Kim Youngbae: "Comprehensive Ratification Is Inappropriate"
Song Eonseok: "Constitutional Procedures Must Be Respected"
Regarding the agreement on tariff negotiations between the leaders of South Korea and the United States, the Democratic Party of Korea argued that, given the 'comprehensive' nature of the agreement, it should be addressed through a special law rather than ratification. The People Power Party, on the other hand, insisted that the National Assembly's ratification process should be preserved, at least to maintain leverage in the negotiations with the United States.
Kim Youngbae, a Democratic Party member serving as secretary of the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, stated in an SBS radio interview on November 17 that, regarding calls for ratification of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the South Korean and U.S. leaders, “An MOU is fundamentally different in nature from a treaty or law. Some elements of the MOU require ratification, while others do not. It is not appropriate to ratify the entire agreement comprehensively, and doing so would not serve our national interests in the future.”
He further explained that there are future agreements, such as the South Korea-U.S. Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, that will require parliamentary ratification, but there is no need to undergo the ratification process in advance. Since the agreement covers not only tariff negotiations but also comprehensive matters such as diplomacy and security, and since there are issues that will require ratification after further negotiations, he argued that ratification is not currently necessary. He added, “A special law containing a comprehensive plan for implementing this ratification will be proposed within November.”
In contrast, the People Power Party maintains that parliamentary ratification is required under the Constitution. Their reasoning is that, with the scale of investment in the United States amounting to 350 billion dollars (about 500 trillion won), which represents a significant fiscal burden, parliamentary consent must be a prerequisite. Song Eonseok, floor leader of the People Power Party, stated at the party’s Supreme Council meeting that “pushing for a special law while skipping the parliamentary ratification process is essentially a declaration to completely avoid legislative scrutiny and ratification. The procedures stipulated by the Constitution must be respected, and the results of the negotiations should be disclosed to the public.”
The People Power Party also argues that, from a practical standpoint, parliamentary ratification is necessary. If the current MOU is considered to lack legal binding force, the imbalance of power between South Korea and the United States could result in the agreement having binding effects only on South Korea.
Kim Gun, a People Power Party member and opposition secretary of the Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, said in a YTN radio interview that, “Unlike the U.S.-Japan MOU, the South Korea-U.S. MOU includes the phrase ‘according to the policies of both countries,’ which means the United States can act at its discretion according to its own policies.” He argued that, since key issues such as the destinations for investment in the United States and locations for developing nuclear-powered submarines remain unresolved even after the release of the fact sheet, parliamentary consent should be retained as leverage in future negotiations.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
