Progress elusive in TPP auto talks: Mori


Japanese and U.S. trade negotiators have failed to make major progress in bridging gaps on auto trade as talks continue on sealing a Pacific Rim free trade initiative, a Japanese official said.

“As we entered a crucial stage, we had many difficult moments,” Takeo Mori, Japanese ambassador in charge of economic diplomacy, told reporters in Washington on Friday after talks with Wendy Cutler, the deputy acting U.S. trade representative.

Mori and Cutler began their latest round of talks on auto trade Wednesday as a separate channel from bilateral negotiations on farm products related to the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership deal. The U.S. has historically had a difficult time getting access to Japan’s auto market, a source of trade friction highlighted by the stark difference in market share.

Mori, deputy director general of the Economic Affairs Bureau of the Foreign Ministry, said he and Cutler thrashed out the legal language of an envisioned agreement. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said in statement Friday that Cutler and Mori “continued to make steady progress and narrow the remaining differences.”

In the TPP-related auto talks the U.S. has urged Japan to open its market further, saying nontariff barriers, such as regulatory standards, prevent American carmakers from expanding sales in Japan. Tokyo usually attributes U.S. sales woes to a lack of models that appeal to its finicky consumers.

  • David E.H. Smith

    I don’t mean to be rude to Mr. Takeo Mori & the Japanese people regarding ambassador Mr. Mori’s (Japan) comment:
    “As we entered a crucial stage, we had many difficult moments…”
    but, hasn’t there only been one crucial stage & that has always been “the secrecy stage”. I think the rest of the world just has a difficult time believing that some of the citizens of Japan haven’t had the opportunity to read the article below & share their considerations with Mr. Mori, et al???


    SECRET TPPartnership, CETA & C-CIT TRIBUNALS due INSIDER TRADING; corp. Canada fears China may Blow “Arrangements” between Can. Lobbyists’ Clients & Parties’ Executives (W.A.D. Accord*)? NON Shareholders HAVE TO PAY the arranged PENALTIES.
    Repatriating off-shore; profits, goods & services contracts, financing, etc. and co-manufacturing still not on the table?
    LINE UP to “PRE” IPOs SHOrtens.

    What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st.

    (CAN) – Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s
    attempts to maintain the secrecy provisions in the Trans Pacific
    Partnership, the Canada – China Investment Treaty (C-CIT; FIPPA) &
    the Canada – European Union CETA may be unravelling by way of the threatened Canadian Senate, et al.

    There are several reasons for the
    secrecy (“omerta”) of the dispute resolution tribunals.
    1) To Protect the parties to the
    treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsors, from having to
    reveal to the non shareholding tax payers the existing arrangements
    that it has with its own government. For instance, the Canadian
    W.A.D. Accord suggests that corporate Canada’s lobbyists pay
    considerations to the executives of the political parties for two
    main reasons:
    A) to promote corporate Canada’s agenda with governing party(ies) by:
    i) reducing its taxes & thus, the “net increase” in taxes for non shareholders
    ii) increase its funding for “economic
    development” which covers the cost of, among other things, the
    present & future advocacy, ie. lobbying & the cost of the
    considerations that corporate Canada pays out, etc. It may be
    regrettable that given the source of the accessed “economic
    development” funds, ie. those 95% – 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers there is a great deal of room for
    discretionary spending & its abuse
    to protect corporate Canada’s agenda by
    paying the other (non governing) political parties considerations in
    order to limit the scope of the “opposition” to manageable
    issues that can be compromised in order that “opposing”
    parties can claim victories (at least a limited victory) for their
    constituents. Under this arrangement both, the politicians & the
    lobbyists’ clients are protected from scrutiny by the role of the
    parties’ executives.

    2) To Protect the parties to the
    treaty, &/or, agreement, ie. corporate sponsor from having to
    reveal to the each others’ corporate sponsors their existing
    arrangements that it has with its own government & thus, each
    counties’ corporate sponsors are not obliged to share the benefits &
    considerations (& future considerations) that they receive from
    their respective governments ie. their non shareholding taxpayers.
    Often the benefits are shared as an inducement to conduct business together in the more convenient jurisdictions.
    3) To Protect the parties to one
    treaty, &/or, agreement (referred to as the “original”
    treaty/agreement) from having to reveal to third parties the nature,
    &/or, details of their “original” arrangements to other
    third parties who may want to enter into a treaty, &/or,
    agreement with either of the parties to the “original”
    agreement/treaty.That is to say, that acquiring & having
    privileged information of an outsiders treaties, &/or, agreements
    will cause contention as the third party will undoubtedly insist upon
    more favorable terms & conditions to a new treaty/agreement than
    the original treaty/agreement. For example; “You did this with
    them, so I insist upon more, or, I’ll deal with them, or, others”.
    The European Union is particularly interested in preventing the
    Canada – European Union CETA from becoming divisive whereby
    individual EU member countries may be enticed, &/or, coerced into
    making preferential, but, “very secretive” side deals with
    corporate Canada, et al.

    By preventing the non shareholding taxpayers from learning about the aforementioned reasons for the tribunals’ secrecy whereby the non shareholding taxpayers pay for the
    increase in the value of the shareholders’ stocks & dividends is
    insider trading & stock manipulation.

    Therefore, corporate Canada, AFN & their traditional media outlets have more than just a vested interest in the continuation of the most vulnerable Canadians (95% – 99% of
    Native & non Native Canadians) deprivation of the information
    such as the comprehensive version of The W.A.D. Accord and the
    comprehensive versions of the Canada – China Investment Treaty, the Canada – European Union CET Agreement, et al, that include the mechanisms, procedures, practices used in the adjudications of the dispute resolution tribunal & its disbursement of its punitive

    It may be regrettable that not all of
    the 95% – 99% most vulnerable, non shareholders are able, &/or,
    willing to move to a sovereign Quebec, or, other jurisdictions, in
    order to:
    1) avoid the “unethical” & “inhumane” (see; The W.A.D. Accord), but, “legal” practices
    2) start getting the relevant & quantitative information regarding the above, et al.

    The issue of the secret tribunals
    raises some interesting questions about the relationship, ie.
    the”secret congress” between the lobbyists’ clients &
    the executives of the political parties which the “congress”
    has absolutely no intention of answering. For instance; what do the above arrangements say about the 95% – 99% of Canadians who are non shareholding tax payers & the version of “democracy”
    that “they” are developing in Canada in the context of the
    growing “global” economy
    what do the above arrangements say
    about the accelerating growth of the disparity of the wealth between the shareholders (1% – 5% of Canadians, et al) & the non
    shareholders (95% – 99% of Canadians), et al?

    What are you, the reader, learning
    about the Canada – China Investment Treaty that will help you to
    ascertain whether the Canada – European Union Agreement is better for you & the non shareholders, or, corporate Canada & its

    What are some of the other questions that the non shareholders need to ask
    who can answer, &/or, is willing to answer (as opposed to “respond” to) their questions that would make the non shareholders informed & consensual participants & direct beneficiaries of the C-CIT & the CETA?

    Have you & your family, friends &
    colleagues sent PM Harper & Mr. DAN HILTON (Executive Director of the Conservative Party), et al, your:



    in order to enhance your opportunity to exculpate yourself from having to pay for:
    1) the aforementioned Compensation that is embodied in The W.A.D. Accord
    2) the costs, penalties, punitive damages that will be derived from the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, the Trans Pacific Partnership, et al?

    In conclusion, it may be regrettable that the C-CI Treaty & the CET Agreement has, so far, been successful at giving corporate Canada & its representatives the much higher degree of legitimacy to their aforementioned secrecy
    (assisted by way of the international cache) that it needs in order
    for them to later, & once again, claim (see; NAFTA) that they are
    doing/did “their best” to protect the non shareholders from
    the over zealousness of their foreign Treaty, Agreement, &/or,
    Partnership counterparts.

    Is it not easier & just prudent to
    discuss the preexisting arrangements & challenges to the Treaty,
    the Agreement, the Partnership, et al, prior to ratifying them in
    order to determine which is more egregious than the other (or, are
    both equally egregious) & thus, avoid any of the secret “dispute”
    resolutions & its “hefty” costs to the beleaguered, non
    shareholding taxpayers, et al? And, how much will the added costs of the C-CIT’s, CETA’s & TPP’s infra structure, punitive penalties,
    etc. increase the erosion of the non shareholders health care,
    educational services, etc. in order to artificially increase the
    value of corporate Canada’s shares & dividends while dramatically
    reducing the non shareholders’ disposable income?

    How much has corporate Canada set aside to defend the CHALLENGES, et al, that corporate Canada & the non
    shareholders are anticipating? How far along are they in collecting
    this fund & how much more does corporate Canada & its
    shareholders need to set aside before the non shareholding taxpayers allow corporate Canada & its representatives to proceed?

    Similarly, due to a psychiatrist’s
    previous linking of the deprivation of The WAD Accord information
    with the unconscionably high rates of despair, disenchantment,
    suicides, unemployment, poverty, etc., that are found in many
    communities across Canada,what are the various different ways that non shareholders can guarantee that corporate Canada & its
    shareholders have enough financial reserves set aside in order to pay for the CHALLENGES by the non shareholders and those who will be the new victims of the aforementioned deprivation of information?

    On the other hand, are there actually any non shareholding taxpayers who think that corporate

    Canada is anxious to explain to them,
    or, corporate China, or, corporate EU, &/or, corporate trans
    Pacific nations, just how effective & lucrative their, corporate
    Canada’s, secretive relationship between:
    1) lobbyists’ of corporate Canada
    2) the executives of the parties that are operating in Canada,
    has been & is continuing to be?

    And, finally, without:
    1) a meaningful “democratic” forum in which the non shareholders can directly question the direct beneficiaries of the Treaty & the Agreement, ie. corporate Canada & its lobbyists, without the fear of recriminations, etc.,
    2) a predetermined list of circumstances whereby corporate Canada can & will terminate the Treaty & the Agreement without penalties, &/or, costs to the harmless non shareholding taxpayers
    3) et al,

    the ratification of the C-CI Treaty & the CET Agreement will eliminate for most Canadians the last remnants
    of “democratically” effecting the treaty/agreement by the
    non shareholding taxpayers
    & thus,
    corporate Canada, et al, will finally be able to give these arrangements the luster of legitimacy that they
    need that is based upon the logic that “It can’t be another
    gilded cage that will cause another economic melt down like the
    “derivative type conspiracy”*** that is continuing to
    debilitate international finance, etc., because there are just too
    many vanguards of industry promoting the public financing of the C-CI Treaty & CET Agreement”.

    Regarding the secrecy of the C-CI Treaty, CET Agreement & TP Partnership arrangements, they are not dissimilar to insider trading (fraud, stock manipulation, et al). In
    this situation the shareholders, who are on “the inside”,
    use secret, &/or, privileged information to make money for
    themselves at the expense of the group that is on the “outside”,
    ie. the non shareholding taxpayers, who are being deprived of the
    aforementioned information & thus, are being deprived of the
    opportunity to enjoy the direct benefits of the treaty/agreement.
    Similarly, some of the means to counter these arrangements are also
    not dissimilar to those counter measures that can remedy insider
    trading & pay punitive damages, etc. to the harmless non
    shareholders. And, while it is likely that the “coveted”
    Chinese investor**** may have enough of the insider information
    regarding the more “unethical”, &/or, “inhumane”
    arrangements in the C-CI Treaty, et al, to navigate the mechanisms of
    the secret dispute resolution tribunal in his favor & at the
    peril of corporate Canada, et al, it may be regrettable that it is
    highly unlikely that the European Union & the nations of the
    Trans Pacific have been as fortunate regarding the CETA & TPP

    This disparity between China’s benefits from the C-CI Treaty & the benefits that the EU, et al, may derive from their CETA will continue to be dangerously contentious.

    And, finally, it may also be
    regrettable that there is yet another vulnerability that corporate
    Canada, especially its Alberta chapter, is particularly desperate to
    be kept secret for as long as possible and it only remains to be seen when it will be most advantageous to “leak” the secret &
    by which party.

    * C-CI Treaty; Canada – China Investment Treaty (FIPA) & CET Agreement; Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement (Canada-European Union)

    ** The W.A.D. Accord; Reference:

    For those who may not be familiar with The WAD Accord, &/or, its recent developments, The Accord can be accessed on line by way of the submission entitled:

    “Towards a More Informed Opinion regarding the Environmental Impact & Context of the NGP (Pipeline), et al”, Researched & Submitted by D.E.H.S., July 24, 2012 to the Enbridge Co.’s NGP Joint Review Panel..
    Ms. Colette Spagnuolo,
    Gateway Process Advisor,
    Northern Gateway Project

    *** “derivative type conspiracy”;
    “The $58 Trillion Elephant in the Room” by Jesse Eisinger.
    Upstart Business Journal, October 15, 2008, 8:00am EDT. Re; the
    “industrialized credit derivatives”


    For the more information that may lead the non shareholders, corporate China and corporate European Union &
    their shareholders & the non shareholders, et al, to a greater
    certainty regarding what corporate Canada may be sharing with you regarding the accessing of the aforementioned, information &
    Canadian natural resources, et al,
    Facebook; “David Smith, Sidney, BC” to access the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
    “The TITLE’ from the facebook List above & David E.H. Smith”.