Japan's Entry Into Free Trade Talks Presents Challenges for the Automotive Sector

28 March 2013 Dashboard Insights Blog

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s announcement that Japan will join talks on the Trans-Pacific Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) presents potential challenges for the U.S. automotive sector. Together with Canada and Mexico’s entry in October 2012, the decision could transform the TPP into a major trade pact spanning some of the largest economies on the Pacific Rim. The outcomes for U.S. companies are still uncertain, however. With Japanese lawmakers pushing to preserve protections for certain domestic producers, U.S. automotive exporters may see only modest changes in terms of market access and a more level playing field.

The TPP currently represents one of the most significant elements in the U.S. trade promotion agenda. Parties to the negotiations currently include Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Together these economies represent 8.6 percent of world trade and nearly 40 percent of global GDP. With Colombia, Costa Rica, Laos, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Thailand also expressing an interest, the TPP could eventually evolve into a Free Trade Agreement of the Asia-Pacific (“FTAAP”), further opening markets for U.S. exporters.

The TPP has a strategic dimension as well, one that reflects the Obama Administration’s so-called “pivot” from protracted conflicts in the Middle East in favor of greater political and economic engagement in the Asia-Pacific region. With China expanding its own economic influence in Africa and Latin America, and with the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round of trade negotiations now moribund, the TPP marks a broader effort to re-invigorate existing U.S. partnerships and re-energize the global trade agenda.

Prime Minister Abe’s agenda reveals similar motivations. Speaking on national television last Friday, he described TPP membership as Japan’s “last chance” to grow its inward-looking economy and “remain at the center of the Asian-Pacific century.” A recent policy paper from the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (“LDP”) echoed similar themes, arguing that trade liberalization will allow Japan to benefit from Asian economic growth while strengthening its ties with the United States and other key allies.  

Reaction from Japanese parliamentarians has been mixed, however. Faced with strong opposition from powerful domestic interest groups, the LDP has also adopted a set of negotiating conditions aimed at preserving existing protections in the agricultural and insurance sectors. These measures are widely seen as a prelude to the July 2013 elections for the House of Councilors, the upper house of the Japanese Diet. With the LDP currently in the minority, Abe’s party may be unwilling to endorse the kinds of reforms that would alienate their own rural electoral base.

Similar pressures could also emerge from Japan’s automotive sector, where a broad constellation of Non-tariff Barriers to Trade (“NTBs”) limits U.S. market access.  According to a recent statement by Acting U.S. Trade Representative Demetrios Marantis, U.S. and Japanese officials have been negotiating on these and other sensitive issues for more than year. While the substance of those talks is not yet public, some reports indicate that Tokyo and Washington have already agreed to a tentative deal that would allow Japan to maintain its current NTBs in exchange for preserving current U.S. tariffs on Japanese automobiles for the next ten years. 

Compromise on these issues may make sense given domestic pressures on both sides of the Pacific. Deferring controversial concessions until after the TPP’s implementation would give Prime Minister Abe space to address more contentious agricultural issues. It might also mitigate Congressional criticism in the United States, including concern regarding Japanese NTBs and possible reductions in existing tariff rates. With the next round of TPP talks scheduled for May in Lima, Peru, manufacturers and suppliers in the automotive sector would be well advised to monitor any changes in the parties’ negotiating positions.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights