The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications

[Excerpt] On June 30, 2007, U.S. and South Korean trade officials signed the proposed U.S.-South Korean Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) for their respective countries. If approved, the KORUS FTA would be the second-largest FTA that South Korea has signed to date, after the agreement with the European Union (EU). It would be the second-largest (next to North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA) in which the United States participates. South Korea is the seventhlargest trading partner of the United States and the United States is South Korea’s third-largest trading partner. Various studies conclude that the agreement would increase bilateral trade and investment flows. The final text of the proposed KORUS FTA covers a wide range of trade and investment issues and, therefore, could have substantial economic implications for both the United States and South Korea. The agreement will not enter into force unless Congress approves implementation legislation. The negotiations were conducted under the trade promotion authority (TPA), also called fast-track trade authority, that Congress granted the President under the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210). Under TPA the President has the discretion on when to submit the implementing legislation to Congress. President Bush did not submit the legislation because of differences with the Democratic leadership over treatment of autos and beef, among other issues. Early in his Administration, President Obama indicated the need to resolve those issues before he would submit the implementing legislation. On December 3, 2010, after a series of arduous negotiations and missed deadlines, President Obama and President Lee announced that their negotiators reached agreement on modifications in the KORUS FTA, and that they were prepared to move ahead to getting the agreement approved by the respective legislatures. The White House is expected to send implementing legislation to the 112th Congress and that it would like to see Congress approve the agreement by July 1 of this year. The modifications are in the form of changes in phase-out periods for tariffs on autos, a new safeguard provision on autos, and concessions by South Korea on allowing a larger number of U.S. cars into South Korea under U.S. safety standards than was the case under the original KORUS FTA provisions. The issue of full U.S. beef access was not resolved because of the political sensitivity of the issue in South Korea. In 2008, when President Lee reached a separate agreement with the United States to lift South Korea’s ban on U.S. beef imports, massive anti-South Korean government protests forced the two governments to renegotiate its terms. The U.S. beef sector has largely supported the KORUS FTA. A broad swath of the U.S. business community supports the KORUS FTA . With the modifications in the agreement reached in December, this group also includes the three Detroit-based auto manufacturers and the United Auto Workers (UAW) union. It still faces opposition from some labor unions and other groups, including Public Citizen. Many U.S. supporters view passage of the KORUS FTA as important to secure new opportunities in the South Korean market, while opponents claim that the KORUS FTA does not go far enough to break down South Korean trade barriers or that the agreement will encourage U.S. companies to move their production offshore at the expense of U.S. workers. Other observers have suggested the outcome of the KORUS FTA could have implications for the U.S.-South Korean alliance as a whole, as well as on U.S. Asia policy and U.S. trade policy, particularly in light of an FTA signed in by South Korea and the EU that is expected to go into effect on July 1, 2011

The EU-South Korea Free Trade Agreement and Its Implications for the United States

[Excerpt] On October 6,2010, the 27 member European Union (EU) and South Korea signed a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA). The agreement is expected to go into effect on July 1, 2011, pending approval by the European Parliament and the South Korean National Assembly. If enacted, the South Korea-EU FTA (KOREU FTA) would be the largest FTA in terms of market size that South Korea has entered into. The KOREU FTA reflects the EU and South Korean trade strategies to use FTAs to strengthen economic ties outside their home regions. It also builds upon the surge in trade and investment flows between South Korea and the EU over the past decade. This agreement has possible implications for U.S. trade with South Korea and congressional action on the proposed U.S.-South Korea FTA (KORUS FTA). The proposed KOREU FTA is very comprehensive. It would reduce and eliminate tariffs and other trade barriers in manufactured goods, agricultural products and services and would also cover such trade-related activities as government procurement, intellectual property rights, labor rights and environmental issues. Most studies done on the potential impact of the KOREU FTA estimate that the agreement will have a small but positive effect on the economies of the EU and South Korea as a whole and that the larger relative impact would be on the South Korean economy. The greatest economic impact of the KOREU FTA would be on specific sectors in each economy. EU services providers would be expected to experience gains from the agreement, especially in the areas of retail and wholesale trade, transportation services, financial services, and business services. In terms of trade in goods, EU exporters of pharmaceuticals, auto parts, industrial machinery, electronics parts, and some agricultural goods and processed foods would be expected to gain from the KOREU FTA\u27s implementation. At the same time, South Korean manufacturers of cars, ships, wireless telecommunications devices, chemical products, and imaging equipment would be expected to increase their exports to the EU market. The KOREU FTA is similar to the proposed KORUS FTA in many respects. Both agreements are comprehensive and both would eliminate tariffs on most trade in goods soon after they enter into force. However, they differ in other respects. Phase-out periods for tariffs on some manufactured goods differ. In addition, the KOREU FTA does not cover foreign direct investment. Unlike the KORUS FTA, the KOREU FTA would not allow trade sanctions to be applied where violations of the workers\u27 rights, and environment provisions have been deemed to occur. In addition, the KORUS FTA would cover a broader range of trade in services than would the KOREU FTA. It is not clear whether these differences in the structures of the FTAs would result in appreciable differences in outcomes in terms of economic gains and losses. U.S. and European firms are close competitors in a number of sectors and industries, particularly autos. Some business representatives argue that enactment of the KOREU FTA before enactment of the KORUS FTA would give European competitors commercial first mover advantages, since EU firms, such as those in the auto industry or the services sector, could gain greater market opportunities in South Korea not afforded to US. firms. On the other hand, other factors could also mitigate such advantages. For example, U.S. multinational firms operating in the EU could benefit from the KOREU FTA. Nevertheless, the content and fate of the KOREU FTA could influence the pace and tone of any debate in the United States on the KORUS FTA in the 112th Congress

The Proposed U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA): Provisions and Implications

On June 30, 2007, United States Trade Representative Susan Schwab and South Korean Foreign Trade Minister Kim Hyung-chong signed the proposed U.S.-South Korean Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA) for their respective countries. If approved, the KORUS FTA would be the largest FTA that South Korea has signed to date and would be the second largest (next to North American Free Trade Agreement NAFTA) in which the United States participates. South Korea is the seventh-largest trading partner of the United States and the United States is South Korea’s third largest trading partner. Various studies conclude that the agreement would increase bilateral trade and investment flows. The final text of the proposed KORUS FTA covers a wide range of trade and investment issues and, therefore, could have wide economic implications for both the United States and South Korea. The KORUS FTA includes issues on which the two countries achieved early agreement, such as the elimination on tariffs on trade in most manufactured goods and the partial liberalization in services trade. The agreement also includes provisions on a number of very sensitive issues, such as autos, agriculture, and trade remedies, on which agreement was reached only during the final hours of negotiations. If the agreement is to enter into force, Congress will have to approve implementation legislation. The negotiations were conducted under the trade promotion authority (TPA), also called fast-track trade authority, that the Congress granted the President under the Bipartisan Trade Promotion Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-210). The authority allows the President to enter into trade agreements that receive expedited congressional consideration (no amendments and limited debate). The White House has not indicated when it will send the draft implementing legislation to Congress. (The TPA sets no deadline for the President to do this.) While a broad swath of the U.S. business community supports the agreement, the KORUS FTA faces opposition from some groups, including some auto and steel manufacturers and labor unions. In addition, the agricultural community and some Members of Congress have withheld support for the agreement until South Korea lifts its restrictions on imports of U.S. beef. Some U.S. supporters view passage of the KORUS FTA as important to secure new opportunities in the South Korea market. Opponents claim that the KORUS FTA does not go far enough in opening up the South Korean market and is a lost opportunity to resolve long running concerns about South Korean barriers. Other observers have suggested the outcome of the KORUS FTA could have implications for the U.S.-South Korean alliance as a whole. Differences between the White House and the Democratic leadership in the Congress over the implications of the KORUS FTA have made the timing and even the likelihood of the President’s submission and the Congress’s subsequent consideration of implementing legislation uncertain. This report will be updated as events warrant

Knowledge flows, transfer, sharing and exchange

Proceedings of the 54th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences | 202

Identification and dynamics of a beneficial mutation in a long-term evolution experiment with Escherichia coli

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Twelve populations of <it>E. coli </it>were serially propagated for 20,000 generations in a glucose-supplemented minimal medium in order to study the dynamics of evolution. We sought to find and characterize one of the beneficial mutations responsible for the adaptation and other phenotypic changes, including increased cell size, in one of these populations.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We used transposon-tagging followed by P1-transduction into the ancestor, screening for increased cell size and fitness, co-transduction analysis, and DNA sequencing. We identified a 1-bp insertion in the BoxG1 region located upstream of <it>glmUS</it>, an operon involved in cell-wall biosynthesis. When transduced into the ancestor, this mutation increased competitive fitness by about 5%. This mutation spread through its population of origin between 500 and 1500 generations. Mutations in this region were not found in the other 11 evolving populations, even after 20,000 generations.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The 1-bp insertion in the BoxG1 region near <it>glmUS </it>was demonstrably beneficial in the environment in which it arose. The absence of similar mutations in the other evolved populations suggests that they substituted other mutations that rendered this particular mutation unimportant. These results show the unpredictability of adaptive evolution, whereas parallel substitutions at other loci in these same populations reveal the predictability.</p

Henry Cadell’s Experimental Researches in Mountain Building : their lessons for interpreting thrust systems and fold-thrust structures

Funding The Fold-Thrust Research Group has been funded by InterOil, Santos, OilSearch and NAGRA. The original compilation of Cadell’s researches was part of an outreach programme funded by BP. Acknowledgements RWHB is indebted to the late John Mendum for arranging access to Cadell’s notebooks and his field maps that were lodged in the then offices of the British Geological Survey in Murchison House, Edinburgh. This formed part of a collaboration with BGS and the development of the “Assynt’s Geology” website in the early 2000s. Many of the images from Cadell’s notebooks, including his experimental results, were part of this site. Regrettably it has not been maintained and is no longer accessible. Rectifying this loss of resource forms the motivation for this contribution. We thank Juergen Adam and an anonymous referee for construct reviews, together with James Hammerstein for shepherding the manuscript through the editing process, although of course the views expressed in this paper remain the responsibility of the authors alone.Peer reviewedPostprin

Large-effect flowering time mutations reveal conditionally adaptive paths through fitness landscapes in Arabidopsis thaliana.

Contrary to previous assumptions that most mutations are deleterious, there is increasing evidence for persistence of large-effect mutations in natural populations. A possible explanation for these observations is that mutant phenotypes and fitness may depend upon the specific environmental conditions to which a mutant is exposed. Here, we tested this hypothesis by growing large-effect flowering time mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana in multiple field sites and seasons to quantify their fitness effects in realistic natural conditions. By constructing environment-specific fitness landscapes based on flowering time and branching architecture, we observed that a subset of mutations increased fitness, but only in specific environments. These mutations increased fitness via different paths: through shifting flowering time, branching, or both. Branching was under stronger selection, but flowering time was more genetically variable, pointing to the importance of indirect selection on mutations through their pleiotropic effects on multiple phenotypes. Finally, mutations in hub genes with greater connectedness in their regulatory networks had greater effects on both phenotypes and fitness. Together, these findings indicate that large-effect mutations may persist in populations because they influence traits that are adaptive only under specific environmental conditions. Understanding their evolutionary dynamics therefore requires measuring their effects in multiple natural environments

A cross-sectional study of retired Great British Olympians (Berlin 1936 - Sochi 2014):Olympic career injuries, joint health in later life, and reasons for retirement from Olympic sport

The relationship between Olympic career sport injury and the long-term musculoskeletal health of the elite athlete remains unclear. This study describes the lifetime prevalence of medical attention injuries that occurred during training and/or competition as part of the athlete’s Olympic career, reasons for retirement from Olympic sport, and the point prevalence of pain and osteoarthritis (OA) among retired Great Britain’s (GB) Olympians