From yesterday’s daily press briefing at the State Department, spokesperson is Victoria Nuland (married to neoconservative Robert Kagan). I don’t know who asked this smart question:

Question: Just tangentially on this UNESCO issue, there was a report – I think it was on NPR or something – about a recent intelligence report that found that China is the biggest offender of economic espionage and violators of international property, and that this was becoming a – quickly becoming a national security issue – issues of China and intellectual property. And I’m wondering if the very likely possibility that the Palestinians go to the World International Property Organization and your possibility that you might withdraw funding, I mean, this – don’t you think this would become a major national security issue for you?

MS. NULAND:

Well, we did speak about this on Tuesday, that there is a concern in the context of a cascade that the next shoe to drop could be WIPO and that WIPO has significant implications for U.S. business because it’s an organization that we’re very active in in trying to maintain the highest intellectual property standards for our companies globally. So I think you’re identifying some of the reasons that we would be concerned if we were unable to participate fully in an organization like WIPO.

QUESTION: But when the intelligence community senses China as a offender of economic espionage, is this stand – do you believe that this stand that you’re taking on this issue of the Palestinians is worth sacrificing your own national security?

MS. NULAND: Well, first of all, I’m not going to get into intelligence reports. Second, as we try to work on these issues in organizations like WIPO, we also have a very active and rigorous bilateral conversation with China on international property protections – copyright, et cetera – and that is something that we’ve worked on together for many years. We’ve made some progress, but more progress needs to be made. So we will continue to pursue our objectives, first and foremost in the bilateral channel. But obviously, we don’t want to lose the ability to create strong international standards that everybody would adhere to through the international organizations —

QUESTION: But it sounds like you’re saying you could live without WIPO, though.

MS. NULAND: I did not say that. We want to be able to stay active and strong participants in WIPO because we think it’s valuable.

QUESTION: What’s the U.S. contribution to WIPO? Because I believe it’s self-funding. I’m not sure there is any.

MS. NULAND: It’s actually relatively small. I believe it’s like 2 percent of their budget, so it’s not on the scale of UNESCO