VZCZCXRO6067
OO RUEHGH
DE RUEHUL #0371/01 0700755
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 110755Z MAR 09
FM AMEMBASSY SEOUL
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 3546
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC 8229
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC//DDI/OEA//
RHHMUNA/USCINCPAC HONOLULU HI//FPA//
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC//DB-Z//
RUEHMO/AMEMBASSY MOSCOW 9291
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 5361
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 5470
RUEHGH/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI 0375
RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG 4001
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 2998
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE 6237
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0623
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2009
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1040
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 1661

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 SEOUL 000371 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR ECON KPAO KS US
SUBJECT: SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; March 11, 2009 
 
TOP HEADLINES 
------------- 
 
Chosun Ilbo 
80 Percent of Protesters Arrested for Violence 
during Last Year's Anti-U.S. Beef Rallies Receive 
Light Punishments 
JoongAng Ilbo 
ROK Ranks Second among 110 Countries 
in "Global Innovation" 
Dong-a Ilbo 
Education Ministry to Hire 2,876 Teacher Interns 
Hankook Ilbo 
U.S. Again Puts the Brakes on KORUS FTA 
Hankyoreh Shinmun, Segye Ilbo 
Korean Council for University Education Seeks to Allow Universities 
to Administer Own Entrance Exams and 
to Grade High Schools for Admission 
Seoul Shinmun 
Regional Offices of National Agricultural Cooperative Federation 
Moving Backward on Reform 
 
 
DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS 
--------------------- 
 
USTR Nominee Ron Kirk, in his March 9 confirmation hearing at the 
Senate Finance Committee, said that the KORUS FTA is not fair. He 
was quoted as saying: "In the case of Korea, the current status quo 
simply isn't acceptable. President Obama has said, and I agree, the 
agreement as it is just simply isn't fair." (All) 
 
 
The ROKG, however, downplayed the USTR nominee's remarks with a Blue 
House official saying: "His remarks can't represent the official 
position of the U.S. government. We're, first of all, going to have 
to find out why and on what grounds he made such remarks." (All) 
 
 
The opposition parties reiterated their calls for the ruling party 
to drop its plan to ratify the KORUS FTA as soon as possible. 
(Chosun, Dong-a, Hankook, Hankyoreh, Segye, Seoul, OhmyNews, 
Pressian) 
 
 
North Korea reopened the border to Koreans yesterday, just a day 
after it cut off military communication lines with the ROK virtually 
detaining 620 Koreans. (All) 
 
 
Uncertainty lingers on, however, as the sole military communication 
lines between the two Koreas remain cut off. An ROKG official was 
quoted as saying: "Nobody knows when North Korea will ban overland 
travel again under whatever pretext." (Chosun)  Experts analyzed 
that the North's latest move might have been prompted by the North's 
concerns that the blockade on the Kaesong Industrial Complex might 
be counterproductive to having a dialogue with the U.S. (JoongAng) 
 
 
Former President Kim Dae-jung, in a March 10 telephone conversation 
with Stephen Bosworth, the U.S. Special Representative for North 
Korea Policy, said that North Korea is making unreasonable moves but 
that the U.S. should have patience in dealing with the communist 
state. Ambassador Bosworth was quoted as responding: "We can't 
overreact to what North Korea does." (JoongAng, Hankyoreh, 
Pressian) 
 
 
INTERNATIONAL NEWS 
------------------ 
 
According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry, North Korea's Premier Kim 
 
SEOUL 00000371  002 OF 007 
 
 
Yong-il will officially visit China from March 17-21 at the 
invitation of his Chinese counterpart Wen Jiabao. (Dong-a, Segye, 
Seoul) 
 
 
MEDIA ANALYSIS 
-------------- 
 
-KORUS FTA 
---------- 
 
The ROK media gave prominent attention to USTR Nominee Ron Kirk's 
remarks during his March 9 confirmation hearing at the Senate 
Finance Committee, quoting him as saying:  "In the case of Korea, 
the current status quo simply isn't acceptable.  President Obama has 
said, and I agree, that (the agreement) as it is just simply isn't 
fair." 
 
The ROK media also gave attention to the ROKG's response, reporting 
that Seoul downplayed the USTR nominee's remarks.   A Blue House 
official was widely quoted as saying: "His remarks can't represent 
the official position of the U.S. government.  We're, first of all, 
going to have to find out why and on what grounds he made such 
remarks."  The opposition parties were also cited as responding by 
reiterating their calls for the ruling party to stop pushing for an 
early ratification of the KORUS FTA. 
 
Chosun Ilbo editorialized:  "It is true that the Obama 
Administration has a negative view of the KORUS FTA.  Considering 
this atmosphere, it is still inappropriate for the USTR, 
Washington's chief negotiating representative regarding the 
bilateral FTA, to say, even before formally assuming his position, 
that his country is willing to 'step away.'  His comments threaten a 
trade war without even discussing the matter with the other side 
unless the ROK makes unconditional concessions.  Which country in 
the world will be able to trust the U.S. - the world's most powerful 
country - if it says the deal "simply isn't acceptable," just 
because a new administration has stepped in?  If the framework of 
the KORUS FTA is broken, then the U.S. stands to lose international 
credibility as well as commerce." 
 
JoongAng Ilbo's editorial argued: "We regard the already concluded 
KORUS FTA as a successful pact which strikes the balance between the 
interests of both nations.  If the FTA is changed every time a 
government changes, it undermines the stability of the trade pact 
and violates international norms.  The Obama Administration could, 
of course, propose additional negotiations about the auto provision 
of the FTA.  However, it is unreasonable to have renegotiations 
which completely ignore the previous agreement.  Our position is 
that the framework of the ROK-U.S. FTA should remain intact.    We 
are also well aware of how severely the U.S. auto industry is 
suffering these days.  However, an imbalance in auto sales between 
the two nations is basically attributable to a difference in the 
competitiveness of automakers in both nations, and therefore, is not 
a matter to be corrected through the FTA.  Furthermore, the age 
limit for cattle used in beef imports is basically a separate matter 
from the KORUS FTA.  It is inappropriate to link the FTA with the 
issue that should be resolved through bilateral negotiations on 
sanitary and quarantine measures." 
 
Dong-a Ilbo's editorial echoed JoongAng's views, stating: "The KORUS 
FTA is a 'win-win' structure for both nations.  The U.S. 
manufacturing industry, except automakers, and investors in 
commercial finance are continuously calling on President Obama to 
'ratify the KORUS FTA as agreed.'  Accordingly, any attempt to 
overturn the agreement between the governments in order to protect a 
certain industry also violates international customs.  It is 
worrisome that U.S. officials' demanding attitude may spread 
anti-U.S. sentiment from some quarters of our society (across the 
nation.)" 
 
Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized: "It seems inevitable that there 
will be revisions to the KORUS FTA in some form or another.  If this 
happens, the basis for the ROKG's argument for early ratification 
 
SEOUL 00000371  003 OF 007 
 
 
will weaken.  Accordingly, the most realistic course, and the one 
best suited to our national interests, is to stop fixating on early 
ratification and to conduct a complete review of the agreement." 
 
-North Korea 
------------ 
 
North Korea's reopening of the border to ROK people yesterday - just 
a day after it cut off military communication lines with the ROK 
virtually detaining 620 ROK people - received wide play.  Chosun 
Ilbo, commented that uncertainty, however, lingers on as the sole 
military communication lines between the two Koreas remain cut off. 
Chosun quoted an ROKG official as saying: "Nobody knows when North 
Korea will ban overland travel again under whatever pretext." 
JoongAng Ilbo headlined its story:  "North Korea Might Have Worried 
that Holding Civilians Hostage Might Backfire on Dialogue with the 
U.S. " 
 
Most of the ROK media gave play to a March 10 telephone conversation 
in Seoul between former President Kim Dae-jung and Stephen Bosworth, 
the U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy.  Former 
President Kim was quoted as saying that North Korea is making 
unreasonable moves but that the U.S. should have patience in dealing 
with the communist state, while Ambassador Bosworth was quoted as 
responding: "We can't overreact to what North Korea does." 
 
U.S., China at Odds over Navy Ship "Harassment" 
Most of the ROK media reported that the U.S. and China are at odds 
after Chinese vessels threatened a U.S. Navy ship, the Impeccable, 
in the South China Sea.  The ROK media cited China as accusing the 
USNS Impeccable of carrying out an illegal survey off southern 
Hainan Island, while reporting the U.S. as claiming that the 
Impeccable had been conducting routine operations in the South China 
Sea in accordance with customary international law.  Chosun Ilbo 
commented that China might have intended to clarify its sovereignty 
over the Nansha Islands in the South China Sea amid territorial 
disputes with six other countries, including Vietnam, the Philippine 
and Malaysia, over the islands.  Chosun went on to speculate that 
China might be "testing" the Obama Administration. 
 
 
OPINIONS/EDITORIALS 
------------------- 
Does Obama Want to Be Robin Hood? 
(JoonAng Ilbo, March 11, 2009, Page 26) 
 
By Editorial writer Kim Jong-soo 
 
It seems that at present U.S. President Obama is shouldering the 
heaviest burden in the world.  This is because he is the president 
in a country which supposedly should play the biggest role in the 
most difficult times.  Unless the U.S. economy is revived, the world 
economy will remain mired in economic woes.  Thus, the world is 
counting on President Obama with high anticipation. 
 
The reality of Obamanomics was revealed. 
 
Only a month and a half since the inauguration of the Obama 
Administration, public support and bi-partisan cooperation are 
overshadowed by bitter political bickering and partisan conflicts. 
In particular, various kinds of economic policies proposed by the 
Obama Administration have stirred anxiety.  Some say sarcastically 
that Obama is making trouble rather than solving problems.  What on 
earth went wrong? 
 
First of all, it is doubtful whether the Obama Administration is 
capable of riding out the unprecedented crisis.  Alarmingly, it 
seems that the Obama Administration is not ready to cope with the 
economic crisis.  Critics say that (the Administration's) bailout 
packages for ailing financial companies are not transparent and lack 
principle.  The Administration's ambitious stimulus bills focus on 
spending on welfare rather than boosting productive investment and 
encouraging the labor market.  This ignited opposition among the 
Republicans.  Moreover, the Obama Administration's failed efforts to 
 
SEOUL 00000371  004 OF 007 
 
 
restructure the financial system aggravated the situation.  The 
restructuring plan for financial companies proposed by Treasury 
Secretary Timothy Geithner triggered a plunge in the stock price. 
 
Extreme conservatives dubbed the budget plan by the Obama 
Administration a 'socialist' plan and even some Democratic 
supporters viewed it as too radical.  The budget plan called for 
collecting more taxes from the wealthy and taxing carbon-emitting 
companies in order to expand medical coverage for the low-income 
class.  President Obama declared that he will cut taxes for the top 
2% of income earners but will not increase taxes for households with 
annual incomes under  250,000 dollars. 
 
Economic recovery cannot be achieved with populism 
 
Those on the right (of the political spectrum) and even moderates 
criticized the budget plan as being driven by populism which may 
stoke class conflict.  Some people observe that President Obama, who 
is surrounded by inexperienced radical leftist aides, is trying to 
change society drastically.  Left-leaning media such as the New York 
Times, which has been supportive of Obama, seems to be turning its 
back on him, saying that his actions do not follow his words. 
 
Now, Obama should face the grim reality.  He cannot salvage his 
country only with rosy promises and flowery rhetoric.  He cannot 
save his country with a Robin Hood-style policy of stealing money 
from the rich and giving it all away to the poor.  He can draw a 
lesson from the record of the former Roh Moo-hyun Administration. 
 
 
The U.S. Is Nowhere in Sight 
(Chosun Ilbo, March 11, 2009, Page 26) 
 
By Editorial Writer Park Doo-sik 
 
President Obama gave a 52-minute speech to the U.S. Congress on 
February 24.  During the most important speech since his 
inauguration, he talked about global security and economic issues 
only for less than five minutes.  The ROK was mentioned just once, 
when he said, "New plug-in hybrids will run on batteries made in 
Korea."  On the campaign trail, he had often noted, "When Japan and 
the ROK are producing it, why not the U.S.?"  The reason why Obama's 
economic stimulus bill includes the "Buy America" provision, and a 
series of statements targeting the FTA are recently coming out of 
the U.S., is due to an obsession with "made in the U.S."  Whenever 
controversy arises, the Obama Administration tries to settle the 
dust by saying "no" to protectionism, but it fails to look beyond 
the "boundary of the U.S." 
 
This might be the reason why, although President Obama once said 
that he could not afford to waste even one minute or one second in 
addressing the economic crisis, he has yet to set out any initiative 
to resolve the crisis, which has spread throughout the world, in 
cooperation with other nations.  Rather, he seems to be giving an 
impression that he is ignoring this issue or taking the wrong path 
to protectionism.  The U.S. leadership is nowhere in sight.  The 
current economic crisis cannot be resolved if the U.S. only cleans 
its own house or protects its own boundaries.  President Obama said 
during his Congressional speech, "The eyes of all people in all 
nations are once again upon us - watching to see what we do with 
this moment; waiting for us to lead."  However, no one can tell us 
how long we have to wait.  Soon, some people may say that they miss 
the days when the U.S. did a good job. 
 
Another Shot at a Problematic FTA 
 (Hankyoreh Shinmun, March 11, 2009, Page 27) 
 
In a Senate confirmation hearing yesterday, Ron Kirk, the nominee 
for United States Trade Representative, said of the South Korea-U.S. 
free trade agreement that "the current status quo simply isn't 
acceptable."  He added that it was a mistake to write off concerns 
that Americans are losing jobs because of trade as simple 
protectionism.  While it goes against general international 
practice, he appeared to find the whole agreement problematic, 
 
SEOUL 00000371  005 OF 007 
 
 
reflecting the situation of economic crisis. 
 
It thus appears inevitable that there will be revisions to the FTA 
in some form or another.  If this happens, the basis for the South 
Korean government's argument for early ratification will weaken. 
Thus far, the government and ruling party have argued for quick 
ratification, according to the logic that we must ratify the FTA 
first if we are to apply pressure so that a ratification bill is 
passed in the United States.  They also opened up the beef market at 
last year's South Korea-U.S. summit, endangering the people's health 
and handing over the rights to survival for livestock farms, for the 
sake of the FTA.  But chances are slim that the Democratic Party-led 
administration and Congress in the United States will go the way our 
government wishes.  The most realistic course, and the one best 
suited to our national interests, is to stop fixating on early 
ratification and engage in a total reexamination of this agreement. 
 
It is even more ridiculous to say that the United States found the 
content of the agreement problematic because it ended up being more 
beneficial for South Korea.  The South Korea-U.S. FTA was an unfair 
agreement pulled around by the United States from the get-go.  First 
and foremost, there was not sufficient assessment of its effects or 
a collection of opinions within South Korea.  The United States' 
changes in approach have reaped many rewards, including the major 
preconditions that included the screen quota, but they appear to be 
dissatisfied with this and hope to get even more. 
 
Among things cited by the government as results of signing the South 
Korea-U.S. FTA are trade expansion effects, but the effects of 
increased trade and improved productivity have been shown to be 
grossly inflated.  Agriculture and pharmaceuticals would be rendered 
almost defenseless, and their industries could be leveled. 
Furthermore, if the United States comes to involve itself in every 
aspect of the policy-making process, citing "investor-state dispute 
settlement mechanisms," our government's position will only get 
narrower and narrower. 
 
The largest issues currently confronting our economy are jobless 
growth and deepening social polarization, and the South Korea-U.S. 
FTA will only make these worse.  To say now, as we are paying the 
costs of excessive openness, that openness is the only way to 
survive is not only foolish, it's dangerous.  Rather than making do 
now as though the economy will survive only if the FTA is signed, 
the government needs to rectify the toxic items and other misguided 
parts of the agreement. 
 
* This is a translation provided by the newspaper, and it is 
identical to the Korean version. 
 
The Framework of the KORUS FTA Should Remain Intact 
(JoongAng Ilbo, March 11, 2009, Page 26) 
 
We regard the already concluded ROK-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) 
as a successful pact which strikes a balance between the interests 
of both nations.  If the FTA is changed with every change of 
administration, it undermines the stability of the trade pact and 
violates international norms.  The Obama Administration could, of 
course, propose additional negotiations about the auto provision of 
the FTA.  However, it is unreasonable to have renegotiations which 
completely ignore the previous agreement.  Our position is that the 
framework of the ROK-U.S. FTA should remain intact.  Even if we have 
negotiations again, they should be at the level of additional talks, 
where only several provisions are adjusted or some exceptions are 
made to necessary parts. 
 
It is widely known that President Obama has continuously raised a 
question about the auto sector of the ROK-U.S. FTA.  We are also 
well aware of how severely the U.S. auto industry is suffering these 
days.  However, an imbalance in auto sales between the two nations 
is basically attributable to a difference in the competitiveness of 
automakers in both nations, and therefore, is not a matter to be 
corrected through the FTA.  In addition, the age limit for cattle 
used in beef imports should be a separate matter from the ROK-U.S. 
FTA.  It is inappropriate to link the FTA with an issue that should 
 
SEOUL 00000371  006 OF 007 
 
 
be resolved through bilateral negotiations on sanitary and 
quarantine measures. 
 
Regrets over the Obama Administration's Perceptions of the KORUS 
FTA 
(Dong-a Ilbo, March 11, 2009, Page 31) 
 
The ROK-U.S. FTA is a "win-win" structure for both nations.  The 
U.S. manufacturing industry, except automakers, and investors in 
commercial finance are continuously proposing that President Obama 
should "ratify the ROK-U.S. FTA as agreed."  An attempt to overturn 
the agreement between the governments in order to protect a certain 
industry also violates international customs.  It is worrisome that 
U.S. officials' demanding attitudes may spread anti-U.S. sentiment 
from some quarters of our society (across the nation.)  The U.S. 
should bear in mind the future-oriented development of the ROK-U.S. 
alliance and look at this issue from a broad point of view. 
 
U.S. Should Not Step Away from the Korea-U.S. FTA (Chosun Ilbo, 
March 11, 2009, Page 27) 
 
The U.S. Trade Representative-designate Ron Kirk said during a 
Senate confirmation hearing on Monday (local time), "The president 
has said, and I agree, the agreement as it is just isn't fair.  In 
the case of Korea, the current status quo simply isn't acceptable. 
And if we don't get that right, we'll be prepared to step away from 
that."  He also said it was incorrect to describe Americans, who are 
worried about jobs being lost, as being protectionist. 
 
It is true that the Obama Administration has a negative view of the 
current Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.  During the presidential 
campaign last year, U.S. President Baack Obama said the FTA was 
"badly flawed," while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during 
her confirmation hearing in January that the United States had 
failed to secure fair terms of trade in the pact with Korea in areas 
including automobiles.  Considering this atmosphere, it is still 
inappropriate for the USTR, who is Washington's chief negotiating 
representative regarding the bilateral FTA, to say his country is 
willing to "step away" even before formally assuming his position. 
His comments threaten a trade war without even discussing the matter 
with the other side, unless Korea makes unconditional concessions. 
 
Obama used every chance he got to strongly criticize former 
President George W. Bush for failing to ratify the "Kyoto Protocol," 
which limits carbon dioxide emissions.  Obama argued that Bush had 
damaged America's credibility by ignoring the international accord 
signed by his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Following more than 14 
months of negotiations, Korea and the United States agreed on an FTA 
deal in April of 2007.  The only thing left to do was for lawmakers 
on both sides to ratify it.  Yet which country in the world will be 
able to trust the United States - the world's most powerful country 
- if it says the deal "simply isn't acceptable," just because a new 
administration has stepped in? 
 
The biggest reason behind the Obama Administration's stance on the 
FTA is said to be the need to protect the U.S. automobile industry. 
But even Senator John McCain, the former Republican presidential 
candidate, said recently, "I think the best thing that could happen 
to General Motors, in my view, is they go into Chapter 11."  The 
Wall Street Journal also pointed out that critics of the FTA cite 
the imbalance in auto markets, but ignore the fact that Korean 
carmakers are doing a better job than their American counterparts 
when it comes to producing automobiles that U.S. consumers like. 
The U.S. auto industry is being dishonest when it tries to use the 
Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement as a sacrificial lamb, while 
ignoring the fundamental reason behind their loss of competitive 
edge. 
 
The Korean administration was impacted heavily, while the country 
experienced a divisive crisis due to the FTA.  If the United States 
demands a re-negotiation of the deal, then Korea may experience 
incidents like the candlelight protests last spring, when the public 
hit the streets to oppose imports of American beef.  The Korea-U.S. 
Free Trade Agreement took a tremendous amount of effort to achieve. 
 
SEOUL 00000371  007 OF 007 
 
 
It contains parts that are both satisfactory and unsatisfactory for 
both sides.  The minute one side demands to re-negotiate this deal, 
the difficult balance that was reached will crumble.  If the United 
States gains concessions from Korea in the auto segment of the deal, 
then what is America willing to concede to Korea?  If the framework 
of the FTA is broken, then the United States stands to lose 
international credibility as well as commerce.  Both sides must 
re-examine their positions on the FTA as soon as possible and look 
for a way to resolve this problem. 
 
* This is a translation provided by the newspaper, and it is 
identical to the Korean version. 
 
 
STEPHENS