

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Liz Bartolomeo 202-789-7753 ebartolomeo@fenton.com
Angela Bradbery (202) 588-7741
Two years after the implementation of the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement (FTA), government data reveal that the Obama administration's promises that the pact would expand U.S. exports and create U.S. jobs are exactly opposite of the actual outcomes: a downfall in U.S. exports to Korea, rising imports and a surge in the U.S. trade deficit with Korea. Using the administration's export-to-job ratio, the estimated drop in net U.S. exports to Korea in the FTA's first two years represents the loss of more than 46,600 U.S. jobs.
The damaging Korea FTA record, detailed in a new Public Citizen report, undermines the administration's attempt to use the same failed export growth promises to sell an already skeptical Congresson Fast Track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping deal for which the Korea FTA was the template.
Contrary to the administration's promise that the Korea FTA would mean "more exports, more jobs":
* U.S. goods exports to Korea have fallen below the pre-FTA average monthly level for 21 out of 22 months since the deal took effect.
* The United States has lost an average of $385 million each month in exports to Korea, given an 11 percent decline in the average monthly export level in comparison to the year before the deal.
* The United States lost an estimated, cumulative $9.2 billion in exports to Korea under the FTA's first two years, compared with the exports that would have been achieved at the pre-FTA level.
* Average monthly exports of U.S. agricultural products to Korea have fallen 41 percent.
* The average monthly U.S. automotive trade deficit with Korea has grown 19 percent.
The U.S. exports downfall is particularly concerning given that Korea's overall imports from all countries increased by 2 percentover the past two years (from 2011 to 2013).
The average monthly trade deficit with Korea has ballooned 47 percent in comparison to the year before the deal.As U.S. exports to Korea have declined under the FTA, average monthly imports from Korea have risen four percent. The total U.S. trade deficit with Korea under the FTA's just-completed second year is projected to be $8.6 billion higher than in the year before the deal, assuming that trends during the FTA's first 22 months continue for the remaining two months for which data is not yet available.
Meanwhile, U.S. services exports to Korea have slowed under the FTA. While U.S. services exports to Korea increased at an average quarterly rate of 3.0 percent in the year before the FTA took effect, the average quarterly growth rate has fallen to 2.3 percent since the deal's enactment - a 24 percent drop.
"Most Americans won't be surprised that another NAFTA-style deal is causing damage, but it's stunning that the administration thinks the public and Congress won't notice if it recycles the promises used to sell the Korea pact - now proven empty - to push a Trans-Pacific deal that is literally based on the Korea FTA text," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. "The new evidence of the Korea FTA's damaging record is certain to make it even more difficult for the Obama administration to get Congress to delegate its constitutional trade authority via Fast Track for the TPP."
The decline in U.S. exports under the Korea FTA contributed to an overall zero percent growth in U.S. exports in 2013, rendering virtually impossible Obama's stated goalto double exports by the end of 2014. At the export growth rate seen over the past two years, the export-doubling goal would not be reached until 2054. While the Korea pact is the only U.S. FTA that has led to an actual decline in U.S exports, the overall growth of U.S. exports to nations that are not FTA partners has exceeded combined U.S. export growth to U.S. FTA partners by 30 percent over the past decade.
"The data simply do not support the Obama administration's tired pitch that more FTAs will bring more exports," said Wallach. "Faced with falling exports and rising, job-displacing deficits under existing FTAs, the administration needs to find a new model, not to repackage an old one that patently failed."
The Korea FTA has produced very few winners; since the FTA took effect, U.S. average monthly exports to Korea have fallen in 11 of the 15 sectors that export the most to Korea, relative to the year before the FTA. And while losing sectors have faced relatively steep export declines (e.g. a 12 percent drop in computer and electronics exports, a 30 percent drop in mineral and ore exports), none of the winning sectors has experienced an average monthly export increase of greater than two percent. Ironically, many sectors that the administration promised would be the biggest beneficiaries of the Korea FTA have been some of the deal's largest losers.
AGRICULTURE: While the administration argued for passage of the FTA in 2011 by claiming, "The U.S.-Korea trade agreement creates new opportunities for U.S. farmers, ranchers and food processors seeking to export to Korea's 49 million consumers," average monthly exports of U.S. agricultural products to Korea have fallen 41 percent under the FTA.
* U.S. average monthly poultry exports to Korea have fallen 39 percent.
* U.S. average monthly pork exports to Korea have fallen 34 percent.
* U.S. average monthly beef exports to Korea have fallen 6 percent.
Compared with the exports that would have been achieved at the pre-FTA average monthly level, U.S. meat producers have lost a combined $442 million in poultry, pork and beef exports to Korea in the first 22 months of the Korea deal - a loss of more than $20 million in meat exports every month.
AUTOS AND AUTO PARTS: The administration also promisedthe Korea FTA would bring "more job-creating export opportunities in a more open and fair Korean market for America's auto companies and auto workers," while a special safeguard would "ensure... that the American industry does not suffer from harmful surges in Korean auto imports due to this agreement." The U.S. average monthly automotive exports to Korea under the FTA have been $12 million higher than the pre-FTA monthly average, but the average monthly automotive imports from Korea have soared by $263 million under the deal - a 19 percent increase. So while U.S. auto exports have risen very modestly under the FTA, those tiny gains have been swamped by a surge in auto imports from Korea that the administration promised would not occur under the FTA.
* In January 2014, monthly auto imports from Korea topped $2 billion for the first time on record.
* About 125,000 more Korean-produced Hyundais and Kias were imported and soldin the United States in 2013 (after the FTA) than in 2011 (before the FTA).
* Salesof U.S.-produced Fords, Chryslers and Cadillacs in Korea increased by just 3,400 vehicles.
The post-FTA flood of automotive imports has provoked a 19 percent increase in the average monthly U.S. auto trade deficit with Korea. The Obama administration has sought to distract from this dismal result by touting the percentage increase in U.S. auto sales to Korea. This allows the sale of a small number of cars beyond the small pre-FTA base of sales to appear to be a significant gain when in fact it is not.
Read the new Public Citizen report on the Korea FTA record at https://www.citizen.org/documents/Korea-FTA-outcomes.pdf
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000"The report recommends a full investigation by the International Criminal Court into Britain’s complicity and participation in genocide," said the leftist lawmaker.
A report led by progressive British parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn and submitted Wednesday to the International Criminal Court recommends that the Hague-based tribunal investigate UK government officials complicit in Israel's genocide in Gaza.
"The Gaza Tribunal report exposes the full scale of Britain's complicity in genocide," said Corbyn, a former Labour leader who represents Islington North for the leftist Your Party. "Complicity demands consequences. That's why, today, we submitted The Gaza Tribunal report to the International Criminal Court (ICC)."
"The report concludes that the British government has failed in its fundamental obligation to prevent genocide, has been complicit in atrocity crimes, and in some instances has even been an active participant in these crimes," Corbyn wrote in a foreword to the publication. "The report recommends a full investigation by the International Criminal Court into Britain’s complicity and participation in genocide."
According to the report, "Britain has played a vital role in Israeli military operations in Gaza," including through weapons sales, Royal Air Force surveillance flights, diplomatic support, and failure to sanction Israeli officials responsible for a war that United Nations experts, jurists, scholars, national and other governments, and others say is genocidal.
Report co-author and international law professor Shahd Hammouri said: “In our hands we have evidence that British officials knowingly hid the truth and distorted the truth. They had the legal advice and chose to overlook it. British citizens in good conscience who sought to uphold their legal and moral obligations of standing up against power were threatened with their livelihoods and asked to either quit their jobs or shut the hell up."
In 2024, the ICC issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also in The Hague, is weighing a genocide case against Israel filed by South Africa and supported by an increasing number of nations.
"Israel has committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Gaza," the tribunal's report states. "The genocide in Gaza must be understood within its historical context: as part of a decadeslong, ongoing, and systematic effort to destroy the Palestinian people in whole or in part. We heard from a range of witnesses who described in devastating detail the human and social reality of displacement, ethnic cleansing, and genocide."
The report notes the deliberate destruction of Gaza's healthcare and education systems, targeting of journalists, and famine caused by Israel's "complete siege" of the embattled strip.
The Gaza Tribunal report notes the UK's legal obligations under international law, which include:
The publication of the Gaza Tribunal report—which is related in spirit and method to a separate Gaza Tribunal headed by former UN special rapporteur Richard Falk—follows last year's finding by the Corbyn-led body that Britain is complicit in the Gaza genocide.
The UK government has also faced international condemnation for persecuting members of Palestine Action and other activists. Last month, the British High Court ruled that the government illegally banned the protest group, some of whose members nearly died while on recent hunger strikes.
The report also comes as Israeli forces continue killing, maiming, and forcibly displacing Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, where the ICJ found in 2024 that Israel is guilty of illegal occupation and apartheid.
To date, more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded in Gaza, according to officials there. Around 2 million others have been forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened.
"Our dollars are advancing the pain of our global neighbors," said Rep. Delia Ramirez. "We here today are saying 'enough.'"
The lawn outside the US Capitol building was strewn with colorful backpacks and children's shoes on Wednesday afternoon as progressive members of Congress called for an end to President Donald Trump's "illegal" war with Iran.
They were there to memorialize the 168 children, mostly girls aged 7-12, who were killed when the United States bombed an elementary school in Minab on February 28 in the opening salvo of a war that has gone on to claim the lives of more than 2,000 people, including more than 300 children, according to reports from Iranian and Lebanese health authorities.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said each backpack and pair of shoes represented "an Iranian child who should still be with us today... but they were struck down by a Tomahawk missile."
Van Hollen described it as a consequence of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's crusade against what he's derided as "stupid rules of engagement."
"Those rules of engagement are designed to prevent civilian harm," the senator said. "They're designed to prevent a war crime."
The lawmakers described Trump's attack on Iran as a "war of choice" and an act of aggression that violated international law.
"There was no imminent threat" from Iran, said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "There is certainly no plan for this war, and most importantly, there is no authorization from Congress."
Shortly after the war was launched, War Powers Resolutions seeking to rein in Trump's ability to use force without authorization narrowly failed in both the House and the Senate, with a handful of Democrats joining Republicans to kill the measure.
The White House is reportedly preparing to ask Congress for an additional $50 billion in supplemental funding to cover the cost of the Iran war on top of the more than $990 billion Congress has already authorized in last summer's GOP budget bill and the latest funding package.
Most Democrats have taken a firm line against more funding, which would require seven of their votes to pass the 60-vote threshold in the Senate, though some pro-war Democrats have signaled a willingness to fund the war, according to reporting earlier this month.
"Civilians in Iran aren't the only ones who are paying the price," said Rep. Sarah Jacobs (D-Calif.). "Our service members and the American people are too."
She noted that 13 members of the US military have been killed since the war was launched less than two weeks ago, saying, "I fear that this number will grow."
Based on Pentagon estimates provided to Congress earlier this month, the war is projected to have already cost US taxpayers more than $24 billion as of Wednesday.
Jacobs said she would oppose "any defense supplemental package" because "every dollar Congress spends on this war without ever authorizing it tells this president and every future president that they can drag this country into any conflict they want and dare us to defund the troops."
"From Palestine to Iran, our bombs are killing women, they're killing children... our dollars are advancing the pain of our global neighbors," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) "We here today are saying 'enough.'"
She called for Congress to pass her Block the Bombs Act, which would cut off "offensive" US military funding to Israel, and to pass a war powers resolution limiting Trump's authority to continue striking Iran.
"Not one more dollar for a war with Iran," Ramirez said. "Not one more excuse, not one more bomb."
“While Trump voters by and large stand behind Trump, they overwhelmingly want him to declare an end to the war."
War hawks such as Sen. Lindsey Graham are pushing President Donald Trump to keep escalating the war he is waging against Iran, but a new poll of the president's base—those who voted for him in 2024, when he campaigned on "no new wars"—found that doing so would likely anger the steadily shrinking faction of Americans who have thus far continued to support him.
The poll, commissioned by the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and The American Conservative, found that 79% of those who voted for Trump in 2024 want a swift end to the US and Israel's war in Iran, which began on February 28 when the president abruptly ended talks regarding Iran's nuclear program and joined Israel in attacking the country.
The survey revealed a political reality at odds with Trump's recent claim that "MAGA loves what I’m doing—every aspect of it."
More than a year after they cast votes for Trump, who campaigned relentlessly on making life more affordable for Americans, the poll found that 55% of people who supported the president are concerned about rising gas prices as a result of the war. The average price of gas has been steadily rising since the US and Israel began the war, leading Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which around a fifth of the global oil supply flows. As of Wednesday the average price in the US was up to $3.842 per gallon.
Fifty-eight percent of Trump voters said they would oppose sending US troops to fight on the ground in Iran, a step the president is reportedly considering taking in order to seize Iran's crucial oil hub on Kharg Island in the Strait of Hormuz.
Just over three-quarters of people who backed Trump in the last election said they supported the president's decision to go to war, but less than a month into the conflict, that number is down eight points from 84% on February 28, according to a Fox News poll at the time.
Quincy Institute executive vice president Trita Parsi noted that even the White House is seemingly searching "for an off-ramp from this widening conflict," in which 13 US troops have been killed and 200 have been wounded. More than 1,300 Iranians have been killed, according to the country's ambassador to the United Nations, as well as more than 900 Lebanese civilians, and at least 15 people in Israel.
"Trump’s base favors a face-saving declaration of victory by Washington that could enable a ceasefire and prevent further economic shocks."
Trump said earlier this week that "maybe we shouldn’t be there at all," and his advisers have reportedly been calling on the president to quickly determine an exit plan to avoid a political backlash.
Meanwhile, said Parsi, "neoconservatives are pressuring President Trump to double down on this war. But this poll shows that Trump’s base favors a face-saving declaration of victory by Washington that could enable a ceasefire and prevent further economic shocks."
In Responsible Statecraft, which is published by the Quincy Institute, Kelley Beaucar Vlahos noted that young MAGA voters, whose support was instrumental in delivering the White House for Trump in 2024, are "driving much of the rising opposition to the war among the president's base."
Only 54% of Trump voters aged 18-29 said they supported the war, while 46% opposed it.
"The cracks are beginning to show in President Donald Trump’s base" over the war, wrote Beaucar Vlahos.
Saagar Enjeti, conservative host of the popular Breaking Points podcast, told Responsible Statecraft that "the Republican base is clearly willing to trust President Trump up to a point but remain weary of any potential escalation."
“As evidenced by this polling the wisest move would be to declare victory and end this immediately," he said.
The poll, which was taken between March 12-14, was released a day after Joe Kent, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, announced he was resigning from his position because Iran had "posed no imminent threat to our nation" when Trump began the war. The president, said the longtime Trump loyalist, had attacked Iran "due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby."
Kent, whom critics noted has ties to white nationalists and conspiracy theorists, is the most prominent Trump administration official to resign from the White House in protest of the president's policies and actions.
On Wednesday, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said in her opening statement that the US intelligence community determined that US airstrikes last year "obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment program, before claiming that the president alone can determine whether a country poses an "imminent" threat.
While those who voted for the president "by and large stand behind Trump, they overwhelmingly want him to declare an end to the war,” said Parsi on Wednesday. “Trump risks losing significant portions of his base if he escalates the war with ground troops and allows the war to further push up gas prices.”