4-11-09, 11:31 am
Original source: People's Voice
In April 2007, South Korea and the US reached a controversial free trade arrangement after fourteen months of negotiations. Unions and other organizations representing South Korean workers and farmers, supported by the local social democrats, consider the deal a threat to South Korean jobs, and their industries as a whole. Similar hostility was expressed last year in the massive dispute over US beef imports, directly related to the South Korean government's desire to improve its trade standing with the US.
This particular agreement, the KORUS FTA, would be the first between the US and a major East Asian economy, and the largest overall since NAFTA was signed in 1992. This is by far South Korea's largest free trade deal. All that remains is for both countries to ratify the agreement.
South Korea's government has moved significantly to the right since April 2007, and is keen to implement KORUS FTA. But the parliament has had to postpone the ratification, fearing more large-scale anti‑government protests. Meanwhile, disputes in the US Congress initially delayed the ratification. With the onset of the global economic crisis and the election of Barack Obama, further delays were inevitable. Still, a report to Congress early in March stated that the government would no longer delay the ratification of FTAs with Korea, Panama, and Colombia.
But the future of the agreement is uncertain. Ron Kirk, the U.S. trade representative‑designate, told the U.S. Senate Finance Committee that the present agreement with Seoul 'simply isn't fair, and if we don't get that right we'll be prepared to step away from that.' The Obama administration has already begun taking steps, however limited, to 'protect American jobs.' This FTA is likely perceived as a potential threat to those policies. Even Obama himself has said the deal is flawed.
Naturally, Kirk's statements have worried the leaders of South Korea. The first reaction from the presidential office here was that Kirk simply couldn't represent the official position of the U.S. government. The phrasing of that announcement indicates a great deal of hurt, as though saying, 'We have been great friends for so long! How could you do this to us!?' Supporters of the FTA claim that the deal shouldn't be abandoned 'just because a new administration has stepped in'. That is a weak argument. What is the point of a new administration if it does not reevaluate widely despised policies of the preceding one?
The biggest concern seems to be the auto industry. Instead of talking about defending American jobs in hard times, KORUS FTA supporters talk only about how U.S. auto producers are 'losing their competitive edge' against 'better' Korean manufacturers. In other words, jobs do not matter, only profitability. If the companies aren't doing well, they say close up shop. A Chosun Ilbo newspaper editorial also argued that a renegotiation could spark more large protests akin to the beef import demonstrations last year. And so it should! The 'delicate' balance achieved in trade negotiations does not change the fact that it's still a raw deal for South Koreans.
The Korea Herald reported recently that Kirk offered more 'positive' statements regarding the FTA. South Korean analysts claim that his earlier comments were a mere 'formality' to show his loyalty to Obama. The FTA, they say, is in principle a good thing for the economy, but with a few 'problems' to be worked out in dialogue.
But where are the voices of the workers and farmers, the ones who will feel the impact of the deal? It is one thing for a newspaper or a member of parliament to say that certain groups in society strongly oppose the deal, but another to actually hear from these people.
Acting in the interests of big money, the South Korean government does not care that public opinion is largely against them, even if half a million people take to the streets in protest; that's what the police force is for.
