[Reporter’s Notebook] CPTPP Without Explanation... A Government That Hedges Before the Public

Discussions on joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) have quietly resurfaced. Through its economic growth strategy, the government has hinted at a shift in its trade policy by mentioning "exploring the possibility of joining," "creating conditions to resume free trade agreement (FTA) negotiations with Mexico," and "improving the Rural Community Cooperation Fund system." There is also a growing sense that Korea can no longer ignore the CPTPP as the international trade environment is being restructured. Minister of Trade, Industry and Energy Kim Jeonggwan has effectively restarted the debate, stating, "We will begin a full-scale review of whether to join, the scope, timing, and strategy for pursuing membership."

Trade experts cite international rationales such as diplomacy, security, market accessibility, and supply chain stability as the main reasons for joining the CPTPP. With the World Trade Organization (WTO) system weakened, many analysts argue that aligning with a bloc-based trade system would benefit Korea as an export-oriented country. Judging solely by necessity, their arguments are quite persuasive.

However, the public sees things differently. For most people, the CPTPP is understood in terms of sectoral market opening and cost adjustment issues. More specifically, it is perceived as "opening up agricultural and fisheries products," "Japanese Fukushima seafood," and "damage to farmers and fishers." Public sentiment toward Japanese seafood remains cold following the release of contaminated water from Fukushima. The opening of the agricultural and fisheries markets is also an issue directly linked to the livelihoods of farmers and fishers and the regional economy.

The government's proposed improvement of the Rural Community Cooperation Fund system is certainly an adjustment mechanism, but it clearly has limitations in addressing both conflicting interests and emotional concerns. Nevertheless, the government's explanations remain procedural, using phrases such as "under review," "possibility of joining," "creating conditions," and "efforts to build consensus." The public's questions-"Why now?" "How much market opening will there be?" "How will farmers and fishers be compensated?" and "How will Fukushima seafood be managed?"-still go unanswered.

It is not that the government is silent because it does not understand the need for the CPTPP. Rather, it is because providing the necessary explanations is burdensome. This issue is entangled with the agricultural and fisheries industries, regional economies, and public sentiment, resulting in significant political and social costs. Since the government is not willing to bear these costs on behalf of the public, it has chosen to gauge reactions rather than persuade.

President Lee Jaemyung's scheduled visit to Japan on January 13 cannot avoid this issue either. Japan is a key member of the CPTPP and effectively serves as a gatekeeper for membership. Issues such as opening the fisheries market, Fukushima seafood, import inspections, and sensitive products will inevitably intersect at the diplomatic table. This is precisely why the government cannot simply address the matter with the phrase "efforts to build consensus."

Trade policy without adjustment and clear communication to the public breeds resistance, not consensus. This issue is far too complex to bypass public engagement. What is needed now is not diplomatic rhetoric, but the courage to honestly explain the situation to the people.