RCEP (2)

 

Ayer, el órgano semioficioso del Partido Comunista Chino Global Times salió con nada menos que cuatro notas de tapa a hablar sobre el reciente acuerdo económico firmado por 15 países del este de Asia, en lo que se va comprendiendo como el mayor acuerdo comercial del mundo, incluyendo un tercio de la población del planeta y un tercio del PBI global. Lo que significa el acuerdo, los pormenores del mismo, el lugar en que quedan los EEUU ante esta jugada, y la (incómoda) posición de la India, que a último momento se negó a participar de las negociaciones (fíjense que estaba como integrante del acuerdo en el afiche de arriba), constituyen el tema central de estas notas. Por supuesto, hay propaganda (sobre todo en la primer nota), información y mensajes. Quien quiera leer que lea:


Título: RCEP proves that multilateralism is the right path for the world: Global Times editorial

Texto: The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed on Sunday by the 15 participating countries via video conference, attracting intensive attention from global public opinion.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said that the RCEP is "a victory of multilateralism and free trade." Leaders of other countries who participated in the meeting made similar comments.
We have noticed that many Asian media outlets have welcomed the RCEP and analyzed in their reports how the agreement will improve regional economic and trade cooperation, as well as how it will benefit their countries.

However, some Western media outlets reported that the RCEP is "China-led" or is intended to expand China's influence in Asia, describing China as the biggest beneficiary of the RCEP. From such a geopolitical perspective, they only see that China is in this agreement while the US is not, thus ignoring the RCEP's rich and true constructiveness to the whole region and misunderstanding China's interaction with the world in the 21st century.

The RCEP was initiated by ASEAN. China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand were invited to participate. India decided to withdraw at the last moment of the negotiations in November 2019. Many major US allies in the Asia-Pacific region are in this agreement, and China cannot dominate the attitude of these countries or the ASEAN's attitude. However, some US and Western elites still believe that China is the "biggest winner" of the RCEP.

There are problems with those people's value system and ability to judge. Their prejudices against China are so deep that their minds become confused whenever China is involved in anything. If China is the so-called winner this time, then it is a win-win situation for all other RCEP members because these countries have strived for their own benefits during the past eight years of negotiations. All countries can only be winners of this agreement.

This is the fundamental way for China's development. China has been seeking a win-win and all-win mode from the very beginning and, like rolling snowballs, has accumulated a large number of common interests around the world. China has always been able to cooperate with the US and its China-wary allies in an effective and mutually beneficial way, prompting international relations to make a big move forward from the old geopolitical direction toward all-win cooperation.

The global map of interests is no longer painted on the basis of spheres of influence. The enrichment and expansion of sovereignty and technological progress make it possible for countries to seek new sources of interests in every part of the world. With the general decline of security threats, economic interests have become more prominent and all countries prioritize economic and social development in their national interests. At the very least, sacrificing the economy for the sake of security is increasingly difficult to justify as a realistic policy. 

Some US and Western elites are indeed behind the times in their way of thinking - they think of China as an "expansionist empire" and see all China's expanded cooperation with whichever country or region as part of its "expansion strategy." In fact, they have really misread China, the times as well as the world.

The RCEP is an open, reciprocal and mutually beneficial cooperation system that will profit the 2.2 billion people in the whole region. The external economic environment which every enterprise and consumer group is connected with has been greatly broadened and they see more opportunities to unlock their development potential. When the businesses and consumers are getting better and better, how could the interests of the nations be harmed?

To sum up, the RCEP proves that the so-called Chinese ambitions and the so-called Chinese expansion in the eyes of some US and Western elites are mixed with too many of their subjective prejudices. In comparison, they also need to reflect on how they have distorted the China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and why the initiative they have been slandering is actually so popular in the vast majority of countries along the BRI route - those countries can't be the fools the US and Western elites have thought they are.

There is no need to overestimate the significance of the RCEP. But it will undoubtedly enhance Chinese people's confidence by showing us that multilateralism is still full of vitality and there is still broad room for us to participate in it. We have so far adhered to the path of mutual benefit and win-win development, and this has turned out to be successful. We will continue to follow the path, and no one can stop us.


***

La nota que sigue es de Wang Jiangyu:

Título: RCEP will end US hegemony in West Pacific

Texto: China and 14 other Asia-Pacific nations, including 10 ASEAN member countries and Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, are set to sign the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement on Sunday. The signatories of the pact, however, do not include the US which has been traditionally regarded as a dominate player in the Asia-Pacific region. 

The conclusion of the RCEP indicates that the majority of Asian countries endorse an Asia-wide regional free trade framework that works to benefit all Asian economies and see it as a landmark step toward achieving closer economic integration in East and Southeast Asia. 
The RCEP sends out the message that Asian countries do not want to choose sides between the US and China. 

More significantly, they are not willing to blindly follow the US and exclude China, the biggest and most vibrant Asian economy, from the region's integration process.  A sound and healthy economic community in Asia cannot be achieved without China's participation. Of course, the concept of open regionalism embraced by China also welcomes America's participation in this cause.

RCEP's rise was initially an ASEAN response to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a mega free trade agreement dominated by the US since it joined the negotiations in 2008. TPP membership included some Asian countries, but excluded many others. Most significantly, it excluded China, the world's second-largest economy and the largest trading partner of almost all Asian economies. 

The TPP was also an alarm to ASEAN because, before the TPP, Asian economic integration was driven and led by ASEAN, the largest regional organization in Asia. The TPP would divide Asia, slow down Asia's own economic integration process, and marginalize ASEAN. 

Against that backdrop, Asian economies launched RECP negotiations in 2012, under the leadership of ASEAN and with the enthusiastic support from China and other Asian economies. To some extent, RCEP reflects Asian countries' will to take the matter of regional economic integration in their own hands. Though they all welcome US input in the process, they are not inclined to see TPP-centric encirclement of China.

The RCEP and TPP do not necessarily compete with each other. Instead, they represent different levels of economic openness and liberalisation. The TPP, now effectively the CPTPP, represents "deep integration" and high-degree of liberalization. However, the RCEP takes into consideration the diverse stages of economic development of various Asian countries and aims to cater to countries' individual needs and concerns while still significantly promoting economic integration and liberalization. 

The Trump administration's withdrawal from the TPP in 2016 resulted in America's detachment from the process of Asia's economic integration. The move, representing a Donald Trump-style economic nationalism and isolationism, was quickly followed by the Indo-Pacific strategy, a pro-active geopolitical initiative aimed at establishing a "united front" in the form of an alliance or quasi-alliance to contain China's rise. 

During the same period, Asian economic integration moved steadfastly and will soon see the fruit in the form of the RCEP. In this sense, the RCEP represents the failure of the Trump administration's attempted encirclement of China in western Pacific.

The Trump administration's jettisoning of the TPP and promotion of "America First" unilateralism have raised doubts among Asian countries about US willingness to trade with the region on mutually beneficial basis.

It is, however, highly likely that the Biden administration will change the Trump course and be more engaging in dealing with Asia on the economic front. In this sense, the successful conclusion of the RCEP might raise the alarm to a new and different US government. One should not take it as a surprise if the new Joe Biden presidency uses the RCEP to hype "China threat" in order to build consensus in the US to join the TPP again. 

Asia, in the spirit of open regionalism, welcomes more countries to join its regional integration project. If the US wishes to restart its TPP accession, the barriers it will face will not be in Asia, and may not even come from China. 

Even if Biden himself strongly hopes to resume the TPP membership, it might still take a long time for the US to reopen the process. The sentiment of economic nationalism in American society runs noticeably deep, and many Democrats, the political base of Biden, certainly are not the best friends of free trade. Candidate Hillary Clinton, when campaigning against Trump in 2016, vociferously objected to the TPP. It will be a painful process for Biden to develop a new narrative.

In an ideal world, trade as an economic phenomenon should run its own course based on each trading nation's comparative advantage, without the interference of politics. In the real world, global trading is always tainted by domestic affairs and geopolitics. 

In this new round of China-US economic competition, the next key issue to watch is the global supply chain. Although former President Barack Obama and Trump are very different leaders, their trade policies share one common goal. That is, the US government, be it controlled by the Republicans or Democrats, is expected to alter the China-centred global supply chain and bring the gravity of the global production networks back to the US and its allies. 

At least, they probably both wish to move China out of the central position in the global supply chain networks. The difference is Obama implemented it through the alliance-building effort of TPP while Trump resorted to tariffs war. Further, Obama might have been willing to allow China to join, provided China could meet the high standards contained therein. Trump's aggressive unilateralism, in contrast, was perceived in China as overwhelmingly a geopolitical strategy to contain China and impair its "right of development".

The US-China rivalry has however reached the stage where neither country can supress the other's development. At least from a trade perspective, a containment strategy undermines global welfare as well as damages both countries' economic interest. Unfortunately, this common sense has not been taken seriously by American policy elites.

In this context, we should not have the delusion that pre-Trump globalization will be fully resumed. Insofar as the production networks are concerned, what is more likely to happen is the parallel existence of two global supply chains in Asia and North America, with China and the US as the respective leading players. Of course, most countries, including notably the European economies, will participate in both supply chains.


***

De Cheng Hanping:

Título: RCEP redefines new era of globalization as US juggles its unilateral dilemmas

Texto: The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), a free trade agreement initiated by ASEAN in 2012, was signed virtually on Sunday. The RCEP was originally between 10 ASEAN members and six other countries, namely China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia and New Zealand.

RCEP is huge in size and covers a wide range of issues from trade in goods, dispute settlement, and investment in intellectual property, digital trade, finance and telecommunications. Although India decided to withdraw from RCEP negotiations due to disputes over tariffs and trade deficits with other countries, the remaining 15 members have been working hard. They eventually signed the world's largest trade pact.

RCEP will create the world's largest free trade zone. The signing of the agreement also has many special meanings. Usana Berananda, Thailand's director-general of the Department of ASEAN Affairs, said on November 5 that this will be the first-ever virtual signing of an agreement that ASEAN has undertaken. RCEP has become even more important with the COVID-19 pandemic still raging. All countries need to seek more extensive cooperation in the context of the public safety crisis. The signing of RCEP is a major victory of multilateralism over unilateralism, and an inevitable choice for participating countries to deal with challenges in a fast-changing world.

Going forward, the Asia-Pacific region will be further integrated and reach in-depth cooperation like never before. RCEP will help China and ASEAN enhance strategic mutual trust and cooperation, promoting a community for a shared future for both sides.

It also shows that China and ASEAN have the responsibility to jointly fight against anti-globalization and trade protectionism, and strive to bring bright prospects to the region and the world. Despite the severe economic impacts of COVID-19, the trade volume between China and ASEAN has risen against the downward trend. In fact, ASEAN overtook the EU to become China's largest trading partner during the January-June period.

The signing of RCEP also echoes well with China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) to promote regional integration and further strengthen policy communication with countries along the BRI. Based on the Joint Leaders' Statement on the RCEP issued in November 2019, they agreed to directly promote the connection of facilities with BRI construction. It is believed that the China-Laos railway and the China-built Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway will soon bring benefits to people in the region.

Obviously, the BRI brings mutual benefits. In the critical period of fighting COVID-19, the BRI has shown its unique advantages between China and ASEAN.

However, the signing of RCEP will be a blow to the Trump administration, which has hyped up trade frictions at all costs. This explains why Marc Knapper, US deputy assistant secretary for Korea and Japan, said Japan and South Korea "should be able to stand up and speak out when we see bad behavior from China."

Faced with RCEP's signing, Washington has very few options left. One of the options is that once Joe Biden takes office, the US may return to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which former president Barack Obama had promoted. But after the US' withdrawal, TPP has already been changed into the CPTPP - Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Being "comprehensive" and "progressive," CPTPP has become more feasible. Previously, the TPP was mainly focused on trade, but CPTPP also includes investment. The 11 members of CPTPP are all members of APEC, and they share a common will for further development. The US is only an outsider in the CPTPP. If it chooses to return to the partnership, will it be willing to accept the position as a newcomer? Or will it show its arrogance again?

The US is very likely to use all means, including confrontation, hostility and smear campaigns to interfere with RCEP's operations. Doesn't Knapper's move to incite South Korea and Japan explain it all?

If the US returns to CPTPP, Washington will try to turn it into a platform against RCEP. With growing populism and a paranoid Cold War mentality, the US is likely to continue its new economic and trade cold war with China. But the choice is not in the US' hands, but in the hands of CPTPP members. In a new era of globalization with win-win cooperation strategies, one must ask, will they abandon multilateralism and turn to unilateralism?


***

Finalmente, esta nota de Qian Feng:

Título: Indo-Pacific strategy upholder India misses the bus of RCEP and long-term growth

Texto: The signing of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which covers 15 countries and 30 percent of the global economy, undoubtedly offers a driving force for the involved economies to regain growth momentum to struggle out of the COVID-19 mire and win advantages during the post-pandemic era. 

But India, which has long pursued a relatively conservative economic strategy, is not on the list. After seven years of negotiation, the populous South Asia country dropped out of RCEP-related talks at the end of 2019. 

With the world's second-largest number of novel coronavirus infections so far, India may miss a new round of regional industrial reconstruction and the fast lane of economic recovery.
Citing concerns over the competitiveness of Chinese products, India has been actively trying to cut economic ties with China, and once declared its intention to stay out of all international economic agreements involving China. However, the signing of the RCEP may have left India with less space to carry on with its plan of decoupling from China.

Alongside New Delhi's reckless efforts to provoke China on the borders, India intended to take the chance of the US-led "decoupling from China" campaign and take over industries that were relocating from China, which is just a wish now due to insufficient infrastructure, among India's other limitations.

The other path that India chose and bet on was getting closer to the Western world, as well as Japan and Australia, with an aim of reshaping the global industrial chain without (or with less of)  the involvement of China, Asia's largest and the world's second-largest economy.

Together with Japan and Australia, India has been pushing a so-called Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI), intending to reduce reliance on Chinese industrial chains. Without any practical progress on the SCRI, now Japan and Australia are on the RCEP list, joining China, South Korea, New Zealand and 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), to foster a free trade zone that is regarded as one of the largest in the world.

Meanwhile, the Indo-Pacific strategy, which India has been actively upholding with the US and others, was essentially a political or security-related strategy, and it carries little economic meaning. Driven by New Delhi's political inertia of slumping within the framework of the Indo-Pacific strategy while cutting ties with China, it has been sliding further away from the development of regional economic integration, which is a more secure and stable economic path - especially in the post-pandemic era.

Most of the Asian economies that have experienced fast growth were initially boosted by exports, a path that cannot be sustained based on a closed economy. Isolating itself from a nearby huge free trade zone will mean a loss of opportunities for the Modi administration's ambitious Make-in-India plan.

As the deadly pandemic continuously swept the world, leaders of 15 countries signed the mega trade deal via a video conference. Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said that signing of the RCEP is not only an achievement of landmark significance in East Asian regional cooperation, but also a victory of multilateralism and free trade.

Under the comprehensive and high-level RCEP, the elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers alone is estimated to boost the economic growth of the Asian-Pacific region by 2.1 percent, and the global economy by 1.4 percent, according to Chinese economic newspaper Economic Daily.

The Indian economy has been hit hard by COVID-19 and recorded a record contraction during the April-June quarter of 23.9 percent. According to an IMF estimate, it may shrink 10.3 percent in 2020. Though the RCEP may still leave a chance for India, it will be hard for the nation to reset its direction unless New Delhi clearly realizes that its core interest has been hindered by its skewed strategy.