WEBVTT - Jamieson Greer Talks EU Trade Deal, Trump to China

0:00:02.520 --> 0:00:07.040
<v Speaker 1>Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.

0:00:07.760 --> 0:00:10.639
<v Speaker 2>Let's talk about trade. The EU pushing Washington to finalize

0:00:10.640 --> 0:00:13.480
<v Speaker 2>a tariff deal by July, as President Donald Trump threaten

0:00:13.600 --> 0:00:16.520
<v Speaker 2>say twenty five percent levy on European autos. The US

0:00:16.600 --> 0:00:20.159
<v Speaker 2>Trade Representative Jamison Gribb meeting with G seven officials this

0:00:20.200 --> 0:00:22.080
<v Speaker 2>week in Paris, and I'm pleased to say that Ambassador

0:00:22.120 --> 0:00:24.599
<v Speaker 2>gru is making some time for us this morning. Ambassador Agree,

0:00:24.680 --> 0:00:26.960
<v Speaker 2>welcome back to this program, sir. Can we just start

0:00:26.960 --> 0:00:30.560
<v Speaker 2>off by getting your assessment of the current characterization of

0:00:30.920 --> 0:00:33.440
<v Speaker 2>talks between the EU and the US. What is the

0:00:33.440 --> 0:00:34.880
<v Speaker 2>current state of things?

0:00:36.880 --> 0:00:39.480
<v Speaker 1>So I've spent a lot of time over the weekend

0:00:39.640 --> 0:00:42.239
<v Speaker 1>and hear what I've been in Paris speaking to my

0:00:42.360 --> 0:00:45.880
<v Speaker 1>counterparts of the European Commission and my counterparts and member

0:00:45.920 --> 0:00:48.440
<v Speaker 1>states about this issue. Just to go back in time

0:00:48.479 --> 0:00:50.680
<v Speaker 1>a little bit to last summer, when we concluded the

0:00:50.680 --> 0:00:53.920
<v Speaker 1>turn Barrier agreement, which was an initial framework. The United

0:00:53.960 --> 0:00:56.960
<v Speaker 1>States immediately set to work modifying its terrorf rates to

0:00:57.080 --> 0:00:58.920
<v Speaker 1>meet the agreement that we made.

0:00:59.440 --> 0:01:00.920
<v Speaker 3>The EU has had a lot.

0:01:00.800 --> 0:01:03.760
<v Speaker 1>Of time, many many months to comply with their tariff

0:01:03.800 --> 0:01:06.520
<v Speaker 1>commitments and their commitments on non tariff barriers, and that

0:01:06.560 --> 0:01:10.240
<v Speaker 1>hasn't materialized yet. I think that the minds are focused

0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:12.360
<v Speaker 1>in the EU and in Europe, I think is probably

0:01:12.400 --> 0:01:15.240
<v Speaker 1>the best way to describe it. Right now, they're focused

0:01:15.280 --> 0:01:17.560
<v Speaker 1>on what next steps are and how they might come

0:01:17.600 --> 0:01:18.319
<v Speaker 1>into compliance.

0:01:18.480 --> 0:01:19.800
<v Speaker 4>Well, what are the next steps?

0:01:19.840 --> 0:01:21.960
<v Speaker 5>Of course, the Europeans have a process, it's guided by

0:01:21.959 --> 0:01:22.680
<v Speaker 5>their parliament.

0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:24.920
<v Speaker 4>What's the exact ass of the United States.

0:01:27.120 --> 0:01:29.399
<v Speaker 1>So the ask, if you go back to August, we

0:01:29.440 --> 0:01:31.920
<v Speaker 1>have a written piece of paper, a joint statement with

0:01:31.959 --> 0:01:34.959
<v Speaker 1>the Europeans, and our ask is that Europe fulfilled those

0:01:34.959 --> 0:01:38.399
<v Speaker 1>obligations they committed to. The United States complied with its

0:01:38.440 --> 0:01:42.319
<v Speaker 1>tariff obligations for many, many months. The Europeans have agreed

0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:45.280
<v Speaker 1>to remove their tariffs on industrial goods. They've agreed to

0:01:45.280 --> 0:01:48.720
<v Speaker 1>give duty free quotas to key agricultural products coming from

0:01:48.760 --> 0:01:51.600
<v Speaker 1>the United States. They've agreed to provide flexibilities for the

0:01:51.680 --> 0:01:54.440
<v Speaker 1>United States on many of the regulatory matters that the

0:01:54.480 --> 0:01:59.000
<v Speaker 1>European Union seems to specialize. Things related to methane content

0:01:59.360 --> 0:02:03.240
<v Speaker 1>in LNG, things about deforestation regulations, things about the card

0:02:03.240 --> 0:02:06.600
<v Speaker 1>and boarder adjustment mechanism. So we expect the European Union

0:02:06.640 --> 0:02:09.120
<v Speaker 1>to keep its part of the deal, which includes flexibilities

0:02:09.160 --> 0:02:11.720
<v Speaker 1>on those types of things as well as the tariff things.

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:14.120
<v Speaker 1>And with the US, our part of the deal is

0:02:14.160 --> 0:02:17.880
<v Speaker 1>to align our new tariff structure with what we committed to.

0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:21.120
<v Speaker 5>And if they don't come into an agreement by when

0:02:21.600 --> 0:02:24.679
<v Speaker 5>is the question? Then would the President potentially escalate to

0:02:24.720 --> 0:02:26.480
<v Speaker 5>the twenty five percent auto level?

0:02:29.520 --> 0:02:29.919
<v Speaker 3>Right now?

0:02:29.960 --> 0:02:32.720
<v Speaker 1>The United States has a ten percent tariff on the world.

0:02:32.800 --> 0:02:37.000
<v Speaker 1>Generally speaking, it has twenty five percent on autos from

0:02:37.000 --> 0:02:39.360
<v Speaker 1>around the world. Europe has had it at only fifteen

0:02:39.360 --> 0:02:42.040
<v Speaker 1>percent this whole time. We have tariffs on steal and aluminum.

0:02:42.520 --> 0:02:45.040
<v Speaker 1>We have other investigations ongoing which may or may not

0:02:45.120 --> 0:02:48.840
<v Speaker 1>result in tariffs depending on the outcome. The idea would be,

0:02:48.919 --> 0:02:52.440
<v Speaker 1>can Europe come into compliance? I'm not setting a hard

0:02:52.520 --> 0:02:54.960
<v Speaker 1>date on this my views, it's already passed due. Frankly,

0:02:55.440 --> 0:02:57.480
<v Speaker 1>this is part of the reason why the President has

0:02:57.520 --> 0:03:00.360
<v Speaker 1>come out and said, if the Europeans aren't to be

0:03:00.360 --> 0:03:03.200
<v Speaker 1>complying with this deal right now, why should we be

0:03:03.240 --> 0:03:05.280
<v Speaker 1>complying with all of it. All that being said, the

0:03:05.280 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 1>autos is just one element. There are other elements to

0:03:07.480 --> 0:03:10.680
<v Speaker 1>the deal where the United States remains in full compliance

0:03:10.720 --> 0:03:13.280
<v Speaker 1>in contrast to where the Europeans have been for many months.

0:03:13.320 --> 0:03:15.480
<v Speaker 5>It's just that your colleague, the Ambassador to Europe told

0:03:15.560 --> 0:03:18.240
<v Speaker 5>us earlier they would need to see movement relatively soon

0:03:18.280 --> 0:03:21.320
<v Speaker 5>and basically said that July would be too late.

0:03:21.440 --> 0:03:22.960
<v Speaker 4>We're now in May.

0:03:23.040 --> 0:03:25.120
<v Speaker 5>So basically, do you need to see something between the

0:03:25.120 --> 0:03:27.600
<v Speaker 5>next few weeks for the President not to act?

0:03:29.919 --> 0:03:32.440
<v Speaker 1>Well, what I would say is right now, this afternoon,

0:03:32.520 --> 0:03:36.600
<v Speaker 1>I was meeting with my colleague, Commissioner Maristefchovich, the Trade

0:03:36.600 --> 0:03:40.120
<v Speaker 1>Commissioner in the European Union, and he left the G

0:03:40.240 --> 0:03:42.640
<v Speaker 1>seven at an appropriate time to go have the what

0:03:42.680 --> 0:03:46.080
<v Speaker 1>they call the trilog process between the European Parliament, Counsel

0:03:46.160 --> 0:03:48.800
<v Speaker 1>and Commission where they go over the tariff bill that's

0:03:48.840 --> 0:03:51.760
<v Speaker 1>being debated. That tariff bill in the European Parliament, it

0:03:51.800 --> 0:03:54.160
<v Speaker 1>also has a lot of amendments attached to it that

0:03:54.240 --> 0:03:57.680
<v Speaker 1>we didn't agree to with the European Union. Amendments that

0:03:57.720 --> 0:04:01.160
<v Speaker 1>could the relief limit, the ben fit of the agreement

0:04:01.760 --> 0:04:07.800
<v Speaker 1>place limits on US exports to Europe under a preferential

0:04:07.800 --> 0:04:10.240
<v Speaker 1>trade agreement. So some of those amendments need to be

0:04:10.320 --> 0:04:12.839
<v Speaker 1>resolved as well. It's not just about passing the bill.

0:04:12.840 --> 0:04:15.320
<v Speaker 1>It's about making sure the bill reflects what we agreed

0:04:15.360 --> 0:04:16.000
<v Speaker 1>last summer with.

0:04:16.000 --> 0:04:17.200
<v Speaker 4>M Repms Ambassador agree.

0:04:17.200 --> 0:04:18.800
<v Speaker 5>I know for you, the focus is going to change

0:04:18.880 --> 0:04:20.800
<v Speaker 5>what's going on in China because the President will be

0:04:20.839 --> 0:04:24.480
<v Speaker 5>going there next week. Beijing is basically refusing to comply

0:04:24.640 --> 0:04:27.200
<v Speaker 5>with US sanctions. I'm sure you've seen the reporting that

0:04:27.240 --> 0:04:30.360
<v Speaker 5>they're telling some firms, some refiners that they don't need

0:04:30.400 --> 0:04:33.839
<v Speaker 5>to comply when it comes to imports of Iranian crude.

0:04:34.000 --> 0:04:34.680
<v Speaker 4>How big of.

0:04:35.880 --> 0:04:38.200
<v Speaker 5>An agenda item is going to be when the President

0:04:38.240 --> 0:04:40.160
<v Speaker 5>sits down with Shijingpang.

0:04:42.120 --> 0:04:45.760
<v Speaker 1>Obviously it's something we're going to have to discuss. Iran

0:04:46.040 --> 0:04:49.760
<v Speaker 1>is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, and anyone

0:04:49.760 --> 0:04:53.200
<v Speaker 1>who's buying oil from Iran is contributing to that. And

0:04:53.279 --> 0:04:56.520
<v Speaker 1>so when the Treasury takes a step similar to steps

0:04:56.520 --> 0:05:00.880
<v Speaker 1>it's taken many times over decades with respect to oil

0:05:00.920 --> 0:05:03.279
<v Speaker 1>refiners who are dealing with Heran, and you have a

0:05:03.279 --> 0:05:06.839
<v Speaker 1>country that refuses to comply or directs non compliance, that's

0:05:06.880 --> 0:05:09.960
<v Speaker 1>going to have to be a discussion item. We certainly

0:05:10.040 --> 0:05:13.920
<v Speaker 1>have had it raised at the staff level between China

0:05:13.960 --> 0:05:16.279
<v Speaker 1>and the United States. I would say we're looking for

0:05:16.320 --> 0:05:18.880
<v Speaker 1>stability with China. We don't want this to be something

0:05:18.880 --> 0:05:23.320
<v Speaker 1>that derails the broader relationship or any agreements that might

0:05:23.320 --> 0:05:25.800
<v Speaker 1>come out of our meeting in Beijing, but it's certainly

0:05:25.839 --> 0:05:26.720
<v Speaker 1>something that may come up.

0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:30.280
<v Speaker 5>What more could be done besides secondary sanctions imposed potentially

0:05:30.360 --> 0:05:33.080
<v Speaker 5>on Chinese banks? I mean, yesterday the President also said,

0:05:33.120 --> 0:05:35.359
<v Speaker 5>even though China is doing this, the President said, is

0:05:35.360 --> 0:05:37.760
<v Speaker 5>Shijingping has been very respectful of him. This doesn't seem

0:05:37.760 --> 0:05:40.200
<v Speaker 5>respectful of the United States and our rules.

0:05:43.600 --> 0:05:48.800
<v Speaker 1>Remember China, in every country, you know, they're going to

0:05:49.200 --> 0:05:52.720
<v Speaker 1>undertake domestically the laws and regulations they think they need

0:05:52.760 --> 0:05:55.800
<v Speaker 1>to do. Sometimes they'll be in conflict with ours, and

0:05:55.839 --> 0:05:58.920
<v Speaker 1>we're going to expect some kind of resolution. At the

0:05:58.960 --> 0:06:01.440
<v Speaker 1>same time, we have the euro Union. European Union for

0:06:01.560 --> 0:06:04.280
<v Speaker 1>years has had a blocking statute against complying with our

0:06:04.320 --> 0:06:08.479
<v Speaker 1>sanctions on Cuba. So what China's doing is serious. We

0:06:08.520 --> 0:06:11.520
<v Speaker 1>take it very seriously. But again for us, it's not

0:06:11.600 --> 0:06:13.760
<v Speaker 1>something where we're going to let that become the only

0:06:13.800 --> 0:06:15.560
<v Speaker 1>thing we talk about in the relationship. We have a

0:06:15.560 --> 0:06:17.800
<v Speaker 1>lot of things that we have to cover that will

0:06:17.800 --> 0:06:20.080
<v Speaker 1>be addressed, but then will address other issues related to

0:06:20.080 --> 0:06:24.080
<v Speaker 1>trade and geopolitics and foreign policy and everything that comes

0:06:24.120 --> 0:06:26.599
<v Speaker 1>with the relationship between two of the most important countries

0:06:26.600 --> 0:06:27.080
<v Speaker 1>in the world.

0:06:27.400 --> 0:06:31.320
<v Speaker 6>Ambassador Greer, there's a real question about alliances here and

0:06:31.520 --> 0:06:33.960
<v Speaker 6>the way that the United States and Europe have been

0:06:34.000 --> 0:06:37.160
<v Speaker 6>discussing and the tensions that have been emerging versus the

0:06:37.240 --> 0:06:40.240
<v Speaker 6>rhetoric that's been surrounding the US and the China meeting

0:06:40.720 --> 0:06:43.359
<v Speaker 6>that is planned for next week. Do you see the

0:06:43.520 --> 0:06:48.560
<v Speaker 6>US alliances as shifting as some of these negotiations take place,

0:06:49.040 --> 0:06:53.000
<v Speaker 6>or are these negotiations independent of any kind of traditional

0:06:53.000 --> 0:06:55.400
<v Speaker 6>alliances that the United States has had.

0:06:59.040 --> 0:07:02.120
<v Speaker 1>I think that's that's a good question because it puts

0:07:02.120 --> 0:07:04.839
<v Speaker 1>into context everything that we're doing, and I think you

0:07:04.920 --> 0:07:07.760
<v Speaker 1>have to look a little bit at history. People think

0:07:07.800 --> 0:07:10.800
<v Speaker 1>about our alliance system as something that is set in stone,

0:07:11.360 --> 0:07:14.400
<v Speaker 1>never had issues, have always been perfect.

0:07:14.000 --> 0:07:16.040
<v Speaker 3>And there never been problems. That's just not true.

0:07:16.080 --> 0:07:18.960
<v Speaker 1>I'm sitting here in Paris in a place where you know,

0:07:19.400 --> 0:07:22.080
<v Speaker 1>decades ago, shal de gall essentially pulled France out of

0:07:22.080 --> 0:07:24.680
<v Speaker 1>the military structure of NATO and sought to have its

0:07:24.680 --> 0:07:29.440
<v Speaker 1>own independent nuclear program, which, in retrospect, you know, maybe

0:07:29.520 --> 0:07:32.520
<v Speaker 1>de Gaull was right. So we have a long history

0:07:32.720 --> 0:07:34.880
<v Speaker 1>of having a back and forth between the US and

0:07:34.880 --> 0:07:37.320
<v Speaker 1>its closest partners as we try to find the right

0:07:37.360 --> 0:07:42.040
<v Speaker 1>balance between international cooperation and alliances and what we need

0:07:42.040 --> 0:07:44.400
<v Speaker 1>for our sovereign right when it comes to trade, the

0:07:44.520 --> 0:07:47.480
<v Speaker 1>United States, we have to reindustrialize, we have to reduce

0:07:47.560 --> 0:07:50.000
<v Speaker 1>our trade deficit. We have to get real wages up,

0:07:50.040 --> 0:07:52.840
<v Speaker 1>we have to have manufacturing as a bigger portion of

0:07:52.840 --> 0:07:55.760
<v Speaker 1>our economy. That necessarily means that we need to fix

0:07:55.800 --> 0:07:59.360
<v Speaker 1>the terms of trade with other trading partners, friend or foe.

0:08:00.200 --> 0:08:02.880
<v Speaker 1>We have to have hard conversations with the Europeans, who,

0:08:02.920 --> 0:08:05.120
<v Speaker 1>by the way, have the largest trade surplus in the

0:08:05.120 --> 0:08:07.320
<v Speaker 1>world with the US right now it's no longer China

0:08:07.360 --> 0:08:08.200
<v Speaker 1>as of last year.

0:08:09.560 --> 0:08:11.200
<v Speaker 3>With the United States. I don't think we're going.

0:08:11.200 --> 0:08:13.040
<v Speaker 1>To let that get in the way of whatever military

0:08:13.080 --> 0:08:16.920
<v Speaker 1>cooperation we want to have with the Europeans. If other

0:08:17.000 --> 0:08:18.600
<v Speaker 1>countries want trade to get in the way of that

0:08:18.680 --> 0:08:21.160
<v Speaker 1>kind of cooperation, that's up to them. But there's a

0:08:21.200 --> 0:08:25.920
<v Speaker 1>long history of having economic differences and challenges and resolutions

0:08:25.920 --> 0:08:30.120
<v Speaker 1>and disputes, etc. And siloing that off from military and

0:08:30.160 --> 0:08:33.400
<v Speaker 1>security questions. Sometimes they get mixed, sometimes they stay apart.

0:08:33.800 --> 0:08:34.480
<v Speaker 4>Best career.

0:08:34.559 --> 0:08:37.840
<v Speaker 6>It seems like European representatives feel a little bit differently.

0:08:37.880 --> 0:08:40.880
<v Speaker 6>The French Trade Minister said that it seems like there's

0:08:40.920 --> 0:08:45.480
<v Speaker 6>a weaponization of mutual dependencies and that type of action

0:08:46.200 --> 0:08:49.560
<v Speaker 6>is causing some real rethinking on their side.

0:08:50.000 --> 0:08:51.400
<v Speaker 4>How do you address.

0:08:50.960 --> 0:08:54.160
<v Speaker 6>Things like that commentary with some of your counterparts that

0:08:54.200 --> 0:08:55.280
<v Speaker 6>we're seeing and hearing.

0:08:57.679 --> 0:09:00.880
<v Speaker 1>So I saw that language today, but it was with

0:09:00.920 --> 0:09:04.800
<v Speaker 1>respect to and maybe we have a different understanding. We

0:09:04.840 --> 0:09:07.560
<v Speaker 1>put out a G seven statement that talks about that,

0:09:07.679 --> 0:09:11.560
<v Speaker 1>but it's really about China weaponizing critical minerals, an area

0:09:11.679 --> 0:09:14.160
<v Speaker 1>where France, the rest of Europe, and the United States

0:09:14.200 --> 0:09:16.720
<v Speaker 1>are quite aligned on the way forward and how we

0:09:16.720 --> 0:09:21.440
<v Speaker 1>shouldn't allow basic commodities to be weaponized. The United States

0:09:21.480 --> 0:09:23.679
<v Speaker 1>is not in the business of cutting off commodities. We've

0:09:23.679 --> 0:09:27.680
<v Speaker 1>been exporting oil during this whole Iran operation. You know,

0:09:27.800 --> 0:09:30.560
<v Speaker 1>China's the countries that's been cutting off and limiting access

0:09:30.559 --> 0:09:33.760
<v Speaker 1>to critical minerals, and that's why we're cooperating with Europe

0:09:34.000 --> 0:09:38.040
<v Speaker 1>on projects for critical minerals, on downstream processing, on manufacturing.

0:09:38.280 --> 0:09:41.440
<v Speaker 1>That's why we're talking about having a plurilateral trade agreement

0:09:41.520 --> 0:09:42.880
<v Speaker 1>on trade and critical minerals.

0:09:43.360 --> 0:09:45.200
<v Speaker 3>With Europe, with Japan and others.

0:09:45.240 --> 0:09:47.920
<v Speaker 1>So there are areas of a lot of collaboration and

0:09:47.960 --> 0:09:51.800
<v Speaker 1>cooperation as we enter into a period of geoeconomic uncertainty.

0:09:52.040 --> 0:09:54.760
<v Speaker 2>Bassid that that's an interesting point because for a long

0:09:54.800 --> 0:09:57.560
<v Speaker 2>time the Europeans have just sat on the fence. They've

0:09:57.559 --> 0:09:59.960
<v Speaker 2>wanted the security umbredder of the United States, but also

0:10:00.000 --> 0:10:03.199
<v Speaker 2>I wanted the economic benefits of having a close relationship

0:10:03.240 --> 0:10:05.040
<v Speaker 2>with the Chinese. Do you think that's changed.

0:10:08.160 --> 0:10:11.280
<v Speaker 1>I think that I think that every country is going

0:10:11.320 --> 0:10:14.680
<v Speaker 1>to pursue their trading relationships in the way they think

0:10:14.760 --> 0:10:18.280
<v Speaker 1>is best. China is a great example. We're always going

0:10:18.280 --> 0:10:20.280
<v Speaker 1>to trade with China. The Europeans are always going to

0:10:20.280 --> 0:10:24.760
<v Speaker 1>trade with China. Europeans Germany in particular, they've had very

0:10:24.760 --> 0:10:27.520
<v Speaker 1>close economic relations. I do think that a lot of

0:10:27.559 --> 0:10:30.960
<v Speaker 1>European countries and companies are rethinking that. I think they're

0:10:31.000 --> 0:10:34.679
<v Speaker 1>being more clear eyed about the risks and the challenges

0:10:34.679 --> 0:10:37.800
<v Speaker 1>of doing business in and with China. At the same time,

0:10:38.120 --> 0:10:40.880
<v Speaker 1>that's a big market. They do a lot of manufacturing there,

0:10:40.920 --> 0:10:43.760
<v Speaker 1>they have a lot of consumers there, and so it's

0:10:43.760 --> 0:10:45.800
<v Speaker 1>a place where people want to be able to do business,

0:10:46.080 --> 0:10:47.360
<v Speaker 1>but they want to be able to do it in

0:10:47.440 --> 0:10:50.320
<v Speaker 1>a reliable and predictable way, and that's not the case

0:10:50.400 --> 0:10:53.760
<v Speaker 1>right now and hasn't been for some years. So while

0:10:53.760 --> 0:10:55.920
<v Speaker 1>I think that the European view of China is changing

0:10:55.960 --> 0:10:58.360
<v Speaker 1>and developing, it doesn't mean there's going to be some

0:10:58.480 --> 0:11:01.520
<v Speaker 1>kind of massive decouple in the same way that even

0:11:01.559 --> 0:11:03.760
<v Speaker 1>in the United States we haven't had a massive decoupling

0:11:03.800 --> 0:11:07.199
<v Speaker 1>from China. We've reduced our reliance on them, we've diversified

0:11:07.200 --> 0:11:09.400
<v Speaker 1>from their economy, but we still want to have a

0:11:09.480 --> 0:11:11.320
<v Speaker 1>constructive trade relationship if we can.

0:11:11.520 --> 0:11:14.000
<v Speaker 2>Ambassador, you've been generous with your time and we appreciate it.

0:11:14.040 --> 0:11:16.880
<v Speaker 2>Thank you, sir, The United States Trade Representative Jamison Grea

0:11:16.920 --> 0:11:20.080
<v Speaker 2>their ambassador gre on the relationship with the EU and

0:11:20.120 --> 0:11:22.000
<v Speaker 2>the relationship with the Chinese ahead of that meeting with

0:11:22.000 --> 0:11:23.319
<v Speaker 2>the President in about a week