USCIB Regrets Breakdown in Doha Trade Talks, Urges Parties to Keep Offers on the Table

3818_image002New York, N.Y., July 30, 2008 – The United States Council for International Business (USCIB), which represents America’s top multinational companies, expressed deep disappointment at the breakdown of the WTO’s Doha trade talks in Geneva.  It called on governments to keep their offers on the table as the basis for further negotiations.

“We deeply regret that ministers failed to deliver an ambitious, balanced and comprehensive result acceptable to all parties,” stated USCIB President Peter M. Robinson.  “So much has already been achieved, including important progress this past week.  We urge parties to find ways to build on these accomplishments going forward.”

Mr. Robinson said leaders in emerging market countries needed to demonstrate flexibility commensurate with their new weight in the global economy.  “In addition, established trading parties must continue to demonstrate collective leadership and willingness to compromise,” he stated.  “We support the efforts of Ambassador Schwab and her team in this regard.”

The timing of the latest setback is unfortunate because of slowing economic growth and increasing protectionist sentiment in some major trading nations, Mr. Robinson added.   He also pointed to the importance of freer trade and multilateral cooperation in confronting such challenges as climate change and resource scarcity.

USCIB believes the Doha Round has tremendous potential to increase global economic growth by improving market access for goods and services around the world, especially for the developing world by reducing south-south trade barriers.  It is the main opportunity to reduce distorting subsidies and trade barriers to agriculture.

USCIB has long supported multilateral liberalization of trade, investment and financial flows.  Together with its international affiliates, including the International Chamber of Commerce, and in partnership with other national industry groups in the ABCDoha coalition, USCIB strongly supported the launch of the Doha Round in 2001, and it has sought a result that would improve global market access for products and services.

USCIB promotes an open system of global commerce in which business can flourish and contribute to economic growth, human welfare and protection of the environment.  Its membership includes more than 300 leading U.S. companies, professional services firms and associations whose combined annual revenues exceed $4 trillion.  As American affiliate of three global business groups – the International Chamber of Commerce, the International Organization of Employers, and the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the OECD – USCIB provides business views to policy makers and regulatory authorities worldwide, and works to facilitate international trade.

Contact:

Joseph G. Gavin, VP Trade & Customs, USCIB

+1 202.682.1291 or jgavin@uscib-dc.org

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

WTO website

Top Treasury Official Urges Openness to Foreign Investment Including Sovereign Wealth Funds

Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt
Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt

Now more than ever, open investment policies benefit all countries, including the United States, a top Treasury Department official told USCIB members at a May 8 briefing in New York. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt said the U.S. was concerned at rising barriers to investment in overseas markets and would work to curtail these, while seeking to keep U.S markets open.

Mr. Kimmitt said the U.S. was also working with the International Monetary Fund and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to develop best practices for foreign investment from sovereign wealth funds, including standards of transparency and governance.

The briefing was hosted by law firm Sullivan & Cromwell at its Wall Street-area headquarters. Firm Chairman Rodgin Cohen presided along with USCIB President Peter M. Robinson.

Sovereign wealth funds have existed since the 1950s but only recently taken on a leading role in international finance, especially as countries reaping the benefits of export and oil booms seek to gain higher returns. Mr. Kimmitt said sovereign funds currently had an estimated $3 trillion in assets – a number he said could grow to over $12 trillion over the next five years.

“Sovereign wealth funds have been a force for good for the global economy,” stated Mr. Kimmitt. “They’ve been patient, long-term investors, not highly leveraged, they don’t shift asset allocations in times of distress. Even those who have raised the most significant hypothetical concerns cannot point to a single example in the past 55 years where a sovereign wealth fund has invested for other than commercial purposes.”

Nevertheless, he said the U.S. and other host countries “need to be vigilant as these funds grow significantly both in number and size.” Mr. Kimmitt said existing national security and antitrust rules would largely serve to address any concerns should sovereign investors seek to extend their role beyond this traditionally passive approach. But he also pointed to the IMF and OECD efforts as a way to increase openness on both sides of the investment equation.

Representatives of some two dozen sovereign wealth funds met with IMF officials on May 1 to begin work on transparency and governance guidelines for such funds. Mr. Kimmitt told USCIB members he expects the final set of guidelines to be presented at the IMF’s fall meetings.

Meanwhile, building on its established expertise in the area, the OECD is developing guidelines host governments on maintaining market openness in the face of new forms of investment such as sovereign wealth.

In introductory remarks, Mr. Robinson noted USCIB’s active role in helping Congress strike the right balance between market openness and national security in its recent revisions to the Exon-Florio law. He also cited a recent International Chamber of Commerce paper, “Recommendations to Safeguard Freedom of Investment,” which he said presented a strong framework for dealing with new investment challenges like sovereign wealth.

On May 13, as part of their high-level Transatlantic Economic Council meeting in Brussels, the U.S. and the European Union sought to quell rising protectionist sentiment in key markets by declaring their openness to outside investment, including sovereign wealth funds. They issued a joint statement condemning barriers to capital flows except on ground of protecting national security. Any such restrictions must be “transparent, predictable and proportionate,” they said.

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

ICC paper, “Recommendations on Safeguard Freedom of Investment”

Facing the Challenges of Sovereign Investment

L-R: USCIB Secretary John Merow (Sullivan & Cromwell), Ruth Morrison (Brooklyn International Trade Development Center), Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John Veroneau.
L-R: USCIB Secretary John Merow (Sullivan & Cromwell), Ruth Morrison (Brooklyn International Trade Development Center), Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John Veroneau.

The recent surge in U.S. investment by overseas sovereign wealth funds should spur efforts to develop best practices for such funds, while ensuring that major markets continue to welcome this much-needed source of capital, Deputy U.S. Trade Representative John Veroneau told a USCIB audience in New York on February 26.

“It is essential that governments and sovereign investors take complementary steps to mitigate calls for measures that could have the effect of limiting the benefits of commercial investments by such investors,” Ambassador Veroneau stated in remarks delivered at The Bank of New York Mellon’s Wall Street headquarters.

Established sovereign wealth funds from Abu Dhabi, Norway and Singapore have been joined on the world stage by new actors from the Middle East, China, Russia and elsewhere.  Often flush with rising oil and other export revenues, sovereign investors have taken significant equity stakes in a number of major financial institutions and other companies at a time when the credit squeeze in many markets is drying up other sources of investment.  This has led some observers to question the motivations of sovereign investors and call for new scrutiny of their actions.

Amb. Veroneau conceded that, given the growing economic significance of sovereign wealth funds and other sovereign investors, “a closer look at the objectives and consequences of their investments is warranted.”  But he said such examination should bear in mind the importance of cross-border investments from all sources for job-creation, economic growth and productivity.

USCIB President Peter Robinson (right) welcomes Amb. Veroneau and presents him with a new International Chamber of Commerce statement urging governments worldwide to maintain open investment regimes.
USCIB President Peter Robinson (right) welcomes Amb. Veroneau and presents him with a new International Chamber of Commerce statement urging governments worldwide to maintain open investment regimes.

Existing U.S. law governing the potential national security implications of foreign direct investments should apply equally to sovereign and non-sovereign funds from abroad, said Amb. Veroneau.  He also called on managers of sovereign wealth funds to be equally mindful of the “unique questions and concerns” that governments have about sovereign investors.

To help allay fears that sovereign investment might be used for political or other non-commercial purposes, the Treasury Department last year called upon the International Monetary Fund, with the support of the World Bank, to develop best practices for sovereign wealth funds, building on existing best practices for foreign exchange reserve management, noted Amb. Veroneau.

“Such ‘best practices’ would serve to demonstrate that sovereign wealth funds can continue to be responsible, constructive participants in cross-border investing,” he stated, observing that the United States had also called upon the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development to identify best practices for countries receiving foreign government-controlled investment, as a safeguard against the adoption of protectionist measures.

USCIB President Peter M. Robinson too the opportunity to deliver a new position paper by the International Chamber of Commerce, part of USCIB’s global network, on safeguarding freedom of investment worldwide.  In its statement, ICC observed that, over the years, the global economy had witnessed a sharp diminution in the barriers to foreign investment as governments embraced foreign capital to spur economic growth and jobs.  These positive contributions of foreign investment, said ICC, “must be safeguarded by a strong commitment by governments, in words and in deeds, to freedom of investment and the avoidance of protectionist measures.”

Staff contact: Shaun Donnelly

Remarks by Amb. John Veroneau, “The Challenges of Sovereign Investment”

ICC Recommendations to Safeguard Freedom of Investmen

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

The New York Times: Saving Our Oceans

To the Editor:

Your timely Jan. 21 editorial, “Until All the Fish Are Gone,” correctly underscores the growing negative environmental and social effects of overfishing. What once seemed simply a conservation concern is now a global issue with tremendous social and economic ramifications.

We are fast approaching a critical crossroads in the future of our oceans. But unlike many other global issues, where business and the environmental community are often at odds, here we completely agree on a solution.

Members of the World Trade Organization are now negotiating new trade rules to reduce the government subsidies that promote overfishing. These subsidies provide fleets with money, fuel and incentives to fish longer, harder and farther than ever before. As a result, fish populations are declining, along with the quality of life of people around the world who depend on fishing for food and livelihood.

Reducing fishing subsidies is the single greatest action that can be taken to protect the world’s oceans.

Will the W.T.O. members seize the opportunity to stop overfishing and begin restoring the health of the oceans, and in turn, the health of mankind? That is the question.

Peter M. Robinson
Andrew F. Sharpless
New York, Jan. 22, 2008

Mr. Robinson is president and chief executive of the United States Council for International Business. Mr. Sharpless is chief executive of Oceana, an international environmental ocean advocacy group.

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

Oceana website

A Green Light for “Green” Tariffs?

New study scrutinizes how international trade rules may impact limits on carbon emissions

3771_image001New York, N.Y., January 25, 2008 – Are efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions under agreements like the Kyoto Protocol compatible with World Trade Organization rules?  As Congress and many European policy makers weigh the imposition of “green” border taxes to punish more carbon-intensive products from abroad, a new report by a leading industry group raises troubling questions about WTO rules and jurisprudence  and their possible application to climate policy.

The study by the United States Council for International Business (USCIB) looks specifically at the issue of whether countries might decide the U.S. has an unfair trade advantage as the result of its decision not to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol.  It is an update of a 2002 paper issued soon after the Bush administration announced its intention not to sign  the Kyoto agreement.

“When we published our original paper six years ago, the issue was largely speculative,” said Timothy E. Deal, USCIB’s senior vice president and the author of the study.  “Back then it was mainly NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Europe that were pushing for a climate border tax as a way to punish the U.S. and other non-Kyoto signatories.  Now we have politicians on both sides of the Atlantic talking more openly about some form of carbon tax regime.”

Two separate bills currently before the U.S. Senate would combine a national cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions with fees or taxes on imports from countries that do not adequately limit such emissions.  Meanwhile, the European Commission has floated the same idea in proposing a new European emissions regime.  Last October, French President Nicolas Sarkozy publicly urged the EU to “examine the option of taxing products from countries that do not respect the Kyoto Protocol.”

The USCIB study looks at pre-existing GATT/WTO jurisprudence on trade and environment, as well as key WTO rulings such as the 1998 Shrimp-Turtle decision.  According to Mr. Deal, that landmark ruling may have opened the door for the use of trade measures to promote environmental objectives based on the way a product is made.

“This issue could cause an absolute train wreck to the multilateral trading system,” said Mr. Deal.    “Clarification of the relationship between multilateral environment agreements and international trade rules, as called for in the WTO’s Doha Development Agenda, may be necessary to avert such a clash.”

Founded in 1945, USCIB promotes an open system of global commerce in which business can flourish and contribute to economic growth, human welfare and protection of the environment.  Its membership encompasses over 300 leading U.S. companies, professional services firms and associations whose combined annual revenues exceed $3.5 trillion.  As American affiliate of several leading global business groups, USCIB provides business views to policy makers and regulatory authorities worldwide and works to facilitate international trade.

Contact:

Jonathan Huneke, VP Communications, USCIB

+1 212-703-5043 (office), +1 917-420-0039 (mobile) or jhuneke@uscib.org

USCIB study: “WTO Rules and Procedures and Their Implication for the Kyoto Protocol”

“Trade Can Save the Climate” (column by USCIB President Peter M. Robinson, Winter 2007-2008)

More on USCIB’s Environment Committee

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Policy Committee

WTO website

Journal of Commerce: Year-End Essay

The major challenge facing U.S. business is in keeping markets open to investment at a time when many seek to close them, often for protectionist purposes. The U.S. economy benefits enormously from inward investment in terms of jobs created, R&D expenditures and outlays for new plants and equipment. U.S. investors likewise spur world economic growth, ensuring the most productive use of the world’s financial and natural resources.

However, the sheer volume of foreign investment, coupled with the entry of new players often using sovereign wealth funds to place their new-found fortunes, have sparked calls here and abroad for greater governmental control over investment flows. Several governments have tightened regulations regarding foreign investment, while others threaten to do so. Many countries also use informal barriers to restrict outside investment, declaring that certain industries are off limits and must be protected as national champions. Is this the wave of the future? Do we really want investment protectionism?

Congress last year enacted a sensible reform of the process for reviewing the national security implications of proposed foreign takeovers. The Bush administration followed with a major statement – the first in 10 years – reaffirming long-standing U.S. policy of openness to foreign investment. That is the right direction for the U.S. and world economy.

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

Shipping Digest: Losing the bigger picture

By Peter M. Robinson

The thing that saddens me at this time of declining confidence in trade is that people are losing the bigger-picture perspective of the benefits of trade, while reaching for the latest and closest facts and figures, many of which are questionable, to supposedly justify their negative opinion.

Two of those bigger-picture benefits are particularly timely in today’s world: peace and climate. In the first case, trade is a deterrent to war. It is the exchange of goods and services that necessarily brings people together from different cultures and bridges political divides. Without trade, the world would be in an even more dangerous state.

In the second case, trade can help save our climate. It is trade that will facilitate the necessary transfer of clean, affordable technology to countries with the biggest emissions problems, a situation that ultimately knows no boundaries and which all the citizens of the world will share.

When we think of the world that we are preparing our children to inherit, I want one that will have as much peace and stability as possible, and one that will be as clean as possible. Trade is a big facilitator of those things and we too often lose that perspective as we go for shortterm, quick-fix solutions in response to the necessary adjustments and changes that trade does involve.

America is the land of innovation, of strength, and the proven ability to compete. Trade clearly benefits our society in the long run. Our leaders need to recognize this and act accordingly.

Peter M. Robinson is president of the United States Council for International Business. He can be reached at (212) 354-4480 or probinson@uscib.org.

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

Honored by USCIB, SC Johnson CEO Says Companies Must Take Lead to Ensure Product Safety

H. Fisk Johnson speaking at USCIB’s annual award gala
H. Fisk Johnson speaking at USCIB’s annual award gala

U.S. companies must do more to ensure the safety of imported products in the wake of recent events, according to H. Fisk Johnson, Ph.D., chairman and chief executive officer of S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc. Dr. Johnson was honored December 3 at USCIB’s 2007 Annual Award Dinner in New York.

“Blaming the Chinese is not the answer,” he said. “That will only create problems in our relations with China and push America into protectionism. And by blaming China, what we are really doing is letting ourselves off the hook. We here in the U.S. have the ultimate responsibility.”

Dr. Johnson was presented with USCIB’s International Leadership Award at a gala event at the Waldorf=Astoria, with some 250 USCIB members and representatives of the diplomatic community in attendance. The award is presented annually to a leading corporate executive who has made significant contributions to world trade, investment and finance, and to improving the global framework in which American business operates.

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, scheduled to speak at the dinner, was called away for the UN’s climate talks in Bali, Indonesia. In his stead, Alicia Barcena, the UN’s under secretary general for management, read a statement from Mr. Ban congratulating Dr. Johnson and urging business leaders to take up the cause of addressing climate change.

“Discussions on climate change have reached a stage where the objectives and priorities of the international community and the business world are more aligned than ever before,” said Mr. Ban in his message. “So I urge every one of you to come join the increasing number of leaders who have already responded to this challenge.”

Dr. Johnson with USCIB Chairman William G. Parrett (left) and USCIB President Peter M. Robinson
Dr. Johnson with USCIB Chairman William G. Parrett (left) and USCIB President Peter M. Robinson

President Bush also sent a message of congratulations to Dr. Johnson that was read at the event.

In presenting the International Leadership Award to Dr. Johnson, USCIB Chairman William G. Parrett applauded his, and SC Johnson’s, commitment to international trade, environmental protection and corporate sustainability.

“Courageous leaders make brave decisions that propel their companies, their communities and the world forward,” stated Mr. Parrett. “Fisk Johnson is one of those rare and important leaders.”

Dr. Johnson has championed SC Johnson’s “Greenlist” process, a patented process which inventories and rates the impact of more than 2,000 chemicals on the environment and human health. He said the system had helped the company systematically select better raw materials for its products. He pledged to license the system free of charge to any company, including SC Johnson’s competitors.

On product safety, Dr. Johnson said U.S. multinationals must do more to improve conditions in China and elsewhere, helping their suppliers reach a higher standard. He said this was particularly important where products came through a long supply chain.

“We are the ones that must take the lead,” stated Dr. Johnson. “We can’t leave it to the Chinese. We can’t leave it to NGOs. We can’t leave it to the federal regulators. The government cannot test everything. The government cannot write regulations for everything, and we do not want it to. We must be responsible.”

Also at the dinner, USCIB President Peter M. Robinson thanked several members who had been especially active in representing American business views at important international gatherings during 2007. Among those recognized by Mr. Robinson were Joseph Alhadeff of Oracle, Ernie Rosenberg of the Soap and Detergent Association, Geoff Gamble of Dupont, Charlie Heeter of Deloitte, Ron Myrick of Finnegan Henderson and Brian Flannery of ExxonMobil.

“Every day, all year long, USCIB’s members and staff are out there, working to help make the world a better place, not just for American business, or even the business community as a whole, but for everyone,” stated Mr. Robinson.

“They are on the road, or in the air, attending meetings, working with governments, talking to overseas partners, making the case for open markets, explaining the ideas and solutions business can bring to common global challenges.”

Text of message from UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon

More on USCIB’s 2007 Annual Award Dinner

SC Johnson website

Remarks by H. Fisk Johnson, Ph.D.

3764_image001Remarks by H. Fisk Johnson, Ph.D.

Chairman and CEO, S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
Upon receiving USCIB’s 2007 International Leadership Award

Monday, December 3, 2007
The Waldorf=Astoria
New York City

First, let me thank United States Council for International Business for this honor. It is great to know you can win some things without steroids.

But actually, I want to accept this award on behalf of all the people at SC Johnson, because they are the real ones who have made us a leader in all of the areas that Bill [Parrett, USCIB’s chairman] was so kind to mention.

Tonight, I want to talk very briefly about reputation and responsibility.

We have all heard the stories about recalled products from China that have been tainted with dangerous chemicals – toys, toothpaste, and dog food, and so on.

My seven year-old daughter loved to play with a toy called Aqua dots, which was just recently recalled. And when she would play with them it never even crossed my mind that swallowing some of the tiny beads could put a child into a coma.

I suspect that, until recently, American consumers thought little about the safety of products made in China, not so much because they had faith in Chinese manufacturing, but because they had faith in American companies who import those products, and faith in the federal agencies who regulate them.

Blaming the Chinese is not the answer. That will only create problems in our relations with China and push America into protectionism. And by blaming China, what we are really doing is letting ourselves off the hook. We here in the U.S. have the ultimate responsibility.

I recently visited a factory in China that we were interested in buying. Right at the end of the manufacturing process as the product is coming off the line it is sprayed with chemicals and the workers pick it off the line with their bare hands. And from the tips of their fingers to the elbows they were soaked in insecticide. And they were exposed like that for 12 hours a day.

This factory also had this big hydraulic press which was about 20 feet wide and about 15 feet high. It was used to print stamping on cardboard boxes. And in order to put a sheet of cardboard into the press, a worker stuck his arms up to his elbows into this machine which opened and closed every few seconds.

I stood there wondering how many people lost arms or hands in that machine.

To provide heat for the manufacturing process, this factory burned high-mercury, high-sulfur content coal. And this facility alone would have increased SC Johnson’s global carbon footprint alone by 25 percent.

I don’t even want to think about how this company disposed of its chemicals.

Now, although we did not end up buying this factory, we had plans to bring this factory up to our standards. It was our moral responsibility to do so. We owed it to the culture of our company, to our consumers and to the Chinese.

I believe we, as responsible U.S. multinationals, must do more to help improve conditions in China or wherever else in the world we operate. We have to do more to help them or our suppliers reach a higher standard. And, this is particularly true when you have a long supply chain.

Getting the suppliers of your suppliers and in turn their suppliers to work to a higher standard – it is not such an easy task. But ultimately, it is we who have the responsibility to ensure that the ingredients in our products and the processes that make them are safe.

We must have the knowledge of the environmental and health impacts of the ingredients before we formulate them into our products. And we must have the audit systems in place to verify what is in our products.

We are the ones that must take the lead. We can’t leave it to the Chinese. We can’t leave it to NGOs. We can’t leave it to the federal regulators. The government cannot test everything. The government cannot write regulations for everything. And we do not want it to. We must be responsible.

I am very proud of the people at SC Johnson who have a very long history of doing this. In 1975, for example, at the first hint of an issue, my father removed CFCs from aerosols years before it was required by the federal government.

And over the past 7 years, SC Johnson has spent millions upon millions to develop a patented “Greenlist” which inventories and rates more than 2,000 chemicals and their products reporting on their impact on the environment and human health.

With Greenlist, for years we have been systematically selecting better raw materials for our products and phasing out ingredients in favor of those that we know are better. We use this system in our product development, in managing our supply chain and in all aspects of our decision making.

While we do not pretend to be perfect, this is about continuous improvement and getting better and better at what we do, and how we do it, no matter where we operate in the world.

And we believe so strongly in this system that we are offering any company, even our competition, the use of Greenlist, absolutely free.

In closing, let me say – as a CEO, as a scientist, as a citizen – I genuinely believe that we need more rigorous help and safety standards and more rigorous monitoring. But the question is who is to do it?

I believe we must act as a unified multilateral business community. We must not wait for China. We must not wait for federal regulators. We must set the pace. We must set the standard. We must lead.

Thank you very much.

More on USCIB’s 2007 Annual Award Dinner

SC Johnson website

The International Herald Tribune: U.S. trade policy

Letters to the Editor

Regarding the editorial ”Beating up on trade is not the answer” (July 28): How ironic that Congress has been considering yet another incomprehensible farm bill, yet it cannot be bothered to take the necessary steps to ensure the country benefits from future trade agreements, nor even to ratify the bilateral trade agreements America has signed with Korea, Peru and others.

The business community agrees that we need to invest in the future of our people and to deal better with the problems caused by trade. But it is hard to engender strong support for these positions with the strident anti-trade rhetoric emanating from so many in Washington.

To retain America’s leadership in the world, we must better engage emerging markets like China and India, where so much of tomorrow’s economic growth will take place. But we will never do so as long as America’s leaders cannot see beyond tomorrow’s elections.

Peter M. Robinson, New York

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee