US embassy cable - 05HANOI2715

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 HANOI 002715 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EAP/MLS AND EAP/EP AND EB/TPP/BTA/ANA GOODMAN AND 
WICKMAN 
STATE PASS USTR ELENA BRYAN AND GREG HICKS 
USDOC FOR 4431/MAC/AP/OPB/VLC/HPPHO 
TREASURY FOR OASIA 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON, EFIN, ETRD, EINV, VM, WTRO, APEC, AFLU, WTO, IPROP 
SUBJECT: APEC OFFICIAL MICHALAK'S MEETING AT THE MINISTRY OF 
TRADE 
 
1.  (SBU) Summary:  During a meeting between Deputy Director 
General at Multilateral Trade Policy Department of the 
Ministry of Trade (MOT) Tran Thi Thu Hang and U.S. Senior 
Official for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 
Michael Michalak, the two frankly discussed upcoming 
opportunities for expanding the U.S.-Vietnam relationship, 
dates for APEC 2006, the status of agenda items for APEC 
2005 and potential items for 2006 and Vietnam's plans to 
participate in multilateral avian influenza initiatives. 
End Summary. 
 
WTO AND BILATERAL RELATIONS 
--------------------------- 
 
2. (SBU)  Hang began the meeting by noting that before any 
discussion of APEC issues, she wanted to discuss World Trade 
Organization (WTO) accession.  She said it was very 
important that Vietnam conclude negotiations as soon as 
possible, noting how awkward it would be for Vietnam to 
chair an APEC caucus on WTO without being a WTO member. 
Michalak assured her that Vietnam's accession was a U.S. 
priority and the United States would do its best in this 
regard.  He added that Vietnam also needs to focus on the 
Permanent Normalized Trade Relations (PNTR) vote that will 
take place in the U.S. Congress after negotiations conclude. 
The Government of Vietnam (GVN) should be building up solid 
commercial relationships and communicating with their 
business community.  If the PNTR process does not start by 
June or July 2006, there could be major problems in securing 
that vote in time for the 2006 Leaders' Meeting.  Michalak 
concluded by adding that between APEC, WTO, and President 
Bush's visit to Hanoi, the world's eyes will be especially 
focused on Vietnam in 2006.  He hoped that Vietnam and the 
United States could use this opportunity to establish a 
strong framework for the future of the bilateral 
relationship. 
 
THE BOGOR ROADMAP, BUSAN AGENDA, AND IPR 
---------------------------------------- 
 
3. (SBU)  Hang began the APEC discussion by stating firmly 
that the GVN is very committed to continuing the momentum of 
APEC 2005 and implementing the Bogor roadmap as well as the 
Busan agenda.  The GVN is also interested in hearing the 
views and agenda priorities from all member countries, 
though Hang noted the GVN will certainly look at U.S. 
suggestions very favorably.  The GVN has received a list of 
U.S. APEC priorities in previous meetings and, she added, is 
giving them strong consideration while developing the 2006 
agenda.  Michalak agreed that advancing the Busan agenda, 
especially the Secure Trade in APEC Region (STAR) program 
and the Bogor roadmap's Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) 
guidelines was critical.  When questioned about whether or 
not Vietnam had submitted its comments on the IPR 
guidelines, Hang admitted Vietnam generally supported them, 
but did not have a formal reply yet because the other 
ministries needed time to review the proposal.  She said she 
would try her best to provide feedback by October 14.   She 
added that the GVN would welcome any suggestions for the 
STAR agenda.  Michalak agreed to pass those on as soon as 
possible and suggested she look at the Singapore idea about 
supply chains as a starting point.  The STAR conference will 
be in February 2006. 
 
NUMBERS AND DATES 
----------------- 
 
4. (SBU)  Hang acknowledged that Vietnam is "in a hurry" to 
work on APEC now.  Michalak told her this was good news, 
because there is much work to be done.  He pressed Hang on 
the importance of receiving information about the size of 
delegations as well as specific dates and schedules.  Hang 
admitted delegation size was an issue on which the 
Vietnamese are still working, but she did share the 
tentative 2006 APEC schedule verbally, though the dates are 
still awaiting the Prime Minister's approval. 
 
Senior Officials' Meeting (SOM) 1: February 20 - March 3 
SOM 2: May 22 - June 1 
Trade Ministers' Meeting: June 3 - June 4 
SOM 3 and Financial Ministers' meeting: late September (she 
did not give exact dates) 
Leaders' Meeting: November 12-18 
CEO Meeting: Nov 17-19 
 
Hang said the Trade Ministers' Meeting would likely be held 
in a "satellite city" of HCMC, though post is aware of no 
locations large enough to hold the delegations that usually 
attend this event.  Hang did not answer when asked if the 
GVN was building a new facility. 
 
APEC BUSINESS AGENDA ITEMS 
-------------------------- 
 
5. (SBU)  Michalak thanked Hang for the dates and said he 
looked forward to hearing more about delegation size and a 
finalized schedule in the near future.  Moving to the APEC 
business agenda, he raised the importance of crafting an 
agenda focused on trade and investment liberalization, 
supportive of the Doha Development Agenda (DDA), and 
aggressive in promoting the application of APEC Best 
Practices on Regional Trade Agreements (RTAs) and Free Trade 
Agreements (FTAs).  He emphasized how critical transparency 
and anti-corruption efforts are to the APEC agenda as well 
as "Ease of Doing Business" programs like the APEC "Best 
Practices for Regulatory Reform." Public-Private 
Partnerships, he added, are equally valuable.  In response 
to Michalak's question on the subject, Hang said the GVN 
does not yet have any details on how the 2006 Investment 
seminar will be conducted. 
 
AVIAN INFLUENZA 
--------------- 
 
6. (SBU)  The GVN is similarly uncertain about whether or 
not it will join the International Partnership to combat 
avian influenza (AI).  Michalak reviewed other multilateral 
efforts in place to combat AI and emphasized how important 
it is for Vietnam to be a part of this, especially 
considering that most of the AI cases to date have occurred 
in Vietnam.  Hang replied that MOT does not have the lead on 
AI issues. 
 
OTHER AGENDA ITEMS 
------------------ 
 
7. (SBU)  Michalak then pressed Hang for answers to a number 
of outstanding issues.  He also explained the status of 
other issues still evolving.  He asked that the Vietnamese 
work to implement the Bangkok commitments on security as 
well as sign on to the Radioactive Sources Initiative (RSI) 
now that the language has been changed as Vietnam requested. 
Hang said she had no feedback yet as to whether or not the 
amended RSI was acceptable.  Michalak also raised the 
importance of highlighting energy issues at the 2005 
Leaders' Meeting as well as in APEC 2006.  He asked about 
the potential of establishing an energy dialogue, something 
which, Hang replied was under the auspices of the Ministry 
of Industry (MOI).   Michalak asked if Vietnam had made a 
decision on the International Atomic Energy Association 
(IAEA) additional protocol.  Hang said that proposal is 
still circulating with the MOI as well.  Similarly, Michalak 
noted that the United States had received no feedback on the 
MANPADS briefer, which is due October 14.  Hang said she had 
never seen the briefer, and Michalak promised to forward it 
as soon as possible.  Michalak then asked if Vietnam 
intended to include an auto dialogue in the 2006 agenda; 
Hang replied that Vietnam was interested in hosting any 
meeting the members wanted, but that they would need past 
agendas, memos, and paperwork to put it together, all of 
which Michalak promised to send to her.  On the question of 
including a Life Sciences Innovation Forum as part of SOM 3, 
Hang said Vietnam had no information about this but would 
welcome more from the United States.  Vietnam does have the 
proposed language for including "technology choice" in the 
2005 Leaders' statement; Hang admitted it is still 
circulating among the ministries for comment.  Hang then 
raised one final issue on IPR, noting that Vietnam had been 
working with a quasi-government "Association for Consumer 
Protection" which had submitted proposed IPR enforcement 
projects to Brenda Fischer.  She asked Michalak to look into 
the status of their proposal.  Michalak noted that there 
would be many opportunities to develop IPR projects in 2006. 
 
8. (SBU)  Comment:  Both Hang and her assistant took copious 
notes throughout the meeting, asking questions on things 
they did not understand and repeatedly expressing their 
interest in including U.S. priorities in the 2006 agenda. 
Hang implicitly acknowledged she realized how behind the GVN 
is in its planning, but also emphasized how much the 
consensus driven decision-making process that dominates all 
GVN activity was still a factor in their planning, even 
though MOT has the lead on APEC issues.  End comment. 
 
9. (U) Mr. Michalak has cleared this cable. 
 
MARINE