SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; June 23, 2009

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 SEOUL 000997 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR ECON KPAO KS US SUBJECT: SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; June 23, 2009 TOP HEADLINES -------------- Chosun Ilbo "Half-baked Success" for First Generation of Korean Expat Students; Most Satisfied with U.S. Education System but Achievements Fall Short of Expectations JoongAng Ilbo Developed Countries Bent on Healthy Dietary Education Dong-a Ilbo Foreign MBA Students Flock to ROK to Learn Korean-style Business Model Hankook Ilbo Ruling GNP Pushes Ahead with Opening Assembly Session on June 26, while Opposition Vows to Block Unilateral Assembly Opening Hankyoreh Shinmun Most Local Government Grants Go to Conservative Organizations Segye Ilbo, All TVs ROK Develops New Anti-Submarine Torpedo Seoul Shinmun President Lee: "There is a Need for Change to Prosecution and National Tax Service" INTERNATIONAL NEWS -------------- President Barack Obama, in a June 22 interview with CBS News' Harry Smith, said that "This administration - and our military - is fully prepared for any contingencies" involving North Korea (JoongAng, Dong-a, Hankook, Hankyoreh, Segye, Seoul) A diplomatic source in Washington who is familiar with the Obama Administration's Korea policy said that this strengthened USG position is a reflection of the public anger mounting in the U.S. against North Korea. (JoongAng) According to a Russian news agency, the Russian Foreign Ministry, in a June 22 statement, supported "five-way talks" proposed by the ROKG to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. (JoongAng, Hankook, Segye, Seoul) The Japanese Maritime Security Agency (JMSA) said yesterday that North Korea informed the agency of its plan to conduct military drills between June 25 and July 10. A Japanese government official speculated that the North may test-fire short-range missiles during this period. (Hankook, Segye, Seoul) MEDIA ANALYSIS -------------- -N. Korea -------------- Most ROK media gave prominent attention to President Barack Obama's June 22 interview with CBS News' Harry Smith, in which he said that "This administration - and our military - is fully prepared for any contingencies" involving North Korea. Right-of-center JoongAng Ilbo saw this remark as leaving open the possibility of military action against North Korea, and cited a diplomatic source in Washington who is familiar with the Obama Administration's Korea policy: "This strengthened USG position is a reflection of the public anger mounting in the U.S. against North Korea. Most Americans are worried and angered by the North's SEOUL 00000997 002 OF 005 missile and nuclear threats, especially during this tough economic situation." Citing a Russian news agency, most ROK media reported that the Russian Foreign Ministry, in a June 22 statement, supported "five-way talks" proposed by the ROKG to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. -Afghanistan -------------- Regarding the controversy over whether there was a discussion during the latest ROK-U.S. summit about sending Korean troops to Afghanistan, right-of-center JoongAng Ilbo editorialized: "There is a good reason to send troops to Afghanistan: It would show that our country participates in the international war against terrorism. As of now, 41 countries have sent 55,000 soldiers to the troubled country. ... If it is difficult to send troops to Afghanistan because of public opinion, the ROKG can increase financial support and send more troops for the provincial reconstruction team, as it said it would. If the ROKG wants to do something more than this, it must persuade the people with a sincere, straightforward approach. It is hard to understand why it is being evasive." -Iran -------------- Conservative Chosun Ilbo noted the June 21 arrests of relatives of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, including his daughter, for her open support for opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, and wrote in the headline: "The Iranian Situation Escalates into a Split among Highest-ranking Leaders" Newspapers reported on gruesome YouTube video purporting to show the fatal shooting of a teenage girl. Conservative Dong-a Ilbo, in particular, headlined its article: "Death of 16-year-old Girl Emerges as Variable in Iranian Street Demonstrations." OPINIONS/EDITORIALS -------------- ¶N. KOREA'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM IS THE GATE OF UNIFICATION (JoongAng Ilbo, June 23, 2009, Page 43) By Senior Journalist Moon Chang-geuk What are the most tangible results of the ROK-U.S summit between President Lee Myung-bak and President Obama? (People) generally point to the two leaders' joint front against the North Korean nuclear issue, the U.S.' reaffirmation of its security commitment, and their mutual understanding about the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). On the day before the summit, I attended a seminar on the Korean Peninsula which took place at American University in Washington. At the seminar, I expressed my view that China's cooperation is essential in resolving the North Korean nuclear issue. From this perspective, I doubt whether the North Korean nuclear issue can be settled in the future because China's role was not specifically mentioned during the summit. Nonetheless, the summit may be recorded as a historic meeting in that the ROK and the U.S. reassuringly sketched out the unification of the Korean Peninsula for the first time. In a "Joint Vision for the ROK-U.S. Alliance," the two leaders stated that they are seeking a peaceful unification of the Korean Peninsula based on free democracy and a market economy. Since the Kim Dae-jung Administration took office, people in previous governments were concerned about North Korea's (reaction) and therefore were unwilling to state that their goal was unification. Unlike in the past, when (previous) governments glorified unification to be achieved through the vaguely-worded "low-level federation," the ROK and the U.S. clearly proclaimed that unification (will be realized) based on free democracy. What is more meaningful is that this agreement was reached by a U.S.-Democratic government espousing peace, not by the hawkish Republican government. SEOUL 00000997 003 OF 005 In fact, it is impossible to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue independently (from other issues.) That is why the Six-Party Talks have failed so far. The Six-Party Talks are premised on the fact that the North Korean nuclear issue can be settled by diplomatic means. This is a naove notion that disregards the reason why Pyongyang wants to go nuclear. Nuclear programs for North Korea are associated with its "absolute national interest." North Korea has an absolute point of view that, without nuclear development, the country will collapse. No country will surrender an "absolute national interest" essential to its national existence. Would North Korea give up its absolute national interest in return for material rewards or a documented peace treaty? North Korea's nuclear program is absolutely related to its existence (as a state,) and thus denuclearizing North Korea means imperiling its existence. In other words, North Korea's nuclear development is inseparable from its existence, and its existence is related to the unification of the Korea Peninsula. Therefore, dealing with North Korea's nuclearization is part of the unification process. In this sense, before addressing the North Korean nuclear issue, we should draw a big picture of what the unification of the Korean Peninsula should be like. Also, North Korea's nuclear programs should be dismantled according to the big picture. China will exert absolute influence on this process. Without China's assistance (in providing) petroleum, North Korea will soon be paralyzed. Whatever measures the UN Security Council takes, North Korea can maintain the current position as long as China keeps providing support. China eventually should decide, by weighing its own national interests, whether to tolerate North Korea's nuclearization and keep its current regime in place or whether to pursue the North's denuclearization and bring a change in its current regime. In April 2003 during the Bush Administration, former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld once distributed a Pentagon memo saying that in order to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, there should be a change in North Korea's leadership with China's cooperation. To secure Chinese cooperation, the ROK and the U.S. should guarantee that a change in (the situation) on the Korean Peninsula will never negatively affect China. The ROK and the U.S. should calm Chinese worries regarding the potential for hundreds of thousands of North Korean defectors (entering China) in case of an emergency in the North or the possibility of U.S. forces stationed in Korea marching up to the Yalu River - which is on the border between North Korea and China. From this point of view, the ROK and the U.S. may need to first agree on what a post-unification Korean Peninsula should be like. The agreement between the ROK and the U.S. that a unified Korea should seek free democracy and a market economy carries significance in that it can serve as a guideline for the unification (of the Korean Peninsula) when obstacles in dealing with the North Korean nuclear issue appear. Also, the ROK and the U.S. should make China understand that unification (based on free democracy and a market economy) will (also) benefit their country. I believe that the North Korean nuclear issue will provide a turning point in opening the door to the unification of the Korean Peninsula. The more hastily North Korea pushes for nuclear development, the closer the chance of unification approaches. What matters is that we should be prepared (for these situations.) Since the other side (North Korea) is making moves at the risk of its own survival, we may have to suffer pain. There is no way for us to settle the North Korean nuclear issue without experiencing any pain. To endure such pain, ROK leadership should also gain absolute public support. Is the Lee Myung-bak Government building trust for that? SUMMIT S-E-C-R-E-T-S (JoongAng Ilbo, editorial, June 23, 2009, page 42) Was there a discussion about sending ROK troops to Afghanistan during the ROK-U.S. summit meeting, or not? The answer keeps changing, creating plenty of confusion. The issue SEOUL 00000997 004 OF 005 is very sensitive, as it is directly related to people's lives. But it is difficult to determine the truth because President Lee Myung-bak and his aides are offering up different versions of what happened at the meeting. Soon after the summit meeting in Washington ended on June 16, the Blue House said the two sides did not broach the issue of sending troops to Afghanistan. But in a June 20 meeting with leaders of ruling and opposition parties at the Blue House, Lee mentioned that the issue did indeed come up when he spoke with U.S. President Barack Obama. This means that the Blue House hid the truth. There are discrepancies in the content of the dialogue as well. President Lee reportedly told the opposition party leader that Obama said it is not appropriate to ask the ROK to send its soldiers to Afghanistan - considering the ROK's political situation - although he mentioned that the country could make such a decision on its own. Lee reportedly sympathized with Obama's situation. However, the spokesperson for Lee Hoi-chang, chairman of the Liberty Forward Party, said Obama actually asked the ROK to send troops to Afghanistan. President Lee reportedly replied by saying that it is impossible to send troops over for combat, though he allegedly said he would consider sending troops for the peacekeeping operation. But the Blue House immediately denied that assertion, saying that the president never mentioned the term "troops for the peacekeeping operation." Rather, Lee said that there might be an opportunity to expand peacekeeping and reconstruction operations started under the former administration. Why can't the administration reveal things openly in an effort to educate the public on the issue? There is a good reason to send troops to Afghanistan: It would show that our country participates in the international war against terrorism. As of now, 41 countries have sent 55,000 soldiers to the troubled country. We sent 300 engineering and medical troops but withdrew them because of a hostage incident. If it is difficult to send troops to Afghanistan because of public opinion, the ROKG can increase financial support and send more troops for the provincial reconstruction team, as it said it would. If the ROKG wants to do something more than this, it must persuade people with a sincere, straightforward approach. It is difficult to understand why the government is being evasive. (This is a translation provided by the newspaper, edited for readability. We have compared it to the Korean version, and it is identical. ) FEATURES -------------- WHY IS OBAMA IRRITATED BY NORTH KOREA? (JoongAng Ilbo, June 23, 2009, Page 2) By Washington Correspondent Kim Jung-wook News Analysis Mindful of the Americans infuriated by North Korea's nuclear and missile threats, (President Obama) said, "(We) are fully prepared for any contingencies," leaving open the possibility of military action against North Korea. U.S. President Barack Obama said in an interview with CBS, which was broadcast at 7 a.m. EST on June 22, "This administration - and our military - is fully prepared for any contingencies" involving North Korea. The Associated Press reported that during the interview taped on June 19, he said, "I want ... to give assurances to the American people that the "t's" are crossed and the "i's" are dotted SEOUL 00000997 005 OF 005 in terms of what might happen," adding, "What we're not going to do is to reward (North Korea's) belligerence and provocation." Following Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, President Obama mentioned the possibility of a "military response" to North Korea. The prevalent view is, of course, that it is rather aimed at pressuring the North to halt its continued provocations. However, the U.S. has certainly made it clear that, unlike in the past, it will not smooth things over by compromising with North Korea. The fact that the U.S. Navy is tracking the Kang Nam - a North Korean ship - shows U.S. commitment to abide by the UN resolution sanctioning North Korea. There could be many reasons why the Obama Administration took this stance. A Washington diplomatic source knowledgeable about the Obama Administration's process of forming a policy toward the Korean Peninsula said, "Above all, it is because U.S. public opinion against North Korea has reached a level that even Obama cannot ignore." He noted, "Most Americans are worried and angered by the North's missile and nuclear threats, especially during this tough economic situation." A recent public survey clearly reveals this atmosphere. According to the results of a June 15-16 Gallup poll, 51 percent of Americans said that North Korea poses a "direct threat" to U.S. security, compared with Iran (46 percent),Iraq (35 percent),and Afghanistan (35 percent),and 34 percent answered that the North is a "serious threat" to U.S. interests. Opinion polls by NBC and The Wall Street Journal on June 12-15 found that supporters of military action against North Korea outnumber its opponents. Mindful of this public sentiment, politicians argue in favor of a strong response to the North, affecting a change in Obama's "Smart Diplomacy," which gives priority to diplomatic negotiations. Senator John McCain said in a June 21 interview with NBC (sic),"If we have hard evidence (that that ship is carrying weapons of mass destruction,) I think we should board (the Kang Nam) (by force)," arguing, "The Security Council measure is a half measure." A Washington source said, "As of now, it is not easy to find an American who supports a policy seeking dialogue with North Korea. No government chooses a foreign policy without political considerations." This indicates that as the Americans are more worried about North Korea, the Obama Administration has to get tougher (on the North). STEPHENS