A labyrinth of agreements and partnerships

The trade agreements had never been such a hot topic as they became since a tariff war was unleashed on unsuspecting nations. Till then, trade agreements and economic partnerships were either for the concerned government departments to read between the lines or for the exporters/importers. But this trending and much awaited trade agreement compelled even laypersons like me to start looking more closely at these agreements. The interesting part is the phased approach adopted for this marquee trade agreement. Thus, the euphoria is all about concluding “a framework for an Interim Agreement”, which then, hopefully, leads to signing the “Bilateral Trade Agreement (BTA)”.  The fact that an agreement is being reached between two parties should automatically mean it to be bilateral one without having to affix it so grandiosely. But lest you get carried away by this BTA, somewhere else countries were elevating their `Strategic Partnership’ to a new level – “A Special Strategic Partnership” whatever that means. Days are not far when we would have deluxe and super-deluxe partnerships to give the existing ones a new sheen. Afterall these are re-branding times.

Indeed, it is not by an accident that bilateral and multilateral agreements and partnerships are never defined in terms of their levels in any official hierarchy,  if any such thing exists in diplomatic officialdom. This ambiguity comes in handy when, for instance, a visiting prime minister wants to move a `comprehensive economic partnership’ to the `next’ level so that it becomes even `more strategic’! One would believe that any comprehensive partnership is nothing but strategic from countries’ perspective. Apparently strategic considerations are akin to video games where one crosses different levels. And before nitpickers start scoffing at the term comprehensive, there are also “Limited Preferential Trade Agreements”. This also means that `comprehensive’ and `strategic’ partnerships do not automatically accord countries a `preferential’ status. Complicated, isn’t it?

On one hand there are “Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements” and on the other hand stands “Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement”. But before you start deciphering partnership vs. cooperation, lo and behold, there emerges  “Comprehensive Economic Cooperation and Partnership Agreement”. It surely sounds most comprehensive of all, if it is possible practically. And how to distinguish between “Economic Cooperation and Trade” and “Economic and Trade Agreement”? Does the latter circumvent cooperation altogether? Agreement sans cooperation or some random cooperative actions without the agreed framework? Add to this babel paras, clauses, and sub-clauses and you realize why the WTO went comatose. 

END OF ARTICLE