VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0233/01 0771326
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 181326Z MAR 09
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 8153
INFO RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC
RUEHOT/AMEMBASSY OTTAWA 5679
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 5786
RUEHAR/AMEMBASSY ACCRA 0550
RUEHQT/AMEMBASSY QUITO 0404
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 6860
RUEHCV/AMEMBASSY CARACAS 0365
RUEHHI/AMEMBASSY HANOI 0950
RUEHSB/AMEMBASSY HARARE 0407
RUEHBU/AMEMBASSY BUENOS AIRES 2735
RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI 3041
RUEHRL/AMEMBASSY BERLIN 3576
RUEHHE/AMEMBASSY HELSINKI 3042
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 5842

UNCLAS GENEVA 000233 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE for IO/EDA, EEB 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: EFIN ECON EINV UNCTAD
SUBJECT:  UNCTAD: Investment for Development 
 
¶1. SUMMARY:  UNCTAD experts, numbering approximately 50 member 
country and 40 field experts, focused on the development dimension 
of international investment agreements (IIAs) at a recent meeting in 
Geneva.  The experts covered many areas of current debate in the 
international investment community, including the possible need for 
more coherence among investment agreements, national security 
safeguards in agreements, the use of model agreements, 
investor-State dispute settlement, and how investment agreements 
promote development.  The group decided to reconvene annually.  END 
SUMMARY. 
 
¶2. The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) 
held its first multi-year expert meeting on investment for 
development, February 10-11, 2009, in Geneva.  The US delegation was 
led by Wes Scholz (Director, Office of Investment Affairs, US State 
Department), and included Heather Goethert (Financial Economist, 
Office of Investment Affairs, State Department), Jonathan Kallmer 
(Deputy Assistant US Trade Representative for Investment) and Ann 
Low (First Secretary and US Representative to UNCTAD, US Mission, 
Geneva). 
 
Spaghetti bowl of IIAs 
----------------------- 
¶3. James Zahn (Officer-in-Charge, Division on Investment and 
Enterprise, UNCTAD) spoke of the dramatically increased use of IIAs. 
 Zahn introduced the "spaghetti bowl" concept to show the complexity 
and overlap of the current system.  As of the end of 2008 there were 
2,628 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) or other investment 
agreements and 2,806 Double Taxation Treaties (DTTs), with an 
average of three new IIAs being negotiated each week.  An effort to 
visually present these IIAs by drawing lines between countries with 
IIAs turns the world map into a spaghetti bowl.  Zahn stated that 
the 'spaghetti bowl' and its inherent complexity have made 
transparency and consistency across, and among, IIAs much more 
difficult. 
 
¶4. Zhan's presentation spurred some delegates to press for the 
launch of an international investment treaty negotiation or to 
suggest that UNCTAD should develop model measures for investment 
agreements as a means of improving coherence among agreements. 
Other delegates, including from Canada and the United States, 
disagreed and pointed to previous failed attempts to negotiate a 
global investment agreement, and to the fact that many countries 
have recently introduced innovative new measures in their 
agreements.  Countries need time to gain experience with, and to 
evaluate, these new measures before they will be able to take a 
position on their value as global model measures.  Differences in 
measures may also represent genuine policy differences between 
countries that could prevent consensus on model measures.  Delegates 
agreed with Zahn's suggestion that UNCTAD should play a role in 
facilitating understanding of IIAs and the exchange of best 
practices concerning IIAs.  UNCTAD maintains the world's largest 
public database of IIAs. 
 
National Security Exceptions in IIAs 
----------------------------------- 
¶5.  Delegates discussed the balance between national security 
safeguards and openness to foreign investment.  When negotiating an 
IIA, countries may exclude certain industries or sectors of their 
economies from investment by foreigners due to national security 
considerations.  Many developing countries at the meeting, as well 
as Canada, expressed concern about these "national security 
exceptions" as potentially protectionist measures on the part of 
developed nations.  Karl Sauvant (Executive Director of the Vale 
Columbia Center on Sustainable International Investment) defended 
the use of such exceptions, stating that FDI is not always 
beneficial to certain industries[L1].  Sauvant stated that FDI to 
developing countries declined 20 percent in 2008, and he expected a 
further 30 percent decline in 2009.  He suggested that UNCTAD could 
play a monitoring role to keep track of potentially protectionist 
measures that countries may take in the wake of the global financial 
crisis.  Russia stated that many of its key industries are protected 
from FDI not only for security reasons but also to protect strategic 
domestic[L2] industries. 
 
MODELS FOR BITS: PROs and CONs 
------------------------------ 
 
¶6.  The delegate from the Ghana Investment Promotion Centre stated 
that Ghana has four templates or models for BITs: an Asian model, a 
North American model, a European model and a developing country 
model.  The Ghana representative said that this four-model approach 
[L3]has worked well for Ghana, allowing Ghana to negotiate 23 BITs. 
Other developing countries praised the virtues of templates or 
models for negotiating BITs since standardization would facilitate 
negotiations and [L4]ensure consistency and transparency among BITs 
in the international system. 
 
¶7.  Developed countries, led by an intervention from Germany, warned 
that attempting to standardize BITs or to have a one-model approach 
did not offer sufficient flexibility for negotiating partners to 
adjust for the needs of different countries, and that a one-model 
approach could encroach on a state's sovereignty if the provisions 
in that model conflicted with that state's domestic policies. 
Cynthia Wallace (Consultant, Former Senior Adviser to the Executive 
Director, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) added that 
variation in BITs is healthy for development as it allows for 
flexibility.  Mr. Masa Sugano (Deputy Director, Economic Partnership 
Division, Trade Policy Bureau) from Japan offered that consistency 
could be achieved by creating IIAs with regional partners, then 
extrapolating those agreements to international partners.  Brazil 
also opposed the idea of creating global model measures for 
investment agreements. 
 
INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AND INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTES 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶8.  The discussion on investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) was 
wide-ranging, represented many different viewpoints, and constituted 
a major focus of the two-day meeting.  The delegations of Ecuador, 
Venezuela, Argentina, and Zimbabwe said that due to the complexity 
of BITs, arbitration was perceived to be unfair to developing 
countries that have few resources to devote to legal arbitration 
cases.  Bernard Bishop (Professor of Law, Griffith University, 
Australia) countered by citing 300 cases involving BITs being judged 
50 percent in favor of the state and 50 percent in favor of the 
investor,[L5] and he asserted that the settlements are fair.  The 
cases pending against Ecuador at the International Centre for 
Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) were tried in absentee, 
which the delegate from Ecuador said was not fair[L6].  The delegate 
from Ecuador stated that Ecuador has notified its intent to bar 
investment agreements relating to natural resources from 
arbitration[G7] by ICSID.  Andrea Saldarriaga[L8] (International 
Legal Consultant, NY, USA) proposed returning to basic international 
law principles instead of arbitration and judging cases based on the 
individual circumstances, not on similar jurisprudence, as a 
possible solution to the perceived problems in ISDS arbitration. 
Walid Hamida (Matre de Confrences, Universit d'Evry Val-d'Essome 
et Sciences Po, Paris, France) countered Ms. Saldarriaga's point, 
stating that jurisprudence was not an issue, since historically 
investor-State dispute settlement judgments have been equally 
divided between those in favor of the investor and those in favor of 
the State.  Luis Alberto Gonzales Garcia (Legal Advisor, Matrix 
Chambers, London) strongly urged member countries to update their 
list of qualified arbitrators[L9]. 
 
¶9.  Brazil argued that a strong domestic judicial system is 
imperative to avoid taking investor-State disputes to international 
arbitration.  China also criticized the arbitration method, stating 
that countries have different legal systems and should find common 
legal ground for investor-State dispute settlement.  The United 
States delegate voiced support for UNCTAD to consider work to help 
countries develop strategies to avoid investor-State disputes and 
for managing the risks of disputes that do arise. 
 
BRAZIL OPPOSED TO IIAs 
---------------------- 
¶10.  Brazil is not a party to any IIA and criticized the current 
"spaghetti bowl" of IIAs as discouraging development.  The delegate 
from Brazil [L10]said that Brazil has experienced increased GDP over 
the last 40 years without being a party to any BITs.[L11] Brazil, 
supported by Finland, stated that an investor must have a strong 
reason to invest in a country, and if the judicial system is 
reliable and transparent, no BITs are necessary to encourage 
investment.  Brazil recommended experimenting with methods other 
than BITs for IIAs.[L12] 
 
INVESTMENT PROMOTION 
-------------------- 
 
¶11.  Meeting participants debated the link between investment 
promotion and IIAs. Germany stated that the goals of a BIT should be 
explicitly defined in the BIT, including any development objectives. 
 The US recognized activities to promote development as important, 
but added that the fundamental purpose of a BIT is to encourage 
investment.  Development may be an offshoot of that FDI, but we 
should not complicate and confuse the IIA by attempting to make 
development programs the primary purpose of IIAs.  The delegate from 
Ghana agreed that the primary purpose of an IIA must be to 
facilitate investment.  However, he said that by linking investment 
promotion with Ghana's IIAs, he hoped to turn the IIA into a living 
document that actually attracted new investment.  The European 
Community opined that investment is fundamentally for development. 
The representative from Finland stated that the role of investment 
agreements is to promote investment by private businesses by 
creating a positive investment climate between the signatories. 
While increased investment may result in economic development, it is 
not the primary purpose of the investment agreement. 
 
STORELLA # 
 
[L1]How does this relate to the use of nse?  Is sauvant suggesting 
that the definition of NSE be extended beyond national security 
considerations to social considerations, making a value judgement on 
whether the DFI is beneficial?  It doesn't make sense to me that 
these two thoughts are connected, or if they remain connected, you 
need to add more of an explanation. 
[L2]Was this a so general or limited to "strategic" domestic 
industry or someother qualifier? 
[L3]You need to define this.  Then make the comment about it. 
[L4]You need to define this? Why is a one-model approach similar to 
a four-model approach?  This is confusing. 
[L5]What does this fact tell us? 
[L6] Put this sentence before prior one since it explains why 
Ecuador will not accept arbitration 
[G7]I've changed this  to reflect what Ecuador has actually done--I 
do not have notes on what the delegate said, but I think he may have 
gone further that what Ecuador's policy actually is--no need to 
record that in a cable as what they have actually done makes the 
point. 
[L8]Title and country? 
[L9]Zach, are ISDS arbitration cases all done under a single law? 
For example, in finance, disputes over bond payments tend to all 
fall under ny state jurisdication for settlement.  Was part of the 
arbitration issue that developing countries don't like referring 
cases to be judged according to US law? 
[L10]Same issue as with Ecuador..above 
[L11]This is confusing. Is Brazil saying BITS are good and it has 
used them successfully over the past 40 years or  that IIAs are bad? 
 Is Brazil party to BITs? How many? 
[L12]Rewrite para so Brazil's position is clear.