So, does President Roh want a free-trade agreement with the United States or not? From Yonhap News (English):
South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun said Tuesday that his government may choose to scrap free trade negotiations with the United States if South Korea’s economic interests are not properly reflected in the final deal.
“We’re in a dilemma (over free trade talks with the U.S.), but we’ll not rush for an early and unconditional conclusion,” said the president at a Cabinet meeting at his office Cheong Wa Dae.
“I’ve instructed Korean negotiators to thoroughly take real economic benefits into consideration in the free trade talks. Security and other non-economic factors will never be considered. Unless our interests are fully secured, we’ll not bother to sign the deal by the (end-of-March) deadline,” said Roh.
Look who’s the tough guy now. Roh also instructed his cabinet to consider settling for a lesser deal:
Roh also instructed his Cabinet ministers to consider settling for an “intermediate or lower” level FTA deal with the U.S., if South Korea has any product items that can never be opened to American competition.
“We can scrap the deal or not. We can extend the deadline or not. We can choose among low, intermediate or high level of agreement. But any final deal should be thoroughly based on practical national and public interests,” said the president.
Does anyone recall President Roh ever publicly explaining why he even wants an FTA with the United States in the first place?
(HT to reader)
26 Comments
Can he be expected to say anything else? Whether it is just a negotiating ploy or stating that he is looking out for the interests of the country I will never know but it is not unreasonable to say so.
Canceling the talks does have a certain amount of political appeal to the pinkos though….
Anyways, if it is canceled, the US should just go full reciprocal on their ass.
Oh god no, that would affect me flow of French’s Mustard… actually every other “Western” product I can get in Korea these days is made in Indonesia, China, Vietnam, etc. I’m all for Free Trade but the US has constantly violated the North America Free Trade Agreement to their benefit, so I doubt that a full FTA would be of any benefit to Korea… a limited or lower-level FTA might be more difficult for the US to abuse…? I don’t know.
I thought he set up the FTA to 1. give a brief bone to the conservatives and 2. set the stage for it to be a political factor in elections.
Most of my predictions on the anti-US front from 2006 until now fell flat on their face. But, the FTA has been a continual calling card on the anti-US websites.
A Question: You guys in Korea who talk to a lot of Koraen adults - how has the anti-FTA push been felt? Is it something people talk about - or not?
It is hard to tell from afar. Judging by the press, it has not been much on an issue, but I don’t trust the press on this one, because they don’t want to rack the FTA boat…
He might be just bluffing. I think he probably wants to make the FTA with the US as his legacy as if he wants to say he is not really a Far-Leftie as many Koreans suspect him to be. On the other hand, Americans have far more to gain from the deal as they have absolute advantaage in the lucrative service sector such as health, education, banking, law, accounting, media etc. So I’m relatively optimistic it’ll probably happen in the end.
I don’t think it ever will, in our lifetimes. I’d agree with usinkorea, it always was a bluff from the start, launched by Roh for the reasons in #3 — a complete waste of time on all sides. Neither country wants any kind of REAL free-trade…
Roh’s not bluffing- he has some real consequences to consider here, as an FTA with America would disrupt Korean society a great deal more than America’s. The BIG issue, of course, is agriculture.
Right now, agricultural products only account for about 2 or 3 % of bilateral trade, because of Korea’s trade barriers. In a ‘pure’ FTA, with rice included, Korea stands to gain about $50 billion, or 6.6% of GDP. America stands to gain about $9 bil, or less than 0.1% of GDP.
But where would those gains go? In Korea’s case, the gains represent money that Korean consumers would save. Korea’s farmers are not supported by government payments (from taxes on businesses) so much as by Korea’s population (which pays artificially high prices for food). So, an FTA pretty much WIPES out Korea’s agricultural sector. Not a huge chunk of the population, granted, but still, we’re talking about a complete destruction of rural life in Korea.
The US, on the other hand, already has a more open market, so the gains from an FTA are less extreme. Basically, US businesses in general just gain more sales from an opening of the Korean market, without any major disruption in the US employment scenario.
I’ve given this link to an IIE policy brief before, here it is again. The tables at the back make for interesting number-gazing.
http://www.consejomexicano.org.....5374,841,7
Hopefully it still works. Go to the Korea Times home page, click on the main story which says: “Roh to Scrap FTA Without Benefits” and then sit back and watch which story the link brings you to. If the “mistake” has been fixed, let me know and I’ll tell where it led you to earlier today…
“On the other hand, Americans have far more to gain from the deal as they have absolute advantaage in the lucrative service sector such as health, education, banking, law, accounting, media etc.”
As Link’d’s link and comments point out, this is not true.
I think an FTA with the US is important for Korea, because Japan and China are busy signing FTAs with other countries, which will leave Korea in the dust in the future. Koreans should think of their future prospects.
Koreans shouldn’t let anti-Americanism cloud their vision of what’s best for their country. Oh well, that never stopped the progressives in this country from making stupid moves in the past.
Please people we have all heard Roh bloviating on simular terms on every thing from domestic politics, to North Korea, to operational control of forces… Why does it shock any of us that Roh eventualy releases a messy statement that ammounts to “Maybe”.
One of the things that is bothering me about Koreas postion (or even the US postion when it gets down to it) is the implicit conclusion that any signed agreement will be passed by the US Senate (or Korea’s Assembly for that matter). Personaly I think a “lesser” agreement may be DOA on the floor of the Senate. Even if they leave beef out alone, there is no way that senators of the the top 10 beef producing states are going to vote YEA in an election year.
That is right folks, any, let me repeat, ANY US vote on the KORUS FTA will take place in the shadow of a very contentious 2008 election year and with a nominaly anti-free trade Democratic Senate in power it all leads to a very difficult hurdle to passing the FTA.
Personaly based on how I see the tea leaves, I am about to join the protesters. I really think the US is getting screwed so far.
Q again —- how is this issue playing out among Korean adults? Is it generating a significantly large amount of talk and attention? Or, is it pretty silent?
I have always said that there are two versions of the period when anti-US sentiment is exercised more than usual in the society: 1 is the street protests that most every focuses on the 2nd happens when you can hear talk about this or that hot button issue everywhere.
Usually, the press will tip you off as to when the 2nd version is well under way by how many stories they are running negative on the issue.
But, all the big papers have been for the FTA, it seems, and thus I don’t trust they would reflect the word-of-mouth among the masses - if that word-of-mouth is loud.
What do you guys see among the Korean adults?
Anyway, this also is not just about anti-Americanism. It is about anti-globalization and “neoliberalism” and capitalism. That is why I have never covered economic issues on the anti-US/USFK newsletter site: the anti-US tendancy definately comes into play. And it does seperate SK’s anti-globalization from others, but it is too hard to point that out to people who don’t have experience in Korea…
based on what Linkd wrote, I don’t see Roh Moo Hyun taking the initiative to wipe out the Korean farmers. Granted not many live life that way anymore, Korea has dismal support compensations for people who lose out on life due to govt policies. If FTA goes thru, these people will just become beggars, commit suicide, sell their bodies, and society won’t look kindly upon Roh, although that doesn’t seem to bother him at all.
Object to this being called a “Free” Trade Agreement. Lowering barriers it may do; eliminating them it won’t. It shouldn’t have been sold as an FTA to either public, but especially to Korea’s as I doubt many Americans realize that this is being undertaken.
I reckon Korean auto workers don’t have much, if any, sympathy for their American counterparts. I certainly don’t have any sympathy for the Korea farmers. Liberalization was announced to them over a decade ago.
I hope Korea walks out. And the US ought to put the hurt on. Thorough safety and quality assurance inspections for each and every Hyundai parked at the docks would a nice start. No Korean agricultural products or processed food products allowed in. America can survive w/o Shin Ramyun and Choco Pies. Would kinda suck to be a gyopo looking at empty shelves at the market. I know that feeling.
Seouldout–You hit the nail on the head. Trade under this agreement will be about as “free” as a dog raised for the soup bowl.
Roh’s exclusion of security issues makes sense on the face of things, but wasn’t it largely the security arguments that allowed Korea (and Japan) to get away with decades of blatant mercantilism with little complaint from Uncle Sam?
Even after financial crisis-induced reforms of 1998, I have a hard time using “free trade” and “Korea” in the same sentence.
Interesting discussion here. Bilateral FTAs (which are known as preferential FTAs) aren’t meant to promote “free trade” but give preferential access to certain trading partners.
Having said that, a US-KOR FTA will be passed. The only question is whether it will promote deep or shallow integration. My prediction is the latter for two main reasons:
1) Bilateral negotiations need to end by March 31 in order to give the Senate 90 days to examine the bill before TPA runs out. This means some of the more contentious issues won’t be settled.
2) Special interests are going to kill a deeper bill. With beef and autos at the top of the list, its going to be difficult to get to tougher issues such as textiles,agriculture and tax system.
Roh is trying to draw non-existent leverage, that currently resides in a Democrat-led congress.
I’d say that he’s stating the obvious for a variety of reason. He’s well aware that the electors don’t trust that he’s got their best interests in mind, he’s pandering to the last few of his hardcore supporters, many of which are anti-Americanis, and he’s trying to distance himself from the agreement in the event that Koreans become embittered by it, whether it be 6 months or 6 years in the future.
[DELETED. Reason: Inappropriate Comment.]
so much for the comment sherrif to clear out all the noisy white noise
@ slim. Start earlier than that. Korea was one of the founding members of the WTO, and market opening promises were made from ‘86 through ‘94 so that Korea would be part of the club founded on 1 Jan 95. (So stubborn was Korea that it forced the creation of a fourth deputy seat just for Kim Chul Su, who mercantilist Korea wanted to lead the WTO.) That liberalization of 1998 happened under duress. No liberalization, no rescue package from the IMF. If not for the world once again saving it, Korea of 2007 would look much like Korea of 1997. It’s all zero-sum game brinkmanship here. The legitimate threat of getting knocked upside the head tends to make it more agreeable.
usinkorea - this isn’t a time for anyone to wave banners for free trade, particularly with the US. It is as you suspect: a general anti-FT/US/globalization mood, but no specifics, since it is rare for specifics to leak from trade negotiations. The only cheerleading section is the reliable editorial staffs of the conservative newspapers.
slim - hurray for mercantilism, I say. The US and Russia/China fought their proxy war (the Cold War) in many ways around the world. In Africa, they just put small arms into everyone’s hands and let them kill each other. In Latin America, they built up murderous military strongmen. In Cuba they almost killed us all. In Vietnam and Korea they fuelled civil wars. Seems to me a few decades of blatant mercantilism to help a client state build up its capital after decades of devastation was a fairly good call.
Of course, it had the unfortunate effect of leaving modern Koreans with the impression that mercatilism is a viable long-term economic strategy….pity, that.
[DELETED. Reason: Inappropriate Comments Should Be Ignored.]
What white noise? Honestly, if you hate the comments this much, why bother clicking the link and/or scrolling down?
Every comment above #17 was discussing the FTA and Roh’s position on it…….gee wiz….
[DELETED. Reason: Inappropriate Comments Should Be Ignored.]
I look at every dlatn comment today or ever and wonder why this person wasn’t banned long ago.the straits times yesterday quoted noh as saying it was “time for korea to stop clinging to america’s crotch and hiding behind its ass.” surely, if accurate, this sentiment must cross over into FTA negotiations. however, it wasn’t clear if economics are the crotch or that ass.
judge judy, coming from a president who keeps getting us $@#&~* by North Korea, I think that’s pretty funny.
“all the big papers have been for the FTA, it seems, and thus I don’t trust they would reflect the word-of-mouth among the masses”
All three major dailies in Korea- Chosun, Joongang, Donga- are conservatives, as are the majority of Koreans. How else could they remain in business for long periods as major papers, if the general public don’t support their views?
The reason why the sounds of “the mass” and the media, at least the paper one, seem differ is because those on the left of the political spectrum in Korea tend to make thuggish noises in the streets by bringing thousands of students who don’t have clear ideas about what they believe in.
Noh’s comment “time for korea to stop clinging to america’s crotch and hiding behind its ass.”
was reported some months ago when his administration was finalising the agreement to bring back the wartime military command from the US. I think he said to mean that Korea shouldn’t rely on America for its defence, very much like what Kim JI would say.
[DELETED. Reason: Inappropriate Comments Should Be Ignored.]
Note that will be (rightfully) deleted by Oranckay.I just wanted to say to Oranckay (and any other admins who might do the policing) - if you catch the things like #17 regularly, I’ll do my best not to comment on them beforehand.
In fact, I’ll try to force myself to change my habit right now.
If I see something like #17 - I’ll make myself wait (around) 2 days before chiming in.
I’ll have to write a sticky note beside my desk I have to see as I use the internet..
One thing that I think has been conspicuously absent from discussions on the FTA is the real possibility that it may be the Korean National Assembly that may fail to ratify any agreement.
The fixation on fast-track authority and a Democratically-controlled Senate perhaps has distracted us from this real possibility.
As for Roh’s comments, when I read them this morning, I had to ask myself, “why didn’t you see this coming?”
Roh’s upsides of this change in tack:
1) exert some leverage (though not a lot, I think) on the negotiations;
2) having devoted a decent portion of the little political capital he has left on this, provide for a face-saving exit should the negotiations break-down (which I think is not as unlikely as the media treatment would seem to suggest).
On the other hand, to cynically borrow a name used above, this might be nothing more than typical Roh “bipolar mindscrew.”
2 Trackbacks
[...] Update: Maybe it was President Roh who ordered the poem be given and was not happy with the response it elicited, because the brother went off, threatening to scrap the whole thing. [...]
[...] FTA in the longer term, I think we’ve done Roh Moo Hyun enough favors this year. Roh has portrayed the FTA as a humiliating burden to be borne rather than what it is – something that would be far better for Koreans than Americans (page [...]