Featured Speakers:  

Kathleen Claussen, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

Timothy Meyer, Richard Allen/Cravath Distinguished Professor in International Business Law, Duke University School of Law

Moderator: Michael J. Smart, Managing Director, Rock Creek Global Advisors

Speaker Biographies

Professor Kathleen Claussen is a Professor of Law at Georgetown University Law Center and has served as arbitrator, counsel, expert, public servant, and teacher. Her expertise covers several topics of international law, especially trade, investment, international business and labor; dispute settlement and international dispute bodies; national security and cybersecurity law; and administrative law issues surrounding U.S. foreign relations and transnational agreements.

Her work has appeared in the Yale Law Journal, the Stanford Law Review, the Columbia Law Review, the University of Chicago Law Review, and the Virginia Law Review, among others, as well as in leading international law journals. One of her articles on international investment disputes, The International Claims Trade, was awarded the Smit-Lowenfeld Prize in International Arbitration. Professor Claussen is also the co-founder of SAILS: the Consortium for the Study and Analysis of International Law Scholarship. She is the editor (with Geraldo Vidigal) of The Sustainability Revolution in Trade Agreements, forthcoming with Oxford University Press. She also co-edits an open-access textbook on international trade law together with Julian Arato, Joseph Weiler, and Sungjoon Cho. Professor Claussen has also blogged at Lawfare, Just Security, the International Economic Law & Policy Blog, and Opinio Juris, and is regularly featured on or consulted as an expert for various media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal, Marketplace, Bloomberg, and the Financial Times.

Professor Claussen has served as an arbitrator, as counsel, or as counsel to the tribunal in more than a dozen international trade and investment cases. She has been named to three arbitration rosters to serve as panel chair or panel member in state-to-state disputes. She is also regularly called upon to testify as an expert before legislative and independent review boards. In 2021-2022, she co-authored a study commissioned by the Administrative Conference of the United States on alternative dispute resolution in federal agency programs.

Professor Claussen has served as a visiting faculty member or invited researcher at numerous institutions around the world, including Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, the University of Cambridge Lauterpacht Centre for International Law where she was a Brandon Fellow, the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, the iCourts Center of Excellence at the University of Copenhagen, the George C. Marshall Center for Security Studies, the University of Zurich and Collegium Helveticum, and the World Trade Institute. Prior to joining the Georgetown faculty in 2023, she was a member of the faculty at the University of Miami School of Law for five years.

Professor Claussen holds several leadership positions within international law and arbitration professional associations. In 2021, she was appointed co-Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of International Economic Law. Her other recent governance appointments include the American Society of International Law (ASIL) International Economic Law Interest Group, the ASIL Executive Council & Executive Committee, and the Junior International Law Scholars Association. She is also a member of the Academic Council of the Institute for Transnational Arbitration and the Academic Forum on Investor-State Dispute settlement.

Before joining the academy, Professor Claussen was Associate General Counsel at the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in the Executive Office of the President. There, she represented the United States in trade dispute proceedings and served as a legal advisor for the United States in international trade negotiations. She also worked on economic security issues on behalf of USTR at the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force. In 2020-2021, she was an invited member of the Biden-Harris Transition Team, covering trade, commerce, and development agencies.

Earlier in her career, Professor Claussen was Legal Counsel at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague where she advised on disputes between countries, and on investment and commercial arbitrations involving countries and international organizations. She also clerked for the Honorable David F. Hamilton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. At Yale, Professor Claussen served on the board of the Yale Law Journal and was Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Journal of International Law. She was awarded the Jerome Sayles Hess Fund Prize for excellence in international law and the Howard M. Holtzmann Fellowship in international dispute resolution.

Timothy Meyer is Richard Allen/Cravath Distinguished Professor in International Business Law at Duke University School of Law and is an expert in international law—with specialties in international trade, investment and environmental law—and U.S. foreign relations law. He is co-director of Duke Law’s Center for International and Comparative Law. Meyer also serves on the Board of Editors of the American Journal of International Law and is an elected member of the American Law Institute.

Meyer’s research examines the factors that influence the design, implementation, and evolution of international legal institutions, as well as the role of the constitutional separation of powers in U.S. foreign policymaking. Specific topics include the implementation of public policy exceptions in international trade agreements, the interaction of international and local rules on energy subsidies, the role of local governments in free trade agreements, and the creation of non-binding “soft law” obligations. Professor Meyer’s work has appeared in the Columbia Law Review, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review, the California Law Review, the Journal of Legal Analysis and the American and European Journals of International Law, among others. He is also the author (with Andrew T. Guzman) of GOLDILOCKS GLOBALISM, forthcoming from Oxford University Press, and the editor (with Harlan Grant Cohen) of INTERNATIONAL LAW AS BEHAVIOR, from Cambridge University Press.

Meyer is the author (with Todd N. Tucker) of The Green Steel Deal, a proposal for an international arrangement on decarbonizing the steel sector through a mix of domestic and international trade measures. He has testified before the U.S. Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and the Judiciary and has served both as counsel and as an expert in international arbitrations and in cases raising international and foreign relations law issues in U.S. courts. The European Union has also named Meyer to its list of possible chairpersons for arbitrations and trade and sustainable development disputes arising under its trade agreements.

Prior to joining the Duke Law faculty in 2022, Meyer was a professor of law and director of the International Legal Studies Program at Vanderbilt University Law School. He has also taught at the University of Georgia School of Law. Before entering the academy, he served as an attorney-adviser in the U.S. State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser and clerked for the Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch when Justice Gorsuch served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Meyer earned his B.A. and M.A. (History) from Stanford University and his J.D. and Ph.D. (Jurisprudence and Social Policy) from the University of California, Berkeley.

Michael J. Smart is a Managing Director at Rock Creek Global Advisors, where he focuses on international trade and investment policy, including market access and regulatory matters. He also advises multinational companies on sanctions, supply chain policy, and trade-related climate measures.

Mr. Smart previously served as Trade Counsel on the Democratic staff of the US Senate Committee on Finance. In that role, he advised Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and members of the committee on various trade matters, including World Trade Organization negotiations and dispute settlement, free trade agreements, agricultural trade, and the trade aspects of legislation to address climate change.

Before joining the Finance Committee, Mr. Smart was Director for International Trade and Investment on the staff of the National Security Council at the White House. Mr. Smart focused on the Doha Development Agenda, trade in financial services, free trade agreements, and bilateral investment treaties. He also served as the lead White House staff for cabinet-level dialogues with Brazil and India.

Mr. Smart was previously an associate at the law firm of Sidley Austin LLP, where his practice focused on international trade and investment policy and dispute resolution. He represented companies and governments in WTO, investment treaty, and NAFTA disputes. Earlier in his career, Mr. Smart was Legislative Director for former Congressman Earl Pomeroy (D-ND).

Mr. Smart has appeared on CNN International, BBC News, Bloomberg News, and Channel News Asia and has been quoted in publications such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Politico, and Financial Times.

Mr. Smart is a member of the Executive Circle of the Institute of International Economic Affairs at The George Washington University and a member of the Board of Directors of the Washington International Trade Association. Mr. Smart received his BA in International Affairs from The George Washington University (Phi Beta Kappa and magna cum laude) and his JD from Georgetown University Law Center (cum laude).

The post Trade and the Administrative State appeared first on WITA.

On April 29, 2021, WITA discussed the efforts to create a global minimum tax, and related international tax and trade issues.

PROGRAM AGENDA 

Welcome: 10:00 AM (US/Eastern)

• Kenneth Levinson, Executive Director, WITA

• Lilian V. Faulhaber, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
• Loren C. Ponds, Member, Miller & Chevalier Chartered – former Chief Tax Counsel, Ways & Means Republican
• Bob Stack, Managing Director, Washington National Tax | International Tax Group, Deloitte Tax LLP
• Moderator: Antonia Ferrier, Chief Strategic Communications Officer, CGCN Group

• Q & A with Audience – Webinar attendees are encouraged to use the Q&A function on the Zoom app to submit their questions in real time.

SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES

The post WITA Webinar on Proposals for a Global Minimum Tax appeared first on WITA.

US-China Relations 

• Moderator: Wendy Cutler,President and Managing Director, Asia Society Policy Institute, former acting Deputy USTR
• Aaron L. Friedberg,Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University
• Ambassador Kurt Tong,Partner, the Asia Group, and former Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Economic and Business Affairs
• Susan Shirk,Chair, 21st Century China Center and Research Professor, UC San Diego School of Global Policy and Strategy, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State

To view more information on the event, please click here. 

The post WITC 2021: US-China Relations appeared first on WITA.

PROGRAM AGENDA 

Welcome and Opening Remarks 

• Kenneth I. Levinson, Executive Director, Washington International Trade Association

Remarks and Discussions 

• Bob Davis, Senior Editor, The Wall Street Journal
• David J. Lynch, Global Economics Correspondent, The Washington Post
• Ana Swanson, Trade and International Economics Correspondent, The New York Times
• Moderator, Ambassador Darci Vetter, Global Lead, Public Affairs & Vice Chair, Agriculture, Food, Edelman and former Chief Agricultural Negotiator at USTR

Followed by: 

• Q & A with Audience – Webinar attendees are encouraged to use the Q&A function on the Zoom app to submit their questions in real time.

Event Close

SPEAKER BIOGRAPHIES

Bob Davis is a Pulitzer Prize–winning senior editor at the Wall Street Journal’s Washington, DC, bureau. He covers economic issues and continues to write about China, where he was posted from 2011 to 2014. Along with Lingling Wei, he co-authored “Superpower Showdown,” a history of the US-China trade and economic stand-off. Davis has served as the Journal’s bureau chief in Brussels, covering the European Union, and as the Latin America bureau chief. He lives in Washington, DC. He is the author of Superpower Showdown: How the Battle Between Trump and Xi Threatens a New Cold War, published in June 2020.

David J. Lynch is a Global Economics Correspondent at The Washington Post. He joined The Washington Post in November 2017 from the Financial Times, where he covered white-collar crime. He was previously the cybersecurity editor at Politico and a senior writer with Bloomberg News, focusing on the intersection of politics and economics. Earlier, he followed the global economy for USA Today, where he was the founding bureau chief in both London and Beijing. He covered the wars in Kosovo and Iraq, the latter as an embedded reporter with the U.S. Marines, and was the paper’s first recipient of a Nieman fellowship at Harvard University. He has reported from more than 60 countries. He is the author of When the Luck of the Irish Ran Out: The World’s most Resilient County and Its Struggle to Rise Again, published in November 2010.

Ana Swanson is a Trade and International Economics Correspondent for the The New York Times. She previously covered the economy, trade and the Federal Reserve for The Washington Post.

She has a bachelor’s degree in cultural anthropology from Northwestern University and a master’s in international relations with a focus in China and international economics from the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Ambassador Darci Vetter is the lead at Edelman’s Washington, DC Public Affairs practice and is the former Chief Agricultural Negotiator at the US Trade Representative (USTR) and Under Secretary at the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Darci brings deep international trade, agriculture and food experience following a 17-year career in the federal government, and is spearheading the growth of Edelman’s global Agriculture, Food and Trade business.In her role, Darci works closely with Edelman’s clients to help develop strategies that best navigate the changing policy landscape. Areas of expertise include helping translate US, foreign government or WTO processes to business; reviewing and adjusting supply chains to respond to government mandates and consumer demands; supporting the development of formal commentary on regulatory matters; and adapting corporate messaging and branding to reflect broad policy changes.

The post WITA’s “Presidential Debate” with the Trade Reporters appeared first on WITA.

The post WITA Webinar: American Leadership on Trade in the Digital Age, Discussion with Rep. Suzan DelBene (D-WA) appeared first on WITA.

WITA WEBINAR FEATURING:

Jeff Bozman, Special Counsel, Covington & Burling LLP

Jean Heilman Grier, Principal Trade Consultant, Djaghe LLC

Scott Paul, President, Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM)

Clete R. Willems, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld

Wendy Cutler, Vice President & Managing Director of Washington D.C. Office, Asia Society Policy Institute

The post WITA Webinar: COVID-19 & Trade – the Defense Production Act and Buy American Provisions appeared first on WITA.

On Thursday, April 23rd, WITA co-hosted a webinar with Asia Society Policy Group on the current shortcomings of global supply chains, and how trade policy should respond post-COVID.

The event featured (in order of appearance):

• Wendy Cutler, Vice President and Managing Director of Washington D.C. Office, Asia Society Policy Institute
• Beth Baltzan, American Phoenix Trade Advisory Service and formerly with USTR and the House Ways & Means Committee
• Anabel Gonzalez, Nonresident Senior Fellow, Peterson Institute for International Economics and former Minister of Trade of Costa Rica
• Nicole Bivens Collinson, President, International Trade & Government Relations, Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg P.A.

The post WITA Webinar: Impact of COVID-19 on Global Supply Chains and the Future of Trade Policy appeared first on WITA.

Closing Plenary – Trade and American Values

By: James Dail

On January 29^th, 2019 the Washington International Trade Association held a panel discussion entitled “Closing Plenary – Trade and American Values” as a part of the inaugural Washington International Trade Conference. The panel sought to examine trade policy through the lens of America’s founding values, with the goal of determining whether our current trade regime has succeeded in living up to those values. Featured panelists included Thea Lee, the President of the Economic Policy Institute, Walter Russell Mead, a Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship at the Hudson Institute, and Michael Anton, a Lecturer in Politics and a Distinguished Fellow at Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center in Washington. Grant Aldonas, the Executive Director of the Institute of International Economic Law at Georgetown University, moderated the panel.

Aldonas opened the discussion by explaining why the values of liberty and equality specifically are central to America’s founding. His objective was for the panelists to determine if there is an existing moral framework in how the United States trades with the rest of the world, and if yes, to explore its success at living up to the values of liberty and equality. He continued on to mention the profound opportunity the country has to reform our trading system to live up to these values at the present moment, when discussions around trade policy are at the forefront of the nation’s political discourse. Aldonas concluded his opening remarks by stating that each panelist will have the opportunity to give an introductory exposition on the topic.

Thea Lee was the first panelist to speak, beginning her comments by noting that, while she was a critic of current United States trade policy, she was not opposed to either trade in concept or the entrance of the United States into the global economy. She went on to say that it is crucial that we discover what the correct set of trade policies are for the United States. She proposed three questions that we can ask ourselves in order to find the answer. First, what are we trying to accomplish with trade? Second, how do we measure our success? Third, how do we express our values to the world and achieve our goals through a combination of trade policy and domestic policy?

Thea’s next point was that we have a tendency to start the conversation around trade policy in the wrong place, with a goal in mind of eliminating the barriers to trade. Instead, we should view trade policy as a tool to accomplish our goals around the world. These goals could include everything from providing both domestic and foreign workers with good jobs, creating safe consumer goods, cleaning up the environment, or fostering good relations with other countries. We need to find a way to engage with the global economy in a way that will foster these values, as well as democratic decision-making in other countries. Through the trade rules we set, the United States communicates the issues it cares about to the rest of the world. At present, too much of what is written in our trade rules expresses our love for corporate profits, and not enough has been written to express our desire for good jobs and workers’ rights. One example of this is that, when China joined the World Trade Organization, there was nothing in the thousands of pages of accession documents about human rights or workers’ protections. This is at least partly because the United States is refraining from applying the pressure needed to make them into international rules for trade.

After Thea Lee concluded her comments, Grant Aldonas connected what she had said with his opening remarks, stating that our trade policy should not necessarily be focused on the values of freedom and equality, but on the means by which we can achieve those values.

Walter Russell Mead was the next to speak, citing a number of statistics indicating that humanity’s condition is improving around the world, such as that infant mortality has fallen in half since 1990. Mead argued that the economic growth stimulated by international trade liberalization has been the key driver to these improvements in developing countries. Due to this, it is difficult to argue that the architects of our current international trading order were wrong about everything. However, there is no question that the results have been mixed for developed countries. The political situation in both America and Europe clearly indicates that many are not satisfied with the status quo. It is essential that we examine all aspects of the current trading regime to determine both what is working, as well as how we can fix what is not working. For both Republicans and Democrats, this will require some difficult conversations. In both parties, there is a desire to return to the past in some fashion. The Republicans propose an economic system with low taxation and low regulation as its defining features. The Democrats want a return to an economy where everyone has access to a stable job for life and the distribution of wealth is far more equitable.

Yet a return to the past in either form might be difficult, as an economic and a social revolution have created cultural upheaval. Mead used the industrial revolution as an example to illustrate how the United States survived cultural upheaval in the past. When we changed from being a country full yeoman farmers to a country of city-based manufacturers, the economic situation of all facets of society improved in the long-run, but the transition period was tumultuous. In comparison to the present day, this experience suggests that there is hope in the future, but the United States will need to learn to navigate the dangers of the present. Mead also spoke about how, for the past several decades, the United States has been crafting policy around economic theory with the expectation that it will be easily understood by the general public. He emphasized that, while economic theory is essential in crafting good trade policy, trade policy and economic theory are fundamentally different things. This revolt against the status quo in the United States is the revenge of the real world against policies that only took theory into account.

           After Mead concluded his opening remarks, Grant Aldonas connected them with what Thea Lee said. He stated that Mead implied that when government officials craft trade policy, it is essential that they secure the support of the general public. United States trade policy needs to take into account our traditional democratic values as well as the opinion of the general public. These go hand in hand. In the Midwest especially, the collective attitude towards trade policy has every bit as much to do with their individual identities as Americans as it does with the price of automobiles.

Mead interjected here, adding to Aldonas’s comments regarding American identity by stating that this extends beyond trade policy. Everyone would like to return to the quality jobs of the 1960s. They had stability, the promise of a nice pension, and the feeling that one was contributing to society. However, no one wants to return to the products produced in the 1960s. Thea Lee objected to this statement, saying that she didn’t believe this was a mutually exclusive choice. Good jobs for workers coupled with well-made products is an attainable goal for the United States. Walter Mead clarified his comments, saying that his point was that we should not be trying to return to utopia. Instead, we should be finding ways to meet human needs in the present.

After this, the discussion turned to the opening comments of Michael Anton. Anton is a student of the Founding Fathers, and he wanted to give what he deemed “the founding approach” to American trade policy. At the same time, he made the admission that times change and it is impossible to take the founding approach in all aspects of trade policy. Anton began his founding approach by stating that Hamilton won his great debate with Jefferson over the economic character of the new nation. We became a nation of manufacturing and industry, not of agrarian farming. Anton pointed out that Hamilton’s protectionist beliefs were initially essential to his manufacturing vision. Hamilton argued that tariffs were necessary to expand the United States’ infant manufacturing sector so that it could compete with the well-established European manufacturers. This initial economic debate between Hamilton and Jefferson was the precursor to a centuries long debate between America’s political parties. Historically, the Republicans have supported protectionism and the Democrats have supported free-trade. The parties switched identities on this issue during the last two decades of the 20^th century. What we are seeing today is a reversion to the norm. After this, Michael explained the fueling force behind this reversion. He stated that the manufacturing towns that were adversely affected by factory closings were not heard by the political elites when they voiced their objections. In these towns, it was always possible to get a job at the local factory and still have a relatively good life. Suddenly, that was no longer a possibility for these people. They responded to this by casting their blame on the political elites who argued that the trade deals accelerating these factory closings was economically efficient. Anton then used this point to criticize political elites, saying that an elite’s job is to make sure that every segment of the economy is healthy, not just the aggregate whole. There is something gravely wrong if two coasts of the country are living in intellectual silos and are oblivious to the pent-up anger of Americans in the rest of the country. The President is responding to this anger and desires that the nation’s trading agreements address the concerns of those who elected him.

After Anton concluded his comments, Aldonas gave commentary about Anton’s thoughts on manufacturing decline. Aldonas said that he grew up in South Minneapolis, where the majority of his high school classmates became auto mechanics. In many ways, his classmates have achieved the American dream. They all have a home on a lake, and their kids have all gone to college. However, Aldonas disputed the idea that a sense of identity had been lost through the decline of these sorts of jobs. Instead, he asserted that they had very little identity rooted in their work in the first place. They never had the feeling that their work was meaningful, and therefore, they never had the feeling of participating in the country in a meaningful way.

After Grant Aldonas finished, Thea Lee took the conversation in a different direction, returning to Anton’s comments. She disagreed with his point that the President is actively working to resolve the anger of his constituents. Rather, she argued that the President has succeeded in tapping into this anger, but he has failed to formulate any effective policy response. She responded more positively to another point of his believing that the depleted manufacturing towns demonstrate that workers, both in the United States and around the world, are hurt when corporate interests are prioritized in trade negotiations.

Michael Anton responded by asserting that, to the Founding Fathers, the well-being of workers in other countries would be a secondary or tertiary consideration compared to the well-being of the United States and its citizens.

Aldonas jumped into the conversation with his own point, saying that it feels as if we have migrated away from both caring for the well-being of our workers and for exporting our democratic norms when we negotiate trade agreements. A return to these root values might lead us out of this conflict.

Walter Mead was the next to speak, agreeing with Aldonas’s earlier point that it is critical for all aspects of American society to feel as if they are connected to the country through their work and be represented by their government. He also pointed out that this connection has declined through population growth. He argued that, though women and minorities were denied suffrage, the early republic was more responsive to individual citizens, considering that it had a population of 3 million compared to 330 million today. A common way people overcome this lack of individuality is to adopt a group mentality. However, when people place their allegiances to their social groups above their allegiances to their country, nasty conflicts can be the result.

Thea Lee spoke up next, arguing with Michael Anton that it is actually in our self-interest as a country to advocate for democracy and worker’s rights in our trading partners. To emphasize this, she used the example that it is not inherently altruistic to advocate for reduced carbon emissions from other countries. It is actually in our self-interest because that will help mitigate the effects of climate change.

Anton responded by clarifying his point, saying that the Founding Fathers would certainly care about the well-being of our trading partners’ citizens, but that they would not prioritize it above the well-being of the American people. He also gave another comment on the United States’ political elite, saying that regardless of whether or not one fully believes in this administration’s ability to negotiate with other nations, the overwhelmingly negative response to any alteration in our current trade regime from the elite corners of society has made it difficult for this administration to produce an effective policy response. Anton concluded the panel by mentioning that during the Cold War, there was a divergence between diplomatic and economic interests when it came to trade deals. Economists might have argued that a particular trade agreement might not benefit the United States economically, but diplomats might have argued that it was in the national interest to stabilize another country’s economy so that it would not succumb to Communism.

Featuring:

Grant Aldonas, Executive Director, Institute of International Economic Law at the Georgetown University Law Center

Michael Anton, Lecturer in Politics and Research Fellow, Hillsdale College’s Kirby Center

Thea Lee, President, Economic Policy Institute

Walter Russell Mead, Ravenel B. Curry III Distinguished Fellow in Strategy and Statesmanship, Hudson Institute

To view more details about the event, visit the event page here.

The post WITC: Closing Plenary — Trade and American Values appeared first on WITA.

To view Bruce Stokes’ presentation slides on American views on Trade in Year Three of the Trump Administration, please click here

Featuring:

Kimberly Ellis, Partner, Monument Advocacy

J.D. Grom, Executive Director, New Democrat Coalition

Robert Moran, Partner, Brunswick Insight

Bruce Stokes, Director of Global Economic Attitudes, Pew Research Center

To view more details about the event, visit the event page here.

The post WITC: Trade Politics in the Age of Trump appeared first on WITA.

Summary: Introduction and Armchair Discussion with Rep. Kevin Brady

By Nikhil Raj

On Tuesday January 29, 2019, WITA hosted its inaugural Washington International Trade Conference (WITC). To kick off the event, WITA hosted an armchair discussion between Representative Kevin Brady and Ambassador Susan Schwab. Representative Brady currently sits as the Ranking Member of the influential House Ways and Means Committee, while Ambassador Schwab served as the United States Trade Representative under the Bush Administration from 2006-2009.

During the approximately 25 minute conversation between the two, several key topics in the trade world were discussed, including the recently agreed upon USMCA deal, US-China negotiations, and the future of US-EU trade relations.

Representative Brady was forceful in his defense of USMCA, saying that he believed it should be approved, citing its improvements in digital trade, customs, and locking in reforms on telecoms compared to its predecessor, NAFTA. That said, he was cleareyed about the fact that it would be a turbulent road to reaching that approval. In particular, he acknowledged that many Democrats were adamant about higher enforcement mechanisms in the deal for labor standards. Brady also mentioned that he had begun the process of briefing other members of Congress about what the deal entails alongside Vern Buchanan, who sits as the lead Republican on the Subcommittee on Trade.

Brady wondered aloud what Democrat demands would look like, while also making it clear that most members on either side of the aisle were ambivalent about moving forward with the deal while steel and aluminum tariffs on Mexico and Canada are ongoing. In his view, the USMCA deal was strong enough to stand by itself without any separate tariffs or quotas.

Rep. Brady was also broadly supportive of the President’s focus on challenging China on trade issues. Referencing the “Made in China 2025” strategic plan that the Chinese government is undergoing, he believed that structural reforms had to be made in the US-China relationship. While he was critical of China’s trading habits, he did not the importance of product exclusion within the larger framework of a trade deal in order to cause as little pain as possible within the global economic outlook. The main objective, he said, is to minimize the damage caused by an extended trade war while also accomplishing measurable reforms.

The conversation then switched to Europe, and the future of a potential US-EU trade deal. Brady was pleased to see President of the European Commission Jean-Claude Juncker visit the White House and President Donald Trump, a man with whom he has had a sometimes contentious relationship. From a US standpoint, he believed a trade deal with Europe that didn’t include agriculture would not be an easy sale to the American public and members of Congress.

With regards to Brexit, and the ongoing political turmoil surrounding its terms in the United Kingdom, Rep. Brady made it clear that he wants to see an unconstrained trade relationship with one of the US’ closest allies no matter what happens. Finally, he touched on the future of the WTO, and expressed his support for working on tangible improvements.

Featuring:

Andrew Gelfuso, Vice President, Trade Center Management Associates

Kenneth Levinson, Executive Director, Washington International Trade Association

Laura Lane, President of Global Public Affairs, UPS

Ambassador Susan Schwab, Strategic Advisor, Mayer Brown

Representative Kevin Brady, Ranking Member, House Ways and Means Committee

To view more details about the event, visit the event page here.

The post WITC: Introduction and Armchair Discussion with Rep. Kevin Brady appeared first on WITA.