A trade agreement between U.S. and Japan has been signed, but critics on both sides insist the deal still needs work.
President Donald Trump signed the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement on Oct. 7. If enacted, the agreement will lower tariffs and level the playing field in Japan between U.S. producers and countries still participating in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Japan’s Lower House passed the U.S.-Japan Trade Agreement on Nov. 19, and the deal now moves to the Upper House, which hopes to ratify the deal before the end of the current Diet (Japan’s Congress) session on Dec. 9.
However, the agreement was dubbed incomplete at a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee hearing on Nov. 20. Agriculture group representatives testified at the Trade Subcommittee of the Ways and Means Committee, and called for a broader scope of items in the deal.
The deal would gradually lower the 38.5 percent tariff on U.S. beef to 9 percent and remove or reduce pork tariffs. More than 90 percent of U.S. food and agricultural imports into Japan will be duty free or receive preferential tariff access, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.
In return, the U.S. will remove or reduce tariffs on some types of manufacturing equipment and other industrial parts.
However, Texas Farm Bureau President Russell Boening noted in his testimony, “Not all agricultural products, such as rice and some dairy products, were included in this agreement. We must work toward additional market access.”
Japanese opponents also criticize the agreement because automobiles and automobile parts tariffs are only “subject to further negotiations.” Japan originally estimated the deal would boost its economy by about 0.8 percent over the next 10 to 20 years, but this was based on the elimination of auto tariffs.
“The deal was left vague on the issue of tariff cuts on Japanese auto and auto parts. Otherwise, we couldn’t have reached the agreement,” a source said in a Reuters report.
In addition, “…the tariff-only approach to this agreement is not a substitute for a more comprehensive agreement, and is not a structure that, if replicated with other countries, is likely to be advantageous for U.S. agriculture,” summed up Darci Vetter, former chief agricultural negotiator of the U.S. Trade Representatives.
Lawmakers were urged to approve an expanded trade agreement for next year. — WLJ
