RCEP: The next trade deal you need to know about

[Oscar]

Civil society groups say No to investors suing States in RCEP

[ http://www.bilaterals.org/?civil-societ ... -say-no-to ]

August 3, 2016

- - - -

“Given this, the 95 national and regional civil society organisations listed below which cover all RCEP countries (a number of persons requested additionally to sign on as individuals) strongly urge RCEP countries to reject ISDS in the agreement.”

- - -

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is being negotiated in secret by 16 countries* and a leaked copy of its investment chapter includes proposals to allow foreign investors to sue governments at an international tribunal.

These investor suits can be for unlimited cash damages and compound interest. If the proposals are accepted, this investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) would allow foreign investors to sue RCEP governments if they regulate in ways that disadvantages the foreign investor, eg by reducing its profits, including by introducing new laws/policies or changing their laws/policies, even if it is for public interest reasons.

Past ISDS cases have successfully challenged health, environmental, tax, financial regulation and many other laws and a losing government in one case had to pay an investor as much as US$40 billion. This is difficult enough for any government to afford, but RCEP includes three least developed countries: Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar who would find it particularly burdensome to pay foreign investors this much.

There are 696 known ISDS cases against 107 countries and the number filed each year has been rapidly increasing (the most ever were filed in 2015). These cases which broadly interpret investors’ rights and restrict governments’ ability to regulate have caused many developed and developing country governments to rethink their support for these investment protection provisions (including ISDS) in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and free trade agreement (FTA) investment chapters.

For example, in RCEP countries alone:

- India and Indonesia are withdrawing from their BITs

- Singapore’s Attorney General and the Chief Justice of Australia’s highest court have expressed concerns about ISDS and

- The New Zealand Chief Justice noted that human rights based determinations of domestic courts may give rise to ISDS claims.

In countries outside RCEP, there is also opposition to ISDS including:

- Other countries such as South Africa and Ecuador are withdrawing from their BITs,

- Germany’s Economic Minister opposes ISDS in Europe’s FTA negotiations with the USA,

- the Dutch, French and Austrian Parliaments oppose ISDS in their FTA negotiations with Canada and the USA and

- All US state-level parliaments oppose ISDS in any treaty.

Various United Nations (UN) human rights bodies have also stated their serious concerns about ISDS including 10 UN Special Rapporteurs/Independent Experts on human rights who said that the ISDS cases demonstrate ‘that the regulatory function of many States and their ability to legislate in the public interest have been put at risk’ and governments have been chilled from regulating. They recommended that in negotiations of FTAs like RCEP, the negotiating texts are published and the negotiations are conducted transparently with the participation of stakeholders including civil society.

RCEP trade ministers will meet in Laos on 5 August 2016 to try and resolve some of the issues that are stuck in the negotiations.

Given this, the 95 national and regional civil society organisations listed below which cover all RCEP countries (a number of persons requested additionally to sign on as individuals) strongly urge RCEP countries to reject ISDS in the agreement.

*The RCEP countries are Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Viet Nam, Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand

SIGNATORIES . . . .

MORE:

[ http://www.bilaterals.org/?civil-societ ... -say-no-to ]


= = = = =


RCEP: The next trade deal you need to know about

[ http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/14/tpp-deal ... gress.html ]

See Kit Tang | @SeeKit_T Wednesday, 14 Oct 2015 | 7:33 PM ET

RCEP is viewed as an alternative to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which includes the United States but excludes China. . . . .

[Oscar]

Think the RCEP is about free trade? Think again (incl. a pretty map!)

[ http://asia.nikkei.com/magazine/2017042 ... hink-again ]

April 27, 2017 10:00 am JST YASU OTA, Nikkei Asian Review columnist

Beijing-led pact is aimed at saving China's own economy via the Belt and Road

EXCERPT:

Some of the remaining TPP members are trying to start negotiations on a so-called TPP 11. On April 19, Japanese Deputy Prime Minister Taro Aso said discussions on putting the deal into effect without the world's largest economy will begin in May on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation meeting.

There are reasons for Japan to promote transparent, high-level trade deals like a possible TPP 11. The Abe cabinet has been trying to expand exports of infrastructure technologies amid fierce competition with China over high-speed railway projects in Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. Japanese businesses are reluctant to answer the government's "All Japan" call because they cannot compete against Chinese rivals who are able to undercut them by pricing their projects at a loss.

Should Japan and the U.S. lose their standing as leaders in global trade, the door would be open for China to set the agenda on trade rules.

Just what that agenda is seems clear. Through the RCEP, China is aiming to make ambiguous trade rules the global standard. So far, there have been no signs of serious discussion regarding such areas as e-commerce, state-owned enterprises, the environment and labor standards. China, which is leading the negotiations, has little use for rules in these areas. The focus of its trade policy, after all, is on traditional exporters -- steel and cement, for example -- not on the industries of tomorrow.

For the government of a sprawling nation saddled with an aging industrial model, laying the groundwork for stable global growth takes a back seat to propping up its own economy. In the end, the RCEP is nothing more than a contrivance aimed at creating massive overseas demand for Chinese companies.

U.S. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster visited Pakistan on April 17 for talks with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and military leaders. He was the first senior official of Trump's administration to visit the country, but his trip was not announced ahead of time. Washington is apparently becoming nervous about China's growing influence over Pakistan, but it may be too late for the U.S. to rekindle its commitment to South Asia.