Working-group officials of Korea and the U.S. will meet soon to discuss unresolved issues in their bilateral free trade agreement.
Yet the atmosphere in the two countries can hardly be more different: The U.S. side ― industries and politicians ― is making a slew of trade demands to the administration. Here in Korea, so few trade-related comments are being made by bureaucrats and legislators that the FTA seems to be an issue of another world.
So much so that third-party observers might think the so-called KORUS FTA has been concluded in one-sided favor of Korea. Nothing can be further from the truth.
Last Thursday, 109 U.S. House Democrats wrote to President Barack Obama demanding ``major changes” not just in auto and beef trades but in textiles and financial services, and even in investment and labor chapters. Making clear their ``strong objection” to Korea’s non-tariff barriers in these industries, the lawmakers said that the “job-killing pact” … is ``simply out of touch” with what the overwhelming majority of American people want.
The U.S. politicians seem to be forgetting the basics of an FTA: Countries do not aim to attain a balance in each and every industrial sector but seek an overall ``equilibrium of interests” in terms of the whole industry by giving some in one industry and taking their equivalents in others. For instance, Korea conceded in agricultural and service sectors and managed to win some ― or the only ― U.S. concessions in the auto industry.
So reopening the five or six already agreed-upon chapters should lead to overall renegotiation of the FTA, signed three years ago but yet to win ratification by the legislatures of the two countries, although Korean officials will stick to Obama’s politicized term of ``adjustment.”
Seoul should be ready to discuss the agreement from the ground up, not least because there is such a wide difference of views with respect to the gains and losses from the bilateral FTA between its proponents and opponents.
Regardless of the appropriateness of the U.S. lawmakers’ demands, however, we can’t help but note on the contrasting approaches toward this issue taken by the officials ― appointed or elected ― of the two countries. For the U.S. administration, an international pact could be nothing if it cannot persuade and win the approval of the Congress, i.e., the representatives of voters. In Korea, the government regards the opposing lawmakers as little more than bothersome obstructors.
The attempt for the bill’s railroading resulted in the world-infamous parliamentary brawl a couple of years ago, in which opposition politicians wielding sledgehammers provided front-page photos for global media outlets. Needless to say, the candlelit vigil was also sparked less by unscientific distrust in the safety of U.S. beef than by the government’s attempts to force the people to swallow its unwarranted concessions.
It’s a pity to be talking about the way our officials handle things rather than the substance of the trade deal in the run-up to another round of controversial negotiations.