Japan Should Join the TPP As Soon As Possible
TERADA Takashi / Professor, Waseda University
January 12, 2011
The Trans-Pacific Partnership, also known as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement, is particularly important for Japan in the following three aspects, which set it apart from the FTAs (free trade agreements) that Japan has so far concluded.
Firstly, it is not bilateral but multilateral. From its modest beginning in 2006 with four relatively small economies including Singapore, it has now expanded to encompass nine countries, including the United States and Australia. As more countries join, it will have an ever-widening scope as a free trade area. Should Japan fail to join, its products, as products of non-member countries, would be subject to discriminatory treatment such as tariffs. Further, it would become well-nigh impossible for Japan to participate in the making of such important rules as on the countries of origin and intellectual property rights in ways that would benefit the trade and investment activities of Japanese businesses. The longer the delay to join, the greater the likelihood that Japan would have to abide by the rules not of its own making.
Secondly, since the parties to the TPP include agricultural exporters such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand, it will become necessary for Japan to provide agricultural subsidies to its farmers if it joins the agreement. Thus far, Japan’s bilateral FTAs have been concluded mostly with developing countries, whereby the deal was that agricultural imports from these counties were exempted from liberalization in return for technical cooperation provided by Japan. However, developed countries such as the United States and Australia do not need technical cooperation. Under the TPP, which espouses liberalization without exception, there will very likely be demands on Japan to eliminate its high tariffs on rice and dairy products.
This will make it necessary for the government to provide funds to support Japan’s domestic agriculture. The budget for the individual household income support to farmers, started under the DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan) government, is less than \1 trillion and is deemed by many to be inadequate. At the same time, strong criticisms have been directed at the government’s failure to strengthen the competitiveness of Japan’s agricultural products and to deal with the problem of aging agricultural population, despite some \6 trillion poured into the measures to alleviate the impacts of the Uruguay Round. Today, the fiscal deficit runs as high as \900 trillion. Rapid aging of the population pushes up the social security expenditures. The situation would not permit large increases in subsidies.
But we cannot afford to hesitate. The Republic of Korea has managed to squeeze out as much as \9 trillion to support its farmers in the ten years up to 2013. What made this possible was its shift to the policy of first making the country richer through promoting exports. In Japan, compared to the agricultural output of \ 8.5 trillion, the manufacturing output amounts to about \ 100 trillion, of which 60% is exported overseas. Many of the part-time farmers, who account for more than 90% of farming households, work in manufacturing industries. The TPP will provide opportunities to increase price competitiveness and expand exports to those Japanese farmers who produce high-quality competitive products such as strawberries and other fruits and tea. We have come to a point where political decisions have to be made as to where to place the priorities in order to make the country as a whole richer.
Thirdly, the TPP is also an FTA with Japan’s ally, the United States. As seen in the conflict with China regarding the Senkaku Islands and the heightening tension on the Korean Peninsula with North Korea’s nuclear development and missiles, the situation surrounding Japan is highly unstable. Many Japanese must be feeling the need to ensure that the Japan-U.S. alliance, which is the keystone of Japan’s security, is rock-solid.
For the United States to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers to defend Japan in times of contingency, it is essential that it would be perceived to be in the national interest of the United States to do so. One step in that direction is Japan’s participation in the TPP that would further integrate our two economies. On the occasion of the recent announcement of the U.S.-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement, President Obama said, “today is also a win for the strong alliance between the United States and South Korea”, implying that the tension of the Korean Peninsula is a factor underlying this agreement. The TPP can also provide Japan with a way out of out of its excessive dependence on China, which became evident in connection with China’s restriction on the export of rare earth to Japan.
The Japanese farmers are calling for a 10-year moratorium on the elimination of tariffs on sensitive items after the coming into force of the TPP. To what extent such a moratorium may be allowed will be subject to negations. For the negotiations to proceed in ways that meet our interest, it is vital that we join soon. For the sake of Japan’s agriculture as well, we should join as soon as possible.
The writer is Professor of International Relations, at the Institute of Asian Studies, Waseda University. The article originally appeared in the December 25 , 2010 – January 1, 2011 edition of .Shukan Diamond magazine.
Firstly, it is not bilateral but multilateral. From its modest beginning in 2006 with four relatively small economies including Singapore, it has now expanded to encompass nine countries, including the United States and Australia. As more countries join, it will have an ever-widening scope as a free trade area. Should Japan fail to join, its products, as products of non-member countries, would be subject to discriminatory treatment such as tariffs. Further, it would become well-nigh impossible for Japan to participate in the making of such important rules as on the countries of origin and intellectual property rights in ways that would benefit the trade and investment activities of Japanese businesses. The longer the delay to join, the greater the likelihood that Japan would have to abide by the rules not of its own making.
Secondly, since the parties to the TPP include agricultural exporters such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand, it will become necessary for Japan to provide agricultural subsidies to its farmers if it joins the agreement. Thus far, Japan’s bilateral FTAs have been concluded mostly with developing countries, whereby the deal was that agricultural imports from these counties were exempted from liberalization in return for technical cooperation provided by Japan. However, developed countries such as the United States and Australia do not need technical cooperation. Under the TPP, which espouses liberalization without exception, there will very likely be demands on Japan to eliminate its high tariffs on rice and dairy products.
This will make it necessary for the government to provide funds to support Japan’s domestic agriculture. The budget for the individual household income support to farmers, started under the DPJ (Democratic Party of Japan) government, is less than \1 trillion and is deemed by many to be inadequate. At the same time, strong criticisms have been directed at the government’s failure to strengthen the competitiveness of Japan’s agricultural products and to deal with the problem of aging agricultural population, despite some \6 trillion poured into the measures to alleviate the impacts of the Uruguay Round. Today, the fiscal deficit runs as high as \900 trillion. Rapid aging of the population pushes up the social security expenditures. The situation would not permit large increases in subsidies.
But we cannot afford to hesitate. The Republic of Korea has managed to squeeze out as much as \9 trillion to support its farmers in the ten years up to 2013. What made this possible was its shift to the policy of first making the country richer through promoting exports. In Japan, compared to the agricultural output of \ 8.5 trillion, the manufacturing output amounts to about \ 100 trillion, of which 60% is exported overseas. Many of the part-time farmers, who account for more than 90% of farming households, work in manufacturing industries. The TPP will provide opportunities to increase price competitiveness and expand exports to those Japanese farmers who produce high-quality competitive products such as strawberries and other fruits and tea. We have come to a point where political decisions have to be made as to where to place the priorities in order to make the country as a whole richer.
Thirdly, the TPP is also an FTA with Japan’s ally, the United States. As seen in the conflict with China regarding the Senkaku Islands and the heightening tension on the Korean Peninsula with North Korea’s nuclear development and missiles, the situation surrounding Japan is highly unstable. Many Japanese must be feeling the need to ensure that the Japan-U.S. alliance, which is the keystone of Japan’s security, is rock-solid.
For the United States to sacrifice the lives of American soldiers to defend Japan in times of contingency, it is essential that it would be perceived to be in the national interest of the United States to do so. One step in that direction is Japan’s participation in the TPP that would further integrate our two economies. On the occasion of the recent announcement of the U.S.-Republic of Korea Free Trade Agreement, President Obama said, “today is also a win for the strong alliance between the United States and South Korea”, implying that the tension of the Korean Peninsula is a factor underlying this agreement. The TPP can also provide Japan with a way out of out of its excessive dependence on China, which became evident in connection with China’s restriction on the export of rare earth to Japan.
The Japanese farmers are calling for a 10-year moratorium on the elimination of tariffs on sensitive items after the coming into force of the TPP. To what extent such a moratorium may be allowed will be subject to negations. For the negotiations to proceed in ways that meet our interest, it is vital that we join soon. For the sake of Japan’s agriculture as well, we should join as soon as possible.
The writer is Professor of International Relations, at the Institute of Asian Studies, Waseda University. The article originally appeared in the December 25 , 2010 – January 1, 2011 edition of .Shukan Diamond magazine.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
日本はＴＰＰに迅速に参加すべし
寺田 貴 / 早稲田大学教授
2011年 1月 12日
ＴPPは3つの意味で日本が締結した従来のFTAとは異なり、重要である。
まず2カ国間ではなく多国間である点だ。2006年にシンガポールなど経済規模の小さい4カ国で始まったが、米国や豪州が加わり、現在9カ国に増えている。今後さらに参加国が増えれば、自由貿易圏としての規模が広がる。不参加国製品として関税がかかるといった差別的な扱いを受けるだけでなく、原産地規則や知的財産に関し、日本企業の貿易・投資活動に有利になるようなルール策定にも参加できない公算が強い。参加が遅れれば遅れるほど、自らが関与せずに決まったルールに従わざるを得なくなる。
第2に、米、豪、ニュージーランドと農産物輸出国を参加国に含むため、参加に際して農業補助金を農家に対して給付する必要性が出てきた点である。これまで日本の2カ国間FTAの締結国の多くが途上国だったため、技術協力の提供と引き替えに農産物を自由化対象から外させたてきたが、先進国は技術協力を必要としない。例外なき自由化をうたうTPPでは、日本のコメや乳製品などにかかる高関税の撤廃を要求される可能性が高い。
そのため、農業対策費が必要となるが、民主党政権の肝いりで始まった農家への所得補償制度の予算額は１兆円弱で、不十分だとの声は多い。しかし90年代半ば、6兆円ものウルグアイラウンド対策費を使いながら、農産品の競争力強化や農家の高齢化問題への対策を怠ったことへの批判も強い。現在は900兆円もの財政赤字を抱える。今後、高齢化のため社会保障費がかさむことから補助金の予算を大幅に増やせる状況にはない。
だが、躊躇している場合ではない。韓国は13年までの10年間で約9兆円もの農業対策費を捻出した。これは輸出を振興しまず国を富ませるという政策へ転換したことで可能になった。日本でも8.5兆円の農業総生産額に対し、製造業の生産額は約100兆円。その6割が海外への輸出向けである。農家全体の9割を超える兼業農家の中には製造業へ従事する人も多い。イチゴなどの果物やお茶など、品質に優れ、競争力の高い作物を生産する農家に対して、TPPは価格競争力を高め、輸出拡大の機会を提供できる。国全体を富ませるためにどこに優先順位を置くかに関して、政治的決断をすべき時期に来ている。
3点目は、同盟国である米国とのFTAでもあることだ。尖閣諸島を巡る中国との一連の対立、核開発やミサイル問題で緊張の高まる朝鮮半島など、日本を取り巻く地域情勢は極めて不安定である。日本の安保の要である日米同盟を盤石にする必要性を多くの日本人が感じているだろう。
有事の際、米国が米兵の命を犠牲にしてまでも日本を防衛しようとするには、それが米国の国益に適うことが肝要である。その一つの方策が両国経済を一体化するTPPへの参加である。先の米韓FTA合意に際しオバマ大統領は「米国と韓国の同盟を深化させる」と発言、この合意の背景に朝鮮半島での緊張が存在することを示唆している。TPPは、レアアース問題で顕在化した日本の対中依存から脱却する方策ともなりえる。
農家が望むTPP発効後10年間はセンシティブ品目の関税撤廃は免除と言うルールにしても、どの程度の範囲で許されるのかは今後の交渉次第である。交渉を有利に進めるためにはいち早く参加する必要がある。日本の農業のためにも、迅速な参加が望ましい。
（筆者は、早稲田大学アジア研究機構教授｛国際関係論｝。本稿は、週刊ダイヤモンド２０１０年１２月２５日-２０１１年１月１日号に掲載された。）
まず2カ国間ではなく多国間である点だ。2006年にシンガポールなど経済規模の小さい4カ国で始まったが、米国や豪州が加わり、現在9カ国に増えている。今後さらに参加国が増えれば、自由貿易圏としての規模が広がる。不参加国製品として関税がかかるといった差別的な扱いを受けるだけでなく、原産地規則や知的財産に関し、日本企業の貿易・投資活動に有利になるようなルール策定にも参加できない公算が強い。参加が遅れれば遅れるほど、自らが関与せずに決まったルールに従わざるを得なくなる。
第2に、米、豪、ニュージーランドと農産物輸出国を参加国に含むため、参加に際して農業補助金を農家に対して給付する必要性が出てきた点である。これまで日本の2カ国間FTAの締結国の多くが途上国だったため、技術協力の提供と引き替えに農産物を自由化対象から外させたてきたが、先進国は技術協力を必要としない。例外なき自由化をうたうTPPでは、日本のコメや乳製品などにかかる高関税の撤廃を要求される可能性が高い。
そのため、農業対策費が必要となるが、民主党政権の肝いりで始まった農家への所得補償制度の予算額は１兆円弱で、不十分だとの声は多い。しかし90年代半ば、6兆円ものウルグアイラウンド対策費を使いながら、農産品の競争力強化や農家の高齢化問題への対策を怠ったことへの批判も強い。現在は900兆円もの財政赤字を抱える。今後、高齢化のため社会保障費がかさむことから補助金の予算を大幅に増やせる状況にはない。
だが、躊躇している場合ではない。韓国は13年までの10年間で約9兆円もの農業対策費を捻出した。これは輸出を振興しまず国を富ませるという政策へ転換したことで可能になった。日本でも8.5兆円の農業総生産額に対し、製造業の生産額は約100兆円。その6割が海外への輸出向けである。農家全体の9割を超える兼業農家の中には製造業へ従事する人も多い。イチゴなどの果物やお茶など、品質に優れ、競争力の高い作物を生産する農家に対して、TPPは価格競争力を高め、輸出拡大の機会を提供できる。国全体を富ませるためにどこに優先順位を置くかに関して、政治的決断をすべき時期に来ている。
3点目は、同盟国である米国とのFTAでもあることだ。尖閣諸島を巡る中国との一連の対立、核開発やミサイル問題で緊張の高まる朝鮮半島など、日本を取り巻く地域情勢は極めて不安定である。日本の安保の要である日米同盟を盤石にする必要性を多くの日本人が感じているだろう。
有事の際、米国が米兵の命を犠牲にしてまでも日本を防衛しようとするには、それが米国の国益に適うことが肝要である。その一つの方策が両国経済を一体化するTPPへの参加である。先の米韓FTA合意に際しオバマ大統領は「米国と韓国の同盟を深化させる」と発言、この合意の背景に朝鮮半島での緊張が存在することを示唆している。TPPは、レアアース問題で顕在化した日本の対中依存から脱却する方策ともなりえる。
農家が望むTPP発効後10年間はセンシティブ品目の関税撤廃は免除と言うルールにしても、どの程度の範囲で許されるのかは今後の交渉次第である。交渉を有利に進めるためにはいち早く参加する必要がある。日本の農業のためにも、迅速な参加が望ましい。
（筆者は、早稲田大学アジア研究機構教授｛国際関係論｝。本稿は、週刊ダイヤモンド２０１０年１２月２５日-２０１１年１月１日号に掲載された。）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟