Fitting the Trans-Pacific Partnership within Japanese National Interest

[TaiShang]

Japan places a significant premium on its participation on these TPP negotiations: in both strategic and trade terms. The participation of Japan only amplifies both the strategic and economic importance of the TPP for the United States. With the participation of Japan and its involvement in TPP, this enables the TPP to effectively compete with any of the China-led regional comprehensive economic partnerships that are already around, which, ironically, also involves Japan but not the United States. Absent of Japan, the TPP becomes a sideshow in the US strategic game against China and hardly the vehicle to facilitate the US rebalancing to Asia that America would like it to be. Hence, the threats to expel Japan from the TPP negotiatins carry little weight. Besides, Japanese Government understands and is verily aware of the fact that TPP is hostage to any instance of discord in politics in Washington. Unless the Obama Administration has any fast-track authority from Congress, which from our understanding of the Democrats’ decreasing influence and the rising clout of Republicans in Congress and Senate, this is by no means assured. So, in our vantage point, American has to compromise , as we are willing to compromise.

Japan is smart by playing the China card in negotiations. In this respect, Japan seems to hold a greater leverage. But to prove that it does have and is able to effectively utilize this leverage, Japan must put at least an equal emphasize with respect to its participation in China-led economic institutions. A breakthrough, for example, in regional FTA talks such as the CJK FTA (or, better yet, the RCEP) may push the United States to accept Japan's terms in TPP negotiations.

 

[AndrewJin]

@Yizhi linked me to this thread, at last I found some meaningful threads here in PDF before I intended to quit

 

[TheTruth]

Mulgan misunderstands the power dynamics at play in the TPP negotiations. It is Japan that thinks that Japan is vital to the TPP, not the US. Why?

1). The US continues to grow significantly faster than Japan, TPP or not.
2). The vast majority of growth in Asia (excluding China and India) will come from the TPP block. Japan may be the heavyweight today, but not so in 20 years.
3). Gaiatsu was never a unilateral US tactic, it was always a combination of the correction of trade distortions (e.g. Japanese mercantilism) and cover for the reform efforts of Japanese leaders.
4). Other than autos, nearly all the benefits that would accrue to Japan due to the free trade enabled by the TPP would benefit the US as well (e.g. IP protection, trade in services), but not vice-versa (I.e. the US has many cost advantages over Japan, such as in agriculture). Japan thus has no leverage.
5). Using RCEP as a threat against the US is the equivalent of saying that if the US doesn't fold, Japan will bind itself to China. That is not a serious threat, because total dependence on China for trade is the last thing Japanese nationalists like Abe want.

I am convinced that the TPP will happen, with or without Japan. Japan underestimates the US emphasis on "high standards" in pushing the TPP (the very reason why China was excluded), and risks missing out on a trade agreement where it is a great power with corresponding negotiating power (TPP), leaving it at the mercy of China in the alternatives (RCEP, CJK, etc.)

The thing is, the TPP is not about economics which your (very strong) points suggest. It's about politics and containing China, and asserting America's aspirations to eternal hegemon status. Japan is using the political angle, and if the US does not take seriously Japan's threat of hedging US through China then America's policymakers are as daft as they were in 2003.

Here's the top selling cars in the US. Japanese cars dominate:
Team USA | Page 80

6 of the top 10

What does the Chinese list look like...not even close I bet.

No, because China imports a bunch of American cars. imo it's time for China to cut off the taps if the US continues being irrational, belligerent and obnoxious.

 

[Aepsilons]

Japanese and U.S. officials resumed talks Thursday in Tokyo on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, but the outcome of the negotiations remains unclear with political difficulties mounting for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and indications of growing opposition to the deal in the U.S.

“We want to do what we can do,” chief Japanese negotiator Hiroshi Oe told reporters before the meeting got underway.

The renewed effort to conclude a bilateral agreement on the TPP comes about a month after the last negotiations, in which Tokyo reportedly offered to slash tariffs on beef from the current 38.5 percent to 9 percent over 15 years.

But Japanese negotiators also have reportedly asked for a safeguard measure that would allow the tariff to be raised to 20 percent if Japan’s beef industry is threatened.

For Japan, beef, along with rice, wheat, pork, dairy and sugar products, are “sacred” agricultural products the Diet has vowed to protect from tariff abolitions. But despite growing U.S. pressure on Japan to conclude a deal before Abe visits Washington in late April and early May, recent financial scandals involving Cabinet members, including the resignation of the agriculture minister, have distracted the government.

In addition, with nationwide local elections looming next month, Abe and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party-Komeito coalition are facing pressure from local chapters in rural districts to stand tough in negotiations.

Shortly after reaching an agreement last month with Abe to restructure the organization, Akira Banzai, chairman of the Central Union of Agricultural Co-operatives (JA Zenchu), warned that if negotiations lead to abolishing tariffs on protected items, his group will lobby hard to oppose the agreement.

Also affecting the negotiations is the continued uncertainty over whether the U.S. Congress will grant President Barack Obama fast-track trade authority, which would allow the executive branch to negotiate a deal with limited congressional input, and then submit a bill that Congress would have to vote on without amendments or lengthy discussion.

During a recent visit to Tokyo, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said a deal over fast-track authority was very close.

However, with a mid-January Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showing 59 percent of Americans think the TPP should be delayed and 16 percent believe it shouldn’t be pursued, there is skepticism on both sides that a final deal will be concluded anytime soon.


Japan, U.S. resume TPP talks but pact's future very much in doubt | The Japan Times

 

[AndrewJin]

Japanese and U.S. officials resumed talks Thursday in Tokyo on the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, but the outcome of the negotiations remains unclear with political difficulties mounting for Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and indications of growing opposition to the deal in the U.S.

“We want to do what we can do,” chief Japanese negotiator Hiroshi Oe told reporters before the meeting got underway.

The renewed effort to conclude a bilateral agreement on the TPP comes about a month after the last negotiations, in which Tokyo reportedly offered to slash tariffs on beef from the current 38.5 percent to 9 percent over 15 years.

But Japanese negotiators also have reportedly asked for a safeguard measure that would allow the tariff to be raised to 20 percent if Japan’s beef industry is threatened.

For Japan, beef, along with rice, wheat, pork, dairy and sugar products, are “sacred” agricultural products the Diet has vowed to protect from tariff abolitions. But despite growing U.S. pressure on Japan to conclude a deal before Abe visits Washington in late April and early May, recent financial scandals involving Cabinet members, including the resignation of the agriculture minister, have distracted the government.

In addition, with nationwide local elections looming next month, Abe and the ruling Liberal Democratic Party-Komeito coalition are facing pressure from local chapters in rural districts to stand tough in negotiations.

Shortly after reaching an agreement last month with Abe to restructure the organization, Akira Banzai, chairman of the Central Union of Agricultural Co-operatives (JA Zenchu), warned that if negotiations lead to abolishing tariffs on protected items, his group will lobby hard to oppose the agreement.

Also affecting the negotiations is the continued uncertainty over whether the U.S. Congress will grant President Barack Obama fast-track trade authority, which would allow the executive branch to negotiate a deal with limited congressional input, and then submit a bill that Congress would have to vote on without amendments or lengthy discussion.

During a recent visit to Tokyo, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan said a deal over fast-track authority was very close.

However, with a mid-January Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showing 59 percent of Americans think the TPP should be delayed and 16 percent believe it shouldn’t be pursued, there is skepticism on both sides that a final deal will be concluded anytime soon.


Japan, U.S. resume TPP talks but pact's future very much in doubt | The Japan Times

IMO，TPP is harder than unification of PRC&ROC or ROK&DPRK

 

[TheTruth]

Guess Americans didn't want those "cheap and high quality" Vietcong handicrafts that badly.

 

[NiceGuy]

Hope to see the TPP deal come to reality soon, so we can sit-watch and laugh at the collapse of none TPP members and none US's allies in Pacific region

 

[Pangu]

Worry a little less for the businesses & a little more for yourselves...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to WikiLeaks, we see just how bad TPP trade deal is for regular people

Dan Gillmor

Among the many betrayals of the Obama administration is its overall treatment of what many people refer to as "intellectual property" – the idea that ideas themselves and digital goods and services are exactly like physical property, and that therefore the law should treat them the same way. This corporatist stance defies both reality and the American Constitution, which expressly called for creators to have rights for limited periods, the goal of which was to promote inventive progress and the arts.

In the years 2007 and 2008, candidate Obama indicated that he'd take a more nuanced view than the absolutist one from Hollywood and other interests that work relentlessly for total control over this increasingly vital part of our economy and lives. But no clearer demonstration of the real White House view is offered than a just-leaked draft of an international treaty that would, as many had feared, create draconian new rights for corporate "owners" and mean vastly fewer rights for the rest of us.

I'm talking about the appalling Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a partial draft of which WikiLeaks has just released. This treaty has been negotiated in secret meetings dominated by governments and corporations. You and I have been systematically excluded, and once you learn what they're doing, you can see why.

The outsiders who understand TPP best aren't surprised. That is, the draft "confirms fears that the negotiating parties are prepared to expand the reach of intellectual property rights, and shrink consumer rights and safeguards," writes James Love a longtime watcher of this process.

Needless to say, copyright is a key part of this draft. And the negotiators would further stiffen copyright holders' control while upping the ante on civil and criminal penalties for infringers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation says TPP has "extensive negative ramifications for users' freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate". It's Hollywood's wish list.

Canadian intellectual property expert Michael Geist examined the latest draft of the intellectual property chapter. He writes that the document, which includes various nations' proposals, shows the US government, in particular, taking a vastly different stance than the other nations. Geist notes:

"[Other nations have argued for] balance, promotion of the public domain, protection of public health, and measures to ensure that IP rights themselves do not become barriers to trade. The opposition to these objective by the US and Japan (Australia has not taken a position) speaks volumes about their goals for the TPP."

The medical industry has a stake in the outcome, too, with credible critics saying it would raise drug prices and, according to Love's analysis, give surgeons patent protection for their procedures.

Congress has shown little appetite for restraining the overweening power of the corporate interests promoting this expansion. With few exceptions, lawmakers have repeatedly given copyright, patent and trademark interests more control over the years. So we shouldn't be too optimistic about the mini-flurry of Capitol Hill opposition to the treaty that emerged this week. It's based much more on Congress protecting its prerogatives – worries about the treaty's so-called "fast track" authorities, giving the president power to act without congressional approval – than on substantive objections to the document's contents.

That said, some members of Congress have become more aware of the deeper issues. The public revolt against the repugnant "Stop Online Piracy Act" two years ago was a taste of what happens when people become more widely aware of what they can lose when governments and corporate interests collude.

If they become aware – that's the key. One of TPP's most abhorrent elements has been the secrecy under which it's been negotiated. The Obama administration's fondness for secret laws, policies and methods has a lot to do with a basic reality: the public would say no to much of which is done in our names and with our money if we knew what was going on. As Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out, in a letter to the White House:

"I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the administration's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States. I believe in transparency and democracy and I think the US Trade Representative should too."

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have at least partial transparency today. The more you know about the odious TPP, the less you'll like it – and that's why the administration and its corporate allies don't want you to know.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we see just how bad TPP trade deal is for regular people | Dan Gillmor | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

[AndrewJin]

Worry a little less for the businesses & a little more for yourselves...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to WikiLeaks, we see just how bad TPP trade deal is for regular people

Dan Gillmor

Among the many betrayals of the Obama administration is its overall treatment of what many people refer to as "intellectual property" – the idea that ideas themselves and digital goods and services are exactly like physical property, and that therefore the law should treat them the same way. This corporatist stance defies both reality and the American Constitution, which expressly called for creators to have rights for limited periods, the goal of which was to promote inventive progress and the arts.

In the years 2007 and 2008, candidate Obama indicated that he'd take a more nuanced view than the absolutist one from Hollywood and other interests that work relentlessly for total control over this increasingly vital part of our economy and lives. But no clearer demonstration of the real White House view is offered than a just-leaked draft of an international treaty that would, as many had feared, create draconian new rights for corporate "owners" and mean vastly fewer rights for the rest of us.

I'm talking about the appalling Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, a partial draft of which WikiLeaks has just released. This treaty has been negotiated in secret meetings dominated by governments and corporations. You and I have been systematically excluded, and once you learn what they're doing, you can see why.

The outsiders who understand TPP best aren't surprised. That is, the draft "confirms fears that the negotiating parties are prepared to expand the reach of intellectual property rights, and shrink consumer rights and safeguards," writes James Love a longtime watcher of this process.

Needless to say, copyright is a key part of this draft. And the negotiators would further stiffen copyright holders' control while upping the ante on civil and criminal penalties for infringers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation says TPP has "extensive negative ramifications for users' freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate". It's Hollywood's wish list.

Canadian intellectual property expert Michael Geist examined the latest draft of the intellectual property chapter. He writes that the document, which includes various nations' proposals, shows the US government, in particular, taking a vastly different stance than the other nations. Geist notes:

"[Other nations have argued for] balance, promotion of the public domain, protection of public health, and measures to ensure that IP rights themselves do not become barriers to trade. The opposition to these objective by the US and Japan (Australia has not taken a position) speaks volumes about their goals for the TPP."

The medical industry has a stake in the outcome, too, with credible critics saying it would raise drug prices and, according to Love's analysis, give surgeons patent protection for their procedures.

Congress has shown little appetite for restraining the overweening power of the corporate interests promoting this expansion. With few exceptions, lawmakers have repeatedly given copyright, patent and trademark interests more control over the years. So we shouldn't be too optimistic about the mini-flurry of Capitol Hill opposition to the treaty that emerged this week. It's based much more on Congress protecting its prerogatives – worries about the treaty's so-called "fast track" authorities, giving the president power to act without congressional approval – than on substantive objections to the document's contents.

That said, some members of Congress have become more aware of the deeper issues. The public revolt against the repugnant "Stop Online Piracy Act" two years ago was a taste of what happens when people become more widely aware of what they can lose when governments and corporate interests collude.

If they become aware – that's the key. One of TPP's most abhorrent elements has been the secrecy under which it's been negotiated. The Obama administration's fondness for secret laws, policies and methods has a lot to do with a basic reality: the public would say no to much of which is done in our names and with our money if we knew what was going on. As Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out, in a letter to the White House:

"I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the administration's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States. I believe in transparency and democracy and I think the US Trade Representative should too."

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have at least partial transparency today. The more you know about the odious TPP, the less you'll like it – and that's why the administration and its corporate allies don't want you to know.

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we see just how bad TPP trade deal is for regular people | Dan Gillmor | Comment is free | The Guardian

In that case, all TTP's third-world developing countries will be completely destoryed by USA and Japan's IP, maybe will be mainly agricultural providers.

 

[Pangu]

In that case, all TTP's third-world developing countries will be completely destoryed by USA and Japan's IP, maybe will be mainly agricultural providers.

Yes you are correct. The TPP is basically a contest between powerful buisness conglomegrates, using their govt. as an apparatus, or even as a force multiplier (via politics & other means) to break into & dominate the another market under protection. The big losers will the the small & medium biz. which predominate most developing nations' economic growth. Just picture Walmart vs neighborhood mum & pap shops. No contest.

 

[AndrewJin]

Yes you are correct. The TPP is basically a contest between powerful buisness conglomegrates, using their govt. as an apparatus, or even as a force multiplier (via politics & other means) to break into & dominate the another market under protection. The big losers will the the small & medium biz. which predominate most developing nations' economic growth. Just picture Walmart vs neighborhood mum & pap shops. No contest.

But they don't get it and are easily to be cheated, that is good stuff, isn't it? Or basically political elites are selling their countries after being lobbied?

 

[powastick]

But they don't get it and are easily to be cheated, that is good stuff, isn't it? Or basically political elites are selling their countries after being lobbied?

Some say they are being blackmailed into it. In Malaysia there are resistance to TPP in the ruling party.

 

[Pangu]

But they don't get it and are easily to be cheated, that is good stuff, isn't it? Or basically political elites are selling their countries after being lobbied?

Don't we always ask ourselves, why income gap is getting bigger between the very few at the top & the many at the bottom, even as countries continue to develop?

 

[AndrewJin]

Some say they are being blackmailed into it. In Malaysia there are resistance to TPP in the ruling party.

What's your opinion on RCEP?

Don't we always ask ourselves, why income gap is getting bigger between the very few at the top & the many at the bottom, even as countries continue to develop?

This is a universal tendency no one can stop. Just like India is developing at 10% annually when China is at 7% or even less, but the gap between these countries are even getting larger every day.

 

[powastick]

What's your opinion on RCEP?

Seems fair. Just TPPA is a problem. Malays don't trust Americans. If possible, they don;t want anything to do with them.