With only a few days left before the Upper House election, the focus remains on whether the Liberal Democratic Party and its coalition partner New Komeito, which already control the more powerful Lower House, can finally put an end to the divided Diet by winning a majority in the Upper House. Much less attention is paid on the actual policy debates, and almost no discussion has been made on strategies concerning the Trans-Pacific Partnership free-trade talks, which is one of the top priority policies. Farmers have virtually no clue who they should trust and to whom they should cast their votes. Candidates should discuss in their own words their policies on how to deal with the TPP negotiations.
A number of issues emerged during the election campaigns, all of them significant in that they shape the nation’s future course and directions. The policies on the TPP talks are especially crucial, as they could become the main factors which define the nation’s structure. The new round of negotiations began in Malaysia, and the Japanese government is scheduled to join the discussion from Tuesday, July 23. At this crucial stage, we cannot possibly understand why the issue has not come under detailed discussion, and we express strong concern toward election candidates.
The debate on the TPP scheme should be based on the resolutions adopted in mid-April by the committees on agriculture, forestry and fisheries in both the upper and lower houses. Candidates should analyze them in detail and make them the fundamental principles in dealing with the TPP talks. Specifically, the principles should be: Sensitive agricultural products such as rice, wheat and barley, beef, dairy products and sugar must be excluded from negotiation or be subject to renegotiation to maintain sustainable domestic production. No tariff cuts should be accepted, including phase-outs over a period of more than 10 years. When the media report on the TPP negotiations, they often say the focus is to how much degree the Japanese government will be allowed to take preferential measures, but this is inaccurate. “Preferential” measures are totally different in definition from such expressions in the resolutions as “exclude” or “renegotiate.” The policy of refusing any tariff cuts including phase-outs should be interpreted as a determination not to make any compromises under the name of preferential measures. The key agricultural products are fundamental items which support the nation’s self-sufficiency rates and directly control the fate of rural economies.
Some of the political parties’ campaign pledges concerning the TPP talks are hard to make out at a glance. How does each candidate think about the pledges? Campaign pledges are promises which the parties make with the public. They should never be mere promises candidates make to dodge the issue. If the candidates are running in the election to become Diet members as representatives of each region or industrial group, they have the responsibility to address their policies to voters in their own words, on the basis of the political parties’ campaign platform. As for the LDP, it has pledged to pursue the way which serves the best interests of the nation by protecting what should be protected and go on the offensive when necessary. This is a matter of fact. What will they protect and how? They defined specific national interests in 6 items in its list of policy proposals known as the J-File, but their standpoint remains unclear, as the LDP officials said the proposals should be treated separately from the campaign platform.
If the Japanese government joins the TPP negotiations on Tuesday, July 23, it means that the government must either withdraw from the negotiations halfway through or go all the way through and ask the Diet to ratify the agreement in the end. Naturally the candidates, if they are elected, should adhere to their parties’ decisions when voting on the bills, but we want them to stick to their policy agreements which they have reached with their support groups. Now is the time for each candidate to concretely describe in his or her own words what stance he or she would take in each of the stages after being elected.
(July 17, 2013)