Vietnam and the US will hold a round of negotiations on March 25 that is expected to be decisive in determining whether or not Vietnam will become a WTO member this year.

VietNamNet spoke with Chairwoman of the US – Vietnam Trade Council Virginia Foote about the forthcoming round of negotiations, and the final developments in Vietnam’s WTO membership process.

What do you think about your meetings with Vietnamese Prime Minister Phan Van Khai, Deputy Minister Vu Khoan and other cabinet members?

I felt very good about the meetings I had here. I saw openness and clear willingness, as well as momentum.

You know, sometimes in the negotiations one side is ready to move and the other side is not. We are lucky now because both sides are prepared to move. Both sides can find compromise and move.

Since you are in the position to understand both sides, what areas of disagreement are really difficult for Vietnam?

The issues still outstanding are trading distribution right, a few services, and some extremely difficult tariff lines, as well as industrial subsidies

It’s hard to me to say what area is the most difficult for Vietnam. This is depending on some certain ministry to move further forward to close up the deal.

Did the Vietnamese Government ask you to forward some message to the President Bush Administration?

The message is levelly clear: Vietnam is serious about finishing the negotiations and serious about commitments to join WTO.

Our delegation asked different times how the party congress would impact on the future, as well as on WTO efforts.

Everyone we asked said that the decision to join WTO was from the highest level, and, cross the board, it’s the decision by the whole country but not a few people of the leadership, so it’s nothing to do with the congress.

So this is the long-term issue relating to the future of Vietnam, but not the short-term political issue. This is the firm commitment to all efforts so far.

The Thanh Nien Newspaper reported that the delegation asked Vietnamese leadership to postpone the party congress in order to concentrate on the WTO issue. Can you elaborate on that?

I am extremely sorry to see that quote. That was said in more, say, a joke.

We had a conversation that so many things that Vietnam is doing this year like WTO, APEC, Party Congress and the visit of our president here.

Among these issues you can not postpone APEC, and, and I think to some extent the timetable for WTO related things like the conclusion and PNTR (the Permanent Normal Trade Relation) at our Congress, in fact, is also fixed. You know well that the most important issue for this delegation here is WTO, so I asked: “Why don’t you postpone the party congress?”

It’s not so meaningful in any way; it does matter in case two of these issues may take place at the same time.

For example, if the upcoming bilateral negotiations between the US and Vietnam in Geneva can be technically concluded as we hope, how can Minister Truong Dinh Tuyen go to Washington to solve the last issues with Ambassador Portman once he is busy with the Party Congress?

Why do you think that the final round of negotiations would take place in Washington?

I don’t mean that in overall, because in principle, any round can be the final one. For example, when we met in January, it could be a final if we got through all the issues.

My guess, judging by how other bilateral discussions have walked, is that at some point it has to walk up higher to your government, or our government. That was how the Vietnam-US Bilateral Trade Agreement closed.

So that’s not always automatic, but there are issues tough for both governments, and your leadership want to look at our leadership in the eyes and say: Do we have the deal?

I am anticipating, or, say, speculating, the way it would happen:

At the technical level they finish 99%, and two weeks later someone at a senior level will go and settle a couple of issues and then will be the ceremony.

But some other WTO accessions were closed in Geneva. But as I said at lunch no two agreements, no two accessions are the same, so I merely give my best guess about how the process may come out.

You mean that there will still be issues that are not simply economic and needed to have “political goodwill” to be solved?

There are issues that are purely economic for us, but seem to be politically sensitive to Vietnam and vice versa. Therefore, it is hard to judge which are political and which are economic.

So we always say that what is talked about at Mr. Tu and Dwoskin level is technical. So when you go the next level up, it needs political authority to make the tough decisions.

So when we come up with technical issues and when arguing for the market or non-market economy status, or trading distribution right, or some tariff lines, or so, maybe the negotiators at the technical level can not come to the conclusion. Then Mr. Tuyen talks to Portman and says: I will compromise here, you will compromise there… And they close it.

I guess that is the way they conclude negotiations, because in that decisive moment, Minister Tuyen, for example, surely is ‘hot-lined’ to the Politburo or the Government Office, while Ambassador Portman is also in touch with the White House.

Could you make clear the issues that are considered technical ones to the US but political to Vietnam?

So maybe we are taking some issues from the BTA. I think for us trading distribution right is more technical, but Vietnam sees it as having a bigger impact because it can potentially change things.

Trading distribution right for us is one company that wants to trade in Soya bean, that’s not political, but more political for you. Maybe the banking issue.

Textile is more economic for you, but more political for us. Many people in Vietnam are involved in textile, so it’s important to your economy, while it’s not important for our economy numerically, but politically it’s very important.

Non-market economy status is another one. Market economy status does not have economically much impact on Vietnam, but politically it’s viewed as very important. I could argue it does matter somewhat but it’s not huge issue for a country to have non-market economy status over time.

Dumping cases are political overall (laughing), but the difference between non-market and market status sometimes matters, but sometimes does not matter.

Apart from the April scenario, are there any others for the conclusion of the trade deal?

The meeting of APEC trade ministers is scheduled for June in HCM City. Ambassador Portman may come here to attend it, and negotiations may be concluded and inked here in Hanoi.

But my concern is that if the deal will be finished in that way, it’s very risky because you will not have enough time (just two months) to go to the Congress.

My hope is March and April to finalize the bilateral pact so that our Congress has May, June and July. That’s the best scenario.

The second best is March, April and May for the bilateral pact, and June and July for the Congress. But it’s riskier because there is not much time for Congress to handle the trade bill.

Ambassador Portman will focus on the Doha round in April, won’t he?

Exactly. For April Mr. Portman is scheduled to focus on Doha, so he will have a lot of Doha meetings.

Those who want to get Vietnam on the schedule on April should be careful so that we will not see Mr. Tuyen or whoever from Vietnam coming to Washington while Portman is in Geneva, or Brussels, arguing with EU about Doha. So we should look carefully at his schedule to find a couple of blocks of time on his calendar to talk about Vietnam.

Other way is that Portman will come to Vietnam in April for the deal, but as schedule Portman or someone senior enough at USTR will come to Vietnam in June, my guess is that Portman will not come to Vietnam in April.

So we must wait until June to see someone from USTR to come, but I don’t want to wait until that time, neither do you, I hope.

Source: Vietnamnet