take approach gets done going forward Craig Emerson it's good to have you with us we appreciate your arrival I know that Australia is playing in both areas the regional and the multilateral as you look forward what kind of changes would make the multilateral system more attractive well if I could give my apologies for being detained but I can report that the Occupy World Economic Forum movement is not yet fully convinced of the benefits of free trade so I did make it I'd also as a doctor say this about the Doha round it should not be declared dead Doha is not dead it's not alive and well it's alive and unwell but I think there's enough life in the Doha round to persist with it but realistically after 10 years this patient is is pretty feeble and simply pressing on with the current approach doesn't look capable of yielding the sorts of results that we need so I don't think it's fundamentally a problem that there are 153 members or soon to be 157 I mean in the Uruguay round there was well over 100 you're already way past a sort of critical level at which complexity is a defining feature of the negotiations it was then it is now but the sorts of ideas that Pascal has been talking about in Australia certainly has been doing to break the round up into more manageable parts build confidence I think we lack confidence now in the capacity of the Doha round as originally conceived to deliver results and maybe modest early returns now other way to go and this is sort of discussion that we've been having they may not seem to be monumental in their own right but their confidence building and send a message to the world at a time when there's so much protectionist pressure that we can do it in some easier areas but nevertheless important such as trade facilitation such as the accession process for least developed countries there are two examples that seem to be good candidates but you're right we are pursuing regional agreements through the Transpacific Partnership within APEC as potentially a vehicle that to which the TPP could expand over time all the members of the TPP are members of APEC we have bilateral negotiations underway but the benefit of the multilateral system is one that you mentioned on the way and that is that businesses themselves are global there are global supply chains and to pick up the global activity of businesses that may source goods and services from a very substantial array of countries is an argument for a global negotiation and so we would like to do that we're not going to lessen our commitment to the regional and the bilateral forms but we do think that a new pathway is the way to go consistent with still high ambition but let's get some confidence get some results early and once we prove to ourselves that we're capable after 10 years of doing that it's just possible that there will be a newfound momentum so we think that that's the right strategy well that's a nice optimistic tone Pascal and me I know you have to leave soon and you're on your way to Africa so we're pleased about that from an African standpoint but I'd like to hear your views on if you look down the road let's take under the assumption that there was a successful conclusion of the door around if you look forward a little bit what kind of things do you think would make the WTO a more attractive location for for these global the purveyors of these global supply chains and indeed all who look to the global trading system to raise their welfare well I mean I think this this discussion has already answered this question the paradox is not so much between bilateral and multilateral it's between global value chains proliferating and bilateral agreements proliferating this is where the paradox is and what carrell de Gaulle said about bilateral are better because they are deeper especially in the regulatory area is where the potential problem lies there's no problem in countries negotiating bilaterally tariff reductions because at the end of the day the more bilateral preferences you have the less bilateral preferences you have if India and US compromise India's bound tariff ceiling tariff let's say 40% use ceiling tariff let's say 4% if they do a bilaterally they will compromise on 20% which by the way they refuse to do in the WTO that's a question for you guys but why why will you do that why will you do that because they will get the 20% before the others get it so they have a preference now of course India will sign bilateral agreements with others and the more India gives 20% to others the more the EU preference of 20% will lose its value so multilaterally multilaterally that's not a problem there is an asymptote like in a curve to bilateral trade opening tariff wise which is zero which is the multilaterally asymptote so that's not the problem where is the problem the problem is in deep regulatory convergence if EU and India adopt a common standard for telecom equipment bilaterally because that will be good for both your businesses and US and Korea adopt bilateral standards for car emission and all this is just examples right it's not this will be a problem because at the end of the day you will scatter the marketplace with bilateral regulatory regimes which business will not like because it's this economies of scale so this is where the problem lies now does this mean that nothing can be done multilaterally I totally agree with you that the problem for the moment is that you need a lot of political energy to do things multilaterally and it's just not available short supply just like on climate change or currency arrangements or macroeconomic coordination too bad for the years to come very low level of that so the big deal will not be there because the big deal implies that this question which Ron and Anand just mentioned which is what's the right balance of obligations between developed and emerging countries that's they can't find this because they don't have the necessary political energy to compromise India will say I'm a developing country don't you ask me to take the same commitments at the US US will say sorry guys you are now competing with us why should we accept such a difference in tariffs and both of them have a let's say reasonably convincing argument the problem is that when you've got two convincing arguments the only way out is compromise and for the moment the political energy for compromise is not there now what can we do and we discuss that including today and I think the conclusion is that there are things that can be done multilaterally even if the big price is not available for the reasons I just gave there are areas where small incremental significant progress can be made starting by the way with WTO accessions which is a way to extend the perimeter of rules short of changing them extending the perimeter has a value using instruments like the government procurement agreement after years and years of negotiation in December the members of the government procurement agreement in WTO succeeded in reopening the issue and concluding a new deal which will open more trade so these things are possible and I'm quite convinced after having heard everybody including ministers today that if we leave aside the sort of big battle big price for the moment which doesn't mean we should have it in mind there are areas where progress in a multilateral context can take place and this is what we have to test in the coming month but please do not expect trumpets and drums in the present macroeconomic circumstances which are not looking good governance governments will not trumpet this let's go to a sort of more quiet mode for some time get things done and then maybe the bigger price will be doable any others who have ideas about how we get beyond this please I would have one thought I think one common theme has been the political constraints each of us has to operate on to sell trade but but considering that and I loved Craig's honesty and that the fact he was delayed because of the protest he couldn't get here but the elephant not in the room is the principles on which the statement trade is good for the world have not been visited in some time and for the most part even the way you phrased the question was there's doing bilateral agreements making it more difficult for presumptively the global supply chain than if we were to do it multilaterally when the question is how do you convince that poor child in a village in India in lusaka in harland to believe why do you care if it's all about making it easier for the global supply chain you never build a political base of support that a non-sharma has to have to go to a population that is struggling to understand how is this going to improve my life whereas I think we have to take advantage of the challenge of this form recognizing the transformation in our economy to talk about trade differently yes it's important for the supply chain but the supply chain has to be relevant to help people live their lives and that we empower consumers all over the world making it easier for them to feed their families in a time of rising commodity prices and put all on the table we can create jobs but if we don't change and attack the fundamental premise on which why we should do this in a global forum in which all of us have to give something in order to get something then I think you never build that sort of global political consensus to make those very tough decisions and it becomes easier frankly to just do something practical and say I can explain this to the American public why I'm doing this with Korea Columbia Panama versus why we continue to add to our balance of trade by signing on the agreements to which the American public believes there's no benefit for us so I think we need a more honest address assessment of why we're who benefits from trade well I sorry by speaking of the supply chains I should have made it explicit that what we're actually talking about is how do we get the poor farmer in Africa to be part of the food supply chain to supply the large markets that are emerging or the person who works in in in many different places around the world to be supplying in that chain and therefore enjoying productive labor so that's what I meant by the supply chains Anand you've been very patient and then I'll come to you Carl because then I want to have some time at least for the audience you know I want to make three short points first I didn't respond so far to the bilaterals and the plurilaterals bilaterals are plurilaterals are decisions by sovereign nation states make it has been happening for a long time economic integration regional in particular started with NAFTA North America South Americas have had to European Union is a reality ASEAN is a very vibrant regional economic community in Africa there are seven wrecks the regional economic communities which work under the overarching umbrella of the Africa Union you mentioned about India negotiating yes that's true and Pascal too mentioned about our ongoing negotiations which are complex and difficult negotiations whether between two countries or between a regional economic community like European Union and India they have been prolonged complex and you have to have patience and pragmatism guiding those negotiations but the issue here is that if there is slow progress in the WTO negotiations which was the only 21st century mandate after the Uruguay round and this is the longest any multilateral or global trade negotiations have ever taken so that raises a fundamental question that should those issues which be left as Pascal I mean said to the multilateral order and the multilateral organization upholding the values of the principles which we all have accepted in GATT and WTO be taken over by plurilaterals my answer would be that multilateral pathway even if there is a block like I was saying earlier in the ministerial Craig is a doctor I'm not but if the main artery is blocked a good doctor will look at it that okay let's see that if it can be cleaned out and put a stand there or then to take the heart out and do the bypass so that's a larger issue government procurement competition these are the issues which should be within the domain of a multilateral regime and the biolaterals and plurilaterals otherwise which countries do should supplement like the small streams moving into a mighty river what about investment they should not yes and invest shouldn't invest so invest investment should be part of the WTO you see I would say rules of investment like multi-order I'm not saying there's not to suggest that countries will not engage with each other in plurilaterals but the same time if when we talk of a global trading order that is what the mandate is to correct the imbalances to ensure that it is fair and balanced but how we look at fair and balanced they could be different perspectives I would like to give one message to everyone contrary to the prophets of doom without singling out which section who are saying that this is dead and well there is a difficulty there has been a impasse because there are issues on which different perspectives are there that's why negotiations take place but what we do regionally or by plurilaterally should not replace the multilateral system fundamentally because that would undermine the very credibility of a multilateral trading regime and we all are convinced and lastly what I'm saying that we have to bear in mind that we can look at what is doable what can be harvested and not sequentially and use that as a building block towards the larger objective countries will eventually find through negotiations a middle ground the developing countries have paid the price and will continue to pay price which is fair but lastly what I'll say before Pascal leaves is that it's not what we negotiate as the tariffs the fact is that whether it was the get the tariffs have come down even after that we have unilaterally brought down our tariffs to an average national average of 15 percent that will keep on happening but the fundamental issue is about the bound tariff and the applied tariff the bound tariff and applied tariff that is the policy space which countries would need at the same time I don't foresee a situation where a bound tariff is say 30 percent the countries will invoke the bound tariff unless and until they are compelling reasons to do so so while there is no perfect solution it in search of a perfect solution it will be a never-ending negotiation we can at least have a fair solution and find a middle ground I want to turn Carl the hood you pioneered as Europe an effort to try to introduce some of these deeper integration issues into the WTO things like investment and competition policy now at the end of the day it seems to me that those are perfectly reasonable topics for a multilateral system even though perhaps not all countries are ready for them so is there a way forward to deal with this on the one hand drive for deeper integration and on the other hand the need for inclusivity I believe that we not only continue to need but we even need more than in the past multilateral agreements because there are a number of topics that are very difficult to resolve at the bilateral level also for example the ones that you are mentioning about also about the intellectual property rights about services about investment investment is as important as straight you know for the the economic system and we can only address them at the multilateral level what I believe is that together we first have to lift a precondition and that's reaching an agreement on an LDC package and that's I think we should try to have this road as possible duty free quota free problems with cotton you have also export competition fishery subsidies and it's it's almost a stepping stone to trade facilitation because that can benefit to developed developing and also LDC countries and that's I think what we should do lift that precondition because it's only if we manage to do that that I believe that at the multilateral level we will be able to address a number of new and very important topics the world is changing very rapidly and the topics that are discussed in the WTO are not changing at the same pace so we get lost in that we are still talking largely about the problems of I wouldn't say the past but in any case not the problems of the future you know why it's stalled in Geneva it was because of subsistence agriculture and the special safeguard mechanism those are the kind of things we should resolve within the LDC package so that we can move to for example investment to the global supply chain where you see a developing and developed countries working together to get to a product thank you we only have very short period of time but if you have a question from the audience please indicate and we can take a few and then I'll ask the panelists as a group to respond so anyone want to ask a question here at the back sir a simple one final Islam channel for news how's the EU India deal going okay let's just hold that one yeah others please Danny Gross Center for European Policy Studies in Brussels I'm a bit confused because I hear about all these supply chains but that would should tell us if a large enterprise are able to integrate then maybe barriers to trade are not that important so I would like to hear from the business representative what is really the problem in expanding the supply chains they already exist the problem of terry barriers other regulatory barriers or is it more a question of the industrial organization in your partner countries that you have reliable partners that can produce according to certain standards which you said in your industry so it is more governmental action that is needed or more an industrial backbone which has to exist in a country before it can really participate in the global supply chain okay and let's just take one more yeah please thank you I'm Aaron back with Dow Jones I would just like to ask about some comments at this forum yesterday by the by Timothy Geithner from the United States who spoke about China's state-led economic model and how this poses a challenge to the global trade system this is actually a relatively new rhetorical turn in the trade debate and I wonder what the panelists think this implies for the negotiations on multilateral multilateral trade negotiations okay I think that thank you so us sorry India EU how how's the progress going is that symbolic I know it's it's not the same as if Mrs. Merkel is looking at Mr. Sarkozy it's not the same you have a better understanding now well we are we are making steady progress but are still a number of problems that have to be resolved I'm very confident that we get to an agreement that it's that it will be a deep and comprehensive one and that it will also change over time India in a way that it also becomes more attractive for other trading partners I mean it's also to a certain extent going to change the morphology of India for example with respect to services and that's not only important for Europe it's also important for other for other parts of the world but you should not underestimate that kind of negotiations because it's also about confronting cultures you know and finding a common solution so you have to put in a lot of political capital and that's that's effectively what is missing at the multilateral level but not at the level of the ambassadors who are negotiating in in Geneva they are working like hell I wouldn't even say at our level it's at the level of what we call our leaders you know the G20 that comes together is at all the time producing a very nice declaration that we should come to an agreement in in Geneva and then they don't give any mandate to their ministers or to their ambassadors that's what is really happening and you are not facing that in in discussions bilaterally because you only start that kind of negotiations if there is the political capital I think that's one of the big differences and Anshamda very briefly please we are moving forward I entirely agree with Carol DeWitt that our negotiators are meaningfully engaged and both of us periodically keep on exchanging notes and if required we both intervene to see that how they can fast forward it's complex there are few ends which we or gaps which we have to close and depending on how ambitious it is it will be fairly broad based and deep and it will have positive spin-offs not only for EU and for India but also perhaps in a global context when you have a grim economic backdrop continuing slowdown job losses the only way for the global economies to remain stable robust and to keep on growing is by engaging with each other and that's why these processes plus the multilateral becomes an imperative thank you would you like to comment sure look if you've already operating your global supply chains why do we need these trade agreements because in here we need an level playing field on one side countries economies which have to have access as you said to the global supply chain if there's no playing field their difficulty is much much higher on the other hand when we see large economies such as China and I'll make just a quick point here about the bricks the bricks are more like a political group because those are for very very different countries in all aspects so the real powerhouse threatening on the on the industrial side the whole world is China Brazil has a 50 billion dollars deficit of industrial goods in its trades balance so brazil is actually the concern is about the domestic market not we're not being actually too much aggressive on the international market so the level playing field some some governance mechanism over those large economies russia and china in particular level playing field is what they should seek for access and making sure the rules are the same for everybody and in the end the business will always be seeking efficiency productivity obviously based on on technical standards of always well that's a great segway and i have to get ronkirk to tell us uh uh sim guide was it was said that these state trading companies are a challenge to the trading system could you could you elaborate on that or answer that question well i think mr. gangler spoke fairly clearly um in terms of his um recitation of the problem i would only say that not just state-owned enterprises but it speaks a little bit to what i think i heard carl say earlier in terms of the difficulty of what we're doing now a lot of what we're dealing with in doha is being with a trade model that served us well for the last 25 30 years but you didn't have the dominance of state-owned enterprises involved in trade you didn't have the proliferation of different regulatory regimes and sanitary and phytosanitary regimes um we'd never heard of the email there was no blogging there was no such thing as facebook there was no such thing as twitter and implications for business the implications for government in terms of control of how we do business there are so many more elements that can frustrate trade beyond tariffs and duties which anond is right uh many of the obstacles to trade now have nothing to do with tariffs and duties and so i think what uh at least in our case the united states was honestly saying uh that we have to begin to inject some honesty into how governments can otherwise tilt the playing field and deny our friend here the same thing every american business every one of these men and women in the audience basically asked us just tell us what the rules are and give me some assurance government can't come up with some more creative way to put their thumb on the scale and i will be honest one of the reasons we are so bullish on this trans-pacific partnership with new zealand and australia and others we think it's time the trade agreements have to reflect the reality of doing business today they have to be much more nimble we have to be willing to recognize that business moves so many more times faster than government but that would be a bit flexible enough to do that but in the case of state-owned enterprises we just can't ignore that they don't exist we shouldn't be afraid of having an honest conversation about it and coming up with the way to moderate that and this is where the world trade and organization can really demonstrate its vitality and its need and how we regulate and govern that so and and and finally because i've had a number of you approached me and people said oh my god the united states wants a trade war with china we do not want to trade trade war with china china has very quickly become one of our top four trading partners it is our number one agricultural trading partner we think it is a great thing that china has gone through the explosive growth that it has that's why we invited them into the world trade organization we want to see the same for india and brazil and africa that's how we credential trade but it doesn't work if you only take from the system and believe you can deprive the rest of us to access to the markets that we so freely grant yours i'm craig emison you have half a minute i just wanted to round out the discussion on plurilateral and the role of plurilateral negotiations plurilateral negotiations can be entirely consistent with the multilateral trading system the information technology agreement the government procurement agreement both approved dynamic both have enlisted increasing membership over time and my view is that we shouldn't pre-negotiate the negotiations let's allow groups to form see what momentum is achieved by groups looking at these individual elements it does prevent hostage taking where someone says well we don't have a fundamental problem with this but we're linking it to something to which it is unrelated and therefore won't agree to progress on the primary issue so i can see a facilitative role for plurilateral negotiations that ultimately advance the multilateral system so i think that's a great point when i what i take away from our discussion today is firstly there's some some modest hope perhaps for reaping something still from the door around some sort of forms of early harvest but looking down the road there is a fundamental challenge which i think is finding the right balance between this drive on the one hand for deeper integration which is clearly coming from the operations of the global supply chains and yet on the other hand a legitimate need by many countries for policy space which we also heard referred to so it's a search for some kind of balance and i think the real challenge is can we create a multilateral system can we do in a multilateral system an approach which can actually balance these two and and can we incorporate perhaps not for all but within the multilateral context some of those deeper initiatives patent after the plurilateral agreements which craig emerson pointed out have been successful starting with just a few and then growing to meet the needs of many so ladies and gentlemen please join me in thanking this panel we apologize for not having enough time we apologize for the interruptions but i still think we've been able to touch on the major challenges that face the trading system so please join me in thanking our panel