TPP Ratification with No Hope

The bills related to ratification of new comprehensive and high-level trade deal, or Trans-Pacific Partnership, passed House of Councillors with approval of Liberal Democratic Party, Komeito and Japan Restoration Party on Friday. Although the activation of TPP is highly unlikely with firm opposition of President-elect of United States, Donald Trump, Shinzo Abe administration did not stop its advance to the deal. Unilateral maneuver for political agenda keeps on harming democracy in Japan.

Twelve countries have agreed on making a major economic zone, which would cover forty percent of whole economy in the world, targeting fundamental abolition of tariffs or setting common rules for investment. While United States will remove tariff on Japanese cars within twenty-five years from the activation, Japan is going to eliminate tariffs on agricultural, forestry or fishery products.

However, Trump has been negative on activation of TPP in his Presidential campaign and reiterated his ambition of killing the deal to protect employment within U.S. He is willing to make bilateral deals with major economies, defying comprehensive free-trade framework having been led by President Barack Obama. Nevertheless, Abe still insists on TPP, rigorously believing it to be a key tool for his growth strategy. “Even if its activation is ambiguous, announcing the importance of strategic and economic meaning of TPP is significant,” said Abe in the discussion in the Diet.

Trump seems to be willing to have bilateral deal with Japan, as well as with China or other major economies. If Japan has bilateral trade agreement with U.S., it likely that Japan will suffer from disadvantages in some areas of trade, such as cars or beef, as it has experienced in Japan-U.S. trade friction in the past. It is easy to suppose that U.S. will require Japan lower barrier in rice, beef or pork than in the achieved agreement in TPP.

Abe administration has applied a budget for supporting farmers, which includes policies for competitiveness of farmers or support for companies that cultivate foreign markets. The budget amounts to ¥1.2 trillion. The opposition parties criticize those subsidies as unnecessary expenditure for a broken negotiation.

The opposite parties are deeply frustrated with unilateral procedure of the bills in Diet. In the midst of confusion of U.S. defiance against TPP, the leading parties went forward to pass the bills, leaving protest of the opposite parties behind. Ignorance to different opinion is frequently shown in current politics led by Abe as seen in discussion over casino bills or pension reform bills. If the effort to maintain TPP is in vain, who is going to take responsibility for this deterioration of democracy?