Surprisingly, this week’s hot issue of retaliatory tariffs imposed by Mexico against U.S. farmers and manufacturers appears not to have been mentioned during the President’s trip to Seattle on Tuesday. At least the issue does not appear in any of the public comments.

Washington State agricultural producers have lost millions of dollars worth of sales because of Mexico’s tariffs against U.S. products imposed in retaliation for U.S. refusal to establish the cross-border trucking program required by NAFTA. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), for whom President Obama raised campaign funds on Tuesday, is leading the Congressional call for resolving the dispute.

Commerce Secretary Gary Locke, the former Governor of Washington, was also on hand.

But nothing in any of the public comments we see.

• Remarks by the President at Fundraiser for Senator Patty Murray
• Remarks by the President at Luncheon for Senator Patty Murray
• Remarks by the President After Roundtable With Local Business Leaders in Seattle, Washington

Well, maybe the issue arose in private conversations.

Earlier Shopfloor.org posts.

The President is expected to highlight export issues in Seattle today when he speaks with small business owners at 11:40 a.m. and then makes a statement to the press. (White House schedule.)

We’d be very surprised if he does not comment on Mexico’s announcement Monday of retaliatory tariffs being imposed on additional U.S. products because the United States is violating NAFTA provisions requiring regulated cross-border trucking.

The issue is especially timely because the President follows his meeting with business owners by attending a campaign fundraiser with Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), one of the most vocal critics of U.S. inaction on the issue. Murray has demanded a solution to the problem by Oct. 1.

The Mexican government has imposed its tariffs with a keen political sense, hitting U.S. farm products in states like Washington, Idaho and California, and many manufactured goods — obviously the major concern of the National Association of Manufacturers. News accounts today highlight the additional tariffs on pork and pork products. From The Des Moines Register, “Irritated Mexico increases tariffs on U.S. pork“:

Mexico added pork to a list of 99 U.S. products on which it is raising tariffs under the North American Free Trade Agreement, the National Pork Producers Council said Monday.

“Mexico’s retaliation against U.S. pork will have negative economic consequences for America’s pork producers,” said Sam Carney, a producer from Adair who is president of the pork council. “We are extremely disappointed that our top volume export market has taken this action, but we’re more disappointed that the United States is not living up to its trade obligations.”

The actual list of affected products won’t be known until its published in the government’s Official Gazette, but Bloomberg reports: “Fifty-four of the products that will be subject to tariffs will be agricultural and the rest will be manufactured goods, said the Mexican official who can’t be identified.

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk expressed disappointment in a statement. The gist: We’re working on it.

(continue reading…)

The American Farm Bureau Federation, the Coalition of Service Industries and the National Association of Manufacturers joined Monday in releasing a blueprint for doubling U.S. exports in five years, a top goal of the Obama Administration. (News release.)

The overriding point: Doubling exports in five years is an ambitious but achievable goal if major changes are enacted.

The plan was released at a media roundtable. Reuters reported, “Business groups recommend ways U.S. govt can double trade,” leading with the FTA angle.

President Barack Obama needs to quickly win approval of free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama and start talks on new trade deals with Brazil, India and others if he if serious about doubling exports, U.S. business groups said on Monday.

“We must be extremely aggressive,” Rosemarie Watkins, director for international policy at the American Farm Bureau Federation, told reporters.

NAM’s Blueprint to Double Exports in Five Years is available here. The NAM’s website also has a section devoted to the Administration’s National Export Initiative, here.

Elsewhere, the U.S. Trade Representative’s Office has announced that Ambassador Ron Kirk will be visiting a Pittsburgh-area manufacturer Friday to highlight the Administration’s trade enforcement actions.

His speech is at Allegheny Technologies Incorporated (ATI)’s plant in Washington, Penn.; ATI is a leading diversified producer of specialty metals. With 8,600 employees, ATI operates production facilities, service centers and sales offices in the United States an abroad.

In his remarks, Ambassador Kirk will describe how the Obama Administration’s trade enforcement actions are helping to sustain jobs here in America by making sure that U.S. trading partners adhere to their agreements, respect our trading rights, and play by the rules. Kirk will also discuss how the Obama Administration’s approach to trade, combining tough trade enforcement and smart trade expansion, contributes to President Obama’s National Export Initiative and his overall economic recovery strategy.

ATI is a leading diversified producer of specialty metals. With 8,600 employees, ATI operates production facilities, service centers and sales offices throughout the United States and abroad. ATI uses innovative technologies and systems to supply customers with state-of-the-art metals. ATI’s business covers growing global markets across industries ranging from aerospace and infrastructure to clean energy production and efficient electric distribution.

Trying to regain the momentum for the Doha Round of global trade talks, the National Association of Manufacturers and other business groups outlined a set of priorities and strategies in a letter Wednesday to Karel De Gucht, the European Union’s trade commissioner, and U.S. Trade Rep Ron Kirk.

Reuters covered the story today, “Business groups press emerging economies over Doha“:

BRUSSELS, July 22 (Reuters) – Brazil, China and India must use their growing economic might to help revive deadlocked global trade talks, a coalition of business lobby groups said in a letter to U.S. and European Union trade negotiators.

The letter …is the latest sign that interest is growing in completing the Doha round of talks, which was launched in 2001 to help poor countries prosper through trade but has been stalled since 2008.

The business groups, from Europe or the United States, said the Doha round would progress only if Europe and the United States convince the big emerging economies to reduce tariffs on important industrial sectors and services.

Right. As the letter (available here) stated:

The success of the Doha Round depends on the willingness of the large emerging countries —especially Brazil, China and India—to assume the responsibility commensurate with the economic benefits they have been realizing as a result of global trade and investment liberalization. The large emerging countries now have the fastest growing economies in the G-20, and will clearly be major beneficiaries of the Doha Round. With their new economic power, they are now clearly distinguished from the least developed members of the WTO and, as a result, have a new and greater responsibility to share in leading the Doha Round forward in the NAMA, agriculture and services negotiations. Indeed, most of the significant additional market access available for the least developed countries lies in the reduction of market access barriers to the rapidly emerging economies—which could substantially boost south-south trade.

The NAM was joined by Business Europe, the Business Roundtable, Coalition of Service Industries, European Services Forum and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Chris Wenk of the Chamber writes about the letter at the Chamber Post, “Deliverable from Chamber Doha Mission.”

Back in May, the NAM issued a statement on just-concluded WTO discussions in Paris that commented, “The only way that a balanced Doha Round outcome that benefits all nations – including the United States, but especially including the least developed countries – can be obtained is if U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and his negotiating team make it plain that the United States will settle for nothing less.”

As the G-8/G-20 talks begin in Toronto, we are particularly pleased to see a very senior member of Ambassador Kirk’s negotiating team is making it plain.

Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Michael Punke is the U.S. ambassador and America’s top negotiator at the World Trade Organization (WTO). In an interview with Reuters, he quite pointedly blames China for stalling negotiations in the ongoing Doha Round, saying “When it comes to China we’re getting no engagement whatsoever, not even in terms of process.” (continue reading…)

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) Vice President for International Economic Affairs Frank Vargo issued the following trade commentary regarding the Paris meeting of trade ministers this week to discuss the Doha Round:

The only way that a balanced Doha Round outcome that benefits all nations – including the United States, but especially including the least developed countries – can be obtained is if U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk and his negotiating team make it plain that the United States will settle for nothing less.  The U.S. has been the primary force for global liberalization in all previous rounds of global trade negotiations, and that role now falls to Ambassador Kirk in the Doha Round. In Paris this week, Ambassador Kirk stood firm, saying “The real question is whether India and Brazil and China are ready to assume a role and responsibility commensurate with their benefits that have been realized under global liberalization…We can talk around it, but that’s the only way this is going to happen.”  The NAM agrees, and believes this is the only way a successful Doha Round is possible.  We appreciate Ambassador Kirk’s clear and determined position, which has led to a growing number of WTO members beginning to support the U.S. view. 

President Obama’s decision to make 15 recess appointments contributed to the Administration’s trade agenda by filling several top trade-related spots.

• Eric L. Hirschhorn: Under Secretary of Commerce for Export Administration and head of the Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce
• Francisco “Frank” J. Sánchez: Under Secretary for International Trade, Department of Commerce
• Michael Punke: Deputy Trade Representative – Geneva, Office of the United States Trade Representative
• Islam A. Siddiqui: Nominee for Chief Agricultural Negotiator, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk issued several news releases welcoming the new USTR appointees:

“USTR Kirk Welcomes Deputy USTR Michael Punke“, excerpt:

Michael Punke will be a valuable asset as WTO Ambassador as USTR works to conclude a balanced and ambitious Doha Round of trade negotiations that will benefit American workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers. Michael will also work on behalf of American businesses and entrepreneurs at the WTO – helping USTR to remove trade barriers, increase exports, and support well-paying jobs here at home.

“USTR Kirk Welcomes Chief Agricultural Negotiator Isi Siddiqui“:

I am proud to officially welcome Isi Siddiqui as USTR’s Chief Agricultural Negotiator. He brings to this office incredible agricultural expertise built over years of work in both the government and private sector, and can be counted on to stand up for American farmers, ranchers, and families in all our negotiations – from the Doha round talks to bilateral discussions. If we want to double American exports in the next five years, we have to seize every opportunity to grow agricultural exports, as well as exports of goods and services. Isi is going to make sure we don’t leave any of those opportunities on the table.

Kirk’s hometown paper, The Dallas Morning News, reported the appointments, “Obama recess appointments include help for trade ambassador Ron Kirk,” citing Kirk’s recent objections to the vacancies made in a recent speech at the National Press Club:

At some point, this begins to strain our credibility and the good will that we have worked so hard to regenerate around the world, because the world believes you don’t care. You don’t have an ambassador in Geneva, how can you be serious about the Doha Round?

The Wall Street Journal reported that Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY) had blocked the nominations of Siddiqui and Punke to apply pressure on U.S. trade negotiators to address a dispute over Canada’s handling of Kentucky tobacco.

The White House today released the President’s 2010 Trade Policy Agenda. The report is here and U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk issued a statement,”President’s 2010 Trade Policy Agenda Focuses on Growing American Jobs Through New Market Access and Enforcing Trade Rules.” The USTR bold-faced this paragraph in Ambassador Kirk’s statement:

“Ninety-five percent of the world’s consumers live outside the United States, and the President’s trade agenda will help to get American workers and businesses access to as many of those customers as possible – in ways that affirm our rights in the global trading system and that reflect American values on worker rights, the environment, and open dialogue here at home,” said Ambassador Kirk. “The priorities in this Agenda can work to strengthen the rules-based global trading system on which the nations of the world depend, while opening markets and ensuring that American businesses and workers receive the economic benefits of trade.”

Agreed.

The President’s Trade Policy Agenda is part one of the report. On the pending Free Trade Agreements with Panama, Colombia and South Korea, the report again offers the Administration’s general, but non-committal support that might lead to enacting the agreements, perhaps.

If these outstanding issues can be successfully resolved, we will work with Congress on a timeframe to submit them for Congressional consideration so our producers can take full advantage of the opportunities presented by these agreements.

Nothing new there, really.

UPDATE (2:15 p.m.): CQ Politics reports, “Little Indication of Movement on Stalled Trade Deals.” Unfortunately so.

Our Dispatch from the Front report on Monday noted U.S. Trade Representative’s conference Thursday, “Jobs on Main Street, Customers Around the World: A Positive Trade Agenda for US Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises,” but the event has so much good content for the manufacturing sector that it’s worth a separate plug.

Three board members from the National Association of Manufacturers are participating:

Chuck Wetherington of Hanover, MD, the President of BTE Technologies, is on a morning panel, “SME Export Successes and Major Policy Barriers.” The company manufactures  physical therapy, occupational therapy, and athletic training equipment.

Roy Paulson of Paulson Manufacturing, a manufacturer of protective equipment, and Drew Greenblatt of Marlin Steel Wire, which makes custom-engineered steel wire products, join an afternoon panel, “Key Issues in Export Promotion.”

Ambassador Ron Kirk and the rest of U.S. Trade Representative’s Office, as well as the Small Business Administration and the Department of Commerce have all put great energy into export promotion programs, and the conference for small and medium enterprises reaches out to companies that can do much more in the way of selling their products abroad.

At the same time, government promotion and financing packages will be hobbled if U.S. exporters face tariffs and other trade barriers our global competitors do not. Canada, the European Union and Asian countries are all moving forward with trade agreements that make their exports more affordable than U.S. products. 

If the goal is a “positive trade agenda,” then the Administration should also be pushing for Congressional enactment of pending U.S. trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.

(Frank Vargo, the National Association of Manufacturers’s vice president for international economic affairs, has blogged from Geneva this week at the ministerial meeting of the WTO.  This is his final report.)

Ah well, the strangeness and wonder of the WTO negotiating process continues. Consider, for example, the Chairman’s report at the conclusion of the 7th WTO Ministerial meeting that ended yesterday. (Report available here as .doc.)

The report states, “There was wide support for building on progress made to date. There was also support for not attempting to reopen stabilized texts.” (My emphasis.) This statement refers, among other texts, to the Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA) text that the U.S. has not accepted. The clear implication from yesterday, though, is that many consider the text to be done, agreed, and not to be revisited.

Stabilized texts? Excuse me, but when the NAMA chairman Luzius Wasescha wrote that text at the end of last year, he stated right in his own text that, “Even though the included text is accepted as a basis for further work, we are far from a consensus among Members.” He also added “Anyhow, everything is conditional in the deepest sense.”

Whoa! By what magic elixir do we move from that December statement to the Ministerial Chairman’s statement yesterday that there is strong support for considering the text wrapped up and immutable? Is this sleight of hand? Or does the WTO have all the collective memory of a computer with a fried hard drive?

Example two: Press reports indicate at the end of the conference European officials lamented, “Doha does not seem to be fully on the agenda of the United States … there is no sign today that the Americans are ready to go forward.” (AFP report.) One said, “They want more concessions for a more acceptable package for the US Congress. Now, the problem is to find a way without damaging what has been achieved so far.”

What hypocrisy! In private, European government officials and business representatives are quite free in admitting their analysis conforms perfectly with the U.S. view – they are getting virtually no new market access out of the proposal so far. But they are willing to accept that, because they believe if they were to press for more industrial market access, the developing countries would turn right around and demand more European concessions in agriculture.

That has the Europeans terrified, for they feel they have given all they possibly can in agriculture. One more grain of wheat will break the European back and result in a revolt that will cause them to pull out of the whole deal. So they would rather build Fortress Europe around their agriculture and forgo market access gains in the rest of the world.

Example three: Indian officials still indicate a reluctance to have India participate in sectorals (but not the same degree of “shut-the-door” resistance I saw last year). But at the same time, India has free trade agreements cooking or under discussion with China, Japan, the European Union and Canada – and when India’s Prime Minister visited Washington recently, he indicated a free trade agreement could be possible with the United States as well. So my question is, who’s left? Why can’t you make cuts in the Doha Round?

The problem isn’t that the United States isn’t showing leadership, for it is. I spoke with Ambassador Ron Kirk a couple of times in Geneva this week. He knows the point to the Doha Round is getting meaningful market opening, and he knows the road to Doha goes through Beijing, New Delhi, and Brasilia. The problem isn’t U.S. leadership. The problem is getting others to get off their defensive agendas and join the United States is a commitment to open markets and grow world trade. (continue reading…)