Cablegate: Seoul - Press Bulletin; February 26, 2010

VZCZCXRO3921
OO RUEHGH
DE RUEHUL #0320/01 0560810
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
O 250810Z FEB 10
FM AMEMBASSY SEOUL
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC IMMEDIATE 7208
RUCPDOC/USDOC WASHDC 9747
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 0819
RUEHBJ/AMEMBASSY BEIJING 7334
RUEHKO/AMEMBASSY TOKYO 7404
RUEHGH/AMCONSUL SHANGHAI 1816
RUEHSH/AMCONSUL SHENYANG 5662
RUEHIN/AIT TAIPEI 4585
RUEHGP/AMEMBASSY SINGAPORE 7801
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 2052
RUEHGV/USMISSION GENEVA 0134
RUEHLO/AMEMBASSY LONDON 2421
RUEHFR/AMEMBASSY PARIS 3043

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 06 SEOUL 000320

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PREL PGOV MARR ECON KPAO KS US
SUBJECT: SEOUL - PRESS BULLETIN; FEBRUARY 26, 2010

TOP HEADLINES
-------------

Chosun Ilbo
Universities Have Received Billions of Won Annually
from On-Campus Banks, while Disallowing Credit Card Payment of
Tuition Fees

JoongAng Ilbo
Full Investigation Begins into Educational Corruption
and Irregularities in College Admissions

Dong-a Ilbo
Overseas Travel Ban Imposed on Former Head of Seoul Education Office
in Money-for-Promotion Probe

Hankook Ilbo
Some 250 Middle School Seniors Involved in Admission Scandals
Involving Private Autonomous High Schools

Hankyoreh Shinmun, Segye Ilbo, All TVs
Top Court Upholds Capital Punishment in 5-4 Split Decision

Seoul Shinmun
President Lee Calls for Constitutional Revision on Limited Basis

DOMESTIC DEVELOPMENTS
---------------------

Visiting U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy Stephen
Bosworth discussed ways to resume the Six-Party Talks yesterday with
chief ROK nuclear negotiator, Wi Sung-lac. (Dong-a, Hankyoreh, all
TVs)

The National Assembly yesterday passed a motion to dispatch 350 ROK
troops to Afghanistan on a mission to protect civilian
reconstruction workers in the war-torn country. Lawmakers of
opposition parties walked out of the Assembly in protest of the
deployment. (All)

The Unification Ministry yesterday disclosed a revised version of
the "Basic Plan for Inter-Korean Relations," which was adopted by
the former Roh Moo-hyun Administration. The revised version seeks to
expand inter-Korean economic cooperation only if North Korea decides
to give up its nuclear program. (Chosun, Hankook, Hankyoreh)

MEDIA ANALYSIS
--------------

-N. Korea
---------
Most ROK media covered yesterday's arrival in Seoul of Special
Representative for North Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth, quoting him
as saying upon arrival: "We are prepared to resume the Six-Party
Talks in the very near future." According to media reports,
Ambassador Bosworth and chief ROK nuclear negotiator Wi Sung-lac
discussed ways to resume the Six-Party Talks.

Right-of-center JoongAng Ilbo carried an op-ed that said: "While the
greatest military challenge facing the U.S. is (the war in)
Afghanistan, its greatest diplomatic challenge is to deter Iran from
developing nuclear weapons. Whenever the Obama Administration gives
warnings about Iran, it typically mentions North Korea
(simultaneously). As such, if the U.S. shows any sign of ignoring
the North's nuclear development, such an action will immediately
prompt Iran to misjudge that it is okay to continue its nuclear
development. This is why the ROKG is closely watching developments
surrounding the Iranian (nuclear) issue. ... We (Korea) most likely
have a stronger desire than Ambassador Bosworth to see peace on the
Korean Peninsula by engaging North Korea. However ... a cool-headed

SEOUL 00000320 002 OF 006

approach is required when dealing with North Korea."

-Afghanistan
------------
All ROK media reported on yesterday's passage by the National
Assembly of a motion to dispatch 350 ROK troops to Afghanistan,
despite protests from opposition parties. According to media
reports, the troops will be sent to Parwan Province in July, with a
two-and-a-half-year mandate to protect ROK civilian reconstruction
workers there.

Left-leaning Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized: "The deployment
decision is a far cry from the current state of affairs in the
international community. ... Far from rooting out terrorism, the war
and occupation (in Afghanistan) is intensifying resistance from
local militants. Accordingly, the U.S. announced plans to start
withdrawing troops next year. ... Civilian provincial reconstruction
team (PRT) workers have been targets of attack because militants
treat them the same as occupying forces. ... With this decision (to
send troops to Afghanistan), ROK citizens, as well as the troops
deployed, will face an even greater danger of being attacked."

OPINIONS/EDITORIALS
-------------------

ADDED VALUE OF AFGHAN TROOP DISPATCH
(JoongAng Ilbo, February 26, 2010, Page 35; Excerpts)

By Senior International Affairs Columnist Kim Young-hie

In a plenary session of the Korean National Assembly yesterday, a
bill was passed to deploy troops to Afghanistan. Why do we have to
send our young troops to a faraway land in West Asia, a nation which
we think we have no direct interest in? We can find an answer by
looking back to the Korean War, which marks its 60th anniversary
this year. During the war, it was troops from 16 nations that saved
the ROK from a desperately dangerous situation. Those 16 nations
combined sent a total of 930,000 troops annually over the course of
three years to prevent the ROK from being communized. The ROK in
the 1950s was most likely stranger to the 16 nations than
Afghanistan is to us. At that time, the ROK was a new nation
founded only two years following its liberation from Japan five
years earlier.

To the opponents of troop dispatch to Afghanistan, I would say that
the U.S. spent over USD 30 billion (USD 320 billion when adjusted to
2008 prices) on the Korean War and sent the ROK approximately
480,000 troops, of which 54,000 were killed in battle. Opponents
might respond, "That is because the Korean War was effectively a
U.S. war." Then, why did the other 15 countries send their troops?
To see many of them killed in the battlefields? Since they shared
the great cause of defending freedom and peace, a large number of
troops were sent to the Korean War despite the fact that there would
be many victims.

On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Korean War, we now
have an opportunity to repay the debt of lives, which a poor and
weak Korea owed to the international community six decades ago, by
sending our troops to Afghanistan. The ROK's per-capital income has
soared from USD 67 to over USD 20,000, and its Gross Domestic
Production (GDP), which stood at USD 1.3 billion, is estimated at
USD 1 trillion this year. Noblesse Oblige, a French phrase meaning
"Privilege entails responsibility" is applied not only to
individuals but also to nations. As a developed country set to host
the G20 summit (this year), the ROK should not hesitate to hold out
a helping hand to the war-ravaged country as it seeks economic and
social reconstruction and improvement of living conditions (there).

However, if we send our troops to Afghanistan only to repay the debt
from the Korean War and carry out our moral responsibility, it will
be a loss of opportunity. We should create the best "added value"
from the Afghan troop dispatch. The soldiers to be deployed are
outstanding youth selected on a competition rate of 10 to 1. The

SEOUL 00000320 003 OF 006

troop dispatch could prove an opportunity for them and 150 members
of the Provincial Reconstruction Team to become experts on
Afghanistan and the West Asian region, as well as top employees of
companies which will enter the region. If only 10 to 50 of them
become experts or corporate employees specializing in the region, it
will be a precious "added value" of the deployment.

Before sending troops to Afghanistan, we need to educate them about
international politics and economics surrounding Afghanistan,
various conflicts of interest among major countries (over the
region), and the civilization and culture of West Asia. If our
soldiers take this Afghan deployment as an opportunity to open their
eyes to a new part of the world, and stimulate their adventurism and
pioneer spirit so that Afghanistan and West Asia become a main
pillar of their and the ROK's future, the troop dispatch will be
producing significantly more "added value."

POWER OF OBAMA-STYLE N. KOREA SANCTIONS
(JoongAng Ilbo, February 26, Page 34)

By Deputy Political Affairs Editor Kang Chan-ho

Former U.S. President George W. Bush, who served from 2001 to 2009,
called North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, "an axis of evil" or "a
pigmy." However, his actions were the opposite (of his words.)
President Bush removed North Korea from the list of state sponsors
of terrorism to which the Reagan Administration had added them
twenty years ago when his father, former President George H. W.
Bush, served as Vice President. President George W. Bush also
returned to Kim 24 million dollars (USD) in personal funds that were
confiscated by the U.S. Department of Treasury. During his final
term in office, he (President George W. Bush) even delivered Kim a
letter that began with "Dear Mr. Chairman."

Even though President Bush disliked North Korea, he did not consider
North Korea an urgent policy issue. Rather, he established the
Six-Party Talks framework involving China as a host, and attempted
to block North Korean (activists). However, following the North's
nuclear test in 2006, Bush softened his stance by giving carte
blanche to dovish Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill.
But his diplomacy ended in failure according to Jack Pritchard,
former U.S. Envoy to North Korea during the Bush Administration.
Bush did not run into any political difficulty due to his strong
ideological base. What dealt a blow to him was a financial crisis
that hit the U.S. during his final term in office.

President Obama is taking an approach opposite to that of President
George W. Bush. He does not speak in a hostile way toward North
Korea. However, sanctions the Obama Administration has imposed on
the North due to its second nuclear test in May are considered more
stringent and effective. Even though North Korea says pleadingly,
"We will return to the Six-Party Talks if sanctions are lifted and a
peace treaty is signed," Obama has not budged an inch.

Why is Obama taking this approach toward North Korea? First,
President Obama has a weak political and ideological base.
According to a recent Gallop poll, 61 percent of Americans think
that North Korea poses a serious threat. As such, President Obama
has a limited range of soft measures that he can implement because
he needs to embrace conservatives as his supporters. On the
diplomatic front, he should also be mindful of Iran's (nuclear
development.) While the greatest military challenge facing the U.S.
is (the war in) Afghanistan, its greatest diplomatic challenge is to
deter Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Whenever the Obama
Administration gives warnings about Iran, it typically mentions
North Korea (simultaneously). As such, if the U.S. shows any sign
of ignoring the North's nuclear development, such an action will
immediately prompt Iran to misjudge that it is okay to continue its
nuclear development. This is why the ROKG is closely watching
developments surrounding the Iranian (nuclear) issue.

The ROK's pro-North Korea leftists, who have misjudged President
Obama, seem to be counting on U.S. Special Representative for North

SEOUL 00000320 004 OF 006

Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth, who is also known as a "dove."
However, if North Korea, which staged two nuclear tests, keeps
insisting on unreasonable demands such as lifting sanctions and a
peace treaty with the U.S., it will be hard for Ambassador Bosworth
to persuade Secretary of State Clinton and other non-proliferation
officials (to take a soft line on North Korea.) Appearing on a TV
talk show last month, Bosworth said that Kim Jong-il is not insane
and he truly believes that the U.S. can engage North Korea. We most
likely have a stronger desire than Ambassador Bosworth to see peace
on the Korean Peninsula by engaging North Korea. However, a warm
heart alone is not enough. Rather, a cool-headed approach is
required when dealing with North Korea.

UNILATERAL TROOP REDEPLOYMENT DECISION SHOULD BE WITHDRAWN
(Hankyoreh Shinmun, February 26, Page 31)

Yesterday, on the second anniversary of the inauguration of
President Lee Myung-bak, the Lee Administration and ruling Grand
National Party (GNP) unilaterally passed a bill in the National
Assembly approving the redeployment of troops to Afghanistan,
sending our officers and troops into an extremely dangerous area.
This was pushed through without sufficient discussion over the
matter in which the lives and safety of the people and the nation's
credibility rests. This is anti-democratic and anti-citizen
behavior that reveals rashness, in addition to arrogance and
self-righteousness.

The decision is a clear reversal of a previous agreement. In 2007,
the government promised to both domestic and international audiences
that it would withdraw from Afghanistan, and by the end of that year
Korean engineering and medical units were completely withdrawn.
This decision was reached after the kidnapping of 23 South Korean
civilians, of which two died. Prior to this, sergeant Yoon Jang-ho
was also killed. In the process, we learned the costly lesson that
our unjustified dispatch of troops came at a great cost and resulted
in a great deal of pain. Yesterday, however, the Lee government
completely reversed this agreement. Naturally, we worry about the
possible loss of our nation's credibility.

The deployment decision is a far cry from the current state of
affairs in the international community. Recently, the number of
deaths of U.S. troops in Afghanistan has been on the rise, and the
issue of civilian deaths is becoming even more serious. Far from
rooting out terrorism, the war and occupation (in Afghanistan) is
intensifying resistance from local militants. Accordingly, the U.S.
announced plans to start withdrawing troops next year. In this
situation, we are the only country in the world planning to redeploy
troops. We cannot help but ask whether the Lee government is
ignorant of the situation or is merely closing its eyes to please
the U.S.

The Lee government claimed it would organize a provincial
reconstruction team (PRT), in which civilian workers would be sent
to perform humanitarian activities, while the military component
would engage in only protection duty. However, civilian provincial
reconstruction team (PRT) workers have been targets of attack
because militants treat them the same as occupying forces. In early
November of last year, when news broke that our government was
planning to redeploy troops to Afghanistan, an armed group attacked
the construction site of a Korean company. Despite this, the Lee
government, without revealing the specifics of their plan, has
pushed for the redeployment. With this decision (to send troops to
Afghanistan), ROK citizens, as well as the troops deployed, will
face an even greater danger of being attacked.

The period of deployment in yesterday's bill of two years and six
months is also uncharacteristically. In a situation in which it
would be insufficient even if annual parliamentary reports and
approvals were issued as a result of confusion and danger on the
ground, the Lee government has been issued a blank check. Moreover,
the GNP has not held a single public hearing about the redeployment,
and has also rendered powerless parliamentary debate. The Lee
government must withdraw its decision to redeploy troops to

SEOUL 00000320 005 OF 006

Afghanistan.

(This is a translation provided by the newspaper, and it is
identical to the Korean version.)

FEATURES
--------

U.S. FORCES' "OTHER WAR" (IN AFGHANISTAN)
(Chosun Ilbo, February 26, Page 7)

By Washington Correspondent Lee Ha-won

On February 24, an opening ceremony for the addition of a vinyl
house and irrigation facilities was held, with the U.S.'s Mine
Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles standing guard, at an
agricultural training center of the Provincial Agriculture
Department in Charikar, the capital of Parwan, Afghanistan. This
place is about a 5-minute drive from an area where the ROK's
Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) will be stationed.

Parwan Governor Basir Salangi and Lieutenant Graves from the
Agricultural Development Team (ADT) at Bagram Air Base cut the
(ceremonial) tape in front of the green-roofed vinyl house, drawing
applause from the audience. Governor Salangi and 50 other
influential officials joyfully passed through the vinyl house under
which the irrigation facilities are installed.

Looking around a water tank and a pump set up just beside the vinyl
house, they showed an expression of satisfaction. Commanding
officer, Lieutenant Graves, presented a certificate of appreciation
to Ab Lazak Kohistani, President of Jamashal, the Afghan company
which constructed these facilities. Governor Salangi also expressed
his appreciation to the U.S. for building the great facilities.

These facilities, which were constructed by the U.S. forces at a
cost of USD 68,000, are not substantial in size. The facilities
only include a 20-meter vinyl house and a small water tank installed
over 10 meters above ground.

However, local residents and U.S. forces sought to find a future of
hope through such facilities, which are rare in Afghanistan. The
irrigation facilities will serve 300 Afghan residents in this
region. However, the greater purpose is to use them as educational
facilities and lift Afghan agricultural skill from its rudimentary
stage. Lieutenant Peterson, an agricultural expert from the ADT
said, "We hope Afghan residents will properly acquire farming
technology to sustain their lives."

The ADT, which is in charge of this construction and agricultural
assistance to Parwan, belongs to the Kentucky National Guard. The
team is in charge of Afghanistan's agricultural development and
related education programs. It teaches agricultural and livestock
techniques, including how to plant seeds and use fertilizer.
Sergeant Ramsey, who freely mingled with local residents on February
24 while helping them make an Afghanistan traditional soup, teaches
residents livestock techniques, drawing high popularity. In
addition to him, other U.S. soldiers with technical knowledge of
agriculture, and officials from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
teach agricultural techniques every one or two weeks.

The U.S. military regrets that local participation is not as high as
expected. Lt. Col. Graves said, "Since people are so busy eking out
a living, technical education programs have moved to the back
burner."

These activities by the U.S. are part of its strategy to win the
heart of Afghan residents. In many regions in Afghanistan,
including Parwan, the U.S. is focusing its efforts on teaching the
Afghan people survival techniques. By serving as a "mentor" to
residents, the U.S. intends to end hostilities against the U.S.
military and stabilize the situation. A soldier of the ADT noted,
"People outside of Afghanistan think that the U.S. is only waging

SEOUL 00000320 006 OF 006

war here. In fact, however, we are paying much more attention to
reconstruction in Afghanistan, which is rarely known."

Behind these activities lie the U.S.'s future strategy to use
Afghanistan as a stronghold for targeting Central Asia, the region
called a "repository of resources." The U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) has invested USD 17 million in searching Afghanistan, which
is three times as large as the Korean Peninsula, for resources. One
study estimates that natural minerals, such as copper and iron ore,
as well as oil and natural gas in Afghanistan are worth about USD 1
trillion.

TOKOLA

© Scoop Media