[Column] The FTA and ’kicking away the ladder’

Han Seung Dong, Senior Repoter for the Hankyoreh

At one time, criticism of the United States meant you were "anti-American," anti-American meant you were leftist, and leftist meant you were pro-North Korea. More recently, being in favor of "cooperation among the Korean people" (minjok gongjo) meant you were "anti-alliance," and anti-alliance made you pro-North and pro-China. Presently, there is a new way to twist language around a bit, so saying that the "South Korean-U.S. free trade agreement means openness" and being opposed to it at the same time means pre-modern national seclusionism.

When such simplistic nonsense gets picked up by the big media, you instantaneously see it dominating the thinking of the masses. Why is opposing a particular U.S. policy anti-American? And even if it is anti-American, why does being anti-American make you leftist? Can right-wingers not criticize the U.S.? Are rightists never anti-American? Is Shintaro Ishihara, the extreme-right Japanese politician who wrote the book "The Japan That Can Say ’No,’ " an anti-alliance leftist?

Why is being in favor of cooperation between North and South Korea ’anti-alliance?’ How does criticizing specific policies of the ruling camps in the U.S. and Japan make you anti-alliance and mean you are out to destroy the relationship of cooperation between Korea, the U.S., and Japan? Can you not have cooperation between North and South, but still have the alliance and still maintain sufficient cooperation with Japan and the U.S.?

Everyone knows that opposing the currently proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between the U.S. and Korea does not mean you are necessarily opposed to FTAs in general. No one really thinks that Korea would be closing its doors to the world if it doesn’t go ahead with this FTA with the U.S. With the exception of just a few areas, is Korea now not so open that the door couldn’t possibly be opened any further? The Korean economy is 70 percent dependent on trade, millions travel overseas, and foreign capital has encroached on smaller companies and shares on the stock market; how can one go on about Korea turning to feudal isolationism? Does opposing the FTA with the U.S. mean people want to shut the country’s doors to America, cut off diplomatic relations, and stop all imports and exports?

Those who say such silly things know that they are talking nonsense and being childish. But they keep at it because they know it is in their interest.

The "realists," who denounce criticism of the U.S. and Japan as senseless thinking on the part of "idealists," demand to know how Korea could survive without either. Put differently, realism means, "He who is weak should shut up and do what the strong guy tells him if he wants to be able to eat a few scrapings. How can you be so silly as to be impractical about not having anything?"

However, opportunity comes to those who see the strengths, weaknesses, and true intentions of the arguments made by those who are powerful. It comes to those who see holes in those arguments, those who take the powerful to task, all with a cool head. Opportunity does not come to those who just sing America’s praises and follow right along behind their wishes. Those who do so are either stupid or instinctively know that maintaining the status quo is entirely to their advantage. Any opinion that runs contrary to the existing framework makes these people nervous and upset, as they think that all impure behavior that threatens the establishment must be crushed. Cambridge professor Chang Ha-joon calls it a nasty example of "kicking away the ladder," where those that reach the top of the ladder first in the course of competition kick it away so others are unable to climb it.