US ECONOMICS

U.S. Department of State. November 11, 2017. Joint Statement by the President of the United States and the President of the Russian Federation

Washington, DC - President Trump and President Putin today, meeting on the margins of the APEC conference in Da Nang, Vietnam, confirmed their determination to defeat ISIS in Syria. They expressed their satisfaction with successful U.S.-Russia enhanced de-confliction efforts between U.S. and Russian military professionals that have dramatically accelerated ISIS’s losses on the battlefield in recent months.

The Presidents agreed to maintain open military channels of communication between military professionals to help ensure the safety of both U.S. and Russian forces and de-confliction of partnered forces engaged in the fight against ISIS. They confirmed these efforts will be continued until the final defeat of ISIS is achieved.

The Presidents agreed that there is no military solution to the conflict in Syria. They confirmed that the ultimate political solution to the conflict must be forged through the Geneva process pursuant to UNSCR 2254. They also took note of President Asad’s recent commitment to the Geneva process and constitutional reform and elections as called for under UNSCR 2254.

The two Presidents affirmed that these steps must include full implementation of UNSCR 2254, including constitutional reform and free and fair elections under UN supervision, held to the highest international standards of transparency, with all Syrians, including members of the diaspora, eligible to participate. The Presidents affirmed their commitment to Syria’s sovereignty, unity, independence, territorial integrity, and non-sectarian character, as defined in UNSCR 2254, and urged all Syrian parties to participate actively in the Geneva political process and to support efforts to ensure its success.

Finally President Trump and President Putin confirmed the importance of de-escalation areas as an interim step to reduce violence in Syria, enforce ceasefire agreements, facilitate unhindered humanitarian access, and set the conditions for the ultimate political solution to the conflict. They reviewed progress on the ceasefire in southwest Syria that was finalized the last time the two Presidents met in Hamburg, Germany on July 7, 2017.

The two presidents, today, welcomed the Memorandum of Principles concluded in Amman, Jordan, on November 8, 2017, between the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Russian Federation, and the United States of America. This Memorandum reinforces the success of the ceasefire initiative, to include the reduction, and ultimate elimination, of foreign forces and foreign fighters from the area to ensure a more sustainable peace. Monitoring this ceasefire arrangement will continue to take place through the Amman Monitoring Center, with participation by expert teams from the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Russian Federation, and the United States.

The two Presidents discussed the ongoing need to reduce human suffering in Syria and called on all UN member states to increase their contributions to address these humanitarian needs over the coming months.

In addition, President Trump noted that he had a good meeting with President Putin. He further noted that the successful implementation of the agreements announced today will save thousands of lives‎.

Background Briefing on the Joint Statement by the President of the United States And the President of the Russian Federation on Syria

MODERATOR: Thank you so much, and thank you, everyone, for joining us this weekend on a call to discuss this joint statement that was released earlier today on Syria by President Trump and also President Putin. The call will be on background attributable to senior State Department officials. Today we have [Senior State Department Official One], who will be referred to as Senior State Department Official Number One, please, and also [Senior State Department Official Two], who will be referred to as Senior State Department Official Number Two. We have about 30 minutes for the call. I’d like you to please limit your questions to one question per journalist so we can try to reach as many reporters as possible. The call will be embargoed until the conclusion of that.

And with that, let me turn it over to Senior State Department Official Number One for his opening comments. [Senior State Department Official One.]

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Great. Thank you, [Moderator]. So let me provide some background, opening about six or seven minutes or so, provide some background on the joint statement on Syria that issued today following the discussion between President Trump and President Putin on the margins of the APEC conference.

And this statement really builds on months of fairly intense discussions with the Russians and a lot of behind-the-scenes diplomacy led by Secretary Tillerson with the support of our military teams. And another round of those discussions took place last week in Amman and made some progress on some of the areas underlying the joint statement that issued today. And Secretary Tillerson and Foreign Minister Lavrov were able to close some gaps that remained over the course of the discussion on the margins of APEC.

I would describe these discussions with the Russians as quite intense, difficult, but also professional and ultimately constructive. And we’ve been able in recent months to work through some extremely difficult issues on Syria, which remains one of the most complex foreign policy challenges we confront.

So let me break down the statement with some background. I think as you’ll recall, shortly after taking office Secretary Tillerson set forth a vision for a new U.S. approach on Syria really grounded in three key elements. First, we must and we will prioritize the defeat and the enduring defeat of ISIS, and President Trump directed early on that we streamline the decision-making process to free up our military commanders to accelerate the campaign on the ground.

The strategic review, under the direction of Secretary Mattis, then led to a dramatically accelerated campaign, the results of which are now visible on the ground. And Secretary Mattis, during a coalition meeting in Brussels earlier this week, on Thursday, noted that 95 percent now of the territory once held by ISIS is now freed, and our partners are continuing to secure more territory each day.

Second, the second area, we must work to consolidate these military gains through stabilization assistance and critically de-escalate the civil war in Syria. The underlying civil war threatens American interests by driving extremism, increasing Iranian influence, undermine the security of Syria’s neighbors including Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, and Turkey, and increasing refugee flows.

In April, the Secretary discussed a vision for de-escalation zones during a Moscow visit with President Putin, and that overall vision has really defined subsequent international diplomacy on Syria. It resulted in a reduction of violence throughout the country and unprecedented pressure on ISIS and beginning to set the conditions now for a meaningful political process.

The third area, we must facilitate UN-led efforts to effect a political resolution to the conflict. As the Secretary has stated a number of times, it remains our view that a new and stable Syria under a more stable – and a more stable region will ultimately require new leadership in Damascus and the departure of President Assad from the scene. This must occur, however, as part of a political process that allows the entirety of the Syrian people, including the millions displaced by this horrific conflict, to determine their future free from threat, intimidation, and all foreign interference, and ultimately through UN-supervised and organized parliamentary and presidential elections.

So if you think of this in phases, phase one is really the defeat of ISIS. It’s hard to see Syria stabilizing when ISIS retains a so-called caliphate in what used to be about a third of the country. The second phase, and working in parallel, is to establish de-escalation zones and bring down the levels of violence in the country, with the third phase then leading to the political process to ultimately end the overall civil war.

So the joint statement approved today by President Trump and President Putin codifies areas of agreement in each of these three areas. It also does not sugarcoat differences that remain, and we still have work to do as we emerge from the primary focus on ISIS to the next phase of the campaign, locking in de-escalation areas to set conditions for a meaningful political process through Geneva to take hold.

The statement also reflects our view, as the President discussed earlier today, that despite our many differences with Russia, our two countries are capable of working together on difficult problems where interests converge and our doing so is profoundly in our national security interest. Perhaps nowhere is that more true than in Syria. The reality on the ground in Syria and those with influence is something we must take account of when developing our own approaches. We have made clear we will not work with the Assad regime, we will not obviously work with the Iranians who share fundamentally divergent interests from ours, therefore we must find opportunities to work with Russia where we can, seek to narrow differences where possible, mindful of the gaps that will inevitably remain.

So turning to the details of the statement, I’ll discuss each of the three areas I just outlined: military deconfliction to accelerate pressure on ISIS, strengthening the southwest ceasefire and de-escalation zones, and agreeing on key principles of the Geneva-based political process.

So the first area – the statement is really kind of divided into these three areas. The first area – deconfliction and the counter-ISIS campaign. As the campaign against ISIS has progressed, coalition-backed and Russian-backed forces have increasingly converged on the battlefield, necessitating a greater degree of operational deconfliction to prevent accidents and unintended escalations of force. Over the past 10 months we’ve worked to strengthen professional military channels of communication with Russia at the tactical and operational levels. This is to ensure that we can protect our people and our partner forces and focus maximum focus where it belongs, on the defeat of ISIS.

While not without challenges, these arrangements have served its purpose to date, thanks to the leadership of Secretary Mattis, General Dunford, General Votel, and our commanders in theater – Lieutenant General Steve Townsend till around September and now Lieutenant General Paul Funk, who recently assumed command. And they’re doing a great job, a remarkable job, and we remain closely latched up between military and diplomatic channels as the campaign has dramatically accelerated over the past year.

So today, importantly, President Trump and President Putin expressed their satisfaction with these arrangements and confirmed that they would continue until the final defeat – the final defeat of ISIS – is achieved. The joint statement reflects our shared commitment and agreement from the highest levels that military discussions and deconfliction channels has remained professional, served to avoid misunderstandings, and maximized the pressure on ISIS.

And this pressure on ISIS cannot be overstated. For the first time, the end of the physical caliphate, the so-called ISIS caliphate from where terror attacks were planned and launched around the world, is clearly in sight. While this will not end the threat of the ISIS, it is a significant milestone in the campaign and the result of the accelerants put in place at the direction of the President and Secretary Mattis earlier this year.

The statement also affirmed understandings that these deconfliction arrangements as well as de-escalation areas are interim measures to create conditions under which terrorists can be defeated, military gains consolidated, our partner forces can be secure, and the political process can advance pursuant to UN Security Council Resolution 2254, which I’ll discuss in a minute.

Both U.S. and Russia finally, as the statement states, are firmly committed to the territorial integrity of Syria, a principle the presidents affirmed today in the joint statement. De-escalation zones, for example, and deconfliction arrangements are designed to reduce violence and create conditions for Syrians to return to their homes and a political process to take hold. They are not aimed at partitioning Syria or dividing Syria into spheres of influence.

The second area of the statement is the de-escalation of the civil war and de-escalation zones, particularly the southwest. The presidents welcomed and endorsed, importantly, the U.S.-Russia-Jordan Memorandum of Principles, what we call the MOP, for de-escalation in southwest Syria. And this document was initialed on Wednesday night, November 8th, in Amman, Jordan. This understanding builds on and expands the July 7th ceasefire arrangement finalized during the last meeting between President Trump and President Putin in Hamburg, Germany, in July.

So the memorandum builds on the ceasefire arrangement really in three important areas. Let me just break them down.

First, the memorandum initialed in Amman earlier this week gives greater definition to the rules and mechanisms to monitor and strengthen the ceasefire and related efforts like humanitarian assistance. And while not perfect, the ceasefire that was put in place in July has largely held. Violence in this area has been significantly reduced, and thousands of Syrian families have returned to their homes. The presidents also recognized the work of U.S., Jordanian, and Russian military and diplomatic professionals and what we call the Amman Monitoring Center, which maintains contact with the many actors on the ground to prevent violations of the ceasefire and address them when they occur.

Second, the memorandum initialed in Amman and endorsed by the presidents today reflects the trilateral commitment that existing governance and administrative arrangements in opposition-held areas in the southwest will be maintained during this transitional phase. In other words, the opposition is not surrendering territory to the regime, deferring those questions of longer-term political arrangements to the political process under UN Security Council Resolution 2254. So this is an important principle that the memorandum initialed in Amman memorializes and the presidents confirmed.

Third and perhaps most important, the MOP, what we call the MOP, enshrines the commitment of the U.S., Russia, and Jordan to eliminate the presence of non-Syrian foreign forces. That includes Iranian forces and Iranian-backed militias like Lebanese Hizbollah as well as foreign jihadis working with Jabhat al-Nusrah and other extremist groups from the southwest area. These elements – these extremists groups and these foreign-backed militias – have used the Syrian conflict over the last five years to increase their presence in this part of Syria, which has undermined the ceasefire and poses a threat to Jordan and Israel. So we think this principle is quite important and it is enshrined in the agreement reached this week.

So on this last point specifically, the Russians have agreed to work with the Syrian regime to remove Iranian-backed forces a defined distance from opposition-held territory as well as the borders of the Golan in Jordan. For our part, we have agreed to work with Jordan and the opposition to reduce and ultimately eliminate the presence of foreign jihadis such as those fighting with Jabhat al-Nusrah from opposition-controlled territory. The bottom-line principle is that all foreign terrorists and militia fighters must leave these areas and ultimately leave Syria altogether.

The third part of the statement is focused on the political solution, the long-term solution to the conflict. So finally, the statement reflects agreement that there is no military solution to the Syrian conflict; the conflict can only be resolved long-term through peaceful political negotiations, which, as the statement says, must, must be grounded in Geneva and the Geneva-based political process. So the presidents reaffirmed their commitment to the blueprint for a political transition outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, and that means negotiation under UN auspices in Geneva to draft a new constitution and hold UN-supervised elections to the highest international standards with the Syrian diaspora. That means the millions of Syrians who have been displaced in this terrible civil war will be eligible to vote, as the statement states very clearly.

The statement also expresses Assad’s recent commitments, for what they’re worth – the Geneva process, constitutional reform, and elections – and importantly makes clear that those commitments must be grounded in Security Council Resolution 2254.

The statement affirms that the political process, including constitutional reform and elections, therefore, must occur under the detailed blueprint outlined in the Security Council resolution through UN-led negotiations in Geneva and culminate in UN-supervised elections.

So why is that important? Secretary Tillerson felt that it was quite important to get President Putin on the record in this regard. We have started to see signs that the Russians and the regime wanted to draw the political process away from Geneva to a format that might be easier for the regime to manipulate. Today makes clear and the statement makes clear that 2254 and Geneva remains the exclusive platform for the political process, which, as the statement reaffirms, is the only way, long term, to end the Syrian civil war.

So the goal of the Geneva process under the auspices of Staffan de Mistura is to move as quickly as possible towards a new constitution and especially UN-supervised parliamentary and presidential elections. And at the end of this political process, as I stated at the opening, Syria and the broader region cannot be stable nor can there be any significant reconstruction assistance to regime-held areas, importantly, so long as Assad remains in power.

So just to sum up Syria in terms of these phases: Phase number one, maximizing pressure and defeating ISIS, defeating the physical caliphate, which is now – the end of the caliphate is clearly in sight; the second phase, working to establish de-escalation areas and deconfliction zones to bring violence down to set the conditions for the third phase, which is a meaningful political process focused in Geneva under 2254. That is the exclusive basis for legitimacy for the political process, at the end of which there has to be a transition in Damascus.

And with that I’ll turn to [Senior State Department Official Two] for any additional thoughts before taking questions.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: No, that sounds fine. Why don’t we go straight to questions.

MODERATOR: Okay. Operator, if you could introduce our first reporter, please?

OPERATOR: Our first question will come from the line of Arshad Mohammed with Reuters. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks for doing this. Two questions. Is it your view then that the so-called Astana process, that Russia has agreed to abandon the Astana process and will now focus exclusively on the Geneva process, such as it is?

And then secondly, Resolution 2254 in its first action point makes reference back to the June 2012 Geneva – so-called Geneva communique. That, in turn, called for the formation of a transitional governing body by mutual consent, which it was always the U.S. position that that meant that since the opposition would never accept Assad’s continuing in any role in such a body, that he was excluded or would be excluded from power. Is that still your view? And if so, what makes you think that Assad will willingly engage in a process which, even in its transitional phase, is designed to exclude him from power?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Let me say a couple things quickly and turn it over to Official Number Two. First on Astana, Astana – obviously we don’t – we’re not participants in Astana. We are observers. Astana with our partners, Turkey, has served a purpose in establishing de-escalation areas, which we support in principle, and that Astana should remain a focus for that purpose, the de-escalation areas. The political discussions have to remain in Geneva through the Geneva process, and that’s a principle, again, that we confirmed today.

On the second question, I would just reiterate what Secretary Tillerson said earlier this week that our approach to this is that at the end of the political process we don’t see a future for Assad and that the Syrian people through a UN-supervised process with all of the diaspora being able to participate should be able to select their leadership in Damascus.

But let me turn it over to number two.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, thanks. Thanks, Arshad. And just to elaborate, Astana began and it’s continued to be a forum principally to talk about ceasefires and de-escalation. Although there’s been some discussions there that have veered into political topics, it’s clear that most of the participants, and certainly in the Syrian opposition, don’t want it to become such a forum.

So one of the virtues of the agreement that Presidents Trump and Putin reached is that it firmly anchors the Russians in a paradigm in which all political discussions, all political negotiations, are very clearly in Geneva. So whatever happens elsewhere and whatever other efforts are afoot, it’s clear that the ultimate political resolution and the serious, substantive discussions between the parties are going to be under UN auspices with the legitimacy that that brings in Geneva.

And then as my colleague just said regarding the substance of the political process, we’re not putting any preconditions to how this process begins. We’re giving wide latitude to the UN envoy, to Staffan de Mistura, and what’s clearly important is where it ends up. The process by which it gets there has to be ultimately through UN-administered and supervised elections, and that’s the mechanism through which we’re going to see some new governance in Syria.

QUESTION: And is it still your view, though, that, as the June 2012 statement said, that there should be a transitional governing body and that that should be formed by mutual consent and therefore it’s your view that that can include Assad? I mean, you refer to 2254. That’s what it says in its first action point. It reaffirms that – the Geneva communique. I mean, is that still your position? And if so, why do you think – why do you think Assad’s going to get involved in such a process except to maybe slow-roll it or subvert it?

MODERATOR: Arshad, then we’re going to have to move this along. We have other people on the call that need to ask questions too. Go right ahead, guys.

QUESTION: You don’t seem to have an answer to that, though.

MODERATOR: I just stepped in. Guys, go right ahead. Feel free to answer and then we’ll move on to other people.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Okay. Again, let me just quickly answer Arshad’s question, which is that, again, one of the virtues of the statement, the agreement that the presidents agreed to, is that it puts Russia firmly in the camp of support for 2254 as the blueprint for the political process and all that 2254 involves. But rather than get into the details of how we get from here to there, I think the key is that Russian support and our support, we’re going to get the parties to Geneva to talk about that process, and the key to that process is going to be constitutional reform and an election which ultimately is going to decide the future of Syria’s form of government and the future of Assad.

MODERATOR: Okay. Let’s move along to the next question, please.

OPERATOR: As a reminder, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1 at this time. Next we’ll go to the line of Elise Labott with CNN. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thanks, guys. Just to kind of follow a little bit on Arshad, I mean, I understand the first two, the deconfliction and the ending of the civil war and all, which has to do obviously with coalition and ISIS and Russian and Syrian actions on the ground. But when you go to that third area, I mean, I think once again one of the issues is that you’re agreeing to things that have (a) already been agreed to and (b) you’re – who is speaking for the opposition and who is speaking for the Syrians?

I mean, there’s no – obviously it’s important for the U.S. and Russia to agree, but one of the problems with all these agreements is that there has never been a guarantee that either one – either the U.S. and the coalition is going to be able to bring the opposition to the table on this, or that the Russians are going to be able to guarantee that the regime will follow through on this.

So kind of piggybacking on Arshad, what are the guarantees that Russia (a) has the influence and (b) the will to bring the Syrian regime through this Geneva process for a political transition? I just don’t see how that – how does that – is that triggered.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yes. So, Elise, that sounds more like an analysis than a question, but again, the Russians – I don’t want to give – none of us want to give the impression that any of this is going to be simple or even quick, and it could very well be a very time-consuming process. It has thus far. Up until now, the political process in Geneva has not borne the sort of fruits that anybody would have liked, certainly not the Syrian opposition, certainly not us or our partners.

But what we’ve gotten out of this agreement is a very clear and probably the clearest articulation by the Russian president to date that 2254 is a roadmap for the political process, is the only game in town. I think the best we can do at this point is to get the parties – all of the parties – to Geneva to give the UN envoy, Staffan de Mistura, wide latitude to how that’s configured, and effectively to hold the Russians and hold everyone else to their commitment to pursue this as long as it takes.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: I would just add a point. I think that the context is significantly different in an atmosphere, as the President specifically said in the statement today – if you’re talking about saving thousands of lives. If you look at the southwest ceasefire since we put it in place, again, it’s imperfect, particularly in one particular area, but it has dramatically brought down violence. We had a pretty detailed briefing in Amman about rates of violence, and since it was put in place until now is a dramatic difference. And that sets conditions for a far more meaningful and realistic process than when the country is completely burning down.

Second, made very clear at the UN General Assembly when we had about 18 countries together with influence in Syria that there will not be any international reconstruction aid for Syria until there is a meaningful political process moving along this timeline that can ultimately allow a majority of the Syrian people to choose their own leaders. So that’s important because I think if you were to ask the regime in Damascus, they would say, well, this is over and let’s all get together and reconstruct the country, and that ain’t going to happen. And so that’s something that was very clearly stated in the statement that came out of the UN General Assembly meeting there, and that remains true today. And that – I can’t speak for the Russians, but I think it might be one reason why they clearly committed to the fact that the ultimate resolution to the civil war will run through the Geneva process with the culmination being the UN-supervised election process.

Over.

MODERATOR: Okay. Let’s move along to the next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question will come from the line of Ryan Browne with CNN. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yes, I just wanted to follow up on that first point on deconfliction. I understand you’ve talked about how much success there has been against ISIS and how little territory they have left. So the actual need for operational deconfliction seems a lot less. Is this really just establishing de facto no-fly zones over opposition areas in the east?

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, this is Official Number One. I think the reason it’s particularly important is the convergence of forces, particularly in the east. And so we had a couple close calls about six weeks ago which we were able to work through. We had an incident in July where we shot down a Syrian plane which was violating arrangements we had put in place, and we worked through that. And so as you can see the kind of lines developing, nobody is kind of drawing lines on a map or anything or talking about deconfliction to make sure that forces we work with are safe and that our people are safe, and we don’t – and we avoid accidents.

I would just say this has worked better than I think anyone anticipated, and I think it’s due really to the professionalism of our military personnel who have worked through this. And on the Russian side, again, they have been quite professional and constructive in these deconfliction channels.

So we had a pretty fulsome discussion in recent weeks about where the situation lies, where the trends are going, and how we can work out this final phase through deconfliction channels. And it was important to get the endorsement – the full endorsement from President Putin today that those channels have to remain open and working, because it’s quite critical. And I think both presidents expressed their satisfaction for how this has been going.

So as we look at the next phase, I think it’s very important that we maintain these channels, they keep open, and that we build on the foundation that’s been set.

MODERATOR: Okay, thank you. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: As a reminder, if you’d like to ask a question, please press *1 at this time.

Next we’ll go to the line of Sylvie Lanteaume. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hello. You said earlier that the Russians agreed to eliminate all foreign fighters from Syria, including the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the Hizballah. How are they going to do that? They are going to ask them and the Iranians are going to leave like that?

MODERATOR: Sorry, Sylvie, which organization are you with?

QUESTION: AFP.

MODERATOR: AFP. Thank you. Go right ahead, guys.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: Yes, this is Number One. I’ll turn it over to Number Two.

So we’re talking there about the southwest zone, which is a – which was a specific negotiation not done in Astana but done really under the auspices of Jordan. And this is right on Jordan’s border. This is an area that’s very, obviously, important to them and our ally, Jordan. So we’ve engaged in – over many months now with Jordan and Russia on the details of this very sensitive area.

That started with a comprehensive negotiation for a ceasefire line, and that was negotiated almost meter by meter over the course of many months. And that was actually inaugurated and finalized the last time President Trump and President Putin met on July 7th. And I think because that was such an extensive negotiation, the ceasefire has held fairly well.

What we did this week was kind of extended that progress to really turn the area into a de-escalation area, and there is an agreement – because there’s tension where you have foreign, non-Syrian fighters facing off against each other. They don’t really have the interests of the Syrian people at heart, and that’s how ceasefires begin to fray. So there is an agreement that in that area, in specific areas, there will be removal of these foreign elements.

Number Two might have some more to add.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: I’d only add that we have a very clear view on the presence of all of these foreign forces in Syria, which is that they shouldn’t be there at all. Syria should be free of Iran, free of Hizballah, free of all these militias that the Iranians have imported. We have the foreign jihadis, all of these groups have come in and they’ve not only exploded the chaos of the civil war, they have been in many cases the principal drivers of the violence.

So the effort in the southwest is a first step in that direction, and it’s an area where the Russians have taken upon themselves an obligation within a defined area, according to the negotiations that we undertook, to ensure the departure of those Iranian and Iranian proxy elements in that area. And at the same time, those who have been supportive of the opposition in that area also understand the need that the foreign jihadis – Nusrah particularly, but also Khalid bin Walid, the ISIS affiliate in that area – so the foreigners of those to be out of that area as well.

And if this works, this is an auspicious signal, would be an auspicious signal, that our policy objective – the objective that I think so many of us share of getting these guys out of Syria ultimately – that there’s a path in that direction.

MODERATOR: Okay. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: There are no further questions in queue.

MODERATOR: Pardon me?

OPERATOR: There are no further questions in queue, [Moderator]. You may proceed.

MODERATOR: Oh, okay. [Senior State Department Official Two] and [Senior State Department Official One], do you have anything else you’d like to add? Otherwise we can just wrap it up if we don’t have any other questions.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ONE: That’s great. Good here.

SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL TWO: Yeah, I’m good.

MODERATOR: Okay. All right. Well, everyone, thank you so much for joining us on this Saturday. We certainly appreciate it. The embargo has now been lifted. And just as a reminder, on background, senior State Department officials one and two, as you can refer to them, if you want to handle it that – if – senior State Department officials.

Thank you.

________________

CANADA ECONOMICS

APEC - TPP

GLOBAL AFFAIRS CANADA. November 10, 2017. Minister Champagne Welcomes Progress on the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership

Da Nang, Vietnam - The Government of Canada is committed to free and fair trade that is progressive and will grow the economy and help the middle class.

Today, Minister Champagne welcomed the progress made on the margins of the APEC Trade Ministerial Meeting on a framework for a new Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Environment and labour rights will form crucial pillars of a new agreement and will be subject to dispute settlement mechanisms. However there still are a number of issues that remain outstanding for Canada.

This approach reinforces our commitment to fostering open markets, creating well-paying middle class jobs, and helping businesses, especially women-owned SMEs, succeed in international markets. Negotiations will continue to pursue a higher standard for trade in the burgeoning Asia-Pacific region in 11 economies.

The Government of Canada looks forward to continuing to engage on the proposals but will not be rushed into an agreement that is not in the interest of Canada.

Quote

“We are pleased that progress is being made towards a possible agreement, but there is still some work to be done. Our priority is to ensure that it is the right deal for Canadian workers and businesses. We will only sign onto a deal that reflects Canada’s interests and meets our objectives to create and sustain well-paying middle class jobs in today’s competitive global economy.”

- Hon. François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of International Trade

Quick facts

• Combined, the TPP countries will eliminate over 95 per cent of their tariffs, with the vast majority to be eliminated immediately upon entry into force.
• The remaining eleven members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (including Canada) represent 494 million people, with a combined GDP of US$10.2 trillion, or 13.6% of global GDP.
• Key sectors will benefit from this agreement including agriculture, fish and seafood, forestry and wood products, information and communications technologies, chemicals, and services (financial, professional, and environmental)

See also:

• Canada and Asia-Pacific Trade: http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-commerce/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/agr-acc/tpp-ptp/index.aspx?lang=eng&menu_id=95
• Canada and Asia-Pacific: http://www.international.gc.ca/asia_pacific-asie_pacifique/index.aspx?lang=eng
• Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation: https://www.apec.org/

THE GLOBE AND MAIL. NOVEMBER 10, 2017. TPP-11. 'It should come as no surprise,' says Trudeau about Canada not signing TPP deal
BILL CURRY

OTTAWA - Canada and 10 other countries have reached an agreement on the "core elements" of a new Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, but some contentious areas – including auto rules and cultural protections – have been set aside for further negotiations.

The late-night deal was reached Friday on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum in Da Nang, Vietnam. It came just hours after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was accused of blocking an agreement earlier in the day.

The political drama included a scheduled meeting of TPP leaders that Mr. Trudeau did not attend. The meeting was ultimately cancelled, leading to international media reports that Canada had "screwed" its TPP allies after getting cold feet.

On Saturday in Vietnam, Trudeau it shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone when Canada declined to sign the agreement. He said he sent signals all week that Canada would not close the TPP treaty unless it was right for Canadians.

"We were not going to be rushed into a deal," Trudeau told reporters at his closing APEC news conference.

"It should come as no surprise and it actually didn't come as a surprise to people who'd noticed that I was saying that and have been saying that all week."

Canadian Trade Minister François-Philippe Champagne dismissed the reports as a "misunderstanding" and said Canada took the time it needed to push for stronger environmental and labour protections.

"This is Canada. We won't settle for just any deal," he told reporters Friday. "This is about making sure that Canada as a Pacific nation would have access to the markets in the Pacific region. This is also about setting the terms of trade in the region."

Mr. Champagne said any changes to trade rules affecting the auto sector – a major point of concern among North American auto makers and labour leaders – would be determined at a later date.

"Particularly when it comes to culture, when it comes to the auto sector, you'll bet that we'll take the time to consult with stakeholders to get the deal done," he told reporters.

The TPP negotiations originally included the United States. A deal was signed in 2016 but it was never implemented, and U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew from the pact. He campaigned strongly against the plan, calling it "a continuing rape of our country" and "a disaster."

The challenge for Canada and Mexico at the TPP talks is that both countries are also in the midst of renegotiating the North American free-trade agreement with the U.S., so many of the same issues are in play at the separate negotiating tables.

Mr. Trudeau had been singled out by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe earlier in the day as the reason why a TPP deal had not already been reached in time for the meeting of TPP leaders.

While APEC has 21 members, the 11 countries of the TPP are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam.

"Ministers are pleased to announce that they have agreed on the core elements of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership," the countries said in a draft statement.

The deal announced Friday removed 20 sections of the original TPP deal, including provisions related to pharmaceutical products, patent protection, copyright and intellectual property.

Another section lists four categories as areas where "substantial progress was made but consensus must be achieved before signing": the treatment of state-owned enterprises, services and investment, dispute settlement and culture.

A Canadian government official said rules related to the auto sector continue to be part of the TPP but will be the subject of a "work plan" to reach an agreement on details.

Unifor president Jerry Dias, who represents Canadian auto workers and is a member of Canada's advisory panel on NAFTA negotiations, said the original terms of the TPP deal would have been very harmful to the auto sector, so he was glad to hear no new deal was finalized this week.

"There's a lot of work to do. There's a lot of identified areas that are flawed in the original agreement," he said. "So the fact that nobody's plowing ahead with a flawed deal gives me some comfort. At least there's some opportunity for dialogue and consensus making as it relates to how we're going forward."

Canadian manufacturers and auto makers also praised Canada's approach, noting that concerns remain.

Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters CEO Dennis Darby noted that because of the amount of U.S. content in Canadian manufactured goods and the fact the U.S. is no longer part of the TPP, it is very important that Canada rework the terms of the original deal.

"I think Canada has done the right thing by saying we need to go back and consult with our industry stakeholders and the public again," he said in an interview.

Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers' Association president Mark Nantais said in a statement that his members support Canada's decision not to be pressured into signing a TPP deal before all concerns are addressed.

"TPP outcomes must address export market access issues to the Asia-Pacific marketplace and recognize Canada's competitiveness as part of the North American trade bloc to support, and not harm, Canadian automotive manufacturers," he said.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL. NOVEMBER 11, 2017. OPINION. SPECIAL TO THE GLOBE AND MAIL. No deal is better than a bad deal: Why Canada won the TPP stand-off
MICHAEL GEIST, holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law.

The end-game in trade negotiations always generates more than its fair share of drama and this week's effort to rework the Trans Pacific Partnership without the United States was no different. Canada was squarely in the spotlight with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a no-show at a ministerial meeting that was attributed to a scheduling error, but had the hallmarks of gamesmanship designed to demonstrate a willingness to walk away from the deal.

The result was a major win for Canada as the government leveraged its position as the second-largest economy left in the TPP to extract significant concessions on intellectual property, culture, and the auto sector. Indeed, despite pressure to cave on key demands from the Japanese and Australian governments, Canada stood its ground and is helping to craft a trade deal that better reflects a balanced approach on challenging policy issues.

In advance of the meetings in Vietnam, Mr. Trudeau had signalled that Canada would not be rushed into a deal simply for the sake of an agreement. With pressure on multiple trade fronts and misgivings about the terms of a trade deal that was concluded by the Conservatives weeks before the 2015 federal election, a few tweaks might not be enough to salvage the flawed TPP. The decision to go slow and seek further negotiations may draw the ire of a few governments anxious to conclude the TPP, but it made both strategic and policy sense.

From a strategic perspective, Canada was a late entrant to the TPP negotiations, arriving well after the basic framework had been established and several of the chapters concluded. In fact, the TPP only became a trade priority after the Harper government identified the risks of remaining on the outside of a deal that included the United States. The decision to participate was primarily defensive with some studies projecting only marginal economic gains.

With the United States out of the TPP, Canada's primary strategic objective was gone. That left a deal that offered some benefits for increased trade with Japan, but little else, given that Canada already has free-trade agreements with several other TPP countries such as Mexico, Chile, and Peru.

Further, the TPP never fully reflected some of the Liberal government's trade priorities, including adequately addressing labour regulation and indigenous rights. Addressing those issues to advance the goal of a "progressive" agreement would require far more than some modest drafting changes.

The contentious North American free-trade agreement renegotiation has upended Canada's trade priorities since the United States remains our dominant trading partner. The overlap between NAFTA and the TPP represents a particularly thorny issue. For example, auto sector provisions have emerged as some of the most challenging of the NAFTA talks, threatening to dramatically change longstanding rule of origin regulations that have served as the basis for a critical North America-wide industry. To hamstring the Canadian NAFTA position on the automotive sector in order to reach a TPP agreement would have swapped short-term gain for long-term pain. As a result, Canada successfully argued that the issue should remain subject to further negotiation.

The trouble with the TPP11 – dubbed this for the 11 countries that remain after the United States dropped out following the election of President Donald Trump – extended beyond strategic shortcomings as the substantive provisions in several areas were widely viewed as coming at a significant domestic cost. This is particularly true for the intellectual property chapter, where the original agreement included patent provisions that would likely increase the cost of pharmaceuticals and copyright rules that would lock down content for decades through the extension of the term of copyright beyond the standard established at international law.

The IP chapter largely reflected U.S. demands and with its exit from the TPP, an overhaul that more closely aligns the agreement to international standards was needed. Canada succeeded on that front too with an agreement to suspend most of the controversial IP provisions including those involving copyright term, patent extension, biologics protection, Internet provider liability, and digital lock rules.

The TPP was also an outlier on cultural policy, departing from the longstanding Canadian approach by omitting a full cultural exception and creating unprecedented restrictions on policies to support the creation of Canadian content. The absence of robust cultural protections in the TPP had been a simmering issue for months. With the issue becoming increasingly sensitive in light of the recent release of a digital cultural policy, acquiescing to a trade agreement that raised alarm bells within the cultural community would have bad policy and bad politics, leaving Canada to successfully argue for further discussions on a cultural exemption.

Global Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and International Trade Minister François-Philippe Champagne inherited a trade policy that seemed to prioritize any deal over a good deal. Agreement on the TPP11 (now rebranded the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans Pacific Partnership) remains a possibility, but standing firm on Canadian interests with a willingness to walk away rightly recognized that no deal is better than a bad one.

REUTERS. NOVEMBER 10, 2017. TPP countries agree to move ahead with trade pact without U.S.

DANANG, Vietnam (Reuters) - Countries in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) have reached an agreement to push ahead with the trade pact without the United States, by suspending some provisions from the original deal, Vietnamese and Japanese officials said on Saturday.

Ministers from the eleven TPP countries met this week on the sidelines of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in the resort city of Danang in Vietnam.

The agreement follows days of uncertainty over whether the countries would be able to agree on the terms of the deal, after U.S. President Donald Trump ditched it this year in favor of an “America First” policy.

Reporting by Mai Nguyen and Kiyoshi Takenaka; Editing by Stephen Coates

REUTERS. NOVEMBER 10, 2017. Asia-Pacific leaders say to fight 'unfair trade' in nod to Trump
A. Ananthalakshmi, Matthew Tostevin

DANANG, Vietnam (Reuters) - Asia-Pacific leaders agreed on Saturday to address “unfair trade practices” and “market distorting subsidies” in a statement that bore the imprint of U.S. President Donald Trump’s efforts to reshape the global trade landscape.

The summit of Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) countries in Vietnam has put on show the contrasting vision of Trump’s “America First” policy with the traditional consensus favoring multinational deals that China now seeks to champion.

On the sidelines of the APEC summit, 11 countries kept alive a Trans Pacific trade deal whose future has been in doubt since Trump withdrew from it early this year in the name of protecting American jobs.

A joint statement issued by the 21 APEC countries contrasted sharply with the group’s communique from last year.

“We will work together to make trade more inclusive, support improved market access opportunities, and address unfair trade practices,” the statement read. “We urgently call for the removal of market-distorting subsidies and other types of support by governments and related entities.”

The comments echoed Trump’s own themes in an address in the resort city of Danang.

So did a mention of the importance of bilateral trade deals alongside bigger agreements and a call to improve the World Trade Organization (WTO). The 2016 statement was not critical of the WTO.

Trump says that the United States has lost out because other countries do not play by the rules, using state subsidies and measures that distort trade to the extent that Asian countries have built huge trade surpluses - China’s the biggest of all.

Earlier in the week, trade and foreign ministers wrangled over the language to be used in APEC statements. Officials said the 20 other countries had been pitted against a U.S. push to change the traditional wording.

Those countries still managed to ensure references to pushing for free trade and fighting protectionism - core reasons for APEC’s founding in 1989 - made it into the final statement.

TRANS PACIFIC DEAL LIVES

In a boost for the principle of multilateral trade pacts, countries in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal agreed on the core elements to move ahead without the United States.

Their talks had looked in doubt in the face of last minute resistance from Canada, but ministers announced they were near agreement on a deal they rebaptised the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).

Japanese Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said he hoped that moving ahead with the deal would be a step towards bringing back the United States.

Partly to counter China’s growing dominance in Asia, Japan had been lobbying hard for the TPP pact, which aims to eliminate tariffs on industrial and farm products across the 11-nation bloc whose trade totaled $356 billion last year.

Some 20 provisions of the original agreement were suspended. Those included some related to protecting labor rights and the environment, although most were related to intellectual property - one of the main sticking points after the U.S. withdrawal.

Canada, which has the second-biggest economy among remaining TPP countries after Japan, had said it wanted to ensure an agreement that would protect jobs.

Chinese President Xi Jinping said APEC members needed to remain true to the group’s founding purposes, which included advancing trade, liberalization and strengthening the multilateral trade regime, China’s Xinhua news agency said.

He spoke in favor of an ambitious free trade area that covers the entire region.

“We need to take determined steps toward a Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific in line with the agreed roadmap, and herald a new round of development in the Asia-Pacific in the course of opening up,” he said.

Reporting by A. Ananthalakshmi, Matthew Tostevin, Mai Nguyen, Michael Martina, Kiyoshi Takenaka; Editing by Hugh Lawson

BLOOMBERG. November 11, 2017. APEC Ministers Vow to Fight Protectionism as Trump Slams WTO
By Nguyen Dieu Tu Uyen

• Ministers release statement three days after Vietnam meeting
• Trump has used Asia summit trip to again criticize WTO

Trump speaks at the APEC CEO Summit on Nov. 10. Photographer: SeongJoon Cho/Bloomberg
Asia-Pacific ministers meeting in Vietnam this week pledged to fight protectionism and embrace the World Trade Organization, issuing a statement a day after President Donald Trump criticized the WTO as hurting U.S. economic interests.

In a statement issued three days after members began meeting in Danang, ministers vowed to “recommit to fight protectionism.”

The move comes after days of haggling by trade representatives over the framework of a blockbuster Pacific trade pact abandoned by Trump straight after he took office. The statement, which highlighted the importance of multinational trade agreements, underscored how the U.S. president’s protectionist tilt risks isolating America on the global trade stage.

“Countries were embraced by the World Trade Organization, even if they did not abide by its stated principles,” Trump said during a speech at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit on Friday. “Simply put, we have not been treated fairly by the World Trade Organization.”

In contrast, in the ministerial statement released on Saturday ministers said they “recognize the work of the WTO in ensuring international trade is rules-based, free, open, fair, transparent, predictable and inclusive.” They committed to “cooperate to improve the functioning of the WTO.”

In an interview in Vietnam this week, WTO Director-General Roberto Azevedo warned the Trump administration’s decision to block new appointments to the watchdog’s appellate body is compromising the ability of the system to resolve disputes.

‘A Disaster’

“The U.S. has said consistently that they think the appellate body functioning could be improved,” he said. “They think the appellate body sometimes overreaches, particularly in a moment when the WTO was not delivering negotiated outcomes that there was a temptation of the appellate body to legislate. Other members disagree.”

"It’s important we try to find a solution, the sooner the better because the impact is already being felt,” he said.

As a candidate, Trump called the WTO a “disaster” and threatened to withdraw from it. While he has not followed through as president, in April he ordered a review of all U.S. trade deals, including its participation in the WTO, to see if they would harm national interests and should be revised or terminated. He is renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement as well as having pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Trump also told Asian nations in a speech Friday to APEC business leaders that he would no longer join multilateral deals like the TPP but would seek bilateral pacts -- and only with countries that played by the rules and didn’t try to exploit the United States.

“We are not going to let the United States be taken advantage of anymore,” Trump said.

Asia-Pacific ministers negotiating a way to salvage the TPP signaled they were moving on with trade agreements without the U.S.

Japanese Economy Minister Toshimitsu Motegi late Friday said the 11 remaining members of the TPP had secured a framework agreement. Canada, which had held out for a day on signing onto the agreement, said it had won some desired concessions while warning that work is needed to reach a full deal.

Host nation Vietnam, which is aggressively pursing trade deals to boost its export-driven economy, warns against protectionism. Global agreements are important for sustainable development, Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang said at the APEC leaders summit on Saturday.

The country’s trade representatives lobbied strongly to include the anti-protectionism language in the ministerial statement, said Tran Viet Thai, a deputy director general of the Diplomatic Academy of Vietnam in Hanoi.

“There were a lot of disputes, debates, among countries with the two different views -- one side supports free trade while the other doesn’t,” he said. The side supporting “the inevitable global trend won the fight. This is significant.”

NAFTA

BLOOMBERG. November 11, 2017. Trump Says AT&T Deal for Time Warner May End Up in Court
By Todd Shields  and Jennifer Jacobs

• Comment from president could indicate attempt to block deal
• Trump asked about $85 billion merger during trip to Asia

President Donald Trump indicated the Justice Department may try to block AT&T Inc.’s proposed purchase of CNN owner Time Warner Inc., saying “it will probably end up being maybe litigation.”

AT&T is preparing for a court battle if the Justice Department tries to prevent the $85.4 billion deal. The Justice Department has asked that assets like cable news network CNN and satellite provider DirecTV be sold, according to people familiar with the matter. AT&T has said it won’t sell CNN, a regular target of Trump’s Twitter attacks against what he calls “fake news.”

Trump was asked about the dispute during his trip to Asia.

“We’ll see how that -- it will probably end up being maybe litigation, maybe not. We’ll see how it all plays out,” Trump said aboard Air Force One, according to the White House’s official transcript of the exchange.

AT&T discussed the Time Warner deal on Monday with Makan Delrahim, the Department of Justice’s antitrust chief, AT&T Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said Thursday. The CEO said selling CNN would make no sense and run counter to his plan to build a media distribution business.

Some Democratic lawmakers are calling the uproar over the cable news network political. Trump assailed the merger on the campaign trail, saying the tie-up would concentrate media power.

Whose Call?

Trump was asked if he wants AT&T to sell CNN.

“Well, I didn’t make the decision,” Trump said, according to the White House transcript. “That was made by a man who’s actually a very respected person -- a very, very respected person."

The decision would be made by Delrahim, who was nominated by Trump and joined the Justice Department’s antitrust division in September after being confirmed by the Senate.

“I did make a comment in the past as to what I think,” Trump said. “I do feel that you should have as many news outlets as you can, especially since so many of them are fake. This way, at least you can get your word out. But I do believe you should have as many news outlets as you can.”

Trump during a campaign appearance in 2016 called the merger “an example of the power structure I’m fighting” and called it “a deal we will not approve in my administration because it’s too much concentration of power in the hands of too few.”

— With assistance by Justin Sink

AVIATION

REUTERS. NOVEMBER 11, 2017. Boeing sees steady Gulf demand, interest in mid-sized jet
Tim Hepher

DUBAI (Reuters) - Boeing (BA.N) sought to dispel concerns about a slowdown in the growth of Gulf airlines as the aerospace industry gathered on Saturday for the Dubai Airshow.

Speaking on the eve of the showcase event, executives at the U.S. planemaker also played down the impact of growing political tensions in the region.

“Traffic is coming back and yields are improving and this is going to be a very positive backdrop to the Dubai Airshow,” Marty Bentrott, vice president for Boeing’s commercial sales in the region, said, citing higher profit at Dubai’s Emirates.

Boeing had been asked to reschedule some deliveries according to a normal pattern but had not seen cancellations since a rift between Arab nations and Qatar earlier this year.

At a news conference, Boeing executives mainly deflected questions about a domestic purge of dozens of members of Saudi Arabia’s political and business elite in the past week but played down concerns over its economic impact.

“There is absolutely no change. We consider the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to be a very strong partner and we are going ahead with our plans,” Ahmed Jazzar, president of Boeing Saudi Arabia, said.

The planemaker, meanwhile, said it had seen strong regional interest in a proposed new mid-sized passenger jet.

Industry sources expect a commercial launch of the roughly 220-270 seat jet next year. It would enter service in 2024-25 as Boeing attempts to leapfrog the hot-selling Airbus (AIR.PA) A321neo.

The aircraft will be designed around an unusual elliptical, or ‘squashed’, shape of fuselage that contains less room for cargo than other planes of its size. Experts say that is in order to improve the aerodynamics and cut running costs.

Boeing planners say most airlines interested in that type of plane do not expect to carry much cargo on their targeted routes.

Asked whether that would be a problem for airlines in the Gulf, most of which carry significant amounts of freight in the bellies of their passenger planes, Bentrott said: “There is nothing but tons of interest and excitement (in the region). There is not any concern about cargo capability.”

He added, “We hope to get it into the market in the not-too-distant future.”

Reporting by Tim Hepher; editing by Alexander Smith and Louise Heavens

BLOOMBERG. November 11, 2017. Emirates Negotiates to Buy $16 Billion of A380s
By Benjamin D Katz

• Airbus discussing follow-up order with its biggest jumbo buyer
• Fresh deal would further cement Emirates’ A380 dominance

Emirates is negotiating a deal to purchase about 36 additional Airbus SE A380 superjumbos, according to people familiar with the talks, a move that would help extend the embattled program’s life.

Executives are working to seal an accord with the goal of making a formal announcement on Nov. 12 when the biennial Dubai Air Show kicks off, said the people, asking not to be named as the discussions are confidential. An order for that number would be valued at $15.7 billion at current list prices, though the tally could change as talks enter the final stage.

Airbus has been working to secure a follow-on order for the four-engine model from Emirates, which would add another 4 1/2years to its backlog, after the planemaker was forced to cut production of the aircraft to just eight a month next year from 25 in 2016 amid slack demand. Outgoing sales chief John Leahy, who is looking to Emirates for a last triumph before handing over the reins to a successor early next year, is renowned for getting orders signed in the final moments ahead of an air show.

An agreement with Emirates would allow Airbus to continue marketing the plane, pursuing a series of smaller deals that wouldn’t otherwise have been viable without the new commitment from its biggest customer for the double-decker model. Representatives for Toulouse, France-based Airbus and Emirates, which is based in Dubai, declined to comment.

The planemaker in June unveiled an upgrade to the A380, dubbed the “plus” that adds wingtips and a more condensed cabin layout to improve the fuel efficiency of the aircraft. Airbus Chief Executive Officer Tom Enders restated the company’s commitment to the plane in Hamburg this month when Emirates took its 100th jet of a total 142 on order.

Emirates already represents the only major customer for the double-decker, which has 317 net orders in total. Most other customers, such as British Airways to Lufthansa to Air France, have made the plane only a sub-category of their fleets or even cut back their original commitments.

Reuters earlier reported that talks were centering around a deal for between 36 and 38 planes, citing a person familiar.

CANADA - INDIA

Global Affairs Canada. November 11, 2017. Ministers Champagne, Bains and Garneau join forces for technology and innovation trade mission to India

Ottawa, Canada - The vibrancy of Canada’s cultural and people-to-people ties with India is a competitive advantage that has yet to be fully tapped for the benefit of Canadians and Indians alike. Canada counts more than a million Indo-Canadians and $8 billion in annual trade. Deepening economic engagement now is the key to turning that strength in cultural diversity into an economic one for long-term growth, prosperity and more middle-class jobs for Canadians.

To that end, the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of International Trade; the Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development; and the Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport, will lead a trade mission to India from November 13 to 17, 2017, along with a delegation of Canadian business people.

Now is the time to seize opportunities, be ambitious as we grow exports to India, and expand two-way investment. This trade mission will begin in New Delhi, with India’s 23rd Technology Summit, featuring Canada as the partner country, a clear indication of Canada’s leading role at the forefront of the 21st-century economy. The delegation will then travel to Mumbai, Kolkata, Pune and Bangalore for sector-specific business programs, drawing on the two countries’ people-to-people ties from north to south and east to west across the subcontinent.

Progressive trade is about making trade work for people everywhere, and that means focusing on the interests and ambitions of smaller companies, including those owned by women, youth and Indigenous entrepreneurs. Much of Canada’s economy depends on small to medium-sized enterprises, and these businesses will benefit the most from expanded market access.

Canada’s trade mission will highlight the role of women in science and business. It will build on the government’s Innovation and Skills Plan by providing support to Canadian entrepreneurs and global investors considering partnerships with innovative Canadian firms. Canada is leading the way in redefining how global trade is done. By putting people first and focusing on the middle class, Canada will ensure the future prosperity of Canadian companies, farmers and workers.

Canadian companies interested in participating in this upcoming trade mission to India can register to join the delegation. Canada’s diversity is an economic strength that better positions Canadians to successfully diversify into new markets like India.


Quotes

“The next chapter in Canada’s economic success will be written by tapping into our multicultural diversity and translating it into stronger trade ties to the benefit of our middle class. Trade between Canada and India is critical to this effort. This mission will lead Canadian businesses at the forefront of innovation in goods and services, technologies and ideas to expand access to the bustling Indian economy of more than one billion consumers.”

- The Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of International Trade

“Canada is home to leading-edge innovation and strong economic growth—both critical factors in attracting investment here. Canada is known for its talented and highly skilled workforce. India is the world’s fastest-growing major economy. Bringing our business communities together could create powerful and long-lasting synergies that will benefit a broader range of people in both countries.”

- The Honourable Navdeep Bains, Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development

“This trade mission to India is a great opportunity to highlight Canada’s expertise in innovative transportation technology, such as intelligent transportation systems, in a massive, dynamic economy with new and enhanced urban and transportation infrastructure needs. It will also allow us to further enhance our trade relations with India and advance investment opportunities for Canadian companies in the technology, aerospace and rail sectors.”

- The Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport

Quick facts

• In 2016, merchandise trade between Canada and India was valued at $8 billion.
• India is the world’s fourth-largest economy and the second-most populous country. The World Bank estimates India to be the world’s fastest-growing major economy and projects this trend to continue for the next five years.

See also:

• Trade mission to India: http://international.gc.ca/gac-amc/campaign-campagne/trade-missions-commerciale/trade_mission_india-mission_commerciale_inde.aspx?lang=eng&_ga=2.99656926.1903649755.1507646178-1698255400.1500916393
• Canada’s Innovation and Skills Plan: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/062.nsf/eng/home
• Canadian Trade Commissioner Service: http://tradecommissioner.gc.ca/index.aspx?lang=eng
• World Bank: India’s economic fundamentals remain strong: http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2017/05/29/india-economic-fundamentals-remain-strong-investment-pick-up-needed-sustained-growth-says-new-world-bank-report

________________

LGCJ.: