TPP Negotiations: No Need to Fuss over a Summer Agreement

A meeting will be commenced in July among top negotiation officials to approach a settlement and determine a path to discuss challenges — beginning with, but not limited to, the sphere of access to market goods and tariffs. Akira Amari, the official in charge of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), said that this meeting will be a “hugely crucial point.”*

The joint declaration concluded at the TPP negotiation cabinet meeting held in Singapore can be taken as a message that they are aiming for an agreement on an outline this summer.

The U.S. emphasized the progress and U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman said that negotiations have “good momentum.” Although we’ve seen regular concessions in the field of intellectual property, including copyrights and [amendments to] the period of time during which research and data on new medicines is protected, the original negotiation methods have been carried over. Resolving conflicts in more difficult fields will not be an easy matter.

The U.S. is hoping for a summary agreement by summer. This is because the Obama administration is preparing for the congressional midterm elections in November, and would like to use the appeal of diplomatic results that could lead to increased exports and higher employment rates. It appears that this intention came into play in the joint declaration.

However, this is the flip side of the weakening of the Obama administration – an administration with few diplomatic results and approval ratings hanging in the low digits – and a dramatic loss of cohesive power. This also affixes a question mark to the situation of whether or not promises made with such an administration will reach fruition.

This “progress” of negotiations toward a summary agreement means, as far as Japan is concerned, concessions aimed at the maintenance of tariffs on five essential agricultural products, including rice.

However, it is not at all desirable for such concessions or “progress” to find their footing in agriculture. There is no need to hurry in our cozying up to America. What is important is not the time frame for an agreement, but rather the contents of the negotiations. We can’t allow for a hasty conclusion.

In this recent meeting of cabinet ministers, the U.S. used a conference held by both countries in April – a conference that was considered to have made progress regarding access to agricultural markets – as leverage toward an acceleration of all negotiations. Nevertheless, it did not succeed in becoming a driving force.

The reason is because the U.S. and Japan have not arrived at a summary agreement, and there has not been any concrete reference from the U.S. regarding plans for market access, including tariff rates for beef and pork products, which have become focal points.

Domestically, the U.S. has fallen behind on regulations and failed to break the unyielding posture of the politically strong pork industry, which is demanding full annulment of trade tariffs. If the U.S. makes yet another stiff turn under that pressure, Japan-U.S. negotiations will have to be re-divided once more. The livestock industry also exerts its influence on Congress, and at this point, the path leading to a summary agreement is a treacherous one.

Because of entanglements in the coming election, Congress has not entrusted the Obama administration with negotiations by providing Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). As it stands now, even if negotiations conclude, it is possible that Congress will oppose and overturn the decision without this authority.

Even if the U.S. makes concessions to arrive at an agreement, it is possible that it could all go to waste. This concern is also present among other participating nations, and can be considered the main reason why overall negotiations are not taking off. Minister of Finance Taro Aso, who took part in a Japan-U.S. leadership conference, said that currently, Obama likely doesn’t have the strength needed to consolidate all of the U.S. domestically, and the viewpoint that it will be quite difficult to arrive at a conclusion before midterm elections is not far off the mark.

Starting with the aforementioned five agricultural products, those which the national Diet has requested be treated as “sacred” should be protected. And with that engraved firmly in our hearts, we have to carefully regard the present condition of the U.S. government.

*Editor’s note: The original quotation, accurately translated, could not be verified.