We've been putting all of our eggs, basically, in the FTAA basket. We were hoping that a Free Trade Area of the Americas would be the next step forward and we would be able to build a regional trade agreement, and of course that collapsed for whatever reason two or three years ago.
Part of the reason we've put emerging markets so high up in the foreign policy agenda is because that's where global growth is happening. I mean, ultimately, trade has to follow where the growth is happening, where the consumers are. So I would look to countries like China and India, recognizing that it's going to be tough negotiating because they're very different cultures and economies at a very different stage of development.
I'll give you a counter-example. We've put a lot of energy into trying to deepen our trade relationship with Europe and with the EU, and it's given us almost nothing. Much as I like the sense that Premier Charest brought to trying to re-energize trade with Europe last week, my fear is that we are really small potatoes compared to a European economy of 450 million people. Their interest is of course in the United States. So one lens we'll have to look through is whether it's bilateral or really it's going to be increasingly region-to-region negotiations.
I would argue part of the reason we're pursuing Korea right now, for example, is because the Americans got there first. They're talking to the Koreans about free trade as well, and we have to decide whether we're going to be “me too”s, trying to always catch up with what the American are doing, or are we prepared to really take the bold step forward and say that we have to look at this as a North American regional engagement with Europe, with Asia.