Fitting the Trans-Pacific Partnership within Japanese National Interest

[terranMarine]

@terranMarine 我看不懂他说的是什么啊…能给我翻译一下吗【跪

what do you want to know?

 

[Echo_419]

Fitting the Trans-Pacific Partnership within Japanese National Interest

By: @Nihonjin1051

View attachment 184612
​

The remarkable progress in the Trans-Pacific Partnership has been realized and only recently has the negotiation experienced a stall; due in part to Japan and the United States’ differences in basic trade agreements. The Liberal Democratic Party’s Chairman of the TPP Affairs Committee, Nishikawa Koya, recently had explained that it is the strategy of government to secure measures for sugar, wheat, rice and then to maintain the advantage within the negotiations for dairy products, pork and beef. According to the TPP Affairs Committee , they wish to secure acceptable numbers that shall enable Japanese lawmakers’ promise to the people, which is to protect some farm products .

I’m sure you may already see that Japanese media have attempted to ascertain the nature of the disagreement. Some media sources have even assumed and have circulated that Japanese Government was considering special quota of imports wherein American rice imports would be given prioritization over the rice imports of other countries, some media sources have even tried to say that United States was making demands that Japan could not accept, one example was the effective exclusion of cars by taking more than 30 years to abolish tariffs on car imports.

It is understandable that the Japanese Media would correlate the issue of Gaiatsu, which basically means “Outside Pressure”, in context to the United States. The reason for this is because throughout the bilateral relations between Japan and the United States, the latter has always tried to implement Gaiatsu on Japan in order to prying open Japanese markets in bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations. In fact, in earlier times, the issue of Gaiatsu was a reality because it was used by progressive leaders especially when Japan was considered an industrial threat to the United States during the 1970s, 1980s. During earlier decades of bilateral trade friction, resolving dispute with the United States was the most important driver of Japanese trade policy; even multilateral negotiations under the GATT were accompanied by bilateral Japan – US discussions on the side. One then is left wondering, “If Gaiatsu worked so well in the past, then why is it not working so well now in the present time period?”

The answer to this is: WTO. Since Japan was part of the WTO, one method of handling any trade friction with the United States was through the WTO’s Enhanced Dispute Settlement Mechanism. By utilizing the legalized multilateral framework of the WTO, this had strengthened Japan’s bargaining leverage and bargaining power over time and had effectively weakened the US Pressure on Japan regarding any issues of trade.

A second point that I want to emphasize is that Japan no longer is considered a threat, specifically, an Industrial competitor to the United States as it once was during the 1980s. Besides the concept of Ishitsuron no longer influences negotiators from the United States.

A third issue that I want to mention is that from preliminary experience, any notion of tough stance is not taken seriously. As you remember during the preliminary consultation about Japan possibly joining the TPP negotiations in 2012, it was the United States that had announced a policy of not approving Japan’s participation in TPP talks unless all items, particularly rice and other agrarian goods were put on the negotiation table for tariff elimination. Then what happened? It then later backed off.

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.


The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a noble collection of developed markets with emerging markets and can help the United States propel itself into the Asia-Pacific region yet again, as part of the American stratagem of realigning towards Asia. One thing that many economists, political analysts as well as defense analysts will take into consideration are three observations:

1. The role of Japan in balancing the developing new order in Asia-Pacific in context to the ascendancy of the People’s Republic of China


2. The economic interdependency of China and Japan --- and how will this economic reality manifest itself into national defense policies


3. The United States – Japanese Mutual Defense Treaty

Japan definitely has a candid responsibility to ensuring that China, its largest trading partner is not in anyway left to think that it is secondary and is dispensable because that is the farthest from the truth. Japanese National Politics – which is influenced by nationalist right wing forces, left with forces and then the centralists. While the right wing forces would prefer Japan to maintain a more robust defense aperture , this would be contradictory to national interest as it would damage the trade with China. The trade with China, as it stands, is already nearing $400 Billion per annum. Where can we replace that number ? $400 Billion. So one is left to wonder how can we maintain the demands of the US-Japanese Military Alliance without having it affect our economic viability and restitution from economic recession ? It requires sound policies – one that will not endanger China , or affect the various intergovernmental processes that have been developed with China these past 30 some years. Will the TPP be positive for Japan ? Will it damage Japanese-Chinese economic ties ? That remains to be seen.





Reference:
Why the US struggles against Japan in TPP negotiations | East Asia Forum

Japan, America and the Trans-Pacific Partnership: Stalemate | The Economist

Only 1 question why is Vietnam included in the TPP pact

 

[Levina]

I am convinced that the TPP will happen, with or without Japan.

Wait... you guys 're confusing me now. Afaik US needs Japan for its own good in TPP, for it wants to gain leadership over the trade system and increase its political influence by setting regional trade rules. And involving Japan in the TPP is not just about economics and trade for the United States but it is also strongly political. Without Japan the TPP will not have as much impact or influence on regional and global trade rules. And "Gaiatsu" is a proof.
Next would be that presence of Japan would only attract more countries into TPP. Lets accept it that US's overarching goal is to maintain its leadership and control over the global economic and trade order, which has been threatened by China.

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.)

As an outsider I see this as a power game where US and Japan want to maximise their national benefits and guarantee their voice in international discourse, or atleast so from japan's POV, for US always has a military power to boost of.
And if I were to analyse the Chinese angle here then I think China fears exclusion from major regional free trade deals. It sees TPP as America’s attempt to shake free of its dependence on China’s manufacturing industry and establish an import substitution system that excludes China.
Or have I got it all wrong??
If so dont take this post seriously because trade and economics is really not my cup of tea. But then I enjoy this drama as it unfolds. Lol

@Nihonjin1051 why did you ignore Japan's agricultural lobby ?? I've heard that farmers have been a bastion of conservative political support since the very beginning of electoral politics in Japan.

 

[CHN Bamboo]

@terranMarine #28 ..Thanks!!

 

[Aepsilons]

Wait... you guys 're confusing me now. Afaik US needs Japan for its own good in TPP, for it wants to gain leadership over the trade system and increase its political influence by setting regional trade rules. And involving Japan in the TPP is not just about economics and trade for the United States but it is also strongly political. Without Japan the TPP will not have as much impact or influence on regional and global trade rules. And "Gaiatsu" is a proof.
Next would be that presence of Japan would only attract more countries into TPP. Lets accept it that US's overarching goal is to maintain its leadership and control over the global economic and trade order, which has been threatened by China.



As an outsider I see this as a power game where US and Japan want to maximise their national benefits and guarantee their voice in international discourse, or atleast so from japan's POV, for US always has a military power to boost of.
And if I were to analyse the Chinese angle here then I think China fears exclusion from major regional free trade deals. It sees TPP as America’s attempt to shake free of its dependence on China’s manufacturing industry and establish an import substitution system that excludes China.
Or have I got it all wrong??
If so dont take this post seriously because trade and economics is really not my cup of tea. But then I enjoy this drama as it unfolds. Lol

@Nihonjin1051 why did you ignore Japan's agricultural lobby ?? I've heard that farmers have been a bastion of conservative political support since the very beginning of electoral politics in Japan.

Definitely the United States has quite an impressive strategem in regards to the articulation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Now do note that when I express my views, I'm expressing them as just one person , I do not represent the Japanese Government.

Now, in regards to Japan's benefit. Benefit to Japan would be greater access to the US auto market , of course with less protectionist policies that would be targetted towards Japanese auto imports --- this in synergy with further quantitative easy of the Japanese Yen thus ensures that Japanese auto exports are not only more affordable for the average American buyer, but it will experience less protectionist barriers. This is a win-win scenario. Second, the compromise is the Japanese agricultural sector -- which you have poignantly mentioned. The farmers in Japan belong to a very loud and influential group as these are conservative members of society and thus have some clout towards the election of Japanese conservative politicians (Shinzo Abe is considered --- conservative). It is thus important -- for the National Diet's constitutional body -- that the farmers and members of the agricultural sector are subsidized in the event that the TPP is ratified. If there is a failure to compromise in that regard, there can be electoral consequences.

 

[terranMarine]

@terranMarine #28 ..Thanks!!

Oh you don't understand the joke . Well i don't have a keyboard for typing Chinese. If @Chinese-Dragon or any other Chinese members here would do the honor and translate it for you you will get it.

 

[Aepsilons]

How else can I get more likes than you lol. What's a woman for if not to use them to make the competitor take their eyes off you. Unless they are gay in which case, I'm good enough, lol.

Can you understand Japanese?



目 わ 口 ほど に もの お いい

 

[CHN Bamboo]

thanks a lot!! @terranMarine

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

Wait... you guys 're confusing me now. Afaik US needs Japan for its own good in TPP, for it wants to gain leadership over the trade system and increase its political influence by setting regional trade rules. And involving Japan in the TPP is not just about economics and trade for the United States but it is also strongly political. Without Japan the TPP will not have as much impact or influence on regional and global trade rules. And "Gaiatsu" is a proof.
Next would be that presence of Japan would only attract more countries into TPP. Lets accept it that US's overarching goal is to maintain its leadership and control over the global economic and trade order, which has been threatened by China.



As an outsider I see this as a power game where US and Japan want to maximise their national benefits and guarantee their voice in international discourse, or atleast so from japan's POV, for US always has a military power to boost of.
And if I were to analyse the Chinese angle here then I think China fears exclusion from major regional free trade deals. It sees TPP as America’s attempt to shake free of its dependence on China’s manufacturing industry and establish an import substitution system that excludes China.
Or have I got it all wrong??
If so dont take this post seriously because trade and economics is really not my cup of tea. But then I enjoy this drama as it unfolds. Lol

@Nihonjin1051 why did you ignore Japan's agricultural lobby ?? I've heard that farmers have been a bastion of conservative political support since the very beginning of electoral politics in Japan.

Good questions, @levina , you're on target. The US strongly desires Japanese participation in TPP, but the factor here that may be confusing is that when we speak of US vs. Japan in the negotiations, it's really [majority of participants, who will benefit from liberalized agriculture trade, as represented by the US] vs. [Japan]. The US is leading the effort, but among others, New Zealand, Australia, Vietnam, and the Latin American participants (i.e. the vast majority) are strongly supportive of US efforts. The US wants Japan in the trade framework, but it won't make sacrifices for Japan that alienate the majority of the participants.

And that flows into your second point. Economically speaking, the gains to the US from TPP are nice, but marginal. The real benefit to the US is binding the participants to a high-standard liberal free trade order, and combined with TTIP across the Atlantic Ocean, will support, strengthen, and extend the global free trade order that has served us so well for so long. Free trade is not something we can take for granted; India severely damaged the last WTO round for its own narrow parochial interests; Germany and China continue to pursue retrograde mercantilist policies in opposition to a healthy and balanced trade regime; and China's gradual construction of a parallel economic order may put this regime in danger.

That is my interpretation of the political effect, and it is limited to that. Chinese fears that this framework could be used to amplify the American diplomatic or security presence in Asia don't make sense to me. Did the WTO, which is TPP writ large, accomplish that? No. People forget that just as the Asian and Latin American countries are bound by TPP, so is the US. It is the framework, and the underlying ideology, that is important to the US, not any immediate military or diplomatic gain. The US is playing the long game, here, and this is bigger than just the US, or even the TPP. This is about a philosophy for how the world will look over the next several decades.

 

[CHN Bamboo]

Can you understand Japanese?



目 わ 口 ほど に もの お いい

I can understang:↓
目=eyes
口=mouth
わ/ほ/ど/に/も/の/お/い/い=????

 

[Genesis]

Can you understand Japanese?



目 わ 口 ほど に もの お いい

yes, but apparently not english.
Contact good things enough eye I mouth

 

[Aepsilons]

yes, but apparently not english.
Contact good things enough eye I mouth

Hahahaha!

I can understang:↓
目=eyes
口=mouth
わ/ほ/ど/に/も/の/お/い/い=????

You need to learn hiragana and katakana , my tomodachi !

 

[Shotgunner51]

@Chinese-Dragon , @LeveragedBuyout, @SvenSvensonov @TaiShang, @Yizhi , @Shotgunner51 , @Gufi , @terranMarine , @Viet, @Carlosa, @Red Mahura , @Tokyo Drifter , @Aegis DDG , @Echo_419 , @SpArK , @Hindustani78 , @magic-007 , @Peter C , @C130, @XenoEnsi-14 , @CENTCOM , @al-Hasani , @1000 , @Sinan, @xenon54 , @Ahmed Jo , @atatwolf , @Indos , @madokafc , @dichoi , @Ayan81 , @Cossack25A1 , @Armstrong , @levina , @BDforever , @iajdani , @Aung Zaya , @somsak et al !

Nice piece of work ....
Gonna take to while to digest, cool

 

[Levina]

Good questions, @levina , you're on target. The US strongly desires Japanese participation in TPP, but the factor here that may be confusing is that when we speak of US vs. Japan in the negotiations, it's really [majority of participants, who will benefit from liberalized agriculture trade, as represented by the US] vs. [Japan]. The US is leading the effort, but among others, New Zealand, Australia, Vietnam, and the Latin American participants (i.e. the vast majority) are strongly supportive of US efforts. The US wants Japan in the trade framework, but it won't make sacrifices for Japan that alienate the majority of the participants.

And that flows into your second point. Economically speaking, the gains to the US from TPP are nice, but marginal. The real benefit to the US is binding the participants to a high-standard liberal free trade order, and combined with TTIP across the Atlantic Ocean, will support, strengthen, and extend the global free trade order that has served us so well for so long. Free trade is not something we can take for granted; India severely damaged the last WTO round for its own narrow parochial interests; Germany and China continue to pursue retrograde mercantilist policies in opposition to a healthy and balanced trade regime; and China's gradual construction of a parallel economic order may put this regime in danger.

That is my interpretation of the political effect, and it is limited to that. Chinese fears that this framework could be used to amplify the American diplomatic or security presence in Asia don't make sense to me. Did the WTO, which is TPP writ large, accomplish that? No. People forget that just as the Asian and Latin American countries are bound by TPP, so is the US. It is the framework, and the underlying ideology, that is important to the US, not any immediate military or diplomatic gain. The US is playing the long game, here, and this is bigger than just the US, or even the TPP. This is about a philosophy for how the world will look over the next several decades.

I wanted to know more about the IP, wikileaks says TTP will effect freedom of information and ergo has its share of frowners too. This is off topic but I was curious to know your opinion on this because you circumvented that topic, there was a blink and miss mention of IP in your first post on this thread.

 

[LeveragedBuyout]

I wanted to know more about the IP, wikileaks says TTP will effect freedom of information and ergo has its share of frowners too. This is off topic but I was curious to know your opinion on this because you circumvented that topic, there was a blink and miss mention of IP in your first post on this thread.

I don't have any inside information about the IP chapter, but I am generally supportive of the allegations made. I didn't mean to skip that discussion, but until the agreement is finalized, everything we discuss is pure speculation. The alleged leaked chapters are not verified, and even if they were, they may not have been the versions that will appear in the final TPP.

You may say, "IP holders make billions of dollars in profits, what about people who can't afford the cost of buying/using products based on that IP?". To which I counter, "and what of the billions of dollars in R&D spent to develop those expensive products, which would not happen without the profit motive?"

You may say, "the IP protections are too strict, and should be balanced by need." To which I reply, "long term R&D cannot survive in the face of theft."

You may say, "the non-public nature of the IP courts, and ISDS are an affront to the rights of the people," to which I posit, "these are the best ways to counter the populist instincts of the mob."

I don't actually know your views on this matter, but this is the broad outline of the controversy. Again, I need to reiterate that the structures set up will also bind the US, much like the WTO courts are able to enforce rulings against the US. Countries will sign the TPP because it benefits them, not because the US somehow bullied them into doing so.