Welcome to the Ask the Ambassador page. We have received many questions and comments from not just across the United States, but also from different regions of the world. This section will feature questions that express common themes running throughout the questions we receive.
08/03/2009 5:03pm
We have received questions and comments about the role of USTR in American's daily lives. Susan from Washington D.C. asked the Ambassador about more discussion about the direct benefits of trade agreements for Americans' lives. She wrote:
"... let's find ways to discuss how trade affects Americans in their many roles as taxpayers (benefiting from a panoply of goods); as citizens who benefit from a clear transparent system of rules; as producers; as shareholders saving for their kids college or retirement etc... In short, let's change the discussion in two ways: first focus on the rationale, costs and benefits of trade agreements, rather than trade per se; and relate these costs and benefits to peoples' daily lives."
Ambassador Kirk responds:
"USTR, along with the Obama administration, strives to create new jobs for American workers, and new markets for American businesses. With 95% of the world's consumers located outside of the United States, trade allows Americans to expand their business by extending their operations beyond our borders. In addition, while international trade increases the profits of our small businesses, it also decreases the price you pay for such items as groceries due to international competition.
"Aside from negotiating trade agreements, USTR also focuses on the enforcement of these agreements. Whether or not these pacts are enforced greatly influences trade's potential benefits. Trade agreements are similar to the contracts that Americans sign on a daily basis. When you buy a car, you get the car in exchange for making your monthly payment. That's keeping your end of the contract, and we will ensure that our trading partners keep their end of our contracts. American workers deserve no less. The American worker can compete with any worker in the world if we level the playing field.
"In May, we negotiated a breakthrough in a 20-year dispute by reaching an agreement with the European Commission. American ranchers, meat packers, and their employees will now be able to sell high-quality American beef at zero duty within the European Union. Those exports are expected to put $100 million in the pockets of American farmers and ranchers over the next three years. This is an example of trade agreements benefitting American ranchers and others. USTR will continue to work to keep bringing home the benefits of trade - and talking about them, too."
08/07/2009 12:20pm
Many people have written us asking us how they can participate in the trade process. For example, William in Ghana, West Africa, asked:
"I am a young small scale pepper farmer in Ghana, West Africa. How can I access the US Market and how can I be assisted to technically to expand my farm and also Produce High Quality yield that can meet your market standard."
Ambassador Kirk responds:
"The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and Generalized System of Preference (GSP) provisions provide duty free access to the US market for about 6400 items, including peppers. In addition, the regional trade hub in Accra which is funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development provides assistance to farmers like you who are interested in exporting to the United States under AGOA. To learn more about AGOA and the assistance provided by the trade hub, visit the website www.watradehub.org."
08/14/2009 8:59 AM
We continue to receive many questions relating to the H1N1 virus and how this is affecting trade around the world. Michael, from Indiana, inquired specifically about pork producers. He asks:
"What can producers do to encourage the lifting of the Pork bans from China and Russia? It is costing pork producers several million dollars a day. This group has already incurred 19 months of operating losses--with more to come. Any help or thoughts on producer action would be appreciated!"
Ambassador Kirk responds:
"Michael, producers should continue to work with their industry associations and government representatives to encourage their trading partners to base their decisions on science. The science shows that the H1N1 virus cannot be spread by eating pork and that American pork is safe to eat. Along with the National Pork industry, we have been working hard to communicate that message to all of our trading partners to convince them to eliminate their bans on U.S. pork products.
"I am working to resolve the matter directly, and encourage industry to remain in close communication with USTR. We have been working closely with other government agencies, including the USDA, the Department of Commerce, HHS, and the CDC to understand the H1N1 concerns expressed by our trading partners and to ensure that they have the facts about the virus and how it is spread. In many instances, we have provided scientific information to these countries about the safe consumption of pork products in an effort to convince them to remove their unjustified restrictions. As a result of the widespread U.S. industry-government cooperation, 16 countries have removed their H1N1 related bans on U.S. pork. Last month, Russia lifted all restrictions against all states but Florida."
08/21/2009 10:25am
We received many questions about the selection process for posting questions that we receive on our blog. Jeffrey, from Texas, asked us why we only select specific questions to feature.
Ambassador Kirk responds:
"Since the creation of the "Ask the Ambassador" feature, USTR has received many questions and comments from around the world. USTR responds directly to every submission. However, as Jeffrey noted, we are only able to feature a handful of questions every week on our blog due to the high volume of submissions. We review every submission and then choose to feature entries that touch on currently active trade police issues, that offer opportunities to further explain various trade policy initiatives and decisions, or submissions that contain common themes and questions. It is our hope to have a robust conversation on trade with USTR.gov visitors across America and the world."
08/28/2009 11:47am
This week, Gohar from Miami, Florida asked the Ambassador about specific trade relationships and quota restrictions. He asks:
"I was wondering if there are any apparel quota restrictions for Sweden/EU? What are the trade relationships with Sweden? Are there any specific trades and investments between the US and Sweden?"
Ambassador Kirk responds:
"There are no quota restrictions for apparel imports from Sweden or the European Union. Sweden is our 34th largest goods trading partner.
There are numerous Swedish companies invested in the U.S., providing jobs for American workers. The Department of Commerce estimates that approximately 179,000 jobs in the U.S. are provided by Swedish companies. Some examples, according to FDI markets, are below:
Dometic, an international manufacturer of recreational vehicle accessories, will soon be opening a plant in LaGrange, Indiana. This new manufacturing operation will create 116 positions.
Nova Bus recently opened a new bus manufacturing plan in Plattsburgh, New York. This plant will eventually employ over 400 American workers.
The retail store Hennes & Mauritz (H&M) will open their first store in Kentucky in October. The store, located in Florence, will provide various retail positions.
Swebo Bioenergy, a heating and electricity production company, will open its first store in the U.S. this fall. The office, located in Annapolis, Maryland, will be the U.S. headquarters for the organization. Shortly after opening, the office will employ up to 25 positions, with expansion in the future.
The city of Flint, Michigan recently signed a 21-year agreement with Swedish Biogas to build a biogas city wastewater treatment plant. The plant will also work in conjunction with car companies to use the biogas to power automobiles. The organization began construction on the plant this month, and it will be completed in June 2010. The biogas production side of the plant will begin fall of next year.
In 2008, the U.S. imported $12.5 billion worth of goods from Sweden, and exported $5.0 billion worth of goods to Sweden.
Gohar, thank you for your question. As you can see, there is a strong trade relationship between the U.S. and Sweden."
This week, James from Virginia asks Ambassador Kirk about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiations.
"If the United States government gives all other governments in the ACTA negotiation a copy of a text, what is the rationale for keeping this a secret from the American public? Why would a negotiation at ACTA be less transparent than negotiations at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) or the World Trade Organization (WTO)?"
Ambassador Kirk responds:
"In the case of the ACTA negotiations, the ACTA participants have agreed to the release of certain information, and the United States has released that information. You can find the text here.
At the beginning of the negotiations on ACTA, the United States and the other participants agreed on what types of information would not be disclosed without the permission of all participants.
As is customary during negotiations among representatives of sovereign states, the negotiators agreed that they would not disclose proposals or negotiating texts to the public at large, particularly at earlier stages of the negotiation. This is done to allow participants to exchange views in confidence, facilitating the negotiation and compromise that are necessary to reach agreement on complex issues.
In the WTO and WIPO setting, the members of those organizations similarly agree to rules related to public disclosure of documents. Where the agreement does not allow for public release of certain documents, the United States does not release them. Where the member states have agreed that certain information can be released, it is released.
The terms for disclosure in these different settings may not be identical, and the United States does not unilaterally decide what types of information can be released in each setting. The key point is that USTR strives to be as open and transparent as possible to the American public, within the bounds of the agreements on disclosure we have reached with our negotiating partners.
We're continuing to consult with trading partners participating in the ACTA negotiations about possible future transparency steps, such as the step of releasing draft agendas which was announced after the last ACTA meeting."
09/30/2009 4:57 PM
This week, Joshua from Chicago, Illinois asked Ambassador Kirk about the recovery act and the "buy American" provision. He asks:
"Can you explain how the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA) cooperates with our Free Trade Agreement (FTA) partners? How do the ARRA and the FTA agreements affect the way federal dollars are spent?"
Ambassador Kirk responds:
"Thanks for the question, Joshua. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) requires U.S.-produced iron, steel and manufactured products to be used in public works and public buildings funded by ARRA, subject to certain exceptions (unavailability, unreasonableness of cost and inconsistent with the public interest). ARRA also requires that the "buy American" provision be applied consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements. That means that the "buy American" requirement is not applied to products from countries that are parties to the World Trade Organization's Government Procurement Agreement (GPA) or a free trade agreement (FTA) where the procurement is subject to the obligations of the relevant agreement.
These procurement agreements are important to our economy, because they ensure U.S. companies get a fair shot at selling their goods and services to governments around the world. Foreign governments spend billions each year, typically 10 to 15 percent of GDP, on everything from new computer software to cleaner power plants or better construction equipment. When U.S. companies win contracts with foreign governments they support good American jobs here at home."
Brian from Virginia recently asked Ambassador Kirk about the importance of small businesses and their exports from the U.S.
Ambassador Kirk responded:
"That's a great question, Brian. Trade is especially important to U.S. small businesses.
More than a quarter million U.S. firms export goods. 97 percent of these have fewer than 500 employees, and nearly two-thirds have fewer than 20 employees.
Let me give you an example. TowHaul is a small business with fifty employees in Belgrade, Montana. Towhaul designs and manufactures custom trailers and other large pieces of equipment used in the mining operations. Travel thousands of miles from Belgrade to Canada, Namibia, Chile, Russia, or a dozen other countries around the world, and you could see TowHaul's heavy equipment hard at work.
We know that small businesses, like TowHaul, drive the U.S. economy and the best way to get our economy back on track is to provide these businesses access to new markets and a larger consumer base for their products.
Earlier this week, I announced the first steps in a new initiative aimed at increasing exports by small- and medium-sized firms in the United States. I requested an investigation by the International Trade Commission to better understand how many of America's small- and medium-sized enterprises export now, their role in generating employment and economic activity in the U.S., and how increased trading opportunities might benefit these businesses and their workers. I'm also expanding USTR's focus on identifying and increasing opportunities for small- and medium-sized businesses to export both goods and services. I believe that this new effort can ultimately grow jobs here at home as companies sell more goods and services worldwide.
USTR is also working with the Commerce Department and across the government to get small business owners and entrepreneurs the tools they need to succeed in the global marketplace. Through the U.S. Commercial Center and local Export Assistance Centers across the country, this administration is making sure that when America's small business owners have questions, they will get answers. We encourage all businesses to visit export.gov to find out more."
We recently received a question about importing specific goods from Africa. Willie from Georgia writes:
"Hello Mr. Kirk, My question is that I would like to purchase organic personal care products from Africa. Would organic personal care products qualify for any of the duty free or reduced rate programs? If so what would I have to do in order to receive the duty free or reduce rate when I order products from suppliers?"
Ambassador Kirk's response:
"Willie,
It is very likely that the products that you would be importing are eligible for duty-free treatment under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) from participating countries. Under AGOA, over 98 percent of all imports from sub-Saharan Africa are eligible to enter the United States duty-free, but coverage varies by product and country. I suggest you consult the AGOA website: www.agoa.gov where you can find more information about the products you wish to import. You can even search by keyword to determine the AGOA-eligibility of a specific product.
AGOA provides duty-free import of goods made in eligible sub-Saharan African countries. AGOA has enhanced the U.S.-sub-Saharan Africa trade and investment relationship by spawning jobs, investment, and economic growth in Africa, and helped to diversify our trade with the continent, including increasing amounts of jewelry, fruits and nuts, fruit juices, leather products, plastic products, and processed cocoa products.
Importantly, AGOA has also helped spark opportunities for U.S. businesses. Africans are seeking U.S. inputs, expertise, and joint venture partnerships, resulting in increased U.S. exports and investment. Forty sub-Saharan African countries are currently eligible for AGOA."
Please keep submitting your questions and comments. We look forward to answering them and expanding the dialogue about trade on USTR.GOV.
10/30/2009 1:01pm
In a recent question about foreign trade barriers to the United States, El Shaddai of Virginia asks:
"Is there an annual publication that tells what limits or restrictions foreign countries place on trade with the U.S.?"
Ambassador Kirk's response:
"Yes! My office collects and publishes annually exactly that sort of information in a report called the "National Trade Estimates Report on Foreign Trade Barriers." In that report, we inventory the most important foreign barriers affecting U.S. exports of goods and services, U.S. foreign direct investment, and the protection of intellectual property rights. The report examines the largest export markets for the United States, including 58 individual countries, the European Union, Taiwan, Hong Kong, the Southern African Customs Union and the Arab League. We draw on the information in the report to facilitate negotiations to reduce or eliminate the barriers and to apply certain U.S. trade laws. You can find the most recent reports here on the USTR website.
USTR is always working on reducing the foreign trade barriers documented in these reports. We recently launched an initiative to break down foreign barriers posed by sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) and standards-related measures on agricultural and manufactured products. Beginning in 2010, we will put even greater focus on SPS and standards-related barriers when we publish new separate reports highlighting these barriers and the steps we are taking to address them. SPS measures ensure that agricultural goods are safe or free from pests or disease. Standard-related measures can take the form of product performance or design requirements -- say, for electrical equipment - labeling requirements or rules governing production methods. Sometimes these measures are distorted by trading partners, preventing safe, high-quality goods produced by U.S. farmers and manufacturers from competing in foreign markets. These trade barriers harm America's agricultural producers and manufacturers along with the workers who make their livings in these sectors.
If you have any interest in contributing your views on this subject, USTR is currently requesting comments from the American public to aid in compiling the National Trade Estimate and new reports on SPS and standards-related measures. You will find our request here. Comments can be submitted until November 4, 2009 at 11:59 PM EDT."
Thank you for continuing our dialogue on trade. Please keep submitting your questions and comments for the Ambassador.
We frequently receive questions about pending and prospective Free Trade Agreements with our trading partners. This one comes from Josh in Virginia. He writes:
"Dear USTR Kirk, In May John Kerry sponsored a Senate Resolution (S.RES.136) "expressing the sense that the U.S. should initiate negotiations to enter into a Free Trade Agreement with the Republic of Georgia." Has the USTR investigated the possibility of such an agreement? What is the USTR's stance on the issue?"
Ambassador Kirk responds:
"Thank you for your inquiry, Josh.
In 2007, we concluded a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with Georgia aimed at strengthening and expanding bilateral trade and investment. The agreement establishes a United States-Georgia Council on Trade and Investment, which I chair along with the Georgian Minister of Economic Development. The United States and Georgia work through this forum to accomplish our mutual goals of augmenting and diversifying the products and services we trade and minimizing policies of protection and distortion.
I appreciate Senator Kerry's interest in negotiating a free trade agreement with Georgia. We work closely with members of the Senate and the House to assess appropriate ways to grow our trading relationships around the world. We are currently working to resolve outstanding issues with regard to our pending free trade agreements with Panama, Colombia, and Korea. We are also considering whether it would be advisable to launch additional free trade negotiations. At the same time, we continue to work with nations such as Georgia to maintain robust trade relations.
U.S. exports to Georgia have increased from just $16.5 million in 1992 to over $586 million in 2008. Similarly, imports from Georgia have grown from $7.3 million in 1992 to over $207 million in 2008. I am encouraged by this positive trend. I also appreciate the importance of promoting increased trade and investment with Georgia - particularly in the wake of last year's conflict, as foreign trade and investment can help to improve stability and aid in Georgia's recovery from both the conflict and the global economic downturn.
You will find a link to our TIFA with Georgia, along with other similar agreements, here on the USTR website."
Thank you for continuing our dialogue on trade. Please keep submitting your questions and comments for the Ambassador.