4. TPP

Question from Iwakami, freelancer: I would like to ask a question on the TPP. I believe that so far, you have continuously said that concluding the TPP is necessary to expand and enhance the free trade system. Also, there are reports every now and then that with regard to this issue, about the only sector that would be affected would be the agricultural sector. However, it has recently been revealed that 24 industrial sectors would be affected in various ways, and at the same time, concerns have begun to be increasingly voiced. For example, the medical and judicial systems are the systems that support the daily lives of the people, and although they are not directly related to trade, it has also been revealed that they will be adversely affected, and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations and the Japan Medical Association (JMA) have started to voice concerns. In addition, at the very footsteps of the Democratic Party of Japan, there has emerged the "Shinchou-ni-Kangaeru Kai" (a group of lawmakers urging the government to cautiously consider the TPP issue), and this is about to become an official Diet members' league. Former Minister of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries Masahiko Yamada is the chairman of this group, which has energetically held meetings, and as if to stop the TPP, calls for a review are increasingly growing. In consideration of these points, please tell us once again your view on whether the TPP is really necessary or whether there is justification.

● Answer from Minister of MOFA: While it has been reported by some news media, I had a dinner at Ambassador Roos' official residence. Ambassador Roos invited me to a dinner for the family or couples. As he said he would not mind if I brought over another couple, the six of us, including the Chief Cabinet Secretary and his wife, had a dinner. This topic came up during that occasion, and what I found very interesting about Ambassador Roos' comments was that while there are reports saying that the United States were coercing Japan into joining the TPP, they were completely wrong. As this is also what I have been saying in response to interpellations at the Diet, Ambassador Roos made comments that backed this up. In other words, he said there were cautious views in the US side that if Japan joins the TPP, the United States might have to comply with Japan's demands.I believe that with regard to matters of such nature, under circumstances in which information is not fully disclosed, there is an aspect in which changing the current system of trade or the possibility of that is totally blown out of proportion. For example, although the Your Party is saying that it is in favor of the TPP, lawmaker Ryuhei Kawada, who is a member of Your Party, is a victim of AIDS-tainted blood products, and he asserted at the Diet plenary session that the universal healthcare system should be maintained. Mr. Kawada’s argument sounds as if Japan were to join the TPP, it would have to adopt the same system as that of the United States. That would not be free trade; it would be more like integration between countries. As such, I think that the TPP is viewed as some kind of a monster.

For example, even in the EU, where economic integration has been promoted, the healthcare systems are varied depending on the country. In other words, that is the case even with EU, where the economies are integrated. Although ASEAN is also aiming for economic integration by 2015, it is natural for each member to have a different healthcare system as a sovereign country. In the event that the United States should say that if Japan joins the TPP, it must review its healthcare system, then I don’t think that Japan should join the TPP. But I don’t think the United States will make such a demand. Amid this situation, however, discussions will be held on how each side would try to achieve consistency in the process of promoting deregulation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs indeed is playing the central role in gathering relevant information, and we would like to prepare an environment for discussions based on accurate information. Fear spreads because there is not enough information. Yesterday, Ambassador Roos mentioned that there are concerns in the United States that if Japan joins the TPP, various requests presented by Japan might turn the TPP into something that the United States did not envision. As there are similar concerns in Japan, there is an aspect in which both sides are suspicious of each other. I believe that we should firmly conduct information gathering, and, as I mentioned earlier, if there is something that really infringes on Japan's sovereignty, we can negotiate on that, as these are negotiations that we are talking about. Nevertheless, under such circumstances, we can decide not to join, but I do not think such circumstances will happen. Rather than that, I believe that negotiations are about how to have Japan's position successfully incorporated -- that even if this were not about the TPP, negotiations are about reaching a point of mutual compromise in the process of making assertions, be it the ASEAN plus 3 or the ASEAN plus 6 or even when concluding other EPAs and FTAs. In that sense, I believe that with regard to the mission that we have been charged with, it is important to create an environment for conducting discussions that are convincing to the people through thorough information collection and information disclosure and by disclosing sufficient information that would contribute to a decision on Japan’s participation to the TPP.

Question from Iwakami, freelancer: The Japan Medical Association (JMA) has already expressed strong concerns. While the association has clearly expressed concerns that the universal healthcare system would crumble as a result of the expansion of mixed treatment (treatment covered under national health insurance and treatment not covered by national health insurance), please tell us whether you still think that this is groundless apprehension. As you also mentioned information collection, please tell us whether, at the moment, you yourself, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the government have yet to complete gathering sufficient information rather than having completed information gathering and finished making an analysis and judgment.

● Answer from Minister of MOFA: As you are aware, nine countries have expressed intention to participate in the TPP. They have been holding consultations about once a month. They are holding these meetings energetically. Speaking of the conclusion, despite not having expressed an intention to join the TPP, we believe that we have been able to collect a considerable amount of information with cooperation from countries with which we have good relations. However, just as I have responded to interpellations at the Diet, we cannot publicize or disclose information on matters that have yet to be firmed up. In particular, a country that has not decided to join the TPP -- a third party -- cannot disclose information, saying that the nine countries are discussing this and that, when such matters have yet to be firmed up. Nevertheless, the nine countries have provided Japan with a considerable amount of information on such discussions including matters in progress.

As we have not announced that we intend to join the TPP, we cannot disclose information on matters that have yet to be firmed up. Therefore, we are currently only disclosing information that can be disclosed. We understand the concerns of the JMA. As I mentioned earlier, I understand that there are fears about the unknown, in the sense that we do not know what will happen. However, similar to agriculture, putting aside the question of whether Japan joins the TPP, medical expenses will rise as the aging of the population progresses. In order to create a sustainable healthcare system amid this rise in medical expenses, we already have the high-cost medical care expense system, and we may naturally review this system including how it ought to be operated. Therefore, I believe that we indeed need to proactively think about changes in our healthcare system over time as a matter to be discussed separately from the TPP.