South Korean Presidential Office Downplays U.S. Commerce Secretary's Market Opening Remarks as 'Political Rhetoric'

Presidential Office Dismisses Commerce Secretary Rutnik's Market Opening Remarks as 'Political Language' for Domestic Audience

South Korea's Presidential Office has moved to defuse controversy surrounding U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Rutnik's claim that South Korea had agreed to a 100% complete market opening, dismissing it as 'political language' intended for a domestic audience. The move appears aimed at preventing unnecessary domestic debate sparked by Rutnik's comments. The government is maintaining a cautious stance on sensitive issues like agricultural market liberalization and has made it clear that no further market openings are planned. Presidential officials are actively communicating to ensure the remarks do not damage the strong relationship between South Korea and the U.S. and to prevent undue anxiety among the South Korean public.

Kang Hoon-sik, Chief of Staff to the President, emphasized that 'this agreement does not include any promises of additional tariff reductions or market openings, including agricultural products,' clarifying that Rutnik's statements were inaccurate. Kang also stressed that the government is fully aware of public concerns and is prioritizing national interests in negotiations. The government believes a cautious approach is necessary, especially in the agricultural sector, given its significant impact on the domestic economy. The Presidential Secretariat stated that it will continue to provide accurate information to the public and actively work to prevent misunderstandings. Furthermore, the Presidential Office plans to explain the accurate background and intent of these comments to the U.S. side and request cooperation to prevent misunderstandings.

Kim Yong-beom, Chief Policy Officer, reiterated at a briefing regarding the South Korea-U.S. summit held at the APEC Media Center in Gyeongju on October 29th, that 'there are no newly abolished tariffs or additional openings related to agricultural products.' Kim's statement is interpreted as an attempt to dispel concerns about agricultural market opening amplified by Rutnik's remarks. He added, 'The government is pursuing various policies to strengthen the competitiveness of the agricultural sector and increase farm household income, and will continue to do its best for the sustainable development of agriculture.' Kim also emphasized that economic cooperation between South Korea and the U.S. should be pursued in a mutually beneficial direction and that a method of forcing unilateral sacrifices in specific sectors is never acceptable. The government stated it will continue to prioritize national interests in negotiations in all sectors, including agriculture.

This incident is seen as an example of how reckless remarks from the U.S. side can impact domestic politics. In particular, there is a growing consensus that the government should approach sensitive economic issues such as Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with greater caution, as they are directly linked to the lives of the people. Some are calling for the government to communicate more transparently and proactively with the public in future external negotiations. There are also calls for strengthening diplomatic capabilities to protect national interests in relations with major countries, including the U.S. The South Korean government has stated that it will continue to listen to the opinions of the people, prioritize national interests in external negotiations, maximize South Korea's economic benefits, and do its best to improve the quality of life for the people.

Diverse interpretations of the incident are emerging within the political sphere. The ruling Democratic Party is supporting the government's explanation, pointing out that Commerce Secretary Rutnik's remarks were exaggerated. A Democratic Party official emphasized, 'The government has already stated on several occasions that there will be no additional market openings, and this remains a fact.' They also added, 'We will further consolidate the relationship of trust between South Korea and the U.S. and strengthen economic cooperation through this incident.' On the other hand, the opposition party is criticizing the government's response as insufficient, arguing that the truth of the incident must be thoroughly investigated. An opposition party official criticized, 'If the government fails to properly protest to the U.S. side and attempts to downplay the incident, it is deceiving the people.' They also asserted, 'The National Assembly should conduct a fact-finding investigation into this incident and hold those responsible accountable if necessary.' These conflicting positions in the political sphere suggest that this incident may escalate beyond a simple diplomatic mishap and become a major point of contention in domestic politics. Going forward, the government must listen to the criticisms from the political arena and address public concerns through transparent and proactive communication.