Press Briefing
Spokesperson and Deputy Minister for Public Relations Cho Tai-young
Jan. 14, 2014 14:30 KST


Good afternoon. Let me start today’s briefing.

First, the second workshop between the Korea National Diplomatic Academy (KNDA) and the Institute of Diplomatic Studies (IDS) of Saudi Arabia will take place at the KNDA on January 16.

The event will bring together President of the KNDA’s Institute of Foreign Affairs and National Security Hong Ji-in and Secretary-General of the Korea-Arab Society Chung Yong-chil from the Republic of Korea as well as IDS Director-General Abdulkarim H. Aldekhayel and others from Saudi Arabia.

In the forthcoming workshop, the two countries will exchange views on ways to advance their bilateral relations and discuss changes in the strategic environments of the Northeast Asian and Gulf regions.

The event is expected to serve as an opportunity to build a network of academics between the two countries, thereby helping the ROK improve its relations and boost exchanges with other countries in the Gulf region.

Moving on, I would like to touch upon an article carried by The New York Times.

According to the NYT editorial dated January 13 and titled “Politicians and Textbooks,” President Park Geun-hye “wants to downplay Korean collaboration with the Japanese colonial authorities and last summer pushed the South Korean Education Ministry to approve a new textbook that says those who worked with the Japanese did so under coercion.”

Let me make it clear that this is totally not true. The ROK government expresses a deep regret over The NYT making a misleading assertion based on inaccurate information. The government will take necessary measures toward The NYT in response to this misinformative editorial.

The relevant government agencies will give you separate explanations on the veracity of the information in the editorial.

This is all for my opening statement.


[Q&A]

Q: I have a question about The NYT article. I somewhat doubt whether this issue is something for the ROK Foreign Ministry to respond to. I consider it something for the presidential office of Cheong Wa Dae or the Ministry of Education to address, instead. What do you have to say about this?

A: The NYT is a foreign media outlet. We just wanted to sternly point out that the content of the editorial is inaccurate. As I said moments ago, relevant government agencies will explain to you the accuracy of the editorial and other relevant details.

Q: Japan’s Minister of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology Hakubun Shimomura has reportedly mentioned that Japan would formally lay claims to Dokdo in teaching manuals of textbooks. What position, if any, has or will the ROK government set and express on this Japanese move?

A: With regard to Japan’s reported plan to lay claims to Dokdo in its teaching manuals of textbooks, the ROK government summoned a diplomat at the Japanese Embassy in the ROK to relay the ROK’s firm position, which was already informed to you. Such moves by Japan are very unjustifiable acts that remind the ROK of Japan’s imperialistic territorial ambitions.

To reiterate what has been reiterated over and over again, Dokdo is an integral part of the ROK territory. It is contradictory for Japan to refer to the ROK-Japan friendship while repeating groundless claims to DOK.

Japan should immediately stop making these groundless, non-sensical in simpler terms, claims. Let me make it clear once again that should Japan follow through on that plan, it should take full responsibility for all the consequences that arise from it.

Q: I would like to know how the Political Affairs Minister of the Japanese Embassy in the ROK responded on Sunday when he was summoned? Has the Japanese government expressed or elaborated on its position afterwards?

A: I would refer you to the Japanese side with regard to its reaction.

Q: The ROK government summoned the Japanese diplomat on Sunday to strongly warn that the Japanese government, if it indeed has the plan to take the aforementioned measure, should withdraw the plan, right?

A: Right.

Q: In defiance of the warning, the Japanese government formally announced today that it will push ahead with the plan. What follow-up measures will the ROK government take in response?

A: The ROK government will not sit back and allow the Japanese government to take such measure. To reiterate once again right here, Japan should not follow through on the plan. It should immediately withdraw its groundless claims. Let me stress once again that it is the path toward the friendship between the ROK and Japan.

Q: I have a question about the ROK-US negotiations on defense-burden sharing. At a government-parliament consultation with the ruling Saenuri Party at the National Assembly in July, last year, the Foreign Minister mentioned that efforts would be made to curtail the total amount of the ROK’s burden. However, under the newly reached agreement, the ROK will shoulder over 50 billion won more than last year, which, according to a press report today, will make every Korean shoulder 1,500 won per month. I would like to ask for your comments on the outcome of the negotiations in terms of the goal that the ROK government had set to attain at the negotiations.

A: I already and formally announced the result of the ROK-US negotiations on burden sharing as well as its implications right here on Sunday, January 12. Furthermore, an official who had participated in the negotiations gave a detailed explanation to you journalists. I believe the ROK government’s position on the matter was sufficiently elaborated through them.

To briefly speak about the negotiations once again, as the ROK government has repeatedly mentioned, it basically focused on two things in the negotiations -- the need to provide a stable stationing environment for the US Forces Korea and the ROK government's financial capacity to contribute. Furthermore, it engaged in the negotiations in the spirit of the ROK-US alliance and mutual trust. And the results were explained to you in detail two days ago.

Q: In her interview with CNN, President Park Geun-hye referred to possible provocations by North Korea, saying that analyses by both local and foreign experts had suggested the possibility of North Korea attempting provocations, which is very grave. She added that any such provocations will be met very firmly. What is the background behind her making these remarks? On what grounds did she make the judgment? In other words, has any sign been detected indicating the possibility of North Korean provocations?

A: That is a highly important issue. However, I, as Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, am not in the position to answer that question.

Q: The 39th Group Army and the 16th Group Army in China’s Shenyang Military Region have been conducting large-scale mobility exercises near the China-North Korea border from January 7, haven’t they? I’d like to know if China notified the ROK’s diplomatic authorities or other related agencies of its plan for such exercises.

I am asking this because there is a lot of concern not only in the ROK but also in countries around the world that China may be holding the large-scale exercises to prepare for possible contingencies in North Korea. Please tell us if the ROK side was notified by China of anything on this.

A: I do not know whether China notified the ROK side of its plan for the exercises in advance. I will check and let you know later.

Q: In the latest negotiations between the ROK and the US on defense-burden sharing, they agreed to increase the ROK’s burden by 5.8 percent. I’d like to know why the ROK’s annual contributions had to be raised. Actually, the amount is determined first and where to spend is decided later. Why did the total annual amount have to be increased in response to the US’s demands?

A: As far as I know, as I said a moment ago, relevant officials who were in charge of the negotiations already gave detailed explanations separately. As I understand it, basically, the defense contributions take the inflation rate into account. If prices rise, the amount needs to be increased accordingly from the year before. I understand that the ROK’s contributions were decided, after comprehensively taking into consideration prices, the recent situation surrounding the Korean Peninsula and the fluid situation in North Korea.

Q: There was an 8.9 percent decrease in the ROK’s contributions in 2005. I’d like to know what the reason for that was.

A: I should have known better, but I am afraid I have no information on that. I will check with a relevant division and let you know later after this briefing.

Q: This is a follow-up question. Then, on what grounds was the reduction target proposed during the consultation between the government and the ruling party in July last year?

A: Are you sure that the reduction target was proposed then?

Q: Yes, I am.

A: I will check again. I think whether the Foreign Ministry talked about the reduction target needs to be checked first.

Q: The opposition parties, especially the Democratic Party, are arguing that the ROK seems to have caved in to the US. They are saying that they will seek to make significant revisions once a bill for ratification is presented to the National Assembly. What does the Foreign Ministry make of such position of the opposition parties?

A: Instead of expressing our view on their position, as I said moments ago, a stable stationing environment for the US Forces Korea (USFK) will continue to be provided as a result of the latest negotiations on defense-burden sharing. The ROK needs the USFK and as such, the ROK is shouldering the defense burden.

I understand that the ROK side had held the negotiations, taking into account these two issues – a reasonable level of burden for the ROK and conditions necessary for a stable stationing of the USFK.

It is my understanding that the size of the burden for this year was determined, giving considerations to the issues. I am also well aware that many Korean people have voiced a lot of opinions on the process of using the defense contributions. With that also in mind, the ROK and the US agreed to improve the defense-burden system to increase transparency and accountability.

We will give detailed explanations on the results of the negotiations to the National Assembly and make utmost efforts to win a parliamentary ratification.

If you don’t have any further questions, I will conclude today’s briefing. Thank you.

* unofficial translation