World Business

The Administration is reluctant to make a thrust for consent of the Bush-negotiated agreement because of the trade imbalance between Korean and U.S. automakers

By Moon Ihlwan

Watch original video:

Among several controversial free-trade agreements left over from the Bush Administration for Ron Kirk, President Obama’s choice to be the of the present day U.S. Trade Representative, is a deal the U.S. negotiated with South Korea almost two years ago. When Washington and Seoul signed the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement in 2007, officials from both governments trumpeted the pact as a breakthrough that would excel to an economic bonanza. But the free-trade mete abroad, which requires ratification by lawmakers in both countries to get to into force, didn’t procure congressional approval before President Bush left office.

Explaining Obama’s trade policy at his Senate confirmation hearing on Mar. 9, Kirk, the former mayor of Dallas, made serene the starting anew Administration isn’t keen on lending the agreement much prop. The distribution, Kirk told senators, "conscientious artlessly isn’t fair." Kirk reported Washington was "prepared to step away" from the U.S.-Korea office deal—the biggest by reason of the U.S. since NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement, during the Clinton Administration—unless the Koreans agree to make changes.

Korean officials immediately expressed opposition to renegotiating the agreement, which Obama supporters have criticized for failing to address an imbalance between Korean automakers and the U.S. auto industry. The Koreans have managed to do well in the U.S. market despite the global recession; last year Korean automakers including Hyundai and Kia sold 700,000 cars in the U.S. General Motor’s (GM) Korea subsidiary, GM Daewoo Auto & Technology, ships well over 100,000 Korea-built cars to the U.S. annually. Meanwhile GM, Ford (F), and Chrysler combined managed to sell only about 7,000 vehicles in Korea, according to the Korea Automotive Importers & Distributors Assn. Democrats in Congress have said they felt the Bush Administration didn’t fight as hard for concessions for cars considered in the state of it did for beef and agricultural products.

Yet economists and industry officials in Seoul point at a loss there’session no way any free-trade agreement could rectify the gap in the foreseeable future. "The only measure I be possible to reason of to suppress the imbalance is imposing quotas, which are not allowed in a free-trade agreement," says Lee Hang Koo, an auto specialist at the Korea Institute for Industrial Economics & Trade, a government-funded think tank in Seoul. "The Americans simply don’familiarily offer attractive products."

Indeed, the first this decade of Korea’s car place of traffic largely benefited European and Japanese makers. While the share of imported cars rose to more than 6% of more 960,000 sedans sold in Korea in conclusion year, up from 0.7% in 2001, European and Japanese brands account for nearly 90% of the imports. Although Korea has emerged as one of the world’s top five markets in quest of BMW’s flagship 7 Series, General Motors sold only 577 Cadillac sedans to Korean drivers last year.

Under the terms of the free-trade deal forged by the Bush team, South Korea would remove its 8% tariff onward the whole of U.S. vehicles and parts immediately after legislators of the two countries approved the grant. To help ingenuity U.S. concerns about nontariff barriers, Seoul also agreed to make different its auto tax arrangement of parts, what one. calls despite higher rates for vehicles with larger engines. In return, the U.S. agreed to remove its 2.5% imply make demands upon for Korean cars with 3-liter or smaller engines, as well as for car parts. The schedule of duties for cars with bigger engines would subsist removed over three years, season a 25% U.S. tariff beneficial to pickup trucks would be gradually phased out over 10 years.

During her visit to Korea last month, part of an Asian tour that was her first overseas trip as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton also expressed the distress for Korea to renegotiate provisions of the pact covering trade in autos and other manufactured goods. Clinton argued that ratification of the agreement in its not away shape would mean Washington would lose its remaining leverage to "counteract" Korea’s nontariff barriers. She added that the Obama Administration will be in action with the Koreans if they would be willing to renegotiate the provisions.

The American deal isn’t the only of game in town, though. The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea has supported the free-trade agreement and AmCham Korea President Tami Overby declared last month a separate free-trade accord being negotiated between Korea and Europe may provide an impetus for the U.S.-Korean calling deal. "Should the EU-Korea FTA get ratified first, that is surprising pressure for us to use for our members of Congress to do their job to ensure our companies are not left abaft," said Overby.

Still, people Korean economists aren’t to the degree that optimistic. They count upon any ratification of the U.S.-Korean deal will have to wait till after a U.S. economic recovery. That’s because duty-free access isn’t likely to boost buying and selling much unless consumers and companies start spending again. Says Han Sangwan, older economist at Hyundai Research Institute, a particular opine tank: "With Detroit in serious trouble and Obama giving a high priority to keeping U.S. jobs, it won’t be politically [palatable] for the Democrats to approve a free-trade deal."

Original text: http://rss.businessweek.com/~r/bw_rss/asiaindex/~3/AHAwM8MxjHg/gb20090313_754498.htm