|
Protecting a country’s national security and promoting
an open investment policy are two goals that may come
into conflict with each other.
This
conflict was illustrated by attempts of sovereign
corporations to acquire American corporations—the China
National Offshore Oil Corp. Ltd. (CNOOC) tried to
purchase Unocal, a US oil company, while Dubai Ports
World (DPW), a state-owned company based in the United
Arab Emirates, attempted the same with terminals in six
American ports.
Ensuing
massive public objection and a congressional act foiled
these two foreign bids. The incident led to the
enactment of the Financial Investment and National
Security Act, which empowered the existing review board,
the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United
States, to examine and investigate foreign investments
in the United States that may have adverse impact on
national security.
Several
countries such as Canada, Japan, France, Germany and the
United Kingdom have a foreign investment review board
that sets the security implications of disposable state
assets.
The
primary objection is not so much on the loss of
strategic assets to foreigners, but on the foreign
corporations being controlled and owned by their
respective governments.
The
Philippines is currently fast-tracking its privatization
efforts, selling its equity in Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Co. (PLDT) and other prime assets, such as
shares in Meralco and San Miguel Corp. These assets pose
little security threat, if any, as they are commercial
in nature.
The
World Bank has agreed to give its universal consent for
the transfer of the debts and assets of the National
Power Corp. (Napocor) and National Transmission Corp.
(Transco) to the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities
Management Corp. This consent makes Transco and Napocor
attractive, thus inching them forward toward
privatization. Transco is a clear example of a vital
installation and a state monopoly attracting foreign
bidders controlled by their governments.
What
should our policy be?
Here,
the National Economic and Development Authority (Neda)
classifies whether or not an industry is strategic, but
its privatization requires only the President’s
approval.
Though
the benefits of privatization are highly recognized,
extra caution should be exercised with regard to the
sale of state assets classified as a strategic industry,
considering its serious implications on national
security. The decision involves a balance between two
major national interests: that of keeping markets open
for badly needed foreign investments, and safeguarding
national security.
A
collegial and expert body will be more effective for
this purpose. Perhaps an interagency review committee to
be headed by Neda, with the DOF, DFA, DND, DOE and DTI
as members, should carry out a more heightened scrutiny
and evaluation of national-security implications of any
proposed sale of strategic assets prior to its
approval.
Email:
edgardo_angara@hotmail.com
Website:
www.edangara.com |