Arguments of a yesterday man

Comments on Kim Sung-han “Keeping the KORUS FTA alive”, 17/07/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/07/17/keeping-the-korus-fta-alive/comment-page-1/

It appears there are some inconsistency and contradictions in the arguments in the article as a whole. Further, it seems also suffers some logic problems.

The author says in the second paragraph that: “trans-Pacific economic interdependence has been the backbone of prosperity for the last few decades and will constitute the single most important factor determining the region’s economic order in this century.” Many people would say that the 21st century belongs to Asian century. The latter has been underpinned by the dramatic development of China and India, both of which are very large nations with over a billion people and a rapidly growing economy.

At a time of the great recession when many most advanced economies are in serious trouble that would accelerate the international transfer or transformation of economic weights geographically, most people would feel puzzled or maybe perplexed by the claim that trans-Pacific economic interdependence will constitute the single most important factor determining the region’s economic order in this century. Isn’t this 21st century? Aren’t we live in the 21st century now? Are we dreaming in the last century? Or, maybe the author would suggest that people should say the 21st Asian century is lead by the US, because otherwise the trans-Pacific interdependence can’t be THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR determining the region’s economic order in this century. Or can it, one begs?

The confusion between bilateral and regional issues is not so subtle or unclear in the third paragraph. The KORUS FTA is bilateral one, while both ‘East Asian regionalism’ and ‘Asia-Pacific regionalism’ are regional. They can all exist without denying each other. So can WTO exist, a world wide. They can overlap to some degree, just as bilateral ones with WTO. One wonders why South Korea should be trouble in choosing which one, because it can choose to participate in all three of them. Is that a difficult decision to make for anyone?

Yes the author emphasises the point of the KORUS FTA for wider regional importance. One can’t help getting a sense of the past era of cold war rhetoric. Maybe that is the author’s key message. However, even president Obama has criticised others for cold war era thinking. So the author has an impossible mission and seemingly insurmountable task in convincing the key player, that is, the president himself.

Let’s keep eyes wide open and see if he can achieve the “mission impossible” in the 21st and Asian century. And wish him good luck!