U.S. AND RUSSIA LAUNCH ECONOMIC DIALOGUE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 STATE 055587 SIPDIS SENSITIVE E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECON EFIN ENRG ETRD PREL RS SUBJECT: U.S. AND RUSSIA LAUNCH ECONOMIC DIALOGUE ¶1. (SBU) Summary: In its first formal meeting, the U.S.-Russia Economic Dialogue reviewed areas of mutual interest on investment, trade and energy. U/S Jeffery and First DFM Denisov fostered a warm and informative exchange of views on such topics as open investment, sovereign wealth funds, and energy efficiency, with each delegation's experts clarifying specific points. The two delegations shared ideas for setting up a business-to-business dialogue, with the hope of a kick-off meeting in fall 2008. The highlight of the day was a drop-by visit by the Secretary, who underscored the importance of the dialogue to the President's Strategic Framework agreed April 6 in Sochi. Denisov expressed his hope that the Dialogue would serve as a bridge between political transitions in both countries and invited U/S Jeffery to Moscow in late fall for the Economic Dialogue's next meeting. End Summary. ¶2. (SBU) The inaugural U.S.-Russia Economic Dialogue took place April 28, 2008 in Washington. Under Secretary for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs, Reuben Jeffery III, and Deputy Foreign Minister Andrey Denisov co-chaired, with the participation of interagency delegations. This dialogue was the first tangible outcome of the Strategic Framework Agreement, issued by Presidents Putin and Bush in Sochi April 6, and is the first of three dialogues to be launched as a part of the Framework (the others are a private sector business and energy dialogues). The day-long agenda included a presentation on the U.S. economy (led by the President's Council of Economic Advisors); a discussion of open investment policy (led by the NSC, State and Treasury), and which included a review of the status of Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) exploratory talks; and third country investment issues. USTR reviewed the status of Russia's WTO accession, and Treasury introduced the topic of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs). After a brief visit by the Secretary of State and a break for lunch, the dialogue resumed with a discussion of energy efficiency and an exchange of views for the structure of the business-to-business dialogue. ¶3. (U) USG Participants in the Dialogue were: Under Secretary of State for Economic, Energy and Agricultural Affairs Reuben Jeffery III; Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Economic Affairs Elizabeth Dibble; NSC Senior Director for Russia Mary Warlick; Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Europe David Merkel; Director of the State Department Office of Russian Affairs Ian Kelly; Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs Clay Lowery; Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for WTO and Multilateral Affairs Matt Rohde; Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Market Access and Compliance David Bohigian; Senior NSC Director Economic Affairs John Herrmann; Director of the State Department Office of Investment Affairs Wes Scholz; Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Investment Josh Kallmer; Director of the Treasury Office of International Monetary Policy Robert Kaproth; Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary for Investment Security Nova J. Daly; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy Al Hegburg; Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Energy, Sanctions and Commodities, Doug Hengel; Administrator of the DoE Energy Information Administration Guy Caruso; Eurasia Energy Envoy C. Boyden Gray; Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Energy for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy John Mizroch; Science Advisor to the Secretary of State Nina Fedoroff. ¶4. (U) Participants on the Russian side were: Andrey Denisov, First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs (MFA); Aleksandr Kislov, Counselor to the First Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs; Nikolay Smirnov, Deputy Director MFA North American Department; Second Secretary, MFA Department of Economic Cooperation; Elena Danilova, Counselor to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade (MEDT); Dmitriy Sazhin, Deputy Director of Foreign Economic Relations Dept, MEDT; Petr Kazakevich, Deputy Director of International Financial Relations, State Debt, and State Assets, Ministry of Finance; Yuri Ushakov, Russian Ambassador to the United States; Aleksey Shishayev, Economic Counselor, Russian Embassy; Aleksandr Bratchikov, Economic Attache, Russian Embassy; Andrey Dolgorukov, Russian Trade Representative; Mr. Dmitry Babakhin, Deputy Trade Representative; Mr. Aydar Shakirov, Deputy Division Head, Office of the Trade Representative. ¶5. (U) A review of the individual sessions of the Dialogue follows in paras 6-21. STATE 00055587 002 OF 005 -------------- Overview of Economies -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Dr. Donald Marron of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, reviewed the state of the U.S. economy. He emphasized the Administration's $150 billion stimulus package and averred that our fundamentals remain strong, that our flexible labor market and sophisticated capital markets are key elements to a quick recovery. Key to the recovery will be export growth that can offset negatives in residential investment and excess inventory, particularly in the auto industry. DFM Denisov said that Russia was prepared to expand its role in the global economy, including working multilaterally through Bretton Woods institutions. He stated that one area of concern in Russia is inflation due to high fuel and food prices, but added that officials hope to address this without resorting to direct central government intervention. In her presentation on the Russian economy, MEDT advisor Elena Danilova concluded that although the U.S. and Russian economies are not closely tied presently, the U.S. is a major economic partner for Russia. -------------- Open Investment -------------- ¶7. (SBU) Senior NSC Director John Herrmann began by noting the underpinnings for U.S. investment policy stem from the President Bush's May 2007 Statement on Open Economies and are also reflected in the G8 Heiligendamm statement, with an important emphasis on national treatment. The U.S. wants to work with Russia on a bilateral investment treaty (BIT) and in the G8 to achieve international acceptance of an open investment policy. Herrmann noted that there is much work to do, as the threat of protectionism has not died. Treasury A/S Clay Lowery acknowledged that the Dubai Ports World case generated concerns about growing protectionism in the U.S. In response, the USG has: reiterated its commitment to open investment policies (President Bush's Statement on Open Investment); came to consensus with Congress on amendments to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) that will make the Executive branch more accountable for reviews of inward investment to the U.S. based on national security concerns; and sought to engage foreign countries, in particular on policy work on Sovereign Wealth Funds and by concluding BITs. Lowery emphasized that the new CFIUS legislation did not establish a national screening mechanism, but would lead to more scrutiny of transactions involving state-owned enterprises. ¶8. (SBU) In response, DFM Denisov said Russia on the whole shares these approaches, but that there are differences related more to the level of economic development than to ideology. Improving the investment climate is a key element of modernizing Russia's economy, adding that our two-way investment flows, while good, could be much, much stronger. DFM Denisov lamented that U.S. investments into Russia are concentrated in the commodity sector and that none were directed to the industrial base. This is because companies have different priorities than the government. Russia needs to diversify its economy, he said. The GOR is trying to connect Russian domestic industries to world markets, Denisov said. Russia needs investment from the U.S. to develop its industrial sector, including technology transfers. ¶9. (SBU) U/S Jeffery pointed out that there are two aspects to a company's investment decision: the economic and commercial aspects of the deal, and the political/rule of law issues, such as the strength of property rights, contract sanctity, and the integrity of the judicial system. All of these issues come into play with a BIT, which gives assurances to both sides that these issues are addressed in a systematic way. ¶10. (SBU) Josh Kallmer (USTR) and Wes Scholz (State's Office of Investment Affairs) then reviewed progress on exploratory BIT talks. Kallmer described how the USG model BIT is designed to strengthen the investment climate by protecting investment (e.g. free transfer of foreign exchange, international law standards for expropriation),market access (non-discriminatory treatment provided to investors apart from exceptions listed in the annex to the agreement),and dispute resolution (providing investor-state arbitration). Concluding a BIT is a good opportunity to put bilateral investment on a solid international plane, he said. Scholz STATE 00055587 003 OF 005 said the U.S. was very pleased with the atmosphere at the initial exploratory BIT meeting in Moscow in mid-February, where negotiators identified non-discriminatory treatment (national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment) as potentially the most significant difference between our respective model BITs. The Russian delegation undertook to draft a paper comparing the respective BIT models (subsequently received May 6),and Scholz noted U.S. eagerness to schedule the next meeting to continue discussions in Washington. ¶11. (SBU) DFM Denisov and MEDT Advisor Danilova then described the complex structure of Russia's investment-related agreements, including BITs, the Energy Charter Treaty, Economic Partnership Agreements, Customs Unions with CIS states, and prospective WTO commitments. Danilova explained the Russian model BIT does not cover market access, and contains a provision capping BIT commitments at the level of Russia's WTO commitments. Russia does not want to undermine its WTO or OECD commitments by entering into special arrangements, Denisov said (NOTE: referring to most-favored-nation commitments under the WTO/OECD. END NOTE). Scholz noted that when the U.S. opens its economy, it tries not to do so on a discriminatory basis. Thus, if the USG provides a further opening in a BIT which goes beyond GATTS, it does not worry about which other country might benefit. --- WTO --- ¶12. (SBU) U/S Jeffery underscored the importance of Russia joining the WTO as soon as possible, ideally by the end of 2008, and noting that Russia's WTO accession was also a high priority of President Putin's administration. A/USTR and lead U.S. negotiator for Russia's WTO accession Matt Rohde stressed the enormous amount of technical work accomplished on the draft Russia Working Party report over the past year. The remaining issues for Russia were not insurmountable, he said. In response to Russian delegation questions on Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) with the U.S., U/S Jeffery said the best time to seek a PNTR vote in the U.S. Congress would be shortly after Russia completes all the accession work. Concluding bilateral market access agreements with Georgia and Saudi Arabia are also necessary for Russia's accession. -------------- Third Country Investment -------------- ¶13. (SBU) NSC Director Michael Smart discussed our mutual interest in pursuing high-standard bilateral investment treaties with third countries. Smart highlighted recent trends in Russia's outward investment, including significant growth in annual flows, their increasing geographic and sectoral diversity, and the economic benefits of those investments to home and host countries. He stressed that high-standard international investment agreements would help protect these investments. Smart concluded that our mutual interest in such agreements presents an opportunity to work together to promote global growth, open investment regimes, and fair treatment of foreign investment. The Russian delegation concurred with this premise. -------------- CFIUS/Sovereign Wealth Funds -------------- ¶14. (SBU) Nova Daly, Treasury DAS for Investment Security, provided an overview of new draft regulations for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) and the Foreign Investment in the United States Act of 2007 (FINSA) regulations. DAS Daly noted that since the Dubai Ports World case many changes have occurred in CFIUS. He stated that during 2005-2007, CFIUS reviewed 325 cases, 85% which were cleared during the initial 30-day investigation period. During that same period, only 15 cases went to 45-day investigation. FINSA came into effect in October 2007, and affirms CFIUS's narrow focus on national security concerns and not on protection of U.S. industries. With regard to foreign government-controlled transactions, DAS Daly stated the law creates a presumption of investigation for covered transactions; however, the investigation requirement can be waived if the Secretary of the Treasury and an equivalent official at the lead agency determine that STATE 00055587 004 OF 005 the transaction would not impair national security. On April 21, 2008, CFIUS released the draft FINSA regulations for 45-day public comment. The proposed regulations define several of the terms in FINSA (including "covered transaction" and "foreign government control"),list information required of filing parties, and set out the mechanics of the filing process. ¶15. (SBU) Despite being invited to do so, the Russian delegation did not make a presentation on Russia's Law on Strategic Sectors. Instead, DFM Denisov gave the floor to Petr Kazakevich of the Ministry of Finance who made a presentation on Sovereign Wealth Funds or SWFs (slides e-mailed to Embassy Moscow.) MEDT Advisor Danilova stressed the importance of Russian SWFs in the Russian domestic market and in attracting long term investment in the Russian economy. Robert Kaproth, Director of Treasury's Office of International Monetary Policy, advanced four points on SWFs: utilizing "best practices" are in the best interests of both SWFs and recipient nations; the U.S. also has an SWF (the Alaska Permanent Fund); Russia has been constructive in the IMF process in arriving at common practices; and Russia has a good story to tell with regard to SWFs. -------------- Secretary Rice Addresses the Dialogue -------------- ¶16. (SBU) The Secretary stopped by the dialogue to welcome the Russian delegation and deliver brief remarks. She noted she was pleased that the Economic Dialogue was being launched, as it was the first tangible outcome of the Sochi Strategic Framework issued by both presidents just three weeks earlier. There is nothing more important than keeping economies on firm footing, she said, as it is of paramount importance to all citizens. Government has a role to play, but the private sector is the primary engine for growth and free capital flows. Respect for the rule of law will ensure that investment flows both ways, she noted. As to the U.S.-Russia trade relationship, the United States is committed to seeking PNTR once Russia's WTO accession work is completed. Secretary Rice also said that our economic partnership should cover a range of activities, including science, technology, and innovation, noting the participation in the dialogue of State Department Science Advisor Nina Fedoroff. The Secretary said the Economic Dialogue is an opportunity to mobilize the talents of people on science and technology, which can provide growth to the world economy. ¶17. (SBU) In response, DFM Denisov said he was pleased that the foreign ministries were taking the lead role to support the Economic Dialogue, along with the cooperation of many other economic ministries. This leadership will help ensure the Dialogue continues and this channel of communication can help smooth relations during the changes of administration in both countries. While this group has the good fortune to work on non-politicized issues, Russia and the U.S. still have disagreements on other issues, Denisov said. However, the spirit of cooperation shown in our Economic Dialogue can help foster collaborative work on a range of important economic topics, such as Sovereign Wealth Funds, investment, and trade. -------------- Energy -------------- ¶18. (SBU) After EIA Director Guy Carruso gave an overview of world energy markets, Special Envoy Gray addressed the St. Petersburg Energy Principles. Gray noted that 90% of the world's oil is controlled by governments, but that investments in energy won't happen unless there is a guaranteed rate of return and an attractive investment climate. If market forces are not respected, he said, they will find a way to make themselves felt. Gray touched on how the market is driving companies to pay attention to climate change, forcing them to invest in green technologies such as clean coal. Gray said he believes Russia will benefit from the growing LNG market and resulting commoditization of natural gas. He noted that Europe does not have completely free energy markets and called on Russia to reduce its gas flaring and price caps on gas. ¶19. (SBU) DFM Denisov made a pitch for the return of a formal energy dialogue, as it could increase predictability and stability, both globally and bilaterally. Topics for discussion could include: investment in the energy sector; STATE 00055587 005 OF 005 support for key energy infrastructure projects; and support to global security by reinforcing diversification of energy transport routes. He did not exclude the possibility of liberalizing upstream investment in Russia, which he claimed was happening in Russia more quickly than in Saudi Arabia. Denisov said some Western companies have permission to develop fields, but Russia wants to be careful because its economy depends on energy. As a result, Russia must be very careful about liberalizing the Gazprom monopoly. Russia is interested in alternative fuels, such as nuclear energy and bio fuels, all of which have potential for innovation from Russia's strong science base, but he noted the intense competition between food and fuels. Danilova stressed the benefits of state-controlled solutions to problems, such as increased regulations and management controls, more regulation of financial markets in energy development and new financial instruments, as well as new federal institutions to control the energy sector. -------------- Business-to-Business (B2B) Dialogue -------------- ¶20. (SBU) Department of Commerce A/S for Market Access and Compliance David Bohigian discussed U.S. ideas for a B2B dialogue that would include the participation of eight to ten CEOs from each side and two to three non-governmental participants from business organizations. A/S Bohigian provided DFM Denisov with a white paper and draft terms of reference (TOR) and asked that the Russian side provide comments by mid-May on the proposed structure. A quick response was necessary to begin a transparent CEO selection process this summer, Bohigian said, and to give business participants time to meet in early fall to develop recommendations for government. The U.S. would seek a first meeting of B2B dialogue in October. NSC Senior Director for Russian Affairs Mary Warlick and NSC Senior Director for Economic Affairs John Herrmann both reinforced the U.S. desire for early Russian feedback and stressed the desirability of a strong B2B process. ¶21. (SBU) DFM Denisov said Moscow supported the business dialogue and suggested that one of the Russian NGO partners might be an association of top Russian investors to the U.S., since the Russian Chamber of Commerce or the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs might not be active and flexible dialogue partners. Denisov expressed doubts that the Russian side would be prepared by mid-May to comment, but thought that Commerce Secretary Gutierrez and Minister of Economy Nabiullina could discuss next steps at the June St. Petersburg Investment Forum. Russia had a number of intergovernmental commissions, Denisov observed, but now sought a better framework for business dialogue. Danilova strongly advocated establishing an intergovernmental "bilateral commission" that would provide a presidentially-mandated structure for interagency coordination and be empowered to implement recommendations from the business community, particularly at the sub-federal level, she said. ¶22. (SBU) Comment: Both sides viewed the first Economic Dialogue in a very positive light. The atmospherics were good and both sides had a frank exchange of views, making clear areas of agreement (such as on SWFs) and differences in perspective (e.g. the role of government in promoting investment or on BITs). While the Russian side was well-prepared, at several points Russian views were not completely in sync. For example, the Ministry of Finance rep promoted the outward investments of SWFs and said nothing about inward investment, while the MEDT rep stressed the importance of domestic investment by SWFs. MEDT seemed quite seized with a governmental commission leading the B2B; Denisov did not seem to insist on such a structure. Differing comments among GOR agencies also exposed the internal debates between market-based solutions versus government-driven industrial policy, such as during the energy discussion. Also curious was the lack of engagement by the Russians on the Law on Strategic Sectors and on CFIUS, even though the GOR had indicated its interest in discussing these issues in preparatory meetings. RICE