The agreement is intended to reduce tariffs and red tape. It includes unified rules of origin throughout the bloc, which may facilitate international supply chains and trade within the region.[11][12] It also prohibits certain tariffs. It does not focus on labor unions, environmental protection, or government subsidies.[11]
The RCEP is not as comprehensive as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, another free trade agreement in the region that includes some of the same countries.
India pulled out of the deal in November 2019, primarily due to concerns of dumping of manufactured goods from China and agricultural and dairy products from Australia and New Zealand, potentially affecting its own domestic industrial and farming sectors.[70] Due to India's withdrawal, there are concerns that China may dominate RCEP.[12]
When the RCEP was signed, Chinese premier Li Keqiang declared it "a victory of multilateralism and free trade".[5] Singaporean prime minister Lee Hsien Loong called it "a major step forward for our region" and a sign of support for free trade and economic interdependence.[12]
In 2016, the Electronic Frontier Foundation described the first draft of RCEP's intellectual property provisions as containing "quite simply the worst provisions on copyright ever seen in a trade agreement."[68] Global health care activists have criticized the agreement for potentially forcing India to end its inexpensive supply of generic medications to poor countries.[69]
According to a 2020 projection, the agreement is expected to increase the global economy by US$186 billion.
They are, but looking into it, that quote is misleading, since it refers to their analysis of the first leaks. I'll quote from the 2016 blog post its taken from (bolding the part used on Wikipedia):
When we reviewed the first leaks of the RCEP's intellectual property chapter, they contained quite simply the worst provisions on copyright that we had ever seen in a trade agreement, but we also hoped that these extravagant claims put forward by Japan and South Korea did not represent anything like the final compromise text that would be likely to emerge.
Here's the blog post from a 2015 before that where they express their concern over some truly awful provisions. However, in the second draft they're looking at in 2016, these extreme measures have been scaled back significantly. I encourage you to look through the 2016 post, but here's the summary of their conclusions:
Without such an overbearing influence from Hollywood lobbyists, RCEP does manage to avoid some of the worst excesses of the TPP—such as the extension of copyright term, the prescriptive ISP liability regime, the most restrictive DRM provisions, and the expansion of trade secrets law. But other provisions, most notably on enforcement, are largely unchanged from the TPP.
By the same token, RCEP fails to improve much on the TPP in areas where it quite easily could; most notably in the language on limitations and exceptions, which fails to require countries to include an equivalent to fair use in their copyright laws.
Finally, the proposed language on related rights for broadcasters is actually worse than the TPP. The TPP negotiators were wise to mostly avoid this topic, being that it is currently still under negotiation at WIPO, whereas RCEP has plunged ahead and sought to enshrine obligations for the protection of broadcasters that remain controversial and untested around the world.
Basically, specifically concerning IP: probably not as shitty as the TPP, but still shitty. These are from four years ago, of course, but I can't imagine that everyone involved in negotiating these treaties had a change of heart and decided to work together to improve the lives of the citizens of the entire region instead of maximizing wealth extraction potential.
east asian nafta uh oh
btfoing the copyright protections is very good tho
Is that what it means though? I'd think the EFF would be pro loose IP laws. But maybe I'm just an outdated relic from the early days.
They are, but looking into it, that quote is misleading, since it refers to their analysis of the first leaks. I'll quote from the 2016 blog post its taken from (bolding the part used on Wikipedia):
Here's the blog post from a 2015 before that where they express their concern over some truly awful provisions. However, in the second draft they're looking at in 2016, these extreme measures have been scaled back significantly. I encourage you to look through the 2016 post, but here's the summary of their conclusions:
Basically, specifically concerning IP: probably not as shitty as the TPP, but still shitty. These are from four years ago, of course, but I can't imagine that everyone involved in negotiating these treaties had a change of heart and decided to work together to improve the lives of the citizens of the entire region instead of maximizing wealth extraction potential.
EFF is a Silicon Valley front [1]