Members of the North Jeolla chapter of the Korean Peasants League hold a rally in front of the Jeonbuk State Government building in Jeonju, North Jeolla, on Sept. 15, calling for a halt to Korea's pursuit of membership in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership and denouncing the potential dispatch of Korean forces to the Strait of Hormuz.NEWS1
Cho Min-geun
The author is an editorial writer at the JoongAng Ilbo.
Even Rep. Han Dong-hoon, who has repeatedly attacked what he calls the myth surrounding the investigation of former President Roh Moo-hyun, acknowledges one achievement: the Korea-U.S. FTA.
Han said he appreciates and respects several decisions Roh made for the national interest despite opposition from his supporters. As a politician himself, Han presumably understands how difficult it is to pursue policies that alienate one's political base.
Roh's strategy of simultaneously negotiating FTAs with advanced economies was remarkably bold. But Korea's circumstances demanded action.
The Doha Development Agenda had stalled amid disagreements among member countries, undermining the multilateral trading system. Meanwhile, regional trade blocs were emerging, beginning with the North American Free Trade Agreement. Korea, heavily dependent on multilateral trade arrangements, risked being left behind.
Roh therefore accepted considerable economic and political risks. Supporters complained that he was signaling left while turning right. His response was straightforward: Even unfavorable decisions sometimes had to be made.
The gamble succeeded. Once a laggard in free trade agreements, Korea now has FTAs with 59 countries. These agreements helped propel exports toward the $1 trillion annual milestone.
Yet the global trading environment is undergoing another transformation.
Intensifying U.S.-China rivalry and supply chain restructuring have changed the rules. Washington's sweeping tariffs have effectively neutralized the Korea-U.S. FTA. Nevertheless, the United States and China still account for 15 percent and 20 percent of Korean exports, respectively.
Korea urgently needs a new economic security framework capable of withstanding tensions between the two powers. That explains growing interest in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).
The CPTPP is a major trade agreement involving 12 economies, including Japan, Britain, Mexico, Australia and Canada. Korea's trade with its members totaled $341 billion last year, exceeding its trade with China ($273 billion) and the United States ($196 billion).
In January, the government raised the possibility of joining the agreement. In August, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Resources formally included consideration of membership in its second-half policy agenda.
Trade Minister Kim Jung-kwan summed up the rationale: It would be stranger for a trading nation like Korea not to join. President Lee Jae Myung expressed similar views on social media on Sept. 29, writing that Korea, as an open economy dependent on international trade, inevitably needs FTAs to expand export markets.
Yet the membership initiative abruptly stalled within a week.
At an Oct. 6 Cabinet meeting, the government's position shifted to reconsidering the initiative from scratch. The president subsequently instructed officials to postpone any membership applications until next year. The stated reason was the need to build greater trust and consensus with farmers and fishermen who could suffer losses.
That explanation is remarkably vague for such a significant policy reversal. Applying for CPTPP membership does not mean immediately joining the agreement. An application merely begins lengthy negotiations that can fail at any stage.
As external negotiations clarify the terms of an agreement, governments typically conduct parallel domestic negotiations to address the interests of affected industries and communities. Korea's previous successful FTA negotiations followed precisely this approach.
It is therefore understandable that attention has turned to another possible explanation: growing resentment among farmers following the government's comprehensive farmland survey. If that controversy contributed to the reversal, the implications are particularly damaging for an administration that has championed what it calls competent pragmatism.
A poorly managed domestic policy would then have undermined a major economic initiative directly affecting livelihoods. Pragmatism requires administrative competence, not merely declarations of practical intent. The government must now demonstrate that competence by repairing the damage and restoring momentum behind the CPTPP initiative.
Concerns among agricultural and fishing communities deserve serious attention. Their potential losses must be assessed carefully and appropriate safeguards negotiated. But those concerns should be addressed through sustained consultation and concrete measures rather than used to justify indefinitely postponing a strategic decision.
Public deliberation and consensus building are essential elements of democratic policymaking. They must not become convenient excuses for quietly abandoning a policy the government itself recently described as necessary. Having reversed course, the administration owes the public a convincing explanation and a credible path forward.
Incompetence cannot be concealed by irresponsibility.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
