 Good morning, and welcome to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. My name is Scott Miller. I'm a Senior Advisor here at CSIS, and I'm pleased you could join us for this morning's Statesman's Forum. I'd like to also welcome our online audience. We are webcasting this event live at csaas.org, and the digital video and audio will be available at csaas.org following the event. You can also follow us on Twitter at hashtag CSISLive. The ninth round of negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership concluded in New York last week. And as part of the commitment of our guest today and Ambassador Michael Froman to meet following each round, Cecilia Malmstrom, European Commissioner for Trade, is in Washington. We welcome the Commissioner to our forum this morning. Dr. Malmstrom became Commissioner of Trade for the European Union in November 2014. Prior to that, she was Commissioner for Home Affairs, has a long career in this field. Most importantly, in her early days, she was an intern at CSIS. So this is a welcome back to CSIS for the Commissioner. Thank you again for joining us, and please help me welcome Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom. For this good morning, everybody. It's really nice to be here, and it's especially nice to be at CSIS where, as was said, I was at an internship almost 20 years ago, and I think those 10 weeks laid the ground for my interest in American politics, and it's really good to be back again, even if that was at K Street, and this is even bigger. I am here, indeed, in Washington for meetings with Ambassador Froman on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. We are going after we finished here to assess where we are and to make sure our negotiations are on track. It's the third time I meet with Mike Froman this year. That is more often than I meet some of the members of my family. I hope that is not the case for him. And why do we do this? Because we take these negotiations very seriously. We want to, apart from the formal negotiations, we want to make sure that it has a political touch, that we regularly exchange viewpoints, that we take stock on where we are, assessing the difficulties, the possibilities, and it's so economically and strategically important for Europe and the US. That's why we will keep on having this frequent meetings until the very end of the process. But we also know that on either side of the Atlantic is TTIP, the be all and end all of trade policy. Here in Washington, I understand that the biggest buzz is about the trade across the Pacific, and that makes very good sense. Of course, the Pacific region is an indispensable part of the world economy and the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, is an agreement that has been negotiated for many years. So we follow this very closely as well. And also in Brussels, our trade strategy goes far beyond one ocean, one continent. It changes over time as well. And right now, at the beginning of this new commission that took office the first of November last year, we are updating our trade strategy to bring it in line with today's realities. Just things you have a very deep and thorough discussion here in Washington. Maybe I thought it could be interesting for you to hear about our discussions on trade. Because we are now setting a new strategy, and that is of course not an easy task. Because strategizing means planning for a future that is unforeseeable by definition. So it's easy to give up and let you focus narrow to the stream of decisions that you have to make every day. In my country, Sweden, we used to say that there are only two things that are taken for granted, taxes and death. For the rest, you have to improvise. But improvising is a temptation that you should resist as well. Because as a great American once said, Yogi Berra, if you don't know where you're going, you'll end up somewhere else. And that's very important to remember. He was white. We can't predict the future, but we have to plan for it. So how are we doing that for EU trade policy today? Well, we have been starting to see what works already. We are looking closely at how the world has changed since we last set our stall five years ago. And we're working to answer the questions those changes raise. We know that EU trade policy is helping us to do two things today. Build prosperity and protect and project Europe's values. First, prosperity. The EU is the worst largest exporter of goods and services. And those exports support over three million jobs across our continent. Almost one in seven European workers owes his or her job to the export to the rest of the world. But the benefits that we get from export go beyond. Our imports are also part of the economic success story. Because not only do consumer get cheaper goods and wider choice, business become more competitive. And in a world of global value change, almost 15% of the value of export is made up of imported goods and services. So two-thirds of our imports of energy, raw materials and intermediate goods. And all these inputs also support jobs in Europe. We owe these economic benefits to trade to the driver of our workers and entrepreneurs. But we also owe them to an open trade policy at home and abroad. Of course, the European Union itself with the 28 members is a large free trade area. And for almost 70 years, we have been pressing for greater openness through the World Trade Organization, WTO and GATT before that. And we continue to do so today with our partners in WTO, with the US and others. These efforts created the frameworks that underpins today's open global economy and the benefits it delivers. We take those rules for granted today, but they were essential to prevent a return to protectionism in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. And more recently, we've also been using our bilateral negotiations to create more openness and more opportunities for European people. Last year alone, we concluded negotiations with Canada, Singapore and Ecuador. These agreements are very effective at opening markets. They remove barriers for trade, goods, services and public procurement. They tackle rules and regulation, as well as traditional barriers. And they work. In 2011, our agreement with South Korea came into force. And since then, our total exports to Korea are up with 35% compared to the year before we launched the deal. And in the car industry, our exports are up with 90%. So we have evidence that our policy work and is helping to create prosperity on the ground. But Europeans, as I guess Americans, are demanding people. They want to trade policy that sees beyond economics, a tool to promote European values around the world. Values that we share with you, democracy, human rights, protection for the environment and quality. And we know this work too. And let me give you a few examples. Few trade preferences help to reduce global inequality. We are the world's largest importer of products from developing countries. And that's certainly because we have a good and big market of 500 million consumers. But it's also because we offer full duty and quota for access to market to the world's poorest countries. And because we offer more limited, but still very valuable trade preferences to all developing economies. We're also using a special trade preference scheme to strengthen labor rights and environmental protection. We have a program that we call JSP+. That gives better access to the EU market to vulnerable developing countries if they sign up to international conventions on everything from combating racial discrimination to biological diversity or corruption. And if they don't implement them, they can lose that access. Thirdly, we are seeing some results of innovative tools like the compact with Bangladesh on working conditions in clothes factories. This is a compact deal between us, between you, between the UN, Bangladesh government, ILO, trade unions and employers. And two years on from the terrible tragedy in Rana Plaza in Bangladesh where over 1,200 people, women lost their lives, we have seen some important improvements in the working condition and workplace safety. There's still a very long way to go, but pressure can, through trade, can bring change and it must continue to do so. And these are just three examples how trade can support values at the core of our identity. And I think we can be proud of those successes, but there's certainly room to do more. The world is constantly changing, so we must change for it if we want to keep meeting our goals. And a few recent changes are particularly important for trade policy. Of course, first, the world economy has changed. The global economy is becoming more integrated through the value chains. Emerging economies like China have continued to become more important, meaning that we need to find ways to connect to them economically. 90% of global growth in the coming decades will come from outside Europe. So we need, of course, to engage with others. The technological change means that trade is not only physical, but it's increasingly electronic. Digital communications are making new parts of the economy tradable, and they are creating whole new fields of business, too. And innovation is not confined to the private sector. The last few years, we've seen governments come up with new and creative types of trade barriers. And these include localization, local content requirements, disguised subsidies like export restrictions on energy and raw materials. And trade policy is changing, too. There is a new positive mood in the world trade organization. The European Union and the United States are working together to support Director General, Roberto Azevedo, in his efforts to conclude the dough around. And this would be extremely important if we could reach an agreement by the end of the year, especially for the poorest countries of the world. The most dramatic trend in the world policy today of trade is the proliferation of bilateral free trade agreements around the world. So standing still is not an option. That would put European exporters to a huge disadvantage, as others improve their access to market vital to our exporters. Another change is the politics of trade in Europe. It may not be obvious in Washington, but there is an intense public debate around the TTIP in Europe. It's front page daily on basically all European papers and the equivalent in social media. So it's a huge debate and many people are very concerned about this. The debate has shown that people are concerned about what they see as TTIP possible impacts, could be on public services, regulatory protection, investment, arbitration, environment, etc. And many of those fears are not justified at all by facts. But they show that people feel distance from politics, from trade policy making. They want to be involved and this is something we need to address. So our challenge is to provide a broad response to this and other challenges. And we are doing that by asking questions about four groups of issues. First, how do we find a way to seek broader engagement and broader trust from the public? This has been one of my priorities for TTIP so far. We have put basically all documents from the European side online so that everybody can see what we are negotiating and what we're not negotiating. So we're looking at now how we can be more transparent across the rest of our agenda. And that means also that we need to work very closely with EU member states and of course our European Parliament. They represent our citizens and they are essential for our work because in the end they need to give their consent to any trade agreement. Second, Europe's trade policy must also have a broad conception of how to advance our values. Trade cannot solve every problem of the world, but it can drive the right kind of change. So how can we do more to strengthen human rights, labor rights, development? One idea we want to explore further is responsible supply chains. In addition to our initiative in Bangladesh, we're also working to address issues around raw materials sourced from conflict zones in the world. The question is whether we can look at further ways to address these issues by promoting the concept of fair trade more generally. Third, our strategy must be broad when it comes to hard economics. In recent decades, the scope of trade policy has expanded greatly. There was a time when the main negotiation was about tariffs. Then trade agreements took a few weeks to conclude. This is not the case anymore. And we have to continue to broaden this if we want to be effective. We need to explore new venues like digital trade, mobility of people who want to provide services and maintain goods already sold, and new disguised subsidies. Our strategy must look at how we move to deepen existing words in areas like energy and regulatory cooperation. Regulatory issues are perhaps the core issue for trade policy over the next decade. Can we find a way to make a different regulatory decision more compatible while making sure that regulations still protect people and consumers? And fourth, even with limited resources, we need to keep up the broad geographical scope of a trade agenda and make sure that we deliver on it. The best way to tackle many countries at once is, of course, the WTO. Our new trade agenda will need to look at the post-Bali agenda and the post-Doa agenda. We will need to seek ways to use the energy in bilateral negotiations to drive the multilateral process again. But the bilateral agenda itself will also bring the amount of a trade covered by open trade rules from roughly a quarter to two-thirds in the coming years. In Asia, we already have deals with Korea and Singapore. We are moving towards concluding with Vietnam and Japan. We want to finalize our investment agreement with China. I was in Malaysia last weekend to meet with the ASEAN trade ministers. And we need to discuss how we can move forward in a region to region trade agreement in the future. We're also exploring bilateral negotiations with countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, etc. We are moving towards a new phase in our relationship with Africa. Last year, we concluded partnerships agreement with 27 African countries. And these deals are very much about development, but also about partnership. Because countries need to slowly, gradually and sensitively open their markets to export from the European Union. And this is the positive steps that signals a new maturity of EU-Africa trade relations, a partnership of equals. In the Americas, last year, we concluded a groundbreaking agreement with Canada. In Latin America, we have a broad network that includes Central America, Caribbean, and the entire Pacific Coast. Our new strategy will also look at filling the gaps by deepening our existing, but old agreements with Mexico and Chile. And then of course, we have to deliver on TTIP. Doing a deal with our largest trade and investment partner will make a major contribution to expand the amount of our trade covered by ambitious trade rules. TTIP is also the lead negotiation to test the most advanced types of trade disciplines. Both sides plan to go further on regulatory cooperation in TTIP than in any other free agreement, including the TPP. And we want to deal that strengthens regulatory protection while facilitating trade. We want to make sure that we can set joint standards that can be leading globally. And we want to make sure that we set state of the art rules on everything from state owned enterprises to small and medium sized enterprises. When it comes to the politics of trade, TTIP is essential too. The new ways of engaging with people we are trying here is a testing ground for the rest of the trade policy. TTIP is of course very much also about strengthening our shared transatlantic values. Never forget that P in TTIP stands for partnership. And we share many of those values, everything from open markets to high levels of regulatory protection from environment, health and consumers, but also our dedication to democracy, human rights and rule of law. And by coming together around these principles, the US and Europe can strengthen our partnership to defend them also globally. And that's why TTIP will be a vital part of the future structure of the world trade system. As Secretary Kerry said last week, by working together we create habits of cooperation that spread to every other part of our relationship. And that gives us a chance to lead together. So ladies and gentlemen, making trade policy is not easy. It always involves tough discussions and negotiations with partners all around the world. And tough discussions with many different interests at home. You know that and we know that. And keeping up to date is not easy either. It evolves learning new skills and addressing new political challenges. But it's worth the effort. We live in a world that becomes more integrated every day. The Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan said that the human family now exists under conditions of a global village. That was 1962. And it's hard to conceive what he would have made out of today's international connections. In such a context, openness to the world is an essential natural response. And it's a resource we have to develop. Only by engaging actively and continuously, consistently with the world can we hope to shape it and benefit from it. A trade policy backed up by a clear strategy is a vital tool to do that. And we need a global trade agenda for a globalized world. And this is what we are aiming to do within the European Union. I know that these challenges I've outlined are in many ways the same challenges that you are discussing here in the US. So we are looking forward to work closely with you on that. And with that, thank you very much for your kind attention. And I'm looking forward to the discussion of that. Commissioner Mollstrom, thank you so much. You are the best advertisement for a CSIS intern. Come to CSIS and you too can become a European Union commissioner. Thank you so much. Good morning. My name is Heather Conley. I'm the senior vice president here for Europe and Eurasia. The last time we hosted you, Commissioner Mollstrom, was in our old building and you and former deputy secretary of Homeland Security, Jane Hall-Loot. We're in a dialogue on cyber security and we can turn to that. But we're just delighted to have you here. What we have and I think we have about 45 minutes of conversation and discussion, I'm going to get you warmed up a little bit before we let our audience ask you some questions. I know the title is T-Tip and Beyond, but if you'll forgive me, I'm going to focus a little bit more on T-Tip rather than Beyond and I know you're fully prepared for that. Let me begin and as a non-trade person, I'm confused. I'm confused about the investor settlement dispute issue. The European Union just completed an agreement with Canada. ISDS was in there. Of the approximately 117 cases worldwide last year, I believe, ISDS, 75% were used by European firms towards European governments. Why now do we have this huge concern about ISDS, the privatization of arbitration? This could be a real showstopper and I think we're confused because ISDS is well over 50% of all bilateral trade instruments. Help us understand what has happened between CEDA and T-Tip that has created this enormous concern and response from Europe. Well, it's a very good question and it does not have an easy answer because these agreements, ISDS, is now the most toxic acronym in Europe all over. You have hundreds of thousands of people who talk about this every day. If you Google it, you will find that ISDS means international shepherd dog society. But that's not what we're talking about today. We are talking about these bilateral investment protection agreement that exists since the 59. It's a German invention and there are, I think there's almost 3,000 globally. But it has somehow become a symbol of big companies challenging the right to govern or to regulate from them for governments. Right or wrong, that is how it's perceived. And it is, I spend half of my working time to answer questions about this. I think it has to do, and I know there's a debate here as well, a bit growing. I think it has to do a little bit with the economic crisis where it was seen as the economic crisis were caused by big companies and they were not following the rules, perceived not following the rules and putting states in difficult positions. So it's sort of in the big company blame game a little bit. And in some countries, this is more frequent than others. So what we started to do, and my predecessor started already in the Canadian agreement to reform them, to make them a bit more up to date, because it's true that they are a bit old fashioned. And they have been, when they were created in the 60s, they had more the company's interest than the right to regulate. And of course, with the consumer protection and so on, these things have grown immediately. So what we're trying to do, and what we tried to do in the Canadian agreement was to reform them to make them more transparent, more open, more limited, to really make sure that they can only be used for clear cases of discrimination or expropriation or when investments are put in question. What we're doing now in the opinion is moving from that even more towards a modernized system of investment arbitration, where of course, investors can feel safe that their investments will not be confiscated or discriminated or nationalized, but that this is done in an open, transparent way that creates confidence. And we are working with this intensively since, well, this is my first day at office actually, and we will present some ideas this week to the European Parliament and to member states. And hopefully we can then sort of have that question resolved or at least we can focus on other aspects of our teaching, for instance. Let me move to another issue that we're following carefully. Last week, we issued a new report, fueling online trade. And you mentioned the digital agenda, how critical that is. Yet we know data protection, transatlantic sharing of data is a very difficult subject. The Safe Harbor Agreement is now being reviewed, renewed. And we know there's enormous impact still in Europe over the NSA revelations. Tell me what your perspective is on data protection and getting that right, because we're seeing obviously a lot of activity on localization of servers. Obviously the commission is taking some very strong measures against Google and other. The American information technology sector is dominant in Europe, dominant. And there's some reaction to that, simply the competitiveness and that dominance. How are you approaching data protection and that important transatlantic sharing of digital information? Well, this is indeed very important part of our negotiations because data flows across the Atlantic every second and we'll continue to do so. So it's important that we facilitate data, trading data and data flows in companies. This is the future in many ways. And this we will do and we will be discussing this in the TTIP negotiations as well. When it becomes difficult is when we talk about personal data and how it is used. And that's where we have said so far that the data protection regime of Europe is not going to be negotiated with the TTIP. We are updating our rules. We also have the, as you mentioned, the safe harbor as I understand this is about to be solved very, very soon. I welcome that. And we are also negotiating, that's my colleague who is responsible for justice. The issue of an umbrella agreement between the US and while that is not part of TTIP, it would be very beneficial to sort of set the standards and the umbrella conditions there. So we will find a way to facilitate, of course data flows, but to make sure that that personal data is treated in accordance with the US. I know you are also updating after all that the president has been very active in correcting some of the NSA, how shall I put it? Some of the ways NSA was using data that was also not appreciated by lots of the American people, of course. So I think that this is a movement that we welcome and that is moving forward. It has created problems for the trust between us, this whole issue. And it's important that we build steady on the reforms that are being made on both sides and on the reforms that we are working on together. Do you sense, your sense from broadly the European Parliament, it's a little more focused on the data question and the privacy protection issues or more focused on the ISDS concerns. You get a sense of what is concerning, what is the European Parliament concern the most about today, about how TTIP is shaping? But both, the data protection issue has been very high on the agenda on the European Parliament for many years, and rightly so. They are the elected representatives of the people. These are concerned that the people feel not only in the NSA Snowden context, but also we've had our issues internally as well. And also with the fight against terrorism to get the balance right, that yes, we should fight terrorism, but it should also be protection for the integrity. So they have been concerned for that for a long time, which is good. But I would say that these two issues and with ISDS in the TTIP context are probably the most complicated one. Let me ask you an unfair question, so forgive me. When I speak with European officials that have been engaged in the TTIP discussions, I hear a common concern. Concern that the United States is not as ambitious as Europe would like forward-leaning and using TTIP as a way to really push boundaries, even whether it's tariff reduction, which they're low, but yet still, or even looking at some of the regulatory issues. Would you agree with that statement that you wish the US side was a bit more ambitious, being more dramatic and pushing forward some bold steps? Well, we would of course like to finish the negotiations as quick as possible, but we're also aware of the political realities. I know that in the Congress right now and in the Senate there's an intense debate on the trade promotion authority, also the TPP, the trade, so many acronyms in trade. The trade with the Pacific Partnership is being in its finalities. Of course, this is limiting a little bit the possibilities for the administration to fully focus on TTIP. If this is being wind up now closely, we hope that the full focus could be on TTIP. But we have very high ambitions, together with Ambassador Froman and this has been confirmed by President Obama as well, that we really want an ambitious agreement because we could get rid of a few tariffs and a few agreements and they would make a little mini TTIP. That could have been done years ago, but that's not what we're aiming at. We trade billions every day, but we want to have this broad ambitious agreement. Yes, looking at tariffs because they are still damaging for small and medium-sized companies, but also look at access to our markets when it comes to public procurement, when it comes to rules and regulatory. We talk about energy. I mean, it's a very ambitious agreement that we have sort of been in our preparatory work set out together, so we hope and we trust and we think that we can, on both sides, it will not be easy. Had it been easy, we would have done it a long time ago that we can deliver and to make really the biggest free trade agreement ever. That question of timing is an increasing concern. Because you have an election coming up. Yes, a little something happened in 2016, but I think, remembering when the political rhetoric, the euphoria, remember that one tank of gas that we were gonna get TTIP on, I sort of joke, it's gotta be a Prius because we are gonna be on this one tank for a while and the concern is that obviously TPA, TPP, and taking enormous amount of political energy here, that in 2016 election years are not the best time for big steps to be taken. And I sort of asked a similar question to Ambassador Sullivan last week, saying it feels to me, we sort of stalled a little bit in the TTIP party, he goes, no, no, this is just the boring bit. This is where we get quiet and focused, but you don't see it. And I said, okay, it's boring, but it feels externally that it's losing a little of its energy. And this is when a lot of the groups who don't want this deal to be successful, you mentioned the toxicity in Europe today, that's what feels like it's taking hold. I worry that we're going to get into 2016 and this is going to look like 2017. The US has never, in one administration, started and completed a trade negotiation ever in our history. Well, famous British-Austrian philosopher, Karl Popper, said optimism is a duty. And this is my motto. That's my motto, we'll try. Elections are, of course, to be welcome, we all support that there are elections, but they complicate timetables. I have time, I'm here until 2019, unless there is a revolution. So, we have plenty of elections in the European Union, so we're 28 countries and there are regional elections, local elections. A big one on Thursday. A big one in a country we all know very well in the United Kingdom, and then next year there are plenty of elections as well, so we'll be busy, yes. But hopefully we can, that's what we are aiming at, intensifying the debate. So some of the really political issues can be solved now and leaving the boring technical things for when the debate comes really intense, and maybe that could be easier, but we'll see, yeah. No, absolutely, I think it's going to be challenging. Let me turn again a little bit, tacking a bit back on to the question of ambition. The one ambition that you negotiators have had is creating an energy chapter, and boy, that has not been my words, something that's been very attractive to the US side. Do you feel that you're getting some traction on getting the energy, the national resources question out there? Or quite frankly, this is something that the Americans are simply not interested in exploring. But this is certainly a difficult issue for you, we are aware of that. But I think since we started to write our sort of common agenda, the paper of the high level working group where we set out our joint ambition, since then quite a lot of things has happened from our side in our Eastern neighborhood. We have some countries in the European Union who almost 100% depend on energy imports from Russia. And there is a clear geo-strategic dimension to this. We need to diversify this, and this is something that the US support and encourage to do, of course. But in order to do that, we need to be able to import energy from other sources. The US could be one such source. So I think it has a very important geo-strategic dimension as well. We have not really gone into that chapter to negotiate yet. But I think there is a mutual understanding that this is important. Then we'll see how the action negotiations go. And I'm aware this is a sensitive issue in the US, but it's very important for us. One final question. I think you've been sufficiently warmed up to get ready for some tough questions from our audience. My last question is about third parties to TTIP. We certainly know the Turkish government has expressed some very concerns. The EU now is updating in some ways, reflecting I think the customs union and invigorating that. Norway, Iceland, other non-EU partners, Mexico. Of course, help us understand your approach to third-party concerns. Well, all these countries, especially, of course, Turkey, with whom we have a customs union since many, many years ago. And then Iceland and Norway, who are not members of the European Union, but who are part of the free trade area and good partners in many other ways. So they are, of course, following this with great interest. We try to keep them informed about what we're doing so that's in the loop. And they have expressed a willingness to be able to log in to the agreement once it's done. I think that's a good idea. If we can achieve an ambitious TTIP and other countries in our neighborhood, Mexico may be in your case, and others would sort of want to log into that. I think that's a good idea, and we should just keep that prospect open for them. But of course, we need to conclude first. Perfect. Wonderful. All right. It's time to welcome our audience into the discussion. We have some microphones around. If you could raise your hand. Identify yourself, your affiliation. In order to get the most questions in, we'd like to keep comments very short. And thank you. And your questions very focused. So I'm going to start in the far back corner. I see a hand back there. We're going to get a microphone to you right there. Thank you. And sometimes you have to speak very loudly into that microphone, so don't be afraid of it. Speak loudly. Thank you. Thank you. Christa Hughes from Reuters. Commissioner, you said you were working on some further ideas for ISDS and would share some of those this week. Can you give us any hints what those might be? I'll share them with the press next week. And will the EU-Canada free trade agreement be reworked to include some of those new ideas before it's ratified? We share those ideas with the European Parliament and the trade ministers next week, and I'll be sure to share them with the press as well. So we'll get them next week. This week, yes. It's Monday today. Absolutely. This week, Monday, it must be Washington. It's all right. Wonderful. We have three questions right here in the middle if we can have a microphone here. Right there, yes, please. Thank you. Thank you. Peter Allgaier from the Coalition of Services Industries. And thank you, Commissioner Malmstrom, for your remarks today and your leadership for free or trade. At the beginning of your comments, you talked about the broader agenda in trade negotiations, the different subjects that have become part of trade negotiations. I don't think you mentioned currency manipulation. And I'd be interested in your views on whether you think it's appropriate to include currency manipulation disciplines in a trade agreement. Thank you. I think that depends, if I'm well-informed, but you know probably more about this. This is an issue that's being discussed with the TPP discussions. It's not part of our teaching negotiations. So I think it depends on your partners. Perfect. We'll have a question right up front here, please. Hi, yes, Dave Thomas with Inside US Trade. The EU has made clear that government procurement is a strong commercial interest for the EU in the TTIP. But the US seems to have refused to offer really anything significant on it. I was just wondering how long can this scenario, I guess, continue? How many more concessions can the EU offer the US until, I guess, enough is enough? Well, we just finished the ninth negotiation round last week in New York. We have one more planned but not a date yet for July. And that's what we think is needed to have everything on the table or the technical issues. And then hopefully, the order, we can go into a more political phase of the negotiations. Public procurement is a very important offensive interest from the European Union side. Our markets are quite open for the US and others as well and has been so for a long time. It has been good for our economy and for our consumers. And we will, of course, seeking greater access to the American market. This, well, there are no sort of ultimatums or deadlines here. We will be discussing this with our American partners as well. And we have not set out a specific date or timetable to do that. But this is a very offensive interest from the EU side. I don't think we can conclude an agreement if we haven't made progress on that. You don't think you can conclude an agreement with our progress on it? And do you want to make sure I don't? Well, if I didn't think we could conclude an agreement, I wouldn't be sitting here. I'd do something else. Optimism is a duty. That is our message. Absolutely. Right there, please. Melinda St. Louis from Public Citizen. You mentioned your efforts to increase transparency for more public trust. And so I was wondering if, in your conversations with USTR Froman, if you are encouraging the US to follow your lead in terms of publishing textual proposals, and if the US would agree if you would also agree to publish composite texts at regular intervals so that the public can be following the negotiations and have a sense of what is being negotiated and what is not being negotiated, as you mentioned. Yeah, I was actually going to, that was a great question, that there's going to be, in some ways, more transparency on the European side, potentially, than the American side, and how do we manage those political challenges as well? Well, of course we are discussing this. I mean, what is happening in the EU internal debate? I think our American partners follow that quite closely. So there are no secrets or no sort of dark moves here. We have decided to publish our EU text. Basically, all of them, not all, there are some very sensitive issues such as tariffs offer, you cannot put them online while you're negotiating. But all our background texts, all our legal proposals, or our position papers, all the reference to the different reports, and also summary of each negotiation round is being published online for you and others to see. And we also have a broad engagement with the European Parliament and different stakeholders where we report after each negotiation round. And we will continue to do so as we develop common positions in the EU. Of course, we cannot publish American documents. That's for you and your traditions to decide how to do that. We are informing about what we do. And I think as we start to go more into delivering results, because, of course, everything is so linked. So you know, just ticking boxes from everything is linked. But as we start to deliver more results, I think it would be desirable if we could communicate that together. And we need to find a way to do that. Fantastic. Thank you. Well, I'll go here, right here. Thank you. I'm Tom Rekford with the Foreign Policy Discussion Group. It's interesting that you haven't yet mentioned agriculture. And yet we know that relations between the US and Europe on agricultural issues have been going on seemingly forever. Would you discuss some of the agricultural issue roadblocks you're dealing with? Well, that's a seminar in and of itself. That's a seminar in itself. But very briefly, yes, of course, agriculture is always a big part of negotiations like this. There are sensitive issues. I know they are here in the US. They are very sensitive in our countries as well. We are looking at, in TTIP, as a basis, a full liberalization of tariffs across the board. But there are obviously here in the US and in the EU some sensitivities that would have to be excluded. And that's for the end game. We think it's an offensive interest for us as well to have increased access to the American market. And I know that for the American producers in some of the areas, they want to increase access to our markets. I think on many of these issues, we have mutual interests or compatible interests. So that will not be a problem. Then there would be a few sensitive products that we will always be discussing. And for us, and it is for you, we have some laws that cannot be changed. That from the European perspective are very important when it comes to, for instance, hormone beef is not allowed in European legislation. You have other issues that are forbidden in your legislation. We cannot change our respective legislation. And that has been clear from the outset. But we will try to find ways to open up as much as possible in agriculture, knowing the sensitivities there. They are always sensitive in all negotiations, even with big partners such as this in WTO as well. They have always been. So I don't know if I should develop more on this. But we will try to find a way to solve this as well. I can draw you out just a little bit, because the other week, a decision on GMOs about letting the member states decide, Ambassador Froman was very clear that was not necessarily where the US was wanting to see more openness. And I think we've really seen a proliferation of geographic indicators. And again, how do you manage? Again, we're in the early days. We'll just finish the ninth round. But these are pretty big obstacles. How do you manage through those? Well, to start with geographical indication, this is one of the priorities of the European Union. We have thousands of them protected internally. And in the Canadian agreement, we managed to agree on a list of 154 of them, I think. So this is something that is very important from the part of many of our member states. And so it's certainly part of our negotiation mandate. I know that the US come from a total different tradition here. So this is going to be a difficult issue. But I'm sure we can solve that as well. On GMOs, at the same time as we adopted a sort of procedure for, or we didn't adopt it, we proposed it. Now it has to be endorsed by member states and the European Parliament. We also gave permission for 19 GMOs that has been sort of cleared by our, we have a scientific agency called EFSA. So those 19 were sort of put there, which has been the US demand for quite some time. And the new procedure is compatible with WTO and the internal market. So I'm quite confident that this in practice will not change anything in the practical application. Right, fantastic. All right, do we have a question over here? Microphone, sir. Thank you, Heather. My name's Sean Donnelly from the US Council for International Business. Commissioner, thank you for your remarks today and for your strong leadership. For my organization and I think for business in general, the strong investor state dispute settlement provisions are absolutely essential in the T-TIP. And while you've been speaking out very strongly, I don't see many of your fellow commissioners or European political leaders doing that. They seem to be hanging back a little bit. At the time we see President Obama, frankly, speaking out very strongly and confronting members of his own party on trade and investor state dispute settlement. So my question is, why aren't more European leaders out there now strongly trying to explain the benefits of T-TIP and particularly of investment? Thanks. Well, I think that that is gradually changing. As Heather said in the beginning, I mean, this was something that has been part of EU bilateral agreements for many, many years. And then a few years ago, it started to become a bit toxic and people started to look at them. Maybe they need to be reformed a little bit. I've taken all my fellow commissioners through a crash course in ISDS. They know everything now and we are preparing an argument here and I think when they are out and get questions, because they do, because this is the most well-known acronym in Europe, which is a bit strange, but true. So they know what to answer and I know they do. And I also, with the trade ministers who have asked us in the mandate to put in ISDS. So we are negotiating based on a mandate that we get before negotiations start. You have your trade promotional thought that is sort of after, but it is in our mandate. So member states are increasingly becoming active on this. Some could do more, absolutely. And I keep telling them that you have to be out there in debate as well. In some countries, this is a very difficult issue in the national parliament, so they are trying to find a way and that's what we've been engaging very, very closely with them to try to find ways to reform them, to have a more updated version that is more transparent, that is clearer, that is based on a clear limitation when it can be used and under what conditions and so on. So I hope that once we make our proposals, which of course have been discussed for months, that also more can feel encouraged to be out there and present in the debate. Commissioner Mellstrom, if I can just tag on one quick question. You served in the previous commission that did not have super commissioners. You now serve in the commission where there is a bundling of super commissioners. Has it changed your work in any way? I'm just curious if there was any structural differences now with this new structure or perhaps not. And your mandate's very specific. Well, my mandate on trade is of course very specific, but it has changed and I think to the better. We don't call them super commissioners, we call them vice presidents. They don't have a cape with an S on it. Exactly, but it's actually a good thing because as in many governments and I've served in the Swedish government as well, I mean, between the department and the ministers, there's always very thick walls. And nothing today, no policy area is within those walls. You need to liaise with the different other ministers or commissioners in order to get a coherent view. And this is what we're doing with this commission. So for instance, I work very much with the vice president of the super commissioner for economy by vice president Yerke Katainen, who's a former prime minister of Finland, to coordinate the economic part of what we're doing. Of course, trade is a very important economic part of our economic recovery in the European Union and for our future. But I also work with the high representative, Federica Mogherini, and the team who works with development, with foreign policy, with neighborhood and enlargement, with the humanitarian assistance to get the political part of trade because trade and development is closely collected. Trade is of course a very important foreign policy tool. So we sit together and we go through our priorities and make sure we know what we are doing and to fit into different agenda. So it's actually a more modern way of working, I would say. Excellent, thank you so much. We have a question right here down the front, please, Mike. Mike Massetic, PBS Online NewsHour and European Institute. One, another word you haven't mentioned is Google. President Obama last week labeled the competition, efforts by the competition office at the commission as a form of protectionism. Are the efforts of the competition office colliding with your efforts in terms of undermining trade, particularly when you think that no less than a Martin Schultz who was here three years ago trying to launch TTIP is now on the anti-Google bandwagon. But what the commission of West Harger responsible for competition is doing on Google and on Gazprom and on many others is of course to look at whether the companies of different kinds are abusing their position on the market. That has nothing to do with the TTIP and she has, I think she was here a couple of weeks ago and presented what she's doing and the questions she has been asking and so on. So this is kept under her premises and very clearly away from our negotiations in TTIP. We have a question in the back. Good morning, Madam Commissioner. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Rosemary Segero. I'm a president of a company called Segeros International Group. I'm a USA camp and past year and I'm from Kenya. You talked about Africa looking at the 27 countries we have signed with agreement. What are you looking at in terms of transparency, corruption, human rights and the agriculture, he said. What is going on to get them? What makes you agree with them that this is a country that is better and will do better in policy and in business dread? So what are you pacing on when selecting those countries and whom are you working with in Africa? The same leaders, different or businesses, thank you. We are working in Africa with groups of countries, regional groups, so we have regional agreements. They're called APAS. There's one in the Sadiq region, there's one in Western Africa, one in Eastern Africa and so on. So they are regional agreements where we give on an asymmetrical basis increased access to the European market but also in these agreements, we are talking about sustainable development. There is also provision for aid, for trade to make sure that we can help in building up the infrastructure to be able to deal with the trade. There is always discussions on good governance and labor rights and so on. So that is very much included in the dialogue we have with those countries and we are hoping that these agreements can be signed very soon. They still have been agreed but not ratified yet. So this is a process that is ongoing and we will seek to deepen those and to engage and to make sure. In the WTO side where we hope that especially in Kenya where there would be the ministerial from WTO minister from all over the world will meet in Kenya in December to try to agree on the DOA round and related to the WTO work is an agreement on trade facilitation that would take away some customs fees globally which could be very beneficial and not least for developing countries and we are also working with the countries in Africa but also in other countries to promote and to facilitate this entering into force by building up infrastructure and helping the sort of on the ground facilitation to have the maximum benefit of the agreement. I see a question over here in the far corner please sir, microphone is coming. Thank you Steve Landy Manchester trade. The last time we had the pleasure of talking to a Swede in relationship to trade with many, many years ago when there was a Hal Malgrim at USCR who was very well known but maybe in the historical records. You're as good as he is, that's great. Three quickies for you. One, I assume all plans will be in deep, it will be in deep Kim Shee if we do not get fast track past. Many of us also think that it'll be a nice goal to finish this agreement before there's a change of administration in the United States. A quick follow up on Africa. Ways and Means Committee has pointed out in the TPA bill or in the AGOA bill that there could be a problem between the US and Africa, US and EU if the EU begins to get preferences over the US in the African market. As you know, AGOA is non reciprocal which is being renewed. You chose a different path. Two quick questions. One, will you have some flexibility so you don't harm US exports? And two, have you given any thought to a common origin rule perhaps being part of EPA where, excuse me, being part of TTIP where the US recognizes African inputs the same as they do European inputs on export to the US and vice versa so this would promote African participation in global supply chain. And the third very quick is on GIs. Some people are concerned that you're using WIPO or the Lisbon Agreement to make some progress. Perhaps there should be better left for the negotiation of the TTIP in terms of this very controversial issue of geographical indications. Thank you very much. Thank you, that was a lot of questions. On TPA, we are of course following that process very closely and I know it's an intense debate here. We have looked at what has been proposed, different amendments and so on but that's one of the reasons I wanted to be here in May as well to discuss with Mike Floman and his team to get his sense of this and what will actually become the end vote. So it's very difficult for us to have position on individual paragraphs or amendments in TPA. We need to get clarity what it means in practice. For instance, the ones you mentioned on Africa. What we have been doing in Africa for a long time I think is a good thing opening up our market for them and giving them access that is to support their economy and their growth and we don't think that is being done to harm US interests, is to promote our interests and theirs but I'll be happy to discuss this morning with Mike Floman as well and we hope that the TPA and TPP can be concluded quite soon because as I said earlier, even if TPP has a parallel negotiation track of course it cannot be concluded before the Congress and the Senate has agreed on the TPA. So that's why it's very important for us as well. On the WIPO, this is a, EU is not a member of WIPO. There are nine EU countries who are members there. There is a Congress coming up. We are of course following that very closely. The US is not part of WIPO. So what's happening there is for the members to discuss and our discussions on geographical indications needs to have a parallel track. We need to find a solution a way forward that everybody's happy with. As I said, this is a difficult issue but we are willing to look at this and I'm sure it can be done, it has been done with others. Fantastic, okay, we have a question right here in the front. Good morning, I'm Greg Haifley with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. The EU has a rather robust tobacco products directive and we are seeing trade disputes around the world involving government regulation of tobacco to protect people from disease and death. Can you say a little bit about how protection of public health, particularly on issues like tobacco are factoring in to your consideration of positions on ISDS? Thank you for that question. I think that that is an illustration of why ISDS has become conflictual as well because people in Europe have seen tobacco companies suing governments because of their willingness to protect their citizens from damages of smoking with plain packages and so on. And that's why we put already in the Canadian agreement a provision that states have the right to regulate to protect the health or the safety of the citizens and this cannot be put into question by a company. And we are strengthening that language in the proposed reform of the system as well. So the case that is ongoing right now would probably not be successful, would not be successful with the new terms of that we have been put up with ISDS. States have the right to regulate to protect their citizens in tobacco and in other areas. Fantastic. Question over there, please. The microphone is coming your way. Hi, Commissioner. At the first century of business, I wrote a Chinese business newspaper. Really glad to see you here because I was based in Brussels last two years. I follow you here. Yes, I follow TTIP from the US-European joint announcement. My question is in Washington, White House and the Congress use China as a subject to get through all the blocks like TPA and TPP saying if US doesn't set the high standards, China will. I want to ask if Commission will also use China as the excuse or subject to bypass the European difficulties from Member States or Parliament. And do you think TTIP is really about setting a high standards between Transatlantic and exclude other nations as emerging countries? Thank you. Well, it's not for me to comment on what politicians here in the US have said about one thing or another. We think that TTIP is a great possibility to create the largest free trade area between the two biggest economies of the world for the moment, Europe and the US. And we are convinced that setting standards there is a good thing if we can set standards in a new generation of standards in different technologies. We have good people who put standards in regulators in Europe, we have in the US as well. If we can set some standards, they have a good possibility to become global standards. But we are doing this for us and for our people because we are convinced it would be good for our economy. But we're not doing it in a position to anybody else. Of course, as I said in my introductory remarks, there's a spaghetti ball of different bilateral agreements. And of course they can be seen as all hostile towards each other, but that's the world we live in. Everybody's making agreements. China's making a lot of agreements as well. We are engaged in a trade investment agreement with China from the European part of you. And we hope that we can finish that quite soon. And we also cooperate in other for us. So it is not directed towards someone else, but it's a good thing to do in itself. Fantastic. Why don't we take one more question? Sir, we'll have the last question. Thank you, ma'am. Sam Gilston with Washington Tariff and Trade Letter. One of the key elements of the talks are is in regulatory convergence. So you didn't get into that very much. Can you give us an idea of the status of how well those are going? What are the big problems? And which areas do you see most likely to have something in this agreement actually come out? Yes, this is an area where we have made good technical progress, but of course it takes time. We have identified eight, nine different sectors where we think there is scope to recognize each other's standards in the car sector, in the cosmetic, engineering, medical devices. What else? Well, there's a variety of sectors where we think that we could recognize each other's standards because, of course, for instance, we do inspection of factories. They have to be done where we do pharmaceuticals. We do it in one way in the European Union. You do it in a very similar way in the US. And they are both as safe and as good and they produce the same results. But for a company who wants to export to one side or another, you have to do it twice. That costs a lot of money. Medical devices have to go through a formal operation system twice. Car crash tests. If I want to sell a dress, I have to put it in flames in Europe, our way, and I have to do it in the American way as well. So we have to do it twice in areas where they are very, very similar to achieve the goal of protecting the consumers. But we have to do it twice and that costs a lot of money. So if we can recognize each other's standards in a variety in these sectors, I think that that could be a very good thing for, especially for small companies who don't have the room of maneuver to pay for these extra fees. And if we can put our regulators together in some sort of body or fora for future regulations, because we have very good regulators on both sides to set future standards in electronic cars or nanotechnology or whatever, we could form one global standard that would have an effect for the rest of the world. And then that could, of course, be a very good thing for business and it could also facilitate for the rest of the world who want to export to us. There is one standard instead of two. So this, we have made good technical progress, but it's not done yet. We have to go through sector by sector case by case and to convince each other that our standard is as good as yours. But we are making progress here and this is work that our technical team is doing even between the different negotiation rounds. So I hope that we can receive and know some results there later this fall. Well, Commissioner Molstrom, thank you so much. You addressed a very broad range of issues with good humor, great common sense. I have a feeling we're gonna be seeing quite a bit of you in Washington. I think Ambassador Froman's gonna get some frequent flyer miles to Brussels and other European capitals over the next several months. But we hope the next time you're in Washington, you'll return and help us understand the process. This was extremely helpful. And I, for one, would like to sit through your ISDS 101 class that you gave the other ministers out there. Maybe that should be something you do the next time. But we're grateful that you spent your time with us. We wish you the best with your meetings, with the Commerce Secretary and Ambassador Froman, others. But with your applause, please join me and thank you, Commissioner Molstrom. Thank you so much. Thank you.