Chilling effect on bids
When they seemed just aimed at keeping US assets out of Chinese or Arab hands, Congress' moves to tinker with the legislative framework for the vetting of foreign takeovers caused relatively little outcry from big US business and major allies of Washington. However, now that some Senators are embarking on a general toughening of the way the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS) scrutinises all foreign takeovers, the Wall Street heavies and the UK government have weighed in to complain.
The heads of 17 big US financial institutions have written to the Senate banking committee to warn that its plans to revise CFIUS rules could have "a chilling effect on foreign investment" in the US that could, in turn, invite retaliation from US trading partners. Meanwhile, Alan Johnson, Britain's trade and industry minister, yesterday warned that tightening CFIUS' vetting of foreign investment would lay the US open to the charge of hypocrisy when it lambasted protectionism abroad. "There can't be one set of rules when your team plays away and a different set of rules when they play at home," he said.
It would have been better if such people had spoken out earlier. In theory, there is still time to influence the course of this legislation. The Senate banking committee was only yesterday marking up its version of the CFIUS bill, which has still to go to the full Senate, and the House of Representatives has yet to take any action. But one unfortunate precedent has already been set. This is that if Congress raises a really big fuss about an individual takeover bid, it can effectively frighten off a foreign bidder, as happened last year when the China National Offshore Oil Corporation abandoned its bid for Unocal, or this year when Dubai Ports World promised to sell off those US ports it had intended to buy from P&O. That the Senate's proposed CFIUS revision contains no explicit legal veto for Congress over foreign bids - which would breach the separation of powers - may be neither here nor there, if the legislature has de facto political veto.
There are other concerns. Though many details have yet to be fixed, one of the proposed legislation's certain innovations is that Congress will be alerted early on to the fact that a foreign bid is being reviewed by CFIUS, an inter-agency body in the administration. This will open up even more opportunities for business lobbyists, whose general activities do not appear much constrained under resolutions passed by Congress this week in the wake of the Abramoff affair. Another problem is the near-certainty that there will be some extra delay in CFIUS' consideration of takeover bids. One proposal the Senate committee is considering would add a further 30 day investigation, in the event of disagreement inside CFIUS, to the 75 day review period already allowed under the law; and on top of that, a further 15 days for a presidential decision. The prospect of a 120 day delay would put foreign bidders for US assets at a big disadvantage to potential US rivals, irrespective of the final judgment reached.
The Bush administration is rightly opposed to any particular or general increases in investment protectionism. But it has so fed the obsession about national security that it has created a climate in which economic xenophobia can be justified on spurious grounds. Perhaps only comparison with France's current vogue for economic patriotism might shame Congress out of this irresponsible behaviour.
美国应摒弃“经济爱国主义”
当美国国会的行动似乎仅仅是为了防止美国资产落入中国人或阿拉伯人之手的时候，他们对涉及外资收购审查的相关法律框架进行修订之举，并没有引来美国大企业和美国政府主要盟友太多的抗议。然而，鉴于一些参议员正着手全面加大美国外国投资委员会(CFIUS)对所有外资收购的审查力度，华尔街的重量级人物和英国政府已提出抱怨。
美国17家大型金融机构的主管最近联名致信参议院银行委员会(Senate banking committee)，警告称，该委员会修订美国外国投资委员会审查规则的计划，可能会“对外资造成冷却效应”，并可能招致美国贸易伙伴的报复。与此同时，英国贸易与工业大臣艾伦?约翰逊(Alan Johnson)昨日也警告称，在美国对其他国家的保护主义措施严厉谴责之际，加大美国外国投资委员会对外资的审查力度，将令美国背上虚伪的骂名。他表示：“你不可能在客场比赛实行一套规则，在主场却有另外一套规则。”
如果他们能够更早一点出面说话的话，情况会更好一些。从理论上来说，还有时间影响这一立法进程。参议院银行委员会昨日才提出了有关美国外国投资委员会的法案，且尚需接受全体参议员的审议，而众议院迄今尚未采取任何行动。但此前已有一个不幸的先例：如果国会对某宗收购表示出强烈异议的话，它实际上能够吓跑外国竞购者。如去年中海油(CNOOC)撤销对优尼科(Unocal)的出价；或者今年迪拜港口世界公司(Dubai Ports World)在收购英国铁行港口(P&O)后，承诺出售此项交易中购得的美国港口。参议院此次提出的美国外国投资委员会修正案中，并未包含国会对外国收购案拥有任何明确的法定否决权的内容（这可能有悖三权分立的原则）。但如果国会方面拥有事实上的政治否决权的话，那么，该法案是否包括这一内容或许无关紧要。
此外，还存在一些其它问题。尽管许多细节尚有待确定，但该法案的一大“创新”无疑是，如果某宗外国收购正由美国外国投资委员会审查，美国国会将提前得到“预警”。外国投资委员会是一个跨机构的政府组织。这将为商业游说者提供更多机会。在阿布拉莫夫(Abramoff)事件之后，美国国会本周通过了某些决议，但对这些游说者的一般活动似乎约束不大。另一个问题是，美国外国投资委员会对外国收购案的考虑时间，几乎肯定将再度延长。目前参议院银行委员会正在考虑一项提议，在美国外国投资委员会内部存在分歧的情况下，在目前法律本已规定的75天审查期之外，再增加30天的调查期；而在此基础上，另有15天供总统做出决定。无论最终作出何种判断，这种120天的拖延都将使外国公司在竞购美国资产时，与潜在的美国竞争对手相比处于明显劣势。
对于投资保护主义的抬头，不管是针对特殊或是普遍情况，布什政府都反对。这种做法是对的。但布什政府在国家安全方面制造的成见太深，造就了这样一种风气：只要有“莫须有”的罪名，就有理由经济排外。或许，只有拿法国盛行的经济爱国主义来作类比，才能令美国国会因羞愧而停止这种不负责任的行为。
