An Urban's Rural View

People who on principle oppose free-trade agreements also generally oppose trade-promotion authority, which enables a president to negotiate trade agreements subject only to an up-or-down vote by Congress. No amendments, just yea or nay.

People who on principle support free-trade deals generally support TPA, also known as "fast track" authority.

But what if you're among those who want to see the details of an agreement before deciding whether to support or oppose it? What should you think of TPA?

That's an important question for farmers and ranchers these days. The U.S. is negotiating a free-trade Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, with 11 Asian-Pacific nations. One of them, Japan, imported $13.5 billion in ag products from the U.S. in 2012 but maintains barriers keeping out what could be billions more.

Japan is clinging to those barriers in the talks. Differences between the U.S. and Japan on ag issues are said to be one of the things holding up a final 12-nation deal. Meanwhile, a bill has been introduced in Congress to give the president fast-track authority.

In December, 17 major agriculture groups warned U.S. negotiators not to give in to the Japanese. "It will," the groups' letter concluded, "ultimately be difficult for our organizations to support a TPP agreement with Japan that does not include comprehensive trade liberalization for all agricultural sectors (http://tiny.cc/…)."

Yet most of these groups are members of the Trade Benefits America coalition, which is pro-TPA. So why, if they're worried they'll get a TPP deal they don't like, do they support an arrangement denying Congress the right to amend it? Why don't they join the National Farmers Union in the anti-fast-track lane?

I have no affiliation with and can't speak for any of these groups, but I can point out a salient fact: Without TPA, there's much less chance there will be a trade deal for Congress to amend.

To understand why, imagine you're a negotiator for a country dealing with the U.S. If Congress can -- and likely will --demand still more concessions while rolling back some of the gains you win, you cannot offer your bottom-line terms. You have to save something for the next round of the negotiations, when your American counterpart comes back with, "Congress made some changes in the deal we reached. What do you think?"

But if you give too little at the outset, you may never reach a deal your counterpart feels comfortable taking back to Congress. It becomes a complex interchange and the odds of miscalculation are high. You may even decide it isn't worth negotiating at all.

It isn't clear at this point that Congress will give the president fast-track authority. President Obama says it's a priority, but many Congressional Democrats are reluctant. Many of them would be just as happy if the TPP talks fail.

The farm groups are in a different position. Wishing to see what a TPP deal would look like, they favor TPA. They know it's possible the deal will disappoint. In the inevitable tradeoffs between sectors, the U.S. negotiating team could end up getting less for ag and more for high tech or some other industry.

The farm groups say they're prepared to urge a nay vote if ag gets too little. That's bargaining talk on their part, aimed at putting pressure on the U.S. negotiating team -- and giving that team leverage with the Japanese. But there's no reason to think they're bluffing. They know there's risk in a yes-no vote: If other interest groups like the deal, Congress could approve it despite ag opposition.

It's a risk they're prepared to take, for if they don't they risk not getting to look at an agreement that might give U.S. ag exports a big boost.

If nothing else, passage of fast-track authority would allow two propositions to be tested: How much does Japan really want a TPP deal? And how much clout does agriculture really wield in Washington?

Oh, and a third: How hard is the president willing to fight for this priority? Stay tuned.

Urban Lehner

urbanity@hotmail.com

(ES)

© Copyright 2014 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.