Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Let's talk about trade. The EU pushing Washington to finalize
Speaker 2: a tariff deal by July, as President Donald Trump threaten
Speaker 2: say twenty five percent levy on European autos. The US
Speaker 2: Trade Representative Jamison Gribb meeting with G seven officials this
Speaker 2: week in Paris, and I'm pleased to say that Ambassador
Speaker 2: gru is making some time for us this morning. Ambassador Agree,
Speaker 2: welcome back to this program, sir. Can we just start
Speaker 2: off by getting your assessment of the current characterization of
Speaker 2: talks between the EU and the US. What is the
Speaker 2: current state of things?
Speaker 1: So I've spent a lot of time over the weekend
Speaker 1: and hear what I've been in Paris speaking to my
Speaker 1: counterparts of the European Commission and my counterparts and member
Speaker 1: states about this issue. Just to go back in time
Speaker 1: a little bit to last summer, when we concluded the
Speaker 1: turn Barrier agreement, which was an initial framework. The United
Speaker 1: States immediately set to work modifying its terrorf rates to
Speaker 1: meet the agreement that we made.
Speaker 3: The EU has had a lot.
Speaker 1: Of time, many many months to comply with their tariff
Speaker 1: commitments and their commitments on non tariff barriers, and that
Speaker 1: hasn't materialized yet. I think that the minds are focused
Speaker 1: in the EU and in Europe, I think is probably
Speaker 1: the best way to describe it. Right now, they're focused
Speaker 1: on what next steps are and how they might come
Speaker 1: into compliance.
Speaker 4: Well, what are the next steps?
Speaker 5: Of course, the Europeans have a process, it's guided by
Speaker 5: their parliament.
Speaker 4: What's the exact ass of the United States.
Speaker 1: So the ask, if you go back to August, we
Speaker 1: have a written piece of paper, a joint statement with
Speaker 1: the Europeans, and our ask is that Europe fulfilled those
Speaker 1: obligations they committed to. The United States complied with its
Speaker 1: tariff obligations for many, many months. The Europeans have agreed
Speaker 1: to remove their tariffs on industrial goods. They've agreed to
Speaker 1: give duty free quotas to key agricultural products coming from
Speaker 1: the United States. They've agreed to provide flexibilities for the
Speaker 1: United States on many of the regulatory matters that the
Speaker 1: European Union seems to specialize. Things related to methane content
Speaker 1: in LNG, things about deforestation regulations, things about the card
Speaker 1: and boarder adjustment mechanism. So we expect the European Union
Speaker 1: to keep its part of the deal, which includes flexibilities
Speaker 1: on those types of things as well as the tariff things.
Speaker 1: And with the US, our part of the deal is
Speaker 1: to align our new tariff structure with what we committed to.
Speaker 5: And if they don't come into an agreement by when
Speaker 5: is the question? Then would the President potentially escalate to
Speaker 5: the twenty five percent auto level?
Speaker 3: Right now?
Speaker 1: The United States has a ten percent tariff on the world.
Speaker 1: Generally speaking, it has twenty five percent on autos from
Speaker 1: around the world. Europe has had it at only fifteen
Speaker 1: percent this whole time. We have tariffs on steal and aluminum.
Speaker 1: We have other investigations ongoing which may or may not
Speaker 1: result in tariffs depending on the outcome. The idea would be,
Speaker 1: can Europe come into compliance? I'm not setting a hard
Speaker 1: date on this my views, it's already passed due. Frankly,
Speaker 1: this is part of the reason why the President has
Speaker 1: come out and said, if the Europeans aren't to be
Speaker 1: complying with this deal right now, why should we be
Speaker 1: complying with all of it. All that being said, the
Speaker 1: autos is just one element. There are other elements to
Speaker 1: the deal where the United States remains in full compliance
Speaker 1: in contrast to where the Europeans have been for many months.
Speaker 5: It's just that your colleague, the Ambassador to Europe told
Speaker 5: us earlier they would need to see movement relatively soon
Speaker 5: and basically said that July would be too late.
Speaker 4: We're now in May.
Speaker 5: So basically, do you need to see something between the
Speaker 5: next few weeks for the President not to act?
Speaker 1: Well, what I would say is right now, this afternoon,
Speaker 1: I was meeting with my colleague, Commissioner Maristefchovich, the Trade
Speaker 1: Commissioner in the European Union, and he left the G
Speaker 1: seven at an appropriate time to go have the what
Speaker 1: they call the trilog process between the European Parliament, Counsel
Speaker 1: and Commission where they go over the tariff bill that's
Speaker 1: being debated. That tariff bill in the European Parliament, it
Speaker 1: also has a lot of amendments attached to it that
Speaker 1: we didn't agree to with the European Union. Amendments that
Speaker 1: could the relief limit, the ben fit of the agreement
Speaker 1: place limits on US exports to Europe under a preferential
Speaker 1: trade agreement. So some of those amendments need to be
Speaker 1: resolved as well. It's not just about passing the bill.
Speaker 1: It's about making sure the bill reflects what we agreed
Speaker 1: last summer with.
Speaker 4: M Repms Ambassador agree.
Speaker 5: I know for you, the focus is going to change
Speaker 5: what's going on in China because the President will be
Speaker 5: going there next week. Beijing is basically refusing to comply
Speaker 5: with US sanctions. I'm sure you've seen the reporting that
Speaker 5: they're telling some firms, some refiners that they don't need
Speaker 5: to comply when it comes to imports of Iranian crude.
Speaker 4: How big of.
Speaker 5: An agenda item is going to be when the President
Speaker 5: sits down with Shijingpang.
Speaker 1: Obviously it's something we're going to have to discuss. Iran
Speaker 1: is the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, and anyone
Speaker 1: who's buying oil from Iran is contributing to that. And
Speaker 1: so when the Treasury takes a step similar to steps
Speaker 1: it's taken many times over decades with respect to oil
Speaker 1: refiners who are dealing with Heran, and you have a
Speaker 1: country that refuses to comply or directs non compliance, that's
Speaker 1: going to have to be a discussion item. We certainly
Speaker 1: have had it raised at the staff level between China
Speaker 1: and the United States. I would say we're looking for
Speaker 1: stability with China. We don't want this to be something
Speaker 1: that derails the broader relationship or any agreements that might
Speaker 1: come out of our meeting in Beijing, but it's certainly
Speaker 1: something that may come up.
Speaker 5: What more could be done besides secondary sanctions imposed potentially
Speaker 5: on Chinese banks? I mean, yesterday the President also said,
Speaker 5: even though China is doing this, the President said, is
Speaker 5: Shijingping has been very respectful of him. This doesn't seem
Speaker 5: respectful of the United States and our rules.
Speaker 1: Remember China, in every country, you know, they're going to
Speaker 1: undertake domestically the laws and regulations they think they need
Speaker 1: to do. Sometimes they'll be in conflict with ours, and
Speaker 1: we're going to expect some kind of resolution. At the
Speaker 1: same time, we have the euro Union. European Union for
Speaker 1: years has had a blocking statute against complying with our
Speaker 1: sanctions on Cuba. So what China's doing is serious. We
Speaker 1: take it very seriously. But again for us, it's not
Speaker 1: something where we're going to let that become the only
Speaker 1: thing we talk about in the relationship. We have a
Speaker 1: lot of things that we have to cover that will
Speaker 1: be addressed, but then will address other issues related to
Speaker 1: trade and geopolitics and foreign policy and everything that comes
Speaker 1: with the relationship between two of the most important countries
Speaker 1: in the world.
Speaker 6: Ambassador Greer, there's a real question about alliances here and
Speaker 6: the way that the United States and Europe have been
Speaker 6: discussing and the tensions that have been emerging versus the
Speaker 6: rhetoric that's been surrounding the US and the China meeting
Speaker 6: that is planned for next week. Do you see the
Speaker 6: US alliances as shifting as some of these negotiations take place,
Speaker 6: or are these negotiations independent of any kind of traditional
Speaker 6: alliances that the United States has had.
Speaker 1: I think that's that's a good question because it puts
Speaker 1: into context everything that we're doing, and I think you
Speaker 1: have to look a little bit at history. People think
Speaker 1: about our alliance system as something that is set in stone,
Speaker 1: never had issues, have always been perfect.
Speaker 3: And there never been problems. That's just not true.
Speaker 1: I'm sitting here in Paris in a place where you know,
Speaker 1: decades ago, shal de gall essentially pulled France out of
Speaker 1: the military structure of NATO and sought to have its
Speaker 1: own independent nuclear program, which, in retrospect, you know, maybe
Speaker 1: de Gaull was right. So we have a long history
Speaker 1: of having a back and forth between the US and
Speaker 1: its closest partners as we try to find the right
Speaker 1: balance between international cooperation and alliances and what we need
Speaker 1: for our sovereign right when it comes to trade, the
Speaker 1: United States, we have to reindustrialize, we have to reduce
Speaker 1: our trade deficit. We have to get real wages up,
Speaker 1: we have to have manufacturing as a bigger portion of
Speaker 1: our economy. That necessarily means that we need to fix
Speaker 1: the terms of trade with other trading partners, friend or foe.
Speaker 1: We have to have hard conversations with the Europeans, who,
Speaker 1: by the way, have the largest trade surplus in the
Speaker 1: world with the US right now it's no longer China
Speaker 1: as of last year.
Speaker 3: With the United States. I don't think we're going.
Speaker 1: To let that get in the way of whatever military
Speaker 1: cooperation we want to have with the Europeans. If other
Speaker 1: countries want trade to get in the way of that
Speaker 1: kind of cooperation, that's up to them. But there's a
Speaker 1: long history of having economic differences and challenges and resolutions
Speaker 1: and disputes, etc. And siloing that off from military and
Speaker 1: security questions. Sometimes they get mixed, sometimes they stay apart.
Speaker 4: Best career.
Speaker 6: It seems like European representatives feel a little bit differently.
Speaker 6: The French Trade Minister said that it seems like there's
Speaker 6: a weaponization of mutual dependencies and that type of action
Speaker 6: is causing some real rethinking on their side.
Speaker 4: How do you address.
Speaker 6: Things like that commentary with some of your counterparts that
Speaker 6: we're seeing and hearing.
Speaker 1: So I saw that language today, but it was with
Speaker 1: respect to and maybe we have a different understanding. We
Speaker 1: put out a G seven statement that talks about that,
Speaker 1: but it's really about China weaponizing critical minerals, an area
Speaker 1: where France, the rest of Europe, and the United States
Speaker 1: are quite aligned on the way forward and how we
Speaker 1: shouldn't allow basic commodities to be weaponized. The United States
Speaker 1: is not in the business of cutting off commodities. We've
Speaker 1: been exporting oil during this whole Iran operation. You know,
Speaker 1: China's the countries that's been cutting off and limiting access
Speaker 1: to critical minerals, and that's why we're cooperating with Europe
Speaker 1: on projects for critical minerals, on downstream processing, on manufacturing.
Speaker 1: That's why we're talking about having a plurilateral trade agreement
Speaker 1: on trade and critical minerals.
Speaker 3: With Europe, with Japan and others.
Speaker 1: So there are areas of a lot of collaboration and
Speaker 1: cooperation as we enter into a period of geoeconomic uncertainty.
Speaker 2: Bassid that that's an interesting point because for a long
Speaker 2: time the Europeans have just sat on the fence. They've
Speaker 2: wanted the security umbredder of the United States, but also
Speaker 2: I wanted the economic benefits of having a close relationship
Speaker 2: with the Chinese. Do you think that's changed.
Speaker 1: I think that I think that every country is going
Speaker 1: to pursue their trading relationships in the way they think
Speaker 1: is best. China is a great example. We're always going
Speaker 1: to trade with China. The Europeans are always going to
Speaker 1: trade with China. Europeans Germany in particular, they've had very
Speaker 1: close economic relations. I do think that a lot of
Speaker 1: European countries and companies are rethinking that. I think they're
Speaker 1: being more clear eyed about the risks and the challenges
Speaker 1: of doing business in and with China. At the same time,
Speaker 1: that's a big market. They do a lot of manufacturing there,
Speaker 1: they have a lot of consumers there, and so it's
Speaker 1: a place where people want to be able to do business,
Speaker 1: but they want to be able to do it in
Speaker 1: a reliable and predictable way, and that's not the case
Speaker 1: right now and hasn't been for some years. So while
Speaker 1: I think that the European view of China is changing
Speaker 1: and developing, it doesn't mean there's going to be some
Speaker 1: kind of massive decouple in the same way that even
Speaker 1: in the United States we haven't had a massive decoupling
Speaker 1: from China. We've reduced our reliance on them, we've diversified
Speaker 1: from their economy, but we still want to have a
Speaker 1: constructive trade relationship if we can.
Speaker 2: Ambassador, you've been generous with your time and we appreciate it.
Speaker 2: Thank you, sir, The United States Trade Representative Jamison Grea
Speaker 2: their ambassador gre on the relationship with the EU and
Speaker 2: the relationship with the Chinese ahead of that meeting with
Speaker 2: the President in about a week