The Art of Diplomacy: Ambassador Vershbow and the Free Trade Agreement
| May 1, 2006 • Diplomats are usually “diplomatic.” This means, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, “having or showing an ability to deal with people in a sensitive and effective way.” The American Ambassador to Korea, Alexander Vershbow, is both a diplomat and, for the most part, very diplomatic. At the Ilmin International Relations Institute at Korea University on May 1, 2006, Ambassador Vershbow delivered an address on “The Future of US-Korea Relations.” In his speech, he covered a variety of issues: the US-ROK security relationship, ongoing negotiations for a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between Korea and the US, the visa waiver program (which would allow Korean tourists to enter the United States without a visa), the North Korean nuclear issue, and so on. Following his talk, he answered questions from the audience in a generally forthright, but still diplomatic manner. On the highly charged issue of Korean and Japanese claims over a small set of islands called Dokto in Korean (and Takeshima in Japanese), Ambassador Vershbow deftly responded to a comment/question from a Korean member of the audience, who pointedly asked the Ambassador why the United States does not take the “Korean side” on the issue. Although the Ambassador was explicit in saying the US would not take sides, he did so in a manner that neither implied the Korean position was wrong or right. As he explained it, the United States has studied the issue in depth, particularly from the standpoint of international law, and had concluded that there is no clear answer. As such, the United States cannot take a position, and—contrary to reports in the Korean mass media—has decided to stay completely on the sidelines. (The Korean media, Vershbow stressed, erroneously reported that, in his official capacity, he is serving as mediator between Korea and Japan on the issue. But this is simply not the case.) |
On a range of other issues, the Ambassador was equally “diplomatic.” However, during his speech and in the Q&A period, Vershbow made one less-than-diplomatic comment on the FTA issue. Clearly, as America’s top diplomatic representative to Korea, Vershbow supports the negotiations, but, in referring to groups in Korea that oppose the FTA, the Ambassador asserted that they are simply “missing the point.” Specifically, he suggested that the protesters are ignorant (to put it politely) in that they do not understand that free trade is not a zero-sum game, and that the trade agreement will benefit both countries. Later, during the Q&A period he elaborated on his prepared comments, and noted that Koreans really have nothing to fear, in part, because Korea is clearly benefiting from trade with the United States—he stressed several times that Korea is running a trade surplus with the US—and that Korean negotiators are very smart and hard-nosed. To Vershbow, in other words, they know what they’re doing and they will get a good deal for Korea. He also evinced slightly more understanding of those who oppose the FTA.
I have no doubt that the Ambassador is sincere about the benefits of free trade, and I also believe that the FTA will likely be a benefit to Korea overall. However, to argue that opponents of the FTA are “missing the point,” also misses the point. For, while capitalism is a wonderfully productive economic system, it has costs. Some groups suffer more than others, some benefit more than others. In the long run, of course, everyone may be better off. But, as John Maynard Keynes so aptly put it, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” This means, to put it simply, that short-term economic (and social) costs cannot be ignored, nor should they be dismissed. Short-term economic costs are very real and can be terribly destructive to individual lives and even to whole communities. To those adversely affected by short-term economic problems, in sum, the long-term simply does not matter.
Ambassador Vershbow, I have no doubt, understands this quite well; yet, this makes his rather undiplomatic statement all the more puzzling. For, saying that opponents of the FTA simply miss the point suggests not only that they are ignorant, but also that they have no legitimate concerns. It is, at best, a patronizing, even condescending statement that reduces people with real concerns to mere children who need to be shown the correct way. This is not to say that all opponents of the FTA have a legitimate point. Certainly, there are some who do not understand economic principles—who genuinely “miss the point.” At the same time, I am equally certain that there are many very knowledgeable Koreans who have valid concerns about the FTA. Nor should we forget a truism in international politics: states generally act in their self-interests. The fact that the United States is the main advocate of the FTA means that it hopes to gain something from the process. Indeed, the fact that the United States continuously runs a trade deficit with Korea tells us that the FTA, in part, is meant to change this situation. This is not necessarily a bad thing for Korea, but it underscores the need for caution. Finally, it is equally crucial to understand that government-to-government negotiations are, by definition, elite-level processes. Thus, just because Korean negotiators may be smart and hard-nosed, does not mean that they are representing the interests of all Koreans. In this regard, those who oppose the FTA have a right and responsibility to make their voices heard. The next time Ambassador Vershbow speaks on this issue, I hope he keeps this point in mind.
By Timothy C. Lim
Associate Professor
Department of Political Science
California State University Los Angeles
Return to Professor Lim's CourseSite Home or to his Seoul Blog