The Death of an Alliance, Part 36: FTA Meets WTF
Beware of the dragonfly: it may be a bugging robot disguised as a harmless insect. No, the advice does not come from a mental patient convinced the government is spying on his laundry bills: it was one of the security tips issued during last week’s two-day workshop for 120 Korean delegates in the nation’s impending free-trade negotiations with the U.S. The workshop was designed to help delegates guard their negotiation strategies from prying ears when the talks start in June.
It’s official. The people who are covering the flanks and backs of 32,000 of our service members are undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenics.
One government official set delegates on edge when he warned, “There is no telling what lengths the U.S. with its technological might will go to if it decides to eavesdrop. Sure enough, the CIA also has other members of the insect kingdom at its disposal, besides using a coin-sized camera that can take 11 pictures.
Correction: make that undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenics who hate us. The Chosun aptly treats the story with the ridicule it warrants, although, to be completely fair, the CIA did indeed attempt to create such a device, with limited success. Not mentioned was exactly how a dragonfly is supposed to be an unobtrusive presence while buzzing around during an international negotiation. But put nothing past those scheming Yankees!
An official with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said the workshop had been organized not because it was concluded that U.S. negotiators will bug their Korean counterparts but to instill security awareness among delegates.
OK, then. So it appears that these two long-standing “allies” have some trust issues, I take it? Every nation is entitled to take precautions to keep its secrets. Keeping secrets has in fact been a significant problem for Korea in the recent past, one that would seem to have damaged U.S.-Korean cooperation on intelligence, diplomacy, and defense.
The part I can’t explain, however, is what legitimate purpose it serves to hold a public workshop on this. In addition to making the Foreign Ministry look like a group of raving lunatics, it’s certainly not going to do much for U.S.-Korean relations or help the Koreans get their FTA, which they need much more than the U.S. does. I realize that people will believe anything if they want to believe it desperately enough; what I can’t explain is just what makes them so desperate to believe the most addlebrained nonsense, as long as it has an anti-American angle. Can’t you please wait until we feed you before you bite our hands again? And might some distance improve the health of this relationship? On balance, I think the FTA is probably good for both Korea and America, but the evidence continues to mount that U.S. military protection for South Korea is good for neither.
Korean military exchange students among other nationalities in the US are well known for trying to get classified information from other students. Before attending a particular school I was selected for the US soldiers were given a OPSEC briefing from an MI captain about the exchange students trying to gain classified info particularly Koreans, Japanese, Arab countries, and Israelis.
Sure enough once the class began the exchange students very cleverly tried to get information from us just as the MI guy had briefed us. The fact of the matter is that spying is part of the “Great Game” and we were briefed in private about it and it was not put on the front page of the USA Today unlike Korea where it is splashed across the pages of the Chosun.
Your graphic really sums up the quality of the Korean media. It is all about sensationalism and not news.
it’s certainly not going to do much for U.S.-Korean relations or help the Koreans get their FTA, which they need much more than the U.S. does.
I’m curious to know why you think they need it more than we do.
Simple. The percentage of Korea’s trade with the U.S. exceeds the percentage of the U.S.’s trade with Korea.
Simple. The percentage of Korea’s trade with the U.S. exceeds the percentage of the U.S.’s trade with Korea.
That being the case, it would seem that the US has the most to gain–an increased percentage of its own exported products that go to Korea. Would an FTA give Korean products better or cheaper access to the US market than they already enjoy? Given that they have such a saturated presence with so many product lines in so many US markets, I can’t imagine that they are lacking in this respect, at least relative to the US’ access for its products to the Korean markets.
There are already a lot more Hyundais on the streets of LA than there are Fords on the streets of Seoul, and no signs that this situation will reverse anytime soon. So, how does Korea gain by entering into this deal?
I have seen programs about the bug bugs.
I think the Japanese started it with their fascination with robotics and intrigue. I saw the dragonfly bug inparticular. The idea was to mimic the look and motion of household bugs that navigate such areas.
Indeed, I’d agree that South Korea’s markets are more closed than our own, so the U.S. will see a greater expansion of the Korean market than Korea will see of the U.S. market. But the United States is still a vastly larger market than Korea, so I still posit that Korea stands to gain more.
But the United States is still a vastly larger market than Korea, so I still posit that Korea stands to gain more.
C’mon guys, it’s all in how you measure it.
From one point of view you could probably posit that Seoul has nothing at all of value to gain from this deal.
The US markets have been wide open for decades. It can’t get any more open than open. There’s no more territory left to conquer on US shores.
The US, on the other hand, has much to gain. Korean markets are closed or only semi-open to American made goods in many respects and can be pushed open further with an FTA.
At the same time however, with Congress and a growing percentage of the US population increasingly pissed off with Korea, an FTA may be a huge benfit to Korea to prevent protectionary tariffs or other backlashes in the near to medium term.
If Korea never bought another Snicker’s bar, can of Coke, or 747 the United States would see far less of a speed bump than Korea would if Americans stopped buying Korean made cars, DVD players, and cell phones.
Korea may already have all the access they want or need, but the key is to find a way to keep it open indefinitely.
The benefits of an FTA all depend on who is measuring and from what vantage point.