Comments on: Why there will not be a ROK-USA free trade agreement (Andy’s TCS piece)

By: wjk

wjk — Wed, 12 Jul 2006 22:04:27 +0000

roughly paraphrased,

” the South Korean drug market is unfairly restrictive to innovative and advanced drugs made in the US, thus hurting South Koreans from accessing the most innovative and advanced medicine in the world.”

spoken by a US rep to the South Korean media,

/ My input. Hmm. Many of these drugs are considered too expensive for US consumers with low income. Does the US want to bring some havoc on the South Korean healthcare system, which supposedly offers everyone government funded health care? It truly must be a Fair Trade Agreement. Oops, Free Trade Agreement. The poor in South Korea won’t get to afford what the poor in America can’t.

By: snow

snow — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:53:47 +0000

I read an article from one of the local economic research units (SERI, supposedly a strong supporter of free trade and capitalism) basically blaming the US for all the problems with the probable failure of the FTA. Disgusting to see that even pro-capitalists in Korea find it easy to blame the US for problems with NK.

http://www.koreaeconomy.org/gw.....0606140001

By: michael

michael — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 05:12:48 +0000

It’s not a very tricky issue. S. Korea is operating an industrial park in N. Korea in an opaque manner. The working conditions of the N. Koreans are not monitored by the ILO or any other third party, and S. Korea simply expects the U.S. to take its word for it that labor standards are being met, which the U.S. uderstandably refuses to do. What we do know about Kaesong is that the N.K. workers recieve a small fraction of what their “brothers” in the South are paid, and the military dictatorship that runs N.K. gets paid off in “fees” to allow S.K. to exploit the workers. It’s an extremely self-serving way to “lend a helping hand,” so I hope the U.S. continues to press them on the issue.

By: loveellie

loveellie — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 02:53:09 +0000

The problem is how you look at North Koreans. S.Koreans consider their counterpart in the North poor and impatient brother whom they have to land a helping hand because otherwise they will starve to death. So natually to the Korean sentiment, GIP is ‘MADE IN KOREA.’

IT IS A VERY TRICKY ISSUE.

By: judge judy

judge judy — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:05:54 +0000

if the roh gov’t has any chance of making the FTA fly, there is absolutely no way of tacking on DPRK products. none.

By: snow

snow — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:16:46 +0000

Interesting way to look at it. I always wondered why Uri with so many members being anti-market and anti-capitalist, would want any kind of FTA. Is it to push through other agendas such as the GIP?

By: Gillian

Gillian — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:10:09 +0000

Interesting analysis! I admit, I, for one, would be on the phone to my congressman in a New York second if products from N Korea were included in a FTA with S Korea. That pushes the envelope just a wee bit too far.

By: kushibo

kushibo — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 09:01:58 +0000

GIP? The city is spelled Kaesong. It is not a ROK-controlled bit of land (that’s the whole issue, idn’t it?), but DPRK, so the atrocious NAKL Romanization system (rendering it Gaeseong) does not apply.

Anyhoo, I disagree with your prediction because I think some of your premises do not necessarily hold water.

The FTA is more important to Roh’s legacy than KIP. In fact, he’s even talking about limiting or eliminating KIP if North Korea shoots off that missile.

You say that a Hanmi (ROK-US) FTA is essential for KIP to succeed. Assuming for the sake of argument that’s true (and I’m not saying it is, because while trade with the US is very high, ROK also relies on many other markets), then giving up the FTA because of KIP will be a failure on two fronts, with KIP still going down in flames.

KIP will be fought for loud and hard, but in the end it will be a bargaining chip for something else that is important for selling the FTA to those members of the public that fear it or remain skeptical — maybe another ten-year extension on the rice market or something along those lines.