If anything, we suspect Ambassador Oe has understated the case. We say this because we suspect Canada will not lag far behind Australia in concluding a deal with Japan, and they sell beef too.
There is a straightforward, matter-of-fact paragraph in Monday's statement from the National Pork Producers Council that bears repeating here. The NPPC wrote:
"In its FTA with Japan, Australia did not get tariff elimination on a number of important products, but a clause in the agreement requires the Japanese to provide the same access to Australia that it provides to other nations. Should the United States get better access to Japan in the TPP negotiations, Australia would get that same access."
We would like to parse that just a bit. If in doing so we only reveal our own ignorance, we very much hope those who know better will correct us.
First, the "clause in the agreement" used to be called an MFN or most-favored-nation clause. We are not thinking here of MFN in the WTO. There, MFN means
a concession to one is a concession to all. In the earlier context, however, it was, as it is here, not a protection for the last participant but for the first. In this case, it ensures that no one will ever have a better deal with Japan than Australia. Interestingly, those old style MFN clauses seem to be showing up in more and more places.
Second, the description of the whole TPP process in the NPPC paragraph suggests that, at least where market access is concerned, TPP is better understood as a series of bilateral agreements than as a true FTA among 12 countries. We say that because, if NPPC is correct, Australia will not be relying on an MFN-like clause in TPP - presumably there won't be one -- but rather on the one in the new JAEPA accord. If that is correct, it is worth keeping in mind in every discussion of TPP.
Certainly, one hopes that there will be an early conclusion to the TPP negotiations, but they have already missed one big deadline - the goal of concluding in 2013. That history and the lack of anything like a pro-trade consensus in the United States mean that TPP countries will continue to pursue other options for improving their trading opportunities.
There are some costs to that. One has to do with flexibilities, the openness to change of the countries in the system. Japan's defense of its rice producers may be the first thing that comes to mind, but here is another. The fact that Australia's new deal with Japan does not include investor-state dispute settlement has filled the Australian press anew with arguments against ISDS. Those arguments will, one assumes, make the Australians dig in their heels that much more when ISDS comes up in TPP.
But all of this is premature. There is a strong U.S. negotiating team in Japan now, and President Obama will be there for a state visit on the 24th. And so, quoting Helen Kellogg again, "We shall see."