A Contract Is a Contract

By Michael Stevens

This comment is about the article entitled ``Taxi Company Serving USFK May Close Doors'' by staff reporter Michael Ha.

Just recently the U.S. Force Korea (USFK) and the U.S. Army and Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES) decided to cancel their contract with the World Cup Arirang Tourism taxis service due to the fact that its 281 drivers were staging a strike and a work slowdown, demanding higher wages for their service.

Yet, for the American military the labor dispute was not their issue to resolve. For them the issue was that the current contract with the Arirang Taxi Company was not honoring its contract and the fault totally rests upon its drivers and the owner of the taxi service. This issue should have been rectified as soon as possible and without affecting the USFK or the AAFES.

This contract was a signed agreement that benefited both the taxi company and the drivers to the point that the company would go bankrupt if they didn't have such an agreement. The drivers were trying to use this fact as leverage in order to force the company to do what they desired but they didn't take in account that cultural differences in doing business in America are sometimes vastly different than Korea which often makes doing business more difficult.

One cultural difference is the fact that Westerners view a contract as being something that is totally binding and that both parties must honor what they have negotiated and agreed upon. Yet many Koreans view the signing of a contract as the starting point of a relationship that is to be modified if and when necessary.

However, the USFK and the AAFES didn't see it that way, and when the Arirang Taxi Company didn't comply with the requirements of their signed agreement the contract was considered terminated. Now it may seem terrible that 218 Korean men may be out of work and a Korean taxi service is facing bankruptcy, but just as Koreans demand that foreign workers including Americans honor their contract or face deportation, so must Korean workers honor their contract with foreign organization or face the consequences of their actions.

This case mirrors the problems that Korea is having with the American beef issue since Korea wants to renegotiate a legal contract that is binding by the international community.

America clearly can't renegotiate since doing so sets a precedent for other countries to follow. America is trying to handle the issue by promising not to send beef over 30 months old and do additional testing, yet many Koreans are still demanding they renegotiate which seems a bit absurd since this country understands and works under the principle of saving face in doing business. It is also interesting to see that the Korean demand for renegotiation is unilateral. They want the U.S. to modify a legal agreement, yet they offer nothing in return. Unfortunately, the international trade community is seeing Korea as an unstable and undesirable trading partner.

The USFK will probably not renegotiate with the Arirang Taxi Service, the most likely reason being that they can no longer trust they will honor any new contract and because the strike caused many problems for the USFK service members and their families.

The same can be said about the U.S. government if this free trade agreement (FTA) falls through ― then the U.S. will most likely not renegotiate any new deal with Korea in the foreseeable future.

So how can the U.S. government or any foreign business or financial institute trust that Korea will honor its commitments if it demands to renegotiate for reasons that are clearly based on emotions, misinformation and lies.

The writer is a student of biblical studies. He can be reached at eslcity@gmail.com