[Editorial] Free Trade Opposition

Some 270 organizations in Korea are expected to launch a campaign on April 15 to oppose a Korea-U.S. free trade agreement. The Korea Confederation of Trade Unions (KCTU), Federation of Korea Trade Unions, and Korean Federation for Environmental Movement will be among them. The Information Technology workers’ union under the wing of KCTU is threatening to bombard the websites of the White House, U.S. Congress, and U.S. Defense Department with emails. Kim Seong-hun, president of Sangji University and a former agriculture minister, has made an absurd remark by saying, “A Korea-U.S. FTA would make Korea a 51st state or an economic colony of the U.S.” His remark can be seen as an anti-American propaganda, a product of his ignorance of the global economy.

In recent years, the United States has run current account deficits in hundred of billions of dollars with Korea, China, and Japan. The three Northeast Asian countries benefit from free trade. Meanwhile, there is a growing call for protectionism in the U.S. as many businesses and jobs have moved to China or India. All this means that it is not Korea but the U.S. which can gain short-term benefits from protectionist moves. Those who launch a campaign to oppose free trade to the advantage of the U.S. will only invite ridicule from the world.

At the early stage of development, Korea also implemented an infant industry protection policy. Since the 1980s, however, liberalization policies have been adopted that shift the focus from protectionism to free trade. The resulting competition has led some Korean businesses including Samsung Electronics and POSCO to become the world’s leading companies. FTA opponents argue that a further market opening will collapse domestic industries in Korea. But experiences of Korea confirm the opposite.

A Korea-U.S. FTA will surely benefit Korea. If taken into effect, the agreement will expand economic growth and create more jobs in Korea. It will also improve the quality of economic and industrial policies and practices. The agreement will probably damage the Korean agricultural or service industry in the short term, while benefiting consumers and enhancing the quality of lives in the mid-to-long term. Admittedly, a strategy is needed in the negotiation process to minimize possible short-term damage in some sectors. Yet, the damage also cannot explain opposition to the FTA itself.

A campaign to lead an FTA in the right direction will kick off on April 16. It will be led by Reverend Seo Gyeong-seok, Professor Lee Kak-beom, and others and attended by many organizations. They view a Korea-U.S. FTA as an opportunity to advance the Korean economy and strengthen the bilateral alliance. Those who want to stage an anti-U.S. campaign should find other excuses than the trade deal. Opposing the FTA as a means of anti-U.S. movement means nothing but “we will keep the movement going even if it will screw up our economy.”

Hopefully, President Roh Moo-hyun will not be swayed by distorted arguments and demonstrate leadership to help FTA negotiations go on as scheduled.