Disrupted Debates
Korea Times
Disrupted Debates
Nation Needs to Mend Modes of Coordinating Conflicts
28 June 2006
The chaotic scene at Tuesday’s public hearing on the Korea-U.S. free trade talks requires serious social reflection. The canceled debate not only highlighted Korea’s vulnerability to conducting crucial negotiations but also revealed its weakness in calm communication and coordination of differing views and interests. Moreover, opponents of a free trade agreement (FTA) are planning violent protests during the second round of talks between Korea and the United States in July 10-14. We can hardly restrain our deep sense of frustration.
It may still not be too late to discuss the benefits and losses of an FTA with the world’s largest and strongest economy. This, however, is meaningful only when followed by sector-by-sector analysis of its effects and detailed countermeasures. It is neither desirable nor possible to call off the negotiations, as this would be tantamount to denying trade liberalization. Korea, which has grown and will continue to grow under free trade, should be the last country to do so.
Nor is it appropriate for the opponents, composed mainly of farmers, students and civic activists, to demand disclosure of negotiating details that may expose Seoul’s bargaining tactics. Few deny the FTA talks are a huge issue that can fundamentally change the lives of almost every Korean. Still, it is a bit overstretched to link it to the relocation of U.S. military bases here only for the same purpose of anti-American protest. If Korea cannot beat neo-liberalistic capitalism, the nation should join it.
That said, both the government’s principles and ways of proceeding with the negotiations leave much to be desired. Experts say up to 80 percent of an FTA process is about “internal bargaining” - coordinating domestic conflicts of interests and providing victims with sufficient compensation. But all Seoul did between the announcement of Korea-U.S. FTA bargaining in February and its actual launch in June was holding two aborted public hearings. And even these were just formal processes as required by law.
Government negotiators may be right in refusing to disclose details of their bargaining. But they could - and should - at least present maximum and minimum levels of demands and concessions in each sector, by hearing the opinions of related interest groups. The officials say the two disrupted hearings were for these, but both the format and participants showed they were occasions for one-sided public relations activities. They can win neither the bargaining nor popular approval in this ways.
The government ought to take more time and allow the representatives of industry and other interested groups to actively participate in the process. The opponents should learn how to present their views in a more calm and peaceful manner. By most appearances, what Korea has to liberalize most urgently is the import of a mature communication culture and the ways and means of coordinating conflicts more productively.
