New York Times on the U.S.-Korea FTA Talks

Interesting perspective here, from James Brooke. The points that struck me most:

• We still don’t have an FTA with Japan. Is an FTA with Korea designed to force Japan’s hand? The “Japanese street” has no sense of insecure competitiveness with Korea, but Japanese corporations probably do feel a sense of competitiveness. They have their eyes on market share.

• Roh Moo Hyun believes he can use an FTA to prove that his America-bashing and neutralism haven’t alienated the United States after all. I tend to think that an FTA probably serves the interests of both countries, but I certainly don’t think it serves strategic U.S. interests to validate Roh’s policies in the eyes of Korean voters or other world leaders. I personally prefer to keep trade and politico-military issues as separate as possible. There’s no reason, for example, that we can’t announce a dramatic downsizing or restructuring of USFK even as we agree to sign an FTA. If FTA itself is good for Korea, some Korean president will sign it.

• The Bush Administration will lose its fast-track trade authority in a year, so there’s time pressure on this side of the pond, too. Fortunately, there’s almost no chance of an FTA being completed before the May National Assembly elections.

• What Brooke did not mention–and I think it’s a significant point–is that many of Roh’s far-left voters are deeply hostile to that amorphous concept called “globalism.” (Remember this?) As with the U.S. request for South Korea to deploy troops to Iraq, this issue forces Roh to choose between an obvious pragmatic choice and the demands of a fiery and uncompromising base. The result? If Roh wants to undercut the “you alienated the Americans” argument, he has to alienate his base instead, thus depressing the young-voter turnout that put him into office by the narrowest of margins in 2002.