Ben Muse

Vetting the security implications of foreign investments

The House and Senate have passed separate bills to modify the process the U.S. uses to evaluate the security implications of potential foreign investments. 

Congress will have to address the differences between the two when it returns: Cfius overhaul back in spotlight (Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Financial Times, August 23):

After months of debate about how to reform the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (Cfius), the Treasury-led panel that reviews such deals, most insiders say legislators will pass a law that resembles the House proposal, which has been endorsed by the business community, or do nothing.

The House bill would force Cfius – which was lambasted for approving the sale of five US port terminals to Dubai-based DP World – to conduct mandatory 90-day investigations of all sensitive acquisitions by foreign state-owned companies. It would also require Cfius to notify relevant congressional committees once investigations into a deal are closed....

But with all eyes in Washington fixed on November’s elections, one lobbyist close to the debate says questions over DP World and other deals could resurface and colour the final outcome of the legislation.

Suppose terrorists set off a nuclear bomb in a container in the Port of Long Beach?

Suppose:

"...terrorists conceal a 10-kiloton nuclear bomb in a shipping container and ship it to the Port of Long Beach. Unloaded onto a pier, it explodes shortly thereafter. This is referred to as a “ground-burst” as opposed to an “airburst” explosion."

This is the sort of thing they think about at RAND: New RAND study models consequences of a nuke attack on a port.  (Charles Meade and Roger Molander, August 2006)

I learned about this from the Homeland Security Watch blog

Life Imitates "The Onion"

I didn't read the title closely enough and thought I really was reading a story from The Onion: United Church to Boycott Bottled Water?  Opposes Commodification of Water (EclectEcon, August 17).

What did happen on Easter Island?

Jared Diamond has popularized the use of Easter Island as a model of ecologically driven social collapse brought about by unsustainable consumption (Easter Island's End , Discover, August 1995).  He argues that the original inhabitants overharvested the available resource base.  The result was disaster:

Scoping studies for FTAs

Bryan Mercurio of the Law School at the University of New South Wales raises some questions about the use of benefit analyses in scoping studies for prospective FTAs: Bryan Mercurio on Estimating the Benefits of FTAs (International Economic Law and Policy Blog, August 13).

Be careful with estimates of the impacts of trade reform

Paul, at Truck and Barter, has a nice post on the use of computable general equilibrium (CGE) models to estimate the impacts of trade measures: Trade and CGE Models (August 7). 

He highlights a new Oxfam working paper critiquing the use of CGE models, and has links to that, and to other resources. 

How do you wake an enchanted princess?

Following the breakdown in negotiations on July 24, Pascal Lamy cast a spell, and put the Doha Round negotiations into an enchanted sleep: The "Sleeping Beauty" option (Ben Muse, July 24).

There's lots of talk now about how to wake them up.  The International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development newsletter Bridges reports: Governments Exploring How To Restart Doha Round Talks (August 2)

Here's one scenario:

Following talks in Rio de Janeiro from 27-29 July, Schwab and Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said that they were both committed to arriving at a far-reaching Doha Round agreement.

The US trade envoy, who will meet counterparts from around the world over the next few months, suggested that striking a deal in the next five to eight months remained possible. She said that she hoped to have a framework agreement ready by early 2007, which she could use to try to persuade Congress to extend the Bush administration's trade promotion authority. Due to expire at the end of June 2007, this mandate allows the administration to negotiate trade agreements and submit them to Congress for a take-it-or-leave-it vote. A short-term extension is thought to be more achievable than a wholescale renewal, particularly if an accord looks likely.