" ECONOMIC PATRIOTISM " TAKES SHAPE IN FRANCE

C O N F I D E N T I A L PARIS 000357 SIPDIS SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR/WE AND EB/OIA - WES SCHOLZ AND JAMES ROSELI TREASURY FOR OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT - GAY SILLS STATE PASS USTR E.O. 12958: DECL: 01/19/2016 TAGS: EINV ETRD ECON EUN PREL FR SUBJECT: " ECONOMIC PATRIOTISM " TAKES SHAPE IN FRANCE REF: A. A) 04 PARIS 0626 ¶B. B) 05 PARIS 5441 Classified By: Classified by Econ M/C Thomas J White, reasons 1.4 b & d Summary -------------- ¶1. (C) As reported reftels, the GOF continues to enact elements of Parliamentarian Bernard Carayon,s &economic intelligence8 recommendations, as outlined in his 2003 report. The GOF issued a decree on December 31, 2005, to define which sectors merit protection from foreign control for &national defense8 reasons, and to refine its review process for proposed foreign investments. The GOF tried to bypass EU concerns by making the decree applicable only to non-EU entities, but will need to further amend the decree to deal with EU concerns about its economic space. Officials assure us that the decree is only a technical amendment, but that assessment is belied by PM Villepin,s public remarks signaling the decree is part of his &economic patriotism8 agenda, as well as potential loopholes to be found in the text as published. While the Government,s official policy remains one that publicly encourages foreign investment with the goal of creating jobs in France, the decree demonstrates that at least some key officials do not fully appreciate the benefits of foreign investment and an open investment regime. End Summary. Investment Controls Enacted -------------- ¶2. (U) The GOF tightened foreign investment controls by decree published December 31, 2005, and revised January 4, ¶2006. The underlying legislative basis for scrutinizing foreign investments in France remains unchanged. Currently, Article 151-3 of the French Monetary and Financial Code provides that the Ministry of Economy and Finance must approve all foreign investment that a) could impair France's public order, public security, or national defense interests, and b) is related to the research, production or selling of arms, ammunitions, powders and explosive substances. The penalty for an investor who contravenes the law can be up to double the amount of the illegal investment. ¶3. (SBU) What has changed in France is the regulation implementing the legislative authority. The new decree, number 1739-2005 of December 30, 2005, as published in the Journal Officiel on December 31, does not define strategic sectors as specifically as expected. When initially leaked to the press, the GOF reportedly had identified 10 specific industries. However, the new decree lists several categories of covered activities, only one of which, the gaming industry (casinos),represents a discrete business activity. ¶4. (U) The eleven covered categories are: -- activities involving gambling; -- activities concerning private security, specifically where security is provided to an operator of vital importance; provided to civil aviation or maritime ports; or provided to zones where national defense secrets are kept; -- activities involving the research, development or production of means to combat the illicit use by terrorists of pathogenic or toxic agents or to prevent the health consequences of such use; -- activities concerning the material used for the interception of communications and for eavesdropping; -- activities for the centers of evaluation for security certification for computer products or systems; -- activities for the goods or services of security for computer systems used by contract by public or private operators of defense installations; -- activities related to dual-use technologies, as defined by EU regulation 1334/2000 of June 22, 2000; -- activities relative to cryptology resources as well to cryptology for ensuring confidence in the digital economy; -- activities exercised by firms that are depositaries of national defense secrets; -- activities of research, production or sale of arms, munitions, powders and explosive substances destined for military use; -- activities exercised by firms that have concluded contracts for study or for providing equipment for the Ministry of Defense, either directly or by subcontractor, for any of the goods or services listed above. ¶5. (SBU) Although the decree more or less tracks the same ten industrial sectors identified in previous press leaks, what is most striking about the way it is written is its emphasis on &activities,8 so that an investor has to think twice about getting approval for investing in a firm that even only tangentially is involved in the national defense. The Mouse that Roared -------------- ¶6. (U) The decree also changes the triggers for GOF investment scrutiny. The prior decree required GOF review if a proposed investment were to rise above the threshold of 33% of the outstanding shares or voting rights. Now, the decree spells out that any investment that grants control of a firm, or surpasses the 33% threshold, or involves any part of any branch of any firm that has established headquarters in France, is subject to GOF review. ¶7. (C) In our analysis, this last criterion appears aimed at preventing the purchase of firms with the intent of moving production, or trade secrets, or patent right ownership, out of France, since foreign ownership would automatically create an incentive for moving a firm,s headquarters and thus its properties, both tangible and intangible. The symbolic attachment to &headquarters8 can be explained in part by the Texas Pacific Group,s acquisition in 2000 of part of the firm Gemplus, which at the time had its headquarters in Gemenos, France. The purchase started the whole uproar in France over economic patriotism. The firm, a manufacturer of &smart8 cards, did in fact move its headquarters ) albeit only to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, not to the U.S. A Tortured History -------------- ¶8. (C) We spoke with Vincent Guitton, Office Director for Investments at the Ministry of Economy and the chief architect of the decree, on January 12. Guitton said that as originally envisioned a year ago, the decree was only supposed to be a technical amendment. Against Guitton,s written recommendation, the new Prime Minister last summer decided to vaunt the decree as part of his &economic patriotism8 agenda (reftels). As soon as that happened, Guitton related that the drafting of the decree became an inter-ministerial nightmare. According to one local diplomat also covering the same issue, several ministries fought to greatly broaden the scope of the decree, in line with their views of what industries needed protection and/or help toward becoming European (that is, French) champions. ¶9. (C) According to Guitton, another problem arose in September 2005 when the European Commission voiced concerns about the compatibility of the decree with EU economic rights. The Commission viewed with suspicion the idea that French officials could prevent capital flows among its citizens, when treaty rights spell out the opposite. To forestall Commission concerns, the GOF inserted a clause making prior approval a requirement only for people not members of the European Community, firms not headquartered in those states, or French citizens who do not reside in those states. The decree as originally written required prior GOF approval for investments by citizens of the EU, firms headquartered in the EU, or French citizens residing in the EU states; the GOF added the ¬8 to each category (a significant typo) by amendment on January 4. There was also a legal disagreement within the GOF about whether &European Community8 included the countries of Lichtenstein, Iceland and Norway. The GOF finally concluded yes, but the Commission lawyers now take the opposite view. So, Guitton said the GOF will issue another amendment clarifying that the decree does not apply to citizens or firms from the European Economic space. ¶10. (C) Among the factors that shaped the final decree was a conference at the National Assembly on 10 October 2005, in which US Treasuy and Embassy reps participated, which addressed the possibility of creating a French equivalent to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and a French version of the Exon-Florio provisions. The new decree explicitly allows the GOF to negotiate and apply conditions to mitigate national defense concerns before an investment can proceed. According to Guillot, this had been the prior GOF practice, but the GOF lacked legislative authority. U.S. participants had pressed the GOF to allow for mitigation, so that potential investors are not faced with stark choices, but have the possibility to take some action that would allow the investment to proceed. Comment -------------- ¶11. (SBU) The need to allay the French people's fears of high unemployment has affected how the current government is using its &economic patriotism8 agenda. As far as we are aware, there are no significant new outside threats to France,s national economic interests. While the &economic patriotism8 proposals supposedly seek to level the playing field with France,s trading partners, in fact it appears to strive to inject a bit of GOF control into the enterprises through which it can still project French power, namely, the defense industries. We have seen an evolution in the &economic patriotism8 rhetoric. The PM,s rhetoric is now much more focused on making France a champion for employment, and a protector against outsourcing, as that obviously plays better to the electorate. However, since the Prime Minister clearly signaled his intent to use the decree to create French champions, our focus will be on how the GOF uses the decree, and what conditions it chooses to impose. We will also be curious over time to see whether the current investment climate chills new investment in the targeted areas of activities. Please visit Paris' Classified Website at: http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/eur/paris/index.c fm Stapleton