Victory or “Die for a Tie”?

[Mikeg]

Remarks by President Obama Honoring Veterans Day in Seoul, South Korea:

".......Because the Korean War ended where it began geographically, some ended up using the phrase “Die for a Tie” to describe the sacrifices of those who fought here. But as we look around in this thriving democracy and its grateful, hopeful citizens, one thing is clear: This was no tie. This was victory. [[Hoaa!) [[Applause.)
This was a victory then, and it is a victory today. And 60 years later, a friendship that was forged in a war has become an alliance that has led to greater security and untold progress -- not only in the Republic of Korea, but throughout Asia. That is something that everyone here can be extraordinarily proud of......"

The United States can be proud of the security and progress that our blood and treasure brought to South Korea. But I think that President Obama's words ring hollow based on his unwillingness to leverage his power as Commander-in-Chief and fight for "a victory today" on the free-trade economic front while he was in South Korea:

Obama, weakened after midterms, reveals limited leverage in failed S. Korea deal

SEOUL - President Obama's failure to secure a free-trade agreement with South Korea reveals in sharp relief the limits of his leverage overseas after a devastating midterm election....

Administration officials say the South Korea deal, which Obama inherited mostly complete from the Bush administration, would increase exports of U.S. goods by $10 billion annually and support 70,000 jobs in the United States.

Officials were aiming to finish the deal before Obama sat down Thursday with with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak. But talks foundered, mostly on issues involving the auto and beef markets, and the two leaders were left with nothing more to announce than that they would keep working....

[GOAT]

I thought the Korean war was a victory for us. The communist North wanted to take over the south. It didn't happen. Therefore the goals of the commies weren't met. We stopped them; that means victory.

As for free-trade with Korea? No way! The Korean gov't [[with loads of money given to them by the USA to this day) has a hand inmost of the Korean companies...that is an unfair advantage. Fair trade, not Free trade!

[Ray1936]

Two years ago in Seoul, Korean university students rioted and demonstrated, carrying signs "U.S. out of Korea". Ever since then the idea has been okay with me.

I could care less if the commies took over the southern half of that peninsula anyway.

[Johnlodge]

Two years ago in Seoul, Korean university students rioted and demonstrated, carrying signs "U.S. out of Korea". Ever since then the idea has been okay with me.

I could care less if the commies took over the southern half of that peninsula anyway.

Now Ray, your point is taken, but if all foreign policy was dictated by college students with signs, we'd have some serious problems.

[Mikeg]

Whatever happened to the Democrats' "race to the bottom" argument against trade liberalization?

This South Korean trade deal episode represents not only a diplomatic humiliation for President Obama, it's a poster child for the kind of "bipartisanship" that the Democrats are always claiming to want from the Republicans, and the foot-dragging and game-playing that continues once they get it. The deeper one digs into the background of this clusterfuck, the more one has to conclude that the Obama Administration is either too beholden to special interests, simply incompetent or both.

Here is a snippet from Thursday's NY Times:

Obama’s Trade Strategy Runs Into Stiff Resistance
Nov. 11, 2010

SEOUL, South Korea — President Obama’s hopes of emerging from his Asia trip with the twin victories of a free trade agreement with South Korea and a unified approach to spurring economic growth around the world ran into resistance on all fronts on Thursday, putting Mr. Obama at odds with his key allies and largest trading partners.

The most concrete trophy expected to emerge from the trip eluded his grasp: a long-delayed free trade agreement with South Korea, first negotiated by the Bush administration and then reopened by Mr. Obama, to have greater protections for American workers.......

.....Mr. Obama repeatedly found himself on the defensive. He and the South Korean president, Lee Myung-bak, had vowed to complete the trade pact by the time they met here; while Mr. Obama insisted that it would be resolved “in a matter of weeks,” without the pressure of a summit meeting it was unclear how the hurdles on nontariff barriers to American cars and beef would be resolved. [read the entire article]

Hmmm......, you'd think that the "paper of record" would enlighten us as to what those "nontariff barriers to American cars" might be. Since apparently the NYT thinks that is not part of "all the news that is fit to print", it got me to looking more deeply into what has happened with this free trade ageement.

Here's the NY Times announcing the "compromise" on the proposed trade deal that was reached between the Bush Administration and the Democrat House leaders Nancy Pelosi and Charlie Rangel back in May of 2007:

Bush and Democrats in Accord on Trade Deals

WASHINGTON, May 10 — The Bush administration reached agreement on Thursday with the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and other Democrats to attach environmental and worker protections in several pending trade accords, clearing the way for early passage of some pacts and improving prospects for others.

The unusual agreement, which came after weeks of negotiations, would guarantee workers the right to organize, ban child labor and prohibit forced labor in trading-partner countries. It would also require trading partners to enforce environmental laws already on their books and comply with several international environmental agreements.

While the understanding was a victory for Democrats, it also represented a shrewd compromise by the White House. The agreement is the first major bipartisan economic deal to emerge since Democrats took control of Congress in January. It has immediate importance for four countries — Colombia, Panama, Peru and South Korea — that are seeking to enter into trade pacts with the United States.......

Administration officials are hoping that the agreement will cause many Democrats to support future trade deals. They hope that enough Democrats will join with Republicans, who generally support such measures, to make passage of the agreements probable, if only narrowly.

The negotiations were led on the administration side by Susan C. Schwab, the top trade envoy, and Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr., and on the House side by Representative Charles B. Rangel, Democrat of New York and chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

“I think today is a recognition of the results of the November election,” Ms. Pelosi said at a news conference.....[read the entire article]

So what happened between May of 2007 and November of 2010 that resulted in President Obama leaving South Korea empty-handed?

Under the terms of the automotive portion of the proposed trade agreement, South Korea would immediately remove their 8 and 10 percent tariffs on US-produced autos and trucks, while the US would immediately remove our 2.5 percent tariff on South Korean autos and phase out over ten years our 25 percent tariff on their trucks.

Sounds like the US would be getting a pretty fair deal, doesn't it? Well, not fair enough for the Democrats and their special interest group supporters. New objections were "found" and raised by Democrat members of Congress and their leadership failed to get the proposed trade deal ratified during the 110th Congress.

Emboldened by the supposed mandate the Democrats thought they received in November 2008, the Obama Administration announced that they were going to reopen negotiations with the South Korean government to get improvements in the automotive portion and then have it announced during his Asian trip and ratified by the 111th Congress.

However, not much happened on the negotiating front until the President's 2010 Asia trip neared. The US trade negotiators worked feverishly with their South Korean counterparts to find a compromise on the automotive sticking points, but failed to do so in time for the President's visit.

So what is the sticking point on which the trade agreement re-opener has foundered? After some searching, I found that it's the Obama Administration's accusation that South Korean environmental standards are too high! That's right, the US government is claiming that South Korea's more stringent fuel economy and air emissions standards act as an unfair barrier to cars and trucks made in U.S. factories and should be relaxed [source].

So much for the Democrat's long-standing, "principled" objections to trade liberalization on the basis that it causes countries to engage in a "race to the bottom", particularly on environmental standards