A decennial deja vu cast gloom on the passers-by in front of the National Assembly building in Yoido, Seoul, Tuesday. More than 1,000 farmers clashed violently with riot police, demanding the government come up with measures to guarantee the survival of the agricultural industry. On Wednesday, the parliament was supposed to ratify the deal to open Korea's rice market that Seoul concluded with nine exporting countries, but the ratification was put it off for another week. How long should we keep seeing this?
The farmers' wrath is understandable but it is annoying to hear the same old demands for 10 years with neither the government nor farmers having changed at all. Sparking the angry protest was a rice farmer's recent suicide in protest against the government's cessation of purchasing newly harvested rice at a subsidized price. Although this has been long anticipated, actual implementation seems to have driven producers into utter despair. But problems do not disappear by simply postponing the inevitable.
Most irresponsible in this regard are some politicians, particularly the opposition Grand National Party and Democratic Labor Party, which court farming electorates' anger with unrealistic promises. The farmers and politicians call for Seoul to wait until after the World Trade Organization (WTO) trade ministers' conference in Hong Kong next month before ratifying the deal. However, the rice accord was signed between Korea and exporters with little regard to the global free trade talks. The agreement gives Seoul another decade-long delay before unrestricted rice imports begin.
So postponing parliamentary ratification for a week, or even a few months, changes nothing. The two opposition parties should know that reneging on an international agreement would result in heavy casualties in other industries that far outweigh any benefits from protecting the rice market. It is rather ironic that all this is happening at a time when the nation is hosting the region's biggest trade liberalization talks.
Lawmakers should approve the rice accord without further delay. The government could exercise some flexibility in both the rice purchase price, while supplementing the deal in such a way as to minimize impact on other agricultural sectors without provoking trade partners. The government also needs to provide a “vision” for farmers with a long-term reform plan based on the effective use of industrial restructuring funds. Both the problems and their solution should be found in overall industrial restructuring.
Farmers should know, however, they cannot control supply and demand while depending on government subsidies, as shown by failures in foreign countries. In the end, it is the producers themselves who can enhance industrial competitiveness, and the government can only motivate and support them in doing so.
