Peer reviewed analysis from world leading experts

Keeping the KORUS FTA alive

Reading Time: 2 mins

In Brief

After the summit meeting with President Obama, President Lee Myung-bak urged representatives of top U.S. companies to push for quick ratification of a stalled U.S.-South Korean free trade deal. He told a crowd of business leaders at the June 16 dinner sponsored by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that 'now is the time to step up' and ratify a deal that he said would boost trade dramatically and strengthen the countries' alliance. President Obama said during the summit that he wanted to make sure differences over automobiles are settled before the deal is sent to Congress for ratification.

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

Share

  • A
  • A
  • A

With the growing importance of political economy in international relations, the prominent position of market economies in Northeast Asia harbors political, strategic and economic implications. In this context, trans-Pacific economic interdependence has been the backbone of prosperity for the last few decades and will constitute the single most important factor determining the region’s economic order in this century. This interdependence is a two-way street, benefiting both Asiaincluding South Koreaand the United States. In this context, Seoul and Washington need to deepen bilateral economic ties and work together on regional economic cooperation. South Korea can play an important role throughout the region. For example, in view of the enormous differences in the level of economic development, it can act as a bridge between developed and developing countries.

In this vein, the KORUS FTA should be understood as a part of the strategic alliance. President Obama should recognize the fact that the United States has acquired invisible strategic benefits from the KORUS FTA since the United States can utilize its FTA with South Korea to encourage a regional FTA and to discourage ‘East Asian regionalism’ that excludes the United States. On the regional level, the current U.S. strategy asks South Korea to choose between the ‘East Asian regionalism’ preferred by China on the one hand and Asia-Pacific regionalism promoted by the U.S. on the other. For South Korea, ‘Asia-Pacific regionalism’ which includes Pacific nations such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, seems to be a better choice to satisfy both China and the U.S. than East Asian regionalism that solely includes ASEAN plus Three countries. Still, Asia Pacific regionalism should not damage cooperation with China, and should lead the effort for regional cooperation. In this co ntext, the June 16 summit meeting reminded those two leaders, particularly President Obama, of the strategic importance of the KORUS FTA from a wider regional perspective.

Kim Sung-han is Professor of International Relations at the Graduate School of International Studies, Korea University, in Seoul. This article was originally published by the Jeju Peace Institute.

One response to “Keeping the KORUS FTA alive”

  1. It appears there are some inconsistency and contradictions in the arguments in the article as a whole. Further, it seems also suffers some logic problems.

    The author says in the second paragraph that: “trans-Pacific economic interdependence has been the backbone of prosperity for the last few decades and will constitute the single most important factor determining the region’s economic order in this century.” Many people would say that the 21st century belongs to Asian century. The latter has been underpinned by the dramatic development of China and India, both of which are very large nations with over a billion people and a rapidly growing economy.

    At a time of the great recession when many most advanced economies are in serious trouble that would accelerate the international transfer or transformation of economic weights geographically, most people would feel puzzled or maybe perplexed by the claim that trans-Pacific economic interdependence will constitute the single most important factor determining the region’s economic order in this century. Isn’t this 21st century? Aren’t we live in the 21st century now? Are we dreaming in the last century? Or, maybe the author would suggest that people should say the 21st Asian century is lead by the US, because otherwise the trans-Pacific interdependence can’t be THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR determining the region’s economic order in this century. Or can it, one begs?

    The confusion between bilateral and regional issues is not so subtle or unclear in the third paragraph. The KORUS FTA is bilateral one, while both ‘East Asian regionalism’ and ‘Asia-Pacific regionalism’ are regional. They can all exist without denying each other. So can WTO exist, a world wide. They can overlap to some degree, just as bilateral ones with WTO. One wonders why South Korea should be trouble in choosing which one, because it can choose to participate in all three of them. Is that a difficult decision to make for anyone?

    Yes the author emphasises the point of the KORUS FTA for wider regional importance. One can’t help getting a sense of the past era of cold war rhetoric. Maybe that is the author’s key message. However, even president Obama has criticised others for cold war era thinking. So the author has an impossible mission and seemingly insurmountable task in convincing the key player, that is, the president himself. Let’s keep eyes wide open and see if he can achieve the “mission impossible” in the 21st and Asian century. And wish him good luck!

Support Quality Analysis

Donate
The East Asia Forum office is based in Australia and EAF acknowledges the First Peoples of this land — in Canberra the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people — and recognises their continuous connection to culture, community and Country.

Article printed from East Asia Forum (https://www.eastasiaforum.org)

Copyright ©2024 East Asia Forum. All rights reserved.