Protecting agriculture in tariff talks

The deadline for Korea-U.S. tariff negotiations is all but here. On Aug. 1, the United States is set to impose the so-called “reciprocal” tariff on Korean exports — a measure that has been suspended since April.

While the Korean government is making every effort in last-minute talks to safeguard key export industries such as automobiles and steel, the domestic agriculture sector is growing increasingly anxious, as sensitive products like rice and beef remain on the negotiating table.

The U.S. has shown little interest in expanding imports of less sensitive goods, such as corn for fuel use, and is instead pressuring Korea to open its market to symbolic items like rice and beef. This approach has intensified concerns among Korean farmers that agriculture is being used as a bargaining chip in the negotiations.

Amid the mounting controversy, the presidential office has acknowledged U.S. pressure but pledged to minimize concessions in order to protect national industries — though this assurance has done little to alleviate the concerns of the agricultural sector.

More troubling is that other countries have already made concessions on agricultural products in their trade talks with Washington. Japan agreed to import a specified amount of American rice, while Australia accepted an increase in U.S. beef imports. In return, both secured tariff exemptions and industrial support. This raises the question of whether Korea can continue to stand alone in resisting similar demands.

Washington has also called on Korea to lift its ban on U.S. beef from cattle over 30 months or older and to ease quarantine restrictions on American apples and pears. While the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement eliminated tariffs on most U.S. fruits, apples have yet to meet Korea’s strict quarantine standards.

Korea does, however, have a precedent for navigating such challenges. In the free trade agreement signed in 2007, Seoul made several agricultural concessions but offset them with a 23 trillion won ($17.3 billion) package to support farm incomes, modernize facilities and reduce feed costs. This comprehensive program helped ease farmers’ resistance at the time. But most of those initiatives have since expired, and the related budget has been significantly reduced. More concerning today is that some of the products currently under discussion, such as apples, lack any existing support system for domestic producers.

Agriculture is not a sector that can be governed solely by market logic or price competitiveness. It is a vital public good, directly tied to food security, the survival of rural communities and the overall health of the nation. A strategy that prioritizes short-term industrial gains while sidelining agriculture risks undermining the long-term sustainability of Korean society.

The government is set to prepare countermeasures based on the outcome of the tariff negotiations and whether agricultural and livestock products are included. This does not suffice.

The government must change course — now. It should not wait for the negotiations to conclude, but must immediately inform the public about which products are at risk and what protective measures are being prepared. If necessary, it should consult with the National Assembly to begin securing funding and strengthening support systems. Waiting until after a deal is struck to begin damage control will be far too late.

Farmers are already out in the streets, raising their voices. Now it is time for the government to respond. This negotiation must not become yet another case of quiet sacrifice.

The writer is the business desk editor at The Korea Times.