Deceit, Deceit, Deceit   2008-06-25 01:03

A few days ago, the Korean government had told us that it had made "additional negotiations" with the U.S., and that the result of these negotiations was to effectively ban the import of cattle over 30 months old as well as certain specified risk materials (SRM). While a lot of People are convinced that this solution isn't enough to keep potentially BSE-infected beef out of Korea, the government has repeatedly tried to tell us that its new agreement with the U.S. is good enough.

Not all of us, however, needs to rely on the Korean government for accurate information. The U.S. government has also released a statement regarding the June 20/21 agreement, and this statement importantly sheds light upon the nature of that agreement. The original PDF file of the U.S. Trade Representative's official news release can be found here. The following selections represent parts which I think are revealing.

...as a result of recent discussions in Washington, Korea will put into effect the April 18th beef import protocol agreed to by the two governments and pave the way for U.S. beef to flow into the Korean market...

Susan C. Schwab: "I welcome the South Korean government’s announcement that it will shortly put the April 18 protocol into effect. Korean beef importers and U.S. exporters have reached a commercial understanding that only U.S. beef from cattle under 30-months of age will be shipped to Korea, as a transitional measure, to improve Korean consumer confidence in U.S. beef. At the request of U.S. exporters, once the protocol goes into effect, the U.S. government will facilitate this transitional private sector arrangement. The U.S. Department of Agriculture will set up a voluntary Quality System Assessment (QSA) Program once the protocol goes into effect. This program will verify that beef from participating plants will be from cattle less than 30 months of age. We have also agreed on a few additional clarifications to the April 18th protocol that we will implement once the protocol is in effect in an effort to increase the confidence of Korean consumers in U.S. beef. We look forward to safe, affordable, high-quality American beef – the same beef enjoyed by hundreds of millions of U.S. consumers and people in countries around the world – soon arriving on Korean tables. The resumption of U.S. beef exports to Korea is further evidence of our growing trade relationship with Korea, and the Administration will continue to work hard to obtain Congressional approval of the United States-Korea FTA this year."

...both sides have agreed that certain products (brains, skulls, eyes and spinal cords), which are not specified risk materials in cattle less than 30 months of age, have not been traded between the two countries in the past. Once the import protocol is in effect, both sides will confirm their expectation that until there is market demand in Korea for such products, such commercial practice will continue.

The two governments will also clarify, once the import protocol is in effect, that Korea can take certain actions under the protocol if it finds serious non-compliance during its audits of U.S. beef processing plants, as well as actions it could take at the border upon detection of food safety hazards. All of these actions will be limited to the product or plant in question.

Finally, Korea confirmed that it will publish its import health requirements for U.S. beef and beef products, putting the April 18 protocol into effect shortly.

The April 18 protocol defines conditions for importation of U.S. beef to South Korea and provides for a full reopening of the market. It is fully consistent with OIE guidelines and will permit all U.S. beef and beef products from cattle of all ages to be exported to Korea, with appropriate Specified Risk Materials (SRMs), as defined by the OIE, removed, while guaranteeing commercial viability for U.S. industry. Both Korean importers and U.S. exporters reaffirmed the safety of all U.S. beef, regardless of age, in their statement and letter on June 20.

Remember that this is a diplomatic statement. Every word must have been chosen very carefully. And look at the words that the U.S. chose to describe the whole process: "discussions". According to an expert, that word cannot be used to describe proper negotiations between sovereign nations. (Here is a link to the interview. It's in Korean.) In other words, the new agreement does not have the kind of binding force that a proper negotiation would have. So much for the Korean government's "guarantee" that beef products with a higher risk of BSE will not be imported.

The statement also mentions the April 18 agreement several times. As the last paragraph of the selection clearly states, that agreement (which was the result of an official, binding negotiation) permits the trade of all and any U.S. beef except a very small number of SRM's. In addition, according to the U.S. statement, the purpose of the new agreement is to "facilitate" the implementation of the April 18 agreement. What the...? Also, as I have noted in previous posts, the agreement is characterized as a "transitional private sector arrangement" which consists of a "voluntary" QSA system. Whatever the agreement implies, it is neither permanent nor enforceable. What can the section on non-compliance mean in this context? Practically nothing. Finally, the statement makes it crystal clear that cattle over 30 months old and specified risk materials will not be traded until there is market demand in Korea for such products -- in other words, if anybody wants to trade such beef, they're absolutely free to do so.

Despite all this, the Korean government has tried to convince the People that the new agreement has virtually the same effects as a renegotiation of the original deal. In an effort to prevent the People from knowing exactly what the new agreement is about, the Korean government has also refused to release the full text of the agreement. But the U.S. statement we found is good enough evidence that the new agreement is nothing like what the Korean government characterizes it to be. To be sure, the U.S. statement is written in such a way as to give assurance to U.S. beef producers seeking entry into the Korean market. But the diplomatic language is clear enough. No official statement can substitute "discussions" with "negotiations" or lie about an important condition. What does this mean? The Korean government has been lying.

Candlelight protests have come to a critical juncture. Either we yield to the endless lies of the government and the violence of pro-government thugs, or we must stand up against those who have no regard for the Masters of this country. As I reported yesterday, pro-government groups have begun to use violence against unarmed anti-government demonstrators. These thugs even come prepared with steel rods and gasoline tanks, as shown in the picture above. (Thankfully, these deadly devices were found by concerned citizens and appropriately kept away from dangerous individuals.) In addition, the police hasn't been enthusiastic about arresting the violent folks, leading many to believe that pro-government groups are being actively protected by "law enforcement".

Meanwhile, as if his formal apology only five days ago was nothing but empty words, President Lee Myung-Bak said yesterday in a cabinet meeting that demonstrations that are illegal, violent, or "defiant of the national identity" must be toughly dealt with. What does he know about "national identity" and the kinds of behavior that might be defiant of it? Isn't this just another way of saying that he wants a brutal crackdown upon those who disagree with what he takes to be the "national identity"? Not surprisingly, the government has announced a series of tough measures against protesters in the last 24 hours. Twelve executives of NGO's that have been managing the candlelight protests will be arrested. (For what crime?) Those who participate in protests "enthusiastically" will also be arrested. (What a vague expression! Arrest the violent folks, fine; but "enthusiasistical" is presumably much broader than "violent".) According to Yu In-Chon, Minister of Culture and Tourism, these measures are necessary for public welfare and economic growth/stability. (What does culture and tourism have to do with public welfare?) Heck, we're out there holding candles because we want to secure our own health and welfare! For how long is the government going to pretend that 93% of the Korean People are badly mistaken about what's good for them? (That's the percentage of Koreans who don't support President Lee according to a recent survey.)

As if this wasn't enough, President Lee personally sued Ohmynews for libel yesterday. According to the President, Ohmynews owes him $500,000 for reporting something he didn't say. (See this post for the report. It's about the President's meeting with Buddhist monks.) Ohmynews's response is that it had obtained its report from a monk who was at the meeting, and that it had reported nothing untrue. If anything, the lawsuit looks like a scare tactic, filed for no other reason than to warn all media not to report anything that might be used against the President. The government has also been trying to bring national TV stations, newspapers, and web portals under control; so there's nothing surprising about it. (Daum Agora, Korea's largest online discussion channel, also seems to have notched up its censorship of sensitive topics.) That's very democratic, thank you very much.

This poster was made by an anonymous citizen (notice that it contains no reference to an organizing group), and it has been in circulation on various online forums since yesterday. It calls for up to 5,000,000 Koreans to rise up against a government that has betrayed its Masters. (On June 10, there were 1,000,000.) The time is 2:00 p.m. on Saturday, June 28; and the location is the Gwanghwamun intersection in downtown Seoul. Notice the change of venue: Gwanghwamun is where the police usually installs its massive barricade, in order to keep protesters -- who usually gather in Seoul Plaza south of Gwanghwamun -- away from the President's home in the opposite direction. A lot of People on Daum Agora have been suggesting that citizens should gather in Gwanghwamun in the first place, in order either to make it impossible for the barricade to be set up there, or to force the police to move the barricade to a less convenient location. We'll have to wait and see, though, as nobody knows what Police Chief Uh Chung-Soo has in mind.

» Comments are Closed.