[Daniel Fiedler] KORUS FTA agreement, again

Four years ago South Korea and the United States first signed a free trade agreement. At that time many Koreans and foreigners rejoiced in anticipation of lower priced foods, cars and other staples from the United States. However, due to special interest groups in both countries, the agreement was not ratified by either the U.S. Congress or the Korean National Assembly. In the United States automakers and their workers railed against the agreement, citing the growing influx of Korean automobiles and the U.S. automakers failure to make inroads into Korea. In South Korea farmers incited large crowds to protest based on the mistaken fear of mad cow disease. In their focus on their own wants and needs, neither of these groups considered the heavy impact of the continued tariffs on the average citizens of the United States and South Korea.

In the United States small and medium sized enterprises accounted for 89 percent of all United States companies exporting to South Korea in 2007. These businesses racked up a total of $10.8 billion of total United States exports to South Korea in that year. Since then the growth of United States exports to South Korea has been minimal while China and the European Union have expanded their exports exponentially. This lost export opportunity has negatively impacted the average American small business owner and his or her employees. The Obama administration estimates that failure to ratify the free trade agreement now will result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs to South Korea’s other free trade partners.

In South Korea the average citizen has been primarily impacted through continued high prices for foods and automobiles. Many Korean citizens have resorted to merely buying Chevrolet emblems to affix to their Daewoo vehicle rather than buying an actual Chevrolet. And everyone living in South Korea has continued to overpay for fruits, vegetables, meat and rice. For the average South Korean family the failure to implement this agreement has cost millions of won in artificially inflated grocery bills over the last four years. Meanwhile Korean farmers continue to produce high cost mediocre produce from small economically inefficient plots of land. The ratification of the free trade agreement now will end this forced transfer of wealth from the majority of the population to a small, but vocal, farming minority.

The average Korean citizen will also benefit from the opening of the legal services industry. The ratification of the free trade agreement with the United States will allow United States licensed attorneys to offer their services as foreign legal consultants. Since the introduction of the law school system in South Korea, many former undergraduate law students, unable to enter into the highly restricted law school system and uncertain of passing the Korean bar before their eligibility ends, have considered completing a Master of Law degree in the states with the idea of gaining an American lawyer license. Now these students can create a class of ethnic Korean lawyers, licensed as American lawyers, who advise on the laws of the United States, treaties to which the United States is a party, and on international customary law. Further, large United States law firms will be able to open branch offices and eventually be able to partner with Korean attorneys. This expansion of the number of lawyers and law firms will result in heightened competition for clientele which will inevitably drive down the cost and improve the quality of the legal profession in South Korea.

Despite these benefits there are rumblings of dissent from the minority party in South Korea. These lawmakers threatened to physically resist a parliamentary vote despite their knowledge that such action is shameful for the country. These lawmakers do not seem to be aware that the average citizen must continue to overpay for food, cars and legal services while watching physical confrontations in their legislature broadcast on the international news. Perhaps these lawmakers are in the minority because of their disconnect from the will of the average citizen. Regardless of the reason, these lawmakers should consider the average citizen of South Korea and not the special interest groups clamoring at their door. To paraphrase scholar Bruce Klinger of the Seoul Heritage Foundation, “On one side is the United States, South Korea’s strongest ally against the North and one of its largest trading partners, and on the other side are protectionist special interest groups. It is the lawmaker’s choice, and the clock is ticking.” 

By Daniel Fiedler

Daniel Fiedler is a professor of law at Wonkwang University since 2007 and is the lawyer representative for international marriages in Namwon City since 2009. ― Ed.