Relations impacts and cp’s
Download 1.27 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- KORUS FTA Solves political relations
Korus FTA CP 1ncEconomic trade is the most important step to improved US-ROK relations Marcus Noland and Taeho Bark, 3 – Noland is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics; Bark is vice president of the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy, Seoul (October, "The Strategic Importance of U.S.-South Korea Economic Relations", http://works.bepress.com/marcus_noland/13 ) Due to the still critical nature of the United States-Republic of Korea (U.S.-ROK) alliance, diplomatic and economic relations between the two nations assume larger than usual importance. This fourth NBR Special Report examines whether economic ties could diffuse conflict in other aspects of the bilateral relationship, or whether economic irritants might be a source of further bilateral tensions. In the Foreword, Stephen W. Bosworth, former Ambassador to the Republic of Korea and current Dean of the Fletcher School at Tufts University, places the importance of United States-Republic of Korea relations in the broader context of ongoing changes in Northeast Asia. He notes the tremendous growth of “non-military components” in the relationship—trade, of course, but also South Korea’s democracy, its role as a partner of the United States on issues “far from the Korean Peninsula,” and the cultural link based in the Korean-American community. Ambassador Bosworth concludes that the bilateral relationship has vastly increased in complexity for these reasons, due to the rise of China, and a host of other developments. He argues, consequently, that the alliance is sure to change in the future. In the subsequent essays, Dr. Marcus Noland of the Institute of International Economics and Dr. Taeho Bark of Seoul National University offer trenchant analyses on the state of economic relations and the potential repercussions for the strategic relationship. Marcus Noland feels that the economic relationship between the United States and South Korea—characterized by increasing intra-industry trade, rising services trade, expanding inter-corporate penetration, and growing foreign direct investment (FDI)—appears to be evolving towards something more like the relationships that the United States maintains with most other OECD countries. This expansion of bilateral interdependence, however, is not without its irritants. The motor vehicle and steel sectors remain perennial problems. Antidumping practices in the United States and capital channeling in South Korea are also sources of ongoing disputes. Additionally, Noland describes the declining relative importance of the two countries in each other’s global trade relationships. The net result may well be a relative decoupling of interests that could reinforce the widening strategic differences between the two historic allies, especially if South Koreans come to regard China and Japan as acting more constructively than the United States with regard to North Korea. In his essay, Taeho Bark points out that the United States is still South Korea’s most important trading partner. But various irritants remain in the economic relationship. Among these are the contentious bilateral trade issues in automotives, steel safeguarding, semiconductors, and IPR. If any of the bilateral trade conflicts become political, anti-American sentiment in South Korea will quickly rise, which will negatively affect the U.S. position on the North Korean nuclear issue and on other security issues. Given the fluid international situation in Northeast Asia, South Korea has become in some ways a fulcrum of the U.S. military presence in the region. Without a presence in Korea, the U.S. presence in Japan could be put into question. Persistent trade friction threatens to poison this strategically vital bilateral partnership. Therefore, a thorough assessment of U.S.- South Korean economic relations can help U.S. policymakers and leaders in South Korea gain a clear understanding of the issues that can and will affect not only the economic well-being of both nations, but also the strategic situation in Northeast Asia. KORUS FTA Solves political relationsThe KORUS FTA is key to US policies in Asia Korea Times, 10 (Na Jeong-ju, April 12, “KORUS FTA Crucial for US' Asia Strategy”, http://www.lexisnexis.com/us/lnacademic/results/docview/docview.do?docLinkInd=true&risb=21_T9700849249&format=GNBFI&sort=BOOLEAN&startDocNo=1&resultsUrlKey=29_T9700847895&cisb=22_T9700847894&treeMax=true&treeWidth=0&csi=174045&docNo=9) President Lee Myung-bak has called on the Obama administration and Congress to step up debate on the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA), saying an early ratification of the deal, signed in 2007, will be crucial for Obama's East Asia strategy. "The FTA will not only help boost economic ties between Seoul and Washington, but also is strategically important for the U.S. in shaping its future policies regarding Asia," Lee said in an interview with The Washington Post, published Monday. "The U.S. should always keep in mind China, which is growing fast, militarily and economically. The ratification of the KORUS FTA has a much more important meaning than simple economic cooperation between the two allies." The KORUS FTA would improve relations with South Korea and have a regional impact Christopher Hill, 06 – Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs (September 27, “The United States and the Republic of Korea Alliance”, http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Indexes/Vol%2029_1/Hill.pdf, pg. 44-45) A Common Interest in Free Trade You know well that while we are still military allies, we now have a more mature, multi-faceted relationship that features a healthy and strong economic partnership based on a common interest in free trade. It is that partnership that is becoming the driver of our relationship. We are currently working with the Government of South Korea to negotiate a free trade agreement (FTA) that would be the largest U.S. trade agreement in more than a decade. Korea is already our seventh largest trading partner. Through July of 2006 we exchanged more than $45 billion worth of goods, and we have a healthy trade in services as well. The United States is the largest foreign investor in Korea, and Korean investment in the United States is growing rapidly. We have never before been so economically vested in each other’s well being than we are today. An FTA would further strengthen this economic relationship, bringing benefits to both countries and providing a new pillar for the alliance. These negotiations will not be easy, as no undertaking of this magnitude is. There are powerful interests lined up on both sides. We are trying to bring down both tariff and non-tariff barriers including in Korea’s highly protected agricultural markets and in the automotive sector. Polls in Korea show opinion is about evenly split over the FTA. In a way it has become a proxy for attitudes about Korea’s place in the world in general. Opponents assert it will impoverish Korean farmers and turn Korea into a U.S. economic colony. Others see the FTA as a historic opportunity for Korea to undertake needed reforms to modernize its economy and become a dynamic economic hub for Northeast Asia. President Roh has unambiguously aligned himself with the latter, more confident point of view. I too am confident that in the end, that point of view will prevail in Korea, and our commercial relationship will move to a new level, bringing our societies closer together. A successful U.S. and R.O.K. FTA would also have a regional impact. It could become part of a network of FTAs in the Pacific as we have already concluded agreements with Australia and Singapore and are negotiating with Thailand and Malaysia. It might also spur Japan to accelerate its market opening. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 1.27 Mb. Share with your friends:
|