RCEP Negotiations Aim For Year End Conclusion

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) members aimed to finalize trade negotiations by the end of 2019, pushing forward with an "early-harvest" package. Initiated during the 2012 ASEAN summit in Cambodia, the RCEP seeks to broaden engagement among participating countries and foster regional economic development. However, negotiations that began in 2012 faced obstacles due to disagreements among members. India previously expressed reservations about the "early harvest" approach, advocating for a comprehensive agreement covering goods, services, and investment.

The RCEP is envisioned as a free trade agreement (FTA) between the 10 ASEAN member states and its six FTA partners: India, China, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand. Upon conclusion, RCEP was expected to become the largest regional trading bloc, accounting for a substantial portion of global GDP, trade, and foreign direct investment flows. The guiding principles of the RCEP emphasize parallel negotiations on trade in goods, services, investment, and other areas to ensure a balanced outcome. However, India eventually withdrew from the agreement in November 2019.

RCEP Negotiations: A Complex Web of Interests and Implications

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) dominated discussions on Asian trade and economic integration in 2019. The stated goal was ambitious: to create the world's largest free trade area, encompassing 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 six additional countries with existing free trade agreements with ASEAN: Australia, China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and South Korea. The sheer scale of the RCEP, representing approximately 30% of the global GDP and population, underscored its potential to reshape regional and global trade dynamics.

The genesis of RCEP can be traced back to the 2012 ASEAN Summit held in Phnom Penh, Cambodia. The initiative emerged as a response to the proliferation of bilateral and regional trade agreements, often creating a complex "noodle bowl" effect that hindered seamless trade flows. ASEAN, at the heart of RCEP, envisioned the agreement as a means to consolidate and streamline these existing FTAs, reducing transaction costs and enhancing economic integration within the region. The impetus was to create a more predictable and transparent trade environment, fostering greater investment and economic growth across the participating nations.

The initial years of negotiations were marked by slow progress, reflecting the diverse economic structures, developmental levels, and strategic priorities of the participating countries. While the overarching objective of RCEP was to reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade in goods, services, and investment, the specifics of these reductions proved to be a contentious issue. Each country sought to protect its domestic industries while simultaneously gaining access to new markets. This inherent tension between protectionism and liberalization lay at the heart of the RCEP negotiations.

Key Players and Their Agendas

The RCEP negotiations involved a complex interplay of competing interests, with each participating country pursuing its own strategic objectives. Understanding the positions and motivations of the key players is crucial to comprehending the dynamics of the negotiations and the eventual outcome.

• ASEAN: As the core of the RCEP, ASEAN played a central role in driving the negotiations forward. The ten member states shared a common desire to deepen regional economic integration and enhance their collective bargaining power in the global arena. However, within ASEAN, there were also differences in priorities. Some member states, such as Singapore and Malaysia, were more open to liberalization and integration, while others, such as Cambodia and Laos, were more concerned about protecting their less developed economies. ASEAN's consensus-based decision-making process often slowed down the negotiations, as any single member could effectively veto a proposal.

• China: China emerged as a strong proponent of RCEP, viewing it as a key component of its broader regional economic strategy. China's economic rise had transformed it into a major trading partner for ASEAN and other countries in the region. RCEP provided China with an opportunity to further solidify its economic influence in Asia and to secure access to new markets for its goods and services. Moreover, in the context of rising trade tensions with the United States, RCEP was seen as a way for China to diversify its trade relationships and reduce its reliance on the U.S. market.

• India: India's participation in RCEP was a subject of intense debate and scrutiny. On the one hand, India recognized the potential benefits of joining a large regional trading bloc, including increased trade and investment flows. On the other hand, India harbored significant concerns about the potential impact of RCEP on its domestic industries, particularly in sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing. India feared that RCEP would lead to a surge in imports from China and other countries, undermining its efforts to promote domestic production and create jobs.

• Japan: Japan, a major economic power in Asia, also played a significant role in the RCEP negotiations. Japan sought to secure access to new markets for its high-tech products and services, while also promoting its vision of a rules-based regional order. Japan was particularly concerned about ensuring that RCEP included provisions on intellectual property protection and investment liberalization.

• Australia and New Zealand: Australia and New Zealand, both resource-rich countries, viewed RCEP as an opportunity to expand their trade relationships with Asia and to secure access to new markets for their agricultural products and raw materials. They also sought to promote their standards on issues such as environmental protection and labor rights within the RCEP framework.

• South Korea: South Korea, a highly industrialized country, saw RCEP as a way to diversify its export markets and to enhance its competitiveness in the region. South Korea was particularly interested in securing access to the growing markets of Southeast Asia.

The "Early Harvest" Controversy

One of the major sticking points in the RCEP negotiations was the concept of an "early harvest." An early harvest agreement typically involves the implementation of certain aspects of a trade agreement, such as tariff reductions on specific goods, before the entire agreement is finalized. The idea behind an early harvest is to provide a tangible demonstration of the benefits of trade liberalization and to build momentum for the completion of the full agreement.

However, India expressed strong reservations about the early harvest approach, arguing that it could be detrimental to its interests. India feared that an early reduction of tariffs on certain goods would expose its domestic industries to unfair competition from countries with more efficient production systems. India argued that it was essential to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that addressed all aspects of trade, including goods, services, investment, and rules of origin, before implementing any tariff reductions.

India's concerns about the early harvest reflected its broader anxieties about the potential impact of RCEP on its economy. India had a long history of protectionist trade policies, aimed at shielding its domestic industries from foreign competition. While India had gradually liberalized its economy in recent decades, it remained wary of opening up its markets too quickly.

The early harvest issue highlighted the fundamental differences in approach among the RCEP negotiating parties. Some countries, such as China and ASEAN, were eager to move forward with tariff reductions as quickly as possible, while others, such as India, preferred a more cautious and gradual approach.

India's Concerns and Demands

India's concerns about RCEP stemmed from several factors, including its trade deficit with China, its relatively less competitive manufacturing sector, and its large agricultural population.

• Trade Deficit with China: India had a significant and growing trade deficit with China, which was a major source of concern for Indian policymakers. India feared that RCEP would exacerbate this trade deficit, leading to a further influx of Chinese goods into the Indian market. India argued that RCEP should include provisions to address the trade imbalance, such as measures to promote Indian exports to China and to prevent dumping of Chinese goods in India.

  Advertisement

• Manufacturing Competitiveness: India's manufacturing sector was relatively less competitive compared to those of China and other countries in the region. India's manufacturing industries faced challenges such as high input costs, inadequate infrastructure, and complex regulations. India feared that RCEP would expose its manufacturing industries to unfair competition, leading to job losses and factory closures.

• Agricultural Sector: India's agricultural sector was a major source of employment and livelihood for a large segment of the population. India feared that RCEP would lead to a surge in imports of agricultural products from countries with more efficient farming systems, undermining the livelihoods of Indian farmers. India argued that RCEP should include provisions to protect its agricultural sector, such as safeguards against import surges and special treatment for sensitive agricultural products.

In addition to these specific concerns, India also raised broader issues related to the overall structure and content of the RCEP agreement. India argued that RCEP should be a high-quality agreement that included provisions on issues such as intellectual property protection, investment liberalization, and dispute settlement. India also emphasized the need for RCEP to be consistent with its existing international obligations and to take into account its developmental needs.

The Impasse and India's Eventual Withdrawal

As the RCEP negotiations progressed, it became increasingly clear that India's concerns were not being adequately addressed. Despite repeated rounds of negotiations, the other RCEP members were unwilling to make significant concessions to accommodate India's demands.

The impasse reached a critical point in November 2019, when the RCEP leaders met in Bangkok, Thailand, to finalize the agreement. At the summit, India announced that it would not be joining RCEP, citing unresolved issues and concerns about its economic impact.

India's decision to withdraw from RCEP was a major setback for the agreement. India was a large and important economy, and its participation would have significantly enhanced the credibility and attractiveness of RCEP. India's withdrawal also raised questions about the future of regional economic integration in Asia.

Reasons for India's Withdrawal

Several factors contributed to India's decision to withdraw from RCEP.

• Lack of Flexibility from Other Members: India felt that the other RCEP members were not willing to show sufficient flexibility in addressing its concerns. India argued that its concerns were legitimate and that the other members needed to make greater efforts to accommodate its demands.

• Pressure from Domestic Industries: India faced intense pressure from domestic industries, particularly in the manufacturing and agricultural sectors, to protect them from foreign competition. These industries lobbied the government to withdraw from RCEP, arguing that the agreement would be detrimental to their interests.

• Political Considerations: India's decision to withdraw from RCEP was also influenced by political considerations. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) faced criticism from opposition parties and civil society groups for pursuing RCEP, with opponents arguing that the agreement would harm the Indian economy and undermine national interests.

• Strategic Concerns: Some analysts argued that India's withdrawal from RCEP was also motivated by strategic concerns. India was wary of China's growing economic influence in the region and feared that RCEP would further enhance China's dominance. India preferred to focus on strengthening its bilateral trade relationships with other countries and on promoting alternative regional initiatives that did not include China.

Implications of India's Withdrawal

India's withdrawal from RCEP had significant implications for the agreement and for the broader regional economic landscape.

• Reduced Scale and Scope of RCEP: India's withdrawal reduced the scale and scope of RCEP, making it a less attractive agreement for other countries. With India no longer a member, RCEP covered a smaller share of the global economy and population.

• Diminished Credibility of RCEP: India's withdrawal also diminished the credibility of RCEP. India was a major economy and a key player in the region, and its decision to reject the agreement raised questions about its overall viability.

• Increased Chinese Influence: India's withdrawal from RCEP potentially strengthened China's economic influence in the region. With India no longer a member, China had a greater opportunity to shape the rules and norms of regional trade and investment.

• Impact on India's Economy: India's withdrawal from RCEP had both positive and negative implications for its economy. On the one hand, it protected India's domestic industries from foreign competition. On the other hand, it deprived India of the opportunity to participate in a large regional trading bloc and to benefit from increased trade and investment flows.

• Shift in India's Trade Strategy: India's withdrawal from RCEP signaled a shift in its trade strategy. India began to focus on strengthening its bilateral trade relationships with other countries, such as the United States and the European Union, and on promoting alternative regional initiatives that did not include China.

The RCEP Agreement After India's Exit

Despite India's withdrawal, the remaining 15 RCEP members continued to pursue the agreement. In November 2020, the RCEP agreement was signed by the leaders of the 15 participating countries.

The RCEP agreement covers a wide range of issues, including trade in goods, trade in services, investment, intellectual property, and dispute settlement. The agreement aims to reduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade, to promote investment, and to create a more predictable and transparent business environment in the region.

The RCEP agreement is expected to have a significant impact on regional trade and investment flows. It is projected to boost economic growth in the participating countries and to create new opportunities for businesses and workers.

Key Provisions of the RCEP Agreement

• Tariff Reductions: The RCEP agreement includes significant tariff reductions on a wide range of goods traded among the participating countries. The agreement aims to eliminate tariffs on at least 90% of goods within 20 years.

• Rules of Origin: The RCEP agreement establishes common rules of origin, which determine the country of origin of a product for the purpose of applying tariffs and other trade measures. The common rules of origin are designed to simplify trade procedures and to reduce transaction costs.

• Trade in Services: The RCEP agreement includes provisions on trade in services, which aim to liberalize the services sector and to promote cross-border trade in services. The agreement covers a wide range of services, including financial services, telecommunications, and transportation.

• Investment: The RCEP agreement includes provisions on investment, which aim to promote foreign direct investment and to protect the rights of investors. The agreement includes provisions on issues such as national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment, and dispute settlement.

  Advertisement

• Intellectual Property: The RCEP agreement includes provisions on intellectual property, which aim to protect intellectual property rights and to promote innovation. The agreement covers a wide range of intellectual property rights, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

• Dispute Settlement: The RCEP agreement includes a dispute settlement mechanism, which provides a framework for resolving disputes among the participating countries. The dispute settlement mechanism is designed to ensure that the agreement is implemented fairly and effectively.

The Broader Context: India's Act East Policy and China's Belt and Road Initiative

The RCEP negotiations took place against the backdrop of broader geopolitical and economic developments in the region, including India's Act East Policy and China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

• India's Act East Policy: India's Act East Policy, launched in 2014, aims to strengthen India's economic, political, and security ties with the countries of Southeast Asia. The Act East Policy is a key component of India's broader foreign policy strategy, which seeks to promote regional stability and prosperity. India's participation in RCEP was seen as an important element of its Act East Policy, as it would have provided India with a platform to deepen its economic engagement with Southeast Asia.

• China's Belt and Road Initiative: China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013, is a massive infrastructure development project that aims to connect China with the rest of Asia, Africa, and Europe. The BRI involves the construction of roads, railways, ports, and other infrastructure projects, which are designed to facilitate trade and investment flows. The BRI has been both praised and criticized. Supporters argue that it will promote economic development and connectivity, while critics argue that it is a tool for China to expand its geopolitical influence. The RCEP agreement was seen by some as a complement to the BRI, as it would have created a free trade area that could facilitate trade along the BRI routes.

Future Outlook for India and RCEP

While India chose not to join RCEP, the agreement remains a significant development in the regional economic landscape. The future implications for India are multifaceted.

• Exploring Alternative Trade Agreements: India is likely to continue to explore alternative trade agreements with other countries and regions. India has been actively negotiating trade agreements with the United States, the European Union, and other countries. These agreements could provide India with access to new markets and investment opportunities.

• Strengthening Domestic Economy: India needs to focus on strengthening its domestic economy to enhance its competitiveness in the global market. This includes improving infrastructure, reducing regulatory burdens, and promoting innovation. By strengthening its domestic economy, India will be better positioned to compete with other countries in the region and to attract foreign investment.

• Re-evaluating RCEP: It is possible that India could re-evaluate its decision to withdraw from RCEP in the future. If the RCEP agreement proves to be successful and if India's concerns are addressed, India may consider rejoining the agreement. However, this would require significant concessions from the other RCEP members.

Conclusion

The RCEP negotiations and India's eventual withdrawal represent a complex chapter in the evolving landscape of Asian trade and economic integration. The agreement highlights the challenges of balancing competing interests and priorities in a diverse region. While RCEP has the potential to promote economic growth and prosperity, its success will depend on the willingness of the participating countries to cooperate and to address the concerns of all stakeholders. India's future role in the regional economic order remains uncertain, but its actions will undoubtedly shape the dynamics of trade and investment in Asia for years to come. The decision to withdraw from RCEP was a significant one, reflecting a complex interplay of economic, political, and strategic considerations. While India's withdrawal may have reduced the scale and scope of RCEP, the agreement remains a significant development in the regional economic landscape. The future implications for India are multifaceted, and the country will need to carefully consider its options in order to maximize its economic interests.