<要旨> また新たな第三者からのコメントです。
 |
「FTAよりWTOを重視すべき」というリンカーンの意見に賛成。 |
 |
津上は日本の役割を誇張していると思うが、日本には大来佐武郎ら戦前に遡るアジア政策の長い歴史があることにも留意すべき。この前史が最近の動きの中で参照されつつある。特に最近の日本ではFTAで中国に負けつつあるという焦燥感が顕著だが、問題はそれが行動につながらないことだ。 |
 |
オーバーホルトが「ASEANの」意思を強調したが、いまASEANに共通する意思があるとは思えない。 |
 |
津上は米国がEAECに反対したことを非難したが、この反対が正当であったことを疑う者はいまい。しかし、津上が「アジア危機の過程で拭いがたい不信感をASEANに残した」と言っているのは正しい。当時の米国の態度はAMFへの反対に代表されるが、大きな後遺症を残した。 |
| （翻訳・文責は津上） |
From:B.K. Gordon
Dear Forum Members:
Toshiya Tsugami's article on the "FTA" issue, in SENTAKU in mid-June, has led to good responses from Bill Overholt, Ed Lincoln and others. It's been especially interesting to me, since trade policy is the field of my current research and writing.The current issue of Foreign Affairs has my article "A High-Risk Trade Policy," and in late 2001 Routledge published America's Trade Follies, my book on FTA's and US foreign policy.
On that basis I strongly agree with Ed Lincoln's judgement that "FTAs [are] an unfortunate fact of current global trade policy making" and "that we are all better off putting more energy into the WTO rather than these regional and bilateral deals."I too reached that conclusion in the Foreign Affairs piece, which called for the US to "end the promotion of regional blocs," and resume instead its role as the principal force behind the WTO.
Nevertheless, we're certain to hear more about FTA's in the region, and a US-Australia FTA is likely to be the first result.Both US Trade Representative Zoellick and the President increasingly see FTA's as rewards for helpful foreign policy steps, and Australia's record in Iraq certainly qualifies.Moreover, as Robyn Lim has also pointed out, PM John Howard wants a US-FTA as part of his legacy,
On Japan, Ed Lincoln was also correct to state that Tsugami's SENTAKU article exaggerated Tokyo's role in this revival of interest in FTA's, though as Ed probably knows, there is a long history in Japan of discussion on issues related to FTA's.It dates from the 1950s work of Kojima and Kitamura, along with Okita Saburo, whose interest is traceable to his prewar days at Prince Konoye's Showa Kenkyukai.(Some of this has been dealt with in the East Asia chapter in America's Trade Follies.)
It is nevertheless true that the early Japanese interest in Asian economic regionalism has been followed up in recent commentaries by editorialists and others.Several have warned that Tokyo is in danger of "losing out" to China as a result of this spate of FTA activity. Nikkei made that point in November 2002, when it commented that China's ASEAN-FTA proposal generated a sense of alarm and irritation among the government officials who accompanied Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi." There have been many similar comments, but none is likely to lead to action, primarily for reasons located partly but not altogether in the Fisheries and Agriculture Ministry.Even the "FTA" Tokyo signed with Singapore excludes agriculture, though Singapore has no agricultural sector worth mentioning---other than its export of tropical fish!And while there is now much talk--though mainly in Korea--about a Japan-Korea FTA, that too is likely to go nowhere, for reasons likewise rooted in both nations' farming sectors.
Bill Overholt's comment on ASEAN and the FTA issue deserves a brief response.I have the greatest respect for Bill's work, especially on China and Hong Kong, but I believe his reference to what "ASEAN prefers" is wide of the mark. These days there really is no "ASEAN" view on these subjects, particularly with Indonesia having turned largely inward. Whatever else can be said about the Suharto era, a due regard for the regional environment was one of its positive features, and it was especially burnished by former Foreign Minister Alex Aletas.
Not so these days, and there is no point in looking for any alternative "ASEAN" leadership in Thailand, Malaysia, or the Philippines.That leaves only Singapore, where solid thinking does of course take place, but Singapore initiatives will never be accepted by the others--least of all by Malaysia/Indonesia.And of course the so-called ASEAN FTA ("AFTA") is going nowhere, for reasons beginning in Malaysia but responded to as well by Thailand.
Two final points.Toshiya Tsugami responded (on 27 June) to Bill Overholt by arguing that "it was a huge mistake for the U.S. to have once strongly opposed Premier Mahathir's EAEC idea in '90 "
Few, however, would agree that former Secretary of State Baker's opposition to the EAEC was a mistake.The reason was that it clearly sought to create a dividing line in the Pacific, from which not only the US, but also Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would have been excluded.That's why Mahathir's "caucus" proposal was quickly labeled "A caucus without Caucasians."
Tsugami is however correct that the US has "given Asians an inerasable impression of its lack of understanding of Asia" and its lack of "sympathy in the course of the Asian economic crisis? But the catalyst was not its position on the EAEC, but the US posture toward the 1997-98 economic crisis.The key issue was Former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers' quashing of the idea of an "Asian Monetary Fund," a proposal strongly backed by Eisuke Sakakibara (aka "Mr. Yen").Those steps indeed left a troubling legacy with which the US will need to come to grips.
I'll conclude by emphasizing that while I have only the greatest respect for Ed Lincon's work on the Japanese economy, I'll pretend I didn't see his 19 June comment that "Finally I may be the only one saying this besides Jagdish Bhagwati, but I think FTAs are a bad idea？Yes, Bhagwati, along with Anne Krueger, has been ahead of us all on these issues, but they've not been alone. In a couple of articles in the mid-90s in The National Interest I wrote about the foreign policy foolishness--from a US perspective-- of FTA's, and followed that in the "Natural Market Fallacy" in Foreign Affairs in 1998.That pointed to the likely errors in the US effort to build a "Free Trade Area for the Americas (the "FTAA").
To bring this back to Japan, it was Ryutaro Hashimoto who told us in his book Vision of Japan, that in 1991 he warned Henry Kissinger that " if the United States strengthens its posture towards forming a protectionist bloc by extending NAFTA and closing off South America and North America, then Japan will have to emphasize its position as an Asia-Pacific country.This will inevitably alter the Japan-U.S. relationship？So please do not force us into such a corner."
hat's quite a warning, with obvious implications for today!
