[Editorial] For alliance’s sake?

The main opposition Democratic United Party is crafting its electoral strategies for an alliance with far-left groups. That is understandable, given that the center-left party believes it vital to ally itself with a minor labor party, anti-government civic groups and labor activists if it is to win the April parliamentary elections and the December presidential election.

One such strategy is for the party to pledge to abrogate the Korean-U.S. free trade agreement if it is not revised in the way it sees fit. The election promise should bring the far-left groups, all of them diehard opponents of the free trade deal, closer to the main opposition party. Even so, it is an ill-advised move because it would certainly backfire should it win the parliamentary elections, the presidential election or both.

The main opposition party has recently sent two letters to the U.S. Embassy in Seoul ― one addressed to U.S. President Barack Obama and the other to the president of the U.S. Senate. The letters were also signed by key members of the minor labor party, the United Progressive Party.

In the letters, the party demanded the accord be revised to remove articles on investor-state dispute settlement, continue to keep tariffs on imports of agricultural, meat and livestock products from the United States and protect small- and medium-sized enterprises. It also demanded that the treaty be put on hold, instead of being put into effect, until it is revised.

There is little chance that the United States will agree to revise the trade pact, which is set to take effect late this month or early next month, in the way the main opposition party has proposed. Should it be so amended, it would be one-sidedly in favor of Korea. Moreover, never has the South Korean government unilaterally abolished a treaty that was concluded in a proper procedure and by lawful means.

No one should know these better than the party’s leader, Han Myeong-sook, who served as a prime minister for the late former President Roh Moo-hyun’s administration, which had initiated negotiations on the trade accord. She says that before the treaty takes effect, its articles detrimental to Korea’s interests must be revised and that, otherwise, her party would abolish it when it succeeds in the change of government.

True, the pact may not provide a tool with which to generate as much growth and create as many jobs as claimed by President Lee Myung-bak’s administration. But free trade with the United States will not expose the Korean economy to the disastrous risks claimed by fear mongers.

As an economist who served Roh as his chief policymaker puts it, Korea will be able to exploit the treaty to its advantage, despite some risk, as a nation relying on exports as a driving force behind its economic advancement.

There are many examples of Korea putting a wider opening of the domestic market to its advantage. Among them is the late President Kim Dae-jung’s decision to open the Korean market to Japanese cartoons, pop music, dramas and movies.

Kim’s detractors insisted that Korean pop culture would be wiped out as a consequence. But hallyu, or the Korean wave, has since grown to be a cultural influence to be reckoned with not just in Japan but in many other countries in the world.

The candidate of the Democratic United Party, if elected president, will find it easy to make the trade accord null and void. All he needs to do would be to notify the United States of his administration’s decision.

He could do so if he wanted to have the Korean economy isolated from the outside world. The moment he declared the treaty abolished, it would send Korea’s credibility into a tailspin, dealing an irrevocable damage to the Korean economy. The possibility of a newly elected president taking such a risk would be near nil.

It is safely assumed that Han and her party’s election strategists are well aware of these implications. Then why do they threaten to abolish the treaty? Is it because they are equally well-aware that no party has made good on all its election pledges and that no alliance has lasted for good?