[Editorial] A done deal

The passage of the Korea-U.S. free trade deal two months ago should have put an end to the time-consuming, rancorous debate on it, though its railroading by the ruling party could have a lingering ill effect on domestic politics. Yet, the bitter conflict has raised its ugly head again.

Held primarily responsible is the opposition Democratic United Party. Its newly elected leadership pledges to have the treaty abrogated. But the responsibility must be shared by an ill-prepared administration, which has yet to put the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement into effect.

On Nov. 22, the ruling Grand National Party outwitted a complacent opposition party, which had mistakenly believed no action was imminent, put the motion for the treaty’s ratification to a vote and passed it through the National Assembly. The opposition party, which denounced the ruling party’s unilateral action, had nothing else to do, with conventional wisdom holding that what was already done with a treaty on the floor could hardly be undone later.

When the motion passed, it was assumed that the administration would complete the necessary domestic procedures soon so that the agreement could take effect on Jan. 1, as promised. This belief was never questioned, with government officials making remarks to that effect.

But no date is fixed yet. Though the administration says the agreement will be able to take force next month, it does not rule out the possibility of its enforcement being delayed to March. The administration says it is yet to complete discussions with the United States, which it says is conducting a detailed review of Korean laws relevant to treaty enforcement.

It is being postponed at a time when the Democratic United Party is planning to make issue with the treaty during the run-up to the April general elections. Upon her election as chairwoman on Sunday, Han Myeong-sook said, “We are determined to win the general elections and have the Korea-U.S. FTA abrogated.” Others elected to the decision-making supreme council made similar commitments.

Han’s promise, however, is misleading. All that a National Assembly under the control of the Democratic United Party could do would be to pass a resolution calling for the treaty’s abolishment. The authority to annul a ratified treaty lies with the executive branch of government, not with the legislature.

In the case of the free trade agreement with the United States, it would be made void and null 180 days after either the Korean or the U.S. government notified the other of its decision to terminate the treaty. As such, it would be technically possible for a president elected on the ticket of the Democratic United Party in the December poll to have the treaty abolished.

But no Korean president, be he or she affiliated with the Democratic United Party or not, would take such a thoughtless action at the expense of Korea’s vital relations with the United States, including the military alliance. Few would know it better than Han, who served as prime minister under President Roh Moo-hyun. Moreover, it was the Roh administration that concluded negotiations with the United States on the free trade deal.

True, the incumbent Lee administration made concessions when it renegotiated it under pressure from the Obama administration, which had found fault with clauses on auto trade. Roh’s chief negotiator, Kim Hyun-jong, says the Lee administration made a grave mistake when it buckled to U.S. pressure.

Nonetheless, Kim acknowledges the renegotiated treaty is still in favor of Korea when viewed in a wide perspective. Moreover, the Lee administration has already agreed to address the main concern of the party, the investor-state dispute settlement clause, by promising to renegotiate it.

This clause is also of great concern to Park Won-soon, Seoul mayor, whom the party supported when he ran in the October by-election as an independent. But the mayor, who is assumed to join the party in the near future, says he does not support the proposal to abolish the treaty though he is concerned about the clause.

A more sensible party would drop its demand for the treaty’s abrogation, instead of taking issue with it ahead of the April elections. Otherwise, its sincerity would be questioned.