SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; October 21, 2009

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 SEOUL 001670 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR ECON KPAO KS US SUBJECT: SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; October 21, 2009 TOP HEADLINES -------------- Chosun Ilbo ROKG Seeks to Transform Foreign Language High Schools into International High Schools JoongAng Ilbo Principal's Passion Leads "Bottom-tier" High School to Make Significant Improvement in College Entrance Tests Dong-a Ilbo, Hankyoreh Shinmun, Segye Ilbo, Seoul Shinmun, All TVs ROKG Denies Legitimate Status of Civil Servant Union Hankook Ilbo Global Currency War; U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke Indirectly Pressures ROK for Currency Appreciation DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS -------------- Defense Secretary Robert Gates, on his way to Japan yesterday, said that he is sure that Seoul and Washington will meet the April 2012 deadline for the transfer of wartime operational control from the U.S. and the ROK. He also said that (the U.S.) will continue to pursue missile defense partnerships with the ROK and Japan to brace for missile provocations from North Korea. (All) Kim Yang-gon, North Korea's point man on the ROK as Director of the United Front Department at the North's Workers' Party, stayed in Beijing for six days before returning home yesterday. There is speculation about possible s-e-c-r-e-t contact between him and an ROK official, despite the Blue House's denial. (All) INTERNATIONAL NEWS -------------- U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned on Oct. 19 that pursuit of export-led growth by Asian nations, including the ROK and China, could lead to a reemergence of global trade imbalances and undercut efforts to achieve more durable growth. (All) This remark can be seen as U.S. pressure on Asian exporters, including the ROK, to appreciate their currencies against the dollar. (Hankook, Hankyoreh) MEDIA ANALYSIS -------------- -N. Korea -------------- Most newspapers noted Oct. 19 press remarks by State Department Spokesman Ian Kelly, in which he said: "There will be American officials at this meeting (the Northeast Asia Cooperative Dialogue (NEACD)) in San Diego." They noted Ri Gun, Director General of American Affairs at North Korea's Foreign Ministry, will also attend the Oct. 26-27 meeting, and raised the possibility of an unofficial one-on-one contact between the two countries. Right-of-center JoongAng Ilbo, in particular, commented from Washington that diplomatic sources in Washington are closely looking at the possibility that Sung Kim, U.S. Special Envoy for the Six-Party Talks, may meet with Ri Gun to make arrangements for bilateral negotiations, including a visit to Pyongyang by Special Representative for North Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth. -Aid for Afghanistan -------------- SEOUL 00001670 002 OF 007 In response to Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell's Oct. 18 remarks asking for economic aid to Afghanistan, conservative ROK newspapers urged Seoul to expand aid to the war-torn country in line with its status as the world's 11th largest economy. Chosun Ilbo editorialized: "From 2003 - when the Afghan war broke out - until now, the ROK has sent some $130 million to Afghanistan, which accounts for nearly 0.2 percent of the entire amount contributed by other countries. ... Given our special relationship with the U.S., this level of aid can be called stingy." Dong-a Ilbo editorial stated: "Aid to Afghanistan, of course, entails danger. After the ROK's medical unit was dispatched to Afghanistan, one ROK soldier was killed in a terrorist attack, and 23 ROK civilians were kidnapped by the Taliban, two of them slain. ... If we contribute to world peace and stability, the international community will also join the efforts to establish peace on the Korean Peninsula. Assistance to Afghanistan has a positive impact on the ROK-U.S. alliance. The ROK needs to come up with specific ways to provide aid to Afghanistan before U.S. President Barack Obama visits Seoul next month." JoongAng Ilbo filed a similar editorial entitled "Need to Consider Expanding Financial Aid to Afghanistan in a Forward-looking Manner" OPINIONS/EDITORIALS -------------- ¶S. KOREA'S PAINFUL DILEMMA (Chosun Ilbo, October 21, 2009, page 38) By Editorial writer Yang Sang-hoon No breakthrough seems likely in the North Korean nuclear issue now that China has made it clear that it will not risk endangering the North Korean system for the sake of denuclearization, making it improbable that the international community will be able to pressure Pyongyang into giving up its nuclear weapons program. President Lee Myung-bak's idea of a "grand bargain" and U.S. President Barack Obama's "comprehensive package" will make little difference. But the North must be persuaded to denuclearize, not as a surrender but as a big compromise that will fundamentally change the situation on the Korean Peninsula. It is naive to expect the North to give up its nuclear arms, which it considers a matter of life and death, in return for economic aid. In the course reaching a compromise, Seoul has to confront very difficult but unavoidable political and military problems. North Korean leader Kim Jong-il told Chinese premier Wen Jiabao that one condition for his return to Six-Party Talks is an end to "hostile" policies from the U.S. The official Rodong Shinmun daily said that includes converting the armistice agreement into a peace treaty. That would be "one of the most rational and practical means" of achieving a denuclearized peninsula, it added. But this also calls for an end to the U.S.-ROK alliance and withdrawal of the U.S. Forces Korea. The North reportedly proposed a "bold deal" to former American officials and North Korea specialists who visited Pyongyang in January and February. The North would abandon its nuclear weapons program if the U.S. removes the nuclear umbrella it provides for the ROK and puts an end to the U.S.-ROK alliance. Foreign Minister Yoo Myung-hwan told a Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry gathering on Sept. 18 that the North's nuclear weapons target the ROK, and that the North wants a Washington-Pyongyang peace agreement and a withdrawal of the U.S. Forces Korea. The government says this is just a mere excuse for North Korea not to abandon its nuclear program. But there is no guarantee that the U.S. will accept a nuclear-armed North Korea for the sake of keeping forces in the ROK. SEOUL 00001670 003 OF 007 The U.S. government has said nothing specific. Whatever official stance Washington takes, it will undoubtedly weigh which of the two, eliminating the North Korean nuclear threat or keeping forces in the ROK, matters more. If the U.S. judges that it can prevent a war on the Korean Peninsula without troops in the ROK, then the withdrawal of the USFK could emerge as a real option. Given that the priority in the U.S. military strategy is gradually shifting to the Navy and Air Force, and that the U.S. maintains military bases in Japan and Guam, the case for keeping the USFK may well weaken. Robert Carlin, a former East Asia expert at the State Department, recently said the nuclear issue cannot be resolved through "mutual hostility." China and Russia may not unconditionally welcome a withdrawal of the USFK but will eventually find it preferable to their continued presence. Japan may also opt for a withdrawal of the USFK over a nuclear-armed North Korea. From the ROK's perspective, preventing a war is more important to the national interest than eliminating North Korea's nuclear weapons. It is natural that there is no discussion here about the link between the North's nuclear weapons and the USFK. But that will remain a weakness in negotiations with the North. The withdrawal of the USFK would spark fears of a war, but reunification becomes impossible unless the North gives up its nuclear weapons. This is a dilemma the ROK must confront. Negotiations on a permanent peace treaty for the Korean Peninsula are stipulated in the Sept. 19, 2005 statement of principles and the Feb. 13, 2007 agreement adopted in the Six-Party Talks. It is a high time to start mulling a long-term strategy with reunification in mind and prepare to confront the painful reality. (This is a translation provided by the newspaper, and it is identical to the Korean version.) "2012" PROJECT FOR WARTIME COMMAND SHIFT SHOULD BE PUT IN MOTION (Dong-a Ilbo, October 21, 2009, Page 39; Excerpts) By Kim Sung-han, professor of international politics at Korea University Graduate School of International Studies Regarding the transfer of wartime operational control of ROK troops from the U.S. to the ROK, Seoul has three options. The first one is to revisit the issue as soon as possible and maintain the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command (CFC) on the grounds that economic conditions are not ripe for the wartime command shift as well as the fact that other circumstances, including the North Korean nuclear issue, do not make the transfer appropriate. The second option is to make every effort to be capable of taking back the wartime operational control as scheduled, but not to directly link the issue with the North Korean nuclear standoff. The third option is for the ROK to achieve capability of taking over wartime operational control and making every effort to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue by ¶2012. However, if the ROK is not able to do this or (certain) conditions are not met, the timetable for transfer of wartime command should be changed. If the ROK chooses the first option, it can frankly admit that there is a remote possibility that the ROK's capability and other conditions may be ripe for the OPCON transfer, but it could give the U.S. leverage in negotiations, thereby leading Washington to demand rewards for maintaining the CFC. If the ROK and the U.S. waste their time and energy in another tug of war over wartime command shift, coupled with other issues like troop dispatches to Afghanistan, missile defense, and the USFK realignment, it could undermine trust between the two nations, which have been restored with difficulty. If the ROK chooses the second option, then the U.S. would not be provided with unnecessary leverage. However, if the OPCON transfer comes when the North Korean nuclear issue is aggravated despite the ROK's defense budget increase, it could send SEOUL 00001670 004 OF 007 a wrong message to North Korea. A call for the ROK's nuclear possession would also grow louder. The third option can be called the "2012 Project." This is totally worth trying because its result depends on how to manage the project. If we revise the "Defense Reform 2020" plan from a mid- and long-term perspective to enhance its efficiency, we could be capable of the OPCON transfer in 2012 without any drastic defense budget increase. The North Korean nuclear issue can also be resolved if the ROKG abandons its passive mindset of "As long as the Kim Jong-il regime is in place, it is difficult to resolve the nuclear issue" and takes an active role in leading its inter-Korean and foreign relations by presenting a blueprint of dialogue and pressure. Despite our efforts, if the ROK and the U.S. judge six months ahead of the scheduled date for the OPCON transfer that the ROK's capability and the political conditions on the Korean Peninsula are not appropriate, they can change the date based on mutual agreement. KOREA SHOULD GIVE MORE SUPPORT FOR AFGHANISTAN (Chosun Ilbo, October 21, 2009, page 39) U.S. Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell on Sunday said all countries that wish for the peace and prosperity and economic growth of the world have an "obligation" to support Afghanistan. Another U.S. government official said it would be better for the ROK, which has provided medical support for Afghanistan until now, to make contributions to other sectors as well, adding that the quicker the ROK decides and the bigger its support, the better. When he visited the ROK in April, Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the Barack Obama Administration, mentioned the need for additional support from Seoul. But he was not as frank in expressing the scale of support Washington wants. However, it is clear that Washington has changed its stance of leaving it up to Seoul to decide whether to expand its support for Afghanistan and wants an answer. The situation in Afghanistan has become more pressing. There are around 68,000 American soldiers there and another 40,000 troops from some 40 other countries. The number of soldiers either killed or wounded in Afghanistan is rising rapidly as the Taliban resistance intensifies. The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan has asked for more troops, saying it would be difficult to achieve his mission without a massive increase. The situation in Afghanistan has grown worse after the presidential election on Aug. 20 was overturned due to allegations of vote rigging. As a result, a growing number of countries which have dispatched troops to Afghanistan are planning to pull out. In the summer of 2007, a group of Korean missionaries were abducted in Afghanistan, leading to the withdrawal of Korean medical and engineering troops. Seoul has not dispatched any troops to Afghanistan since then, and the U.S. government has refrained from asking it to deploy troops there, mindful of the shock the country suffered due to the abductions. Most Koreans are still opposed to the deployment of troops to Afghanistan. But things are different when it comes to offering non-military support. At a meeting in Paris in June of donor countries, the government pledged US$33 million until 2011. The U.K. pledged $1.2 billion, Germany $640 million and Japan $550 million. From 2003 - when the Afghan war broke out - until now, the ROK has sent some $130 million to Afghanistan, which accounts for nearly 0.2 percent of the entire amount contributed by other countries. There are around 28,000 U.S. troops in Korea, making it home to the third-largest overseas contingent of American soldiers following Germany with some 58,000 and Japan with around 33,000. And the U.S. troops in Germany and Japan are not there solely to defend those countries against foreign aggression, but over the last 60 years, U.S. troops in the ROK have served as the primary deterrent against SEOUL 00001670 005 OF 007 a possible attack from North Korea. Given our special relationship with the U.S., this level of aid can be called stingy. (The ROK) needs to boost its contribution to Afghanistan in light of its participation in the international war on terrorism. But the U.S. government must first present a blueprint for how it intends to resolve the problems there. (This is a translation provided by the newspaper, and it is identical to the Korean version.) ROK SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO AFGHAN PEACE (Dong-a Ilbo, October 21, 2009, Page 39) Today marks eight years and 14 days since the war in Afghanistan broke out. Despite the 21st century's pursuit for co-prosperity and peace, the war in Afghanistan has lasted a great deal longer than the war in Iraq, which lasted for six years and six months, and the Second World War, which continued for six years and two days. In this global era, the war in Afghanistan is a task which the all of humanity should work together to solve. As a member of the G20 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and as the world's tenth largest economy, the ROK should extend a helping hand to establish peace in Afghanistan. A total of 42 nations, including the U.S., have sent troops to Afghanistan to fight against the Taliban. In this global era, in which a country's national status is dependent on that nation's contribution to and role in the international community, we cannot simply sit back and watch the war. The Military Committee Meeting (MCM) and Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) between the ROK and the U.S. will be held in Seoul on October 21 and 22. Pentagon officials hinted that defense officials on both sides will discuss the Afghan issue, saying, "When it comes to the ROK's aid to Afghanistan, the quicker and bigger, the better." Instead of accepting Washington's request in a passive manner, the ROK should actively make a voluntary contribution to world peace that befits its national power. In May, the ROKG pledged to build a hospital at Bagram Air Base, increase its staff in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and expand economic aid to the war-torn nation. Still, the ROK's share is only 0.13 percent of all foreign aid promised to Afghanistan. Even if we fulfill all our promises by next year, the accumulated amount of aid would not exceed $100 million. This pales in comparison to Japan's $2 billion in aid. If it is difficult to greatly expand economic aid, the ROK needs to increase the scale of existing aid projects, such as the provision of equipment and educational or vocational trainings for medical staff, police, and civilians. It could also consider sending security guards to Afghanistan to protect Koreans there. Aid to Afghanistan, of course, entails danger. After the ROK's medical unit was dispatched to Afghanistan, one ROK soldier was killed in a terrorist attack, and 23 ROK civilians were kidnapped by the Taliban, two of them slain. However, if we only try to avoid the Afghan issue, we cannot gain a say in the international community. Afghanistan is in desperate need of outside help, as we were during the Korean War. Providing aid to Afghanistan is also a way for us to repay the debt we owe to the international community. If we contribute to world peace and stability, the international community will also join the efforts to establish peace on the Korean Peninsula. Assistance to Afghanistan has a positive impact on the ROK-U.S. alliance. The ROK needs to come up with specific ways to provide aid to Afghanistan before U.S. President Barack Obama visits Seoul next month. CRACKS IN ROK-U.S. COOPERATION AHEAD OF FULL-SCALE NEGOTIATIONS ON ¶N. KOREA'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM (JoongAng Ilbo, October 21, 2009, page 46) SEOUL 00001670 006 OF 007 The ROK and the U.S. have been out of step over their "nuclear diplomacy with North Korea." Last week, the U.S. Department of Defense said that North Korea proposed an inter-Korean summit to the ROKG. The ROKG expressed surprise, saying that it had informed the U.S. government that the proposal was meaningless and the U.S. government seems to have misunderstood Seoul's position. Later, this controversy was tamped down when the White House spokesman said there was miscommunication within the U.S. government. During a visit to the U.S. to attend the UN General Assembly last month, President Lee Myung-bak announced a "grand bargain" to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. U.S. government officials were lackadaisical over the ROKG's ambitious proposal, saying they were not aware of or not briefed on the proposal. The ROKG tried to put an end to the controversy, saying that it had explained the grand bargain to the U.S. government and there seemed to be miscommunication within the U.S. government. A few days later, President Lee said, "So what if Mr. So-and-so says he is not aware of it." (As a result,) the Mr. So-and-so, Kurt Campbell, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, skipped the ROK on his Asian tour. The ROK and the U.S., which have stressed tight cooperation on the North Korean nuclear issue, seemed to be out of synch, setting off rumors that ROK-U.S. relations are troubled. Since the North Korean nuclear issue erupted 20 years ago, the ROK and U.S. governments have underscored the importance of their close cooperation. However, their words have not always been true in reality. Shortly after the first nuclear crisis in the mid 1990s, then-President Kim Young-sam argued with President Bill Clinton over whether their approach to the North Korean nuclear issue should be called a "package settlement" or a "comprehensive settlement." President Kim Dae-jung had conflicts with President George W. Bush over differences in their basic position on North Korea. President Roh Moo-hyun was also at odds with the U.S. administration. Over the course of this time period, North Korea (worked toward and then finally) staged a nuclear test. In the wake of North Korea's second nuclear test, the ROK and U.S. governments noticeably improved their bilateral coordination. President Obama has put a top priority on nuclear proliferation prevention and foreign policies and President Lee has taken a hard line on the North Korean nuclear issue. Both governments have emphasized their strong coordination. In fact, close cooperation between the ROK and the U.S. played a considerable role when UN Security Council resolution was adopted. Both countries also showed strong cooperation when there were discussions on holding five-party talks excluding North Korea. We are concerned, however, that at a crucial moment when U.S.-North Korea talks are imminent, ROK-U.S. cooperation is suffering a setback. The ROK and the U.S. took swift steps to remove discord. But what matters is that both countries need to check thoroughly whether the recent spate of controversies resulted from poor coordination and lack of trust in each other. North Korea would try to capitalize on any cracks in ROK-U.S. cooperation. This would jeopardize the negotiation process on the North Korean nuclear issue. The ROK and the U.S. should not play down the current discord but step up efforts to bolster bilateral coordination. CONSIDERATION OF EXPANDING FINANCIAL AID TO AFGHANISTAN IN A FORWARD-LOOKING MANNER (JoongAng Ilbo, October 21, 2009, page 46: Excerpts) The U.S. (recently) expressed hope for the ROK to provide financial aid to Afghanistan when U.S. Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell said to reporters, "Any country that finds it difficult to give military support is asked to give financial aid." This remark signals that the U.S. is seeking to secure further financial assistance from the ROK, judging that it would be difficult for the ROK to send troops. SEOUL 00001670 007 OF 007 The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan is demanding that additional troops be deployed. However, President Obama has not made a decision on the issue. With a Vietnam War-like nightmare looming, an increasing number of Americans are calling for the withdrawal of troops. It seems that the Obama Administration has not devised its Afghan strategy clearly. Therefore, in this situation, it would be difficult for the U.S. to request its allies to send troops. Troop deployment to Afghanistan is a "hot potato" issue. But we should fulfill our commitment as an ally and a responsible member of the international community in order to shoulder the burden. It would have been difficult for the U.S. to ask for a military contribution. However, the U.S.'s request for a financial contribution seems to assuage any burden for the ROKG. The ROKG needs to expand financial aid to Afghanistan in line with its international status even if it holds off considering troop deployment for now. STEPHENS