...the emergence of a "global civil society"

This evolution is doubtless irreversible.

Furthermore, the development of the Internet has shaken up the environment of the negotiations. It allows the instant diffusion of the texts under discussion, whose confidentiality becomes more and more theoretical. It permits, beyond national boundaries, the sharing of knowledge and expertise. On a subject which is highly technical, the representatives of civil society seemed to us perfectly well informed, and their criticisms well argued on a legal level.

Date: Tue, 1 Dec 1998 15:22:12 -0500 (EST)
To: bobolsen@tao.ca
From: Ken Traynor > Subject: Report that got France out of MAI

This is an english translation of the so-called Lalumiere report written for the French government on the MAI. It is very instructive on what a credible review of the MAI would look like and offers a wealth of information and valuable insight as to how to address these issues. It would be interesting if such rigour were brought to bear in Canada.

I hope we can use this as a good base for discussion of our own next moves re Trade Issues writ large.

Catherine LALUMIERE
European MP
Jean-Pierre LANDAU
Inspector General of Finances

REPORT ON THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT.

Intermediary Report – Sept 1998.

SUMMARY

DIAGNOSTIC

  1. The debate presents some new elements
  2. Opposition to it concerns the very structure of the report
  3. The OECD was unsuitable for these negotiations

PROPOSITIONS

What should be avoided

  1. Allowing the negotiations to begin again on its current basis
  2. Amending the actual text without changing the structure
  3. Renouncing any international agreement on investment

The elements of a new agreement

  1. The structure of a new agreement
  2. The question of the location of the negotiation: OECD or WTO?

REMARKS ON PROCEDURE AND METHODS OF WORK

The mission entrusted to us concerns all multilateral economic negotiations France is party to.

In the context of this mission, the Government's priority was to have at its disposal an interim report specifically dedicated to the MAI. This agreement aims to liberalise investments (all investments) and to improve investor protection. The negotiations began in April 1995 at the OECD. They were suspended in April 1998 because of the strong opposition raised by the project in its actual form.

The interim report presents the results of consultations we have undertaken. It also formulates propositions on the future of the negotiation and its organisation. DIAGNOSTIC

More than any other international agreement of an economic nature, the MAI has raised objections and tensions at the heart of civil society. The opposition to it was surprising in its scale, strength and the speed with which it appeared and developed. The consultations enabled us to clarify this phenomenon and to understand better the positions and expectations of diverse sectors of opinion and the professions.

Four points should be particularly underlined.

The opposition presents new characteristics

- it appeared simultaneously in several countries. The French Government is not alone on confronting challenges to the MAI. The same opposition has emerged with equal force in the United States, in Canada and in certain European Union countries. Objections have also been expressed in the European Parliament and in Community circles, including the very heart of the Commission.

- it goes beyond merely sectoral or technical concerns. As in all negotiations, these preoccupations concern the balance of concessions or the treatment reserved for certain activities. In France, the cultural and audiovisual sector is naturally at the heart of the opposition. But the resonance of the discourse hostile to the MAI bears witness to far wider and more fundamental concerns.

- it puts the interests of new actors at stake. Beyond the traditional representatives of the professions, the trade unions and the economic sector, one should note the activism of the non-governmental organisations. In the Anglo-Saxon countries, the NGOs with considerable means (Greenpeace, WWF, Friends of the Earth…) are at the origin of this challenge to the MAI. These organisations have refined and diffused to all countries an anti-MAI position which is now expressed in similar terms throughout the diverse countries of the OECD.

- the way the negotiation is carried out is challenged as much as its outcome. More or less legitimately, the secrecy which covered the negotiations and the deep motivations of the participants are questioned.

The MAI thus marks a stage in international economic negotiations. For the first time, one is seeing the emergence of a "global civil society" represented by NGOs which are often based in several states and communicate beyond their frontiers. This evolution is doubtless irreversible.

On one hand, organisations representing civil society have become aware of the consequences of international economic negotiations. They are determined to leave their mark on them.

Furthermore, the development of the Internet has shaken up the environment of the negotiations. It allows the instant diffusion of the texts under discussion, whose confidentiality becomes more and more theoretical. It permits, beyond national boundaries, the sharing of knowledge and expertise. On a subject which is highly technical, the representatives of civil society seemed to us perfectly well informed, and their criticisms well argued on a legal level.

Opposition to it concerns the very structure of the agreement

The agreement has become a symbol. It crystallises the claims and frustrations of civil society in the face of globalisation. This is for one main reason: the agreement is perceived as a serious threat to the sovereignty of national states. It is important to understand why.

Every international agreement by definition limits the sovereignty of the signatory states. It lays obligations on them which restrict their freedom of action. But till now, in economic matters, these obligations have always been formulated in relative terms: states agree not to discriminate on their own territory between the products, investments and even the people according to whether they are nationals or foreigners. Given this, states preserve all their freedom to define and carry out their economic and social policies. This principal has guided the whole drive towards the liberalisation of economic and commercial exchanges for fifty years.

The MAI goes further. For the first time, in a multilateral agreement with universal application, it places absolute obligations on states.

-

Considered in isolation, each one of these innovations might appear technically justified. In particular, one can understand the concern of negotiators to provide security to overseas investors in the countries where the judicial and legal systems does not present all the necessary guarantees of impartiality. But their combination is explosive. It creates the feeling of a double dis-symmetry : between the rights of States and those of investors: between national and overseas investors (only the latter benefit form the guarantees offered by the agreement).

For all the opponents of the agreement, this objection is fundamental. It must be dealt with and responded to, since all the other objections flow from it.

The OECD was unsuitable for these negotiations.

The OECD was not created to serve as a location for major international economic agreements. Its experience in this domain is limited to highly technical agreements on credits for export and for naval construction, to different non-binding codes and more recently, to the international convention against corruption. Its procedures are designed to favour informal agreements and exchanges of viewpoints, not to formalise binding agreements or to work out the strategic choices which mark the evolution of a negotiation.

In the case of the MAI, this method did not allow governments to exercise their political responsibilities over matters which are however essential. All the work on it took place within the negotiating group which was itself split up into technical sub-groups. Its communiqués on the MAI submitted for ministerial approval are limited to the annual repetition of the same generalisations. At no time were the questions mentioned above brought to the attention of ministers, even less made the subject of debates.

Yet, other than the principles already mentioned, the agreement also incorporates fundamental innovations in the methods of liberalisation undertaken. Thus the MAI does not function, as do the other agreements concluded within the GATT or the WTO, on the principle of positive lists or "offers" but on the principle of reservations (the method called "top down"): all economic sectors are liberalised apart from the exceptions which figure in the lists set out by each state. Further, the MAI contains a device called the "ratchet effect" which allows all liberalisation measures to be automatically consolidated, i.e. made irreversible. On these two points, no clear political choice has been submitted to the judgement of ministers: the ratchet effect was never mentioned in ministerial communiqués, nor was the dispute resolution procedure. As for the "top down" approach, it was only mentioned in a technical report annexed to the ministerial declaration in 1995.

It is a great mistake to have treated the MAI negotiations as a purely technical operation. Many of the consequent difficulties spring from this: the widely spread feeling of a secret, or even clandestine negotiation, the incapacity of the organisation to see these difficulties in advance and put them right, the surprise felt in several countries when faced with the scale of the opposition.

On the contrary, the treatment reserved by the OECD for union organisation demonstrates the advantages of a strong and formalised joint approach. Union organisations have always been closely associated with the work of the OECD through the specialised group, the TUAC. It is not by chance that, in France, as in other countries, and despite a certain diversity of opinion, the unions which form part of the TUAC are globally less hostile to the MAI than other organisation representative of civil society.

The result of the consultations reveals a certain diversity of opinions, but support for the MAI in its present form is limited and when it does exist, is conditional.

It should be emphasised that we have not encountered any hostility to the principle of overseas investment. The interest of foreign direct investment for the French economy, notably in terms of its effects on employment, was mentioned by numerous participants. The word "delocalise" with one exception, was never mentioned. The main aim of establishing international rules for foreign investment is not contested by anyone. The principle of non-discrimination seems fairly generally, (but not unanimously), accepted.

Less than the principle of an agreement, it is the structure and the terms of the actual MAI project which are the subject of diverse views.

- the CNPF states that it is favourable to the agreement, as also are most of the professional federations (except those for insurance). The necessity of obtaining a balance of the concessions between Europe and the United States was however underlined by all the interlocutors, who were struck by the sheer scale of the American reservations. Our interlocutors did not recommend signing an unbalanced agreement to the profit of the US, and paid great attention to the federal structure of the States, not only because of the difficulties met within the US, but also because of the risk of the precedent represented by the MAI vis-à-vis the large emerging countries with federal structures.

This attitude was also noted in the very large firms for whom the legal security of overseas investment is essential, because of the nature of their activity (concessions for public services, oil exploitation, setting up industries).

Furthermore, for these firms as for employer organisations, this positive appreciation is qualified by the appreciation of the geographical spread of the agreement: beyond the principles, the representatives of French firms estimate that the MAI is only really interesting if the emerging countries are signatories.

- on the other hand, certain non-governmental organisations (notably Observatoire de la Mondialisation, Greenpeace) reject the agreement in a fundamental way for the reasons of national sovereignty mentioned above.

- the cultural sector deserves a particular comment. The profession is split between two attitudes. One strand of thinking is aimed essentially at sectoral aims: it demands the writing into the MAI of the reserve concerning the audiovisual sector incorporated in the GATT agreements at the end of the Uruguay round. The other demands the writing into the MAI of a clause excluding the cultural sector and its thinking links up with the fundamental opposition of the NGOs: it is this fraction who organised the strong media coverage of the polemic against the MAI last February. These two tendencies meet however on one claim: the exclusion of authors rights from the application of the MAI.

- the unions have diverse positions.

· the CGT is hostile the whole exercise, for reasons of sovereignty, and advocates beginning the negotiations again from zero.

· the FO is sensitive to the question of social norms, but considers that the essential progress should be expected at the ILO. This organisation declares itself interested in an agreement which integrates strong social norms, while nevertheless doubting the will of certain EU partners within the OECD – among which the US – to reach such a outcome. It underlines the dangers of certain clauses in the agreement for union freedoms and the right to demonstrate (notably, the "protection against civil strife").

· the CFDT is attached to the inclusion of terms controlling social norms, but, even more, that the unions should be allowed to participate actively in the management and application of the agreement. It sees in it the instrument of a dynamic which favours awareness of the social impact of international investments.

THE PROPOSITIONS

The MAI sheds light on an essential problem which governments should pay attention to in managing their relations between open, but sovereign economies: how to balance the obligations of States with the necessity of interdependence, without imposing useless constraints on them which would lead, in the opinion of the public, to a rejection of openness.

Within the EU, this question is at the centre of the debate on subsidiarity. But it is also a problem at a higher level. Concerning international investment, on should ask oneself whether one can attain the objectives of liberalisation by an agreement which is simpler and less destructive of national sovereignty, as founded on only the principles of free access and non-discrimination.

To our way of thinking, the reply is positive. But this choice is demanding. Simply continuing and carrying out a limited reorganisation of the present text are both excluded. The negotiation should start again – if possible – but from new positions in order to end with a different agreement.

What should be avoided

- Leaving the negotiation to start again on the present basis.

- This would be the natural tendency of the OECD Secretariat and certain delegations.

It is clear that French public opinion would not accept this. On the one hand, under these conditions it would be impossible to achieve the balancing of the concessions demanded by the firms, and on the other, the objections of the opponents would be just as fierce. To continue with the actual negotiation does not therefore seem either possible or desirable.

Amend the present text without changing its structure

Improvements are certainly indispensable on the social and environmental clauses and on culture:

- social and environmental norms: on these subjects, it should be possible to obtain projections of which some, like the reference to basic social norms, would constitute a reference for future work. However, one must be aware of the reticence of certain participants (Mexico, Japan) and the ambiguous attitude of the US (leaning on the ability of the federal States to refuse any binding obligations).

- Cultural questions: a satisfactory regulation of cultural questions is indispensable for any agreement. This came via the replies to two questions during discussions: cultural exception and literary and artistic property. The transfer of the results gained in 1993 for the audiovisual sector would satisfy one part of the cultural milieu. It could be a good compromise, if the question of literary and artistic proprietorship is also regulated in a way which protects the integrity of existing conventions.

But these adjustments would, in themselves, be insufficient to reduce the fundamental objections to the MAI:

- in the social and environmental domain, in the actual state of the discussion, gaining clauses which are binding and subject to the dispute resolution procedure seems far from being assured.

- a result which might be satisfactory on the questions of social and environmental norms would not settle the public debate in France on culture, nor on putting national sovereignty in question. The union leaders we met underlined that the inclusion of social clauses in the MAI would not constitute a response to the threats to State sovereignty which the projected agreement contains.

- one should note that the inclusion of social and environmental norms in the text of the MAI risks to eliminate – or at least strongly reduce the interest of emerging countries for this agreement.

Renounce any international agreement on investment is not desirable.

Under the present disorder in globalisation, every country has an interest in the establishment of stable and fair rules. An agreement can provide the opportunity of advancing towards better regulation of the global economy by stabilising investment regimes and by achieving progress on social and environmental norms.

On the other hand failure could render international cooperation more fragile at a moment when the freedom of movement of capital is challenged and under question. As much for the sake of public opinion as for regulation, one must avoid confusion between financial flows of a speculative nature and direct investment, which is much more stable. An agreement would allow this distinction to be clearly established.

Furthermore, an agreement is in the interest of France and our firms:

- France is a major player in the development of foreign direct investment. As the fourth largest investor in the world, she has a particular interest in an open multilateral regime, which is non-discriminatory and universal. She is also ranks third in the world for foreign investments.

- France has no defensive interests in the matter of direct investments. Due to the suppression of the authorisation regime valid in 1995, French territory is already totally open to foreign investment, with the reservation of competition rules. Every investor in France also benefits from the protection offered by the European treaties, including access to the European Community Court of Justice. This point is not always clearly understood by the opponents of the MAI.

- from a proactive point of view, French interests are not threatened in the OECD countries where 80% of the stock of French foreign investments are located. There are potentially some legal uncertainties, notably in states with federal structures, but except for the question of US extra-territorial legislation, there is no real conflict. One must also remember that a legal framework which is transparent and non-discriminatory within the European Union, whose application is guaranteed by the Court of Justice. The EU constitutes a major destination for French investments: it represented, between 1993 and 1997m 52% to 63% of French investment flows, and 52% of French overseas investment stocks in 1997.

- the situation is less satisfactory in emerging economies, towards which 17% of French investment was directed in 1997. The protection accorded by bilateral agreements is theoretical but effective. It does not eliminate all possibilities of discrimination and the investment regimes remain unequal in their degree of openness.

- in economic terms, therefore, an agreement is positive if it assures the opening up of emerging countries under non-discriminatory conditions. But it is neither urgent not indispensable in the territories covered by the OECD.

There are certainly good reasons to seek an agreement. But not to conclude one at any price. It is a new agreement that should be negotiated, which both conforms to France's interests and is acceptable by public opinion.

The elements of a new agreement

The structure of a new agreement

The aim is to put in place a non-discriminatory international framework for international investment without jeopardising national sovereignty. This new agreement would be centred on the two traditional principles of national treatment and non-discrimination.

National treatment imposes on each country the obligation not to discriminate, in its own territory, between national and foreign economic agents. Within this framework, the State remains free to define and put into action in every domain, the public policies of its choice.

Non-discrimination obliges countries to accord identical treatment to all foreign economic agents, whatever their nationality. The principle is expressed, in treaties, by the most favoured nation clause.

These two principles naturally suffer from exception. Regional assemblies – such as the EU – are constituted on the basis of preferential treatment between member countries, and therefore constitute an exception to the principle of non-discrimination. The cultural policies set up in France and in the EU provide a dispensation from the principle of national treatment.

Technically, a new agreement could perhaps be concluded if the political will existed, by suppressing all provisions which limit the sovereignty of states and by imposing "absolute" obligations on them, beyond simply forbidding non-discrimination.

Whatever the location of the next negotiation, at least the following seven conditions must be respected:

Exclude portfolio investments and operations on the financial markets from the definition of investment. The application of the agreement would be limited to foreign direct investment. Two arguments give weight to such a modification. From an institutional point of view: the IMF is better equipped to deal with these questions. The other opportunity: in the actual context, to include financial flows would increase opposition and the difficulties.

A mechanism of dispute resolution open only to states and not to investors. This would allow a response to the criticism that the MAI serves the interests of some large enterprises who have the financial means to carry out legal battles.

The suppression of the article on the "general treatment" of foreign investors aimed at guaranteeing them "integral and constant" protection. This article is a prime example of an absolute obligation the extent of whose reach would be left totally to the interpretation of an international judge.

The suppression of the notion of a "measure of equivalent effect" to a nationalisation of expropriation, of which the interpretation by the same international judge could lead to declare all regulation or public legislation that reduces the economic value of economic foreign investment as not in conformity with the agreement.

In the matter of "performance requirements", reduction of the list of forbidden measures. It should be restricted to transposing the corresponding agreement already set up within the WTO, eventually extended to services.

Abandoning of the "ratchet effect" clause which renders irreversible all measures of liberalisation decided on by a government. It could be replaced by a mechanism of "deconsolidation" which would permit a State, as is the casein the WTO, to go back on an agreement, averaging out the provision of compensation to its commercial partners.

France should underline its interest in the effective participation of emerging countries. We do not propose to make this a condition for continuing the negotiations, but to subordinate signing an agreement to a sufficient number of these countries joining in.

The question of the location of the negotiation: OECD or WTO?

On could envisage two approaches to organise the negotiation of a new agreement.

Try a new approach at the OECD. This solution would obviously imply a fundamental reorientation of the MAI negotiation.

In this context, one could preserve the "top down" approach. Technically this permits starting from the actual text and proceeding by subtracting the most litigious passages.

If this solution was chosen, one should indicate very rapidly to our partners that without putting the usefulness of international rules for investment into question, France wishes to explore the possibility of a fundamental reorientation of the negotiation. But, without this reorientation, it would withdraw from the negotiations.

b) Demand the opening of a negotiation at the WTO.

An agreement on investment at the WTO would hit certain obstacles:

- No consensus exists today at the heart of the organisation. Certain developing countries remain very reticent about the opening of a negotiation.

- Launching negotiations in the WTO, if it arises, could not be decided at the next Ministerial Conference in December 1999. An agreement at the WTO cannot therefore reasonably be envisaged except at the start of the next decade.

- In this location, it is more difficult to progress on social and environmental norms.

But the WTO presents several advantages:

- Emerging countries are present and participating.

- The WTO method is, a priori, less problematic from the point of view of sovereignty. On the one hand, the "top down" approach is not used there: negotiations take place according to the principle of positive lists or "offers". On the other hand, only the states and not private enterprises have access to the dispute settlement procedures.

- French firms are fairly favourable to the WTO since they consider that they have real proactive interests vis-à-vis emerging countries.

- This position is consistent with our multilateral approach in favour of wide agenda for future multilateral negotiations. We propose to return to the subject in the second part of our work.

In all, therefore, two possibilities exist:

- Either to re-start the negotiations at the OECD, with the aim of a fundamental reorientation, in conformity with the principles set out above. The negotiation process has already begun, but the result is uncertain. It is not sure that all the conditions we desire can be satisfied. Also, the difficulties raised by the scale of US reservations remain. This route can lead to finding again. After a certain amount of time, the same difficulties met in spring 1998.

- Or to demand the opening of a negotiation at the WTO, with the OECD preserving a role of expertise and support. However, in the absence of consensus. An effort of persuasion in emerging countries seems necessary. They can find it in their interest to agree to this opening in exchange for advantages obtained within the framework of a global cycle of negotiation.

Between these two possibilities, the consultations we have conducted do not allow us to make a decision in a decisive way. But it seems important that, whatever the solution chosen by the government, France continues to work actively in favour of a multilateral framework of rules covering international investment. Such an attitude conforms to both its role and its interests.

REMARKS ON PROCEDURE AND METHODS OF WORK

Besides the remarks made above about the organisation of the negotiation by the OECD, one could add the following observations:

The under-estimation of the political consequences contained in the MAI in addition to the habit of secrecy has left outside the negotiations most of the representatives of civil society. This resulted in a double inconvenience: on the one hand, sharp protests coming from those who felt excluded, on the other, a discrepancy between the negotiation and public opinion. This discrepancy is often due to a lack of diffusion of documents. It is even less well founded since, as has been said, ideas of secrecy and confidentiality have become very relative.

In the future, and for negotiations over sensitive texts, il will doubtless be indispensable to organise consultations systematically:

- ad hoc consultations with the milieux concerned before and during certain negotiations. One should never forget that certain foreign delegations often comprise representatives of business, unions and, increasingly, NGOs.

- Permanent consultation for all the negotiations on economic agreements (for example: for the next round of WTO negotiations) which could take the form of a "consultative council on multilateral economic negotiations", placed within the Minister of the Economy, Finance and Industry.

- Regular contacts with the press, by mechanisms to be invented, with the aim, not only of keeping them informed, but also of gathering their reactions and questions during the negotiations.

Also, as is usual in our country concerning international relations, Parliament has not been associated with the matter. MPs have not been able to take cognisance of the consequences of the agreement except after being contacted by the NGOs, the unions or the press. In the future, it would doubtless be useful that the two Assemblies provide a structure responsible for following the most important economic negotiations with a view to regularly drawing it to the attention of MPs when political problems appear. One could even envisage that, according to their respective prerogatives, one could organise information of civil servants and the Assemblies by those in the ministries responsible for the negotiations.

On procedure, the rules were respected. There were meetings and exchange of memos. But the MAI is both a technically and politically complex dossier. It was only possible to diagnose certain political problems after the negotiations. This therefore seems to have suffered from a lack of political control.

The inter-ministerial team charged with this very heavy negotiation, under the direction of the Finance Ministry, the [DREE] and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, is a very competent team but of few people. For this kind of dossier, this should reinforced, if only to be a match for the teams of negotiators from other countries, often more numerous. Furthermore, if one wants to proceed to consultations, one needs a sufficient number of people.

The consultations we conducted show the importance of the capacity for legal analysis of all the parties. The NGOs, in particular, have been able to develop very deep analyses of the text of the MAI, as also have the unions. The professional organisations do not seem to have always disposed of the same sources of information or the same means.

The MAI raises real legal problems over the rights and obligations of States. Also, using this agreement, in particular in the dispute resolution procedure, necessitates real legal knowledge.

It seems indispensable for our country, its Administration, its professional and union organisations to draw on the knowledge of specialised lawyers if they have not already done so.

It seems equally necessary that the universities produce more lawyers knowledgeable in international law which is still largely anglo-saxon.

The meetings of the negotiations themselves do not always permit the examination of fundamental questions, and even less to get agreement between points of view. In order to do this, bilateral contacts are indispensable before negotiation meetings. Now we have not always sufficiently developed at a political level the exchange of viewpoints with our equivalents in other countries, even within the EU.

While the arguments (for example on the "cultural exception", and on social and environmental norms) are strong and should find greater support, France has not been able to gather together round her all the potential support which exists in our partners, in their Parliaments, their unions, their associations and in the European Parliament.

It is important that sufficient contacts and explanations permit an active and open presentation of our positions, even more so since these choices can be better understood and be more convincing if they are clearly presented.

Return to Quick Links on The MAI