December
28th 2010
Korea – US “Free Trade” Agreement: What’s in a Name?
RedPhillips

Posted under Free Trade & Globalism

The Korea – US “Free Trade” Agreement is often referred to by this long hand. But the shortened forms that I have seen are KORUS FTA, combining Korea and US with FTA for “free trade” agreement. Or simply KORUS.

But it occurs to me that it could easily be referred to short hand as KAFTA (Korea America “Free Trade” Agreement) and be easily recognized for what it is because that would stay with  the convention of the previous trade deal, NAFTA.

Could it be that supporters of the deal don’t want it referred to as KAFTA because that would clearly evoke images of NAFTA which is viewed unfavorably by many? So instead we get the much more unwieldy KORUS FTA or KORUS which many if not most will have no idea what it is?

Well I say two can play at that game. If supporters of the deal believe they get to name the deal favorably, I don’t see why we have to oblige them by using it. I would like to suggest that opponents of the deal start referring to it as KAFTA. Let’s get this thing started, and we can then say you heard it here first. :-) (If someone is already doing this then I appologize, but I haven’t seen it elsewhere yet.)

delicious | digg | reddit | facebook | technorati | stumbleupon | chatintamil

5 Comments »

5 Responses to “Korea – US “Free Trade” Agreement: What’s in a Name?”

  1. Weaver on 29 Dec 2010 at 2:07 am #

    A name is very important. This is a good move.

  2. Weaver on 29 Dec 2010 at 3:40 am #

    I suppose KAFTA could be confused with CAFTA.

  3. The Western Confucian on 29 Dec 2010 at 1:46 pm #

    I’m an American living in Korea, oppose the deal, as do many principled Korean left-nationalists, and will promote the name KAFTA.

  4. The Western Confucian on 29 Dec 2010 at 1:51 pm #

    I should have also mentioned that Confucius’ Rectification of Names, the great project of that most conservative of sages, comes to mind with your post.

  5. Weaver on 29 Dec 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    Old anti-EU Buchanan article:

    “Economic unity and political unity are twins: one cannot be born without the other following,” said Friedrich List, the famed German economist and nationalist. Again and again, history has proven List right.

    Economic union leads inexorably to political union. The left has always understood this. The right never does, until too late.

    When Hamilton created a free-trade zone across 13 states, a strong U.S. central government was baked in the cake. Bismarck used a customs union, the Zollverein, to harness Germany under Prussia’s whip hand.

    Were this truly free trade, economic right-nationalists in Korea ought to be concerned as well, unless they like sound of “S. Korea, the 51st state”.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply