Following is the transcript of the press conference:

November 12, 2001 Office of the U.S. Trade Representative Background Press Conference Fourth World Trade Organization Ministerial Doha, Qatar

Good Morning, everyone. Thank you for coming by USTR's background press briefing I'd like to remind everyone that all the quotes today are on background and attributable to a senior U.S. trade official. Thank you.

First U.S. Trade Official: Good morning to everyone. We're now kind of half way through, I guess, this process at this point, and I think for those of you who have been regularly out talking to a number of us since the sessions began on Friday night or even the pre-stages, you know this is in the more intensive portions of the meeting. Let me comment, I think, briefly, on yesterday's events and where we see today playing out. As we were with you yesterday, we talked, I think as we have the last couple of days, in terms of the role the United States is trying to play in this process of, in many cases, being the bridge on a number of issues, trying to be constructive and supportive in terms of pulling together a balanced agenda that we think brings and builds the kind of support that would be necessary to launch the negotiations, and we certainly have been working hard over the last several days to play that role. Yesterday, as you know, we finished up the topics in the morning with the Head of Delegations session, came back then in the early afternoon to hear a report on all the groups that have been working, the facilitative groups, in those intervening hours. And that work is going to continue. That was the first round of reports. It certainly wasn't meant to come back and bring the finished package on any of the particular topics. But, at least it kept people very well informed in terms of where the work was. The facilitators continued to meet during the day either in the larger sessions or in smaller groups, sometimes bilaterally, sometimes with a small group of countries, sometimes with a larger group that came and expressed their perspective on any number of issues, that then finished up later yesterday afternoon. And the Head of Delegation's meeting will take place again this morning, and we would expect there to hear a report from the facilitators, also, because there were more meetings taking place last night and, indeed, even beginning early this morning. So, I appreciate from a news perspective, this is probably the hardest time since there is so much work being done without a finished product, but I think it is safe to say where we see at this point we continue to have the same sense of cautious optimism in terms of where we are in being able to launch the negotiations.

We see pieces starting to fall into place but there is still a distance to go before we're complete, so the next two days will be very intensive. With that, if I may open it up to questions.

Question: Could you tell us what the status is at the moment of negotiations on TRIPS?

First U.S. Trade Official: The TRIPS group met regularly through the day yesterday, and I think by last evening I believe they were starting to reach a better sense of convergence in terms of what a declaration would look like. Now, I think, as with any of the topics right now, having made that statement, it doesn't mean that a declaration is complete. But, I think the belief was by last night there was a closer agreement on a number of different issues, and the group was planning to meet and continue to work through the day. So, I think yesterday was a day of good progress on that as we move forward.

Q: Jeff Armstrong, Wall Street Journal: Just to follow up on that, I understand that there was some provisional text that is now being submitted by a small working group to that general group. I wonder if you could confirm that and characterize the text?

A: Yes, I think from the work that was done yesterday, that there were changes in the language that were suggested and that had been discussed within the group that has been working in terms of TRIPS. I don't think that that is, as I was commenting earlier, the stage of final text at this point. So, I think that was language to continue to explore. But there is much more convergence on the language than what we had seen previously. As you know, I think we all know from having covered this issue, this is one in which, at the beginning of the discussions, all the countries were particularly focused on this topic, starting with the basic premise, as we're trying to draft the words that would set the political declaration, that they wanted to make sure we didn't do anything that would damage or destroy the TRIPS agreement. And that's continued to be the basic premise that we work on and believe that certainly we have the flexibility within the TRIPS agreement to respond to the health crises that affect so many countries today. And I think that's continued to be the guiding principal for that group as they work through those issues. So, I think they will be examining that text, exploring it. As with any of these, sometimes you're at the point now you scrutinize every word in terms of what it means and what it says, and does it express the perspective that you're trying to as clearly as possible, so I think there'll be a lot of that work done through the day.

Q: Since TRIPS is a separate issue and you say you are making good progress on it, would you anticipate that you all would be able to announce that you have an agreement in that area, before maybe you have agreement on the elements you need to launch a round. If that is a correct scenario, I mean, do you think it's likely that there could be such an announcement today?

A: I think we're at the point of working so hard in terms of the issue, nobody's gone beyond where we are right now in terms of the drafting process. So, we've certainly considered it to be a unique declaration to itself, as we commented, I think, earlier on, that it was something we were committed to find the right solution for, but it was separate from the rest of the declaration or the launch of the negotiations in the process. But I wouldn't anticipate at this point in terms of how it will be presented, we need to have the solution, we don't have that quite yet at this point.

Second U.S. Trade Official: Just to remind you that any declaration, whether it's on that subject or another, would be a ministerial declaration and so the only way it could be announced would be if the ministers got together and agreed. You couldn't announce anything before that happened.

Q: Indian Press: Two questions. One, what is happening in Singapore issues. Second, on TRIPS, one of the concerns from developing countries, based on an NGO report today, is that prices of drugs are increasing since the Uruguay Round came to be. So how do you resolve this issue? And thirdly, did Ambassador Zoellick pressure the Indian Minister in their meeting yesterday.

Second U.S. Trade Official: Your first question, about the group that's meeting on Singapore issues, that continues to be a difficult issue. As you know, there are difficult issues there with respect to countries' readiness to have negotiations in some of those areas. I think it's important to make a distinction among the Singapore issues. Normally, people have in mind four issues. There are issues - government transparency, and government procurement and trade facilitation -- that appear to be significantly less controversial than investment and competition policy. So I think it's important we make those distinctions in the first instance. But, with respect to investment and competition policy, there still is the need to deal with the concerns of countries that feel that there needs to be, that they need some more preparation before they could really negotiate in those areas. So the work is to see how best to structure things so their needs are met and the needs are met of those who want to negotiate.

Your second question had to do with an assertion that prices on medicine have risen. Well, I'm not aware that, I don't know what particular study you're referring to and which medicines you're referring to. So, it's not clear to me that that is the case. With all due respect to the NGOs, I certainly would like to see the underlying work that verifies that. I hope they're not just assertions, because that is not our impression.

Then your third question had to do with the meeting between Amb. Zoellick and Minister Maran. I'd not like to get into details of bilateral meetings, whether it's with Minister Maran or with any other Minister. Let me say that it was a very, cordial meeting, I thought it was a constructive meeting, it went through the various issues that are under negotiation here, the six primary issues. I think that both sides had a very clear understanding of the other side's preoccupations. And neither party put down any ultimata, or threats. Thank you.

Q: On the wording of the agriculture text, what is the position of the U.S. delegation, with respect to export subsidy and export credits?

A: Our position is that the negotiation should cover the famous three pillars and that includes export competition, one of the pillars, and countries are free to put forward their proposals, and countries have put forward proposals on export credits in the negotiations.

Q: I have sort of two related questions. First, the developing countries are asking for development consideration for them to move faster within the WTO. Have you received any concrete demands regarding what they mean by development? And, is the issue of TRIPS and the pharmaceutical products part of the development demands? I don't know if I'm being clear. The APC, the African, Pacific and Caribbean countries issued a declaration the day before yesterday saying that we need more attention to all of development in order to move faster within the WTO because we cannot cope with the previous agreement for whatever technical and development reasons. Have you received any concrete demands regarding that? And the other question has to do with the position on TRIPS, is there any coordination with the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. regarding the position on TRIPS?

A: I would like to start on the first issue, but I'd also like my colleague to comment on it too, because he spoke to that last night, I think, in the press briefing. I think we have seen the draft agenda, even as it came together, was a good description, I think, of both a development and growth agenda for prospective negotiations. If you go through that draft, there are a number of different, both general as well as very specific, mentions of development issues. Whether it's been in more traditional means of special and differential treatment that's proposed and a number of different sections to assist countries as they move into a broader range of development, or whether it's been in more specific areas of technical assistance and capacity building. This is an area that many of you know, particularly the Director General and the Secretariat have focused on the last couple of years, so they've been very helpful, I think, in continuing to bring that focus of attention to the issues and the membership, I think, has certainly supported it. So, it's been one that has been of concern, already, in the drafting, and I think has continued to addressing the concerns in the various working groups over the last several days, that those concerns are taken into account as the drafting is finalized. So I think those are serious and concrete issues that we need to work on, not only as countries that are coming into the WTO, but that we continue to assist them in their greater development. It's been a particular focus, I will tell you, of our discussions over the last couple months in Geneva, most especially, even, with the African countries. Because as we talked about a number of the issues they've made very clear that they wish to be participants, but that there are a number of places that they feel they need either technical assistance and /or just simply need to build the capacity within their own country. And so, we tried to be constructive not only in terms of what's done within the WTO, but working, for example, with the World Bank in terms of programs would be of benefit. We have, for example, with us as a part of our delegation, a representative from USAID who has been meeting bilaterally with countries that are so interested to find out what programs we do have that would be of assistance to them. We came with a fairly detailed brochure outlining those, so if countries were not aware, that would give them good background, but also with somebody on site they can work with. I saw, in fact, in one meeting the other day when we said we had the AID person with us who was willing to schedule appointments, people were lining up with him after the meeting to be able to do that. So I think that's been quite constructive and I've been pleased with the response to that.

On TRIPS, there is with us a number of different industry groups here represented even here as we meet. So yes, they are certainly aware in terms of how those discussions are progressing, and we tried as most of the delegations do to keep our major industry groups informed, either those who are here present or with regular contact as the week has gone back. Back to the States to let them know we want them to know exactly is taking place, and hopefully be supportive in terms of what those agreements would be.

First U.S. Trade Official: We have to go to the heads of delegation meeting now. We have to be there by 10:00, so, I'm sorry, we'll have to finish right now. Thank you.

# # #