Here's the beef
Last year, I wrote a few posts on the pending U.S.-Korea FTA. A consensus was eventually reached between the negotiators, and the agreement is currently waiting to be ratified by the respective legislatures.
If you go back and read my old posts, you will at least agree that the issues surrounding this agreement are complicated. It seems to me, for instance, that the U.S. should ratify the agreement simply for geopolitical reasons: South Korea is a close ally in a crucial region that has been drifting out of the fold of late. An FTA, if done properly, would more closely wed Korean and U.S. interests, and would enhance Korea's opinion of the U.S. Moreover, economists on both sides have argued for the economic benefits. Automobiles, for instance, seems to be roughly win-win: an FTA would open up the higher-end Korean market to U.S. manufacturers, so that they can compete better with Mercedes and BMW, while opening up the smaller car market in the U.S. to Korean companies, so that they can compete better with Toyota. On the other hand, Korean drug companies worried about increased competition and regulation in the Korean drug market, and Korean food companies and consumer groups worried about the lack of regulation governing U.S. food manufacturers. These are just a few of the contentious issues the negotiators had to work through in no fewer than seven drafts, each hundreds of pages long.
Nevertheless, the FTA has boiled down to one issue: beef. As I've mentioned before, after the mad cow scare in 2002, Korea banned all import of U.S. beef. Korea had been the third or fourth largest importer, but since the ban public opinion in Korea has hardened against U.S. beef as more and more news programs and journalists document the absurd practices that dominate the U.S. cattle industry--see, for example, "The Meatrix," which was featured in one Korean documentary.
But, Sen. Sam Brownback and others in Congress have stated explicitly that they will not support the FTA unless the Koreans completely lift the ban. And so, here we see the effects of democracy in America today: take an incredibly complicated issue, and cut it down to a sound bite that fits on the evening news.
The interesting thing is that the Koreans have taken up beef as the key issue as well. There have been a series of massive, daily protests against allowing U.S. beef back into Korea. Carrying candles--a clear sign that they are different from the petrol-bombing anti-dictatorship protesters of the previous generation--and stalling traffic around the main government buildings, the demonstrators have forced the government to halt the resumption of imports a few times over. Originally started by middle and high school students who organized on the Internet, the demonstrations have become a powerful political force here.
Here are some pictures from the Boston Globe to help you get an idea of the scope of it. (Thanks for the tip, Frazer.)
The latest on the beef dispute is that South Korea has decided not to allow imports of US beef that is from cows that are older than 30 months. This was a concession to the demonstrators in Seoul. Why 30 months? According to NPR, which has a helpful Q & A, "Mad cow has rarely been detected in animals younger than 21 months, so many countries feel mad cow disease will not be a problem in animals younger than that. The United States' safety standards regard animals younger than 30 months as safe for consumption, since the number of cases in animals up to 30 months in age is still extremely small."
The U.S., for it's part, has said that it is not willing to place a quarantine on been aged over 30 months, and that the U.S. beef companies should voluntarily comply with South Korea's wishes. This has lead to a stalemate, and the governments are "in talks."
So, keep an eye on this issue. I will update when I can.
UPDATE: The NY Times ran an article saying that the U.S. has crafted an agreement with beef exporters not to ship beef from 30-months or older cattle to S. Korea. Basically this is just the U.S. companies voluntarily agreeing to abide by S. Korean demands. It is not clear whether this will pacify the Korean negotiators, or protesters. We shall see. The Times also notes that Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) has stated that he will support the FTA if, and only if, the Korean ban on U.S. beef is lifted.
If you go back and read my old posts, you will at least agree that the issues surrounding this agreement are complicated. It seems to me, for instance, that the U.S. should ratify the agreement simply for geopolitical reasons: South Korea is a close ally in a crucial region that has been drifting out of the fold of late. An FTA, if done properly, would more closely wed Korean and U.S. interests, and would enhance Korea's opinion of the U.S. Moreover, economists on both sides have argued for the economic benefits. Automobiles, for instance, seems to be roughly win-win: an FTA would open up the higher-end Korean market to U.S. manufacturers, so that they can compete better with Mercedes and BMW, while opening up the smaller car market in the U.S. to Korean companies, so that they can compete better with Toyota. On the other hand, Korean drug companies worried about increased competition and regulation in the Korean drug market, and Korean food companies and consumer groups worried about the lack of regulation governing U.S. food manufacturers. These are just a few of the contentious issues the negotiators had to work through in no fewer than seven drafts, each hundreds of pages long.
Nevertheless, the FTA has boiled down to one issue: beef. As I've mentioned before, after the mad cow scare in 2002, Korea banned all import of U.S. beef. Korea had been the third or fourth largest importer, but since the ban public opinion in Korea has hardened against U.S. beef as more and more news programs and journalists document the absurd practices that dominate the U.S. cattle industry--see, for example, "The Meatrix," which was featured in one Korean documentary.
But, Sen. Sam Brownback and others in Congress have stated explicitly that they will not support the FTA unless the Koreans completely lift the ban. And so, here we see the effects of democracy in America today: take an incredibly complicated issue, and cut it down to a sound bite that fits on the evening news.
The interesting thing is that the Koreans have taken up beef as the key issue as well. There have been a series of massive, daily protests against allowing U.S. beef back into Korea. Carrying candles--a clear sign that they are different from the petrol-bombing anti-dictatorship protesters of the previous generation--and stalling traffic around the main government buildings, the demonstrators have forced the government to halt the resumption of imports a few times over. Originally started by middle and high school students who organized on the Internet, the demonstrations have become a powerful political force here.
Here are some pictures from the Boston Globe to help you get an idea of the scope of it. (Thanks for the tip, Frazer.)
The latest on the beef dispute is that South Korea has decided not to allow imports of US beef that is from cows that are older than 30 months. This was a concession to the demonstrators in Seoul. Why 30 months? According to NPR, which has a helpful Q & A, "Mad cow has rarely been detected in animals younger than 21 months, so many countries feel mad cow disease will not be a problem in animals younger than that. The United States' safety standards regard animals younger than 30 months as safe for consumption, since the number of cases in animals up to 30 months in age is still extremely small."
The U.S., for it's part, has said that it is not willing to place a quarantine on been aged over 30 months, and that the U.S. beef companies should voluntarily comply with South Korea's wishes. This has lead to a stalemate, and the governments are "in talks."
So, keep an eye on this issue. I will update when I can.
UPDATE: The NY Times ran an article saying that the U.S. has crafted an agreement with beef exporters not to ship beef from 30-months or older cattle to S. Korea. Basically this is just the U.S. companies voluntarily agreeing to abide by S. Korean demands. It is not clear whether this will pacify the Korean negotiators, or protesters. We shall see. The Times also notes that Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) has stated that he will support the FTA if, and only if, the Korean ban on U.S. beef is lifted.
posted by Brian at 6:11 PM
2 Comments:
Interesting post Bri. As a Brit the whole situation seems a bit strange to me. We had our own BSE crisis here, long before hit the US I think (a quick google shows 1996) and I don't recall the same hysteria as is being generated over this situation. I know the beef industry here was devastated and there were calls for tit for tat bans when France etc were found to have BSE in their cattle too. We also had to deal with the 30 month rule as well and not just for exports for our domestic market too.
The most interesting thing for me is not the Koreans reaction, there has been so much opposition to the FTA it was only to be expected, but rather the attitude Americans seem to be taking. I don't know how this is being received in the US or how it's being covered by the media there but judging by the comments of Americans on Dave's etc. you'd think that Korea had declared war on the States. They seem to be taking the protests as a personal affront, when really it's not that big of a deal.
I'm curious as to why you think the US doesn't just agree to only send beef under 30 months and do away with all this 'producers voluntarily agree...' It seems you are just giving Korea more reasons to prolong the whole dispute.
If you go back and read my old posts on the FTA, you'll see that I totally understand why Koreans would be skeptical about it. (I wrote that Americans, on the other hand, should not hesitate to ratify it.) I do think that the BSE scare is overblown, but it doesn't seem like too much to ask to ban 30-months-and-older beef. So, I am not sympathetic with those Americans who are upset over the protests. The ostensible reason why the U.S. government won't agree to ban 30-months-and-older beef for export is that doing so would violate certain WTO rules about keeping markets open. This seems self-serving, but it may well be true. I see no reason, other than malevolence, why U.S. beef companies would not agree to a voluntary ban. The problem is that the Koreans might not trust the companies, and so would not be satisfied with such an agreement. That's all the info I've got at the moment.
Post a Comment
<< Home