SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; July 1, 2009

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 SEOUL 001029 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR ECON KPAO KS US SUBJECT: SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; July 1, 2009 TOP HEADLINES -------------- Chosun Ilbo, JoongAng Ilbo, Dong-a Ilbo, Hankook Ilbo, Segye Ilbo, Seoul Shinmun Political Parties Fail to Agree on Non-Regular Workers' Bill; Massive Layoffs or New Contracts Could Start Today Hankyoreh Shinmun Water Quality of Nakdong River Estimated to Deteriorate after ROKG's Four-Rivers Restoration Project DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS -------------- Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee told the National Assembly yesterday that current intelligence suggests that a final decision has not been made on who will succeed North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, despite reports that Kim Jong-il has tapped his youngest son to succeed him. (Hankyoreh) According to a Defense Ministry official, the ROK will deploy about 100,000 reserve troops to North Korea to carry out civilian operations during war-time. (JoongAng, Dong-a, Segye) INTERNATIONAL NEWS -------------- According to State Department Spokesman Ian Kelley, a U.S. interagency delegation led by Ambassador Philip Goldberg, coordinator for the implementation of UN Resolution 1874, will soon visit China. The U.S. delegation is also expected to visit the ROK and Japan after the China visit. (JoongAng, Hankook, KBS) Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher, in a written response to pre-hearing questions for her June 9 Senate confirmation hearing, made clear the Obama Administration's opposition to the ROK's claim of a right to "peaceful use of nuclear fuel." (Chosun, YTN) Under Secretary Tauscher was quoted as saying: "The Obama Administration does not believe that the programmatic consent it has given to the EU, India and Japan to reprocess spent fuel containing U.S.-origin nuclear material is necessarily appropriate in other cases, including Taiwan and the ROK."(Chosun) According to Radio Free Asia, Burma has informed North Korea of its decision to inspect the North Korean cargo ship, Kang Nam, which is suspected of heading toward the country carrying weapons-related materials, if the ship enters any Burmese port carrying items banned by the UN. (Chosun, KBS) According to an ROKG source, North Korea exported weapons via Chinese and Russian overland routes from 2000 to last year to circumvent the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which aims to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. (Chosun) MEDIA ANALYSIS -------------- -N. Korea -------------- Conservative Chosun Ilbo and state-run KBS replayed a June 30 Radio Free Asia (RFA) report that the Burmese government has notified North Korea of its decision to inspect the North Korean cargo ship, Kang Nam, which is suspected of heading to Burma carrying SEOUL 00001029 002 OF 005 weapons-related materials, and not to allow the North Korean ship to enter any Burmese port if it is carrying items banned by the UN. According to the Chosun report, in particular, RFA quoted unnamed observers as speculating that Rangoon may have been swayed by China and Russia, which both support the UN Security Council Resolution 1874 against North Korea, while the ROK and Japan are two of Burma's major trading partners. Conservative Chosun also carried a front-page report saying that the Obama Administration made it clear to Congress that it is against restoring the ROK's peaceful nuclear program by means of reprocessing spent fuel, advanced mainly by the ruling Grand National Party. The report quoted Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher as saying in an 85-page response to Sen. Richard Lugar in the course of her June 9 confirmation hearing that "programmatic consent" for reprocessing given to the EU, Japan and India under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 cannot be extended to the ROK and Taiwan. She was also cited as agreeing when asked, "Do you believe that an agreement that allowed any form of reprocessing to take place in the ROK would violate the 1992 Joint Declaration, in particular its clean statement that 'the South and the North shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities'?" Chosun commented that the Obama Administration apparently feels that the call by ROK conservatives for Seoul to resume its own nuclear program would send a wrong message to the world. In an editorial, the newspaper argued: "The issue of 'reprocessing spent nuclear fuel' is a separate matter from discussions on 'nuclear armament.' The ROK is now the fifth-largest user of atomic power in the world, with its 20 nuclear reactors providing almost 40% of the country's electricity. ... If the ROK can reprocess its spent fuel in storage, 94.4 percent of it can be reused as energy and the waste will be reduced to 5.6 percent. ... It is inappropriate to deny the ROK the right to peacefully use nuclear fuel based on the Joint Denuclearization Declaration 17 years ago, which the North unilaterally abrogated by activating its reprocessing facilities and stating its intention to enrich uranium." Conservative Chosun Ilbo cited an ROKG source in reporting that North Korea, from 2000 to last year, exported weapons to countries such as Iran and Syria via Chinese and Russian overland routes to circumvent the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which aims to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Left-leaning Hankyoreh Shinmun carried a quote from Defense Minister Lee Sang-hee, who told the National Assembly yesterday that current intelligence suggests that a final decision has not been made on who will succeed North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, despite reports that Kim Jong-il has tapped his youngest son to succeed him. OPINIONS/EDITORIALS -------------- NUCLEAR REPROCESSING SHOULD BE AN ECONOMIC QUESTION (Chosun Ilbo, July 1, 2009, Page 35) U.S. Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Ellen Tauscher in a written response to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said the EU, India and Japan reprocesses nuclear fuel within their own territories at present, but she did not think the Obama Administration must apply those cases of authorized reprocessing to other countries, including South Korea. She added there was no need for a revision to the Atomic Energy Agreement signed between South Korea and the United States. The comments effectively slap down calls within South Korea to start reprocessing its own spent nuclear fuel. From the standpoint of the "peaceful use of nuclear energy, the U.S. government seems wary of South Korea reprocessing spent nuclear SEOUL 00001029 003 OF 005 fuel, suspecting that the country, over the long-term, wants to make its own nuclear weapons. South Korea tried to develop nuclear weapons in the 1970s, but scrapped the plan. Now the issue has re-emerged after North Korea's second nuclear test. But the issue of 'reprocessing spent nuclear fuel' is a separate matter from discussions on 'nuclear armament.' The ROK is now the fifth-largest user of atomic power in the world, with its 20 nuclear reactors providing almost 40% of the country's electricity. Each year, around 700t of spent fuel is produced from the 20 reactors, which are stored in water tanks at the power plants. Already, the amount of spent fuel stored in such facilities exceeds 10,000t and will reach maximum capacity in 2016. If the ROK can reprocess its spent fuel in storage, 94.4 percent of it can be reused as energy and the waste will be reduced to 5.6 percent. From South Korea's perspective, the reprocessing of spent fuel is a pressing economic matter. But there could be problems as well. Japan built the Rokkasho-mura nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in 1992 and expects to spend around W400 trillion (US$1=W1,273) to operate the facility over a 40-year period. Whether or not to build such a facility at such high costs is a matter for South Korea to decide based on economic considerations, but it is not just an economic issue. It is an encroachment on its sovereignty for an atomic energy powerhouse like South Korea to face limitations in its peaceful usage of nuclear energy. Tauscher said South Korea's ability to reprocess spent nuclear fuel would violate the 1992 Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which stipulated that North and South Korea would "scrap their uranium enrichment and reprocessing facilities." But it is inappropriate to deny the ROK the right to peacefully use nuclear fuel based on the Joint Denuclearization Declaration 17 years ago, which the North unilaterally abrogated by activating its reprocessing facilities and stating its intention to enrich uranium. The issue of denuclearization should be handled through a new agreement that is much more effective and binding than the existing one. The South Korea-U.S. Atomic Energy Agreement signed during the 1970s expires in 2014. The two sides must begin talks soon on revising the agreement to expand South Korea's peaceful use of nuclear energy. The solution must be based purely on economic considerations. (This is a translation provided by the newspaper, and it is identical to the Korean version.) FEATURES -------------- U.S. AGAINST RESUMPTION OF S. KOREAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM (Chosun Ilbo, July 1, 2009, Front Page) By Washington Correspondent Lee Ha-won The U.S. Barack Obama Administration made it clear to Congress that it is against restoring South Korea's peaceful nuclear program by means of reprocessing spent fuel, (a proposal) advanced mainly by the ruling Grand National Party. Under Secretary of State for Disarmament and International Security Ellen Tauscher made the point in an 85-page response to Senator Richard Lugar, the Secretary of the Foreign Relations Committee, during the course of her confirmation hearing on June 9. The relevant section has two parts. Lugar asked, "Does the administration contemplate any changes in existing nuclear cooperation agreements, in particular those with Taiwan and the Republic of South Korea, to allow reprocessing of U.S.-origin materials in those nations?" SEOUL 00001029 004 OF 005 Tauscher replied that the "programmatic consent" for reprocessing given to the EU, Japan and India under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 cannot be extended to South Korea and Taiwan. "The administration does not believe that such programmatic consent to reprocessing is necessarily appropriate in other cases, including Taiwan and the Republic of Korea," she said. In other words, Washington sees no need to revise the Seoul-Washington nuclear cooperation agreement so the South can reprocess nuclear fuel. She also agreed when asked, "Do you believe that an agreement that allowed any form of reprocessing to take place in South Korea would violate the 1992 Joint Declaration, in particular its clear statement that 'the South and the North shall not possess nuclear reprocessing and uranium enrichment facilities'?" Coinciding with North Korea's second nuclear weapons test and resumption of nuclear programs, her answer sends a clear message that no reprocessing of spent fuel can be allowed in South Korea and Taiwan even in these circumstances. She especially highlighted the logic of "double control" by saying that even if South Korea reprocesses nuclear fuels for peaceful purposes, it would violate the ROK-DPRK Joint Declaration of the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which entered into force in 1992. The Obama Administration has reacted sensitively to the argument posed mainly by the Grand National Party and conservatives that the ROK should have the right to reprocess nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. The U.S. is seeking the "denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula" through Pyongyang's complete nuclear dismantlement. Therefore, Washington's position is that, even if the reprocessing is for "peaceful" purposes, the U.S. cannot allow the ROK to expand its nuclear capabilities beyond the current level. Furthermore, with the global community pursuing a "world free of nuclear weapons," the Barack Obama Administration apparently feels the call, from South Korean conservatives for Seoul to resume its own nuclear program would send the wrong message to the world. Since both Democrats and Republicans in Congress share this view, chances are very slim that the U.S. will reconsider its position. The Blue House and the South Korean Embassy in Washington have made it clear that a call for nuclear armament in the South is not the official ROKG position and they will not raise this issue to the U.S. either. "If South Korea violates the denuclearization treaty by reprocessing spent fuel and enriching uranium in the face of U.S. opposition, the price will be high," a diplomatic source in Washington warned. (We have compared the English version on the website with the Korean version and added some paragraphs to make them identical.) "GROWING SECURITY CONCERNS LEAD TO NUCLEAR AMBITIONS EVERYWHERE" (Hankyoreh Shinmun, July 1, page 13; Excerpts) By Reporter Cho Il-joon This is an interview with Cheong Wook-sik, the representative of Peace Network. He gave his opinion on the reality and dangers of a global nuclear arms race and (possible) countermeasures. The international community's measures to prevent nuclear proliferation based on the "carrot and stick" method have not been effective. "Measures to curb nuclear proliferation differ depending on situations. The ROK sought to develop nuclear programs during the Park Chung-hee Administration in the 1970s, but this attempt was discovered and blocked by the U.S. President Chun Doo-hwan, who came into power through a military coup in 1980, made a deal with the Reagan Administration to abandon the nuclear development plan in return for a guarantee for security and recognition of the government. It is common among the allied nations to swap security guarantees for denuclearization. SEOUL 00001029 005 OF 005 However, the solution is not simple for hostile countries. The North Korean nuclear issue can hardly be resolved easily because any deal (it makes) with the U.S. would be an "asymmetrical" and "nonequivalent" exchange. Iran's main concern is to secure hegemony in the Middle East and therefore a deal with Iran will apparently not work well. Israel bombed the nuclear facilities of its neighboring countries twice, specifically, Iraq in 1981 and Syria in ¶2007. However, this hard-line policy only escalated tensions in the Middle East and only justified Iran's nuclear development. In order to prevent nuclear proliferation, (the international community) should come up with a specific and substantial diplomatic solution instead of employing sanctions and military power." STEPHENS