I guess it was inevitable that I would do a piece on the US election and Korea. I’ll just let you have the conclusion here and read the rest on your own if you wish:
While President Lee Myung-bak is probably too polite and too politically savvy to endorse one of the candidates, there can be little doubt where his heart lies.
Actually, it is not as much of a red meat piece as it could have been. I made no mention of the North Korean endorsement of Obama, it being unsolicited and (I can safely assume) unwelcome.
Also, Obama’s offer to meet Kim Jong-il “without preconditions” was an overstatement that he later partially back off from,saying that there would be proper preperations before any such meeting.
Despite the relative mildness of the piece, I am sure there is plenty there for some of y’all to hate. Have fun.
BTW, here are a few good links I came across while doing research for the KT piece
- McCain and Obama statements on Bush’s dumb terror list deal with NK
- McCain’s ghost-written essay at Foreign Affairs
- Obama’s ghost-written essay at Foreign Affairs
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
The article was decently fair, but Andy is a well-known expat republican. He seems to be starting from viewpoint “B” in the article, without stopping to explain “A”: whether the fta is a good deal in the first place.
Roger that. The so-called “FTA” would be good for various special interests in the US (and Korea), but would not materially advance the cause of genuinely free trade or indiscriminately provide the benefits thereof to individual economic actors in either country. It’s really negotiated trade of the sort in which the US should no longer differentially indulge Korea (to the unfair advantage of some and at the expense of other domestic economic players, because there is no other sufficiently compelling national interest in doing so. the myopia of the McCain camp on this subject is disturbing.
^
Exactly. Who, in Korea, is benefitting from the FTA? Certainly not the dairy and meat farmers who haven’t been taught new trades to counter cheap American meat. Certainly not Korean consumers who still don’t know how thoroughly ripped off they are when it comes to nearly all sectors (automobiles, electronics, ALCOHOL [100% taxation, wtf]). And certainly not Americans for whom this will hardly make a dent in their every day lives.
With KJI being MIA and maybe a victim of the “Moscow Flu”, will any of the leaders in DPRK rise up to repeat the endorsement of Obama?
Could Sarah Palin’s selection have been the straw that broke the camel’s back?
“And certainly not Americans for whom this will hardly make a dent in their every day lives.”
Unfortunately, you’re probably right, even though theoretically, Korean imports are bad for Detroit and other domestic industries.
However, McCain supports hastening the decline of domestic industry and shipping of jobs overseas anyway (by providing tax breaks to do-nothing fat cats with no incentive to become competitive producers) and Obama, while he talks a good game may not be able to get things moving in the opposite direction.
Even so, the industry of the future is Energy Technology, something Obama promises to promote. Even McCain has recently jumped on the bandwagon, although his campaign rhetoric belies an abysmal congressional record on energy independence (he’s voted against every proposal).
Speaking of energy independence, the odds are tremendously more likely if Obama is elected and appoints Al Gore energy czar. If we don’t take this chance, McCain is likely to expland drilling which will perpetuate and exponentially exasurbate the problem. Even if we do provide incentives for the multinational oil companies to increase domestic production in an economically viable way, this would do little to promote energy independence as the US would have to bid against other nations for the oil. This is not the case with renewables.
If McCain is as much of a maverick as he says he is, he would do more good in congress where he could be a point man for Obama’s projects. Of course, the record suggests that he works strictly in his own self interests and doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the nation.
Getting back to the FTA, I see no benefit to America for such a plan, and I do not expanded Korean access to the US markets.
However, jdog2050 is wrong about the Korean economy. I believe the FTS would be a windfall for it. The dairy and meat farmers are irrelevent anyway, as they are a hopelessly uncompetitive drag on the economy and need to get into some other line of work. The engine of Korean wealth has always been exports driven primarily by US markets. Although the Chinese market has now come into play, US markets remain vitally important for Korean wealth.
FTA points: Granted. If you don’t like the KORUS FTA, you have 60% chance of getting your wish and seeing it die if Obama is elected.
However, the current and immediate past Korean presidents favor it, which was a reason to work on the assumption that passage of the FTA would be good for USA-Korean relations.
A fairly decent piece in the Korea Times, but it suffers from overreach at points (as does the reply #6 above).
Regarding the original KT piece, I was particularly taken aback, and frankly puzzled by the following:
“Given Obama’s views on the KORUS FTA and his more go-it-alone approach to negotiations with Pyongyang, Seoul could be forgiven for wondering if an Obama presidency would offer a Jimmy Carteresque policy of supporting any foe and opposing any friend on the Korean Peninsula.”
First, given that Obama’s views on the KORUS FTA are (what was the term used?) “nuanced”, Seoul can nevertheless be expected to draw comparisons to Jimmy Carter? WTF?
(Assuming that speaking of a singular “Seoul” in this context makes any sense to begin with, which is highly doubtful.)
More fundamentally, what on earth is this supposed “Jimmy Carteresque policy policy of supporting any foe and opposing any friend on the Korean Peninsula”?
In the attempt to be too clever by half, by taking JFK’s words (or Sorensen’s) and juxtaposing them and adding a reference to favorite whipping boy Carter to take a thinly vieled jab at Obama, it seems a little detail was overlooked: it might actually be a good idea to make some sense.
Carter had a policy towards the Korean Peninsula, as opposed to polices towards its respective halves? And this policy was designed to support any foes and oppose any friends of the Korean peninsula?
Okay, this was probably meant to be a reference to South Korea.
But still, Carter’s dislike for Park, concern for human rights, and threats to reduce US troops justify this kind of over-the-top characterization?
Okay, no; but as Obama-Clinton tie-ins didn’t spring to mind, why not overreach and go to the ole’ “Carteresque” well?
For the all the self-congratulatory restraint, perhaps the piece could have benefitted from a little more.
I mean…I just don’t understand how Andy supports this. The Korea-US FTA has got to be the first FTA deal in history where America (not just blue-collar workers) is getting blatantly shafted.
The FTA would do nothing to lower Korea’s tariffs, hardly anything for letting more American cars to flow into Korea, on and on.
It’s a horrible deal. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, I’m saying it needs to be completely rethought.
You must log in to post a comment.