Seoul and Washington finally made public the much-talked-about full text of their bilateral free trade agreement Friday. It is good, albeit belated, for the two governments to unveil each and every detail of the controversial accord, which has been the target of so much suspicion and misunderstanding in both countries due in part to the delayed disclosure. Not only lawmakers but also academics and businesspeople should read it very carefully for possible supplementation before ratifying it by June 30.
Already, there are reports on the alleged disadvantages Korea suffered, particularly in trade relief measures. Critics say the provision in limiting safeguard measures to once in a decade would prove to be quite unfavorable for Korean farmers. Likewise, the U.S. Congress is reportedly taking issue with the automobile trade, complaining the final accord has failed to reflect the U.S. industry’s demands. But government negotiators on both sides say the full text would dissolve all these ``misunderstanding.’’
There had been much controversy here not only about the contents of the KORUS FTA but also about the delayed _ or half-baked ? disclosure of the text. The situation was little different in the United States, reconfirming excessive secrecy results in unnecessary miscommunication in a democracy. The National Assembly should mobilize all manpower and scrutinize its contents. It is too hasty and politicized for some parties to call for the FTA’s revocation even before reading it.
It is clear the smooth ramification of the FTA would be one of the key legacies for Presidents Roh Moo-hyun and George W. Bush. But there seems to be a delicate difference in their positions. President Bush reiterated his wish Thursday to win approval of free trade pacts with three Latin American nations, but said he wanted to ``further the work we’ve done on Korean free trade agreement.’’ Seoul needs to make it certain whether Bush’s remark refers to the additional or re-negotiations.
It is true no U.S. officials have formally proposed to reopen the nine-month negotiations. The subtle nuance in diplomatic expression notwithstanding, even Korean negotiators have begun to hint at having ``more discussions,’’ however. But any further talks should not aim at non-FTA issues, such as the nearly unlimited and unconditional import of U.S. beef, in which Washington is reportedly more interested than in FTA issues. They’d better not confuse purely trade issues with highly politicized ones.
Korean politicians should be both willing and able to fight for their voters’ interests not in words but in deeds like their U.S. counterparts. Now that the chance has been given, the people would watch how hard they look into the text and find how many problems in it instead of being immersed in premature election politics.