VZCZCXRO7653
RR RUEHAG RUEHAP RUEHDE RUEHDF RUEHGI RUEHHM RUEHLZ RUEHMA RUEHMR
RUEHPA RUEHPB RUEHRN
DE RUEHWL #0046 0450333
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 140333Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 5061
INFO RUEHXQ/ALL EUROPEAN UNION POST
RUCNWTO/WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION COLLECTIVE
RUEHBY/AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 5098
RUEHNZ/AMCONSUL AUCKLAND 1616
RUEHDN/AMCONSUL SYDNEY 0636
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0487
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHDC
RUEHBS/USEU BRUSSELS
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
RHFJUSC/US CUSTOMS SERVICE WASHINGTON DC
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC 0212

UNCLAS WELLINGTON 000046 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
EAP/ANP, EEB FOR AARON SCHIBE, STATE PASS TO USTR FOR B 
NORTON, J WEISS, COMMERCE FOR E BRZYTWA 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ETRD WTRO ECON NZ
SUBJECT: WTO DEMARCHE REQUEST - U.S./EC TAFT PROPOSAL 
 
REF: SECSTATE 12905 
 
¶1. (SBU) Econoff together with EU's Charge' d'Affaire George 
Cunningham, jointly delivered reftel demarche points to Mark 
Trainor, Deputy Director of the Goods Trade Negotiations 
Division and Andrew White of the New Zealand Ministry of 
Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) inviting GNZ to join as 
co-sponsor of the U.S./EC textiles, apparel, footwear and 
travel goods (TAFT) Proposal. Trainor's initial response was 
that while New Zealand could see some benefit in this kind of 
proposal, and as their own forestry non-tariff barrier (NTB) 
proposal demonstrates, they share the goal of clarifying the 
implementation of the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) 
Agreement.  It was apparent in the course of the demarche 
that there had been considerable internal discussion both 
within MFAT and with their Mission in Geneva on this topic 
prior to the meeting and that the text of the TAFT Proposal 
had been carefully studied. 
 
¶2. (U) In response, Mr. Trainor began by explaining that 
there were a number of issues which have precluded GNZ from 
supporting the U.S./EC proposal thus far. His concerns are 
summarized as follows: 
 
-- that this proposal would elevate ("prioritize") a number 
of types of labeling (e.g. country of origin, fiber content) 
to a level above safety labeling.  He said that MFAT has some 
difficulty in seeing the justification for giving special 
status to, e.g., country of origin labeling ahead of, e.g., 
safety labeling.  He is concerned that the proposal would 
provide a "safe harbor" for those kinds of labeling, where 
they would automatically be deemed consistent with the TBT 
Agreement. On the other hand, safety labeling would have to 
be proven to be "no more restrictive than necessary" to be 
consistent with the Agreement. 
 
-- New Zealand requires that some children's nightwear carry 
a stand alone high fire danger label. They are concerned that 
this would be incompatible with Article 4.3 of the U.S./EC 
proposal. 
 
-- MFAT has a more general concern with Article 4.2 - while 
the provision does not run counter to New Zealand's current 
approach to labeling; the way it is worded may become 
problematic in the future. For example, if a firm wants to 
label their clothing as "carbon neutral" or "sustainable" or 
with another environmental claim, it would be important for 
consumers to be able to trust such a label. This could 
require third party certification.   MFAT is interested to 
know what kind of measures the U.S./EC are trying to capture 
with this provision, and if it could be amended to take 
account of this issue. 
 
-- MFAT is interested in articles 5 and 6 of the proposal. 
Can the U.S./EC confirm that they are designed to tighten the 
requirements around making TBT notifications around totally 
chlorine free (TCF) labeling requirements (i.e. to remove the 
need for: 
 a) the measure to not be based on international standards and 
 b) the need for the measure to have a significant effect on 
the trade of other members in order for the notification 
obligation to kick in). 
If so, why does U.S/EC feel those requirements should be 
tightened? 
 
¶3. (U) Post seeks clarification to the issues raised by MFAT 
in hope of allying their concerns and thus securing their 
support for the U.S./EC TAFT proposal. 
MCCORMICK