role of regional trade agreements with specific focus on the asia- pacific trade agreement tiziana...
TRANSCRIPT
Role of Regional Trade Role of Regional Trade Agreements with Specific Focus Agreements with Specific Focus
on the Asia-Pacific Trade on the Asia-Pacific Trade AgreementAgreement
Tiziana BonapaceChief, Trade Policy Section
Trade and Investment Division, UNESCAP
International Workshop on “Central Asia and China:Economic Relations, Current Situation and
Prospects”11-12 July 2006, Siam City Hotel, Bangkok
RTAs in Asia and the PacificRTAs in Asia and the Pacific
Trade agreements signed in Asia and the Pacific
0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0
1217
64
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
47-50 51-55 56-60 61-65 66-70 71-75 76-80 81-85 86-90 91-95 96-00 00-present
Period
Trad
e ag
reem
ents
sig
ned
Evolution of Asia-Pacific Regionalism
Broadly 3 waves
First wave (50s/60s/70s):– 1950 Conference on Asian/African cooperation in Bandung,
Indonesia, the precursor of the non-aligned movement.
– Import-substitution industrialization strategy becomes development model. South-South cooperation based on strategic selection of tariff liberalization among members to promote industrialization. Inward looking with high tariff walls to keep out imports competing with “infant industries”.
– First RTA signed in 1975: Bangkok Agreement
Second wave (80s/90s): – unsustainability of import-substitution model, globalization
accelerates and results in north/south interdependence. Outward-oriented, “open regionalism” i.e. faster liberalization among RTA “friends” while at the same time lowering barriers to third parties
Second wave: – Establishment of APEC based on non-discriminatory
principles in its strictest interpretation, conclusion of UR
– Rapid increase in membership to GATT/WTO. – Regionalism and multilateralism enter golden age of
mutually supportive liberalization
Third wave (Late 1990s-present): – financial crisis– stalling of APEC process of liberalization – stalwarts of MFN (Japan and Rok) turn regional, as well
as China who completes most difficult part of internal transformation.
– New era of deep and wide economic partnership agreements, with FTA as core, but much wider economic cooperation as well
– Bilateralism is key feature
Evolution of Asia-Pacific Regionalism
Belarus*Russian
Federation
ASEAN
Cambodia
APECBrunei DarussalamIndonesiaMalaysia Chile*Philippines Hong Kong, ChinaSingapore JapanViet Nam Mexico*
Russian FederationTaiwan Province of China*United States of AmericaCanada*Peru*
BIMST-EC
BhutanNepal
Myanmar
Thailand
APTA
BangladeshIndiaSri Lanka
PICTA
Cook IslandsKiribatiNauruNiueSamoaTonga
ChinaRepublic of Korea
ANZCERTA
New Zealand
Australia
ECOTA
AfghanistanAzerbaijanIran (Islamic
Republic of)TurkeyTurkmenistan
Melanesian Spearhead GroupPapua New Guinea
FijiSolomon IslandsVanuatu
Main regional integration arrangements of UNESCAP membersand associate members
Pakistan
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
Line refers to some of the major bilateral agreements (country-to-country or bloc-to-country) in force or under negotiation
Block refers to regional arrangements
SAFTA
Maldives
CAEU
KazakhstanKyrgyzstanTajikistan
Uzbekistan
* Belarus, Chile, Canada, Mexico and Peru are not ESCAP members or associated members
EEC
ArmeniaGeorgia
Source: UNESCAP Secretariat
Where Does Asia-Pacific Stand?: New Age Regionalism
Despite density of agreements, concluded agreements are generally ‘lite’, particularly those among developing countries
liberalization shifted to future (10 years or more)significant exceptions in goodsrules of origin restrictive services not coveredinvestments covered, but focus more on investor protection than locking in investment liberalizationdispute resolution mechanisms not well defined
However, agreements involving developing and developed countries much more comprehensive.
services, TRIPs, investments and other WTO+ features are prominent increasing public concern regarding asymmetric negotiating powerscalls for greater democratization of trade policy formulation: strengthened consultative mechanisms (bottom-up), increased role for parliamentarians as interface between societies and policy making executive branch
Where Does Asia-Pacific Stand?: New Age Regionalism
Other forms of regional economic cooperation also continue
Growth triangles/quadrangles, EPZs, SEZs
Many forms: intergovernmental/private sector driven
Common themes: riparian cooperation, transport corridors, energy selfsufficiency.
Where Does Central Asian Regionalism Stand?
Numerous economic cooperation schemes and BTAs/RTAs.
Renewal of economic cooperation after collapse of USSR
WTO membership a priority for most. Also allows regional integration to proceed more effectively Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan
SPECA – Economic Cooperation Programme by 2 UN regional Commissions: ESCAP + ECE
Where Does Asia-Pacific Stand?: New Age Regionalism and the Contagion Effect
Domino effectFear of marginalization (not being able to share benefits of membership) as more and more countries become members of FTA Originally used to explain successive waves of EU expansionFatigue with multilateralism Disenchantment with APEC as a driver of liberalization, Aftermath of 1997 financial crisis and disappointment with global response and policy prescriptions: few countries untouched, rekindled common destiny bonds and regional identityTurning point: ASEAN+China+Japan+RoK, Singapore took lead in BTAs
Competitive regionalismSecure trade interests and establish sphere of influence that goes beyond tradeUnited States now trend setter, also Japan. Used as strategy to pressure non-members to join or enter into broader trade agreements
Defensive and offensive mutually reinforcing strategies at play
New Age Regionalism: Where is Asia-Pacific Going?
At what configuration will this process come to rest?
Emergence of natural hubs: large trading country establishing trade hegemony, linked to a series of spokes (developing countries)
A developing country hub may also emerge: a defensive hub seeking to avoid spoke position with trade hegemon
Mulilayered strata of hubs and spokes emerging
Through time, gravitational force of one hub linked to rest of region through spokes may be final resting point
New Age Regionalism: Where is Asia-Pacific Going?
Role of ASEAN: option of developing countries collectively establishing themselves as alternative hub? Has ASEAN managed to overcome internal differences associated with its diverse membership? Can ASEAN move from shallow to deep integration?
Spinning top - centrifugal force driven by an inertia – at the center- that acts outwards and draws energy from a body moving about the center. How can the force be directed towards the center? Can the ASEAN Charter, or the dynamism of +1+1+1 countries, or a conclusion of the Doha Round impart the energy needed for ASEAN to harmonize policies and achieve deep integration?
Policy Implications and Negotiating Strategies
To promote trade for development, there is a need for geographical and functional harmonization and consolidation of the many RTAs through.…
…the establishment of common principles, practices, and operational procedures for liberalization initiatives, in both trade and investment
As a first step, start with a comprehensive framework on RoO
A.Geographical ConsolidationHistorical conflicts, wide variations in political, legal systems, cultural values. Fear that integration will become dysfunctional.
Expansion of EU membership a positive example of geographical consolidation. More than 65 bilateral trade agreements notified to WTO abrogated when EU expanded
Crucial differences between EU and Asia
Customs Union vs FTAs. Geographical proximity much more relevant for CU than FTAs. No example of CU among geographically dispersed countries such as in cross continental BTAs of Asia
Is Customs Union with common external trade policy and deep integration sine qua non for geographical consolidation?
New Age Regionalism: Where is Asia-Pacific Going?
Integrating East, South-east and Central Asia ECOTA Afghanistan Islamic Rep. of Iran
Turkmenistan
Note: WTO members are in italics.Armenia, Moldova, Ukraine: Observer Status of EurAsEC
China
ECOTA AfghanistanIslamic Rep. of Iran
Turkmenistan
BSECGeorgia
(Albania, Bulgaria, Greece, Romania)
ECOTA AfghanistanIslamic Rep. of Iran
Turkmenistan
KazakhstanKyrgyzstanTajikistan
Uzbekistan Azerbaijan
SCO
Turkey
AFTA+Japan
Thailand
Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Brunei Darussalam Singapore Viet Nam Cambodia
Myanmar
Maldives
Nepal
Pakistan
BIMSTEC
IndiaBangladeshSri Lanka
APTA
+ China
+Republic of Korea
Lao PDR
Bhutan
Armenia
Russian Federation
EurAsEC
Belarus
MoldovaUkraine
CIS EU
SAFTA
B. Functional cooperation and consolidation
Asia-Pacific could also evolve its own form of consolidation, based on pragmatism, flexibility and outward orientation which have served the region well up to now
Adoption of common framework of principles, practices and procedures that puts regionalism as a building block of multilateralism on a more solid and commonly shared foundation
Rules of origin one key area. APTA representing a wide spectrum of industrial development across the region has evolved a set of common rules of origin, based on flat percentage rate 45 per cent (35 per cent for LDCs) local content that may imply an acceptable commonality
Investment (proliferation of BITs) and coherence with investment provisions in BTAs?
New Age Regionalism: Where is Asia-Pacific Going?
C. Integration through enhanced institutionsNumerous regional organizations such as UNESCAP, ADB, ASEAN, SAARC APEC, Pacific Forum Secretariat are in good position to draw out commonalities and work on common principles, best practices, modal agreements.
Bold mandates and resources lacking, and more importantly, these institutions are intergovernmental, member driven
Is there a need for a more formal supranational system of regional governance or are current intergovernmental institutions sufficient?
Can institution driven integration of EU offer useful example?
Need for balancing vision with realism: more effective use of existing institutions. Cost effectiveness of creating new institutions?
Deep policy, political and historical differences among countries of the region might prevent supranational governance?
New Age Regionalism: Where is Asia-Pacific Going?
Signed in 1975 as an initiative of UNESCAP, the Bangkok Agreement, now APTA, is Asia’s oldest preferential trade agreement between developing countries.
It aims to promote regional trade through an exchange of mutually-agreed concessions.
Bangladesh, China, India, Republic of Korea, Lao PDR and Sri Lanka are member countries.
APTA: A Bridge across Asia
Region-wide membership potential
Only RTA in which two most populous and fastest growing economies are members (i.e. China and India)
Through China and India linkages with other RTAs in the region can be established (e.g. AFTA, BIMSTEC, SAFTA)
Expanding Membership
Status: China’s accession in particular makes membership more attractive to countries in the region
Efforts are being taken to expand membership. Mongolia and Pakistan have indicated intention to join, others have expressed interest
Next target: Central Asia
THANK YOU!THANK YOU!