Bilateral talks between Japan and the United States held in line with the ministerial meeting of the members of the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade talks failed to reach agreement. It was an expected result, considering that the U.S. has no way to compromise before the midterm Congressional elections scheduled on Nov. 4.
However, the TPP member nations are planning to hold another ministerial meeting this month with the aim of accelerating negotiations to strike a broad deal. The U.S., which would be over with the elections by that time, might try to reach agreement on controversial issues. Japan should remain alert not to make a compromise tempted by possible concession by the U.S. We are asking the government to maintain Diet resolutions which call for protection of key agricultural products. We are reaching a decisive moment.
We are already seeing signs of U.S. efforts to bring the TPP talks to a conclusion. The U.S. negotiators have made specific demands in the bilateral talks regarding tariffs on farm items. Their market-opening requests include expanding the import quota for rice for human consumption and eliminating tariff on whey, one of dairy protein ingredients. Some see the demands as the U.S.’ feints to be at an advantage in the negotiations concerning the most outstanding issues of tariffs on beef and pork, but we believe they should rather be regarded as the U.S.’ serious attempt to obtain actual gains for related industry groups.
In the last year of the Uruguay round of multilateral trade negotiations which lasted for seven years, the U.S. changed its stance from “tarification without exception” – conversion of all import restriction measures to tariffs – and made Japan accept a large “minimum access” rice import obligation. U.S. President Barack Obama, who is seen to have made little achievements compared with public expectations at the time when he took office, is certain to seek political results in the remaining two years in office. Obama will surely try to reach agreement under the TPP scheme, just as President George H. W. Bush did with the Uruguay round of talks. Even after he lost the presidential elections on Nov. 3, 1992, Bush continued negotiating with the European Communities (currently European Union) and reached agreement on Nov. 20.
In the ministerial meeting with the U.S. held in September, Japan is said to have presented a compromise regarding agricultural products, but the U.S. reportedly refused to make any concessions and the meeting was broken off. The U.S. stance softened in the following working-level discussions, prompting the two nations to resume bilateral talks, leading to a ministerial meeting on Oct. 27. This shows that Japan is ready to concede if the U.S. compromises.
We understand that the “sanctuary” referred to in the Diet resolutions means making no new market liberalizations, including tariff reductions and eliminations, on key agricultural products. This is because the resolutions call on the government to “exempt” the products from tariff eliminations or “put them aside for future renegotiations.” The Diet adopted a similar resolution when the government began negotiating with Australia on an economic partnership agreement. The foreign affairs committee of the Lower House began discussing the bill to approve the Japan-Australia EPA. The Democratic Party of Japan, the leading opposition party, is asking for discussion also at the committee on agriculture, forestry and fisheries which adopted the resolution. It is necessary for both committees and all the parties which supported the resolution, including the Liberal Democratic Party, Komeito and the DPJ, to verify whether the agreement is consistent with the resolution. Such verification can work as a brake on the government not to concede to U.S. pressure in the TPP negotiations.
Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s administration must keep in mind that it has only two choices – reaching agreement by following the resolutions or not agreeing at all.
(Oct. 28, 2014)