ROK QUESTIONS PERCEIVED USG POLICY SHIFTS ON DPRK

C O N F I D E N T I A L SEOUL 001472

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

NSC FOR CHA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/18/2015
TAGS: PREL PHUM KS
SUBJECT: ROK QUESTIONS PERCEIVED USG POLICY SHIFTS ON DPRK

Classified By: POL M/C Joseph Y. Yun. Reasons 1.4 (b),(d).

SUMMARY
--------------


1. (C) In a May 1 meeting with the POL M/C, Cho Tae-yong,
Director-General of MOFAT's North American Affairs Bureau,
asked whether USG policy had changed toward the Kaesong
Industrial Complex (KIC) and on granting asylum to North
Koreans who had already been resettled in South Korea. Cho
protested SENK Lefkowitz's April 28 op-ed in the Wall Street
Journal, characterizing it as inaccurate and unbalanced. He
said the commentary contrasted with previous USG statements
of support for the KIC. Cho also sought clarification on the
case of North Korean defector Seo Jae-sok, who, according to
press accounts, was granted asylum status by the Los Angeles
Immigration Court. Cho requested further information about
how this case might represent or influence the USG view of
North Korean defectors. See action request in para 11. END
SUMMARY.
.
PROTESTING SENK'S WSJ OP-ED
--------------


2. (C) North American Affairs Bureau Director-General Cho
Tae-yong requested a meeting with POL M/C on May 1 to seek
clarification on whether USG policy toward North Korea had
changed recently. Cho pointed to the April 28 Wall Street
Journal op-ed submitted by the Special Envoy on Human Rights
in North Korea, Jay Lefkowitz, to express Seoul's
disappointment over what Cho described as a negative and
misleading portrayal of the Kaesong Industrial Complex (KIC).
ROKG officials had thought that Washington generally
supported the KIC, but this op-ed made them wonder if that
had changed.


3. (C) Cho said he wanted to deliver several points. First,
the ROKG and most Korean people viewed the KIC as a positive
development that deserved more credit from the international
community. Second, ROKG officials, most recently in a visit
to Washington, have made efforts to explain the KIC in a
straightforward and clear manner. Third, when senior USG
officials made criticisms, people would assume that this was
the USG view. Fourth, the WSJ article was factually
incorrect or at best failed to give an accurate description.


4. (C) The facts were, Cho stated, that 13 ROK firms were in
operation in the KIC, employing 4,918 North Korean workers.
Since the project began, the ROK has paid a total of USD 2.7
million in wages plus an additional USD 300,000 in taxes,
resulting in USD 3 million for employment. The ROK spent an
additional USD 12 million for use of the land. The equipment
and facilities in the KIC were owned by the ROK. In other
words, the ROK had spent at most tens of millions of dollars,
rather than having had "pumped hundreds of millions of
dollars" into the North.


5. (C) POL M/C replied that Hyundai Asan's own briefings
sometimes blurred the line between its projects in Kaesong
and Mount Kumgang. In addition, press accounts from
time-to-time had mentioned ROK transfers of some USD 500
million in the North to facilitate some of the South Korean
projects. Seconding the suggestion from the WSJ article, he
suggested Seoul consider allowing the International Labor
Organization to visit the KIC. MOFAT had helpfully
facilitated the visits of two congressional staff delegations
to KIC, along with accompanying Emboffs, who valued the
opportunity to see conditions for themselves, POL M/C said.


6. (C) On North Korean refugees, Cho said the WSJ article
mentioned that the USG would welcome resettlement to the
United States, but the article did not mention that the ROKG
had settled virtually all of the North Korean refugees to
date. ROKG policy has been to accept any and all North
Korean refugees who wish to live in South Korea, and so far
the ROKG had taken around 7,000 defectors. Cho characterized
this as an error of omission that contributed to the negative
view of the enormous efforts the ROKG had expended toward
humanitarian assistance for North Koreans.
.
LA ASYLUM CASE
--------------

7. (C) DG Cho also sought clarification on the case of a
North Korean defector, Seo Jae-sok, who, according to press
accounts, was granted asylum status by the Los Angeles
Immigration Court. Again, Cho asked if this represented a
change in USG policy. It was his understanding that the USG
was working with the ROKG on ways to resettle North Korean
refugees who had not already received asylum in South Korea.
Cho said that Mr. Seo was a South Korean citizen. Therefore,
granting him political asylum could be viewed as South Korea
lacking in political freedom, and that the applicant was
politically repressed in South Korea. This was just not
true.


8. (C) Specifically, Cho asked whether this case would
affect the USG view of and policy toward North Korean
defectors who had received ROK citizenship. Was the North
Korean Human Rights Act the basis for this decision? If so,
did this case contradict Section 302 of the NKHRA that said
it was not intended "to apply to former North Korean
nationals who have availed themselves of those rights" to
citizenship under the ROKG Constitution?


9. (C) Lastly, Cho regretted that the USG had not informed
the ROKG about this case. Seoul did not know if this case
was over or if it would be appealed. While privacy concerns
were to be expected, a lack of information placed ROK
officials in the unenviable position of not being able to
respond to questions from senior policymakers or the press.


10. (C) For example, Cho said, according to some press
reports the individual may have had an earlier asylum request
rejected by the Department of Homeland Security. Was this a
case of the Judiciary Branch acting independently from the
Executive Branch? According to another press account, the
individual claimed that his resident registration in South
Korea was canceled, and to some this might incorrectly
suggest that the ROK had revoked his citizenship. Cho
explained that when a person was no longer living at a
particular address in Korea, his local residency was
suspended, as would be one's drivers license in the United
States if one moved to another state. Fuller consultations
would have been able to remedy some of these misperceptions.
Cho requested that the Embassy ask for information that could
be conveyed to the ROKG.


11. (C) Action Request: We would appreciate Department's
guidance on the following questions raised by DG Cho: (1) Has
the USG view changed in regard to the KIC? (2) Is it the USG
policy to accept for resettlement North Korean refugees who
now have South Korean citizenship?
VERSHBOW