|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
howie2424
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 12, 2008 5:14 am Post subject: |
 |
|
aka Dave wrote
| Quote: |
| Yeah, I was just thinking. If Howie could post in Korean on Korean sites, it would be very interesting. |
I don't think I'll be debating this issue with any Koreans in the forseeable future. Nor will I be debating the falling sky issue with Chicken Little, Henny Penny or Foxy Loxy, and for the same reason. You're simply not gonna get very far with people who are so willing to just blindly accept the unlikely, improbable and downright absurd. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
komerican
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| howie2424 wrote: |
Now I know I must be an idiot because I�m actually going to try again.
komerican wrote
| Quote: |
| Emotions are very high at this point. I'm surprised they didn't hang him . In America they had a little thing called the Boston Tea Party where they threw hundreds of boxes of tea overboard because they disagreed with a very reasonable tax. They even threatened to hang people. Throwing some manure seems pretty lame. Your attempt to slam these demonstrations with this is wrong. It�s like saying the US rebellion was about tea dumping. |
A very reasonable tax? I�m not American, but if I recall my middle school history correctly the British government was taxing Americans without giving them any representation in the British parliament. That�s what the Boston Tea Party was about. How would Koreans feel about having to pay taxes to the British government? More candlelight vigils I imagine. Before you start putting the imbeciles in Seoul Plaza in the same league as the American colonists who fought and defeated the Brits in the war of independence, you may want to check your facts.
| Quote: |
| Also, you continue to make the claim that Roh agreed to this. He did not. This is hypothetical since Roh did not make any agreement. As I cited in my previous post the Roh administration intended to keep the 30 month barrier. Your claim that Roh intended to make the same deal is not only a hypothetical but it also shows your lack of knowledge of Korean politics. For example, Roh had no intention of asking to go to Camp David because he knew that he would have to pay a price for that, which would have been to give in to the US's demands for the beef deal. |
So Mr. Roh is now saying he never committed to abide by OIE standards and consistently refused to accept US beef, older than 30 months. I note the following from your link;
| Quote: |
| After the media report regarding Roh's speech, the office of the former President said his comments were made during his private talk with the supporters and therefore should not be translated as his official position on the beef deal. |
Putting aside the fact that he�s not yet officially on the record as saying what he purportedly said, let�s assume it�s true and Mr. Roh is now denying that he agreed to accept beef older than 30 months.
This is a very different standard from the OIE guidelines which state that a �controlled risk � country is safe to export beef of any age, except for SRM from cows older than 30 months. Mr. Roh now says he made it clear during the FTA negotiations that Korea didn�t want any beef older than 30 months. I think we can agree that these are two very different standards. So which one did Mr. Roh actually agree to back in April of 2007 when the parties signed the FTA?
I�ve always found that as a general rule, it�s not wise to put a lot of stock in what people have to say about themselves after the shite hits the fan, so to speak. It�s too easy to distort and embellish things to cover your butt. It�s more reliable to examine what they were saying before the problem began. Let�s take a look at what Mr. Roh said back in April of last year.
On April 25, 2007 Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus aid the following
| Quote: |
| �Korea is picking the wrong fight here. U.S. beef is the safest in the world, and they�re letting a ban with no scientific basis block this trade agreement,� said Baucus. �America�s ranchers deserve fair market access to Korea, and I can�t let this trade agreement move until they get it. I welcome President Roh�s statement that Korea will abide by international safety standards for beef. I expect that he will respect World Animal Health Organization standards when they�re made formal next month.� |
http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:R9jE5xuP268J:finance.senate.gov/press/Bpress/2007press/prb042507d.pdf+Roh+Moo-hyun+oie+beef&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=7
U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab the lead negotiator for the US in the FTA talks said this on June 4, 2007 while speaking at a conference on Women in International Trade
| Quote: |
| On April 2, President Roh said his country would respect the OIE guidelines, a stand reinforced by Deputy Prime Minister Kwon last week. As far as the Administration is concerned, all that stands in the way are regulatory and technical matters. |
http://www.ustr.gov/assets/Document_Library/Transcripts/2007/June/asset_upload_file529_12835.pdf
In a report to congress by the Congressional Research Service dated Jan. 22, 2008 the CRS said at p. 48
| Quote: |
| Although the beef issue was not resolved in the FTA talks, South Korea's President Roh on April 1, 2007, stated he had personally promised President Bush that his government would "uphold the [yet to-be-released] recommendations" of the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE)138 on the BSE risk status of the United States and "open the Korean [beef] market at a reasonable level." |
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34330.pdf
And lastly from the Korea Trade Commission on May 9, 2007
| Quote: |
| A ruling is due mid-May by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE) on the safety of U.S. exports, and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has said his government will uphold the OIE findings. |
http://www.ktc.go.kr/en/kboard_child/view.jsp?bm=91&pg=4&bd=999999996
I think it's safe to assume that Mr. Roh or someone in his government was aware that these statements were being made about him. Now Mr. Roh says he didn�t make these statements and always maintained that 30+ month beef would never be allowed into Korea. It seems others heard him say something else. So what did he do last year when, as you can clearly see, so many people on the US side and elsewhere were saying he did agree to abide by OIE guidelines? I would think that if I were the president of a country and people were attributing false statements to me on an issue crucial to my nation I would be screaming at the top of my lungs. I�d have certainly called Mr. Bush and asked why these people were telling lies about me. I suspect I would have written a letter to the US congress advising them that what they were being misinformed, Korea never agreed to abide by OIE standards for beef and I would have been doing all of this quite publicly so that my official position was unequivocally on the public record. Did Mr. Roh do any of that? Did he ever deny that he agreed to be bound by OIE guidelines. He did nothing. Nothing, that is until yesterday, when, for the first time he publicly denied making that commitment. I wonder why he�s doing it now. Do you think the angry mobs in Seoul looking hysterically for a scapegoat in this mess might have something to do with it?
You know this whole issue of what Roh agreed to is interesting from another perspective. You, Koamerican, and those in the anti-beef crowd maintain that Korea is a sovereign nation and has every right to set whatever standards it likes for imported products. It�s the one issue on which we are both in complete agreement. Countries do have the right to set their own standards but when you start making free trade deals, the game changes. No country is going to agree to FTA without knowing which of their exports will be permitted under the other party�s safety standards and which won�t. It�s just too easy for one party to use its regulatory powers to block the other�s imports and steal the advantage. As a result, the parties negotiate what standards will govern.
This negotiation happened between the US and Korea on the beef issue in April 2007. The US insisted on OIE guidelines and made it very clear to Korea that unless they agreed to this the deal was off. At that pivotal moment it was certainly open to Mr. Roh and his delegation to stand on Korea�s sovereign right to set its own standards. Roh could have said �Korea is a sovereign nation. We will not be bound by OIE safety standards and we are not inspired by US standards either. The standards will be Korean standards and here they are. Please review them� The US delegation could have replied �Thank you very much Mr. Roh. We do not accept your standards. It�s a deal breaker. Thanks for comin� out, have a safe trip home�. The FTA would have withered and died on the vine and this whole mess would have been averted. Unfortunately for Korea, Mr. Roh didn�t do any of that. With billions of dollars in economic benefits on the table he chose the more pragmatic approach of accepting internationally recognized safety standards. I guess it�s just easier to be a staunch Korean nationalist when all you have to do is hang out in Seoul Plaza with a few thousand of your buddies, light a candle, wave the flag and drink some soju. |
The comparisons to the Boston Tea Party actually work. At that time Pres. George Bush the 2nd, I mean, King George the 3rd of Britain tried to usurp the rights of the locals in order to help his own multinational company (British East India Tea Company). President Lee's role would fit in with the role Gov. Hutchinson played in being Britain's salesman in America.
Keep in mind that the Boston Tea Party has always been used by anti-globalists as an example of how multinational corporations will try to short circuit the rights of locals.
Remember that the taxes were reasonable and fully legal. The British had spent enormous sums to defend the ungrateful American rebels against the French but the Americans did not want their rights infringed upon no matter how legal the British tax on tea was.
I also read the material you cited. The CRS report gives the most recent and objective account of Pres. Roh�s position and it clearly contradicts what you wrote:
"However, negotiators did not reach a breakthrough on the separate but parallel issue of resolving differences on the terms of access for U.S. beef that would address Korea's human health concerns arising from the 2003 discovery of mad cow disease in the U.S. cattle herd. Though South Korea's President Roh promised President Bush that his country would open up its market at a reasonable level once an international animal health body presented its findings on the risk status of mad cow in the U.S. cattle herd, retail sales of U.S. boneless beef now permitted to enter are on hold. This status could change once South Korea finalizes its risk assessment and both countries revise an earlier agreement laying out the rules applicable to U.S. beef imports."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34330.pdf
As you know �a reasonable level� is just good lawyering. �Reasonable� can mean many things. The report continues with �This status could change once SK finalizes its risk assessment�� So the report that you cited clearly states that these standards are still not set.
Also, when and where does the buck stop? The president responsible for this agreement is Lee. It�s irrelevant what Roh said at the end of the day since the negotiations for beef had not even been held and were actually held during Lee�s administration.
You haven�t offered any logical argument that shows that Koreans are wrong to be against this treaty given that many other countries impose the same or even stricter standards against US beef. The comments in the NY Times and other US papers, the position taken by the Consumer Union, all show that Korean consumers are being rational and reasonable in protesting this deal.
As for the crowds keep in mind that different countries protest differently. Nothing unusual there. Also, not all crowds are mobs but in fact can be wise. (Wisdom of Crowds, Surowiecki)
When Bush visited Britain in 2003 about 100,000 people protested in the streets. That could never happen in the US but it shows how people all over the world often feel exasperated at US policies and that often those protests spill out into the streets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jkelly80
Joined: 13 Jun 2007
Location: you boys like mexico?
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You're comparing a pre-Industrial, pre-universal suffrage America to an Information Age South Korea. That says it all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 15, 2008 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| komerican wrote: |
The comparisons to the Boston Tea Party actually work. At that time Pres. George Bush the 2nd, I mean, King George the 3rd of Britain tried to usurp the rights of the locals in order to help his own multinational company (British East India Tea Company). President Lee's role would fit in with the role Gov. Hutchinson played in being Britain's salesman in America.
Keep in mind that the Boston Tea Party has always been used by anti-globalists as an example of how multinational corporations will try to short circuit the rights of locals.
Remember that the taxes were reasonable and fully legal. The British had spent enormous sums to defend the ungrateful American rebels against the French but the Americans did not want their rights infringed upon no matter how legal the British tax on tea was. |
Your comparison is ridiculous. The Boston Tea Party was about taxation without representation. It has nothing to do with the FTA or beef entering Korea. Nothing. It's like comparing the Napoleonic wars to the current "War on Terror" (ie. they are completely unrelated). You do not sound even remotely clever. Just give it up.
| Quote: |
I also read the material you cited. The CRS report gives the most recent and objective account of Pres. Roh�s position and it clearly contradicts what you wrote:
"However, negotiators did not reach a breakthrough on the separate but parallel issue of resolving differences on the terms of access for U.S. beef that would address Korea's human health concerns arising from the 2003 discovery of mad cow disease in the U.S. cattle herd. Though South Korea's President Roh promised President Bush that his country would open up its market at a reasonable level once an international animal health body presented its findings on the risk status of mad cow in the U.S. cattle herd, retail sales of U.S. boneless beef now permitted to enter are on hold. This status could change once South Korea finalizes its risk assessment and both countries revise an earlier agreement laying out the rules applicable to U.S. beef imports."
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL34330.pdf
As you know �a reasonable level� is just good lawyering. �Reasonable� can mean many things. The report continues with �This status could change once SK finalizes its risk assessment�� So the report that you cited clearly states that these standards are still not set. |
An "international animal health body"?  What, like the OIE? Which has declared US beef to be safe? Sorry, but you lose. Howie trounced you here (and everywhere else for that matter).
| Quote: |
| Also, when and where does the buck stop? The president responsible for this agreement is Lee. It�s irrelevant what Roh said at the end of the day since the negotiations for beef had not even been held and were actually held during Lee�s administration. |
It's relevant because people are being ignorant, much as you were being until howie educated you on the matter. You previously believed Roh had nothing to do with it, and that Lee had single-handedly and nefariously signed the deal against the flow of things. Now you know better (though you pretend otherwise).
| Quote: |
| You haven�t offered any logical argument that shows that Koreans are wrong to be against this treaty given that many other countries impose the same or even stricter standards against US beef. The comments in the NY Times and other US papers, the position taken by the Consumer Union, all show that Korean consumers are being rational and reasonable in protesting this deal. |
He owned you here. This is not personal, just the way it is. Nobody is going to agree with you given all that Mr. Howie has laid down. Go back and read, and then read again. He answers all your gripes, even with citations.
| Quote: |
| As for the crowds keep in mind that different countries protest differently. Nothing unusual there. Also, not all crowds are mobs but in fact can be wise. (Wisdom of Crowds, Surowiecki) |
The Korean crowd is embarrassingly ignorant. They are not heroes, they like a bunch of foolish children, and don't even know what's best for them.
| Quote: |
| When Bush visited Britain in 2003 about 100,000 people protested in the streets. That could never happen in the US but it shows how people all over the world often feel exasperated at US policies and that often those protests spill out into the streets. |
It did happen in the US too. But you wouldn't know that because you don't really know much about the US. It's because you are so ill-informed that you have no credibility on this site. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eedoryeong
Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Location: Jeju
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| howie2424 wrote: |
komerican wrote
| Quote: |
| In America they had a little thing called the Boston Tea Party where they threw hundreds of boxes of tea overboard because they disagreed with a very reasonable tax. They even threatened to hang people. |
A very reasonable tax? I�m not American, but if I recall my middle school history correctly the British government was taxing Americans without giving them any representation in the British parliament.
|
Ever since I first started studying European wars in the colonization eras, I've always found this adamant slogan 'no taxation without representation' to be strange, and wondered about the position often taken on this corner of American history, particularly in the context of
1) how the tea act was designed to remove the previous business-strangling taxes which would also allow the British to recupe some losses (albeit admittedly the colonists' smuggling actions precipitated, good on them)
2) how enormously expensive the establishment and maintenance of British troops and colonies must have been to the Crown, (cough-France-Portugal-cough) (One wonders, what did the colonists think put men in redcoats and on ships to make voyages? A love for their fellow man? I'm pretty sure it was a soldier's wages, which cost King George) and
3) how the Puritans description of other events -their fleeing England - 'fleeing ecclesiastical persecution' - seems to compromise their historical moral positions elsewhere (fleeing ecclesiastical persecution? a convenient omission of atrocious crimes the Puritans had just committed on English soil (in retribution to English Catholics) prior to the exiled cardinal being allowed to return from France and the Puritans hence very quickly getting the *beep* out of Dodge, as it were, with barely enough time to even wipe the blood of fellow Englishmen off their hands and cuffs before boarding for Plymouth Rock.)
Just because a history book can quote the phrase, 'no taxation without representation!' it doesn't necessarily follow that that's the only view to take on it, or even that history can be reduced to a slogan. There's certainly lots of wiggle room for Komerican to float the suggestion that the tax was reasonable and the colonists' reactions, unreasonable and that a double standard is being applied, which I believe was his true point. Repliers to this point seem to have abdicated critical thinking to a kind of blind moral authority on that incident. History's more complicated than that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Privateer
Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Location: Easy Street.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
^ If we all go chase this red herring about the Boston Tea Party for a few pages and perhaps finally reach a conclusion that it was in fact unreasonable then komerican will be satisfied, because, clearly, if it's ok for the Americans to have unreasonable demonstrations then it's ok for the Koreans too. In fact, komerican will have shown that all unreasonable demonstrations everywhere are ok! Oh, except for the Chinese demonstrations in Seoul during the torch run.
This is all komerican ever does: compare what you guys did to what us guys did, and forget the merits of the case.
Most Koreans that I have personally talked to about this issue fall into 2 camps: the ones who think it's all a big joke, but it's fun to go to big demos, and LMB is an ass so why not; then there's the ones who look at me wide-eyed and gasp their shock that the US actually wants to send deadly poisonous beef to Korea and worry that they will die. The first group don't take it seriously and the second group don't take any interest in the news usually but will swallow any rumour whole.
komerican belongs to a third, militant, group consisting mainly of netizens and special interest groups: those who have read up on all sorts of facts and statistics and use them in the most contrived, ridiculous and far-fetched arguments imaginable to prove the conclusion they have already decided is true because they feel it in their hearts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
