Open that rice market, baby! This, courtesy the Dong-A Ilbo (Konglish edition):
The U.S. government denied South Korea’s status as a developing nation during the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) agriculture negotiations yesterday at the World Trade Organization (WTO) Conference, while demanding that it fully open its markets.
This raises the gloomy prospect that Korea may no longer be able to enjoy benefits as a developing country with regards to market liberalization in agriculture.
The money quotes, however, come from two American officials (one of whom chose to remain nameless):
Shaun Donnelly, acting Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs at U.S. Department of State, said in the interview, “As Korea has been the largest beneficiary of world trade liberalization, it should assume due responsibility.”
And my favorite:
During the interview, an official at the U.S. Commerce Department, speaking on condition of anonymity, said, “Have you ever been to a developing country such as Mali or Honduras? Who, then, do you think, is going to believe that Korea is a developing country within the membership of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)?”
I’ve never been to Mali or Hondurus, but I lived in Tanzania for a year (back in 1995, when it had the world’s third lowest annual GNP per capita at US $150), so I’m well aware of the significant differences between the developing world and the Republic of Korea. Look, I’ve spent most of my time in Korea living in primarily agricultural rural areas, so it’s not like I don’t like farmers. I’m also aware that the United States maintains its own odious system of subsidies to domestic agricultural producers, a system that must be done away with as soon as possible. That being said, Korea can’t continue to sacrifice the interests of its agricultural consumers and open itself up to retaliatory trade measures abroad in order to protect farmers who just aren’t cutting it. And it’s not that the farmers are lazy - I’ve dated two Korean farmers’ daughters long enough to know they aren’t - but the way the industry is structured almost ensures that it can’t compete - too many elderly small farmers and not enough consolidation of holdings. The only way to ensure these people a livelihood is by screwing both local consumers and foreign agricultural producers. If Korean agriculture is going to compete, it needs serious structural reform, and yes, that means that a lot of farmers are going to have to find something else to do. But by protecting the market, not only are resources being misallocated, but the nation is putting itself at risk of facing potentially crippling countermeasures imposed by foreign countries on sectors in which Korea does extraordinarily well. Ask Korean cell phone manufacturers what they think of sacrificing the China market in order to protect local garlic growers. Is saving Cheju Island citrus growers and local beef producers worth retaliatory quotas placed on Korean semiconductors by the United States and Australia? I should think not, no matter how loudly you shout “shint’o buri” (body and land are one, not two). Korea is a big boy now, and it needs to play by the big boy rules. And if I were a Korean agricultural consumer, I’d be in the streets demanding that my government begin doing just that.
(Hat tip to Kevin at IA)
