US turns up heat on allies to open farm markets – 조선일보

US Agricultural Export Strategy: An Analysis of its Impact on Global Trade and Sustainable Development Goals

1. Overview of Shifting US Trade Policy

The United States is intensifying pressure on key allied nations, including South Korea and Japan, to liberalize their agricultural markets. This strategic pivot is a direct response to significant market access challenges in China and Latin America. This approach raises critical questions regarding its alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those concerning international partnerships, food security, and economic equality.

• The policy shift prioritizes securing new markets for US agricultural products like beef and rice.
• This strategy impacts progress toward SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) by leveraging diplomatic pressure on allies rather than fostering collaborative, mutually beneficial trade frameworks.
• It creates a tension between the pursuit of national economic growth (related to SDG 8) and the global commitment to building resilient and equitable food systems (SDG 2).

2. Case Analysis: US Beef Exports to South Korea

2.1 Market Dynamics and Economic Projections

South Korea has emerged as a critical market for US beef exporters amidst declining access to China. This increased focus is supported by specific economic modeling aimed at further market liberalization.

1. US beef exports to South Korea surged to 25,228 metric tons in May, a 39% increase year-on-year.
2. Conversely, exports to China collapsed by 91% during the same period, falling to just 1,398 tons due to punitive tariffs and restrictions.
3. A US Meat Export Federation analysis estimates that lifting South Korea’s age restriction on imported beef (from cattle over 30 months) could generate an additional $110 million to $175 million in annual revenue for US exporters.

2.2 Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): While this trade increases the availability of a specific food product, the pressure risks undermining South Korea’s sovereign efforts to maintain a diverse and resilient local food production system, a key target for ensuring long-term food security.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The policy is designed to support the livelihoods of American farmers. However, it simultaneously threatens the economic viability of South Korean cattle farmers, potentially hindering local economic growth and stability.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): The dispute over beef age restrictions highlights differing national standards for food safety and production. A sustainable approach under SDG 12 would involve collaborative efforts to establish production standards that protect consumer health and promote sustainable livestock practices globally.

3. Case Analysis: US Pressure on Japan’s Rice Market

3.1 Policy Objectives and Projections

The US is applying renewed pressure on Japan to open its historically protected rice market, with the US International Trade Commission (ITC) providing analyses to quantify the potential benefits for American producers.

1. The US administration has publicly criticized Japan’s protectionist policies, urging an expansion of rice imports.
2. An ITC report projects that a 50% increase in Japan’s tariff-free rice import quota would boost US rice exports by 7.1% (approximately 97,000 tons).
3. This market opening is projected to increase income for American rice farmers by $59.5 million.

3.2 Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): As a staple food, rice is central to Japan’s food security and cultural identity. Coercive market liberalization could jeopardize Japan’s self-sufficiency and the stability of its primary food supply, running counter to the goals of SDG 2.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): This dynamic exemplifies trade pressure exerted by a major economy on an allied partner, which can reinforce inequalities within the global trading system. It risks disadvantaging smaller-scale Japanese farmers relative to large-scale American agribusiness.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The use of targeted, product-specific economic modeling by a state body to justify political pressure on a partner nation challenges the principles of fair, transparent, and predictable international relations.

4. Conclusion: Reconciling National Interests with Global Sustainability

The current US agricultural trade strategy, while focused on achieving domestic economic objectives under SDG 8, presents significant challenges to the achievement of broader Sustainable Development Goals in partner countries. A more sustainable path forward requires balancing national interests with global commitments.

1. Future trade policies should be developed through collaborative frameworks that embody the spirit of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals), prioritizing mutual benefit over unilateral pressure.
2. A balanced approach is necessary to ensure that export growth does not undermine the food security, local agricultural economies, and sustainable farming practices of trading partners, as envisioned in SDG 2 and SDG 8.
3. Trade negotiations must explicitly integrate sustainability criteria, including the environmental impacts of global food supply chains and the promotion of responsible production and consumption patterns as outlined in SDG 12.
4. The international community must remain vigilant that trade policies do not exacerbate inequalities between and within nations, ensuring that the benefits of global trade are distributed equitably in line with SDG 10.

Relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

1. SDG 2: Zero Hunger

   • The article focuses on the international trade of agricultural products, specifically beef and rice. This directly connects to SDG 2, which aims to end hunger, achieve food security, improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture. The discussion about market access, tariffs, and quotas for essential food items is central to the goal’s objective of ensuring stable and open food markets.

2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth

   • The article highlights the economic implications of trade policies for American farmers. It quantifies the potential economic gains, such as an additional “$110 million to $175 million in annual revenue” from beef exports to South Korea and a “$59.5 million” increase in income for American rice farmers from expanded access to Japan’s market. This relates to SDG 8’s aim to promote sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth.

3. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • The core issue discussed is international trade negotiations and policy pressure between the United States, South Korea, and Japan. This falls under SDG 17, which emphasizes the need for global partnerships to achieve the goals. The article details the dynamics of bilateral trade relationships and the push for a more open, non-discriminatory, and equitable trading system, which is a key aspect of this goal.

Specific SDG Targets

1. Target 2.b: Correct and prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world agricultural markets.

   • This target is directly addressed through the article’s focus on the U.S. pressuring allies to open their agricultural markets. The specific issues mentioned, such as Japan’s rice import quota, South Korea’s tariff on rice, and the age restriction on U.S. beef imports, are all examples of the “trade restrictions and distortions” that this target aims to correct. The article also mentions China imposing “punitive tariffs of up to 147 percent on American beef,” which is another example of a market distortion.

2. Target 17.10: Promote a universal, rules-based, open, non-discriminatory and equitable multilateral trading system.

   • The entire narrative of the article revolves around efforts to liberalize trade and reduce protectionist measures. The U.S. criticism of Japan’s “protectionist stance” on rice and the push for South Korea to “further open its rice market” are attempts, from the U.S. perspective, to move towards a more open trading system as envisioned by this target. The mention of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) report analyzing the effects of quota increases also points to the rules-based aspect of trade policy.

Implied Indicators for Measuring Progress

1. Indicators for Target 2.b and 17.10

   • Agricultural export volumes: The article provides specific figures that can be used as indicators, such as U.S. beef exports to South Korea reaching “25,228 metric tons” and exports to China falling to “1,398 tons.” Tracking these volumes over time measures market access.
   • Tariff rates: The article mentions South Korea’s “preferential 5 percent tariff” on rice and China’s “punitive tariffs of up to 147 percent” on beef. Changes in these tariff levels would be a direct indicator of progress in reducing trade barriers.
   • Import quotas: The article specifies Japan’s “tariff-free rice quota—currently set at 682,000 tons annually” and South Korea’s limit of “408,700 tons annually.” An increase in these quotas, as proposed by the U.S., would indicate progress towards market liberalization.
   • Non-tariff barriers: South Korea’s policy “banning beef from cattle older than 30 months” is a clear non-tariff barrier. Its removal would be a key indicator of a more open market.
   • Economic value of trade: The projected increase in revenue for U.S. exporters (“$110 million to $175 million” for beef, “$59.5 million” for rice) serves as an economic indicator measuring the impact of removing trade restrictions.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: news.nate.com