SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; JANUARY 22, 2010

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 05 SEOUL 000089 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR ECON KPAO KS US SUBJECT: SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; JANUARY 22, 2010 TOP HEADLINES -------------- Chosun Ilbo Ruling GNP's Pro-Park Geun-hye Faction Turns "Positive" on Holding National Convention at Early Date JoongAng Ilbo Judges Come Under Fire for Leftist Influence Dong-a Ilbo Fire Insurance to Become Mandatory for Public Places Like Restaurants and Theaters Hankook Ilbo, Segye Ilbo, All TVs Conservatives Going Overboard against Controversial Court Rulings; Chief Justice's Car Pelted with Eggs Hankyoreh Shinmun Investigations Catering to Political Power... Prosecution Is the Problem Seoul Shinmun Political Parties Politicize Judiciary Reform DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS -------------- The two Koreas agreed yesterday to hold another working-level discussion on the North's Kaesong Industrial Complex on Feb. 1, but they failed to settle on the agenda as the North renewed its previous demand for higher wages for its Kaesong workers. (All) The ROKG also plans to accept Pyongyang's proposal to hold talks on resuming ROK tours to the North's Mt. Kumgang and ancient city of Kaesong. (Dong-a, Hankook, Seoul) According to the Foreign Ministry, Seoul will send some 200 troops to Haiti as part of UN peacekeeping operations in the Caribbean country devastated by recent earthquakes. (All) U.S. Ambassador to the ROK Kathleen Stephens is active in conducting "blog diplomacy." She is running her own Web blog called "Shim Eun-kyong's Life in Korea" at "Cafe USA," an Internet community for the U.S. Embassy in Seoul on the portal site Daum. (JoongAng) MEDIA ANALYSIS -------------- Secretary Clinton's Speech on Internet Freedom State-run Yonhap News Agency carried a report that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a Jan. 21 speech, singled out North Korea as an example of a country that practices Internet censorship. She was quoted: "In North Korea, for example, the government has tried to completely isolate its citizens from outside opinions. This lopsided access to information increases both the likelihood of conflict and the probability that small disagreements could escalate." -OPCON Transfer -------------- Defense Minister Kim Tae-young's Jan. 20 remark, "The military must prepare for the worst situation, which would be to have OPCON (wartime operation control) returned to us (from the U.S.) in 2012," continues to elicit comments from newspapers. Conservative Chosun Ilbo editorialized: "Experts have wondered if there would be no problem with the ROK taking over OPCON from the U.S. in 2012 as scheduled, in a situation where the North's possession of nuclear weapons has become a reality and Pyongyang has declared the year 2012 as the target year for building a 'great, SEOUL 00000089 002 OF 005 prosperous and powerful country.' Furthermore, the ROKG's plan to enhance its capability to collect information on North Korea is making little headway due to financial constraints .... This is why former defense ministers and generals took to the streets calling for the delay of the OPCON transfer until the North's nuclear problem is resolved." Right-of-center JoongAng Ilbo carried an editorial entitled "Readjusting OPCON Transfer Date Is Inevitable." It said: "The year 2012 is a very critical year. The ROK holds both general and presidential elections in the year, and North Korea has vowed to build a 'great and prosperous country' by that year, when its late leader Kim Il-sung marks his centennial birthday. What turbulent situation will unfold on the Korean Peninsula is anybody's guess. In this situation, disbanding the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command, the last resort for our security, is a very dangerous, military adventure." Conservative Dong-a Ilbo filed a similar editorial calling for an earnest review with the USG of the planned transfer. OPINIONS/EDITORIALS -------------- IT IS NOT TIME TO TALK ABOUT NUCLEAR SOVEREIGNTY (JoongAng Ilbo, January 22, 2010, Page 35; Excerpts) By Senior International News Columnist Kim Young-hie Some people argue that the ROK should have nuclear fuel reprocessing facilities. However, this argument has nothing to gain, everything to lose. If the ROK says that it wants to have a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility, the U.S. would suspect that the ROK's true intention may be to develop nuclear weapons. This is due to the ROK's track record regarding nuclear programs since the 1970s. Under the U.S.-ROK peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement, if (the ROK) wants to change the shape and substance of used fuel from a nuclear reactor built with the U.S. technology - specifically speaking, reprocess used fuel - it should seek the consent of the U.S. However, since the U.S. does not trust the ROK, and the global trend after 1974 is to curb the proliferation of the uranium enrichment and reprocessing technology, an agreement to allow the ROK to reprocess nuclear fuel would not be approved in the U.S. Congress. The North Korean nuclear issue also serves as a serious obstacle. The nations involved in the Six-Party Talks, including the ROK, pressure the North to abandon its nuclear programs. The key of the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement is to halt North Korea's reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. If Seoul has a nuclear reprocessing facility while calling on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions, the U.S. will oppose it. It is also economically ridiculous for the ROK to have a nuclear reprocessing facility. It costs over 10 billion dollars to build one facility, but using imported uranium only requires hundreds of millions of dollars. This is why Japan relies on imported uranium although it has its nuclear reprocessing facility. It is just wishful thinking that the U.S. would agree to pyroprocessing, a technology which does not separate pure plutonium suitable for direct use in nuclear weapons. U.S. mainstream scientists caution that pyroprocessing is not perfectly proliferation-resistant. The argument in favor of the ROK's nuclear sovereignty is just hollow populism, which does not serve the national interest. If the ROK has a nuclear reprocessing facility, it may satisfy its national pride. However, it has so much to lose economically and diplomatically. The argument for the ROK's nuclear sovereignty may come out of patriotism but it will end up being unpatriotic. What is most desirable now is to extend the U.S.-ROK peaceful nuclear cooperation agreement at the current level without putting it up for public debate. It would not be late to gain nuclear sovereignty after the North Korean nuclear issue is resolved and having such nuclear sovereignty becomes economically beneficial. SEOUL 00000089 003 OF 005 READJUSTING OPCON TRANSFER DATE IS INEVITABLE (JoongAng Ilbo, January 22, 2010, Page 34; Excerpts) The agreement on the OPCON transfer was reached because the Roh Moo-hyun Administration's fledgling sense of independence (from the U.S.) matched up with the U.S.'s strategy to strengthen the mobility of U.S. forces overseas. At that time, the Ministry of National Defense explained that if state-of-the-art weapons are introduced according to the mid-term national defense plan into which 151 trillion won will be injected by 2011, it will be possible to boost the ROK's deterrence against North Korea. The ministry also stressed that the ROK will continue to be under the U.S.'s nuclear umbrella and be provided with U.S. reinforcements in the event of an emergency. However, we are very concerned that those premises are being shaken. Above all, (we must face) the budgetary issue. In order to secure 151 trillion won, the ROKG should increase its national defense budget by over 9 percent every year. However, the defense budget's growth rate, which recorded 8.7 percent in 2006 and 8.8 percent in 2007, plummeted to 3.6 percent this year. The defense ministry predicts that there will be an estimated shortfall of 13.5 trillion won by 2012. In addition, the year 2012 is a very critical year. The ROK holds both general and presidential elections in the year, and North Korea has vowed to build a 'great and prosperous country' by that year, when its late leader Kim Il-sung marks his centennial birthday. What turbulent situation will unfold on the Korean Peninsula is anybody's guess. In this situation, disbanding the ROK-U.S. Combined Forces Command, the last resort for our security, is a very dangerous, military adventure. WHY IS 2012 'THE WORST TIME' FOR TROOP CONTROL HANDOVER? (Chosun Ilbo, January 22, 2010, Page 31) Defense Minister Kim Tae-young on Wednesday said 2012 is "the worst time" for full operational control of Korean troops to be handed over to Seoul from Washington. "The president and military are both concerned about this," he added. South Korea and the U.S. agreed back in 2007 to transfer wartime operational control to the South Korean military in April 2012, dismantling the Combined Forces Command. Military experts and veteran military officers registered their objections to the move on several occasions, but this is the first time the minister in charge has commented publicly on the problems regarding the transfer. The two sides concluded after joint combat training exercises last August that the South's military is fully capable of defending itself against North Korean aggression. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he was "optimistic" about the process. But experts have wondered if there would be no problem with the ROK taking over OPCON from the U.S. in 2012 as scheduled, in a situation where the North's possession of nuclear weapons has become a reality and Pyongyang has declared the year 2012 as the target year for building a "great, prosperous and powerful country." Furthermore, the ROKG's plan to enhance its capability to collect information on North Korea is making little headway due to financial constraint, and the absence of an immediate U.S.-led counterattack as a deterrent could embolden the North. This is why former defense ministers and generals took to the streets calling for the delay of the OPCON transfer until the North's nuclear problem is resolved. The incumbent defense minister's comments add weight to these calls. If Kim's comments were based on a comprehensive review of the situation, then the government must clearly explain to the public why 2012 is the worst time for the transfer and what problems have emerged so far. SEOUL 00000089 004 OF 005 The agreement over the transfer of wartime operational control was made when the U.S. government was mapping out ways to change the structure of its troops deployed overseas, and the Roh Moo-hyun Administration was bent on reducing South Korea's military dependence on the U.S. There is no reason for Washington to postpone the transfer simply to accommodate the needs of the South Korean government. Seoul needs to look closely at a proper time and ways to raise the issue for renegotiation. But if Kim's comments were simply his way of expressing personal concerns and not based on a thorough assessment of the situation, then it was inappropriate to discuss the problem in this way. (This is a translation provided by the newspaper, and it is identical to the Korean version.) DELAYING 2012 OPCON TRANSFER IS THE WAY TO REESTABLISH SECURITY (Dong-a Ilbo, January 22, 2010, Page 31; Excepts) (The defense minister's remarks) confirmed that the president and the defense minister are making efforts to readjust the timing of the planned OPCON transfer. The OPCON, if all goes as planned, will be transferred to us in two years and three months. Time is running short. The ROKG should promptly undertake an earnest review with the USG of the planned transfer. The Defense Ministry has said that there will not be a security vacuum after the ROK's takeover of OPCON as scheduled, because the U.S. will provide major capabilities until the ROK military is fully prepared. However, the problem lies in (the ROK's) readiness against the North's weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear and biochemical weapons and long-range missiles. In order to thwart WMD attacks (from the North,) the ROK should have strategic information-collecting capabilities, such as satellites and airborne warning and control system (AWACS) aircraft. However, it would be difficult for the ROK to obtain such capabilities, on which the ROK is dependent on the U.S. military, before 2012. President Lee Myung-bak has expressed several times his desire to readjust the timing of the OPCON transfer since he took office in 2008, as well as during his election campaign. However, it is no exaggeration to say that there has been no substantial review (of the timing of the transfer.) North Korea has set the year 2012 as the target year for building a "great and prosperous country." It is crystal clear that the North is furthering efforts to develop nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. The ROKG should exert active diplomatic and military efforts in order to get the U.S. to agree to review the timing of the OPCON transfer. FEATURES -------------- U.S. AMBASSADOR STEPHENS ACTIVE IN CONDUCTING "BLOG DIPLOMACY" (JoongAng Ilbo, January 22, 2010, Page 31) By Senior Reporter Oh Dae-young "Haiti has received contributions and offers of support from countries across the world, including Korea. I know the assistance from Korea will be very welcome." This is part of the blog entry that U.S. Ambassador to the ROK Kathleen Stephens posted on her Web blog at "Caf USA," an Internet community for the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, (http://cafe.daum.net/usembassy),under the title, "Earthquake in Haiti" on January 21. Since the Ambassador was appointed to the ROK in September, 2008, she has been running her blog called "Shim Eun-kyong's Life in Korea." She gained the Korean name "Shim Eun-kyong" when serving as a Peace Corps member in the ROK in the 1970s. The postings are SEOUL 00000089 005 OF 005 uploaded both in English and Korean. The Embassy Press Office noted, "When Ambassador Stephens writes an article in English, a staff member translates it into Korean and posts it on the blog. This is the first time a U.S. Ambassador (to Korea) has written a blog post on a regular basis." Up through January 21, 2010, a total of 58 articles have been posted on her blog. She wrote 4 articles per month on average. Each article was read by at least 200 people. Some articles drew more than 2,000 readers. In her blog, the Ambassador mainly talks about her personal feelings on special occasions, such as U.S. President Barack Obama's visit to the ROK, the passing of Cardinal Kim Kim Sou-hwan and biking in Jeollabuk-do. She said on January 21, "It (the blog) was in fact a suggestion by some of my Korean staff that, given the interest in my appointment to Korea, there might be some interest among Koreans in hearing more informally about what it's like to live in Korea again after so many years, and particularly about the changes I see in Korea and in the U.S.-Korea relationship. So I decided to try writing a blog," adding, "I usually try to think on Sunday evenings about what the week has been like and what might be interesting to include in the blog. Then I spend some time on Monday morning writing it." She remarked, "My blog is becoming a place for communication where people express their opinions or recommend Korean movies or performances." In other words, her "blog diplomacy" is proving its worth. Her blog posts even contain some related photos, giving a sense of realism to her articles. The article posted last August titled "National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day" had a photo of General Mark Clark, U.S. Army Commander in Chief Far East Command, signing the Korean Armistice on July 27, 1953. The photo was from the U.S.'s National Archives. In the article, while mentioning that President Barack Obama issued a proclamation declaring July 27, 2009, "National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day" and that, therefore, all U.S. government buildings lowered their flags to half-staff, she posted a photo of the U.S. Embassy in Seoul flying the U.S. flag at half-staff. Last November, she wrote about the story behind President Obama's visit to Seoul. She noted, "It was also clear that President Obama is no stranger to Korean food. Sinsello (royal hot pot) was new to President Obama, and he was impressed. Like me, he liked trying all the banchan, and was particularly taken with fried dry seaweed. I think I'm going to have to send him some for the White House." After watching a play "Jjamppong" and a musical "Bbalrae" at Daehakro last September, she wrote on her blog, "Talking after the performances about the themes the plays examined, like the Gwangju Democratization Movement, I truly felt I was enjoying myself one of the great fruits of Korea's democratic blossoming." She also suggested, "I wonder if the technology exists to provide surtitles, at least for the main lines, as is often done these days for operas. These pieces have very high production values and the only thing that keeps them from being accessible to non-Korean audiences is the language. Even if only the song lyrics were surtitled it would be a great addition to the Korean wave." Last November, the Ambassador said, "One of my goals as Ambassador is to accelerate the complicated process that will allow us to move the U.S. Embassy from its current location to a modern, purpose-built Chancery that will reflect the maturity and importance of the U.S.-Korean relationship." Her posts draw many comments, such as "The pictures are nice" and "Your warm-hearted articles are impressive," to which Ambassador Stephens sometimes adds her own comments. STEPHENS