At G8 Business Summit, USCIB Chairman Urges Governments to Avoid Investment Protectionism

Joint statement by business federation heads also presses for Doha Round’s completion

USCIB Chairman William G. Parrett (second from left) joined other top business chiefs at the first-ever G-8 Business Summit in Berlin (Photo: BDI).
USCIB Chairman William G. Parrett (second from left) joined other top business chiefs at the first-ever G-8 Business Summit in Berlin (Photo: BDI).

Berlin, April 25, 2007 – At today’s first-ever G-8 Business Summit, the chairman of the United States Council for International Business (USCIB), William G. Parrett, also CEO of Deloitte, urged the leaders of the Group of Eight nations to maintain their commitment to the open flow of international investment across borders, realizing countries still need to address local issues such as national security.

“Governments need to take action at the highest level to avoid investment protectionism if we want to encourage the free flow and benefits of international investment,” said Mr. Parrett, who represented the United States in the G-8 business preparatory meeting, which was organized by the Federation of German Industries (BDI).  “They need to affirm, in word and practice, their commitment to open, cross-border investment.”

The Berlin summit brought together the heads of top business federations from Germany, which hosts this year’s G-8 leaders summit in Heiligendamm this June, and the other G-8 nations along with the trans-European business federation Business Europe.  The business leaders signed a joint G-8 Business Declaration that will be presented to the G-8 government leaders, urging completion of the WTO’s Doha Round “as a matter of urgency and top priority,” and proposing ways to address related trade and investment issues, innovation challenges such as intellectual property rights, and climate protection.  They were scheduled to meet with German Chancellor Angela Merkel later today.

Investment protectionism has been on the rise both in the G-8 nations and elsewhere, and curtailing such measures was among the top priorities spelled out by the business leaders in a joint statement.  Mr. Parrett pointed to a number of recent measures that he said needlessly interfered with foreign mergers, acquisitions and greenfield investment under the guise of security concerns.

Mr. Parrett said business recognized that the world had changed dramatically since 9/11, and that governments must pay more attention to national security issues.  “But a legitimate concern for national security needs to be balanced against the benefits of allowing foreign investment,” he said.  “Blocking a foreign takeover for reasons of national security should be an extremely rare occurrence, and should be taken as a measure of last resort, only when all other rules or tools that are designed to protect national security are not adequate or effective.  Further, blocking international investment should not be used as a means to give unreasonable commercial advantage for domestic businesses.”

Mr. Parrett called upon the G-8 governments to support annual updates by the OECD of measures to restrict investment on grounds of national security, and the extension of this study to the issue of informal barriers to investment.  He urged that the business community be fully engaged in helping identify such informal barriers.

The business leaders focused on a number of other issues they said required attention by their governments at the Heiligendamm summit.  These included completion of the WTO’s Doha Round, fostering intellectual property rights, enhancing efficient capital markets, strengthening environmentally friendly technologies and facilitating private-sector participation in African development.

Peter M. Robinson, president of USCIB, who was also in Berlin, drew attention to the need for immediate action by the G-8 governments to protect intellectual property rights and stamp out product piracy.  “The issue has moved far beyond movies and music,” he said.  “Nowadays no industry, and no country, is immune from counterfeiting and piracy.  Government action is urgently needed at the highest levels to stamp out this scourge.”

The United States Council for International Business 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 $3.5 trillion.  As the 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.  More information is available at www.uscib.org.

Contacts:
Jonathan Huneke
, VP Communications, USCIB
Tel: +1 212 703 5043 or +1 917 420 0039 (mobile)
E-mail: jhuneke@uscib.org

Madonna Jarrett, Director, DTT Public Relations and CEO Communications
Tel: +1 212 492 3738 or +1 646 388 2335 (mobile)
Email: mjarrett@deloitte.com

G-8 Business Declaration: Joint Statement of the G-8 Business Organizations (PDF file, 1.8 MB)

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

More on USCIB’s Intellectual Property Committee

G-8 2007 Summit website

Federation of German Industries (BDI) website

Deloitte website

 

USCIB Welcomes Free Trade Agreement with Korea

3682_image001New York, N.Y. April 2, 2007 – The United States Council for International Business (USCIB), a pro-trade group representing America’s top global companies, today applauded completion of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement.

“This agreement with the world’s tenth largest economy has the potential to bring huge economic benefits to U.S business, workers, consumers and farmers,” said USCIB President Peter M. Robinson. “It is one of the most important free trade pacts the U.S. has ever achieved.”

Yesterday, the U.S. and Korea announced completion of a comprehensive trade agreement that would eliminate nearly all tariffs on manufactured goods and offer substantial new market access for U.S services exports and agricultural products.

Korea is the seventh largest U.S. trading partner and export market, with $72 billion in bilateral trade in goods in 2005.  The United States exported almost $40 billion worth of goods and services that year.

“We understand that not all of our objectives were realized in this compromise agreement,” stated Mr. Robinson.  “We will closely examine the text of the agreement before offering views on the substantive results.”

USCIB provided comprehensive industry views on objectives for the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement in March 2006.

USCIB promotes an open system of global commerce.  Its membership includes some 300 leading U.S. companies, professional services firms and associations.  As the American member of the leading international business and employers’ organizations, USCIB provides business views to policy makers and regulatory authorities worldwide and works to facilitate international trade.

Contact:

Timothy E. Deal, SVP Washington

+1 202 371 1316 or tdeal@uscib-dc.org

USCIB statement on objectives for the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement (March 2006)

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s website

 

Trade and Labor remarks by Abraham Katz

Remarks by Abraham Katz

President, International Organization of Employers

(also former U.S. Ambassador to the OECD and President Emeritus of USCIB)

“Trade and Labor”

Delivered to the ILO Governing Body

Geneva, March 25, 2007

I am not a member of the Governing Body: others will speak for employer members of the Governing Body. I speak to you on behalf of the world’s employers as organized in IOE.

Any observation: I was impressed by the study. It sheds valuable light on the policy issues in both employment and trade and their interaction.

But we must, recognize, as the study does, that trade is only one of the factors impacting employment on labor markets.

FDI swamps trade in size – some aspects of FDI are mentioned but there is much to be said. On the negative side, I have seen domestic companies fight FDI because it generally brings more progressive labor relations and productivity and competitiveness. FDI was one of the issues not included in the Doha Round Singapore 1996 Declaration.

But there is no denying beneficial effects on receiving, as well as on sending countries, of most FDI in terms of bringing needed capital, technical skills and spurring local industries.

Technological change is recognized but it is increasingly clear that it is far more significant than trade in affecting wage structures. And of course there are macro policies and financial developments.

All are included in the concept of globalization, and by now there is oft commented fact that perceptions in my country, in Europe and other developed countries is that globalization is the source of considerable anxiety in many countries about increasing insecurity and inequality.

The study correctly raises necessary policies to alleviate these anxieties – examples:

  • country social dialogue
  • active labor market policies
  • retraining; education for lifelong learning
  • portability of pensions, health insurance

All this implies an assumption that globalization is inevitable and irreversible and lets put a human face on it by policies which mitigate the pain and facilitate adjustment.

But I personally am concerned that globalization can suddenly go into reverse. Perhaps it’s the Cassandra in me but I fear we are today in danger of that happening and again the possible cause lies in the trade arena.

The paper speaks of trade reforms. I do not know what that means. Economists have often said trade liberalization is good for you and can well be done unilaterally – in fact, it might be better if tailored to a country’s needs.

However, we know that politically trade liberalization can only be accomplished by negotiating tit for tat balancing off import access for export access whether multilaterally (which I think we all agree in the best way) or bilaterally or regionally – most should feel it is a winner.

Assume then with me that one or more major trading power – I mean large markets – is suddenly impaired significantly its ability to negotiate.

Assume therefore that trade liberalization suddenly stops cold or is severely reduced – what does this do to confidence which is essential to globalization, to investment, to growth, to employment, to workers’ welfare, to decent work, to work.

We are in danger of this happening now. A populist wave expressing the anxieties that we are all aware of gives new impetus to the old 19th century idea of the social clause.

The IOE’s social partner, the International Trade Union Confederation, has posited new regulation of trade and investment to cope with the perceived iniquities and although they speak of doing this in the long run, they clearly mean the social clause.

But the discussion today is not theoretical or hypothetical; it is imminent and extremely political.

As an American, I do not think it appropriate to go into details about current policies in my country nor as President of the IOE about the movements and various signals coming out of other countries.

Let me simply cite Jagdish Bhagwati and other academics as well as Rod Abbot. If Doha fails it may be because of the political elevation of the social clause. I fear the entire study may become moot and we may suddenly find ourselves in a World reminiscent of the thirties when there was national legislation in major markets implementing the social clause, the spread of protectionist policies and drastic shrinking of foreign trade – sauve qui peut.

Not only will the trading system become a victim, but also the ILO, which is based on voluntarism and cooperation will become an anachronism.

Quoting from the letter of Rod Abbot to the FT, former European Commission trade negotiator and Deputy Director-General of the WTO:

“Given the fragile state of the Doha Round negotiations at present, and the past history of developing country members rejecting ideas for broader rules in the WTO (on investment and competition issues, and on procurement), any renewed effort in the labor arena would likely be the “kiss of death”.

and further from a more trenchant letter to the same newspaper from Jagdish Bhagwati, speaking of major developing countries they:

“…oppose the demands for inclusion of such standards in trade treaties, seeing them as continuing generalized, non-transparent and invidious export protectionism by fearful rich-country trade unions and politicians acting out of fear and self-interest to raise the cost of production abroad rather than from the altruism and empathy they occasionally profess.”

What are we talking about? Aren’t we all in favor of improving and assuring workers’ rights? Giving the benefit of the doubt to all those who seek to impose and improve those rights, especially in developing countries, for altruistic motivations we should look to their own statements for a clarification.

I cite part of a recent statement on TPA by the American trade unions:

“Congress should lay out “readiness criteria” to assess any potential trade agreement partner. These criteria should include economic opportunities for U.S. workers, firms and farmers; a country’s legal framework and enforcement regimes; a country’s compliance with International Labor Organization Standards, multilateral environmental agreements and fundamental human rights; and the existence of a democratic governance system. Only countries that meet these readiness criteria would be eligible for trade negotiations.”

Thus one major trading power would judge the eligibility of other trading partners for trade negotiations, both bilateral and multilateral. Let us assume further, however, that we could multilateralize this judgment of eligibility through some reform of trade and labor regulations and while ILO would judge transgression, the WTO would apply or authorize trade sanctions. Would it be likely to attain the unanimous consent of WTO and ILO members who would always be suspicious that the social clause cannot be repeated from its protectionist roots and impulses?

This is an old issue – the framers of our ILO Constitution eschewed compulsion or coercion through the trading system as some advocated at the time and adopted a voluntary approach, which informs the procedures and all the activities of this House.

Employers – the IOE as their organized representative – do still believe and support the principles, which are our foundation. They recognize that much remains to be done in the area of workers’ rights. This is why we actively supported the conclusions of the High-level meeting of 1987, which dealt with the problem of adjustment to exigencies of globalization and which spelled out nine tasks the ILO should undertake to facilitate adjustment. This is why we sponsored and supported what became the Convention on the worst forms of child labor. This is why we initiated and actively promoted the Declaration of Principles and Rights at Work.

Employers recognize that much remains to be done to assure the effectiveness of the Declaration. We have indications that our worker colleagues share this view and we stand ready with our tripartite partners to work on new ideas to accomplish this. In testifying before the Senate on the same issues after the Uruguayan Round, my colleague from the AFL/CIO complained that the ILO lacked teeth. Making the Declaration follow-up more effective is the way to go and not the surgical implantation of teeth – through the trade mechanism, which can lead to disastrous results for the world economy and especially for the workers themselves.

More on the International Organization of Employers

More on USCIB’s Labor and Employment Committee

ILO website

Top US Multinationals Urge Trade Authority Renewal

U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab spoke at the launch of the Trade for American campaign
U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab spoke at the launch of the Trade for American campaign

Washington, D.C., February 12, 2007 – The United States Council for International Business (USCIB), which represents hundreds of America’s top global companies, today urged renewal of trade negotiating authority, calling it essential for completion of the WTO’s Doha Round and a host of bilateral agreements.

The appeal came at the launch of a new campaign, Trade for America, at a National Press Club event featuring U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab.  The president’s existing trade authority, which provides for an up-or-down vote by Congress on trade agreements negotiated by the administration, with no amendments, will expire at the end of June unless Congress takes action to renew or extend it.

“Renewing trade negotiating authority is essential if we are to complete the Doha Round, and to secure bilateral trade agreements currently before Congress or in the works,” said USCIB President Peter M. Robinson. “The business and agricultural communities are united in this belief, and we will do everything we can to promote legislation that enables companies, workers and farmers to continue to benefit from expanded trade.”

Mr. Robinson said USCIB is rallying global business support for completing the Doha Round, where negotiations recently re-commenced after several months of stalemate.  USCIB serves as the American affiliate of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and other leading global business groups.  Mr. Robinson noted that ICC Chairman Marcus Wallenberg of Sweden had met with senior government officials in the U.S., Europe, India and elsewhere in an effort to get the WTO talks back on track.

USCIB is a member of the steering committee of Trade for America, which represents a wide array of companies and associations from nearly every sector of the U.S. economy, united in their belief that renewal of trade negotiating authority is essential to ensure American competitiveness in the global economy.

Trade for America members welcomed recent statements by President Bush and leading members of Congress affirming the importance of renewing that authority.  For example,  Congressman Charles B. Rangel (D. – N.Y.) the incoming chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, told a USCIB audience in December: “I want to see what compromises can be made so that we move forward, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as a Congress the nation can be proud of.  Where I am most optimistic is in the area of trade.”

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 some 300 U.S. companies, professional service firms and associations whose combined annual revenues exceed $3 trillion.  As American affiliate of the leading international business and employers organizations, USCIB provides business views to policy makers and regulatory authorities worldwide and works to facilitate international trade.

More on USCIB’s Trade and Investment Committee

USCIB press release: “Global Industry Groups Rally to Save Doha Round” (January 17, 2007)

Global Industry Groups Rally to Save Doha Round

3658_image001New York, N.Y., January 17, 2007 – Major business groups from countries representing 60 percent of world trade called for the swift completion of the Doha Round negotiations in the World Trade Organization, saying “the costs of failure are diverse and grave.”

The United States Council for International Business (USCIB) joined 18 other leading business organizations, from both industrialized and developing nations, in a global appeal for the immediate re-start of the Doha Round, which has reached a critical impasse largely over agricultural trade.  They called for the swift conclusion to the talks based on more flexible offers by all parties and the goal of an ambitious, market-opening outcome.

“While the benefits for an ambitious conclusion of the Round are great, the costs of failure are diverse and grave,” the statement said.  “Notwithstanding the loss of potential welfare gains, a failed Round could lead to challenges to the World Trade Organization and a strong multilateral rules-based trade system; increased regionalism and protectionism; shocks in financial markets and the loss of an opportunity to catalyze domestic economic reform.”

The business organizations called for a substantial reduction or elimination of tariffs and an effective approach to non- tariff barriers.  In agriculture, they said they sought commercially meaningful new market access, the reduction of and eventual elimination of trade-distorting mechanisms and subsidies, including export subsidies and disciplines on export measures in all countries in a coherent and progressive manner.  In services, WTO members need to improve multilateral commitments to tackle non-tariff barriers and provide new market access, the groups said.

“It is quite likely the Round will fail if significant progress is not made in the next two to three months, said Peter M. Robinson, USCIB’s president. “Business strongly urges governments to show the political leadership to reject failure, and seize this once-in-a-generation opportunity to raise living standards around the world.”

An ambitious result in the Doha Round is a top priority of USCIB.  Mr. Robinson said USCIB would continue to use itsglobal network of business affiliates and connections to garner broader industrial business support for an immediate completion of the Doha Round, working especially with the International Chamber of Commerce, the world business organization.

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 some 300 U.S. companies, professional service firms and associations whose combined annual revenues exceed $3 trillion.  As American affiliate of the leading international business and employers organizations, USCIB provides business views to policy makers and regulatory authorities worldwide and works to facilitate international trade.  More information is available at www.uscib.org.

Doha International Business Statement

More on USCIB Trade and Investment Committee

Big Changes in Store for the Little Old Letter of Credit

By Donald R. Smith

Paper and PenIt is estimated that between ten and 15 percent of all international trade – amounting to more than a trillion dollars per year – utilizes letters of credit.  They are a tried and true instrument of global commerce – so tried and true, perhaps, that those not involved in trade finance would assume they never change.

But in international trade, as in everything, change is inevitable.  And when it comes to letters of credit, the International Chamber of Commerce, the world business organization that forms a key part of USCIB’s global network, is the instrument of that change.

Over 70 years ago, to overcome the conflicting laws on letter of credit in different countries, ICC first issued its Uniform Customs and Practices, or UCP.  Used by letter of credit practitioners worldwide, the UCP rules are the most successful private rules for trade ever developed, providing the basis for billions of dollars in trade transactions every year.

They have undergone periodic revisions to keep pace with changing usage and the fast-paced nature of global trade.  The latest such exercise recently concluded when, at an October meeting in Paris of ICC’s Banking Commission, the newest version, UCP 600, was adopted by a unanimous vote of 91-0.

What’s New in UCP 600?

The revision to ICC’s rules for letters of credit, which will come into effect on July 1, 2007, incorporates a number of changes from the previous version, UCP 500:

  • New sections on “definitions” and “interpretations” have been added to clarify the meaning of ambiguous terms
  • The phrase “reasonable time” for acceptance or refusal of documents has been replaced by a “maximum of five banking days”
  • New provisions allow for the discounting of deferred payment credits
  • Banks can now accept an insurance document that contains reference to any exclusion clause

Learn more at www.iccbooksusa.com.

A very brief history of the present revision will put this into perspective.  In addition to setting the rules for letters of credit, ICC also interprets these rules when discrepancies or disputes occur.  At a 2002 meeting of the ICC Banking Commission, technical advisor Gary Collyer was asked to examine the then-current UCP500 and found that seven articles accounted for more than 55 percent of the ICC’s rulings and outline the major issues at stake.

Once a technical review had been completed, draft articles were circulated to commission members, and a consultative group made up of experts appointed by ICC national committees set up to fine-tune the new rules.

Mr. Collyer recommended bringing together the multitude of documents produced by the ICC Banking Commission under one framework, creating an environment with more certainty, not just for document checkers but also for the exporters and the nominating banks involved in letter of credit transactions.

The thrust of the successful revision has been to more firmly place the responsibility upon the issuer to state precisely what the required documents must contain, and by whom they must be issued, thereby reducing discrepancies and increasing the assurance and speed of payment.

There are several major changes in UCP 600 – perhaps the most important are reflected in their structure, as well as in the roles and responsibilities of the parties.  Regular letter of credit users will immediately recognize these as important steps, and infrequent or new users should take note – they need to learn what this is all about (see sidebar).

Mr. Smith is vice president for client services with Norman Technologies and chair of USCIB’s Banking Committee.  Write to him atdon.smith@normantech.com.

Nationwide Seminar Series to Explain Rule Changes

So you’re an issuer or user of letters of credit – where do you turn to learn how the new UCP 600 will change the way you do business? The author of this article has teamed with USCIB and experienced trade practice instructor Frank Reynolds to organize a nationwide series of training seminars beginning in January. Each seminar features a full day of expert instruction covering the changes from UCP 500 to UCP 600 and how they apply to actual situations, from application through presentation. Who should attend? Exporters, importers, forwarders, customs brokers, carriers, and those bankers wishing to not only learn the rules but how their clients perceive them. To learn more, click here.

This article appeared in the Winter 2006-2007 issue of International Business, USCIB’s flagship publication.  For more information or to subscribe, click here.
This article appeared in the Winter 2006-2007 issue of International Business, USCIB’s flagship publication. For more information or to subscribe, click here.

More on USCIB’s Banking Committee

Business Urges Senate Not to Block OECD Funding

Senator Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) addressing an OECD tax conference in Washington earlier this year – the organization’s work on international tax policy has been repeatedly mischaracterized.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah) addressing an OECD tax conference in Washington earlier this year – the organization’s work on international tax policy has been repeatedly mischaracterized.

New York, N.Y., October 11, 2006 – America’s top global companies have again urged Congress not to withhold funding for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development due to a misunderstanding over the nature of the 30-nation body’s work to coordinate international tax policies.

In a letter to all the members of the Senate, the United States Council for International Business (USCIB) expressed concern about language in Section 577 of H.R. 5522, the Fiscal Year 2007 appropriations for Foreign Operations, Export Financing, and Related Programs. The language would prohibit funding of activities undertaken by the OECD that are “designed to hinder the flow of capital and jobs from high-tax jurisdictions to low-tax jurisdictions or to infringe on the sovereign right of jurisdictions to determine their own domestic policies.”

USCIB said it “strongly disagrees with the thrust and implications of this language and believes that its inclusion in the bill is unwarranted and inadvisable.” The letter was signed by Peter M. Robinson, president of USCIB, and Michael P. Reilly, chair of USCIB’s Taxation Committee.

From time to time, similar language mischaracterizing the work of the OECD has found its way into pending legislation. USCIB has reminded members of Congress on several previous occasions of the valuable work being done by the OECD, both in coordinating tax policies and in other areas critical to U.S. competitiveness.

“Section 577 reflects charges by certain critics of the OECD that have been made repeatedly in recent years and that rely on misunderstanding and mischaracterization of the nature and utility of the OECD and its work,” the USCIB letter stated. Specifically, these critics have sought to portray an OECD effort, aimed at curtailing the abuse of overseas bank secrecy laws by criminal and terrorist groups, as an attempt to encourage ”tax harmonization” and the elimination of tax incentives for investment. “This charge is without factual basis,” USCIB said.

The 30-nation OECD seeks to promote growth through coordination of economic and regulatory policies between its members, all of which are democratic market economies. USCIB serves as the American affiliate of the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC) to the OECD, a group that provides the official business voice on OECD matters.

For the past few years, USCIB has joined with the OECD and BIAC to hold an annual conference in Washington, D.C., most recently this past June, explaining the OECD’s role in international taxation policy and the importance of engagement by the business community in the OECD process.

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 some 300 U.S. companies, professional service firms and associations whose combined annual revenues exceed $3 trillion. As American affiliate of the leading international business and employers organizations, including BIAC, USCIB provides business views to policy makers and regulatory authorities worldwide and works to facilitate international trade.

Contact:
Carol Doran Klein
202.682.7376or cdklein@uscib.org

USCIB letter to the Senate on H.R. 5522

More on the OECD’s work on taxation (OECD website)

More on USCIB’s Taxation Committee

Meetings in New York Spotlight International Competition Network

L-R: Paul Lugard (Philips), vice chair of the ICC Competition Commission; Daphne Yong-d'Hervé (ICC); Charlene Flick (USCIB); David Lewis, chair of South Africa’s competition tribunal; Michael Blechman (Kaye Scholer), chair of USCIB’s Competition Committee; and Ferdinand Hermanns (Hermanns & Brück), chair of the ICC Competition Commission.
L-R: Paul Lugard (Philips), vice chair of the ICC Competition Commission; Daphne Yong-d’Hervé (ICC); Charlene Flick (USCIB); David Lewis, chair of South Africa’s competition tribunal; Michael Blechman (Kaye Scholer), chair of USCIB’s Competition Committee; and Ferdinand Hermanns (Hermanns & Brück), chair of the ICC Competition Commission.

Last month in New York, the USCIB Competition Committee and the International Chamber of Commerce‘s Competition Commission held meetings that highlighted the emerging role played by the International Competition Network (ICN), which links antitrust enforcement authorities from both developed and developing countries.

David Lewis, chair of South Africa’s competition tribunal and vice chair of the ICN Steering Group, spoke at the ICC meeting, which was well attended by companies and law firms from around the world and across a variety of industries. His remarks underscored the global movement towards convergence in the area of competition law and how the work of the ICN has contributed to the harmonization of competition laws across borders.

Through ICN, government institutions come together to enhance convergence and cooperation so as to promote effective and efficient antitrust enforcement worldwide. The work of ICC’s Competition Commission, as well as USCIB’s Competition Committee, regularly informs the dialogue at the ICN. In the past, ICC has offered comments on the ICN Merger Remedies Review Project as well as input regarding global harmonization efforts in antitrust enforcement generally. ICC as well as individual member companies continue to work closely with ICN and the Competition Commission is currently considering proposals to further engage in upcoming ICN activities in the months to come.

Other agenda items discussed at the USCIB and ICC meetings included the U.S. Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission ongoing hearings on single-firm conduct, a discussion of the European Commission’s application of Article 82 of the Treaty of Rome to exclusionary abuses, and a briefing concerning China’s pending antimonopoly law.

Staff contact: Justine Badimon

More on USCIB’s Competition Committee

Business Groups Plead for Senate to Reject Punitive Tariffs on China

Senators Lindsay Graham (R-S.C. ) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have proposed massive tariffs on Chinese imports. (Photo: VOA)
Senators Lindsay Graham (R-S.C. ) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) have proposed massive tariffs on Chinese imports. (Photo: VOA)

New York, N.Y., September 22, 2006 – Anticipating a possible Senate vote on controversial legislation that would slap tariffs of 27.5 percent on all imports from China, the United States Council for International Business has joined a broad range of trade groups in urging the Senate to reject the bill.

In a letter delivered to the Senate yesterday, the groups expressed their strong opposition to S. 295, the Schumer-Graham bill, which would impose the tariffs if China refused to adjust its currency’s exchange rate against the U.S. dollar.

“Concerns with the exchange rate between China’s currency and the dollar cannot be resolved through arbitrary tariffs that violate the rules of the World Trade Organization and could destabilize the U.S. and global economies,” the letter stated. “Imposing a massive tax on an estimated $200 billion of American purchases will likely result in similarly significant retaliatory measures being taken against U.S. exports to China, thereby undermining, not enhancing, U.S. competitiveness.”

The legislation would also negatively impact American consumers and drive up production costs for U.S. companies, the letter said.

The groups said Senate passage of the Schumer-Graham bill “would derail the progress that has been made to date on China’s exchange rate policies and on broader financial sector reforms that are the essential element of a long-term solution, as well as the many other issues on which the U.S. government is seeking progress.” They also warned of negative reactions from other trading partners, saying the passage would represent a renunciation by the United States of its obligations under World Trade Organization rules.

USCIB also recently released a comprehensive statement on Chinese trade and investment practices in the context of its membership in the World Trade Organization, saying China and the United States have made progress toward resolving many key sources of bilateral commercial friction, but that China needs to work toward fully meeting its responsibilities under the WTO.

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 some 300 U.S. companies, professional service firms and associations whose combined annual revenues exceed $3 trillion. As American affiliate of the leading international business and employers organizations, USCIB provides business views to policy makers and regulatory authorities worldwide and works to facilitate international trade.

Business letter to the Senate on the Schumer-Graham bill

USCIB statement on China’s WTO Obligations

More on USCIB’s China Committee

Remarks by EU Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner

European Commissioner for External Relations and European Neighborhood Policy

Breakfast Briefing with the American Business Forum on Europe

and the United States Council for International Business

Sidley Austin LLP, New York City

September 20, 2006

The Transatlantic Relationship: A Balance Sheet

L-R: Joseph McLaughlin (Sidley Austin), Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, USCIB President Peter M. Robinson, Sven Oehme (American Business Forum on Europe).
L-R: Joseph McLaughlin (Sidley Austin), Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, USCIB President Peter M. Robinson, Sven Oehme (American Business Forum on Europe).

Chairman,

Excellencies,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

First let me thank Sven Oehme of the American Business Forum on Europe and Peter Robinson of the US Council for International Business for this invitation to talk to you, and Sidley Austin for so generously hosting this event.

And thank you to everyone for having bravely battled through the traffic to get here – while UN Ministerial Week is seen by us diplomats as a crucial contribution to the UN’s work of building a better, safer world, I know for New Yorkers it brings anything but a better world!

On a serious note, standing in this great city today, a city I had the pleasure of living in myself for several years, one can scarcely imagine the enormity of the tragedy which hit it five years ago.

It is to New York’s great credit that 9/11 did not reverse the City’s economic boom; far from it, it continues apace. I read recently that if New York City were an independent state it would have the second highest per capita GDP in the world!

The role New York’s business community has played in making it the city it is today is much admired throughout the world. Perhaps The Economist newspaper put it best in giving its 2004 survey of this city the headline, “a caring socialist republic run by cut-throat capitalists.”!

And that business community is also at the core of the transatlantic business links which form the bedrock of EU-US relations. I know ABFE and USCIB are doing excellent work in consolidating those ties, and I thank you for all you are doing to help bring our business communities closer together.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

This morning I’d like to present you with the “balance sheet” of what we could think of as the EU-US “joint venture”. We have an impressive array of assets, yet the current geo-political market-place presents us with a number of risks.

Let me begin by assessing the “shared equity” of our relations. This has increased in value enormously over the last 18 months or so. We have moved from a time of tension and frustration to one of cooperation and understanding. There’s a new spirit of constructive engagement between us, and the June Summit between President Bush and the European Union was one of the most fruitful yet.

Of course the political difficulties we had were never mirrored in our economic relations, which continued to go from strength to strength. But undoubtedly, as you will know better than I, a more positive political atmosphere also has benefits for business.

Our renewed commitment to transatlantic cooperation is, I hope, here to stay. Indeed, I believe it has to stay, because the “business environment” in which we are now operating requires it.

Both of us are facing increased competition from new players in the global market, who are threatening our dominant position – in both commercial and ideological terms. As globalization continues to gather pace we face new competitors for energy supplies, raw materials, consumers and investment.

We are also both exposed to more risks than ever before, security threats including terrorism, failed states and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; environmental threats like climate change; pandemics; energy shortages and price hikes; and waves of uncontrolled migration as a result of poverty and conflict around the world.

These risks are too great, too multi-dimensional to be dealt with by one country alone. If we are to insure ourselves against a more uncertain and more turbulent future, we need to work together. And we need to ensure we have the effective multilateral institutions necessary to help us deal with these global risks. It is the realization of the commonality of the threats we face and the impossibility of tackling them alone which underlies the renewal of our transatlantic cooperation.

For the same reason our relationship needs more focus than ever before. There are four areas where we need to direct our collective energies: global security, economic competitiveness, energy, and the environment.

1) Global security

There is no shortage of security threats to the United States and Europe. The European Union’s response has been a concerted effort to build up its foreign, security and defense policy, in recognition of the fact that our global economic power is not matched by an equivalent political punch.

That is also an implicit response to the justifiable criticism from many in the United States that we have not, in the past, pulled our weight in dealing with crises and conflict around the world.

As a result we are now a better and more effective partner and are working with the US to defend our collective interests and build a safer world. We now have around 60,000 European peacekeepers serving across the globe. And the EU provides the backbone of the international community’s presence in Kosovo, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Aceh, to mention but a few.

Our cooperation in fighting terrorism is now well-established. We are working together on terrorist financing, radicalization, and recruitment. We are putting in place the legal and regulatory infrastructure to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, particularly to terrorists. And we have jointly pushed for the implementation of arms control, disarmament and non-proliferation treaties.

We must of course be careful to strike the right balance between heightened security and the continuation of open trade and passenger transport. The business community sees more than most the costs we pay for increased security, and we must keep these in proportion. If we allow ourselves to pay too high a cost, whether in requirements for container security, demands on airlines to provide passengers’ details, human rights and personal liberties or, in the case of the EU, discriminating against friendly countries over the visa waiver, then we allow our enemies to win. We must not lose sight of what we are striving to protect – our humanity, our dignity, and our openness to others.

Around the world the EU and US are working together to avert or resolve conflicts and crises. In Afghanistan the EU is providing 80% of the troops in NATO’s International Security Force. And the EU and US shared the costs of the presidential and parliamentary elections.

This summer we worked together to resolve the situation in Lebanon, and are both leading members of the international Quartet dedicated to pushing for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

We have committed ourselves to working more closely to promote democracy and human rights around the world. We discuss strategies on supporting fledgling democracies in places like Ukraine and Lebanon, assisting the growth of democratic consciousness in Egypt and Georgia, and confronting dictatorships like Zimbabwe and Uzbekistan.

But to be seen as credible and trustworthy by others we need to be scrupulous in our own behavior. That means maintaining the very highest standards in observance of the rule of law and respect for fundamental human rights. At the Summit we had a frank exchange of views with President Bush on this point in the context of the fight against terrorism. It is an issue of great concern to Europeans, as I know it is to many Americans. It’s not a subject to joke about, but in business terms I’m afraid it would have to count as a serious reputational liability for the United States.

For the future it is vital that we continue and extend the scope of our cooperation on global security. And the European Union will focus on turning itself into an even more effective player on the world stage.

2) Economic competitiveness

The second focus is economic competitiveness. The economic and trade ties between us will remain key to driving the global economy. Whilst other economies around the world may be growing at a startling pace, and gaining an ever larger share of world GDP, in absolute terms the European Union and the United States still account for almost 6O% of the world’s GDP. Where the transatlantic market place leads, the global economy follows.

But if we want to maintain this position we have to remain ahead of the game. And we have to secure our position by ensuring the global market place is run on the basis of a transparent set of common rules.

For that reason the EU continues to support a global multilateral trade deal. The current climate is clearly not right for pushing forward negotiations, but we are willing to go back to the negotiating table as soon as there’s a possibility to do so. The political and economic costs of an indefinite suspension of the Doha Development Agenda are far greater than the costs of a less-than-perfect deal.

The EU and the US must exercise global leadership in pushing for an agreement which will strengthen economic growth, improve living standards and alleviate poverty around the world.

There’s also more we can do to strengthen our bilateral economic relations. At the EU-US Summit we focused on two important initiatives, enforcing intellectual property rights worldwide and tackling barriers to transatlantic investment on both sides.

Within Europe we need to address our particular liabilities and focus on boosting our economic performance and compensating for our ageing population. We are making progress – economic growth has accelerated to its fastest growth for six years, domestic demand is picking up, and unemployment has dropped to its lowest point since 1998.

But there is more to do, and in the coming years the European Commission will focus on fighting economic nationalism, defending and widening the internal market and ensuring a clear and coherent stance on competition issues. We are determined to deliver concrete results for both business and consumers.

3) Energy supplies

The third joint area is energy. Energy will be of central importance to the long-term stability and prosperity of the global economy. We are faced with record-high oil prices and increased dependence on foreign supplies of fossil fuels. According to current trends the EU will import 70% of its energy in 2030, compared to 50% today. The US faces a similar challenge, which is why earlier this year President Bush made his famous call for an end to American oil addiction. To put things in perspective, Europeans consume 12.5 barrels of oil per person per year, exactly half of what each US citizen consumes. The Chinese consume only 2 barrels of oil each.

So it’s no surprise that energy has risen to the top of the political agenda and was one of the major issues at the EU-US summit. We agreed there should be strategic cooperation between us, addressing energy supply security – including diversifying supply routes, enforcing market rules and protecting infrastructure; alternative sources of energy; and energy efficiency.

The key is to increase predictability by creating the right market conditions and legal frameworks in both producer and transit countries. And to work together on technological developments that will help us diversify our energy sources.

The EU and the US have an important role to play in providing the global leadership required for practical action to take place. Success will bring new economic opportunities; cleaner air and drinking water; and a chance to halt and perhaps reverse environmental degradation.

4) Environment

Which brings me to my final topic, the environment. A surprise block-buster in cinemas this summer was Al Gore’s film “An Inconvenient Truth”, which so dramatically and convincingly makes the case for manmade global climate change.

This has not traditionally been an area on which the EU and the US have seen eye to eye, but we are now converging in our appreciation of the scale of the global environmental challenges we face. As the film points out, large swathes of the planet – this city included – are scheduled to disappear under the ocean if we do nothing to change our behavior.

In my home country, Austria, we are increasingly confronted with annual floods and disappearing glaciers.

At the Summit in June we set up a high level dialogue on climate change, clean energy and sustainable development. The idea is to find ways to get cost-effective emission cuts, develop and use new technologies and renewable fuels, and focus on environmental issues like biodiversity.

Business has not always been the strongest champion of environmentalism, but I believe that too is changing as we realize the enormity of the threat we face, and the inevitable impact on commercial interests that will have. Environmental protection is increasingly being seen as a joint responsibility between government, business, and civil society.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

That completes today’s review of the balance sheet of transatlantic relations. Do our liabilities outweigh our assets? No. Should we be issuing a profit warning, or selling stock options? Certainly not.

The business environment is certainly challenging, but we have the necessary tools and most importantly the political will to rise to those challenges. If we continue our close cooperation and focus on the four areas I’ve highlighted: global security, economic competitiveness, energy and the environment, the projections for the future look bright.

I forecast dividend payments ahead!

More on USCIB’s European Union Committee