ADDITIONAL INFORMATION KEY TO RESOLVING IMPASSE

UNCLAS SEOUL 001128 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR EAP/K AND EB/ATT USDA FOR ACTING U/S LAMBERT AND FAS/WETZEL NSC FOR TONG PASS USTR FOR CUTLER, AUGEROT AND KI E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ETRD EAGR KS SUBJECT: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION KEY TO RESOLVING IMPASSE OVER RESUMING BEEF IMPORTS ¶1. (SBU) Prior to USTR Ambassador Portman's call to Trade Minister Kim Hyun-chong about the beef issue, Embassy Seoul would like to offer some current context, and try to explain the possible reasons for the apparent disconnect between messages given to us by Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MOFAT) on one hand and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) on the other. ¶2. (SBU) Embassy Seoul's view is that the discrepancy between the optimism heard from MOFAT and the obstinacy heard from MAF regarding sending the site survey teams and generally resuming progress towards implementing the January 13 import protocol is twofold. (Note: According to the protocol, sending teams to inspect the operations of packing plants set to export to Korea is a prerequisite for resuming imports.) ¶3. (SBU) First, MOFAT is basing its information on conversations it is having with the political level at MAF, who appear to be telling MOFAT that there will be no problem in moving forward once MAF has enough information to make a convincing case that the Alabama cow was born prior to April ¶1998. (According to the import protocol, cases of BSE found in animals born prior to that date -- which is interpreted as being the "effective" date of the U.S. ban on feeding ruminant-based feed to ruminants -- would not be cause to ban imports.) We believe MAF officials are telling MOFAT that the will and intention to resume progress is there, but all necessary technical groundwork needs to be laid. We do not believe that MAF wants to use this as an excuse to hold up beef imports indefinitely, and do think MAF does intend to resume progress once it feels the timing is right for its political needs. ¶4. (SBU) That timing will kick in once MAF feels it has enough information about the animal to make a compelling argument to the National Assembly and other important stakeholders. Not to convince them, because those groups cannot be convinced, but enough to make a compelling case and show that MAF did not merely go through the motions of verifying the age and push ahead solely due to U.S. pressure. ¶5. (SBU) Second, we think MAF is probably being sincere when it tells us that it needs more information to fully establish the age of the Alabama animal. In other words, MAF is not yet itself convinced that the animal really is as old as USDA says it is. The MAF veterinarian is apparently sincere in his estimation that the animal -- based on the one picture provided -- is 6 - 7 years old. ¶6. (SBU) So the information requests coming out of MAF are not merely political cover -- which is what MOFAT emphasizes -- but also reflect some real doubts about the age of the animal in some technical quarters of MAF. That is the basis for MAF requests to see more pictures of the animal, as well as comparison photos of the dentition of Alabama animals known to have been born earlier than April 1998. ¶7. (SBU) Finally, we need to be clear and realistic in our expectations of MOFAT. MAF is running this show, is firmly in control, and it is MAF that will have to answer in the inevitable National Assembly hearings and investigations. This issue lies squarely in MAF's portfolio -- we will not be able to change that. MOFAT can urge and cajole -- and is doing so. But, in Embassy's estimation, MOFAT cannot roll MAF on this issue. We have consistently received this message from MOFAT, and believe it is an accurate reflection of the current bureaucratic truth. MOFAT probably has the most leverage in pushing for sending the site survey teams independently of final, absolute age verification -- but we should be very cautious about MOFAT's ability to move or push MAF on its own. VERSHBOW