Negotiating with Seoul...does symbolism matter?

In today's 'Financial Times of London', Alan Beattie writes on 'Hard bargains: bilateral trade pacts are falling victim to domestic objections'. His case in point is the US beef brouhaha in South Korea. Beattie straightaways says that 'critics of bilateral trace pacts...are heavy on symbolism but light on content'. He is not wrong, but he is mistaken when he neglects the power of symbols. And in South Korea, beef is transubstantiated in to something which becomes the body and blood of its diet. Daily growing protests in Seoul against the reintroduction of US beef into South Korea, negotiated by the unschooled new president Lee Myung-bak hit a nerve; he was too eager to please Herr Bush, and had made a campaign pledge that once elected, he would tighten ties to the US. Herr Bush used his eagerness to twist Lee's willing arm, and thus we have a conflict which will in the end send Lee packing from the Blue House in disgrace. Beattie downplays symbolism in politics and symbolism has its value there. Had Herr Bush been more sensitive to South Korea, a country the US fought to preserve against the North Korean attack on 23 June 1950, and on whose soil the US maintain some 38.000 troops, he would or at least his closest advisors would be more savvy in dealing with Seoul. Well, he isn't and his diplomatic arm, the department of State with that gofer Condy Rice at its head, is just as klewless. So, here we are once again in a muddle which was easily avoidable but for the smugness of a declining power who thinks it can do anything it wants in the world. And the smugness is endemic. Maybe a new president would act differently, but 18Brumaire ain't too sure, given the influence of cold warrior and ex cia Korea hands who have easy access to the White House.