Time to again ask the people about SK-US trade deal
The Hankyoreh | 13 March 2007
Editorial
Time to again ask the people about S.K.-U.S. trade deal
The final official round of negotiations between Korea and the United States on a free trade agreement (FTA) have come to an end. Some issues, such as competition and procurement and customs clearance, have been settled, but major points of contention will now be dealt with at high-level talks; big things like automobiles, textiles, agricultural products, pharmaceuticals, trade remedies, and investor lawsuits. Now that working-level negotiations are almost finished, however, the situation is such that a compromise agreement full of give-and-take is possible at any time in the future.
It is time to take a cold look back at the whole of this. We need to determine once again whether in watching the past year of negotiations the country agrees about signing an FTA, and to determine what it is the country wants. The majority of the country has been excluded entirely from the process, because of the way the start of negotiations were announced so suddenly, the way the public hearings on the deal fell apart, and the way that any give-and-take centered solely on the negotiation team. The government says it sought out the views of those with an interest in the process, but in fact it produced mostly one-way publicity. Most people are unable to so much as guess as to what the advantages and losses are going to be. Look at the United States. In the course of the negotiations, the views of people in regions concerned about the process have continuously been implemented in negotiations by running these opinions through Congress. Chief U.S. negotiator Wendy Cutler doesn’t hesitate to make uncompromising statements, such as that there won’t be an agreement at all if Korea doesn’t completely open its beef market. She can say such things because of a principle that puts a higher priority on the interests of the U.S. public than on the negotiations themselves.
Agreeing on an FTA would be a serious matter involving the revision of dozens of laws. Once an FTA is signed, it would be hard to revise those laws again. This is something more important than a presidential election if you consider how it would influence the lives of the people. And there is a lot of public interest and participation in presidential elections: parties choose their candidates in a selection process that involves the public, and then there are live debates and groups that keep watch over the process. Voting is just the formal process. We shouldn’t have major national concerns like a free trade agreement worked on exclusively by the executive branch and concluded with only a vote by the National Assembly.
Now that the official negotiations are over, the government needs to make it possible for the people to participate and debate this in a substantial way. The format would be of little consequence. Anything would work, whether a televised "talk with the people" by the president, a debate by the National Assembly on live television, or public opinion survey. There has to be debate no less wide-ranging than a presidential debate. The National Assembly has to take the initiative here. Has it done all it’s supposed to by creating a special committee and receiving regular reports? It is irresponsible to be passive through the whole process, only to suddenly now say, "We won’t have much choice if the people oppose it," just because public opinion has turned. What the executive branch and the National Assembly need to be doing right now is engaging in dialogue with the people and not holding more closed-room negotiations.
