The promotion of free trade is critical to the United States , which is aiming at creating jobs through growth in exports . It is no less important to Korea , for which exports are the main engine of growth . No wonder the Korea - U . S . free trade agreement , still pending ratification though signed three years ago , will reportedly be placed at the top of the agenda when U . S . President Barack Obama and President Lee Myung - bak meet on the sidelines of the Nov . 11 - 12 G 20 summit in Seoul . Yet , it is unclear whether or not Obama and Lee will be ready to declare that they are now ready to launch the process of ratification . Ratification has been delayed since Obama , when campaigning for election to the presidency , said the bilateral trade agreement was “ badly flawed , ” claiming it would not do enough to increase U . S . auto sales . To say the least , it would be atypical for one party to demand a change to an accord that had already been signed by responsible government representatives . But Obama did so when he was elected president . What would Obama have said if Lee had mentioned Korea ’ s huge deficit in agricultural trade , complaining that the trade deal was so badly flawed that it would not help increase the exports of Korean farm products ? Instead , Lee was quoted as saying , “ If automobiles are a problem , we are ready to talk about it again . I want U . S . businesses to understand that the Korea - U . S . FTA is not something that is advantageous for Korea and disadvantageous for the United States . ” No one could say that Lee committed himself to concessions . But his remarks were made in the way that the U . S . administration said that he hinted that he was ready to make additional concessions on auto trade . Now Lee ’ s aides are so worried about the potential backlash that they promise that no change will be made to the signed diplomatic document . Among them is Yim Tae - hee , presidential chief of staff , who denied that the Lee administration was renegotiating the accord and promised that it would not be revised when he was testifying during a parliamentary audit on Friday . But no one should be deluded by his remarks , which could be nothing but wordplay . It could be claimed that the ongoing talks are not “ renegotiations ” but “ additional negotiations , ” as Korean government officials put it . As such , no change may be made to the agreement itself . Still , the effect will be the same if concessions are contained in an additional protocol to the agreement . Indeed , Korea is reportedly considering making concessions with regard to regulations on fuel efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions an area about which U . S . auto exporters are deeply concerned . In the past , they have accused the Korean government of attempting to raise non - tariff barriers by implementing the regulations beginning in 2012 . Under the regulations , which would apply to imported vehicles as well as those of domestic origin , automakers would be required to boost vehicle mileage to 17 kilometers per liter on average and reduce the emission of carbon dioxide to 140 grams per kilometer of driving or less by 2015 . Though the regulations may pose a challenge to U . S . automakers manufacturing gas guzzlers , they cannot be accused of building new non - tariff barriers . It is not known what specific concessions the Korean government is considering . But the Korean negotiators may have to fight an uphill battle if the list of potential concessions has already been leaked to the United States , as reported by domestic newspapers . Nor is it known what concessions the Korean government is demanding in return for those it is offering . But in negotiations , it is only a matter of course for one party to demand something from the other in return for what it is offering to give .