Japan Wonders Whether It Is Worth Joining TPP Negotiations After All

from the as-everyone-should dept

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement began as a cosy treaty between just three nations: Chile, New Zealand and Singapore. But once the US joined in 2010, this small-scale partnership suddenly became something much more significant. As USTR Ron Kirk put it in a press release at the time:

The development of our negotiating positions will be a collaborative effort with elected leaders and stakeholders here at home, in order to shape an eventual Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement that is a new kind of trade agreement for the 21st century, bringing home the jobs and economic opportunity we want all our trade deals to deliver.
That "new kind of trade agreement" began to take shape as other major Pacific rim countries signed up: first Australia, Peru, and Vietnam, then Malaysia. More recently, Canada and Mexico have joined, albeit as junior partners with diminished negotiating powers. Another important player in the region that has expressed an interest in participating is Japan. But it seems that domestic politics may well scupper that plan:
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe is facing challenges in handling the issue of Japan's participation in the talks for the Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade framework.

While Abe hopes to express willingness to take part in the talks during a summit with U.S. President Barack Obama set for late this month, he is still wavering on the issue due to strong opposition from within his own Liberal Democratic Party [LDP].
Here's where the problem lies:
A strong backlash, however, is expected from some LDP members who are concerned the party will lose votes from agriculture-related sectors if Abe announces Japan's bid to join the talks.
That's not really surprising; after all, in the same press release quoted above Kirk states quite bluntly:
USTR will now intensify consultations with Congress and with American stakeholders to develop objectives for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement negotiations, in order to enter already-scheduled talks in March with a robust U.S. view that seeks the highest economic benefit for America's workers, farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers, and that reflects our shared values on labor, the environment, and other key issues
But if US farmers and ranchers gain "the highest economic benefit", it's quite likely that those in the agricultural sector in the other TPP countries will lose out -- precisely what Japan's LDP members fear. Of course, the standard line is that free trade agreements are great because everyone gains, but the reality is not so rosy. Indeed, even the US has been suffering overall in the case of the recent FTA with South Korea, which is being held up as a model for future treaties:
In the first eight months of the U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Korea, implemented in March 2012, U.S. goods exports to Korea fell by nine percent (a decrease of more than $2.5 billion) in comparison to 2011 levels for the same months. Ironically, some of the biggest downfalls in U.S. exports occurred in the automotive and meat industries -- the two sectors that the Obama administration had promised would experience export growth under the deal. The decline in U.S. exports under the FTA brought a 21 percent increase in the U.S. trade deficit with Korea, in comparison to the same period in 2011. Using the same ratio employed by the Obama administration, this trade deficit expansion implies the net loss of over 16,000 U.S. jobs under just the first several months of the Korea FTA.
Given the fact that the US economy has already been damaged by this recent FTA, the fears in Japan that its agricultural industry will be hit, the many concerns about TPP's investor-state dispute mechanism, plus its negative impact on online freedom and access to medicines, the question has to be: why bother with an overly-complicated, secretive treaty whose risks are many and real, while the gains seem few and uncertain?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 12:18am

    Well they already joined ACTA...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 12:34am

    Amercia better keep it's hands off my anime!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    icon
    McKee & Co CPA (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:03am

    McKeeCPA

    Your blog is very valuable. Thank you so much with regard to providing a lot of valuable content material. We have book mark your site web site and are without doubt ever coming back. Yet again, I take pleasure in your entire perform plus delivering a great deal important tricks for your readers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:23am

    anyone like to state exactly what the USA does that doesn't benefit it and screws every other nation it deals with? how long has it been said that the USA is interested in nothing, no one and no where other than the USA and it's companies. if a US company is in another country, theat country is undermined for the benefit of the US company. always was and always will be that way. then the US wonders why the world hates it? get outta here!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 1:53am

    Seems legit.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 2:16am

    Trade agreements with the US in the steering wheel are basically a multilateral thing where the US has the upper hand and benefits and everyone else is screwed while a few top industries in the US get the money.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 2:28am

    Not sure which side to take here. On 1 side TPP is a secretive abomination. On the other, Japanese agriculture is one of the most protectionist industries on the planet. It's not even legal to import rice into Japan.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 3:20am

    Re:

    Waah? But surely there isn't enough rice farmland to feed the Japanese population. I'm afraid that unless you post proof that it is illegal, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on the "illegal to import rice".

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 4:41am

    Re: Re:

    I don't think it's really illegal, but the policies are still extremely protectionistic. The domestic production is heavily subsidised and foreign import subjected to high tariffs:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_rice#Trading

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    icon
    gorehound (profile), Feb 5th, 2013 @ 4:44am

    Re:

    +1

    Adding that the only ones who will Benefit in USA are the Ultra-Rich............US Common citizens will get nothing out of this but shit on some more.

    Fuck The TPP/ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/MAFIAA/Corporations are not people

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 4:45am

    Re:

    Well, the problem isn't the inclusion of USA or even necessarily the USTR positions on the subject. The problem lies in the way selected special industry representatives from USA are able to kidnap the negotiations and turn the negotiations into a US companies vs. the government representatives. It was exactly the same thing happening in ACTA with certain industries pushing for obscure pork and non-standard language where a precedence wasn't to their advantage!

    There are two fundamental problems with this: No other country has the same advantage for their industries in these negotiations. If they had, we would see far more crazy "trade agreements" or in that case "international de minimus law agreement" which is the other problem.

    As soon as you let industries into this area they will start to abuse it for their potential gains. When we are talking trade agreements you want trade agreement and not pork or substantial law. Both those effects are letting non-elected people write and approve substantial law which is illegal for a reason...

    USA must remove their industries from their formulation of a draft. That or open the formulation to everyone. Either way will not be positive for the negotiation position as long as it is closed door horse trading!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 6:27am

    Re: Re:

    As part of the government’s control of rice, rice imports are banned except in processed forms.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Japan

    My info may be outdated - other articles indicate that the ban has been lifted and replaced with a 490% tariff.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    Pixelation, Feb 5th, 2013 @ 8:01am

    "why bother with an overly-complicated, secretive treaty whose risks are many and real, while the gains seem few and uncertain? "

    Firstly, the administration has to be seen as "doing something, anything". Now tack on, "making money for my lobbies".

    "Mr. Obama, tell us what you have accomplished while in office."
    "First, the FTA with Korea and secondly the TPP."
    "Um, sir, those didn't benefit the people economically"
    "We accomplished the FTA and TPP. What more do you want?"

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This