online at c-span.org. >> if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, find it anytime online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events featuring markers that guide you to interesting and newsworthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on slicked videos. this tool makes it easy to see what was decided on in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. since 1979 in partnership with the cable industry, c-span has provided complete coverage of the halls of congress, from the house and senate floor to congressional hearings, target briefings, and committee

meetings. c-span gives you a front row seat on how issues are debated and decided. no commentary, no interruption, and completely unfiltered. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. >> and now, foreign investors from mexico, singapore, discussing supply chains, global cooperation, and trade partnerships at the international trade conference in washington, d.c. this is 45 minutes. quick thank you, everybody. there is a tradition of the washington international trade conference, and we are so pleased to welcome here today ambassador moctezuma of mexico, the ambassador of costa rica,

the ambassador of the eu for the united states and our moderator, president and ceo of the business roundtable. >> thank you for having us here today. the investors panel has become a tradition, which i am delighted to help continue. i'm particularly excited because the topic we are discussing today, the topic of trade and the role of foreign policy, is playing a critical role in the u.s. there was a time not long ago when u.s. administrations what unapologetically touts the national security and foreign policy benefits of trade, but that kind of argument has gone out of fashion in parts of washington. when you hear officials from the

trump or biden administration talking about the connection between national security and trade, they are likely to be talking about the national security risks of trade rather than the ways trade can be used to advance u.s. foreign policy interests. i'm thrilled to have the opportunity to put this issue to some of our closest trading partners and ask them how they think about these connections, how they think about the roles of their own trade agreements, including their trade agreement with us, so let me get started. i want to start with this issue of friends shoring. a lot of people in the u.s. government, lots of u.s. companies are worried about supply chain risk, not limited to but including geopolitical risk, and of course, we have a trade agreement with mexico that is helping advance friends shoring. how do you think about this trend and what do you think we need to do to take full advantage of this opportunity?

>> thank you very much. we are true believers in trade in mexico. we just became partner number one of the u.s. last year with about $800 billion in trade. if we are partner number one of the u.s., that means we have an incredible effort in both countries. last year also mexico received the most important direct foreign investments in its history. what is very interesting is that many of the companies that have invested in mexico, besides near

shoring, they are looking for more capital. tesla announced its new factory. they say they found out that they would have a source of well-prepared workers in mexico that would work at their factory and that was one of the most important aspects to have that investment. another thing that i can say is when mexico exports, we have 40% of u.s. previous imports, so when mexico exports, the u.s. is also exporting. what this shows you is that mexico and the u.s. are not just trade partners but that we are

producing together. there are many companies and many products that come and go several times in the border region, and they are produced together. it is not just trade and economic integration. >> thank you. let me turn to you and ask about your costa rican trading relations. when president bush signed the deal in 2004, he unapologetically cited foreign policy strategic benefit. he talked about the fact it would impact u.s. influence in the region, promote stability and so on. i think the economic benefits of the deal are unclear. do you think it met some of the expectations in terms of strategic benefit? can you talk about the broader consequences?

>> sure. i want to start with part of my job is to talk to everyone on the hill, and one of the first things that people ask or when i asked them about costa rica, they think about place to go to visit. most of the pineapples that you get here and bananas, and when i tell them our number one export are medical devices, people think, i did not know costa rica did that. yes, we do. that's just an example. also semiconductors and many other things. let's start with costa rica has had very strong friendships, working relationships with the united states, but we have

expanded those relationships not only with the united states but within central america and the dominican republic, which is a big plus. we do have two apartment sectors. again, i have mentioned them already, the medical devices, which are also close to national security of the united states and semiconductors. i can even tell you that intel last year in august, they announced a $1.2 billion investment in the next two years in costa rica, in that little teeny tiny country that people just think about going to travel, which is also great. when you go and support, and a half hour flight from here. again, what are the challenges we are having? this is about 20 years ago. what are the challenges today? there's political challenges within the central american

region. although it is still beneficial for all the countries including costa rica, which is why costa rica is trying to open up. why don't we start looking into other options? so let me give you a little bit of insight of how slow we are. i don't know if you have heard the saying in costa rica, everything is pure light. we are slow, but we get there. -- everything is pure life. we decided to be part of oecd, some of the highest standards in the world. it took us 10 years. when we first started with the current minister of trade, the current minister of trade was part of that. they said, no, you guys aren't crazy. costa rica has to go through congress, changes in laws,

regulation. 10 years later, we did. that means that costa rica can even join, let's say, usmca. why not? usmca has pretty good high standards. so we were prepared for that. again, that does not mean if we start with other trade agreements, that does not mean we are going to leave one behind . >> let me ask you about singapore's trade agenda. the u.s. has moved away from negotiating traditional trade agreements. singapore has charged ahead. you have implemented 27 fta's. within singapore, do you think of those as part of your economic agenda or as a foreign policy tool?

>> i think that trade is three times the gdp in singapore. i believe in the rules-based multilateral system. how it was forged by the u.s. coming out of world war ii and has over the decades contributed i think immensely to international stability, economic growth, allowing countries large and small to reach -- reap efficiencies in scale and so on. i think -- [indiscernible] when we talk about foreign policy, domestic support for foreign policy is really

important, and that is for every country. i think trade has for a number of decades been one of those areas where you can see results arising from the foreign, from the agreements that we signed, and the benefits in the early decades of globalization may have masked some of the problems that we see today, they distributed inequalities and inefficiencies arising from globalization. i think if you take it in its totality, the multilateral rules-based trading has been a plus for almost all countries. maybe it is not about singapore and the u.s. this year we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the free trade agreement between our two countries.

if i take it to the latest year when we had good trade data, 2022, over those 18 years, trade between our two countries has grown three times from about 70 billion at its inception to about 210 billion u.s. dollars. by the way, the u.s. enjoys a very healthy surplus from singapore, which may come in handy next year depending on how things shape up. also as a result of the free trade agreement, we have close to 6000 u.s. companies in singapore using us as regional headquarters, singapore as a springboard to the larger region

and reaping the benefits of the integration that we see in passing on -- in asean and across larger asian economies. investment from usa to singapore gives you a sense of what it is like. it's close to about 500 billion u.s. dollars. what does that mean? it means that the cumulative stock is larger than the u.s. into china, japan, and south korea combined. combined, ok? when i say that, actually, there's a lot of economic skin in the game for u.s. to remain deeply vested in our part of the world. i think you understand what it is that i'm saying. >> thank you.

you have a foreign policy background from lithuania. what are your reflections on the broad question of the role of trade and advancing foreign policy? >> thank you for the question. i would like to pick up where the president of the manufacturers association left because his last statement was a clean way to the point, saying that if we want to advance or move together with our trade and make sure our foreign policy agenda or security agenda moves in the same way, we move together. in the transatlantic relations, one of the things is it is a

validating partnership. we were the ones who together built international schools and other international organizations, and i think we probably have to appreciate more how it works. trade would not be the same if we did not have those international groups and organizations associated. my colleague was talking about the oecd, but there are standards with the wto and many more. if we look at the geopolitics, what is happening right now in the world, i think it is getting scarier. each day, the turbulence, the conflicts around the world actually have a huge implication on our economy.

when you have reliable trading partners, if you have strong and resilient transatlantic relations, even during the most severe crisis, you actually see the trade growing. last year, we had 1.3 trillion euros between the eu and u.s. last year would be almost 5% higher. one of the reasons for growth was that in europe, we had to make a huge change because of

european overreliance on russian energy sources had been an issue , and they underestimated how much it cost. on top of that, you have to find where to buy new resources. most of the growth of the trade is a do to the eu buys a lot of lng. if you need to change more than 60% of your energy resources, you have to pay the price and you have to rely on your allies.

we can go sector by sector. if you want to find alternative or have a reliable, secure production line, i think you will always depend on what secretary blinken called the partner of first resort. >> the u.s. and europe have a history of using our combined economic influence to work together to address national security risks and foreign policy objectives, sometimes using trade tools in cooperation with each other. do you think we are in lockstep on finance, and if not, where do

you see differences? >> i think the biggest difference is probably more rhetorical than on paper and in reality. first of all, you approach china as a trading partner, as a competitor, and as a systemic rival. i think you could use different words, different synonyms, and you would find that a u.s. approach is not very much different. the head of the national security advisor's spoke about high walls or high fences. we as well just a couple of weeks ago at the end of january, you produced a new economic security strategy.

[indiscernible] even going small, but i think very important to step further, which i'm sure in this country we will have as well, actually looking into what we do as a research project because time and research can be quite sensitive and dual use.

these are approaches, which i think is really quite close, and we have a technology counsel between the eu and u.s. where we have the ability to discuss -- not only to discuss but to compare our notes. >> you served. anything you want to add about singapore's approach or cooperation with the u.s. on these issues? >> singapore is a small country. obviously, we want to be friends with all countries near us, big and small. we are mindful of the sensitivity in the u.s.-china relationship especially over trade investments and sensitivity risks.

while has gone from one living operating paradigm was interdependence to one where we are acutely mindful and now really trying to untangle some of that interdependence to try to find ways to make supply chains, trade relations more robust. that is understandable. today, it is more focusing on a particular country. for example, the u.s. may be over reliant on a country. i suspect that in time to come, it will not be just focusing on countries but companies from countries, if it's operating within that country or outside of the country. you will have secondary order effects that will have to be spotted further in the years to come.

singapore is a hub for investments around the world. a significant part of it comes from the u.s., as i already mentioned. from japan, from the eu, and a growing number of chinese companies are also coming into singapore. singapore will have to be mindful of some of the sensitivities and be able to thread the needle very carefully. we still believe we can be a place where there is cross-pollination of ideas and people, but increasingly, we must also guard against cross pollution. in areas where co-mingling should not take place, it is important for singapore to make sure they are safeguarding areas where the co-mingling will be as separate as we can make it. quickly are coming up on that sunset review of usmca in 2026,

and parties have already begun conversations around that. i expect some of the issues around national security will be part of that conversation. how do you see the sunset review playing out, and can you highlight some of the key themes? >> i think that usmca is a success story. what i believe is that we have to stop looking at the trees and start looking at the forest, which is the future of the u.s. and the future of the region. i'm going to give just an example. if you look at the production of transportation equipment, if we see manufacturing in the world, if china produces 9.8% of the

world's transportation, which means planes and trains and ships and everything, the u.s. produces 7.6%, so china already passed the production and manufacturing capacities of the u.s.. mexico, which produces 6.4 percent, and canada, 2.9%, then you have 16.9%, so when america produces 16.9%, that's much more than 9.8%. what we should be thinking is about the medium and long term view. i think we are giving very strong steps towards that future with the chips and science act and with the anti-inflationary

act. when they are giving fiscal credits to products that are produced in north america because i think that the north american region has to be seen as a unit. that means that, as you said, foreign policy and trade is one economic effort. i believe that share values in the fight for freedom and democracy in the world will not be led by north america, which i'm sure it will become the most competitive and humanistic region in the world. >> i know you are here in d.c. watching our presidential campaign play out very closely, and of course, we are watching your presidential campaign play out. are trade issues a big part of

your presidential campaign? if so, what are the issues? >> in mexico, campaigns have not officially started. the two main forces have a woman candidate, so we will have a woman president for the first time in history, but campaigns have not started, and of course, trade is a very important issue. we trade with the u.s. in about 70% of our trade and from our gdp, 80% manufacturing and trade, so it is very important for us. >> one of the interesting approaches the biden administration has taken is to instead of negotiating

traditional trade agreements, they are pursuing these novel trade frameworks in the indo pacific and our region. can you talk about that approach , what are your main ambitions for the america partnership, and what do you think of possibly using those kind of novel frameworks? >> interestingly enough, we will be hosting next year the meeting in 2025, the aipac meeting. there is a possibility that they are discussing about which other countries are going to be part of it, so not only the countries that are in right now, but there are other countries that there's a possibility of them joining, so there's a lot of interesting things happening. the last meeting was november.

many of the presidents of the region were here. they were discussing the next steps. costa rica has two main sectors. one is commerce and trade and the other is more foreign relations. those are the two tracks that were joining, that were leading, per se. we are also leading the one on the center for excellence. costa rica will be hosting -- every country will have its own responsibility, but costa rica is hosting the center for excellence for a regional center for excellence, which, as you all know probably, we do not have, even the united states, and i think that is also a problem worldwide, that there are not sufficient people with the necessary skills for

technology jobs. if i'm not mistaken, there's a lack of 300,000 people in latin america with those skills, so that regional hub, which is already moving into costa rica, and the government is taking it on, intel is helping us already, they are giving us a chunk of money to make a virtual lab, and there's going to be a cloud lab. there will be three overall labs within costa rica, so the people from latin america, from mexico, from argentina, from everywhere can go there, train, and help region overall because in the u.s., there's also a lack of skills, so we are all having the same issues. that is what costa rica is doing with aipac. however, we see it as a great

opportunity. when things are not as open as we wish they were in issues related to trade, then we have to look for other venues, and i think it is a good other venue to start with. we will have to see how it evolves and how it actually -- you know, we want to see results. that is what costa rica is trying to and i think all the other countries and members, that is what we are looking for. >> i have one final question and i want to take time to open it up to the audience, but i did want to get to digital trade, a role that singapore is playing in that. your fta with new zealand has become a standard for digital trade agreements. can you talk about the future of digital trade? >> if you will permit me to take a step back to talk actually about the new economic

architecture being envisioned in the indo pacific. you have the cbtpp. china is knocking on the doors and hoping to be admitted. we have china, japan, korea, australia, and new zealand. the u.s. is not in it. the partnership agreement you just mentioned initiated by chile, new zealand, and singapore, south korea is on the verge of being admitted. china is knocking on the door. so, too, canada and costa rica. the u.s. is not in it. there is a danger that the u.s. is absent from all the economic

architecture that is being developed in our part of the world. you can look 20, 30 years down the road. what is that portend for u.s. relations with asia and the end of pacific? -- the indo pacific? which is why we are so deeply invested in the indo pacific economic framework. not because we see huge benefits for us. we have bilateral free trade agreements with almost everybody. but because we believe that the u.s. cannot afford to be absent economically from our part of the world. the digital economy partnership agreement, we believe that economic agreements will be the way forward. there's that trilateral with new

zealand, with chile. we have trilateral with the u.k., with australia, with south korea. we have an agreement with australia. we believe that there will be benefits for some of these new agreements, particularly when it pertains to smb's, which is also because for some interest and concern within the united states. we believe that we need to work together on establishing the rules, the standard, and when necessary, using safeguards to make sure that transactions and integration can take place in a structured, rules-based manner going forward. >> thank you and very compelling point about the importance of u.s. engagement in the region. i want to ask the audience to come in now with any questions.

i see a question here on the front table. >> hi. i'm vice chair in the international law section for national bar. we are in talks with the african continental free-trade area to enter into an mou, and i was pleased to see that ambassador todd had signed -- the u.s. had signed an agreement with african continental free-trade area. my question for the ambassadors is -- what do you see as your short and long-term relationship with africa, acknowledging that it is a continent, not a country, in terms of trade and how that serves as a foreign policy approach? >> thank you for the question.

it is not really a secret, but the eu considers africa as a neighbor -- not neighborhood, but neighbor. they relations are really for quite some time -- it has been very stable, but of course, we are talking about continent, so there are security issues, questions about democracy, but the eu is the biggest contributor for the international partnership, and i think that actually really paves the way for bigger trade or more broader trade relations. there is another huge project which the eu is changing their mindset and moving on the global gateway. the huge project which is supposed to encourage

partnership, not only government to government, but private business and financial institutions to partnership in a huge infrastructure, which may then pave the way for more favorable trade and commerce relations. i think if it works, we would be in an absolutely different future of our commercial relations in three to five years. >> other questions? >> hi, i'm doug palmer with politico. this is to the mexican ambassador. i had gotten in email just the other day from a reader asking if i had heard about a rumor that the mexican government was

going to put forward an executive order to increase tariffs. i had not heard about it, but here i am today, and thought i would take the opportunity to ask you, is there some new mexican government tariff action coming down the pike? >> not that i know of. [laughter] >> i'm from the south china morning post. i have two questions. we talked about new actions and we talked about tariffs. i just wanted to ask you when former president trump is the favorite to get the republican nomination. when he talks about tariffs and says nato is not an ally, how do you view that?

are you thinking about how you will deal with tariffs if they come into place and how tariffs like those impact what we are talking about today? and i have a specific question for the ambassador from singapore. you talk about chinese companies coming to singapore. we recently saw the ceo of tiktok being grilled. some of the questions asked singaporean start work racist. how do questions like that impact what we are talking about here, foreign policy, if someone from singapore is asked if he works for the chinese government? thank you. >> do you want to take the impact of 10% tariffs first? i thought you got off easy with those questions. what is the impact of 10%? >> that would be very, very --

it would hinder the whole relationship because it is against free trade and it is against the north american region. i believe the future of mexico, canada, and the united states need to become allies and to work together in a much higher view about the world's developments because we are not just sharing goods and service is. we are sharing also values. when you start taking down the foundations of free-trade, which is the one that put us in this condition to work together, i think that's not a very good idea. >> anything to add on tiktok? >> we hold him in high regard.

i think we have also got to see the line of questioning that he took and the remarks he made subsequently from two angles. one, of course, is it is election season and they have a domestic audience that they want to be able to not only understand the concerns and sensitivity but also to find ways to address that, right? that's one part of this. two, i think it reflects some of the deep-seated concerns that the u.s. may have over trade relations with china, over companies in china, in china itself or coming out of china, that hold a significant amount of data. there is i would say something that can be understood, something that can be

appreciated. i think, though, and line of question taken too far can sometimes possibly undermine the standing of how the u.s. is viewed in different parts of the world. not just in asia, not necessarily only in singapore. there's a fine balance that needs to be struck between some of the security sensitivities and also the overall impression that the u.s. would want to continue to project and portray to the rest of the world. >> thank you. i think we have time for one more. yeah, in the back. >> thank you. i'm with georgetown law.

you were listing the free-trade agreements of the region in asia right now and saying how the u.s. is not part of it or not even knocking on the door whereas china is. i was wondering, it seems like china wants to get in, so this position of what kind of concessions are the other countries that are already part of these agreements asking from china or is there a position where you can ask for something, and can the u.s. or other regions learned from that? >> i would say i'm not privy to the discussions that are taking place. a working group started for china and canada on the digital economy partnership agreement,

and the one for china is chaired by chile. we have not gone to that stage yet, but across both of the agreements, there's a need for consensus by all current members to accept a new member, and that consensus will build on top of number one, an assurance that an applicant can fully meet the standards and number two, that members are convinced that the applicant will faithfully abide by the commitments it has agreed to. we believe that those are standards that we will not compromise on and how discussions with any particular applicant will shape up i think it is for the working groups to deal with. >> great. thank you.

on the panel just before us -- i'm sorry, go ahead. >> it is very good, of course, to have a regional agreement, especially having in mind this topic which goes much beyond any single continent like e-commerce or digital trade, but i believe we have to really be sure that the most important format for having a global format is actually wto. if we don't manage to do all of us, it should be multilateral. everyone has to be on board, and i think if like-minded countries can set standards for that, we will be all better off than regional letting ourselves, and hopefully, the u.s. will actively join on