part-32

Recently, fifteen Asia-Pacific countries signed the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) trade agreement. India had previously participated in negotiations but decided to withdraw from the agreement. The RCEP is a free trade agreement among the 15 countries, including the ten ASEAN members, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. This trade bloc is now the world's largest, encompassing over 2.2 billion people and 30% of the global economy. The RCEP was initially proposed in 2011 at the 19th ASEAN meeting to create a consolidated market for ASEAN countries and their trade partners. India opted out in November 2019 because significant issues remained unresolved, but it retains the option to join later.

India's Calculated Retreat: Analyzing the RCEP Decision

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a mega free trade agreement encompassing fifteen Asia-Pacific nations, came into being in 2019. While celebrated by its member states as a significant step towards regional economic integration, the agreement is equally notable for the absence of one of the region's major players: India. After years of negotiations, India made the crucial decision to withdraw from the RCEP in November 2019, citing unresolved concerns that threatened its economic interests. This decision, while controversial, was a culmination of deep-seated anxieties about trade deficits, the vulnerability of its domestic industries, and the perceived lack of safeguards within the RCEP framework. The story of India and RCEP is not just about a trade agreement; it is a reflection of India's evolving economic strategy, its complex relationship with China, and its vision for its role in the regional and global order.

The RCEP agreement, signed by the ten member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) – Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam – along with China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, represents the world's largest trading bloc in terms of population and GDP. It aims to reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers, streamline customs procedures, and establish common rules of origin to facilitate trade and investment among member countries.

Genesis of RCEP: ASEAN's Vision for Regional Integration

The genesis of RCEP can be traced back to the 19th ASEAN Summit held in 2011. Facing a complex web of overlapping free trade agreements (FTAs), ASEAN sought to consolidate these arrangements into a single, comprehensive economic partnership. The existing "ASEAN+1" FTAs, which linked ASEAN with individual countries like China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand, had created a "noodle bowl" effect, with varying rules and regulations that complicated trade and investment flows. RCEP was envisioned as a solution to this problem, creating a unified framework that would simplify trade, reduce costs, and enhance regional economic integration.

From ASEAN's perspective, RCEP was not merely about trade; it was also about solidifying its central role in the regional architecture. By taking the lead in negotiating and implementing the agreement, ASEAN aimed to strengthen its position as a hub for economic activity and a key player in shaping the regional order. The inclusion of major economies like China, Japan, and South Korea was seen as crucial to the success of RCEP, as it would create a vast market with significant growth potential.

India's Initial Engagement and Growing Apprehensions

India was an active participant in the RCEP negotiations from the outset. Recognizing the potential benefits of greater regional economic integration, India saw RCEP as an opportunity to expand its trade and investment linkages with the dynamic economies of East and Southeast Asia. As part of its "Act East" policy, India had been actively seeking to deepen its engagement with ASEAN and other countries in the region. RCEP seemed to be a natural extension of this policy, offering a platform for closer economic cooperation and enhanced market access.

However, as the negotiations progressed, India's initial enthusiasm began to wane. Several factors contributed to this growing apprehension, chief among them being concerns about the potential impact of RCEP on its domestic industries. India's economy, while rapidly growing, still faces significant challenges, including a large informal sector, low productivity in many industries, and infrastructure bottlenecks. Indian businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), worried that they would not be able to compete effectively with cheaper imports from other RCEP countries, especially China.

The China Factor: India's Primary Concern

The "China factor" loomed large in India's calculations. India has a large and growing trade deficit with China, and there were concerns that RCEP would exacerbate this imbalance. Indian industries feared that opening up its markets to Chinese goods would lead to a surge in imports, further hollowing out its manufacturing sector and displacing domestic producers. The experience of other countries that had signed FTAs with China, such as Australia and New Zealand, had shown that these agreements often led to a significant increase in imports from China, putting pressure on domestic industries.

India's concerns were not limited to trade in goods. It also worried about the potential impact of RCEP on its agriculture sector. India has a large agricultural population, and many farmers are already struggling with low incomes and market volatility. There were fears that RCEP would lead to increased imports of agricultural products from other RCEP countries, depressing prices and further hurting Indian farmers. Dairy was a particularly sensitive area, with concerns that imports from Australia and New Zealand, major dairy exporters, would undermine India's domestic dairy industry.

Specific Issues and Demands: A Standoff in Negotiations

Beyond the broad concerns about trade deficits and the impact on domestic industries, India raised several specific issues during the RCEP negotiations. These included:

• Rules of Origin: India sought stricter rules of origin to prevent circumvention of tariffs. Rules of origin determine the country of origin of a product, which is crucial for determining which tariffs apply. India was concerned that lax rules of origin would allow goods from non-RCEP countries, particularly China, to enter the RCEP region through other member countries, taking advantage of the lower tariffs.

• Safeguard Mechanisms: India demanded effective safeguard mechanisms to protect its domestic industries from sudden surges in imports. Safeguard measures allow countries to temporarily increase tariffs or impose other restrictions on imports if they are causing serious injury to domestic industries. India wanted these mechanisms to be easily accessible and effective in addressing import surges.

• Base Year for Tariff Reductions: India wanted the base year for tariff reductions to be 2014, rather than 2013, as proposed by other RCEP countries. Using 2014 as the base year would have meant that India would have to reduce tariffs from a higher level, providing greater protection to its domestic industries.

• Services Trade: India sought greater liberalization of services trade, particularly in areas where it has a competitive advantage, such as IT and professional services. However, other RCEP countries were reluctant to make significant concessions in this area.

India's demands reflected its desire to strike a balance between the potential benefits of RCEP and the need to protect its domestic economic interests. However, other RCEP countries were not always willing to accommodate India's concerns, leading to a deadlock in the negotiations.

India's Withdrawal: A Calculated Decision

In November 2019, after years of negotiations, India made the momentous decision to withdraw from the RCEP agreement. The decision was announced at the ASEAN Summit in Bangkok, sending shockwaves through the region. Prime Minister Narendra Modi stated that India's decision was guided by the need to protect the interests of its farmers, SMEs, and other vulnerable sections of the economy. He argued that the RCEP agreement, as it stood, did not adequately address India's concerns and that joining it would have a detrimental impact on the Indian economy.

The decision to withdraw from RCEP was not taken lightly. It involved extensive consultations with various stakeholders, including government officials, industry representatives, and academics. The government carefully weighed the potential benefits of RCEP against the risks and concluded that, in the current circumstances, it was not in India's best interest to join the agreement.

Analyzing India's Concerns: A Deep Dive

To fully understand India's decision, it is necessary to delve deeper into the specific concerns that led to its withdrawal. These concerns can be broadly categorized into three main areas: trade deficits, impact on domestic industries, and lack of adequate safeguards.

• Trade Deficits: As mentioned earlier, India has a large and growing trade deficit with China. In 2019, the trade deficit stood at over $50 billion. India was concerned that RCEP would exacerbate this imbalance, leading to a further increase in imports from China and other RCEP countries. The experience of other countries that had signed FTAs with China had shown that these agreements often led to a significant increase in imports, putting pressure on domestic industries. India wanted assurances that RCEP would not lead to a further widening of its trade deficit with China.

• Impact on Domestic Industries: India's domestic industries, particularly agriculture and manufacturing, feared that they would not be able to compete effectively with cheaper imports from other RCEP countries. Indian businesses, especially SMEs, worried that they would be unable to withstand the competition from larger, more efficient foreign firms. The agriculture sector was particularly vulnerable, with concerns that imports of agricultural products from other RCEP countries would depress prices and hurt Indian farmers. Dairy was a sensitive area, with fears that imports from Australia and New Zealand would undermine India's domestic dairy industry.

• Lack of Adequate Safeguards: India felt that the RCEP agreement did not provide adequate safeguards to protect its domestic industries from sudden surges in imports. Safeguard measures allow countries to temporarily increase tariffs or impose other restrictions on imports if they are causing serious injury to domestic industries. India wanted these mechanisms to be easily accessible and effective in addressing import surges. However, other RCEP countries were reluctant to agree to India's demands, leading to a deadlock in the negotiations.

The Strategic Implications of India's Decision

India's decision to withdraw from RCEP has significant strategic implications for the region and beyond. It has raised questions about India's role in the evolving regional order and its approach to economic integration.

• Impact on Regional Influence: India's absence from RCEP could diminish its political and economic influence in the Asia-Pacific region. RCEP is the world's largest trading bloc, and India's exclusion from it means that it will not be able to participate in shaping the rules and norms that govern trade and investment in the region. This could weaken India's ability to project its influence and promote its interests in the region.

• Strain on Relationships: India's decision to withdraw from RCEP has strained its relationships with some RCEP member states, particularly those that were keen on India's participation. Some countries, such as Japan and Australia, had actively encouraged India to join RCEP and had expressed disappointment at its decision to withdraw. This could complicate India's efforts to strengthen its economic and strategic ties with these countries.

• Opportunity for China: India's withdrawal from RCEP has created an opportunity for China to further consolidate its economic and political influence in the region. With India out of the picture, China is now the dominant player in RCEP, and it will likely use its position to advance its own interests. This could further entrench China's economic dominance in the region and make it more difficult for other countries to challenge its influence.

India's Alternatives: A Focus on Bilateral and Plurilateral Agreements

While India has opted out of RCEP, it is not turning its back on regional economic integration. Instead, it is pursuing a different strategy, focusing on bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements with individual countries and groups of countries.

• Bilateral FTAs: India is actively negotiating bilateral FTAs with several countries, including the United States, the European Union, and Australia. These agreements allow India to tailor its trade relationships to its specific needs and interests, addressing its concerns about trade deficits and protecting its domestic industries.

  Advertisement

• Plurilateral Agreements: India is also exploring the possibility of joining plurilateral trade agreements, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). The CPTPP is a free trade agreement among 11 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, including Japan, Australia, Canada, and Singapore. Joining the CPTPP would give India access to a large and dynamic market and would help it to diversify its trade relationships.

India's focus on bilateral and plurilateral agreements reflects its desire for greater flexibility and control over its trade relationships. These agreements allow India to negotiate terms that are tailored to its specific needs and interests, addressing its concerns about trade deficits and protecting its domestic industries.

The Option to Rejoin: A Conditional Possibility

Despite its withdrawal from RCEP, India has kept the door open to rejoining the agreement in the future. The RCEP agreement includes a provision that allows India to join at a later date, provided that it can address the concerns that led to its withdrawal.

• Addressing Concerns: For India to rejoin RCEP, it would need to address its concerns about trade deficits, the impact on domestic industries, and the lack of adequate safeguards. This would require further negotiations with other RCEP countries to find mutually acceptable solutions.

• Domestic Consensus: Any decision to rejoin RCEP would also require a broad domestic consensus. India's decision to withdraw from RCEP was met with widespread support from farmers, SMEs, and other vulnerable sections of the economy. For India to rejoin, the government would need to convince these stakeholders that their concerns have been adequately addressed.

The possibility of India rejoining RCEP remains open, but it will depend on whether India can address its concerns and build a domestic consensus in favor of joining the agreement.

ASEAN's Centrality and RCEP's Significance

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) stands as the central force behind the RCEP agreement. ASEAN, established in 1967, is a regional intergovernmental organization comprising ten Southeast Asian states: Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Its primary objectives include accelerating economic growth, promoting social progress, and fostering peace and stability in the region.

Within RCEP, ASEAN's role is pivotal. The agreement was conceived and driven by ASEAN as a means to consolidate and simplify the existing network of ASEAN+1 FTAs. ASEAN's consensus-based decision-making process, while sometimes slow, ensures that all member states have a voice in shaping the agreement. However, it also limits the speed and scope of actions, as unanimity is often required for major decisions. The RCEP agreement exemplifies ASEAN's centrality in regional economic affairs, highlighting its ability to bring together diverse economies and navigate complex geopolitical dynamics.

Free Trade Agreements: A Double-Edged Sword

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) are agreements between two or more countries designed to reduce or eliminate barriers to trade, such as tariffs and quotas. The core idea behind FTAs is to promote economic integration by fostering increased trade and investment flows. By reducing trade barriers, FTAs aim to lower costs for businesses, increase consumer choice, and stimulate economic growth.

However, FTAs are not without their challenges. One of the main concerns is the potential for increased competition from foreign firms, which can put pressure on domestic industries. This is particularly true for developing countries, which may struggle to compete with larger, more efficient firms from developed countries. FTAs can also lead to job losses in some sectors, as businesses relocate production to countries with lower labor costs. Moreover, the benefits of FTAs are not always evenly distributed, with some groups and regions benefiting more than others. For instance, export-oriented industries and urban areas tend to benefit more than import-competing industries and rural areas.

Historical Parallels and Lessons Learned

India's decision regarding RCEP is not an isolated event; it is part of a broader pattern of engagement with regional trade initiatives. India's past experiences with FTAs offer valuable lessons that informed its cautious approach to RCEP. Notably, India's FTAs with ASEAN and other Asian countries have yielded mixed results. While these agreements have increased trade flows, they have also led to growing trade deficits, particularly with China. The influx of cheaper goods from China has raised concerns about the competitiveness of Indian industries and the potential for job losses.

These historical precedents have shaped India's negotiating strategy and its assessment of the potential risks and benefits of joining RCEP. India has sought to learn from its past mistakes and to ensure that any new trade agreement includes adequate safeguards to protect its domestic industries and address its concerns about trade imbalances.

Stakeholder Perspectives: A Divided Landscape

The debate surrounding RCEP has involved a diverse range of stakeholders, each with their own perspectives and interests. These stakeholders include the Indian government, RCEP member states, domestic industries, farmers, consumers, and civil society organizations.

• India's Stance: The Indian government's official position is that it opted out of RCEP due to unresolved issues and concerns about its impact on domestic industries. The underlying interest is to protect its domestic industries, particularly agriculture and manufacturing, and to address concerns about trade deficits. The actions taken include participating in negotiations but ultimately withdrawing from the agreement.

• RCEP Nations' Outlook: RCEP member states (excluding India) are committed to the RCEP agreement and its potential benefits for regional trade and economic integration. Their underlying interest is to expand trade opportunities, reduce trade barriers, and promote economic growth within the region. The actions taken include signing the RCEP agreement.

• China's Ambition: China is a strong supporter of RCEP, with the underlying interest to increase its regional influence, decrease reliance on other markets, and strengthen its economy. The actions taken include pushing for the RCEP agreement and its finalization.

  Advertisement

Broader Implications: A Multifaceted Impact

India's decision to opt out of RCEP has far-reaching implications across various domains:

• Political: India's decision to opt out of RCEP could affect its political influence in the Asia-Pacific region. By not being part of the world's largest trading bloc, India may have less say in shaping regional economic and political norms.

• Diplomatic: The decision may strain relationships with RCEP member states, particularly those that were keen on India's participation. This could complicate India's efforts to build stronger diplomatic ties in the region.

• Economic: In the short term, India's exclusion from RCEP could limit its access to regional markets and investment opportunities. However, it could also protect domestic industries from foreign competition, allowing them to grow and become more competitive.

Ongoing Issues and India's Act East Policy

India's decision regarding RCEP is intertwined with several related ongoing issues. One of the most important is India's "Act East" policy, which aims to strengthen economic and strategic ties with Southeast Asia. The Act East policy, launched in 2014, seeks to deepen India's engagement with ASEAN and other countries in the region through increased trade, investment, and cultural exchanges.

India's participation in RCEP was seen as a natural extension of the Act East policy, offering a platform for closer economic cooperation with ASEAN and other East Asian economies. However, India's decision to withdraw from RCEP has raised questions about the future of the Act East policy and its ability to achieve its objectives.

Future Trajectory: A Wait-and-See Approach

Looking ahead, the future trajectory of India's relationship with RCEP and regional economic integration remains uncertain. Several possible scenarios could unfold:

• Bilateral Focus: India may continue to pursue bilateral trade agreements with individual countries in the region, seeking to build stronger economic ties on a case-by-case basis.

• Conditional Rejoining: India retains the option to join RCEP in the future if its concerns are addressed. This would require further negotiations with other RCEP countries and a willingness to compromise on some of its demands.

• Watching and Waiting: India may adopt a "wait-and-see" approach, closely monitoring the impact of RCEP on regional trade dynamics and its own economy before making a final decision about whether to rejoin.

The ultimate outcome will depend on a complex interplay of economic, political, and strategic factors. India's decision regarding RCEP reflects its broader approach to economic integration, which is characterized by caution, pragmatism, and a focus on protecting its domestic economic interests. While India recognizes the potential benefits of greater regional economic cooperation, it is also wary of the risks and challenges that come with opening up its markets to foreign competition.

India's decision to withdraw from RCEP was a complex and multifaceted one, driven by a range of economic, political, and strategic considerations. While the decision has been criticized by some as a missed opportunity, it reflects India's commitment to protecting its domestic economic interests and its desire for greater control over its trade relationships. The future of India's relationship with RCEP remains uncertain, but it is clear that India will continue to play an active role in shaping the regional order, pursuing its own unique path to economic integration.