Rule # 1: Never argue with an idiot, or you will soon lower yourself down to their level.

I'm simply trying to argue that this obsessive emphasis on "trade friction" distorts the overall general picture.

Think of it this way: In the run up to the Iraq War, DOD saber rattlers pored over reams of intelligence concerning Iraq's WMD program. To be sure, they found instances, hints, and some would say persuasive evidence that Iraq was intent on developing WMD's.

However, all this emphasis on testimony from a defector, the wayward aluminum tube found here, and satellite pictures were all for naught. There was no scary WMD program that was being pursued and the US subsequently got egg all over its face. Simply put, some folks at the DOD got tripped up over details that turned out to be really nothing at all.

I know that both instances are like comparing apples and oranges. Still, I can't help but notice the similarities in the cognitive process.

However, I believe it is incumbent upon you to go back and read the statistics that I provided in my first comment on this thread. The statistics show clearly and unimpeachably that the OVERALL trend of trade relations between China and South Korea is toward that of cooperation.

Much earlier in the thread, USinKorea called you on your strawman argument. I shall reiterate that Korea and China are major trading partners does not disprove the existence of trade friction.

No argument there. However, I believe it is incumbent upon you to go back and read the statistics that I provided in my first comment on this thread. The statistics show clearly and unimpeachably that the OVERALL trend of trade relations between China and South Korea is toward that of cooperation. Complement those statistics with Hu and Lee's statements, along with the fact that despite food safety scares and individual disputes that commercial exchanges did not coming to a grinding halt as it has in other cases, then you have a pretty compelling class that the gloom and doom characterizations are overblown.

So yes Sonagi, "leaders of all countries make diplomatic public statements that carry little weight." The long term scenario in regards to China-ROK trade relations, however, seem to indicate that both sides haven't received or don't seriously consider your summation.

Finally, I find your wholesale dismissal of Hu’s statements an indication of certain ideological biases you have about the PRC rather than being a legitimate critique. You seem to be operating under the cynical assumption that nothing is to be believed from the Chinese side.

To clarify your misreading of my previous comment, leaders of all countries make diplomatic public statements that carry little real weight.

I'm sorry, but what the hell is so "lame" about me "tossing out" an announcement by a Chinese leader? Hu's statement, along with statements made by Lee indicate that both countries are committed towards a robust and developed trade relationship. You can cite all the trade incidents' you want. The fact is, when two leaders make publically stated diplomatic committments in regards to their trade relations, it goes to show that there is plenty of room with which to work around and negotiate over arising disputes.

Finally, I find your wholesale dismissal of Hu's statements an indication of certain ideological biases you have about the PRC rather than being a legitimate critique. You seem to be operating under the cynical assumption that nothing is to be believed from the Chinese side.

I apologize for referring to you as a gyopo. Your past words and Korean attitudes sure give one the impression that you are.

As to dealing with the arguments you make as I have said in the past — there is not much substance. I was writing about (1) expat attitudes about the ROK come-uppance with China (and you failed to grasp the idea of frustrated American national pride reflected in this attitude) and (2) ROK-China relationships (as I have observed it develop from the recognition of the PRC to the present). Instead, you rewrite about diversionary topics that are off-shoots and not relevant. You continue to try to make arguments simply for the sake of arguing.

You are very intelligent — but unfortunately, you choose to be nothing more than a troll and I don't want to play. I'm out of here.

don’t know USinKorea and Kalani, for two countries that are involved in a “hostile” trade relationship, statements like this do seem odd, don’t you think?

You didn't ask my opinion, but I'm going to give it anyway. I can't believe a commenter with sophisticated language and extensive background knowledge like yourself would lamely toss out a diplomatic public statement from a Chinese leader as apparent counterevidence against claims about trade conflicts.

Rather than call it "The Calebrisi Shield" I'd recommned the "The Calebrisi Long/Short Term Metrics of Trade Relations". Not as punchy, I admit, as your appellation but I still think it more then suffices. It goes something like this:

Trade relations between countries should be measured as to whether a series of individual, short term events constitute a tipping point so as to alter the dynamics of the long term trade relationship.

If you had the intellectual honest-or creativity for that matter-to apply this to the China-South Korea trade relationship you'd find that a lot of your assumptions simply don't pan out.

Furthermore, all this huffing and puffing about how the China-South Korea trade relationship doesn't deserve a "happy face" label becomes more and more silly when you take in to consideration the recent summit meetings between Lee Myung Bak and Hu Jintao.

According to a Xinhua report of Hu's visit to Seoul:

[Hu called for both sides to] "…deepen economic and trade cooperation. Hu urged both sides to complete adjustments to the joint research report on medium- and long-term development planning in economic and trade cooperation, so that it can act as a guide for medium- and long-term economic and trade cooperation. The two countries could strengthen cooperation in such key areas as telecommunications, energy, finance, logistics and environmental protection, President Hu said."

I don't know USinKorea and Kalani, for two countries that are involved in a "hostile" trade relationship, statements like this do seem odd, don't you think?

Your long response to Calebrisi is on target, save for the irrelevant ethnic reference. Our views are shaped by our identities and experiences, but whether or not one is Korean does not determine the validity of one's views on Korea-related issues. "You must be a gyopo" is no better than "You cannot understand because you are a foreigner."