[Reporter’s Notebook]CPTPP: Difficult to Proceed Without Public Persuasion

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

Trade experts cite international factors such as diplomacy, security, market access, and supply chain stability as the rationale 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-driven nation. From the perspective of necessity alone, their arguments are quite persuasive.

However, the public sees things differently. The public understands the CPTPP in terms of sectoral market opening and the costs of adjustment. More specifically, people perceive it as an issue of "opening up agricultural and fisheries markets," "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 agricultural and fisheries markets is also directly linked to the livelihoods of farmers and fishers and the regional economy.

The government's proposed improvement of the Rural Community Win-Win Cooperation Fund system is certainly an adjustment mechanism, but it has clear limitations in simultaneously addressing conflicts of interest and public sentiment. Nevertheless, the government's explanations remain procedural, using expressions such as "under review," "possibility of joining," "creating conditions," and "efforts to build consensus." The questions the public is asking-"Why now?" "How extensive will the market opening be?" "How will farmers and fishers be compensated?" "How will Fukushima seafood be managed?"-still remain unanswered.

It is not that the government is silent because it does not understand the necessity of the CPTPP. Rather, it is because providing the necessary explanations is burdensome. This issue is intertwined with agriculture and fisheries, the regional economy, and public sentiment, making the political and social costs significant. Because the government is unwilling to bear those costs on behalf of the public, it has chosen to gauge public opinion rather than persuade.

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

Trade policy that lacks adjustment and public explanation breeds resistance, not consensus. This issue is far too complex to bypass the public. What is needed now is not diplomatic rhetoric, but the courage to honestly explain the situation to the people.