Testing America’s Demands in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations
The U.S. government has sought opinions from domestic industry groups concerning Japan’s participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. While there are reasons for these considerations, there is also the opinion that this is not constructive.
Fishing through the various voices, when it comes to actual discussions with Japan, which direction will the U.S. government go? The Japanese government must watch this intently. They must listen to the opinions that matter and must reject any unreasonable disputes.
For example, the Big Three American automotive companies have chided that “Japan’s car market is the most closed of all the developed countries,” and are using that as a reason to oppose Japan’s participation in the negotiations. They are requesting that Japan promise to increase car imports annually in the future in exchange for recognition to participate.
If they really wanted an open market, they would have much leverage in engaging in the negotiations positively to present their argument of whether there are trade barriers. It seems their real intention is to continue to protect the domestic market through tariffs and by postponing negotiations and voicing unreasonable demands.
Until now, extreme claims like this are in the minority and unlikely to spread throughout the U.S. However, as we approach the U.S. presidential election in November, it is inevitable that protectionist pressure from President Obama’s labor union support base will grow stronger. It is possible that unjust demands concerning Japan will begin to spread.
With respect to the gigantic Chinese economy, the true nature of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is to build just and transparent trade rules in the Asia-Pacific region. There is cause for worry that domestic political forces making one-sided demands toward other participating countries in the negotiations will manipulate the U.S. government.
In order to seal up potential future growth of protectionism in the United States, Japan needs to look at its Trans-Pacific Partnership goals and face America with the strong Asian spirit. If there are points of conflict in the Japanese market, we must listen carefully and sincerely, and we must engage them with a fair and unbiased attitude.
The American insurance industry claims that “the government preferential treatment measures have distorted competition” concerning Kampo Life Insurance that is affiliated with the Japan Post Office. Japan’s insurance industry is in the same position. It is necessary that the Japanese government make its opinions clear as they approach participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.
The U.S. government releases to the public all written arguments from industry groups that are making appeals. The conferences between the U.S. and Japan are still pending, but if the Japanese government carefully examines the voices from each American industry, they should be able to anticipate the attitude of the U.S. government. They should prepare their counter-measures sufficiently, and aim to contribute to the negotiations in the early stages.
*Editor’s Note: The quotations in this article, accurately translated, could not be verified.
Fishing through the various voices, when it comes to actual discussions with Japan, which direction will the U.S. government go? The Japanese government must watch this intently. They must listen to the opinions that matter and must reject any unreasonable disputes.
For example, the Big Three American automotive companies have chided that “Japan’s car market is the most closed of all the developed countries,” and are using that as a reason to oppose Japan’s participation in the negotiations. They are requesting that Japan promise to increase car imports annually in the future in exchange for recognition to participate.
If they really wanted an open market, they would have much leverage in engaging in the negotiations positively to present their argument of whether there are trade barriers. It seems their real intention is to continue to protect the domestic market through tariffs and by postponing negotiations and voicing unreasonable demands.
Until now, extreme claims like this are in the minority and unlikely to spread throughout the U.S. However, as we approach the U.S. presidential election in November, it is inevitable that protectionist pressure from President Obama’s labor union support base will grow stronger. It is possible that unjust demands concerning Japan will begin to spread.
With respect to the gigantic Chinese economy, the true nature of the Trans-Pacific Partnership is to build just and transparent trade rules in the Asia-Pacific region. There is cause for worry that domestic political forces making one-sided demands toward other participating countries in the negotiations will manipulate the U.S. government.
In order to seal up potential future growth of protectionism in the United States, Japan needs to look at its Trans-Pacific Partnership goals and face America with the strong Asian spirit. If there are points of conflict in the Japanese market, we must listen carefully and sincerely, and we must engage them with a fair and unbiased attitude.
The American insurance industry claims that “the government preferential treatment measures have distorted competition” concerning Kampo Life Insurance that is affiliated with the Japan Post Office. Japan’s insurance industry is in the same position. It is necessary that the Japanese government make its opinions clear as they approach participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.
The U.S. government releases to the public all written arguments from industry groups that are making appeals. The conferences between the U.S. and Japan are still pending, but if the Japanese government carefully examines the voices from each American industry, they should be able to anticipate the attitude of the U.S. government. They should prepare their counter-measures sufficiently, and aim to contribute to the negotiations in the early stages.
*Editor’s Note: The quotations in this article, accurately translated, could not be verified.