After Qatar, Belligerent Saudi Takes on the UAE

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in , at 2/17/2021 10:07:00 AM

Will the world go to Riyadh if coerced to do so by the Saudi government?
 

With friends like Saudi Arabia, who needs enemies? Upon taking power, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was seen as a reformist, market-friendly leader able to take Saudi Arabia forward into a post-fossil fuel future. This impression has taken a big hit in recent years with the 2017 embargo on Qatar as well as the still-unresolved 2018 murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at Saudi Arabia's Turkish consulate. Taking endless potshots at its fellow Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members doesn't seem to be the way to signal that Saudi Arabia is open for business. 

More recently, Saudi Arabia has come up with its most outlandish power play yet: It has cautioned multinationals that, unless they place their regional (read: Middle East) headquarters in Saudi Arabia, they will not be able to ink government contracts. Obviously aimed at Dubai in the UAE which vastly outstrips Saudi Arabia in "ease of doing business" indicators that you would naturally think companies would gravitate to when siting regional headquarters, the outcry has been understandably strong:

Saudi Arabia, in a bold and unexpected move, announced late Monday that by 2024 its government would cease doing business with any international companies whose regional headquarters were not based within the kingdom.  

The news has investors, bankers and expat workers buzzing — and scratching their heads.  

Saudi Arabia in recent years has pitched itself as a location for HQ offices in its campaign to create private sector jobs and diversify its economy as part of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030.

But what began as a pitch to global head offices has now become an ultimatum for some: either relocate your headquarters to the kingdom, or lose out on lucrative government contracts. And the move, Middle East analysts and finance professionals say, appears to be targeted at the region’s current headquarters hub: Dubai.  

Mind you, the UAE joined Saudi Arabia in the embargo on Qatar. Although regional economic rivalry is expected, punching below the belt in this way over restricting government procurement lest they headquarter in Saudi Arabia is widely perceived as unfair, especially since they are all supposedly part of a customs union in the GCC:

The Saudis are “trying to lure companies out of Dubai, I expect, and elsewhere,” Ryan Bohl, a Middle East analyst at risk consulting firm Stratfor, told CNBC. One UAE-based financier, who spoke anonymously due to having business operations in Saudi Arabia, described the move as “clearly targeting the UAE” and a “jab in the face” to Dubai.

“It’s a terrible decision,” the financier, a longtime veteran of the region, added. “It’s anti-common market, it’s anti-competition, and it’s essentially corporate bullying.”

The truth of the matter is that Saudi Arabia is a less attractive place to site your regional HQ with its more restrictive environment--economically and socially. The latter is of particular concern to Western expats:

The government aims to significantly increase Saudi Arabia’s current share of less than 5% of the region’s HQ offices...

But will that be enough to lure expats out of Dubai, where they can drink, wear bikinis on the beach and enjoy a far more liberal lifestyle, comparable on many levels to the West?

“The lifestyle in Saudi is not comparable,” said one Dubai-based venture capitalist, speaking anonymously due to professional restrictions. “You don’t have the same freedoms you have here — here I can go on a public beach and hang out ... Dubai is a global city, Riyadh is far from that. It lacks the diversity that Dubai has. That’s a big deal for me.”

Indeed, one of Dubai’s allures for foreigners is its majority expat population — 90% across the UAE as a whole. The success of Dubai’s global openness model manifests itself in numbers as well: according to the U.N.’s trade database, the UAE in 2019 received 300% more foreign direct investment than Saudi Arabia, despite its economy being about half the size.

And the UAE ranked 16th on the World Bank’s 2020 Ease of Doing Business Index, while Saudi Arabia ranked 63rd.

Speaking of government contracts, the lure is unmistakable: a supposed $220 billion that Saudi Arabia states it will spend to make Riyadh a global city (comparable to *gulp* Dubai). What's more, there are those who say Saudi Arabia is actually coming on in leaps and bounds:

The Saudi government is investing $220 billion in projects aimed at putting Riyadh in the world’s top 10 city economies, and is offering competitive tax-free salaries to employees willing to relocate there...

 Still, many expats who’ve worked in the kingdom feel differently. “There’s no doubt that Saudi will compete with Dubai,” said Alex Nasr, a consultant with several years of experience working around the country, adding that it’s already competing on the salary front.

“Now with Vision 2030 and the radical changes the nation is pushing through, it will begin catching up on the quality of life front … as soon as the veil is lifted on the lifestyle restrictions, the expats will begin to pour in.”

Read More

The West's WTO Hypocrisy on COVID-19 Meds?

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,, at 2/16/2021 12:37:00 PM

Should intellectual property laws upheld by the WTO be waived during a COVID-19 pandemic?

I almost forgot to post this one, but it's better late than never, I guess. There have been endless allusions to the idea that, rich or poor, the countries of the world are all in this fight against COVID-19 together. However, when push comes to shove, it appears the reality of the matter is rather different: A few weeks ago, large developing countries put forth the idea at the WTO that intellectual property rights on COVID-19 medicines should be abrogated while a global pandemic is going on. 

Perhaps unsurprisingly if regrettably, European and American countries indicated not being willing to go along. Since a consensus would have been required for an IP waiver on COVID-19 medicines to come into effect at the WTO, this effort was admittedly a long shot from the start:

Wealthy nations [...] reiterated their opposition to a proposal to waive intellectual property rules for COVID-19 drugs, three trade sources said, despite pressure to make an exception to improve access to drugs for poorer countries. Supporters of the waiver say existing intellectual property (IP) rules create barriers on access to affordable medicines and vaccines and they want restrictions to be eased, as they were during the AIDS epidemic.

But opposition from the European Union, the United States and some other wealthy nations at a meeting on Friday, means the proposal set to go before the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) General Council next month is likely to fail.

“If rich countries prefer profits to life, they will kill it by tying it down in technicalities.” said a delegate supporting the motion who attended the closed-door meeting. The 164-member WTO body usually has to agree by consensus unless members agree to proceed to a vote, which is exceptional.

Populous developing countries India and later China pushed for lifting IP restrictions on COVID-19 medicines, although you have to wonder if they have competing commercial interests since they too have production capabilities in making these medicines should IP be waived. Then again, the current WTO head Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala (this article was written before she became its Director-General) also supported the initiative:

The proposal was first raised by India and South Africa in October. Since then, China, which has five COVID-19 vaccine candidates in late-stage trials, has voiced its support, as have dozens of other WTO members, mostly from developing countries.

The World Health Organization says it supports tackling barriers to access to COVID-19 medicines, as does Nigeria’s Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, selected by a panel to be the WTO’s next director-general.

You have to wonder though if some developing countries might want to declare medical emergencies that compel them to waive such IP on COVID-19 medicines under "compulsory licensing" procedures allowed by the WTO:

In 2001 — at the height of the AIDS crisis and under pressure from governments whose citizens were dying because they could not afford life-saving medicines — the World Trade Organization waded into the battle between intellectual property and public health. The resulting Doha Declaration ruled that the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights “should not prevent members from taking measures to protect public health.”

It confirmed that governments retained several mechanisms for guaranteeing affordable access to medicines, including issuing compulsory licenses, which allow them to use an invention without the patent holder’s consent in extraordinary circumstances. This applies not only to new drugs but also to existing medications whose patents have been extended because pharmaceutical companies made minor changes to formulations or discovered a new use for the medication.

Given the uncertainty over access to treatments for COVID-19, several countries have been laying the legislative groundwork to issue compulsory licenses for products that patent holders refuse to make accessible.

I think developing countries will first observe whether they can avail of more COVID-19 medicines they believe they need under the COVAX initiative. If that avenue proves unfruitful, then don't be surprised to see "compulsory licensing" claims start appearing. Make no mistake that our world remains riven by North-South divides even amidst a global pandemic. 

Read More

Biden's War on Coal @ World Bank

♠ Posted by Emmanuel in ,, at 2/14/2021 11:00:00 AM

There's an interesting article on Politico about how the Biden administration's pledge to limit emissions from fossil fuels will be implemented on the global stage. Sure, reducing subsidies for fossil fuel extraction and consumption at home to set an example for the rest of the world is one thing. However, there are also things the United States can do internationally to help ensure fossil fuels are kept in the ground. 

In an executive order issued last month, Biden tasked the United States' agencies involved in foreign assistance and development financing--the International Development Finance Corporation (formed in 2019 by combining the Overseas Private Investment Corporation and the Development Credit Authority), Treasury, USAID, and the Millennium Challenge Corporation among others--with devising emissions-reducing financing. 

This executive order also extends to the multilateral organizations the US is a member of, including the World Bank. It states:

[The Treasury Secretary shall] develop a strategy for how the voice and vote of the United States can be used in international financial institutions, including the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund, to promote financing programs, economic stimulus packages, and debt relief initiatives that are aligned with and support the goals of the Paris Agreement.

In doing so, the Biden administration wants to contrast clean, green American with dirty energy China. However, there is a danger that developing countries not as green-minded as Biden may instead be pushed to deal more with China:

President Joe Biden’s plan to halt U.S. funding for overseas fossil fuel projects will turn the global spotlight on China for bankrolling coal projects around the globe. But it could also push poor countries closer to Beijing — and risk ceding the United States’ position as a leading financier for developing economies...

Biden's directive last month to move toward withholding money from international institutions like the World Bank that help poor nations build fossil fuel power plants stands in stark contrast to Beijing's flow of cash under its Belt and Road Initiative, which supplies 70 percent of the financing for the world's new coal-fired plants. The White House is betting its move will paint China as hypocritical as that country — the world's top greenhouse gas emitter — aims to take a leading role in international climate change efforts.

To be sure, there will need to be a (sorry for the public administration jargon) whole-of-government approach for the US to get its message across in a way that resonates with developing countries deciding between clean energy and fossil fuels:

But the plan will require the Biden team to closely coordinate its foreign policy, trade and clean energy initiatives, because the absence of U.S. money for coal projects won't on its own sway other nations’ energy plans. And the U.S. cannot unilaterally offer sweet enough financial terms for clean energy to lure countries away from China's coal finance.

It's fair to say the US has its work cut out for it in a world which has not forsworn fossil fuels. It is worth pointing out that the Obama administration which Biden was a part of already started encouraging similar measures at the World Bank that have impacted the amount of fossil fuel-based energy projects it funded:

But the U.S. could immediately start shifting billions of dollars away from fossil energy if [Treasury Secretary] Yellen directs U.S. representatives at the World Bank and other multilateral funders to vote against coal, said Joe Thwaites, an associate with the World Resources Institute’s Sustainable Finance Center.

The number of coal projects funded by those institutions has already dwindled, due in part to efforts under the Obama administration, though multilateral development banks in which the U.S. is a shareholder accounted for $69.5 billion of fossil fuel finance between 2008 and 2019, according to environmental group Oil Change International.

Read More