If you harbor any doubts that the parameters of U.S. trade policy are defined by a few politically‐important domestic industries, take a look at the debate over whether Japan should be allowed to join the Trans‐Pacific Partnership trade negotiations.
Did you miss it? That’s because there really hasn’t been much debate; there has been near‐unanimous support for the idea in the United States.
In December 2011, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative requested comments from the public about Japan’s expression of interest in joining the TPP talks. In response, 115 submissions were filed on behalf of various U.S. interests (small to large companies, trade associations, unions, and other NGOs). Five of the responses flat out rejected the idea of Japan’s participation; five expressed a willingness to support Japan’s participation with conditions, and 105 expressed no‐strings‐attached support for Japan joining the talks. In other words, 91 percent of the respondents were unequivocally in favor of Japan’s participation in the negotiations.
Yet, four months after reviewing those comments, the Obama administration is equivocal about the matter.
With 91 percent in favor, the only formula that could produce executive equivocation is one that weights extremely heavily the views of those expressing opposition to Japan’s participation. Which of these five dissenters’ views are likely to be getting extra special consideration from the administration on this matter: Humane Society International, the National Marine Manufacturers Association, the Maine Citizen Trade Policy Commission, the Central Union of Agricultural Cooperatives, or the American Automotive Policy Council (hint: the lobbying arm of the “Detroit 3” – Ford, GM, and Chrysler)?