Typical example, a country that requires an investor to obtain government approval before investing (the United States does not have such a “screening” procedure for investments) could accept the investor`s agreement to purchase all of its raw materials locally or to export all or a certain percentage of its manufactured products. Sometimes governments make such “performance requirements” as a condition for the investor receiving a government subsidy or other benefit offered by the government. Over the past three decades, the nature and extent of international trade and international investment have changed dramatically. Global capital flows – investments in production capacity, portfolio investments and currency exchanges – have increased exponentially. However, American public opinion, the press or policy makers have paid little attention to the enormous effects of “liberalized” investment flows. Today, any nation that wants to respond to public demands to address widespread economic and social problems must do so in a context of massive international investment flows and increasingly uprooted groups of capital and capital. Investment issues have attracted significantly less public, press and policy attention than trade flows. A new treaty is being negotiated, which would accelerate economic globalization while sharply reducing the power of democracies to control investment policy. The proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) would significantly hamper the ability of governments to combat the worst consequences of economic globalization: increasing inequalities between wealth and income, growing national and global monopolies and losing democratic control over a wide range of policies, from human rights to the environment, from labour rights to social policy.
However, Ms Lalumiére called for France to continue to liberalise investment projects, but not within the OECD. “On the one hand, under these conditions, it would be impossible to compensate for the concessions demanded by the companies and, on the other hand, the objections of the opponents would be just as strong.”  France has followed a number of other nations, including Canada and Australia, whose governments have been subjected to relentless pressure from civil society to abandon the MAI or radically transform it. Question: Will the MAI contain provisions preventing a boycott of the base or any form of boycott of investments intended to penalize foreign investors in the United States who operate in third countries that we consider incompatible with our interests? Answer: We are working to ensure that the final text of the MAI is fully compatible with federal, federal and local laws to promote social, economic and environmental objectives, and not to accidentally interfere in the environmental and regulatory provisions or enforcement provisions of our national legislation. Unlike many countries, the United States has an open investment climate that generally welcomes investments both domestically and abroad. Few U.S. laws differ between investors because of their nationality or are contrary to MAI`s obligations.