Japan Brush-up



Yüklə 109 Kb.
tarix16.02.2017
ölçüsü109 Kb.
#8527

SDI 2010

RRSE Japan Negative

Japan Brush-up


Japan Brush-up 1

FTA CP INC 2

FTA CP INC 3

AT Japan Will Say No 4

Democracy Add On 5

AT Doesn’t Solve DPJ 6

AT Doesn’t Solve DPJ 7

AT Doesn’t Solve DPJ 8

AT Agriculture DA 9

AT Agriculture DA 10

CP Solves Relations 11

AT CP Links to Politics 12

AT CP Links to Politics 13

AT CP Links to Politics 14

START WARMING IMPACT 15

START WARMING IMPACT 16

START WARMING IMPACT 17

START WARMING IMPACT 18



FTA CP INC


Text: The United States federal government should ratify a free-trade agreement with the government of Japan.
An FTA between the United States and Japan would reassure the alliance and exponentially enhance both countries’ economies

Colucci 2008

Dr. Lamont Colucci, a former diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, is an assistant professor of politics and Government at Ripon College

Washington Times: “U.S. and Japan Free Trade Agreement” December 31, 2008

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/31/us-and-japan-free-trade-agreement/

If we fast forward to 1990, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski advocated the creation of "Amerippon" to create a special strategic and economic partnership between the United States and Japan whose economic clout, based on control of 40 percent of the world's GDP, could be fully realized. The new American administration can make all of this a needed reality.

In light of the media obsession with the economic downturn, the war in Iraq and the flavor of the month, we often forget that the stability of the international system is determined on longstanding relationships and strategic planning. One way we can address this economic crisis is to use this opportunity to push for a U.S./Japan Free Trade Agreement (FTA) - lost in an election dominated by domestic economics was any real discussion of trade and its interdependence with diplomacy.

President-elect Barack Obama can explode the fear among world leaders that he is a closet protectionist by making his flagship foray into international trade waters the U.S./Japan FTA. He can further reassure a critical ally that the United States is ever more committed to the U.S./Japan military and political alliance by demonstrating leadership in this area of economic diplomacy. No country has been more open to American culture and soft power outside of Europe and Canada than Japan (perhaps more so). America has 11 FTAs with 17 countries (two of them Pacific Rim countries, Australia and Singapore) and a recently negotiated agreement with South Korea. Japan has pursued most of her FTAs with Asian countries, but the recently negotiated agreement between the U.S. and South Korea sent a jolt throughout Japan similar to the shock they received over NAFTA.



These fears cut to the heart of Japanese trepidation, especially regarding the United States and isolationism, neglect and abandonment. If Japan wishes to avoid this, and in particular if she wants to compete with China for political and economic influence, she will encourage the creation of "Amerippon." Her most difficult constraints are her xenophobic agricultural lobby, lack of consistency from government ministries, and a deficiency of transparency. The U.S. can only commit to an FTA if it is comprehensive. However, it will take political leadership in Washington for the Japanese to create the political will to overcome their obstacles. The incoming Obama administration can make this a top priority, especially in light of the world economic crisis. Studies indicate that the current trade between the U.S. and Japan of $200 billion would be exponentially enhanced. If 10 percent of the service sectors were liberalized, Japan would gain $130 billion and the U.S. $150 billion. If 30 percent were liberalized, the total enhancement would be $350 billion.

This kind of agreement is real diplomacy with a real ally. It bolsters the Mutual Security system, cross-cultural relations, and widens the door for military, political, and technological cooperation and partnership. One cannot divorce political from economic diplomacy, and the majority of advocates for the FTA ignore these other factors.

FTA CP INC


Japanese economic growth and interdependence with the US are key to Kan success

Panda, Senior Fellow @ Institute for Defence Studies, 7-9

Rajaram, Senior Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, Eurasia Review, http://www.eurasiareview.com/201006092885/foreign-policy-and-domestic-challenges-before-kan-naoto.html



As regards relations with China, Kan recognizes the importance of economic interdependence between the two countries. At the same time, Japan is aware of the tensions in the East China Sea, where the Chinese Navy and the Japanese Self Defence Forces look at each other with suspicious eyes. Some China watchers in Japan, including Asai, however, do not see China as a threat and blame the media for “overreacting”. Far from seeing China as a threat, Japan seems to be more concerned by the world perception of itself as an “economic dwarf” and a “political pigmy” vis-à-vis China, as a China analyst recently described to the author about Japan’s present status in the world. The immediate task before Kan, however, is to restructure the country’s economy and finances. Strengthening the country’s social welfare system is yet another priority. The stigma of the DPJ following the political fund scandal involving Hatoyama and Ozawa Ichiro (who too resigned as DPJ’s secretary general) also must be removed and the party’s image as a clean party must be reconstructed.7 During Ozawa’s tenure as secretary general, there was a lack of transparency on discussions on policy matters and this aberration needs to be corrected. While addressing issues that remained unaccomplished during Hatoyama, Kan has to present a convincing vision of Japan’s future to the people if he aims to restore the public trust. Kan faces a moribund economy and a snowballing government debt. His immediate task would be fiscal reconstruction and plug holes that have led to debts increasing endlessly, amounting to some 180 per cent of the gross domestic product. Hiking the consumption tax is one option but can prove risky. Even the popular Koizumi was tempted for a while but refrained from this step due to fear of a public backlash. Kan is likely to unveil in late June a national economic growth strategy and fiscal discipline aimed at stimulating demand. As the deputy prime minister, Kan had declared in November 2009 that Japan was in a state of deflation for which liquidity crunch was the main reason since Japanese people and companies have a great propensity to save money instead of purchasing and investing. Being an advocate of a weaker yen, he has pressured the Bank of Japan to adopt more aggressive monetary policies so that the pressure on the business community is eased somewhat. Though foreign affairs are important, getting the economy back on track would be Kan’s top most priority. With an image of a fiscal conservative, he is in favour of raising Japan’s 5 per cent sales tax. Economists say that this is vital to raise funds needed for meeting the huge social welfare costs of a greying society. In particular, if Kan pursues his fiscal policies aimed at keeping the yen weak, one can expect buoyancy in the stock market in the coming months. A weaker currency will help the Nikkei to inch closer to the 10,000-mark. If Kan can make that happen, one can expect the Japanese economy to rebound slowly.

AT Japan Will Say No


Extend the INC Colucci evidence it subsumes their obstacles arguments – political leadership in Washington will create the political will for Japan to overcome their obstacles

AND

It speaks to Japanese fears of isolation regarding US trade agreements this proves they want to be included

Fears of being bypassed and the economic incentives mean Japan will say yes – this evidence assumes agricultural opposition

Bergsten 2004

C. Fred Bergsten, Peterson Institute for International Economics

The Resurgent Japanese Economy and a Japan–United States Free Trade Agreement May 12, 2004

http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=208



For Japan, the straightforward economic benefits of an FTA with the United States would be considerable; a recent study for the Institute for International Economics by Scott Bradford and Robert Lawrence (Has Globalization Gone Far Enough?) shows gains of about 3 percent of total Japanese GNP from any initiatives that could produce convergence between its high prices and the much lower levels that prevail in the United States and other industrial countries. In addition, the insurance policy represented by assured access to the US market would be a major plus for Japanese exports; America’s recent safeguard tariffs on steel, for example, hit Japan but exempted FTA partners Canada and Mexico. Another major plus for Japan would be the provision of an economic counterweight to China through reaffirmation of the security relationship with the United States. Indeed, the renewed US focus on relations with Japan that would be implied by a bilateral FTA would represent decisive rejection of the “bypass Japan” strategy that so many Japanese now fear from the United States because of the rise of China.

These factors should be politically powerful enough in Japan to enable it to finally overcome domestic resistance to liberalization of agriculture, along with key services sectors, both of which would surely be required by the United States to conclude such an FTA. More generally, genuine opening to the United States would greatly enhance the pressures of competition on the Japanese economy, both generating the huge economic benefits noted above (adding a full 3 percent to the level of GDP) and reinforcing the current reforms that are beginning to revitalize its prospects.
Japan will get on board – KORUS negotiations will increase pressure to be involved in Asian liberalization

HKTDC 7

Korea FTA Seen as Increasing Possibility of FTA between U.S., Japan, Online



These developments have improved the prospects for a potential U.S.-Japan FTA, but perhaps nothing has pushed the idea forward as much as the successful conclusion of the FTA between the U.S. and South Korea. For one thing, Japan does not want to lose ground in the lucrative U.S. market to one of its chief economic competitors. For another, the fact that another Asian economy with its own highly influential agricultural sector was able to finalize a deal with the U.S., which puts a strong emphasis on eliminating as many barriers as possible through its FTAs, illustrates that reaching an agreement acceptable to Japan is not out of the realm of possibility.


Democracy Add On


An FTA with Japan is the ideal springboard for the creation of a league of democracies

Colucci 2008

Dr. Lamont Colucci, a former diplomat with the U.S. Department of State, is an assistant professor of politics and Government at Ripon College

Washington Times: “U.S. and Japan Free Trade Agreement” December 31, 2008

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/dec/31/us-and-japan-free-trade-agreement/

If the United States wishes to combat the rise of an aggressive China and a renewed expansionist Russia, a solidification of the partnership with Japan is an absolute necessity. There are national security issues at stake here, not merely economic ones. Further, if the U.S. wishes to truly pursue the creation of a League of Democracies, what better springboard to do this from than a series of free trade agreements with our democratic allies. The liberalization of trade is a fundamental of the free market system, making it a bedrock of political democracy.



The Free Trade Agreement with Japan can serve our economic, military, diplomatic and core values in one fell swoop. The new administration's push for "Amerippon" can demonstrate the kind of foreign policy dynamism this president will sorely need.

AT Doesn’t Solve DPJ



The CP solves the Japanese economy that’s the INC Colucci evidence that’s the best means for the DPJ to shore up support
And reports indicate the FTA would generate billions for Japan

Rueters 2007

Doug Palmer “Big gains seen from U.S.-Japan free trade pact” November 27, 2007



http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2753912620071128

(Reuters) - A free trade pact between the United States and Japan would generate hundreds of billions of dollars in economic gains for both countries, according to a study released on Tuesday.

The report came as the assistant U.S. trade representative for Japan and Korea said Washington and Tokyo had begun exchanging information on details of a possible agreement.

However the official, Wendy Cutler, said the time was not yet right to begin formal talks.

In a speech at a Washington think tank, Cutler said a proposal to negotiate a regional free trade agreement with Japan, China, Russia and other members of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation group known as APEC deserved "serious thought" following last year's U.S. deal with South Korea.

An agreement that phased out tariffs and other trade barriers between the world's two largest national economies would generate about $130 billion in economic gains for Japan and about $150 billion for the United States, according to Scott Bradford, a visiting scholar at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

Those estimates assume 10 percent of service sectors such as finance and banking, distribution, insurance, construction, health care, telecommunications and delivery would be opened to more bilateral trade, Bradford
Business interests guarantee the DPJ will enthusiastically push for a US-Japan FTA

Japan Press Weekly 7/26

FTA, EPA will destroy what remains of Japan’s agriculture

http://www.japan-press.co.jp/2010/2680/economy.html

The Democratic Party of Japan-led government under Prime Minister Kan Naoto has a plan to promote a future liberalization of agricultural imports through a free trade agreement (FTA) and an economic partnership agreement (EPA) with the Pacific-rim countries, including such big agricultural exporters as Australia, the United States, Canada, and China.

However, if Japan joins in these agreements, rice production in Japan would decline by 90 percent, and the nation’s food self-sufficiency rate would drop to 12 percent.

The government in a cabinet meeting on June 18 decided on a “new growth strategy.” It states that the goal is to have FTAs and EPAs in the Asia-Pacific region, and with India and the European Union (EU) by 2020. The starting year of 2010 will launch a study of a Japan-U.S. EPA, promotion of negotiations on a Japan-Australia EPA, and a study of an FTA between Japan, China, and South Korea.

The government also sees the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference to be held in October-November in Yokohama City as providing a forum to set a milestone for creating a free trade area in Asia and the Pacific (FTAAP) by 2020.



The idea of a Japan-Australia FTA was introduced under the Liberal Democratic-Komei government, and the DPJ government is now engaged in its tenth negotiation meeting. Foreign Minister Okada Katsuya in a symposium of the Japan-Australia Economic Committee on June 7 conveyed his enthusiasm for concluding the treaty.

Behind the foreign minister’s enthusiasm lies the pressure of the Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren). Nippon Keidanren on June 15, three days before the cabinet meeting, published a document entitled “For sustainable growth in the Asia-Pacific region.” It calls for in deadlines for concluding treaties, the Japan-Australia EPA by 2012, and Japan-U.S. EPA by 2015, deadlines which did not appear in the government plan.

An FTA is a bilateral or multilateral treaty to principally abolish tariffs on agricultural and industrial products traded among the treaty members. An EPA is a treaty covering a far wider range of products and categories, including services and movements of people.



AT Doesn’t Solve DPJ


And backpeddling on FTA support has undermined the DPJ the CP solves economic critics

And accusations of corruption

Mulgan 2009

Professor Aurelia George Mulgan completed her PhD at the ANU in Japanese Politics in 1980, and subsequently worked as a Research Fellow in the Australia-Japan Research Centre at the ANU.

“The DPJ: Sacrificing the economy to ’save’ agriculture” August 14th, 2009

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/14/the-dpj-sacrificing-the-economy-to-save-agriculture/

Having backtracked on its initial FTA commitment, the DPJ is now copping criticism from the other end of the economic spectrum. Japanese economist and Professor at Jobu University, Nobuo Ikeda in Newsweek Japan, weighed in, arguing that the impact of the DPJ’s policy switch is that the party is destroying the Japanese economy in order to protect Japanese agriculture. As we know, promoting FTAs is directly linked to the DPJ’s proposal for a direct income compensation scheme. If farm incomes decline, they could be compensated. Although the scheme was criticised as typical baramaki (indiscriminately throwing money at voters or simple old-fashioned pork-barrelling), the DPJ could defend it by arguing that it was a necessary step in the process of liberalising agricultural trade through FTAs. According to Ikeda, the change in DPJ policy removed the only ‘merit’ of DPJ agricultural policy and converted it into baramaki pure and simple.

The Secretary General of the New Komeito, Kazuo Kitagawa, appeared on NHK news, denouncing the DPJ for backtracking on its FTA plan with the United States. His criticism was mainly on grounds of principle: the DPJ is developing a habit of backing down from its pledges in the face of criticism from key lobby groups. Prime Minister Aso also made similar comments.



Japan is falling behind in the FTA stakes and as we know, agriculture is the big stumbling block. Ikeda reminds us that even South Korea has concluded an FTA with the United States, and the South Koreans are more protectionist on agriculture than the Japanese. In fact, as one US Uruguay Round trade negotiator once told me, it was always much harder dealing with the South Korean delegates than with the Japanese because the South Koreans had the unnerving habit of bursting into tears as soon as pressure for market opening was applied.

What is concerning for economists like Ikeda and others in Japan is that, after 41 years as the No. 2 economy in the world, Japan is about to be overtaken by China in terms of GDP size. This would further highlight the decline in Japan’s relative position as an economic powerhouse. Ikeda points out that the world economy (and some would argue, not only the world economy) is now entering an era of US-China hegemony. Some might call this an emergent ‘bigemony’, a position in the ‘new world order’ that Japan once aspired to achieve alongside the United States. Japan is now increasingly concerned about the G-2 (the United States and China) becoming the principal axis of strategic and economic cooperation in the Asia Pacific. Ikeda predicts that it won’t be long before even a US-China FTA is concluded. When the only survival strategy for Japan is to reinforce its export industries, which are the engines of the Japanese economy, the DPJ’s policy switch is now promising to sacrifice the whole economy in order to save agriculture.




AT Doesn’t Solve DPJ


US-Japan free trade agreement is key to the rest of the DPJ agenda

Harris, PhD Student @ MIT, 9

Tobias, August, The DPJ will bring the ships home — and open Japan’s economy to the US?, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/03/the-dpj-will-bring-the-ships-home-and-open-japans-economy-to-the-us/

It appears that the Obama administration may be both a blessing and curse for the DPJ. In the Obama administration the DPJ faces a US administration that has more often than not showed itself to be not particularly alarmed by the possibility of a DPJ victory and interested in a more ‘hands-off’ approach to Japan than the Bush administration’s. At the same time, however, the DPJ has had to abandon the rhetoric on the alliance it used when George Bush was still president. With Bush the DPJ could have run a campaign like Gerhard Schröder’s in 2002 and done quite well. Not so with Obama. If the DPJ wins, I am convinced that the mere existence of the Obama administration will pressure the DPJ to be more constructive in the US-Japan relationship. Treating the Japanese government with respect and dignity — as the equal partner that the DPJ wants Japan to be, whatever the reality of the underlying power dynamics — seems to take gaiatsu in a whole new direction. It is in this context that I find the DPJ’s call for negotiations of a US-Japan FTA of considerable interest (discussed here). If the DPJ is serious about this proposal — serious to the point of actually making it a priority and expending political capital on it — it would give some substance to the DPJ’s desire to focus on the non-security aspects of the relationship while contributing to the structural transformation of the Japanese economy and weakening the power of the bureaucracy. Naturally the fight over a US-Japan FTA would be brutal, especially in agricultural policy. In that sense, this proposal must be viewed in tandem with the party’s proposal for direct income support for farmers. As Ozawa Ichiro has argued, trade liberalization and direct income support should go hand in hand, supporting farmers as Japan liberalizes its markets. For the same reason the agriculture lobby responded vociferously to the DPJ’s manifesto (documented by Nakagawa Hidenao here). But not just the agriculture lobby: the LDP went on the offensive against the idea of a US-Japan FTA, issuing a statement that detailed the dire consequences of agriculture trade liberalization with the US.


AT Agriculture DA


Non-unique Japan’s FTA with Australia was supposed to trigger the same collapse in ag

Japan Press Weekly 7/26

FTA, EPA will destroy what remains of Japan’s agriculture

http://www.japan-press.co.jp/2010/2680/economy.html

The Democratic Party of Japan-led government under Prime Minister Kan Naoto has a plan to promote a future liberalization of agricultural imports through a free trade agreement (FTA) and an economic partnership agreement (EPA) with the Pacific-rim countries, including such big agricultural exporters as Australia, the United States, Canada, and China.

However, if Japan joins in these agreements, rice production in Japan would decline by 90 percent, and the nation’s food self-sufficiency rate would drop to 12 percent.

The government in a cabinet meeting on June 18 decided on a “new growth strategy.” It states that the goal is to have FTAs and EPAs in the Asia-Pacific region, and with India and the European Union (EU) by 2020. The starting year of 2010 will launch a study of a Japan-U.S. EPA, promotion of negotiations on a Japan-Australia EPA, and a study of an FTA between Japan, China, and South Korea.

The government also sees the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) conference to be held in October-November in Yokohama City as providing a forum to set a milestone for creating a free trade area in Asia and the Pacific (FTAAP) by 2020.



The idea of a Japan-Australia FTA was introduced under the Liberal Democratic-Komei government, and the DPJ government is now engaged in its tenth negotiation meeting. Foreign Minister Okada Katsuya in a symposium of the Japan-Australia Economic Committee on June 7 conveyed his enthusiasm for concluding the treaty.

Behind the foreign minister’s enthusiasm lies the pressure of the Japan Business Federation (Nippon Keidanren). Nippon Keidanren on June 15, three days before the cabinet meeting, published a document entitled “For sustainable growth in the Asia-Pacific region.” It calls for in deadlines for concluding treaties, the Japan-Australia EPA by 2012, and Japan-U.S. EPA by 2015, deadlines which did not appear in the government plan.

An FTA is a bilateral or multilateral treaty to principally abolish tariffs on agricultural and industrial products traded among the treaty members. An EPA is a treaty covering a far wider range of products and categories, including services and movements of people.



A trial calculation by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries shows that if an EPA is concluded with Australia, wheat and sugar production in Japan would be almost totally destroyed, and half of milk products and beef presently produced in Japan would be eliminated. Food-processing and other related industries will suffer an enormous loss of over three trillion yen. If an Asia-Pacific FTA, which will cover almost all agricultural products including rice, soy beans, and fruit is implemented, it will mean an almost complete liberalization of the agricultural market as it will cover major agricultural exporters such as the United States, Canada, and China.
Ag income compensation scheme is normal means and it solves the DA and opposition

Mulgan 2009

Professor Aurelia George Mulgan completed her PhD at the ANU in Japanese Politics in 1980, and subsequently worked as a Research Fellow in the Australia-Japan Research Centre at the ANU.

“The DPJ: Sacrificing the economy to ’save’ agriculture” August 14th, 2009

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/08/14/the-dpj-sacrificing-the-economy-to-save-agriculture/

Having backtracked on its initial FTA commitment, the DPJ is now copping criticism from the other end of the economic spectrum. Japanese economist and Professor at Jobu University, Nobuo Ikeda in Newsweek Japan, weighed in, arguing that the impact of the DPJ’s policy switch is that the party is destroying the Japanese economy in order to protect Japanese agriculture. As we know, promoting FTAs is directly linked to the DPJ’s proposal for a direct income compensation scheme. If farm incomes decline, they could be compensated. Although the scheme was criticised as typical baramaki (indiscriminately throwing money at voters or simple old-fashioned pork-barrelling), the DPJ could defend it by arguing that it was a necessary step in the process of liberalising agricultural trade through FTAs. According to Ikeda, the change in DPJ policy removed the only ‘merit’ of DPJ agricultural policy and converted it into baramaki pure and simple.


AT Agriculture DA


Direct income support solves opposition and domestic production problems

Mulgan 2010

Professor Aurelia George Mulgan completed her PhD at the ANU in Japanese Politics in 1980, and subsequently worked as a Research Fellow in the Australia-Japan Research Centre at the ANU.

“Is Japan’s DPJ a party of reform on agriculture and agricultural trade?” January 13th, 2010 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/01/13/is-japans-dpj-a-party-of-reform-on-agriculture-and-agricultural-trade/

While agricultural trade agreements theoretically become more politically feasible with a direct income support policy in place, the question is whether the DPJ will follow through on these agreements given two factors. The first is the reassurance it offered to farmers in its 2009 manifesto, which stated that any trade agreements will not come at the price of domestic agriculture including ‘the safety and stable supply of food, increasing Japan’s food self-sufficiency ratio, and the development of Japan’s agricultural industry and its farming villages’. Increasing Japan’s food self-sufficiency ratio has traditionally been synonymous with maintaining agricultural protection.


The Ag industry in Japan is doomed – only the CP can solve

Yoshikawa 2010

Yukie, Asia Pacific Journal: Japan Focus, “Can Japanese Agriculture Overcome Dependence and Decline?” July 14, 2010 http://theglobalrealm.com/2010/07/14/can-japanese-agriculture-overcome-dependence-and-decline/



Agriculture in Japan suffers from a wide range of problems, including a low food self-sufficiency rate of only 41%1 and an inflexible farmland market. Rather than seriously tackling these problems, the Japanese government has chosen to compensate farmers through import restrictions, subsidies and price supports.2 These measures, aimed at addressing the widening urban-rural income gap and assuring the Liberal Democratic Party’s rural base, raised Japanese rice prices to among the highest in the world and further reduced food self-sufficiency. Japan’s farm support initiatives began in the 1960s and were promoted by Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei as “Nihon Rettō Kaizō Ron” (Remodeling the Japanese Archipelago). The large infrastructure projects launched under this program provided public works jobs in rural and urban areas that boosted incomes of rural communities but did little to stay the decline of agriculture.

Moreover, international pressure to open Japan’s agricultural markets increased, most strikingly during the Uruguay Round Agreement in 1994. Japanese policies of protecting farmers through maintaining high market prices and high tariffs were targeted, and Japan was forced to accept food imports at the level imposed by the World Trade Organization (WTO), in return for keeping high tariffs on rice and other products. This has not helped Japan’s agriculture, however, because the government simply chose to delay the drastic changes necessary to enhance the competitiveness of Japanese farmers. Meanwhile international demands for free trade continued to increase.



A chance for a drastic shift in Japan’s agricultural policy came in 2009, when the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) ousted the long-ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) from power. The DPJ has proposed a new agricultural policy that would facilitate opening of Japan’s agricultural market while compensating farmers with direct subsidies.
This provides balance the ag sector and significantly improves the quality of life in Japan

Nezu 10 [Risaburo, Senior Executive Fellow, Economic Research Center, “Politics are Dragging Agriculture Down”, http://jp.fujitsu.com/group/fri/en/column/message/2010/2010-04-27.html]

Another important agricultural matter in the DPJ manifesto concerns the conclusion of free trade agreements (FTA) with the US and East Asia. Though this was reduced to a “challenge” after Japan Agriculture Cooperatives made a fuss, the concept is to promote agricultural liberalization in return for income support. In other words, the two came as a set. The reality, however, is that FTA negotiations are stalling with both the US and East Asia, and Japan is being left behind in this global trend because it cannot move forward with the liberalization of agricultural products. Opening this market would significantly improve the lifestyles of Japanese citizens. Import restrictions have forced citizens to buy rice, meat, dairy, and other products at prices several times higher than international levels, yet no one seems to question this. Income support has been deemed to have a marginal market-distorting effect, as it has no direct impact on prices and supply and demand in the agricultural product market. This system has been adopted widely in Europe and the US, and is permitted to a certain degree by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Opening the agricultural product market would allow Japan to pursue trade negotiations aggressively with the US as well as East Asian countries. The resulting drop in domestic prices would require about JPY 2 trillion to continue income support as before, a fiscally untenable situation. Income support should be limited to farmers that can consolidate land and improve competitive strength. The remaining small farmers would pull out of the industry by either leasing or selling their land. Though this may sound harsh, a reduction of farmers is unavoidable.

CP Solves Relations


A rift in relations are inevitable without a comprehensive FTA between the US and Japan

Bergsten 2004

C. Fred Bergsten, Peterson Institute for International Economics

The Resurgent Japanese Economy and a Japan–United States Free Trade Agreement May 12, 2004

http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=208

Now that both the US and Japanese economies are growing robustly, and the exchange rate between their currencies is nearing equilibrium, it is time for the two countries to return to a positive agenda to strengthen their economic (and indeed their overall) relationship. Moreover, their present positions enable them to exercise the joint leadership of the global economy befitting the world’s two largest national economies. In light of the major risks facing the world trading system, the most fruitful area for them to do so is trade policy—by launching negotiations for a free trade area between them.

Both Japan and the United States have dramatically reversed their trade policies in recent years. Both have traditionally been strong advocates of the multilateral trading system, rejecting preferential pacts and criticizing those adopted by the European Community and others. Both, however, have now begun aggressive programs of regional and bilateral liberalization.

The United States started with Canada in 1988 and NAFTA in 1994. It has recently completed agreements with 10 more countries (including five in Central America) and is now negotiating actively with about 10 more. It is also seeking a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) with 34 nations in the Western Hemisphere.

Japan has completed only one bilateral agreement, with Singapore, but is actively pursuing several others (Korea, Mexico, Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines) as well as a regional initiative with ASEAN. It is also involved in officially sanctioned studies of a comprehensive East Asia Free Trade Area (the “10 + 3” initiative), or EAFTA, with ASEAN, China, and Korea.

These American and Japanese initiatives will have important effects on trade flows, and trade relations, between them. NAFTA already discriminates significantly against Japan and was a major motivation for Japan to launch its FTA effort with Mexico. US pursuit of FTAs elsewhere in Asia, already with Thailand but potentially (as advocated by several key Senators and Congressmen) with Korea and even Taiwan, would have much greater impact on Japan and virtually force Japan to seek its own FTA with the United States.

Likewise, any Japanese FTAs with major Asian countries would have sizable repercussions on the United States and induce it to seek equal treatment. A comprehensive EAFTA would immediately cost the United States about $25 billion annually in lost exports with much more to follow as investment was diverted to the region. Even a Japanese bilateral deal with Korea, a major trading partner of the United States, would probably be significant enough to induce the United States to seek equal treatment.

Hence there is a strong case for Japan and the United States, as they pursue their numerous bilateral FTAs with other countries, to anticipate these developments and to avoid the increasingly serious frictions that will otherwise affect their relationship, by launching a bilateral FTA negotiation themselves. Such an initiative, which could be labeled a “barrier-free economic relationship” like the one that the Trans-Atlantic Business Dialogue is seeking for the Europe–United States economic relationship, would also have numerous positive effects.

AT CP Links to Politics


Congress finds an FTA with Japan attractive for economic and alliance benefits

Bergsten 2004

C. Fred Bergsten, Peterson Institute for International Economics

The Resurgent Japanese Economy and a Japan–United States Free Trade Agreement May 12, 2004

http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=208

For the United States, there would be enormous gains in pursuing an FTA to address “behind the border” barriers to true market access in numerous sectors in Japan. For the American Congress, an FTA with a major trading partner—especially a large purchaser of agricultural products—would be far more attractive than the currently planned agreements with Bahrain, the Dominican Republic, or even Thailand. Such an agreement would provide an enormous boost to United States Trade Representative Robert Zoellick’s strategy of “competitive liberalization” and a major boost to reviving the Doha Round of multilateral liberalization in the World Trade Organization by raising the alternative specter of major trade discrimination emanating from the world’s two largest economies. On the geopolitical side, an FTA with Japan would of course strengthen the most important US alliance in the region and help sustain domestic political support for American engagement in Asia.

AT CP Links to Politics


Fears of being left out for policymakers to enthusiastically push agreements

Gordon 2008

Bernard K., National Interest “Solving the Free Trade Fiasco” June 2, 2008

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=17780

The result is a genuine quandary, because no serious person believes the United States will or can turn its back on its deep involvement with international trade. Even so, our constant railing about nonlevel playing fields and other nations’ weak or nonexistent labor and environment laws have fed a trade-victimization fire among Americans. A partial way out of the problem, largely crafted by former–Special Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, has been to create “special” trade pacts with special partners—partners who could be relied on or leaned on to follow the administration’s lead on trade policy while buying quantities of U.S. goods.

That’s the policy that gave us “free trade agreements” (FTAs). We have them now with Singapore, Australia, Chile, Peru and some others, as well as the FTA deals with Colombia and South Korea that Congress has yet to approve. Waiting in the wings are trade pacts being negotiated or hoped for with Malaysia and Thailand; a category that applies also to several in the Middle East.

Yet this approach carries several big troubles, among them that the other major trade powers have not stood still while the United States embarked on its bilateral and regional efforts. China, and to a much-lesser extent Japan, have built their own trade-agreement webs in East Asia, and the EU has lately begun similar activity in several world regions. The result is that the United States has had to play catch-up ball in this new trade game, a situation that has produced its own dynamic. Many now cite the danger of being “left out” of a growing and worldwide pattern of bilateral and regional trade deals, and on that basis they argue for more such American-sponsored deals.




AT CP Links to Politics


The Link Turn outweighs the Link – media spin makes policymakers and the public eager to cash in on bilateral agreements

Gordon 2008

Bernard K., National Interest “Solving the Free Trade Fiasco” June 2, 2008

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=17780

Lately, however, under the twin pressures of tough bargaining by projected partners and the need to keep up with the widening pattern of other nations’ FTAs, the future of this “gold standard” template has been put in doubt. A powerful indication came last December, at a Washington meeting that dealt with East Asian economic integration. Ambassador Karam Bhatia, who until just weeks before had been deputy U.S. trade representative, was a featured speaker and was asked why the United States had not completed more East Asian trade agreements. He agreed the United States was “lagging” in this field, and then added that much of the reason was that “ours are of high quality.” Then, in a clear reference to the labor and environmental clauses that are now regularly added to America’s trade agreements, Ambassador Bhatia urged the need for what he called “separate templates.”



No serious person believes the United States will or can turn its back on its deep involvement with international trade.

That call to trim or dilute America’s high-standard FTAs will be repeated, because policy makers will continue to warn that Washington risks being “left out” of the competition to build more trade pacts. The combination will represent quite a challenge, because the domestic demands for which America’s FTA standards precisely are designed will come into conflict with the need to keep up with the East Asian trade competition. How that problem is managed will be closely watched by Congress, a point recently made by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), the senior Republican on the Senate’s East Asian and Pacific Subcommittee. At the December meeting on Asian Economic Integration, Murkowski acknowledged of course that a spate of special trade arrangements now characterizes East Asia, but she traced its roots principally to America’s own post-NAFTA expansion of the FTA concept. Indeed, she concluded that this new American trade-policy problem is the result, in her words, of our “own doing.”

Senator Murkowski reminded her audience that years earlier, a prominent Japanese leader explicitly and authoritatively cautioned the United States not to go beyond NAFTA, and that to do so would bring predictable and undesirable consequences. That warning was delivered in 1991 to Henry Kissinger by Ryutaro Hashimoto (then Japan’s finance minister and later its prime minister) in a meeting that dealt in part with a then-current Malaysian proposal for an “East Asian Caucus.” When Hashimoto later wrote about it he reported telling the former secretary of state that although as Japan’s finance minister he didn’t like the Malaysian idea, if the United States nevertheless went beyond NAFTA, especially in Asia, Japan and others would inevitably do the same.

That of course is what followed, in a chain of events that brought American policy makers first to worry about being left out of Asia’s burgeoning trade-agreement network, and then to recommend tactical shifts that would allow the United States to create more such agreements. For that to take place new support from the public and Congress will be needed, and in early 2007 a gush of press reports and editorials appeared that were clearly designed for that purpose. All emphasized, as a Washington Post editorial put it last year, that “U.S. exports to the handful of countries with which there are free-trade agreements are booming disproportionately” (emphasis added).


START WARMING IMPACT


Ratification is necessary to maintain momentum for Megatons to Megawatts type initiatives—failure ensures electricity price shocks and warming

Kramer 2009 [Andrew E., NYT, “Power for U.S. From Russia’s Old Nuclear Weapons,” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-environment/10nukes.html]

MOSCOW — What’s powering your home appliances?

For about 10 percent of electricity in the United States, it’s fuel from dismantled nuclear bombs, including Russian ones.

It’s a great, easy source” of fuel, said Marina V. Alekseyenkova, an analyst at Renaissance Capital and an expert in the Russian nuclear industry that has profited from the arrangement since the end of the cold war.

But if more diluted weapons-grade uranium isn’t secured soon, the pipeline could run dry, with ramifications for consumers, as well as some American utilities and their Russian suppliers.

Already nervous about a supply gap, utilities operating America’s 104 nuclear reactors are paying as much attention to President Obama’s efforts to conclude a new arms treaty as the Nobel Peace Prize committee did.



In the last two decades, nuclear disarmament has become an integral part of the electricity industry, little known to most Americans.

Salvaged bomb material now generates about 10 percent of electricity in the United States — by comparison, hydropower generates about 6 percent and solar, biomass, wind and geothermal together account for 3 percent.

Utilities have been loath to publicize the Russian bomb supply line for fear of spooking consumers: the fuel from missiles that may have once been aimed at your home may now be lighting it.

But at times, recycled Soviet bomb cores have made up the majority of the American market for low-enriched uranium fuel. Today, former bomb material from Russia accounts for 45 percent of the fuel in American nuclear reactors, while another 5 percent comes from American bombs, according to the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade association in Washington.

Treaties at the end of the cold war led to the decommissioning of thousands of warheads. Their energy-rich cores are converted into civilian reactor fuel.

In the United States, the agreements are portrayed as nonproliferation treaties — intended to prevent loose nukes in Russia.

In Russia, where the government argues that fissile materials are impenetrably secure already, the arms agreements are portrayed as a way to make it harder for the United States to reverse disarmament.

The program for dismantling and diluting the fuel cores of decommissioned Russian warheads — known informally as Megatons to Megawatts — is set to expire in 2013, just as the industry is trying to sell it forcefully as an alternative to coal-powered energy plants, which emit greenhouse gases.

Finding a substitute is a concern for utilities today because nuclear plants buy fuel three to five years in advance.

One potential new source is warheads that would become superfluous if the United States and Russia agree to new cuts under negotiations to renew the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires on Dec. 5.

Such negotiations revolve around the number of deployed weapons and delivery vehicles. There is no requirement in the treaty

[continues]

START WARMING IMPACT

[continued]

that bomb cores be destroyed. That is negotiated separately.

For the industry, that means that now, as in the past, there will be no direct correlation between the number of warheads decommissioned and the quantity of highly enriched uranium or plutonium, also used in weapons, that the two countries declare surplus.

(This summer, Mr. Obama and President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia agreed to a new limit on delivery vehicles of 500 to 1,100 and a limit on deployed warheads as low as 1,500. The United States now has about 2,200 nuclear warheads and the Russians 2,800.)

Mr. Medvedev has reaffirmed Russia’s commitment to a 2000 agreement to dispose of plutonium, and both countries plan to convert that into reactor fuel as well.

An American diplomat and an official with a federal nuclear agency in Washington have confirmed, separately, that the two countries are quietly negotiating another agreement to continue diluting Russia’s highly enriched uranium after the expiration of Megatons to Megawatts, using some or all of the material from warheads likely to be taken out of the arsenals.

The government officials were not authorized to publicly discuss these efforts.

This possible successor deal to Megatons to Megawatts is known in the industry as HEU-2, for a High Enriched Uranium-2, and companies are rooting for it, according to Jeff Combs, president and owner of Ux Consulting, a company tracking uranium fuel pricing.

“You can look at it like a couple of very large uranium mines,” he said of the fissile material that would result from the program.

American reactors would not shut down without a deal; utilities could turn to commercial imports, which would most likely be much more expensive.

Enriching raw uranium is more expensive than converting highly enriched uranium to fuel grade.

To make fuel for electricity-generating reactors, uranium is enriched to less than 5 percent of the isotope U-235. To make weapons, it is enriched to about 90 percent U-235.

The United States Enrichment Corporation, a private company spun off from the Department of Energy in the 1990s, is the treaty-designated agent on the Russian imports. It, in turn, sells the fuel to utilities at prevailing market prices, an arrangement that at times has angered the Russians.

Since Megatons to Megawatts has existed, American utilities operating nuclear power plants, like Pacific Gas & Electric or Constellation Energy, have benefited as the abundance of fuel that came onto the market drastically reduced overall prices and created savings that were ultimately passed along to consumers and shareholders.

Nuclear industry giants like Areva, the French company; the United States Enrichment Corporation and Nuclear Fuel Services, another American company; and Rosatom, the Russian state nuclear corporation, are deeply involved in recycling weapons material and will need new supplies to continue that side of their businesses.

In the United States, domestic weapons recycling programs are smaller in scale and would be no replacement for Megatons for Megawatts. The Nuclear Fuel Services, in Erwin, Tenn., in 2005 began diluting uranium from the 217 tons the government declared surplus; so far 125 tons have been processed. It is used at the Tennessee Valley Authority plant.


START WARMING IMPACT


Warming causes extinction.

Tickell, 8-11-2008 (Oliver, Climate Researcher, The Gaurdian, “On a planet 4C hotter, all we can prepare for is extinction”, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/11/climatechange)

We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction. The collapse of the polar ice caps would become inevitable, bringing long-term sea level rises of 70-80 metres. All the world's coastal plains would be lost, complete with ports, cities, transport and industrial infrastructure, and much of the world's most productive farmland. The world's geography would be transformed much as it was at the end of the last ice age, when sea levels rose by about 120 metres to create the Channel, the North Sea and Cardigan Bay out of dry land. Weather would become extreme and unpredictable, with more frequent and severe droughts, floods and hurricanes. The Earth's carrying capacity would be hugely reduced. Billions would undoubtedly die. Watson's call was supported by the government's former chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, who warned that "if we get to a four-degree rise it is quite possible that we would begin to see a runaway increase". This is a remarkable understatement. The climate system is already experiencing significant feedbacks, notably the summer melting of the Arctic sea ice. The more the ice melts, the more sunshine is absorbed by the sea, and the more the Arctic warms. And as the Arctic warms, the release of billions of tonnes of methane a greenhouse gas 70 times stronger than carbon dioxide over 20 years – captured under melting permafrost is already under way. To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth.



START WARMING IMPACT



Higher energy prices would hurt the economy

Energy Tech Stocks, June 30th, 2008

U.S. Power Agency Warns High Electricity Prices Could Plague America ‘For Years to Come’, http://energytechstocks.com/wp/?p=1396



America’s federal power agency has warned that high power prices could plague the nation “for years to come.” Citing high commodity prices for natural gas and coal, which were the fuel sources for 18% and 50%, respectively, of U.S. electricity generation in 2007, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) said this “may be the beginning of significantly higher power prices that will last for years to come. The agency didn’t say exactly how high it thinks prices could rise, but EnergyTechStocks.com has learned that one major U.S. electric utility is now assuming in its internal forecasts that power prices in its region will double within five years or less. The FERC assessment, rendered on June 19, is particularly worrisome since sky-high electric rates would appear to represent an even greater threat to the U.S. economy than high gasoline prices. That’s because electricity is an even more pervasive aspect of American economic life than gasoline. Indeed, after the oil shocks of the 1970s, all American business essentially became electrified in order to improve efficiency, meet new environmental regulations, and minimize exposure to another oil shock. With U.S. presidential candidate John McCain now leading the charge for cars and trucks that run on electricity, the prospect of sharply higher electric rates for years to come could put a dent in this promising alternative approach to personal transportation. In discussing the future of power on June 19, FERC chairman Joseph Kelliher outlined what might be described as a “no-win” situation that the U.S. finds itself in. He reportedly said, The United States cannot simultaneously make the massive investments necessary to assure our electricity supply, make additional large investments to confront climate change, and lower electricity prices. Doing so would likely result in failure.” For a U.S. energy official to make such a dour public statement is extraordinary – and a clear warning to investors that, as much as inflationary pressures are starting to hit the U.S. economy, worse lies ahead.

Economic collapse causes global nuclear war.

Walter Russell Mead, Summer 1992. Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, NEW PERSPECTIVES QUARTERLY, p. 28..



But what if it can't? What if the global economy stagnates - or even shrinks? In that case, we will face a new period of international conflict: South against North, rich against poor. Russia, China, India - these countries with their billions of people and their nuclear weapons will pose a much greater danger to world order than Germany and Japan did in the '30s.

Yüklə 109 Kb.

Dostları ilə paylaş:




Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©azkurs.org 2022
rəhbərliyinə müraciət

    Ana səhifə