The first headline conveyed encouraging news. The second did not. Last Thursday, The Times-Dispatch reported, "Benefits of S. Korea free-trade pact touted." On Saturday, The Wall Street Journal added, "Dispute threatens key deals on trade."
The Richmond story focused on remarks a Korean diplomat made to a meeting of the Virginia International Business Council and the Virginia Asian Chamber of Commerce. Won-Kyong Kim told the audience that a free-trade agreement between the U.S. and South Korea would remove about 95 percent of the countries' tariffs. The virtual elimination of the duties would facilitate the movement of goods between the two. He also noted that robust wages in South Korea suggest the country would not lure U.S. manufacturing jobs. Indeed, a trade pact would benefit both signatories.
Virginia has a stake in global trade, as its ports serve as entry points for items produced abroad and items produced at home. Hampton Roads has an international presence. A U.S.-Korea free-trade agreement reflects sound theory and practice.
The Journal discussed how a partisan dispute has thrown into doubt trade pacts not only involving the U.S. and South Korea but between the U.S. and Panama and Columbia.
The parties disagree on the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which offers benefits to U.S. workers displaced by foreign competition. Republicans question the policy's utility and scope. Democrats want to preserve it as it is. Unless a compromise is reached on TAA, the three trade deals might not be ratified in a timely fashion. Indeed, a failure to ratify could extend their dates into an indefinite future.
For many years supporters of the Colombia agreement have worked hard for a treaty that ought to have qualified as a no-brainer. The South Korean pact generated less heated opposition. It would be a shame to see the three agreements go down as a consequence of an ancillary issue. One answer would be to ratify the agreements as they are, and to address TAA in separate legislation.
Other countries are proceeding with free-trade agreements with South Korea; if their programs took effect before America acted, the consequences would not be happy for the United States. The question has progressed too far for lawmakers to blink.
Email
Facebook
Google
Twitter
Favorites
More
Advertisement