The European Roundtable of Industrialists [63] has long been deeply involved in the push for investment liberalization, and has built a very comprehensive strategy to this end. While supporting the MAI, its main objective is an investment agreement at the WTO. [64] As early as its 1993 report "European Industry - A Partner for the Developing World", the ERT had stressed the need for "a GATT for investment" and "an institution that could take stock of improvements and be able to lock in the process of liberalization". [65] This point has been often repeated in the five reports on investment produced by the ERT North-South working group since 1993. ERT president Helmut Maucher, who also heads the International Chamber of Commerce and is the CEO of Nestle, chairs this working group.
The ERT has long played an active role in setting the EU policy agenda. In making the case for investment deregulation, roundtable members are in direct contact with European leaders and the European Commission as well as with Third World governments. The Roundtable is jubilant about the positive effects achieved by two of its proposed tools to further economic globalization: competition on rules (the race to provide companies with the most favourable investment conditions) and benchmarking (encouraging countries to compare their investment climate, including levels of deregulation). "Competition on rules and benchmarking have proven to be among the most effective drivers of the present process of opening the economy, deregulating and modernizing the institutions for private business investments." [66] These concepts, presented in a 1993 survey on investment [67] have been eagerly adopted by decision makers: "In the developing world it positively influenced attitudes and policies ... it may have had an impact on the views and policies of the European Commission and European governments in external economic relations in many different ways." [68]
The ERT advocates an investment agreement within WTO which would include the main elements of the MAI but would extend even further. According to the ERT, a WTO treaty should ensure "continuous opening, also on the sub-federal level" through "rules and criteria for efficient public policy benchmarking and institutionalized peer review". [69] The WTO treaty should be flexible in order to "extend the coverage of the framework to additional relevant areas". The ERT's dream treaty would also include international competition policy "able to address structural impediments" to market access which foreign investors might come across, "defining the relevant market as more and as global".
The ERT seems overly optimistic about the time frame for the completion of the WTO agreement they desire, proposing a "structured debate on strategy and concepts for a global agreement on investment at the next WTO Ministerial expected in June 1998," and the "rapid conclusion of an agreement of the new kind". [70] No doubt they will receive full support from the European Commission, one of the main advocates of a MIA within the WTO. Trade Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan, in reaction to the 1996 ERT survey on conditions for foreign investment, said: "I was particularly struck by the message that we needed to think about the best role of international negotiation, and to strike a balance between using the WTO to establish agreed best practice and using the WTO process to create more modern and dynamic instruments such as public policy benchmarking. My own hope is that WTO can do both." [71]
The ERT has strategically facilitated the softening of developing country opposition to a WTO investment agreement. Many Third World countries have argued that discussion on investment should be held within the framework of the UNCTAD, so at the end of 1997 the ERT co-organized a meeting on investment with this organization. In attendance were 16 CEOs from ERT member companies (including ABB, British Petroleum, Krupp, Nestle and Shell) ICC Secretary General Maria Livanos Cattaui, and 25 Geneva-based ambassadors. The meeting, focused on "dialogue on matters concerning FDI and the development dimension of the issues and concepts relevant to a possible multilateral framework on investment", used the June 1997 ERT investment report as a basis for discussions. [72]
UNICE: A Supportive Role
UNICE, the European employers' organization, tends to play a more reactive role than the ERT, generally responding to specific EU policies as they emerge. As the EU has not officially released its position on the MAI, UNICE has thus far taken a back seat in the negotiations. Nonetheless, the group strongly supports the MAI and is represented in the negotiations through its BIAC membership. [73] Additionally, UNICE is a strong proponent of a multilateral agreement on investment within the WTO. [74]
Non-European Corporate Lobbies and the MAI
US Council for International Business
When it comes to lobbying for the MAI, one of the most influential industry groups has proven to be the US Council for International Business (USCIB). Founded in 1945 "to promote an open system of world trade, investment and finance", [75] it counts over 300 corporations, industry lobby groups, law firms and banks among its membership — including the American Petroleum Institute, BP America, Coca-Cola, Chevron, Dupont, General Electric, General Motors, the Global Climate Coalition, Honeywell, Ford, McDonalds, Mobil, Monsanto, Nestle USA, Philip Morris, Shell, Texaco and Unilever. The USCIB is the US affiliate of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and the International Organization of Employers (IOE), and most significantly, chairs the expert group of the OECD's Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC).
150 CEOs are busy pushing for investment liberalization through the USCIB's Investment Committee, chaired by Glen Skovholt of the Honeywell corporation. [76] This policy committee has been very active on the MAI, and has used its widespread corporate tentacles for various pressure tactics. In addition to regular meetings with US negotiators immediately before and after each MAI negotiating session, the USCIB has also arranged direct access for it members to Ambassador Frans Engering, chairman of the OECD MAI negotiating group. Domestic support for MAI has been created by the USCIB's collaboration with groups such as the National Governors' Association and the Council of State Government.
The USCIB's interest in investment liberalization initiatives is not restricted to the MAI in the OECD. Facilitated by its membership in bodies like the Business Advisory Council for APEC and the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue (TABD), where it co-chairs the working group on investment, the USCIB ensures that investment remains at the top of the agenda in all relevant fora, including the WTO and regional treaties. Overseas pressure is also a tactic, and a USCIB delegation visited the Japanese business organization Keidanren in Kyoto in order to enlist support for US business objectives in the MAI. [77] There is no doubt that the USCIB has influenced the MAI from the beginning of the process. In 1991, four years before official negotiations began and long before MAI was out in the open, the USCIB was already providing input on pre-negotiation work. Later, in March of 1995, the Council released a statement clarifying US business objectives, which in its own words "formed the basis of the formal BIAC submission to the OECD". [78]
The USCIB is clear about why it desires a MAI treaty: "The MAI should eliminate many of the restrictions which make it too costly for US firms to access foreign markets", according to Stephen Canner, the USCIB's Vice-President for Investment Policy. (79) Consequently, the USCIB agrees with other industry groups that the inclusion of labour and environmental provisions in the MAI would be an enormous blunder, and has encouraged the US administration to resist pressure from these interests. [80] Such provisions, it believes, "will deter key LDCs (Least Developed Countries), who are not members of the OECD, from adhering [and] thereby undercut a major objective of the United States — to have a number of key non-OECD member countries join the MAI before beginning negotiations on investment in the WTO". [81]
Recently the USCIB has shifted its focus to ensure that any reference to labour and environment in the MAI remains non-binding, threatening to withdraw its support for the MAI if this line is crossed. [82] The trio of provisions (the so-called "three-anchor approach") that the group could swallow coincides with the environmental provisions presented by the US. These are a non-binding preambular statement on sustainable development, a non-binding provision on not lowering standards to attract foreign investment, and a non-binding attachment to the OECD's 1974 Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
The USCIB also invested some energy in damage control after NGO campaigning in the US had stirred up some serious public doubts about the MAI. In December of 1997, the USCIB published a letter in the Washington Times [83] trying to calm fears about the MAI. The letter mocks the concerns of MAI critics, sarcastically asking: "Will the MAI allow big, bad multinational corporations to trample the rights of poor countries, undermine existing national environmental legislation and take away from U.S. states their constitutional rights? Let's look at the facts..." and referring to "the feverish atmosphere of internet chat rooms". [84] The bottom line, the groups argues, is that investment is not bad for the environment, and that it will benefit "the United States in general ... making the economic pie grow both here and abroad. [85]
Business Council on National Issues
Founded in 1976 by the CEOs of US-based Imperial Oil and Noranda, the Business Council on National Issues (BCNI) is Canada's version of the European and US business roundtables. Among its 30 members are the CEOs of several large banks and major Canadian and foreign companies including Air Canada, AT&T, Bechtel, Bombardier, Canadian Pacific, Cargill, Dupont, General Motors, Hewlett-Packard, Loram, MacMillan Bloedel, Mitsubishi, Monsanto, Nestle, Northern Telecom, Petro Canada and Placer Dome.
Over the past two decades, the BCNI's relationship with successive Canadian governments has become increasingly intimate. The lobby group worked strenuously for the passage of the 1988 Canadian-US Free Trade Agreement, [86] and organized a costly campaign to secure the election of the current neoliberal government. However, the BCNI's approach to the MAI has been less aggressive, perhaps due to the group's wish to sweeten its negative public image. In the November 1997 MAI hearings, the BCNI professed its strong support for the Paris negotiations, focusing on the people-pleasing job creation aspects that such a treaty would bring — "recent studies have indicated that for each billion dollars invested over a five-year period in Canada, something in the order of 45,000 jobs are created." [87]
BCNI companies have also used other fora to fight for their favourite provisions in the MAI. Lobbying has been conducted through the Canadian Chamber of Commerce and the Canadian Council for International Business, and the BCNI is also a member of the OECD's official business advisory council, BIAC. In particular, the BCNI is strongly opposed to the EU's general exception for regional economic integration agreements (which would permit EU member states to discriminate against non-members), and, in solidarity with the USCIB, was quite disappointed at the recent rejection of "fast track" negotiating privileges for the president by the US Congress. [88]
KEIDANREN
Keidanren, the most representative Japanese business coalition with over 1000 members (including Toyota, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Sony, Sakura Bank and Nippon Steel Corporation), has also been active pushing for the MAI. As Japan and South Korea are the only Asian OECD members, Keidanren's main goal is to sign as many developing countries as possible on to the MAI. Thus, while urging that the MAI remain a high standard agreement, it recommends flexibility to facilitate the membership of non-OECD countries. In addition, Keidanren has joined forces with UNICE to encourage the creation of a multilateral framework on investment at the WTO [89] and simultaneously urges investment liberalization through bilateral and regional agreements such as APEC.
Although generally pleased with MAI developments, Keidanren is disappointed that two of its main objectives — taxation and key personnel (which allows special privileges for corporate staff) — have been carved out of the agreement. The Japanese lobby group is also trying to reduce general exemptions to the bare minimum, for instance strongly opposing REIO (Regional Economic Integration Organization) clauses such as the one proposed for EU members and rejecting extra-territoriality (such as the US Helms-Burton act that punishes corporations active in Cuba), yet preferring that all sub-national levels of governments be fully bound by MAI. Though less aggressively than its US partners, Keidanren worries that additional labour and environmental regulations would prevent non-OECD members from signing on to the MAI. [90]
For more information about the European and international lobby groups described in this briefing, the following publications are available from Corporate Europe Observatory:
[1] European Commission Press Release: "Commission Launches Discussion Paper on Worldwide Investment Rules". IP/95/52, 19 January 1995.
[2] ICC report "Multilateral Rules for Investment", 30 April 1996.
[3] Financial Times, 2 February 1998
[4] Source: OECD web site — http://www.oecd.org/
[5] Ibid.
[6] Interview with Jan Huner, deputy of Mr. Engering, head of the MAI negotiations, 28/1 1998. Huner did not mention Slovakia, which has previously often been mentioned as a candidate.
[7] For an extensive overview of glocalization and other new corporate market strategies, see the article "Who Competes? Changing Landscapes of Corporate Control," Nicholas Hildyard, Colin Hines and Tim Lang, The Ecologist, Vol. 26, No. 4, July/August 1996.
[8] Based on UNCTAD figures, Third World Resurgence, no. 79, p.18.
[9] Testimony by Lori Wallach, Public Citizen, before the US Congress International Trade Commission, 15 May 1997.
[10] UNCTAD World Investment Report 1997.
[11] "International Investments", drs. P. Schuurman and drs. J.P. Huner, discussion paper for the Directorate General for Foreign Economic Relations, The Hague, February 1996.
[12] Interview with Jan Huner, OECD, 28 January 1998.
[13] William H. Witherell, Director for Financial, Fiscal and Enterprise Affairs at the OECD, in "The OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment", Transnational Corporations, vol. 4, no. 2, August 1995, p. 8.
[14] "These groups dealt, respectively, with liberalization obligations under existing OECD instruments, liberalization obligations in new areas, investment protection, dispute settlement and the involvement of non-members and institutional matters." Idem.
[15] Witherell, p. 12. The bulk of these consultations were with the members of the OECD's advisory group on investment, which includes the Central and Eastern European countries, and in 'policy dialogue workshops' with Southeast Asian and Latin American countries.
[16] Under the 1975 Lome Convention, the 70 ACP countries were allowed duty-free exports into the EU as a form of aid. The Lome Convention is now being renegotiated.
[17] This was reported to have happened for instance at the meeting between EU and ACP countries in Kampala, Uganda in October 1997. Third World Network Features, 1680/97, Roberto Bissio, p. 3.
[18] As the Dutch OECD negotiators wrote in their first report to the Dutch Parliament, "the function of the treaty that will be agreed upon in the OECD framework is precisely to give the other WTO countries an idea of what kind of elements a multilateral policy framework contains. The MAI therefore fulfils a catalyzing role in the further development of policy consensus in this field." Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Van Dok-van Weelen in her first report on the MAI to the Dutch Parliament, "De onderhandelingen binnen de OESO inzake een Multilateraal Akkoord over investeringen", 2 November 1995.
[19] "The Multilateral Investment Agreement", by Frans Engering, in Transnational Corporations, vol. 5, no. 3 (December 1996).
[20] USCIB Investment Committee, USCIB web site.
[21] Cases would be facilitated by the International Chamber of Commerce's (ICC) Court of Arbitration, the World Bank's International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes [ICSID) or the UNCITRAL rules (UNCITRAL is an UN agency which has developed rules for arbitration in international commercial disputes).
[22] USCIB Investment Committee, USCIB web site.
[23] Confidential official source.
[24] ICC Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy, Document n. 103/179 Rev., April 30th 1996.
[25] Report to the Dutch Parliament, November 1995, Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Van Dok-van Weelen, p. 4 (our translation).
[26] Idem.
[27] According to Dutch negotiator Marinus Sikkel at public hearing on the MAI in Utrecht, the Netherlands, 3 February 1998.
[28] NGOs called for the suspension of negotiations to allow for public participation in the negotiations, "an independent and comprehensive assessment of the social, environmental, and development impact of the MAI with full public participation," the observation of binding environment, labour, health, safety and human rights standards, the elimination of the investor state dispute settlement mechanism as well as the expropriation provision of the MAI, and the renegotiation of the terms of withdrawal".
[29] Chairman's Opening Remarks, 15 January 1998, p. 1.
[30] BIAC consultation, 15 January 1998.
[31] US Council on International Business web page.
[32] TUAC web page
[33] TUAC's concrete demands are the incorporation of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises into the MAI, a structure to ensure the implementation of the guidelines, the commitment to enforce basic workers' rights, and the provision that foreign investment must not violate domestic or internationally recognized labour standards. "The Multilateral Agreement on Investment: Key Issues for Trade Unions", TUAC Briefing Note for Affiliates, September 1997.
[34] Interview with Roy Jones, TUAC secretariat, 26 January 1998.
[35] This shared responsibility is not clearly defined in any EU treaty, but is based on a decision by the European Court of Justice on the Uruguay Round of the GATT. MEPs have asked about the Commission about this shared responsibility and received vague responses.
[36] Sir Leon Brittan in a speech on investment at a conference organized by the Royal Institute for International Affairs (Chatham House) and the London School of Economics. Quoted in a European Commission Press Release: "Commission Calls on European Business to Intensify Worldwide Investment Efforts. IP/95/269, 17 March 1995.
[37] Draft Report on the Negotiations in the Framework of the OECD on a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI), Committee of External Economic Relations, 17 December 1997.
[38] "Competition on rules" refers to steps that governments take to attract foreign investors, and may include relaxing environmental and social regulations, tax breaks, the establishment of free trade zones, and so forth.
[39] World Investment Report 1997.
[40] Financial Times, 2 February 1998
[41] This consensus was confirmed at several 1995 summits, including the Halifax G-7 Summit in June and the Trans-Atlantic Summit between the EU and US in December.
[42] EU Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan explained the two-track strategy as follows: "We must tell our non-OECD partners in the WTO what we are doing among ourselves, overcome their fears that an investment initiative goes against their interests, and prepare the ground for decisions in the inaugural WTO Ministerial in the Autumn of 1996. By then, the OECD will be nearing the end of a planned two-year negotiation: WTO will be well placed to consider a complementary negotiating mandate to free investment flows worldwide." Source: see footnote 36.
[43] Taken from a speech by Sir Leon Brittan at the Stockholm Trade Policy Seminar, 23 October 1995.
[44] Martin Khor in Third World Network Features 1409/96.
[45] For instance in "European Industry: A Partner for the Developing World. Foreign Direct Investment as a Tool for Economic Development and Cooperation - Suggestions for Future Improvement", ERT, 1993, p. 35.
[46] Chakravarthi Raghavan in Third World Network Features, 1404/96, p. 1.
[47] Chakravarthi Raghavan in Third World Network Features, 1527/96.
[48] The eight countries were Egypt, Indonesia, Ghana, Haiti, India, Malaysia, Tanzania and Uganda. The position of the eight countries was later echoed by the 11 trade ministers of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Martin Khor, Third World Network Features, 546/96, p. 5.
[49] Idem, p. 4.
[50] Idem
[51] "The Outcome of Singapore - Statement by Sir Leon Brittan — Vice-President of the EU Commission", 13 Dec 1996, IP/96/1172.
[52] Martin Khor, Third World Network Features, 1547/96, p.4.
[53] Interview with Mr. Koulen, WTO Division for Intellectual Property Rights and Investment, 30 January 1998.
[54] Report (1997) to the General Council.
[55] "Investment Liberalization: A New Issue for the WTO", address by the Right Honourable Sir Leon Brittan, Vice-President of the European Commission, Cologne, 11 June 1996.
[56] "World business urges global investment pact", ICC Statement from November 11, 1996. The World Investment Forum took place 10 October 1996 in Geneva, Switzerland. Douglas A. Gregory of IBM Canada Ltd and ICC Secretary General Maria Livanos Cattaui.
[57] The Nation, 24 December 1997.
[58] The Chambers of Commerce are organized in the International Bureau of Chambers of Commerce (IBCC)
[59] Interview January 29 1998 with Vincent J. O'Brien, Deputy Director of Communications, ICC.
[60] ICC - The World Business Organization in 1997, p. 4.
[61] ICC Commission on International Trade and Investment Policy, Document no. 103/179 Rev., 30 April 1996.
[62] Ibid, p. 3.
[63] A think tank, research and lobby group representing some 47 of the largest European transnational corporations in Europe, for more information see "Europe, Inc.", information in the Resource section of this briefing.
[64] ERT, "European Industry and the Developing World — For a Global Framework of Mutual Interest and Trust", June 1997, p.9.
[65] ERT, "European Industry: A Partner for the Developing World. Foreign Direct Investment as a Tool for Economic Development and Cooperation - Suggestions for Future Improvement", 1993, p. 35.
[66] ERT, "Investment in the Developing World: New Openings and Challenges for European Industry", December 1996, p.13.
[67] ERT, "Survey on Improvements in Conditions for Investment in the Developing World, 1993.
[68] ERT, "Investment in the Developing World: New Openings and Challenges for European Industry", December 1996, p.13.
[69] Peer review is a traditional system at the OECD in which countries are encouraged to reach common positions in a committee rather than through a dispute settlement procedure. Source of this section: ERT, European Industry and the Developing World - For a Global Framework of Mutual Interest and Trust, June 1997, p.9.
[70] Idem, Foreword by Helmut Maucher.
[71] Idem p. 5.
[72] UNCTAD Press release, 8 December 1997.
[73] Phone conversation with UNICE, January 1998.
[74] Joint statements from UNICE and Keidanren, 23 November 1995 and 13 December 1996.
[75] Source: USCIB web site, http://www.imex.com/uscib/)
[76] Honeywell and General Electric were the first two companies investigated under NAFTA's side agreement for labour violations in their Mexican maquiladoras. Source: "USCIB's Corporate Crime Blotter, or Levelling the Playing Field for Felons", Michelle Sforza, Preamble Collaborative, draft January 1998.
[77] USCIB web site
[78] USCIB press release, 24 May 1995.
[79] Idem.
[80] Idem.
[81] USCIB's President Abraham Katz, letter to US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky.
[82] USCIB President Abraham Katz's letter to US Deputy Trade Representative Jeffrey Lang, "USCIB Concerns with Environmental Provisions for the MAI", 11 July 1997.
[83] The Washington Times is well known for the sympathetic representation of business interests in its pages. Fred Singer, leader of the Science and Environment Project, an industry lobby which organized an aggressive misinformation campaign against climate change prevention, is on the newspaper's council.
[84] Timothy E. Deal, Senior Vice President, USCIB, "Why We Need the Multilateral Agreement on Investment" in the Washington Times, 25 December 1997.
[85] Idem.
[86] The FTA was the basis for the NAFTA agreement.
[87] Stuart Carre, BCNI, in front of the Sub-Committee on International Trade, Trade Disputes and Investment of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, 25 November 1997.
[88] "This has cast a pall of uncertainty over the ability of US negotiators to deliver on any negotiated trade and investment agreements, and that includes the MAI." Idem.
[89] Statement by Keidanren and UNICE at the WTO Ministerial Conference, Singapore, 13 December 1996.
[90] Keidanren's Views on MAI Negotiations, 17 June 1997
[91] The WBCSD has many renowned corporate polluters as members — including British Petroleum, Cargill, Fiat, General Motors, ICI, Lafarge, Monsanto, Nestle, Philips, Procter & Gamble, Rio Tinto Zinc, Son, Statoil, Texaco, Toyota, Unilever, Volvo, Waste Management International, Western Mining Corporation and Weyerhaeuser.
[92] E-mail from Marcel Engel, WBCSD, 29-01-98.
[93] Letter dated 9 January 1998.
[94] The Action Plan which came out of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit.
Copyright: Corporate Europe Observatory, February 1998
Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO)
corporateeurope.org> <ceo