English국제협약

[보도자료] 제20차 RCEP 인천 협상, 더 이상의 비밀주의는 안된다

By 2017/10/16 4월 3rd, 2018 No Comments

아시아태평양 지역 55개 시민사회단체, RCEP 협상국에 실질적인 의견교환 세션 요청
기업들에게는 협상 내용 알려주면서 시민사회는 물론 국회에도 비밀주의 고수하는 편향적인 FTA 협상은 수용할 수 없어

 

역내포괄적동반자협정(RCEP) 제20차 협상이 내일부터 인천 송도에서 개최됩니다. 16개국에서 700명 규모의 협상단이 참여하는 이번 협상은 비밀주의로 일관해 왔습니다. 우리 정부는 RCEP 협상 5년 동안 일반 국민과 노동자, 농민, 시민사회 의견 청취는 제대로 한 적이 없습니다. 5년 전 형식적인 공청회를 한 번 개최한 것이 전부입니다. 2016년 시민사회가 산통부에 공청회 개최를 공식 요청했으나 거절당했습니다. 문재인 정부가 들어서고 난 후에도 이러한 통상 밀행주의/비밀주의는 바뀌지 않고 있습니다.

역내 포괄적 경제동반자 협정(RCEP) 공청회

개최일시: 2012. 10. 24. (장소: 코엑스)
2시간 반만에 끝난 공청회(공청회 개최 시간: 10:00~12:30)
국책연구원(국립외교원, 대외경제정책연구원, 산업연구원, 농촌경제연구원)에서만 4명만 발제.

그 동안 RCEP 협상에서도 아시아태평양 지역 시민사회가 협상단과 의견교환 자리를 요청했지만, 실질적인 의견교환 자리는 마련되지 않았습니다. 아예 시민사회의 참여를 원천적으로 배제하거나 허용하더라도 형식적인 자리에 불과해, 호주 협상을 제외하면 시민사회에게 3분의 발언기회밖에 주지 않았습니다. 이에 비해 기업들에게 하루 종일 또는 이틀 동안 의견을 제시할 기회를 주기도 하였습니다.

2016년 12월 인도네시아에서 개최된 제16차 공식협상에서 ‘동아시아기업인협의회’(EABC: East Asia Business Council)은 12월 4-5일 이틀간 협상 대표를 대상으로 워크숍 개최 – http://www.eabex.org/eabc-workshop-for-rcep-stakeholders 참조.
2017년 7월 인도에서 개최된 제19차 공식협상에서 ‘동아시아기업인협의회’는 7월 25일 오전 9시부터 저녁 6시까지 협상 대표단과 워크숍을 가졌고, 저녁 만찬도 함께 함 – http://www.eabex.org/eabc-workshop-for-rcep-stakeholders-Hyderabad 참조.

이에 아시아태평양 지역 55개 시민사회 단체는 한국 산통부를 비롯한 각국 통상장관들에게 실질적이고 의미있는 의견교환 세션을 이번 인천 송도 협상에서 개최해 줄 것을 공식 요청하였습니다. 이번 요청에서 시민사회 단체들은 RCEP은 의약품 접근권, 농민의 생활, 프라이버시, 환경 보호 등 16개국의 일반 국민들의 일상생황에 영향을 미치는 협정임을 지적하고 최소한 6개 분과 협상단과 의견교환 자리를 필요하다고 강조하였습니다.

투명하고 공개적인 협상 절차는 FTA의 민주적 정당성 확보를 위해 필수적입니다. 그 동안 RCEP 협상국들은 기업들에게는 협상 문안을 보여주거나 협상 내용을 구체적으로 알려주면서 긴밀한 공조 관계를 유지해 왔습니다. 하지만 시민사회는 철저히 배제되어 왔습니다. 이처럼 비판적인 의견에 귀를 막는다면 통상정책은 왜곡될 수밖에 없습니다. 더구나 국민의 대표기관이 국회에도 실질적인 정보는 제공하지 않고 비밀주의를 고수한다면, 이런 절차로 체결된 FTA는 수용할 수 없습니다.

첨부: 아시아태평양 지역 55개 시민사회 공식 서한

Joint Sign-on Letter of Civil Society Organisations to Trade Ministers of RCEP Negotiating Countries

– Updated version with further signatories from 29Sep. letter-

6 October 2017

Dear Ministers of Trade & Negotiators from RCEP Negotiating Countries,

The 20th round of the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP)negotiations is taking place from 17-28 October 2017 in Songdo, Korea.[1] RCEP negotiations include chapters on goods, services, investment, intellectual property etc and the proposed provisions in these chapters affect the daily lives of the peoples of all sixteen countries[2] involved in these negotiations including their access to knowledge and affordable life-saving medicines, farmers’ livelihoods, privacy, environmental protection and many other needed regulations.

The diverse communities who are affected by such an important negotiation need to know what is being proposed and have effective opportunities to express their views and concerns, and provide analysis and advice to the negotiators. Yet theRCEP negotiations take place behind closed doors, without releasing the negotiating texts, unlike at the World Trade Organization where many of the same issues are being negotiated (such as ecommerce rules, domestic regulation disciplines in services etc) and their negotiating proposals and consolidated texts areregularly released.[3]

Sixof you – Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, New Zealand, Singapore and Vietnam – have already recognised the importance of stakeholder engagement during the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations by including a stakeholder process as part of the negotiating rounds that you hosted. These consultations were with chapter negotiators and allowed each stakeholder to speak long enough to provide in depth technical analysis about the provisions being negotiated, such as the improved wording of equivalent provisions in othertrade agreements. This was possible because each stakeholder was allowed to give 15 minute presentations with Powerpoints to the relevant chapter negotiators.[4]

Weappreciate the RCEP civil society consultations held in the Perth, Auckland, Tangerang, Kobe, Manila and Hyderabad rounds. However, apart from in the Perth round, these consultations were with the Trade Negotiating Committee (TNC) andeach civil society organisation could only speak for about three minutes. This limited the ability for civil society to provide analysis in enough depth, detail and technical specificity to be useful to negotiators.

We understand that commercial interests have been invited to share their views with you during previous RCEP rounds and have been given the opportunity to provide longer presentations to chapter specific negotiators.

We, therefore, call on you to allow civil society to speak for long enough with chapter negotiators in future RCEP rounds to be able to provide this in-depth analysis. In particular, in Incheon we would like to be able to meet with the intellectual property, investment, ecommerce, services and legal and institutional negotiators on 23 and 24 or 26 October 2017.

We also call on you to provide this effective opportunity for stakeholder interaction in all future rounds with advance notice of when and where they will be held, and release the working texts at the end of each round to allow a full assessment and informed debate to begin about the implications of RCEP, even at this late stage in the negotiations.

Yours sincerely,

  1. AIDS Access Foundation (Thailand)
  2. AP VYAVASAYA VRUTHIDARULA UNION-APVVU (India)
  3. Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (Regional)
  4. Association of Physicians for Humanism, Association of Korea Doctors for Health Rights (South Korea)
  5. Australian Council of Trade Unions (Australia)
  6. Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (Australia)
  7. Bangladesh Centre for Human Rights and Development (Bangladesh)
  8. Building and Wood Workers International (Philippines)
  9. Cambodian Food and Service Workers’ Federation, CFSWF (Cambodia)
  10. Center for Health and Social Change, CHSC (South Korea)
  11. Citizens’Coalition for Economic Justice (South Korea)
  12. Community Initiatives for Development in Pakistan-CIDP (Pakistan)
  13. Cooperating Committee of Trade Unions (Myanmar)
  14. EMPOWER India (India)
  15. Focus on the Global South (Regional)
  16. Forum Against FTAs (India)
  17. Foundation for Women (Thailand)
  18. Friends of Earth Japan (Japan)
  19. GCAP Sri Lanka Network (Sri Lanka)
  20. IPLeft (South Korea)
  21. Indonesia for Global Justice (Indonesia)
  22. Inspirator Muda Nusantara (Indonesia)
  23. It’s Our Future (New Zealand)
  24. Kesatuan Nelayan Tradisional Indonesia/Indonesia Traditional Fisher folk Union(Indonesia)
  25. Knowledge Commune (South Korea)
  26. Korea Dentists Association for Health Society, Solidarity for Worker’s Health (SouthKorea)
  27. Korea Federation for Environmental Movements (South Korea)
  28. Korea Women’s Associations United (South Korea)
  29. Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (South Korea)
  30. Korean Federation of Medical Groups for Health Rights (South Korea)
  31. Korean Peasants League (South Korea)
  32. Korean Progressive Network Jinbonet (South Korea)
  33. Korean Pharmacists for Democratic Society (South Korea)
  34. MINBYUN-Lawyers for a Democratic Society International Trade Committee (South Korea)
  35. New Zealand Council of Trade Unions Te Kauae Kaimahi (New Zealand)
  36. OpenNet Korea (South Korea)
  37. Pacific Asia Resource Center (Japan)
  38. Participatory Research Action Network, PRAN (Bangladesh)
  39. People Over Profit (Global)
  40. People’sHealth Movement Australia (Australia)
  41. Positive Malaysian Treatment Access &Advocacy Group, MTAAG+ (Malaysia)
  42. Public Health and Welfare Organization (Malaysia)
  43. Public Service International AP Regional Office (Regional)
  44. SAHANIVASA(India)
  45. Social Action for Change (Cambodia)
  46. Social Watch Benin (Benin)
  47. Solidaritas Perempuan | Women’s Solidarity for Human Rights (Indonesia)
  48. Sri Lanka United Nations Friendship Organisation, SUNFO (Sri Lanka)
  49. Sustainable Development Youth Network of Sri Lanka, SDGYNSL (Sri Lanka)
  50. Thai Network of People Living with HIV/AIDS (TNP+)
  51. Universal Ministries of the King’s College Corporation (USA &Thailand)
  52. Viet Labor Movement (Vietnam)
  53. WALHI– Friends of the Earth Indonesia (Indonesia)
  54. Women’s Network for Unity (Cambodia)
  55. Worker’s Information Center (Cambodia)

 

[1] http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/rcep/Pages/regional-comprehensive-economic-partnership.aspx
[2] Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, New Zealand, Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, Viet Nam
[3] E.g.,see TN/S/36 from https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/FE_Search/FE_S_S001.aspx for domestic regulation disciplines consolidated text.
[4] Each chapter’s stakeholder consultations were in a different room.

Tags: