Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) & workers in Asia Pacific

6 | International Union Rights | 27/4 FOCUS | TRADE UNION RIGHTS IN ASIA RegionalComprehensiveEconomic Partnership(RCEP)&workersinAsiaPacific The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the flaws of decades of neoliberal trade policy: from the shortages of essential medical supplies due to a lack of local manufacturing capacity, to the exportdependent supply chains in Asia that were brought to a standstill1, to the precarious workers at the bottom of global supply chains that bear the worst impacts of COVID-19, with limited or no access to social protection2. It is clear the COVID-19 crisis requires a rethink of the dominant neoliberal trade paradigm. We need a new model of trade that will enable governments the fiscal and policy space to deal with crises, and that prioritises the health and wellbeing of workers and communities over corporate interests. Instead, Governments in Asia Pacific have doubled down by signing the world’s largest trade agreement3, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), on 15 November 2020. The secret negotiations have been ongoing since 2012 between the ten ASEAN members (Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam), Australia, China, Japan, New Zealand and the Republic of Korea (India withdrew from the RCEP negotiations in 2019). The text of RCEP was finalised in 2019 and has not been updated to reflect the changed global circumstances and challenges presented by COVID19 . Indeed, many countries party to the RCEP agreement implemented response measures during the pandemic that could be in breach of RCEP rules, for example closing businesses in particular service sectors and classifying other businesses as essential, and governments taking control of private hospital facilities to treat COVID-19 patients. Despite this, the agreement was signed without changes or any assessment of the health, social, and economic impacts on RCEP countries. It is likely the commitments made in RCEP will constrain the ability of current and future governments to pursue a just and equal recovery from the COVID-19 crisis. The corporate agenda The negotiations for RCEP occurred in secret, without any consultation with unions or community groups. Meanwhile, at the request of RCEP country economic ministers, business representatives from ASEAN, Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand formed an advisory group in 2013 to provide ongoing business input into the negotiations4. The final RCEP agreement, though less draconian than some other trade deals such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP)5, is an agreement that benefits corporate interests at the expense of workers and communities in Asia Pacific. RCEP is part of the ‘new generation’ of trade agreements that extends beyond the traditional trade issues of tariffs and goods to cover services, investment, intellectual property rights, government procurement, the digital economy, and the movement of workers – all areas of policy that should be determined through democratic processes. The objective of these trade agreements is to shift power to corporations through deregulation, protecting corporate property rights, and expanding their access to markets and cheap labour. These trade agreements open up countries to foreign investment, with governments agreeing that their laws will not favour local businesses over foreign enterprises - tariffs, subsidies and the preferencing of local businesses in procurement are all barriers that must be removed. Moreover, other types of public regulation, including the regulation of services, are considered barriers to trade and so must be eliminated. Some trade agreements even give foreign investors the ability to sue governments in tribunals for millions of dollars if they argue that a change in domestic law or policy will harm their investment - known as Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). ISDS cases have been brought against governments for regulating in the area of public health, labour rights, and the environment. Free trade agreements also reinforce power and wealth inequalities between lower and high-income countries. These inequalities were at play in the RCEP negotiations, which included a highly diverse group of economies, with Cambodia, Laos, and Myanmar the least developed countries, and Australia, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, and Singapore high-income economies. RCEP was touted as having a development focused agenda, but the lack of human rights, labour rights and environmental safeguards reinforces a destructive neoliberal development model based on deregulation...