South Korea-US summit faces unresolved trade deal disputes
President Donald Trump may use the summit with counterpart Lee Jae Myung to seek more concessions on defence costs and corporate investments, left out of the deal, while non-tariff barriers and currency could prove thorny issues, experts said.
No official summit date has been disclosed, though Trump last week gave a timeframe of two weeks.
The absence of a written agreement underpinning last week's talks could open the way for disputes, with some differences already emerging in the two sides' accounts of the deal.
Key among these was Sunday's denial by a South Korean presidential adviser of U.S. claims that it would take 90% of the profit from project investments of $350 billion by South Korea, which also agreed to open up its domestic rice market.
'Even a binding deal like the FTA has been efficiently scrapped,' warned Choi Seok-young, a former chief negotiator for the Korea-U.S. free trade deal, signed in 2007. 'And this is just promise.'
Last week's pact was scaled down from South Korea's previous plans for a package deal on trade, security and investment envisioned in the run-up to the summit between Trump and the newly-elected Lee.
But Japan struck a deal with the United States sooner than expected, spurring South Korea into a scramble for a trade-focused pact, leaving issues of security and investment for the coming summit, presidential adviser Kim Yong-beom said.
Uncertainty clouds plans for $350 billion in funds Trump has said South Korea would invest in the United States in projects 'owned and controlled by the United States' and selected by him, though he gave few details of the plan's structure or timing.
The allies face challenges in ironing out details of the fund at upcoming working-level talks, South Korean Finance Minister Koo Yun-cheol told reporters on Friday.
'People say the devil is in the details,' he added.
In a social media post, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick gave an assurance of '90% of the profits going to the American people', while White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said part would go to the U.S. government to help repay debt.
But Kim, the presidential adviser, said the two sides did not discuss profit distribution during talks, and South Korea expected the profit to be 'reinvested' in the United States.
'POLITICAL RHETORIC'
The idea of the United States potentially taking most of the profit is 'hard to understand in a civilised country', he added, while dismissing as 'political rhetoric' Washington's claim that it would make all decisions about the fund.
South Korea had added a safety mechanism to reduce financing risk, including U.S. commitments to buy products from the projects, under an 'offtake' clause and invest in commercially feasible projects, he said.
Seoul officials have said $150 billion would go to the shipbuilding industry, with the rest earmarked for areas such as chips, batteries, critical minerals, biotechnology, nuclear power and other strategic industries.
The specifics of the structure have not been determined, said Kim, adding that loans and guarantees make up a majority of the funds, with equity investments accounting for a small part.
Leavitt said South Korea would provide 'historic market access to American goods like autos and rice,' echoing earlier comments by Trump.
But South Korea said repeatedly there had been no agreement on the agriculture market, including beef and rice, despite strong pressure from Washington.
Trump expressed keen interest in Korea's quarantine process for fruits and vegetables, Seoul said, improvements to which will figure in planned technical talks on non-tariff barriers that will also cover vehicle safety rules, but gave no details.
Other non-tariff barriers such as regulation of Big Tech could be hurdles.
'We cannot be relieved because we do not know when we will face pressure from tariffs or non-tariff measures again,' Trade Minister Yeo Han-koo said last week on returning from Washington.
Defence costs are expected to emerge as a key issue during the upcoming summit, with Trump having long said South Korea needed to pay more for the U.S. troop presence there.
In addition to the $350 billion, Trump said South Korea agreed to invest a large sum of money in the United States, to be announced during the summit, which he said on July 30 would be held within two weeks.
The allies are holding working level-talks on currency policy, put on the agenda at April's opening round of trade talks. - Reuters
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
31 minutes ago
- New Straits Times
Brexit's parallels with Trump tariffs tell a tale
In figuring out why the United States tariff shock hasn't sent the economy or financial world into a tailspin, Britain's exit from the European Union trade bloc provides something of a playbook — and without a particularly happy ending. Aside from vast differences in economic scale and global reach, the two episodes bear some comparison in how they upended years of deeply integrated free trade and possibly in how business, the economy at large and financial markets reacted. The 2016 Brexit referendum and Trump's tariffs this year were each widely billed as economic shocks that would send the financial world into paroxysms. They didn't, at least not at the outset. To be sure, both were followed by dramatic downward lurches in the two countries' currencies. But, to some extent, the steep drop in sterling after the referendum vote and the dollar's plunge on President Donald Trump's tariff plan this year helped offset some of the wider impact, at least on stock markets that are loaded with global firms with outsized foreign revenue. More broadly, however, the difficulty in isolating their immediate net impact means no "big bang" economic crisis unfolds to prove critics right, even if their enduring legacy turns out to be a slow burn of economic potential and lost output, often obscured by multiple other crosswinds. In Britain's case, the seismic effects of the Covid-19 pandemic distorted any attempt to easily assess Brexit when it actually happened. Tortuous negotiations with the EU meant the UK's departure eventually occurred on the eve of the health crisis in 2020 and the new trade rules did not come into force until a year later. But in the four years between the referendum surprise and the pandemic, the UK economy never entered a recession nor recorded a negative quarterly GDP print — confounding pro-EU supporters at the time and bolstering the Brexit lobby. Emerging from the twin hits, however, the economy has almost flatlined since. What's more, it's taken more than eight years for the pound's effective exchange rate to recover its pre-referendum levels. Few mainstream economists now doubt that Brexit has taken a serious toll on the UK economy. One academic study by a number of Bank of England economists earlier this year concluded that uncertainty following the referendum resulted in little change in goods exports and imports before the exit was finalised. But after the new rules hit, UK imports fell three per cent and overall exports fell 6.4 per cent, largely because of the 13 per cent hit in exports to the EU. While this slump seems relatively modest compared with the official forecasts of the longer-term hit, the pain has been borne disproportionately by small businesses. And the cumulative damage to London and the service sector over the next 10 years continues to worry the City. The US tariff story is of a completely different order, of course, as it will reverberate across the world economy. But there are some parallels, not least in certain aspects of the market reactions and the initial resilience. Economists estimate that the tariffs could lop anywhere from 0.5 per cent to one per cent off US gross domestic product over time. That's a US$150 billion to US$300 billion hit, which, though painful, would not be an instant crisis for an economy that's growing at a roughly two per cent annualised rate, where imported goods represent just 11 per cent of GDP and where tech and AI trends are generating considerable tailwinds. But as former White House economic adviser Jason Furman said in a New York Times essay last week, the tariff damage is likely not a one-off hit. The loss of 0.5 per cent of GDP, he argued, is "the equivalent of every household in America taking around US$1,000 and lighting it on fire, then doing it again every year. Forever." In the end, the main point of the British comparison is to show how extreme partisan arguments on the pros or cons of such giant economic policy changes don't necessarily get resolved cleanly in adaptive, hardy and hyper-complex economies. The latest YouGov opinion poll shows 56 per cent of Britons now think it was wrong to leave the EU, some nine years after their narrow vote to leave. The jury on Trump's tariffs is still out.
The Star
31 minutes ago
- The Star
Zelenskiy says he discussed Russia sanctions, drone deal with Trump
U.S. President Donald Trump meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 28, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder/File Photo
The Sun
an hour ago
- The Sun
Russia hints at deploying mid-range missiles after ending INF moratorium
MOSCOW: Russia on Tuesday suggested it could deploy intermediate-range missiles after ending a self-imposed moratorium on producing or deploying the weapons, which were banned for decades under a Cold War treaty with the United States. Washington and Moscow had prohibited missiles with a range of 500 to 5,500 kilometres (300-3,400 miles) under the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. But US President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal during his first term in 2019, accusing Russia of failing to comply. The Kremlin said at the time it would continue to abide by a moratorium if the United States did not deploy missiles within striking distance of Russia. Russia's foreign ministry said Monday it was ending the self-imposed restrictions, with the Kremlin hinting on Tuesday that Moscow could soon deploy the previously-banned missiles. 'There are no longer any restrictions in Russia in this regard. Russia no longer considers itself limited in any way,' President Vladimir Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told reporters. Moscow was 'entitled, if necessary, to take appropriate measures' on the deployment of the missiles, he said, adding that there would be no public announcement if Russia decided to station the missiles. Putin said last year Russia should start producing mid-range missiles -- capable of carrying nuclear warheads -- after the United States sent some launch systems to Denmark for training exercises. Russia has also accused the United States of sending the systems to the Philippines and Australia for drills. 'The United States and its allies have not only openly outlined plans to deploy American land-based INF missiles in various regions, but have also already made significant progress in the practical implementation of their intentions,' Russia's foreign ministry said in a statement. The move comes after Trump announced the deployment of two nuclear submarines 'in the region' amid an online row with Dmitry Medvedev, Russia's former president. Medvedev on Monday said Russia's foes should be on standby. 'This is a new reality all our opponents will have to reckon with. Expect further steps,' he said in his first social media post since the row with Trump erupted. - AFP
