Skip to main content

Ahead of Bangkok RCEP, to be or not to be that's the question India faces

Counterview Desk
In a detailed note on the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), whose preparatory meeting is to take place in Bangkok on November 4 to sign off the treaty and to sort out "thorny" issues, Sanjeev Chandorkar, associate professor with the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, has said that "it would be politically naive to suggest that India should not join any international trade block."
To be attended by Prime Minister Narendra Modi amidst opposition from two irreconcilable quarters -- Swadeshi Jagran Manch (SJM), affiliated to RSS, and the Congress -- Chandorkar's note, released by the Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), an advocacy group based based in New Delhi, says that what is more important is whether India is joining any such initiative with the position of strength and will lead to the economic wellbeing of its millions of deprived citizens.
Already around 26 secretarial level and 15 ministerial level rounds of discussions have taken place for the formation of RCEP as a trade block of 16 countries. While most of the 16 members have largely resolved the thorny issues and reached a broad consensus, India, says the note, has been "consistently bringing on negotiating table country-specific as also general and procedural issues."
It adds, India, is "extremely wary of likely flood of imports of Chinese goods, which may partially kill Indian production capacities." Meanwhile, there is "an immense pressure" on India to fall in line to meet the agreed deadline of December 2019.

Excerpts:

Ten South-East Asian countries, viz. Philippines, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore etc., are bonded themselves, from the sixties, in a trade block called ASEAN (Association of South-East Asian Nations). ASEAN has a separate Free Trade Agreement, one each with six countries, viz, China, South Korea, Japan, Australia, Newzealand and India.
The US during Barrack Obama’s regime became increasingly restless by the growing influence of China in the world economy. In order to check China, US mooted two “partnerships”, one with its “friends” on the Pacific coast and another on its Atlantic coast. These were termed as Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) and Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) respectively. China was specifically kept out of the emerging trade arrangements.
China responded. By leveraging its ethnic bonds among ASEAN countries, China handheld ASEAN to conceptualize Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP). This was in 2011. The core idea was to weave all the 16 countries, 10 belonging to ASEAN group and the above-mentioned six with whom ASEAN has an ongoing FTA, in a comprehensive trade and investment agreement, named as RCEP.
Riding over discontent against the international trade agreement among the US working class, Donald Trump shelved TTP and TTIP immediately after becoming US President. It was not known then what will be the fate of China sponsored RCEP, in the light of US-sponsored partnerships being abandoned. But RCEP went ahead and now is in the final stages of formalizing whatever has been agreed upon.

Not an “easy” decision to stay out

RCEP, if everything conceived is realized, is going to emerge as a heavy-weight block in the global economy in the coming years. With India and China, most populous countries on earth, RCEP will represent half of the global population; with China, Japan and India it will represent one-fourth of global GDP, and with many active members will represent 25 % of the global trade.
It is said that the Centre of Gravity (COG) of the world economy will gradually shift from US/ Europe to Asia; this is very likely. Whenever it happens, it is certain that the COG of the global economy will lie somewhere around the RCEP group. Being a member of such a heavy economic group certainly has some advantages.
RCEP, if everything conceived is realized, is going to emerge as a heavy-weight block in the global economy in the coming years
It is also true that a founder member, being part of the initial negotiations, enjoys an opportunity and access to the process of articulating the “rule book” of the trade group. However, it is not true that a country, for whatever reasons, not a part of the founding group but later joins the trade group, is discriminated for not being a founding member. This can be seen from the journey of two prominent trade blocs World Trade Organization (WTO) and European Union (EU).

The journey of WTO and EU

Post-World War-II, like many multilateral economic institutions, General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT) commenced its functioning. As it caught momentum, more countries from the US camp joined. There were 128 countries following GATT guidelines when GATT culminated in World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995; all 128 countries were automatically made members of WTO.
Post-1995 till today another set of 36 new countries enrolled as WTO members, notable among them, with significant share in world trade is China (2001), Saudi Arabia (2005), Vietnam (2007) and Russia (2012).
In Europe, France and Germany, along with other four countries, founded the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1957. Other European countries joined EEC at their chosen timings, viz., Denmark and Britain (1973), Greece (1981) and Spain and Portugal (1986). By the time EEC culminated in the European Union in 1993, the strength grew to 28.
The point to be noted is that there are no reports indicating discrimination prevalent among trade organizations between two sets of its member countries, viz. founders and those who joined later. In fact, the “timing” chosen by China is noteworthy.
China implemented a set of economic reforms from 1978 till 2001 aimed at enhancing the productivity of labour, ensuring reliable quality of infrastructure services and more importantly making the export-oriented industries within China more competitive. The rest is history. China made the best use of WTO rule book, even not being a founder member, and acquired economic muscles. So much so that US President Donald Trump has conceded that it was a mistake to allow China to join the WTO.
These are useful insights for India to decide when exactly to join multilateral trade blocks like RCEP.

India’s tariff-related concerns

India’s tariff-related concerns are genuine. Among the 15 prospective partners in RCEP, India runs a trade deficit for successive years; i.e. imports in dollar terms from each of these countries is more than the dollar worth of Indian exports to each one of them.
RCEP proposes that each country identifies 90% of the goods and services presently being imported by it from each of the 15 partners, and undertake that the import duties of each of these items be reduced to zero over a period of 15 years.
On its face value, this proposition sounds serious. One may become nervous as one collects finer details about the “export” strengths of each of the partners and the likely impact on the existing Indian producers/manufacturers.
If dairy and allied products are allowed to be imported at zero import duty from New Zealand, it will wipe out Indian milk producers, largely from rural areas, numbering around 5 crores. If heavy and light industrial machinery from China, Japan and South Korea lands on Indian shores without any safeguards it will be death-knell for many industrial units in organized sector.
Labour intensive items, like garment making, imported from China, Vietnam and Indonesia will put many Indian SMEs out of business if there is no protection by way of import duties.
Yes, there is one sector in which India is likely be benefited by joining RCEP and that is “services sector” -- information and IT enables services, management consultancy, accountancy and costing, media and entertainment, human resources and training; the list is quite impressive in which India has acquired strengths.

India’s non-tariff concerns

Other than core concerns related to low tariffs ruining our own economy, India has also raised a few non-tariff concerns as under:
Base year: India demands that the base year to calculate the reduction in tariffs should be 2019 and not 2014 as firmed up by RCEP. India has, during the period 2014 to 2019, raised import duties in the range of 13% to 18% on diverse goods. Should the base year be 2019, it will get more breathing time to spruce up domestic industries likely to be exposed to stiffer competition.
Roots of origin: Which good to be included in the list of goods entitled for concessional import duties is left to be decided to the respective importing country. Such lists will be country specific. What it means is “garments” imported from China may not be offered concessional import duties, but garments from (say) Thailand may enjoy concessional duty.
In order to circumvent this situation, it is possible for an exporter to import garments from China to Thailand and later re-export the same consignment to India so as to enjoy the concessional duty. This is how the laid down system can be beaten. India demands stricter measures to ensure principles of Roots of Origin are adhered to.
Auto trigger: This provision is expected to empower the host country to down its shutters when its own economy is flooded with the disproportionately higher volumes of a particular good at cheaper prices. This will come handy for India to calibrate imports from China.
Application of “Ratchet” principle: Ratchet means a screw which turns only in one direction, up or down and not both ways. This concept is proposed to be applied in RCEP which will disallow the member country to scale up import duties, once reduced.
Such restrictions will disarm India’s ability to respond to uncertain situations needed to strike a balance between commitments under RCEP with its domestic economic compulsions.
Application of Investors to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism: There are bound to be disputes between the foreign investors and the counterparties belonging to private or public sectors in host countries. The question arises about what shall be an appropriate resolution mechanism.
Under multilateral trade and investment agreements, a third party forum is normally provided for to resolve such disputes. This means that the relevant laws and judiciary in force in the host country will no longer be able to step in such situations. This needs to be resisted. All the parties in any disputed economic relationship should be subjected to the law of the land.

Comments

TRENDING

Buddhist shrines massively destroyed by Brahmanical rulers in "pre-Islamic" era: Historian DN Jha's survey

By Our Representative
Prominent historian DN Jha, an expert in India's ancient and medieval past, in his new book, "Against the Grain: Notes on Identity, Intolerance and History", in a sharp critique of "Hindutva ideologues", who look at the ancient period of Indian history as "a golden age marked by social harmony, devoid of any religious violence", has said, "Demolition and desecration of rival religious establishments, and the appropriation of their idols, was not uncommon in India before the advent of Islam".

RSS' 25,000 Shishu Mandirs 'follow' factory school model of Christian missionaries

By Bhabani Shankar Nayak*
The executive committee of the International Union of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences (IUAES) recently decided to drop the KISS University in Odisha as the co-host of the World Anthropology Congress-2023. The decision is driven by the argument that KISS University is a factory school.

India must recognise: 4,085 km Himalayan borders are with Tibet, not China

By Tenzin Tsundue, Sandeep Pandey*
There has as been a cancerous wound around India’s Himalayan neck ever since India's humiliating defeat during the Chinese invasion of India in 1962. The recent Galwan Valley massacre has only added salt to the wound. It has come to this because, when China invaded the neighbouring country Tibet in 1950, India was in high romance with the newly-established communist regime under Mao Zedong after a bloody revolution.

August 22 to be observed as Apostasy Day: International coalition of ex-Muslim groups

By Our Representative
In a unique move, an international coalition of ex-Muslim organisations has decided to observe August 22, 2020 as the Apostasy Day. To be observed for “the abandonment or renunciation of religion”, the coalition, calling upon people to join the call, said, the decision to observe the Apostasy Day has been taken because of apostasy is “punishable by death in Afghanistan, Iran, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, UAE, and Yemen.”

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur*
Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

Time to give Covid burial, not suspend, World Bank's 'flawed' Doing Business ranking

By Maju Varghese*
On August 27, the World Bank came out with a statement suspending the Doing Business Report. The statement said that a number of irregularities have been reported regarding changes to the data in the Doing Business 2018 and Doing Business 2020 reports, published in October 2017 and 2019. The changes in the data were inconsistent with the Doing Business methodology.

Delhi riots: Cops summoning, grilling, intimidating young to give 'false' evidence

Counterview Desk
More than 440 concerned citizens have supported the statement issued by well-known bureaucrat-turned-human rights activist Harsh Mander ‘We will not be silenced’ which said that the communal riots in Delhi in February 2020 have not been caused by any conspiracy, as alleged by the Delhi Police, but by “hate speech and provocative statements made by a number of political leaders of the ruling party.”

WHO chief ignores India, cites Pak as one of 7 top examples in fight against Covid-19

By Our Representative
In a move that would cause consternation in India’s top policy makers in the Modi government, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, World Health Organization (WHO) director-general, has singled out Pakistan among seven countries that have set “examples” in investing in a healthier and safer future in order to fight the Covid-19 pandemic.

Tata Mundra: NGOs worry as US court rules World Bank can't be sued for 'damages'

By Kate Fried, Mir Jalal*
On August 24 evening, a federal court ruled that the World Bank Group cannot be sued for any damage caused by its lending, despite last year’s Supreme Court ruling in the same case that these institutions can be sued for their “commercial activity” in the United States.