VZCZCXRO5494
OO RUEHGH
DE RUEHUL #1670/01 2940802
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 210802Z OCT 09
FM AMEMBASSY SEOUL
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 5980
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC 9296
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 0418
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 6805
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 6874
RUEHGH/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI 1396
RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG 5183
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 4140
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE 7350
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 1638
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 2948
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 2027
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 2634

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 07 SEOUL 001670 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR ECON KPAO KS US
SUBJECT: SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; October 21, 2009 
 
TOP HEADLINES 
------------- 
 
Chosun Ilbo 
ROKG Seeks to Transform Foreign Language High Schools 
into International High Schools 
 
JoongAng Ilbo 
Principal's Passion Leads "Bottom-tier" High School to Make 
Significant Improvement in College Entrance Tests 
 
Dong-a Ilbo, Hankyoreh Shinmun, Segye Ilbo, 
Seoul Shinmun, All TVs 
ROKG Denies Legitimate Status of Civil Servant Union 
 
Hankook Ilbo 
Global Currency War; U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke 
Indirectly Pressures ROK for Currency Appreciation 
 
 
DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS 
--------------------- 
 
Defense Secretary Robert Gates, on his way to Japan yesterday, said 
that he is sure that Seoul and Washington will meet the April 2012 
deadline for the transfer of wartime operational control from the 
U.S. and the ROK. He also said that (the U.S.) will continue to 
pursue missile defense partnerships with the ROK and Japan to brace 
for missile provocations from North Korea. (All) 
 
Kim Yang-gon, North Korea's point man on the ROK as Director of the 
United Front Department at the North's Workers' Party, stayed in 
Beijing for six days before returning home yesterday. There is 
speculation about possible s-e-c-r-e-t contact between him and an 
ROK official, despite the Blue House's denial. (All) 
 
 
INTERNATIONAL NEWS 
------------------ 
 
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke warned on Oct. 19 that 
pursuit of export-led growth by Asian nations, including the ROK and 
China, could lead to a reemergence of global trade imbalances and 
undercut efforts to achieve more durable growth. (All) 
 
This remark can be seen as U.S. pressure on Asian exporters, 
including the ROK, to appreciate their currencies against the 
dollar. (Hankook, Hankyoreh) 
 
 
MEDIA ANALYSIS 
-------------- 
 
-N. Korea 
---------- 
Most newspapers noted Oct. 19 press remarks by State Department 
Spokesman Ian Kelly, in which he said: "There will be American 
officials at this meeting (the Northeast Asia Cooperative Dialogue 
(NEACD)) in San Diego."  They noted Ri Gun, Director General of 
American Affairs at North Korea's Foreign Ministry, will also attend 
the Oct. 26-27 meeting, and raised the possibility of an unofficial 
one-on-one contact between the two countries. 
 
Right-of-center JoongAng Ilbo, in particular, commented from 
Washington that diplomatic sources in Washington are closely looking 
at the possibility that Sung Kim, U.S. Special Envoy for the 
Six-Party Talks, may meet with Ri Gun to make arrangements for 
bilateral negotiations, including a visit to Pyongyang by Special 
Representative for North Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth. 
 
-Aid for Afghanistan 
-------------------- 
 
SEOUL 00001670  002 OF 007 
 
 
In response to Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell's Oct. 18 remarks 
asking for economic aid to Afghanistan, conservative ROK newspapers 
urged Seoul to expand aid to the war-torn country in line with its 
status as the world's 11th largest economy. 
 
Chosun Ilbo editorialized: "From 2003 - when the Afghan war broke 
out - until now, the ROK has sent some $130 million to Afghanistan, 
which accounts for nearly 0.2 percent of the entire amount 
contributed by other countries. ...  Given our special relationship 
with the U.S., this level of aid can be called stingy." 
 
Dong-a Ilbo editorial stated: "Aid to Afghanistan, of course, 
entails danger.  After the ROK's medical unit was dispatched to 
Afghanistan, one ROK soldier was killed in a terrorist attack, and 
23 ROK civilians were kidnapped by the Taliban, two of them slain. 
...  If we contribute to world peace and stability, the 
international community will also join the efforts to establish 
peace on the Korean Peninsula.  Assistance to Afghanistan has a 
positive impact on the ROK-U.S. alliance.  The ROK needs to come up 
with specific ways to provide aid to Afghanistan before U.S. 
President Barack Obama visits Seoul next month." 
 
JoongAng Ilbo filed a similar editorial entitled "Need to Consider 
Expanding Financial Aid to Afghanistan in a Forward-looking Manner" 
 
 
OPINIONS/EDITORIALS 
------------------- 
 
¶S. KOREA'S PAINFUL DILEMMA 
(Chosun Ilbo, October 21, 2009, page 38) 
 
By Editorial writer Yang Sang-hoon 
 
No breakthrough seems likely in the North Korean nuclear issue now 
that China has made it clear that it will not risk endangering the 
North Korean system for the sake of denuclearization, making it 
improbable that the international community will be able to pressure 
Pyongyang into giving up its nuclear weapons program. 
 
President Lee Myung-bak's idea of a "grand bargain" and U.S. 
President Barack Obama's "comprehensive package" will make little 
difference.  But the North must be persuaded to denuclearize, not as 
a surrender but as a big compromise that will fundamentally change 
the situation on the Korean Peninsula.  It is naive to expect the 
North to give up its nuclear arms, which it considers a matter of 
life and death, in return for economic aid. In the course reaching a 
compromise, Seoul has to confront very difficult but unavoidable 
political and military problems. 
 
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il told Chinese premier Wen Jiabao that 
one condition for his return to Six-Party Talks is an end to 
"hostile" policies from the U.S.  The official Rodong Shinmun daily 
said that includes converting the armistice agreement into a peace 
treaty.  That would be "one of the most rational and practical 
means" of achieving a denuclearized peninsula, it added. 
 
But this also calls for an end to the U.S.-ROK alliance and 
withdrawal of the U.S. Forces Korea.  The North reportedly proposed 
a "bold deal" to former American officials and North Korea 
specialists who visited Pyongyang in January and February.  The 
North would abandon its nuclear weapons program if the U.S. removes 
the nuclear umbrella it provides for the ROK and puts an end to the 
U.S.-ROK alliance. 
 
Foreign Minister Yoo Myung-hwan told a Korea Chamber of Commerce and 
Industry gathering on Sept. 18 that the North's nuclear weapons 
target the ROK, and that the North wants a Washington-Pyongyang 
peace agreement and a withdrawal of the U.S. Forces Korea. 
 
The government says this is just a mere excuse for North Korea not 
to abandon its nuclear program.  But there is no guarantee that the 
U.S. will accept a nuclear-armed North Korea for the sake of keeping 
forces in the ROK. 
 
SEOUL 00001670  003 OF 007 
 
 
 
The U.S. government has said nothing specific.  Whatever official 
stance Washington takes, it will undoubtedly weigh which of the two, 
eliminating the North Korean nuclear threat or keeping forces in the 
ROK, matters more.  If the U.S. judges that it can prevent a war on 
the Korean Peninsula without troops in the ROK, then the withdrawal 
of the USFK could emerge as a real option. 
 
Given that the priority in the U.S. military strategy is gradually 
shifting to the Navy and Air Force, and that the U.S. maintains 
military bases in Japan and Guam, the case for keeping the USFK may 
well weaken.  Robert Carlin, a former East Asia expert at the State 
Department, recently said the nuclear issue cannot be resolved 
through "mutual hostility." 
 
China and Russia may not unconditionally welcome a withdrawal of the 
USFK but will eventually find it preferable to their continued 
presence.  Japan may also opt for a withdrawal of the USFK over a 
nuclear-armed North Korea. 
 
From the ROK's perspective, preventing a war is more important to 
the national interest than eliminating North Korea's nuclear 
weapons.  It is natural that there is no discussion here about the 
link between the North's nuclear weapons and the USFK.  But that 
will remain a weakness in negotiations with the North. 
 
The withdrawal of the USFK would spark fears of a war, but 
reunification becomes impossible unless the North gives up its 
nuclear weapons.  This is a dilemma the ROK must confront. 
Negotiations on a permanent peace treaty for the Korean Peninsula 
are stipulated in the Sept. 19, 2005 statement of principles and the 
Feb. 13, 2007 agreement adopted in the Six-Party Talks.  It is a 
high time to start mulling a long-term strategy with reunification 
in mind and prepare to confront the painful reality. 
 
(This is a translation provided by the newspaper, and it is 
identical to the Korean version.) 
 
 
"2012" PROJECT FOR WARTIME COMMAND SHIFT SHOULD BE PUT IN MOTION 
(Dong-a Ilbo, October 21, 2009, Page 39; Excerpts) 
 
By Kim Sung-han, professor of international politics at Korea 
University Graduate School of International Studies 
 
Regarding the transfer of wartime operational control of ROK troops 
from the U.S. to the ROK, Seoul has three options.  The first one is 
to revisit the issue as soon as possible and maintain the ROK-U.S. 
Combined Forces Command (CFC) on the grounds that economic 
conditions are not ripe for the wartime command shift as well as the 
fact that other circumstances, including the North Korean nuclear 
issue, do not make the transfer  appropriate.  The second option is 
to make every effort to be capable of taking back the wartime 
operational control as scheduled, but not to directly link the issue 
with the North Korean nuclear standoff.  The third option is for the 
ROK to achieve capability of taking over wartime operational control 
and making every effort to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue by 
¶2012. However, if the ROK is not able to do this or (certain) 
conditions are not met, the timetable for transfer of wartime 
command should be changed. 
 
If the ROK chooses the first option, it can frankly admit that there 
is a remote possibility that the ROK's capability and other 
conditions may be ripe for the OPCON transfer, but it could give the 
U.S. leverage in negotiations, thereby leading Washington to demand 
rewards for maintaining the CFC.  If the ROK and the U.S. waste 
their time and energy in another tug of war over wartime command 
shift, coupled with other issues like troop dispatches to 
Afghanistan, missile defense, and the USFK realignment, it could 
undermine trust between the two nations, which have been restored 
with difficulty.  If the ROK chooses the second option, then the 
U.S. would not be provided with unnecessary leverage.  However, if 
the OPCON transfer comes when the North Korean nuclear issue is 
aggravated despite the ROK's defense budget increase, it could send 
 
SEOUL 00001670  004 OF 007 
 
 
a wrong message to North Korea.  A call for the ROK's nuclear 
possession would also grow louder. 
 
The third option can be called the "2012 Project."  This is totally 
worth trying because its result depends on how to manage the 
project.  If we revise the "Defense Reform 2020" plan from a mid- 
and long-term perspective to enhance its efficiency, we could be 
capable of the OPCON transfer in 2012 without any drastic defense 
budget increase.  The North Korean nuclear issue can also be 
resolved if the ROKG abandons its passive mindset of "As long as the 
Kim Jong-il regime is in place, it is difficult to resolve the 
nuclear issue" and takes an active role in leading its inter-Korean 
and foreign relations by presenting a blueprint of dialogue and 
pressure.  Despite our efforts, if the ROK and the U.S. judge six 
months ahead of the scheduled date for the OPCON transfer that the 
ROK's capability and the political conditions on the Korean 
Peninsula are not appropriate, they can change the date based on 
mutual agreement. 
 
 
KOREA SHOULD GIVE MORE SUPPORT FOR AFGHANISTAN 
(Chosun Ilbo, October 21, 2009, page 39) 
 
U.S. Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell on Sunday said all 
countries that wish for the peace and prosperity and economic growth 
of the world have an "obligation" to support Afghanistan.  Another 
U.S. government official said it would be better for the ROK, which 
has provided medical support for Afghanistan until now, to make 
contributions to other sectors as well, adding that the quicker the 
ROK decides and the bigger its support, the better. 
 
When he visited the ROK in April, Richard Holbrooke, U.S. Special 
Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan in the Barack Obama 
Administration, mentioned the need for additional support from 
Seoul.  But he was not as frank in expressing the scale of support 
Washington wants. 
 
However, it is clear that Washington has changed its stance of 
leaving it up to Seoul to decide whether to expand its support for 
Afghanistan and wants an answer.  The situation in Afghanistan has 
become more pressing.  There are around 68,000 American soldiers 
there and another 40,000 troops from some 40 other countries.  The 
number of soldiers either killed or wounded in Afghanistan is rising 
rapidly as the Taliban resistance intensifies. 
 
The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan has asked for more 
troops, saying it would be difficult to achieve his mission without 
a massive increase.  The situation in Afghanistan has grown worse 
after the presidential election on Aug. 20 was overturned due to 
allegations of vote rigging.  As a result, a growing number of 
countries which have dispatched troops to Afghanistan are planning 
to pull out. 
 
In the summer of 2007, a group of Korean missionaries were abducted 
in Afghanistan, leading to the withdrawal of Korean medical and 
engineering troops.  Seoul has not dispatched any troops to 
Afghanistan since then, and the U.S. government has refrained from 
asking it to deploy troops there, mindful of the shock the country 
suffered due to the abductions.  Most Koreans are still opposed to 
the deployment of troops to Afghanistan. 
 
But things are different when it comes to offering non-military 
support.  At a meeting in Paris in June of donor countries, the 
government pledged US$33 million until 2011.  The U.K. pledged $1.2 
billion, Germany $640 million and Japan $550 million.  From 2003 - 
when the Afghan war broke out - until now, the ROK has sent some 
$130 million to Afghanistan, which accounts for nearly 0.2 percent 
of the entire amount contributed by other countries. There are 
around 28,000 U.S. troops in Korea, making it home to the 
third-largest overseas contingent of American soldiers following 
Germany with some 58,000 and Japan with around 33,000.  And the U.S. 
troops in Germany and Japan are not there solely to defend those 
countries against foreign aggression, but over the last 60 years, 
U.S. troops in the ROK have served as the primary deterrent against 
 
SEOUL 00001670  005 OF 007 
 
 
a possible attack from North Korea. 
 
Given our special relationship with the U.S., this level of aid can 
be called stingy.  (The ROK) needs to boost its contribution to 
Afghanistan in light of its participation in the international war 
on terrorism.  But the U.S. government must first present a 
blueprint for how it intends to resolve the problems there. 
 
(This is a translation provided by the newspaper, and it is 
identical to the Korean version.) 
 
 
ROK SHOULD CONTRIBUTE TO AFGHAN PEACE 
(Dong-a Ilbo, October 21, 2009, Page 39) 
 
Today marks eight years and 14 days since the war in Afghanistan 
broke out.  Despite the 21st century's pursuit for co-prosperity and 
peace, the war in Afghanistan has lasted a great deal longer than 
the war in Iraq, which lasted for six years and six months, and the 
Second World War, which continued for six years and two days.  In 
this global era, the war in Afghanistan is a task which the all of 
humanity should work together to solve.  As a member of the G20 and 
the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and 
as the world's tenth largest economy, the ROK should extend a 
helping hand to establish peace in Afghanistan.  A total of 42 
nations, including the U.S., have sent troops to Afghanistan to 
fight against the Taliban.  In this global era, in which a country's 
national status is dependent on that nation's contribution to and 
role in the international community, we cannot simply sit back and 
watch the war. 
 
The Military Committee Meeting (MCM) and Security Consultative 
Meeting (SCM) between the ROK and the U.S. will be held in Seoul on 
October 21 and 22.  Pentagon officials hinted that defense officials 
on both sides will discuss the Afghan issue, saying, "When it comes 
to the ROK's aid to Afghanistan, the quicker and bigger, the 
better."  Instead of accepting Washington's request in a passive 
manner, the ROK should actively make a voluntary contribution to 
world peace that befits its national power. 
 
In May, the ROKG pledged to build a hospital at Bagram Air Base, 
increase its staff in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams, and 
expand economic aid to the war-torn nation.  Still, the ROK's share 
is only 0.13 percent of all foreign aid promised to Afghanistan. 
Even if we fulfill all our promises by next year, the accumulated 
amount of aid would not exceed $100 million.  This pales in 
comparison to Japan's $2 billion in aid.  If it is difficult to 
greatly expand economic aid, the ROK needs to increase the scale of 
existing aid projects, such as the provision of equipment and 
educational or vocational trainings for medical staff, police, and 
civilians.  It could also consider sending security guards to 
Afghanistan to protect Koreans there. 
 
Aid to Afghanistan, of course, entails danger.  After the ROK's 
medical unit was dispatched to Afghanistan, one ROK soldier was 
killed in a terrorist attack, and 23 ROK civilians were kidnapped by 
the Taliban, two of them slain.  However, if we only try to avoid 
the Afghan issue, we cannot gain a say in the international 
community.  Afghanistan is in desperate need of outside help, as we 
were during the Korean War.  Providing aid to Afghanistan is also a 
way for us to repay the debt we owe to the international community. 
 
 
If we contribute to world peace and stability, the international 
community will also join the efforts to establish peace on the 
Korean Peninsula.  Assistance to Afghanistan has a positive impact 
on the ROK-U.S. alliance.  The ROK needs to come up with specific 
ways to provide aid to Afghanistan before U.S. President Barack 
Obama visits Seoul next month. 
 
 
CRACKS IN ROK-U.S. COOPERATION AHEAD OF FULL-SCALE NEGOTIATIONS ON 
¶N. KOREA'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM 
(JoongAng Ilbo, October 21, 2009, page 46) 
 
SEOUL 00001670  006 OF 007 
 
 
 
The ROK and the U.S. have been out of step over their "nuclear 
diplomacy with North Korea."  Last week, the U.S. Department of 
Defense said that North Korea proposed an inter-Korean summit to the 
ROKG.  The ROKG expressed surprise, saying that it had informed the 
U.S. government that the proposal was meaningless and the U.S. 
government seems to have misunderstood Seoul's position.  Later, 
this controversy was tamped down when the White House spokesman said 
there was miscommunication within the U.S. government. 
 
During a visit to the U.S. to attend the UN General Assembly last 
month, President Lee Myung-bak announced a "grand bargain" to 
resolve the North Korean nuclear issue.  U.S. government officials 
were lackadaisical over the ROKG's ambitious proposal, saying they 
were not aware of or not briefed on the proposal.  The ROKG tried to 
put an end to the controversy, saying that it had explained the 
grand bargain to the U.S. government and there seemed to be 
miscommunication within the U.S. government. A few days later, 
President Lee said, "So what if Mr. So-and-so says he is not aware 
of it."  (As a result,) the Mr. So-and-so, Kurt Campbell, the U.S. 
Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, 
skipped the ROK on his Asian tour. The ROK and the U.S., which have 
stressed tight cooperation on the North Korean nuclear issue, seemed 
to be out of synch, setting off rumors that ROK-U.S. relations are 
troubled. 
 
Since the North Korean nuclear issue erupted 20 years ago, the ROK 
and U.S. governments have underscored the importance of their close 
cooperation.  However, their words have not always been true in 
reality.  Shortly after the first nuclear crisis in the mid 1990s, 
then-President Kim Young-sam argued with President Bill Clinton over 
whether their approach to the North Korean nuclear issue should be 
called a "package settlement" or a "comprehensive settlement." 
President Kim Dae-jung had conflicts with President George W. Bush 
over differences in their basic position on North Korea.  President 
Roh Moo-hyun was also at odds with the U.S. administration.  Over 
the course of this time period, North Korea (worked toward and then 
finally) staged a nuclear test. 
 
In the wake of North Korea's second nuclear test, the ROK and U.S. 
governments noticeably improved their bilateral coordination. 
President Obama has put a top priority on nuclear proliferation 
prevention and foreign policies and President Lee has taken a hard 
line on the North Korean nuclear issue.  Both governments have 
emphasized their strong coordination.  In fact, close cooperation 
between the ROK and the U.S. played a considerable role when UN 
Security Council resolution was adopted.  Both countries also showed 
strong cooperation when there were discussions on holding five-party 
talks excluding North Korea.  We are concerned, however, that at a 
crucial moment when U.S.-North Korea talks are imminent, ROK-U.S. 
cooperation is suffering a setback. 
 
The ROK and the U.S. took swift steps to remove discord.  But what 
matters is that both countries need to check thoroughly whether the 
recent spate of controversies resulted from poor coordination and 
lack of trust in each other.  North Korea would try to capitalize on 
any cracks in ROK-U.S. cooperation.  This would jeopardize the 
negotiation process on the North Korean nuclear issue.  The ROK and 
the U.S. should not play down the current discord but step up 
efforts to bolster bilateral coordination. 
 
 
CONSIDERATION OF EXPANDING FINANCIAL AID TO AFGHANISTAN IN A 
FORWARD-LOOKING MANNER 
(JoongAng Ilbo, October 21, 2009, page 46: Excerpts) 
 
The U.S. (recently) expressed hope for the ROK to provide financial 
aid to Afghanistan when U.S. Pentagon Spokesman Geoff Morrell said 
to reporters, "Any country that finds it difficult to give military 
support is asked to give financial aid."  This remark signals that 
the U.S. is seeking to secure further financial assistance from the 
ROK, judging that it would be difficult for the ROK to send troops. 
 
 
 
SEOUL 00001670  007 OF 007 
 
 
The top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan is demanding that 
additional troops be deployed.  However, President Obama has not 
made a decision on the issue.  With a Vietnam War-like nightmare 
looming, an increasing number of Americans are calling for the 
withdrawal of troops.  It seems that the Obama Administration has 
not devised its Afghan strategy clearly.  Therefore, in this 
situation, it would be difficult for the U.S. to request its allies 
to send troops. 
 
Troop deployment to Afghanistan is a "hot potato" issue.  But we 
should fulfill our commitment as an ally and a responsible member of 
the international community in order to shoulder the burden.  It 
would have been difficult for the U.S. to ask for a military 
contribution.  However, the U.S.'s request for a financial 
contribution seems to assuage any burden for the ROKG. 
 
The ROKG needs to expand financial aid to Afghanistan in line with 
its international status even if it holds off considering troop 
deployment for now. 
 
 
STEPHENS