THE NEW INWARD foreign direct investment law, rushed forward and freshly rubber-stamped by the National People’s Congress, ticks all the boxes that Washington would want to see ticked.
But then it has been framed to do just that.
It overtly levels the playing field between foreign and Chinese companies in that it forbids forced technology transfer as a condition of foreign investment approval and makes it a criminal offence for officials to share foreign investors’ commercially sensitive information with Chinese firms (furnishing that information remains mandatory for local subsidiaries of international firms, however). Intellectual property protection is high on the list of US negotiators’ demands in the current round of US-China trade talks.
It also holds out an olive branch on another of their demands, greater market access, by adopting a ‘negative list’ system. Any sector not explicitly restricted will be open to foreign investors. However, there will still be 48 sectors that will remain off-limits, such as gene research, religious education and news media, or only conditionally accessible, such as oil and gas exploitation, nuclear power and airlines.
Regardless, both aspects can be packaged up to mutual advantage, a ‘win’ for the US side and a ‘concession’ by the Chinese one, though in truth they are neither.
When the new law comes into force on January 1, 2020, as with all Chinese legislation, it will provide a framework that will be open to interpretation and subject to enabling rules and regulations and the rigidity and frequency with which it is implemented.
Enforcement and redress via the courts is another matter. The judiciary is subordinate to the Party. Courts, particularly the new specialist business courts have due process, but also know their place. Every foreign firm investing and operating in China needs to appreciate that, and the difference between rule of law and rule by law. China has the latter.