SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; June 22, 2009

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 SEOUL 000992 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR ECON KPAO KS US SUBJECT: SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; June 22, 2009 TOP HEADLINES -------------- All President Lee Names Top Prosecutor, National Tax Office Chief; The Unexpected Nominations Expected to Spark Personnel Changes DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS -------------- A Slip of the Tongue? Or An Attempt to Sound Out Public Opinion? (Chosun): According to a minor opposition Liberty Forward Party spokeswoman, President Lee Myung-bak said, during a June 20 meeting with ruling and opposition party leaders, that President Obama asked him to send troops to Afghanistan during the latest summit and that he responded, "Dispatching combat troops may be impossible, but we can consider sending peacekeeping forces to the war-torn country." (All) The Blue House immediately refuted the claims, saying that President Obama made no such request, nor did President Lee talk about "peacekeeping forces." (All) According to a senior ROKG source, the Defense Ministry has been s-e-c-r-e-t-l-y reviewing the possibility of sending 400 military engineers and drill instructors to Afghanistan. (Chosun) INTERNATIONAL NEWS -------------- According to a senior diplomatic source in Seoul, Washington is considering sending former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to China to persuade Beijing to participate proactively in international sanctions against North Korea. (Chosun) A senior Pentagon official will visit the ROK, China and Japan this week to discuss the North Korean issue. (Segye, Seoul, all TVs) According to Japan's Mainichi Shimbun, North Korean heir apparent Kim Jong-un is working as acting chairman of the National Defense Commission to support his ailing father Kim Jong-il. This means that the junior Kim would immediately assume the commission chairmanship, effectively the most powerful post in the North, if the elder Kim dies. (Chosun, Segye, Seoul) MEDIA ANALYSIS -------------- ¶N. Korea - U.S. Tracking N. Korea Ship On Saturday (June 20),most ROK media gave front-page play to foreign media reports citing USG officials that the U.S. Navy has been tracking a North Korean ship suspected of carrying banned weapons and materials, since it left a North Korean port. Conservative Dong-a Ilbo and moderate Hankook Ilbo, in a related development, today quoted the Singaporean government as saying on June 20 that it would take "appropriate" action against the North Korean ship, if it heads to its port with a cargo of weapons. Citing an intelligence source in the ROK, ROK TV networks reported that the North Korean vessel in question seems to be heading toward Myanmar. Conservative Chosun Ilbo, in a June 20 editorial entitled "UN Sanctions against N. Korea Put to the Test," argued: "Should the SEOUL 00000992 002 OF 006 ship truly be found to be carrying banned weapons and materials on inspection at a port of call and should the weapons and materials be seized, it would show that North Korea's arms trade could truly be blocked. If the U.S. suspicion, however, turns out to be groundless, international efforts to curb North Korea's arms trade will lose momentum from the beginning." - UN Sanctions Conservative Chosun Ilbo filed a front page report today citing a senior diplomatic source in Seoul that Washington is trying to get China on its side in enforcing sanctions under the latest UN Security Council Resolution 1784 against North Korea and that it is considering sending former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who has close ties to China, or someone of similar caliber. Right-of-center JoongAng Ilbo observed in a commentary: "The Obama Administration faces a moment of truth on North Korea's nuclear ambitions. ... If Pyongyang does not give up its nuclear ambitions, as the U.S. provisionally concluded, how will the U.S. achieve its nuclear nonproliferation objective? Although Obama Administration officials are not speaking out, their reported stance is that there is no alternative but to seek the kind of regime change in the North that the Bush Administration pursued in its early days. It is a horrible return to the past. What is more shocking is that if the U.S. puts a regime change into action, it will withdraw U.S. forces from the ROK, which are within the range of North Korean missiles ... leaving ROK cities, industrial facilities and military bases targeted by North Korean missiles. The U.S. clearly promised that if the North attacks the ROK, the U.S. will protect the ROK with its nuclear umbrella and conventional weapons, but it does not guarantee 'zero damage' to the ROK" - Succession Process Most ROK media replayed a June 20 report by Japan's Mainichi Shimbun that North Korean heir apparent Kim Jong-un is working as acting chairman of the National Defense Commission to support his ailing father Kim Jong-il. The Japanese paper quoted an official close to the North Korean leadership as saying that this means that the junior Kim would immediately assume the commission chairmanship, effectively the most powerful post in the North, if the elder Kim dies.. OPINIONS/EDITORIALS -------------- WASHINGTON REACHES PROVISIONAL CONCLUSION THAT N. KOREA WILL NOT GIVE UP NUCLEAR AMBITIONS (JoongAng Ilbo, June 22, 2009, Front page) By Senior Journalist Kim Young-hie I am writing this article based on remarks by a source privy to the ROK-U.S. summit held last week. The Obama Administration faces a moment of truth on North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The truth is that North Korea will not abandon its nuclear programs. Therefore, U.S.-North Korea relations are marked by sanctions rather than dialogue. As a good example, U.S. naval vessels are chasing a North Korean ship in international waters. President Lee Myung-bak sensed a dramatic change in the U.S.' policy on North Korea (when he was) in Washington. (Under U.S. North Korea policy,) there are two reasons why North Korea is pursuing nuclear arms. First, the key to North Korea's goal of becoming a powerful and prosperous country by 2012 is to (develop) nuclear weapons. Second, North Korea intends to make its nuclear development an accomplishment of the (Kim) family to solidify the post-Kim Jong-il regime. The U.S. reaffirms that there will be no "phased in rewards" even if negotiations resume. The U.S.' ultimate goal may be to change the regime. Traditionally, the Democratic Party feels like it has more more of an obligation toward pursuing nuclear non-proliferation than the SEOUL 00000992 003 OF 006 Republican Party. President Obama is more eager than his predecessors to make an effort to save the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and realize (nuclear) non-proliferation. He wants to be remembered in history as the president who created a nuclear-free world. In order to achieve non-proliferation, the U.S. may employ flexible measures but does not intend to surrender the value of non-proliferation. North Korea's nuclearization would lead to Iran's pursuit of nuclear development, and Iran's nuclearization would fundamentally undermine U.S. initiatives on Middle East peace. (This situation) would precipitate a nuclear armament race in North East Asia. North Korea needs to go nuclear while the U.S., in order to achieve nuclear non-proliferation, should ensure that the North does not possess nuclear weapons. Given these contradicting positions, the Six-Party Talks will not be suitable to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. The U.S. intends to put the greatest pressure on North Korea through UN Security Council Resolutions and its own financial sanctions, and wait for North Korea's reaction. The aim of the five-way meeting is for the participants to discuss what kind of talks should be held and what kind of agenda items could be put in place if North Korea comes to the negotiating table in the face of international sanctions. Even if nuclear negotiations resume, the U.S. is determined not to reward North Korea's denuclearization measures in each phase in an "incremental" way. North Korea stepped back (from the negotiation table) after receiving a reward in every phase and then returned to (the negotiation table) to take the next-phase measure in order to be rewarded. (However,) this will not work any longer. Pyongyang should abandon a delusion that it will pave the way for power succession by pursuing nuclear programs. It was a mistake for the North to think that it was able to push Obama to do what it wanted. Now Washington's key word is an "irreversible" agreement. If nuclear talks are to resume, then the U.S. wants them to start from nuclear dismantlement, the final stage of the denuclearization process. The U.S. intends to place all of North Korea's nuclear weapons and materials on the table, and discuss their dismantlement and rewards for (cooperation). If Pyongyang does not give up its nuclear ambitions, as the U.S. has provisionally concluded it will not, how will the U.S. achieve its nuclear nonproliferation objective? The answer is shocking. Although Obama Administration officials do not speak out, their reported stance is that there is no alternative but to seek the kind of regime change in the North that the Bush Administration pursued in its early days. It is a horrible return to the past. What is more shocking is that if the U.S. puts a regime change into action, it plans to withdraw the USFK from the ROK, which is within the range of North Korean missiles. In other words, if the North Korean nuclear crisis deteriorates due to Washington's decision to seek a regime change, the USFK will leave, and cities, industrial facilities and military bases in the ROK will be targeted by North Korean missiles. The U.S. clearly promised that if the North attacks the ROK, the U.S. will protect the ROK with its nuclear umbrella and conventional weapons, but it does not guarantee the ROK "zero damage." This is why harsh rhetoric between the two Koreas is so unsettling. Although the U.S. leaves the door open to dialogue with North Korea, it has no intention to beg the North for dialogue at the stage of implementing the sanctions. The U.S. does not intend to link the issue of two female U.S. journalists with the nuclear negotiations, either. Therefore, Washington is also cool to a potential visit to Pyongyang by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, which the North wants. It is a mistake for the North to believe that it was able to push Obama to do what it wanted. The situation is critical. North Korea should face up to the reality. It should abandon its anachronistic delusion that it will SEOUL 00000992 004 OF 006 become a great and powerful nation while paving the way for power succession to the 26-year-old by developing nuclear weapons. China should discard a narrow-minded selfish thought that a nuclear-armed North Korea is more advantageous (to China) than the collapse of North Korea. China should take an active part in enforcing sanctions against the North and bring the North back to the bargaining table. The ROK and the U.S. should concentrate their diplomatic efforts to get China involved. A balance should be struck between the ROK-U.S. alliance and ROK-China relations. While implementing sanctions against the North, the ROK should manage its relations with Pyongyang through dialogue. During the August 15 Liberation Day speech, President Lee should make a proposal which the North cannot resist. REVEALING THE TRUTH ABOUT ROK-U.S. SUMMIT TALKS REGARDING AFGHANISTAN (Hankyoreh Shinmun, June 22, 2009, page 23) The Blue House announcement that it did not discuss the issue of sending troops to Afghanistan during the June 16 ROK-U.S. summit has been revealed as false. The office of Liberty Forward Party leader Lee Hoi-chang, who attended a breakfast meeting with President Lee Myung-bak, said President Lee explained that U.S. President Barack Obama had requested that the ROK voluntarily send troops to Afghanistan, and that he replied by saying he would consider sending troops as part of a peacekeeping force. When this account was made public, a Blue House official denied the course of the exchange, and instead reported that Obama had said it was not appropriate to ask the ROK to send troops given the current political climate, but indicated it would be nice if the ROK decided to send troops on its own accord. The official said Lee responded by saying he thought the ROK could expand its peace and reconstruction projects. The official said the point of Obama's statement was that he could not demand that the ROK send troops, and accordingly, the issue of sending troops was not officially discussed. If one considers, however, that the U.S. has made the request for the ROK to send troops to Afghanistan through various channels, the Blue House' account becomes less persuasive. It is more reasonable to view the situation as Lee Hoi-chang does, that Obama's statement was a request for a voluntary dispatch of troops. The ROKG continues to deny that official exchanges took place regarding dispatching troops to Afghanistan, but it is well known that the U.S., directly and indirectly, has asked the ROK to send troops through (communication with) the Defense Ministry and through diplomatic channels, and that the ROK has considered the matter. Last month, General Walter Sharp, the head of United States Forces Korea (USFK),said he was actively considering several options related to ROK support plans in Afghanistan. It is noteworthy that in this latest summit, the two sides agreed to boost cooperation in peacekeeping and stabilization development aid for Afghanistan as part of an agreed-upon joint vision for the ROK-U.S. alliance. In accordance with this vision, ultimately, the ROK's role in Afghanistan must expand. In this light, one has to take note of the peacekeeping force mentioned by Lee Hoi-chang. The Blue House says Lee (Hoi-chang) seems to have confused increasing peace project activities with peacekeeping operations (PKO),but this explanation remains unpersuasive. If the government continues to make public denials while pushing troop support for Afghanistan, we will have a big problem. The war in Afghanistan is not one that will end by increasing troops. Despite a U.S. offensive that has lasted nearly eight years, the Taliban have encroached into Pakistan. Accordingly, rather than getting bogged down with the U.S. by sending more troops, what we need to do to support the alliance is to help the U.S. find a political solution. (This is a translation provided by the newspaper, and it is identical to the Korean version.) SEOUL 00000992 005 OF 006 A SLIP OF TONGUE? OR AN ATTEMPT TO SOUND OUT PUBLIC OPINION? (Chosun Ilbo, June 22, 2009, Page 5) By Reporters Hwang Dae-jin and Lim Min-hyuk President Lee made public the statements from the closed-door discussion with Obama regarding the dispatch of ROK troops to Afghanistan. After President Lee Myung-bak's meeting with ruling and opposition party leaders, the issue of sending ROK troops to Afghanistan emerged on the surface again. Controversy was sparked by the statements that President Lee made regarding the substance of his discussions with U.S. President Barack Obama at the ROK-U.S. summit. President Lee told ruling and opposition party leaders on June 20, "President Obama said, 'In light of the political reality in the ROK, it is not appropriate to ask (the ROK) to send troops (to Afghanistan),unless the ROKG decides to do so on its own.' Therefore, I was rather sorry for that." Liberty Forward Party spokesman Park Sun-young said during a June 20 briefing, "President Obama requested troop dispatch to Afghanistan, and President Lee said that dispatching combat troops may be impossible, but we can consider sending peacekeeping forces." The Blue House immediately denied it, saying, "President Lee did not mention 'peacekeeping forces.' He simply proposed expanding peace and reconstruction projects of the previous (ROK) government a little." Although the situation involving the different explanations given by the Blue House and the Liberty Forward Party has almost been settled, government agencies seem to be perplexed by the fact that the discussion between the ROK and U.S. Presidents about the ROK's troop dispatch to Afghanistan was made public. This is because it was the ROK side that disclosed the behind-closed-doors discussion. Right after the summit, the Blue House said, "The issue of troop dispatch to Afghanistan was not on the table (of the summit)," but it said on June 21, "The two leaders talked about it at the principle level, but since it is a very sensitive issue for the U.S., we did not make it public." Diplomatic circles view President Obama's statement as an effective request for the ROK to deploy troops. The conditional clause "Unless the ROKG decides to do so on its own," is just Obama's "diplomatic rhetoric" aimed at avoiding the Bush Administration's unilateral diplomacy. In early April, President Obama unveiled a new strategic policy on Afghanistan, centering on the deployment of additional 21,000 troops, but allies have not been actively expressing their support yet, making Washington worried. The Defense Ministry has been s-e-c-r-e-t-l-y reviewing the possibility of sending 400 military engineers and drill instructors to Afghanistan Aware of this U.S. intention, the ROKG has been reviewing countermeasures against a possible U.S. request for troop deployment. A high-ranking (ROK) government official said that there have been working-level discussions between the ROK and the U.S. concerning deployment of (ROK) troops to Afghanistan. The official went on to say that it has been decided at the discussions that any troop deployment will not be made at the request of the U.S., but according to the voluntary will of the ROK. The source noted that the issue of timing will surface, considering the political situation in the ROK. In this regard, the Defense Ministry has reportedly been s-e-c-r-e-t-l-y reviewing the possibility of sending one unit of educational trainers, military engineers and guard forces to Afghanistan in preparation for the government's (possible) decision to go ahead with a military contribution in Afghanistan. A ROK government official said that the ROK has received considerable military and non-military support from the international community since the Korean War. The official added that therefore the ROK has no ground to avoid participating in SEOUL 00000992 006 OF 006 international issues because it is the world's 10th economic power. The ROK dispatched forces from the Dongui medical unit and Dasan engineering unit -numbering 300-strong - to Afghanistan in 2002 but pulled out in December 2007 due to the kidnapping of Koreans by the Taliban. The ROKG leaves open the possibility of troop deployment to Afghanistan but the timing still remains unclear. This issue should be made public considering the political situation in the ROK. A debate over troop deployment would spark resistance from the opposition party and left-wing civil groups, leading to instability in the country. The ROKG, which has been troubled by the delicate political situation following former president Roh Moo-hyun's death, does not want to see a second candlelight vigil due to a military commitment in Afghanistan. To pass the bill on the dispatch of troops, the National Assembly should make multiple concessions to the opposition party. The ROKG is not in a position to create new controversies now that there are plenty of important bills that have been proposed by the ruling party, including the media bill and the bill for separating the financial sector from industry. STEPHENS