On the twenty third day of May 2008, Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barrack Obama voiced his displeasure over the US- South Korean free trade agreement asserting that President Bush would have to tassel it out with him if he were to send it to parliament. Senator Obama has also opposed other Trade agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Despite the fact that the Senator has his reasons for doing so, one cannot ignore the benefits that such trade agreements have brought to the country. (Chosun news, 2008)
The benefits of Free Trade Agreements
President Bush pushed for the free trade agreement between the United States and South Korea. This marked one of the largest agreements after NAFTA. Senator Obama claims that this trade agreement will hurt the American laborer but his arguments hold no water given the fact that the will encourage more trade. In the end, there will still be jobs for the American worker. For instance, if the US –South Korean trade agreement is sealed, then it would increase the number of imports into the US by a whooping seven billion. Additionally, the trade agreement would also increase the number of exports to South Korea by ten billion. Senator Obama claims that there are too many South Korean products that enter the US market compared to those that leave the US. However, the trade agreement would ascertain that the US’ exports increase and this will eventually boost the economy. (Palmer, 2008)
South Korea is a key US ally
The US has been conducting trade with South Korea for years. Senator Obama ascertains that the automobile industry within the US is particularly feeling the pinch because too many South Korean vehicles are entering the US market. However, one cannot underestimate the fact that South Korea has been a great business ally with the US. Surplus registered in one industry is offset by an imbalance in another sector. For instance, South Korea’ s farmers were complaining that the US had restricted entry of beef products into the country and this led to tension between the two countries. Even though South Korean automobile manufacturers were enjoying doing business with the US, they were still feeling the pinch in the livestock sector. It is important for the US to protect its relationships with certain key allies because the country has taken so long to forge that relationship. Rejecting a trade agreement with the country could damage this relationship. (Palmer, 2008)
The US should seriously consider South Korea as strategic partner. First of all, South Korea’s economy has grown at a very past pace. This means that there is a lot that the US could benefit from such an economy. Additionally, South Korea borders a country that could present danger to the American people. South Korea’s neighbors have nuclear programs and are run by dictators. Therefore, if the US forged a relationship with South Korea, then it would be protecting its military interests in case of any eventuality. It is the duty of the American government to protect and maintain the delicate relationships it has with key allies such as South Korea and other Asian countries. (Chris, 2008)
Additionally, the US owes its loyalty to South Korea. South Korea has been instrumental in the war in Iraq because it contributed towards the troops sent into the Middle East. Therefore, the US owes South Korea this favor. Senator Obama is advocating for double standards by rejecting NAFTA and other free trade agreements. Obama has made a name for himself as a good negotiator. He asserts that the US needs to learn how to negotiate with its enemies especially in the middle east. Consequently, the Senator should apply the same policy in the US-South Korea trade agreement. If he can negotiate with US enemies, why should he ignore the pleas of key allies such as South Korea. (Lifson, 2008)
Obama is encouraging Isolationism
Some politicians such as Alex Conant have been blatant enough to call Senator Obama an Isolationist. While this remark may seem harsh, it is portraying a true image of what the Illinois Senator is doing. Senator Obama claims that his main intention is to protect natives’ jobs; however, he could just be doing the opposite. By cutting off links with foreign countries such as South Korea, Senator Obama will be slowing down the rate of job growth in the country. Opening up the country to trade will encourage multinationals into the country and it will go a long way in providing these same domestic workers with opportunities to develop their jobs and careers. (Montopoli, 2008)
Barrack Obama is trying to make the US seem like a very vulnerable market to the international community. By refusing such trade agreements, the senator will be ejecting walls around the US in the false hope that he is protecting the country’s living standards. Such an approach is largely misguided. The country has greatly befitted from the NAFTA agreement and the same would happen if it accepted the free trade agreement terms with South Korea. The US economy is much stronger than Senator Obama is making it out to be. If the country could withstand the rush towards outsourcing activities in the nineties, then the same can be said about the Free Trade Agreement. The same arguments Obama is using were the same ones used when the US began outsourcing most of its activities to Asian countries. Analysts claimed that American workers would loose their jobs. But the overall result was a minor decrease in jobs in the manufacturing sector and an increase in jobs in the financial sector. The overall result was a net increase. The US economy has its own mechanisms of adjusting to external forces as the American people are highly innovative. The same will occur if the US consents to the free trade agreement. (Montopoli, 2008)
The trade agreement is beneficial to the business community
It is a known fact that many multinationals stand to benefit from the deal if it were to be endorsed. The perceptions that Senator Obama and other candidates have are that the free trade agreement would only benefit multinationals from South Korea alone and leave the American economy vulnerable. However, this is not necessarily true. As a matter of fact, the US is one of the countries with the largest numbers of international corporations in the world. By accepting the free trade agreement, the US government could boost the number of multinational in South Korea. This means more foreign trade for the US and better economic performance in the long run. (Palmer, 2008)
Conclusion
There is no basis for rejecting fret trade agreements like NAFTA and US-South Korean FTA because they enhance trade, cent relationships with key allies, encourage job growth in other sectors of the economy, enhance growth of US owned multinationals in those respective areas and they also discourage isolationism. These are the major reason why Senator Obama has no basis for opposing the South Korean-US free trade agreement.
Reference
Chosun news (2008): Obama speaks out against US Korea FTA, retrieved from http://www.english.chosun.com/ assessed on 1st July 2008
Montopoli, B. (2008): Obama’s balancing Act on Free Trade, retrieved from http://www.cbsnews/stories/2008/06/20/ assessed on 1st July 2008
Chris (2008): Obama has bad impression of South Korea, Korea Times (English paper), 18/06/2008, p 12
Lifson, T. (2008): Obama’s rhetoric versus reality on South Korea Free Trade pact, retrieved from
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/02/obamas_rhetoric_versus_reality.html assessed on 1st July 2008
Palmer, D. (2008): Obama urges Bush to back off South Korea deal, retrieved from http://www.bilaterals.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=140 assessed on 1st July 2008
Author is associated with ResearchPapers247.Com which is a global Research Papers and Term Papers Writing Company. If you would like help in Research Papers and Term Paper Help you can visit ResearchPapers247.Com>
You must log in to post a comment.