Lawyers for a Democratic Society (Minbyun)'s information disclosure request, but the negotiation proposal remains sealed as time passes. Hankyoreh Graphics

Lawyers for a Democratic Society (Minbyun) has filed a lawsuit with the court seeking information disclosure regarding the South Korea-U.S. tariff negotiation process.

On the surface, this is a procedure for the public's right to know, but in reality, it is highly unlikely to be disclosed immediately. Minbyun itself must be well aware of this.

This is proven by the past case of the South Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA). At the time, Minbyun even filed a lawsuit against the government, but not a single line was disclosed during the negotiations. Only some industrial impact assessment documents and negotiation plan materials were released after the negotiations concluded and the National Assembly ratified the agreement.

The court ruled that while "non-disclosure is possible for the national interest during negotiations," "the public's right to know is greater after the negotiations conclude."

Ultimately, information was revealed only in a limited capacity after the negotiations became a foregone conclusion.

Then why did Minbyun file this request with a predictable outcome?

The answer can be found in the benefits the administration gains.

First, the effect of feigning transparency.

Simply by the fact that an information disclosure request has been filed, the government can portray itself as transparent by stating, "the process is ongoing." During the South Korea-U.S. FTA, the government also stalled by saying, "the request has been received, so we will follow legal procedures."

Second, evading responsibility.

The government can use the clause stating that "diplomatic and trade secrets are exempt from disclosure under the Information Disclosure Act" as a shield, without revealing the negotiation terms. This creates room to avoid responsibility even if the negotiation results are unfavorable.

Third, shifting the focus of the controversy.

What the public is curious about are the substantive issues such as the investment entities, recovery structure, and responsibility for non-performance. However, the controversy shifts to the procedural issue of "why is it not disclosed?" During the South Korea-U.S. FTA, the core issues disappeared, leaving only the debate over "disclosure versus non-disclosure."

Fourth, buying time.

If information disclosure is denied, it leads to litigation, and it takes several years to reach a verdict. The South Korea-U.S. FTA negotiations were concluded in 2007, but some materials were released in 2012 after a court ruling. In the meantime, the negotiations had already become a fait accompli.

Ultimately, this information disclosure request appears likely to function as a means for the administration to defend itself, rather than to guarantee the transparency that the public desires. This is why it is seen as having political calculations behind it.

There is no evidence yet to suggest collusion between the government and Minbyun.

However, the fact remains that if the essence of the negotiations is hidden and only procedural disputes remain, the public's right to know will once again be pushed to the back burner.

#Minbyun #KoreaUS #TariffNegotiations #InformationDisclosureRequest #FTAPrecedent #Lee Jae-myungAdministration #EvasionOfResponsibility #FeignedTransparency #ProceduralDebate #BuyingTime #RegimeBenefits