News Stories Archives

USCIB Mission to Geneva Targets UN Agencies

Published on April 30, 2018

In an effort to ensure inclusivity and transparency of international policy deliberations for business at the United Nations, USCIB organized a Geneva “door knock” meeting to UN and multilateral institutions last week, bringing together a USCIB delegation of members and staff to meet with UN agencies, officials in the U.S. Mission to the United Nations and other important government representatives in order to highlight American policy priorities and concerns. The topical areas and issues of concern included food and agriculture, healthcare, intellectual property and innovation, sustainability, environment and chemicals, and trade.

USCIB presented itself as a unique business organization, affiliated with ICC, IOE and Business at OECD (BIAC), and constructively involved in an array of UN institutions, with positive examples of the benefits of such engagement. USCIB members spoke to how U.S. business innovation, investment, and partnership deliver global progress advancing economic benefits in the U.S. and globally, with examples found on USCIB’s Businessfor2030 web platform, and argued for enabling frameworks of policy, markets and governance.

The USCIB member delegation met with the World Health Organization (WHO), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the World Trade Organization, and UN Environment, as well as country missions, including the U.S., UK, Japan and Brazil.

The delegation was led by USCIB Vice President for Strategic International Engagement, Environment and Energy Norine Kennedy, Vice President for Product Policy and Innovation Mike Michener, Senior Director for Membership Alison Hoiem, and Policy Assistant Mia Lauter. USCIB members include representatives from Cargill, AbINBev, CropLife, Ferrero, Sidley and GMA.

Watch Michener’s report from the field below!

The Hill: Trump Aiming to Make NAFTA Like a Football Game Without Referees

Published on April 26, 2018

Op-Ed by USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson as appeared on TheHill.com

The business community is broadly supportive of efforts to update and strengthen the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA has been a major success for the United States, as well as our Canadian and Mexican partners.

But it’s now a quarter-century old and lacks rules in important new areas like digital trade, data flows and treatment of state-owned enterprises. A modernization that will bring NAFTA into the 21st century would be a welcome development, provided that it keeps what is already working in the agreement.

Since we are living in an age where the benefits of global economic integration are not well understood or appreciated, it’s worth backing up a bit to ask: What is a free trade agreement (FTA) anyway? Also, why would countries want to enter into an FTA?

The United States currently has FTAs with 20 countries, but other countries around the world have entered into several hundred bilateral and regional FTAs since the end of World War II.

They have done so not to cede sovereignty or export jobs overseas — two of the widely held misconceptions about trade agreements. Rather, they enter into FTAs in order to grow their economies through mutually beneficial cross-border trade and investment.

FTAs historically have provided preferences to the negotiating parties primarily centered around tariff-free trade. More recent trade agreements, including NAFTA, also include provisions on customs and trade facilitation, investment protection, regulatory standards, environment and labor and many other issues.

The key to reaping the benefits of an FTA and ensuring that it benefits U.S. companies, workers and consumers is to enforce the rules of the agreement in the event of a breach. In short, a new NAFTA must be fully enforceable.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Trump administration may want to weaken NAFTA’s core enforcement provisions. Such a change would spell disaster, akin to playing football or any other sport without a referee.

NAFTA currently has three strong chapters that provide for enforcement and redress: Chapter 11, which covers disputes between investors and states; Chapter 19, which covers anti-dumping measures and countervailing duties; and Chapter 20, which covers state-to-state disputes.

The United States has put forth proposals on each of these chapters, ranging from weakening the provision to entirely eliminating the chapter. If all of these proposals were to be included in NAFTA 2.0, there would be no provision available to provide legal recourse to an injured party against the party in breach of any of the substantive provisions.

Simply put, an agreement without enforceability would be bad for business. The Trump administration’s proposal for an “opt-in” approach to NAFTA’s existing dispute resolution mechanisms is no substitute for real, recognized, agreed and enforceable rules in this area.

Without substantive provisions protecting investment, including investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), it’s very unlikely that the United States would gain the very tangible benefits it gets from open investment among the three NAFTA partners.

ISDS depoliticizes the enforcement of important investment rules by putting the dispute in the realm of neutral and legal arbitration.

U.S. investors, including the many smaller and medium-sized companies that have expanded sales and operations north and south of the border under NAFTA, would be far less willing to do business in Canada or Mexico if those governments couldn’t be held responsible for poor treatment or abuse of power.

The same goes for Canadian or Mexican investors in the United States, who have created many thousands of jobs here at home since NAFTA came into effect.

More broadly, you have to ask yourself: What good is a free trade agreement without enforcement provisions? The law of the Wild West is not the sort of formula needed to govern international trade and investment in today’s complex globalized international economy.

To extend the sports metaphor, the Trump administration seems to be more focused on playing defense than offense, preoccupied with eliminating tried-and-true principles because they impinge on our unilateral ability to block imports, discriminate against foreign products or projects and simply ignore inconvenient rules and regulations.

Historically, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the United States has played offense. Indeed, we have been the star quarterback of the pro-growth team, leading international efforts to open markets, fight protectionism, promote greater international competition and uphold the rule of law.

A key part of this has been our insistence on strong enforcement provisions, i.e., referees with real whistles and real authority. For the U.S. now to focus on defense while also throwing away the rulebook is truly troubling.

Peter M. Robinson is president and CEO of the United States Council for International Business a business advocacy group that was founded in 1945 to promote free trade and help represent U.S. business in the then-new United Nations.

Donnelly Defends Strong Investment Protections at UNCITRAL Meeting in New York

Published on April 24, 2018

USCIB Vice President for Investment Policy Shaun Donnelly is on the front lines this week defending international investment protections, and Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) specifically, at the United Nations in New York City.  Donnelly is the only U.S. business representative with formal observer status at the April 23-27 meeting of the UN Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Working Group III on “Investor-State Dispute Settlement Reform.”

“Yesterday’s opening session showed that we on the business side are facing real challenges on ISDS with developing countries and NGO activists pushing to overturn 60 years precedent of legal protections for foreign investors with access to expert neutral arbitration to resolve disputes,” said Donnelly. “The European Union’s defection from strong ISDS provisions in their broad networks of investment agreements has given ISDS critics an unfortunate boost. The EU is aggressively and unhelpfully pushing its ‘multilateral investment court system’ in the UNCITRAL meetings this week. And the shift in recent months in the U.S. Administration’s  views on ISDS, also reflected in the on-going NAFTA update negotiations, is a further complication.”

Throughout the week, Donnelly will be reminding government delegates and other participants that investment, including Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), is the driver of economic growth, competitiveness, exports and jobs. And strong investment agreements with effective enforcement provisions can play a critical role in facilitating private investment flows.

“ISDS has worked well; governments like the U.S. with open investment regimes and strong rule-of- law culture do not lose ISDS cases,” Donnelly added. “But governments which discriminate or abuse foreign investors, tilt or rewrite the rules, need to be disciplined; ISDS offers investors those vital protections.”

Donnelly, a retired U.S. diplomat and trade negotiator before joining USCIB, made similar points in his presentation in a public “Open Form” session at the Grand Hyatt on April 23 hosted by Columbia University’s Center for Sustainable Investment for UNCITRAL participants, invited guests and the media.

Donnelly noted, “Now is the time for business representatives to speak up on the importance of strong international investment agreements.  Foreign investment, and especially ISDS, are under orchestrated attacks including a lot of disinformation. USCIB will be taking the lead in getting the facts our about foreign investment issues and ISDS. The best, strongest trade and investment agreements only deliver results when they include strong enforcement provisions to ensure compliance by all parties. ISDS is a proven formula to deliver effective, apolitical, fair enforcement.”

US and Canada ICC National Arbitration Committees Hold Annual Meeting

Published on April 23, 2018

 

Axel Baum receives award

The co-chairs of USCIB/ICC USA’s and ICC Canada’s Arbitration Expatriate Subcommittees, Charles Kaplan of Orrick and Aren Goldsmith of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP organized their annual joint meeting in Paris on April 9th. The meeting was also organized by Andrew McDougall and Kirsten Odynski both of White & Case.

Held at Orrick, the co-chairs opened the meeting and introduced Alexander Fessas, secretary general of the ICC Court, who gave a presentation about recent developments at the ICC Court. Thereafter, Chris Moore of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP in London discussed the ICC Practice Note on summary dispositions and its future application. Vasuda Sinha of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer’s Paris office ended the substantive segment of the meeting with a presentation comparing the practice of the Canadian, U.S. and Paris national courts in supporting the taking of evidence for use in international arbitrations.

The meeting ended with McDougall providing an update on ICC Canada’s activities, and Grant Hanessian, chair of the USCIB/ICC USA arbitration committee, discussing recent developments with the group.

At that time, Nancy Thevenin, USCIB’s general counsel, presented Axel Baum of Hughes Hubbard & Reed, LLP with a plaque recognizing him for “his many years of leadership of the U.S. arbitration community in Europe and long-standing service on the ICC Arbitration Commission.”

Baum, who was one of the longest serving U.S. members of the ICC Commission, also served as the first chair of the U.S.’s arbitration expatriate committee and helped start the yearly tradition of the joint meeting. Baum also oversaw the transition of group’s leadership to Kaplan and Goldsmith.

USCIB Promotes ATA Carnet as Tool for Department of Commerce

Published on April 17, 2018
Andy Shiles (left) with Under Secretary for International Trade, Department of Commerce Gilbert Kaplan (right)

USCIB joined a breakfast meeting in New York with the Under Secretary for International Trade with the Department of Commerce Gilbert Kaplan last week. NY District Department of Commerce Director Carmela Mammas and Joe Schoonmaker from the NY District Export Council (NYDEC) hosted the meeting, which was attended by Andy Shiles, USCIB’s senior vice president for ATA Carnet and trade services.

Kaplan discussed the effort of the Department of Commerce offices to reach out and collaborate with U.S. Ambassadors around the world to utilize Embassies for networking and meeting opportunities for American businesses to establish and strengthen business relationships in other countries to help stimulate international trade.

“There are exciting times in the world of international trade,” commented Shiles. “Under Secretary Kaplan received excellent comments from several representing the NYDEC. You can guess that we also discussed the use of an ATA Carnet as one of the tools the Department of Commerce should promote with small and medium sized companies as they strive to expand the international markets for US goods.”

Over 100 Business Representatives Lobby Senate on NAFTA

Published on April 17, 2018

Following previous successful NAFTA Senate Lobby Days, USCIB once again participated last week, joining more than 100 representatives from the agriculture and business community to talk about private sector concerns and perspectives regarding the ongoing negotiations to modernize NAFTA. The Senate Lobby Day, as in the past, was coordinated as a larger Coalition effort by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

“The purpose of this day was to increase support in light of the high-level talks among the NAFTA countries currently taking place in DC,” noted Eva Hampl, USCIB director for investment, trade and financial services. “There is concern in the business community about the Administration’s alleged push to conclude an agreement on an accelerated timeline.”

Hampl led one of the groups that went up to the Hill last week, where she met with several Republican and Democratic Senate offices throughout the day.

“While the various offices are certainly focused on NAFTA, they do not appear to have a definite action plan on what to do in the event of the potential negative scenarios that may take place, such as withdrawal from NAFTA 1.0 or an inadequate NAFTA 2.0.,” said Hampl.  “Also, while the Committee appears to get briefings from the Administration when they request it, the remainder of the Senators are not being briefed in a way that should be expected under TPA, given that the agreement is allegedly near conclusion.”

USCIB Supports US Candidate for Leadership Position at ITU

Published on April 9, 2018
Eric Loeb (AT&T), chair of USCIB’s ICT Policy Committee and Doreen Bogdan-Martin

USCIB and the U.S. International Telecommunication Union Association (USITUA) jointly organized a special roundtable discussion on April 5 in Washington, DC to hear a brief of Doreen Bogdan-Martin’s candidacy for director of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT).

The Roundtable attracted nearly 40 participants from both trade associations, as well as from the U.S. Government and the Washington, DC diplomatic community.

The U.S. Government will formally deposit Bogdan-Martin’s candidature prior to the ITU Plenipotentiary (PP-18), which will take place in Dubai in October. Senior U.S. Government officials have already indicated that one of Washington’s leading goals at the PP-18 is to secure Bogdan-Martin’s election to this post, highlighting her track record with the ITU, including being the chief architect of the Global Symposium of Regulators, coordinating the UN Broadband Commission, and recently launching ITU’s new gender empowerment initiative, EQUALS.

“Doreen’s candidacy is significant because she is the only female candidate for this position,” said Barbara Wanner who leads USCIB’s work on ICT policy. “Importantly, she brings 20 years of experience at the ITU, include 14 years in the Telecommunication Development Bureau, most recently as the Chief of ITU Strategic Planning and Membership. USCIB members strongly support Doreen’s candidacy, knowing that she will pursue the development agenda in a manner that thoughtfully considers all stakeholders’ views.”

During the course of the roundtable last week, Bogdan-Martin noted that the two most significant obstacles to connecting the remaining 3.9 billion people in the world who are still offline are the still-high costs for services and devices, as well as the lack of relevant content to stimulate demand for access and online services. “I envisage the BDT redoubling its efforts on digital inclusion, which is at the core of the 2030 Agenda,” noted Bodgan-Martin. “Together we will make the ITU-D a thriving, forward-looking community of Members served by a BDT known for quality, relevance, and practical solutions.”

Election of the director of the ITU Telecommunication Development Bureau (BDT) will take place at the ITU Plenipotentiary in Dubai later this year (October 29-November 16, 2018).

ILO Launches Inquiry Into Rights Violations in Venezuela

Published on April 4, 2018

For only the 13th time in its history, the International Labor Organization’s (ILO) Governing Body agreed to appoint a Commission of Inquiry for Venezuela to examine allegations of the Venezuelan government’s non-compliance with a number of legally-binding ILO Conventions. Specifically, allegations were made of attacks, harassment, aggression and a campaign to discredit the employers’ organization – FEDECAMARAS – its leaders and affiliates.

“This action is especially notable because it is a rare instance of ILO action supporting an employer organization’s right to freedom of association,” said Ed Potter who serves as the USCIB’s ILO Governing Body member. It is the only other time, again after a decade old fight, that an Employer freedom of association case was approved for a Commission of Inquiry by the GB.

At its 332nd meeting earlier this month, the ILO Governing Body agreed, by consensus, to approve the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry for Venezuela. The allegations against the Government of Venezuela state a lack of consultation with FEDECAMARAS on laws that affect the labor and economic interests of the employers, and the adoption of numerous increases to the minimum wage without consultation with employer and worker representatives. The Governing Body has discussed this complaint six times since it was presented by 33 employer delegates at the International Labor Conference in June 2015.

“In taking the decision to set up the Commission of Inquiry, the Governing Body expressed deep concern about the lack of any progress with respect to its previous decisions and recommendations regarding the complaint,” noted Potter. “In particular, it referred to the failure to establish a tripartite roundtable, bringing together government, employer, worker as well as ILO representatives to resolve all pending issues. The Governing Body also expressed its regret that it had not been able to carry out the high-level mission it had recommended at its November 2017 Session, due to objections raised by the Government about the agenda of the mission.”

The Commission of Inquiry is made up of three independent members and is tasked with carrying out a full investigation of the complaint, ascertaining all the facts of the case, and making recommendations to address the problems raised in the complaint. A Commission of Inquiry is the ILO’s highest-level investigative procedure. It is generally set up when a member State is alleged to have committed persistent and serious violations of ratified International Labor Conventions, which are binding international treaties, and has repeatedly refused to address them.

 

USCIB Mourns Passing of Services Sector Advocate J. Robert Vastine

Published on April 2, 2018
J. Robert Vastine

USCIB is mourning the passing of a longtime trade and services advocate J. Robert Vastine who passed away on March 30. Vastine is a former president of the Coalition of Services Industries (CSI), which he headed from January 1996 to September 2012. He developed and strengthened CSI’s mission as the most influential U.S. advocate for expanded trade and investment in the vital services sectors, and built global networks of organizations and individuals who share the goal of opening up services markets.

“Bob was a passionate advocate for the services sector and policies that would enable that sector to flourish,” noted USCIB President and CEO Peter Robinson. “He thoughtfully explored ways to develop metrics to support the positive narrative about the services sector’s potential. And he established CSI’s Global Services Summit as an annual event that the global services community respected and endeavored to support both financially and substantively.”

Prior to joining CSI, Vastine served as president of the Congressional Economic Leadership Institute, a bi-partisan, non-profit foundation that helps educate Congress on issues affecting U.S. economic competitiveness. Vastine’s extensive Capitol Hill experience includes having served as staff director of the Senate Republican Conference, Republican staff director of the Senate Committee on Government Affairs, legislative director for Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island, and legislative assistant for Congressman Thomas B. Curtis of Missouri.

Vastine graduated from Haverford College in Haverford, Pennsylvania and the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Studies in Washington, DC.

Hampl Advocates on SOE Issues at OECD Meetings

Published on April 2, 2018

USCIB Director for Investment, Trade and Financial Services Eva Hampl was in Paris the week of March 26 participating in various meetings surrounding the work of the OECD Working Party on State Ownership and Privatization Practices. The consultation with the SOE working party took place on March 27. Business at OECD (BIAC) used this platform to present comments on global reporting standards for internationally active SOEs, integrity and anti-corruption in state-owned enterprises, as well as the OECD working party’s program of work for 2019-2020.

“Addressing stakeholder and, particularly, business involvement is crucial,” said Hampl in her remarks. “The importance of the adherence to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention to ensure government backing, the benefits of privatization, as well as the importance of a horizontal OECD work program cannot be overstated,” she said.

The SOE issue has been addressed in turn by various Committees of the OECD. During the consultation, BIAC learned that such horizontal activity is being pursued by the OECD. On March 28, BIAC participated in a discussion with members of the Working Party on the follow up to the special roundtable on SOEs and Integrity in October, and on the “building blocks” of future OECD Anti-Corruption and Integrity Guidelines for the state as owner of SOEs. Hampl reiterated the point about the importance of stakeholder input, highlighting that business is at the frontlines of these issues and should be regarded as a specifically relevant stakeholder. Following the discussion, Hampl attended a joint session with the Integrity Forum entitled Towards Anti-Corruption and Integrity Guidelines for State-Owned Enterprises.