Three Threats: An Analytical Framework for the CFIUS Process

Under what conditions might a foreign acquisition of a US company constitute a genuine national security threat to the United States? What kinds of risks and threats should analysts and strategists on the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), as well as their congressional overseers, be prepared to identify and deal with? This study looks at three types of foreign acquisitions of US companies that may pose a legitimate national security threat. The first is a proposed acquisition that would make the United States dependent on a foreign-controlled supplier of goods or services that are crucial to the functioning of the US economy and that this supplier might delay, deny, or place conditions on the provision of those goods or services. The second is a proposed acquisition that would allow the transfer to a foreign-controlled entity of technology or other expertise that might be deployed in a manner harmful to US national interests. The third potential threat is a proposed acquisition that would provide the capability to infiltrate, conduct surveillance on, or sabotage the provision of goods or services that are crucial to the functioning of the US economy. This study analyzes these threats in detail and considers what criteria are needed for a proposed foreign acquisition to be considered threatening. Ultimately, the vast majority of foreign acquisitions pose no credible threat to national security on these grounds.

Reforming OPIC for the 21st Century

The mission of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC)--created in 1969 through an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act--is "to mobilize and facilitate the participation of United States private capital and skills in the economic and social development of less developed countries and areas, and countries in transition from nonmarket to market economies, thereby complementing the development assistance objectives of the United States." OPIC pursues this mission by insuring US investors against political risks that include expropriation, currency inconvertibility, and political violence; by financing US investors overseas through loans and loan guarantees; and by providing credits to private investment funds that make equity investments in businesses in underdeveloped countries and regions.

North-South Relations in the 1980s

Throughout the 1970s the North-South dialogue was dominated by the debate about global negotiations to oversee massive resource transfers from North to South, the debate about a central role for commodity agreements to augment the export earnings of Southern nations. and the debate about the creation of international regulations and codes to prevent the exploitation of the South by the North via the mechanism of the latter\u27s transnational corporations

Chinese Investment in Latin American Resources: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

China's need for vast amounts of minerals to sustain its high economic growth rate has led Chinese investors to acquire stakes in natural resource companies, extend loans to mining and petroleum investors, and write long-term procurement contracts for oil and minerals in Africa, Latin America, Australia, Canada, and other resource-rich regions. These efforts to procure raw materials might be exacerbating the problems of strong demand; "locking up" natural resource supplies, gaining preferential access to available output, and extending control over the world's extractive industries. But Chinese investment need not have a zero-sum effect if Chinese procurement arrangements expand, diversify, and make more competitive the global supplier system. Previous Peterson Institute research (see Moran 2010) and new research undertaken in this paper, show that the majority of Chinese investments and procurement arrangements serve to help diversify and make more competitive the portion of the world natural resource base located in Latin America. For a more comprehensive analysis, we conduct a structured comparison of four Peruvian mines with foreign ownership: two Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development-based, and two Chinese. We examine what conditions or policy measures are most effective in inducing Chinese investors to adopt international industry standards and best-practices, and which are not. We distill from this case study some lessons for other countries in Latin America, Africa, and elsewhere that intend to use Chinese investment to develop their extractive sectors: first, that financial markets bring accountability; second, that the host country regulatory environment makes a significant difference; and third, that foreign investment is a catalyst for change.Chinese foreign direct investment, foreign direct investment (FDI), natural resources, Peru, environmental impact, corporate social responsibility.

Does Foreign Direct Investment Promote Development?

What is the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) on development? The answer is important for the lives of millions--if not billions--of workers, families, and communities in the developing world. The answer is crucial for policymakers in developing and developed countries, and in multilateral agencies. This volume gathers together the cutting edge of new research on FDI and host country economic performance and presents the most sophisticated critiques of current and past inquiries. It probes the limits of what can be determined from available evidence and from innovative investigative techniques. In addition, the book presents new results, concludes with an analysis of the implications for contemporary policy debates, and proposeds new avenues for future research.

CFIUS的改革必须再改革

Congress and the White House are proposing a fundamental “reform” of CFIUS regulations, via the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act. This Perspective argues that these so-called reforms would damage US interests and shows how the FIRRMA reforms must be reformed