VZCZCXRO5405
OO RUEHGH
DE RUEHUL #0992/01 1730536
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 220536Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY SEOUL
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 4781
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC 8767
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 9919
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 6154
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 6244
RUEHGH/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI 0902
RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG 4622
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 3598
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE 6799
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1153
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2486
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 1560
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 2169

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