Press Briefing
Spokesperson and Deputy Minister for Public Relations Cho Tai-young
Feb. 18, 2014 14:30 KST


Good afternoon. Let me start today’s briefing.

Today, I have two announcements to make.

First, an event to launch the “Peninsula Club” will take place at the Foreign Ministry at 5:00 p.m. today, February 18. At the event, Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se will deliver his congratulatory remarks.

The Peninsula Club will bring together the 21 foreign diplomatic missions stationed in the ROK but also accredited to North Korea. The purpose of the Club is to vitalize two-way communication between the ROK Foreign Ministry and those missions in a more systematic and effective way. The Club will be convened on a regular basis.

Moving on to the second and last announcement, the first consultation between the ROK and the Arab League (AL) will take place in Seoul on February 20. The delegations from the ROK and the Arab League will be led by the Foreign Ministry’s Director-General for African and Middle Eastern Affairs Kwon Hee-seog and Assistant Secretary General for Political Affairs Fadel Mohammed Jawad Kadhum, respectively.

The first consultation will cover a variety of agenda items, some of which are the situations in the Middle East and Northeast Asia, including the Korean Peninsula, as well as ways to promote cooperation between the ROK and the Arab League.

These regular meetings are expected to help enhance mutual understanding between the two sides on regional situations.

This is all for my opening statement.


[Q&A]

Q: With regard to the terrorist bombing on a tourist bus carrying ROK nationals in Egypt, when will the emergency response team arrive in the country? Specifically what will it do there?

A: I believe that the emergency response team, which left yesterday, has already arrived in Egypt. Are you asking whether the team has arrived at the attack site? If so, I will check the specific schedule of the team and text that information to you after this regular briefing session.

Q: At the meeting of the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee today, Foreign Minister commented that the alleged espionage by a Seoul Metropolitan Government official is not a diplomatic issue. Do you not consider issues diplomatic ones unless they involve the Foreign Ministry? A ranking member of the Committee from the opposition Democratic Party mentioned that he had requested the Consul-General in Shenyang be summoned. When will the Consul-General arrive home?

A: A ranking member of the Committee from the opposition Democratic Party did what?

Q: He mentioned that he had requested the Consul-General in Shenyang attend a meeting of the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee. Do you have any idea when he will attend the meeting?

A: I was not in that particular meeting where the Foreign Minister mentioned that the issue is not a diplomatic one. I believe that he made those remarks indicating that the Chinese side had so far made no contacts through diplomatic channels with regard to that issue.

Concerning the request that the Consul-General in Shenyang attend a meeting of the National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, I understand that it was made earlier today. We will let you know the outcome of the relevant discussion at a later time.

Q: I have a further question. With respect to the alleged espionage by the Seoul City official, the Minister of Justice mentioned at the National Assembly yesterday that he had received from China through the ROK Foreign Ministry the official’s border crossing records proving his travels between China and North Korea. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se said at the National Assembly today that the Consulate General had obtained only one document from the Helong authorities certifying the issuance of the documents. There is difference between what the two Ministers said. Please explain this.

A: The ROK Supreme Prosecutors’ Office requested cooperation of the Foreign Ministry to verify the border crossing records of the official, Yoo Woo-sung. The Foreign Ministry, in turn, relayed this request to the Consulate General in Shenyang. When the Consulate General reported to us the outcome of the verification work, the Ministry relayed that to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office. This is all.

Q: In his press conference earlier today, Japan’s Foreign Minister Fumio Kishida expressed his hope to meet with his ROK counterpart. What is the ROK Foreign Ministry’s position on this?

Also, Japan’s Director-General for Asian and Oceanian Affairs arrived in the ROK today for a visit, right? I heard that he met with Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs Cho Tae-yong for luncheon and will meet with Director-General for Northeast Asian Affairs Lee Sang-deok later this afternoon. How deep will the discussions be?

A: For starters, with the regard to the remarks by Minister Kishida you have just referred to, we have received no formal request from the Japanese government, although I have of course read relevant press reports.

In terms of your second question regarding the visit to the ROK by Japan’s Director-General for Asian and Oceanian Affairs Junichi Ihara, it is my understanding that the primary purpose of his visit is to attend as the Director-General in charge a meeting of the heads of the three Japanese diplomatic missions in the ROK – the Embassy in Seoul and the Consulates General in Busan and Jeju. As related officials of the Foreign Ministries of the two countries meet whenever they have an opportunity, I understand that the Japanese Director-General will take the opportunity of the visit to meet with his ROK counterparts in Asian affairs and on the North Korean nuclear issue -- the Director-General for Northeast Asian Affairs and the Special Representative for Korean Peninsula Peace and Security Affairs, respectively.

Q: I have a related question. In answer to my first question, you said that you have received no formal request for a ROK-Japan Foreign Ministers’ meeting from the Japanese government. Can it be construed as indicating that when you receive such request, you will willingly consider accepting it?

A: Well, I guess we can express our position only after a request is formally made through the diplomatic channel.

Q: I have a question regarding the remarks by Japanese Foreign Minister Kishida. How likely does the ROK government think a ROK-Japan Foreign Ministers’ meeting would materialize in the near future?

Also, a director-general-level meeting between the two countries will take place today, which I understand will mark the first of its kind since Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the Yasukuni Shrine late last year. Do you expect that the upcoming meeting will serve as an opportunity to improve the ROK-Japan relations?

A: In answer to your first question, let me reiterate what I have just said: Only when one party makes a formal overture, can the other express its response.

In answer to your second question as to whether the director-general-level meeting between the ROK and Japan would serve as an opportunity to improve the bilateral relations, the point of importance is not the visit itself but what will be done during the visit. The ROK government has a position that it has expressed all along, which you must be well aware of. What is important is what will be discussed during such visits and not the visits themselves.

Q: Ichita Yamamoto, Japan’s Minister on Territories Affairs, mentioned today that the dispatch of government delegates to the so-called “Takeshima Day” event is not something for governments of other countries to interfere in. What does the ROK Foreign Ministry make of these remarks?

A: Well, I have read that press report. The remarks are just so preposterous, incomprehensible and appalling. The ROK government is too busy to interfere in such matters. The ROK government already and time and again stressed that it is unacceptable to the ROK that Japan declares a such-and-such day over some other country’s territory, holds events to mark it and sends government officials to them. People with common sense will be able to judge whether it is reasonable for the party at fault to make such remarks.

Q: According to what you said moments ago, the ROK Foreign Ministry, at the request of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, obtained border crossing records from the Helong Airport authorities in China and sent the documents to the Office. Are these documents the very ones that have been submitted to the court by the prosecution?

A: I answered that question moments ago. More accurately speaking, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, sending the travel records of Yoo Woo-sung, requested cooperation of the Foreign Ministry to verify them. The Foreign Ministry headquarters sent the records to the Consulate General in Shenyang. When the Consulate General reported to us the outcome of the verification process, the Ministry relayed that to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office. That is exactly what happened.

Q: I would like to ask you whether the Consulate General obtained the documents from the Chinese government through a legitimate process.

A: To reiterate, this is the only thing that the Foreign Ministry did: It relayed the request and then the outcome of the verification. As announced by the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, the Office received two other documents from another organization.

Q: I have a related question. The Chinese Embassy in the ROK said that the certificate for the issuance of border crossing records had been forged as well, hasn’t it?

A: Could you repeat your question and a little more loudly?

Q: I am somewhat confused. The Chinese Embassy in the ROK said that the document which had been verified by the Consulate General in Shenyang at the request of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office, was forged as well. Does that document have nothing to do with the case?

A: The Consulate General worked to verify with the Chinese government the border crossing records from the Foreign Ministry headquarters, which initially came from the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office. And the Consulate sent the verification outcome to the Foreign Ministry headquarters, which, in turn, relayed it to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office.

Q: The prosecution submitted three documents to the court, one of which is one that the Foreign Ministry had received from the Consulate General in Shenyang. The Chinese Embassy in the ROK, though, determined that all the three documents submitted to the court by Supreme Prosecutors’ Office are forged. The Foreign Ministry relayed to the prosecution the very document it had received from the Chinese government, and China determined that they are forged. Am I getting this right?

A: You keep saying that the Foreign Ministry relayed three documents.

Q: Is it correct that out of two documents, the Foreign Ministry received one document and delivered it to the prosecutors and the Chinese Embassy concluded that the document the prosecutors submitted to the court was forged?

A: To my understanding, the Chinese Embassy said that the document the ROK Consulate General in Shenyang sent to the Foreign Ministry after being verified by the Chinese side was forged.

Q: Did the Foreign Ministry deliver the document received from China to the prosecutors, leaving it untouched?

A: Yes, it did.

Q: I am a little bit confused. Regarding Yoo’s border crossing records which the prosecutors submitted to the court, the Chinese Embassy said they were forged. If the Foreign Ministry verified the records, it would be either the Ministry did it wrong or China’s assertion is incorrect. They are making conflicting claims, so one of them should be wrong. What is the Foreign Ministry’s position on that?

A: As I said moments ago, the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office sent a request for cooperation with a document attached. The Foreign Ministry sent it to the Consulate General in Shenyang. After receiving the result from the Consulate General, the Ministry delivered it to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office. Should there be conflicting claims, as the prosecutors said, an investigation will be conducted to find out the truth. If an investigation is launched, the Foreign Ministry will play a necessary role.

Q: Then, when the Foreign Ministry requested the verification of the authenticity of the border crossing records, was it the Chinese side who confirmed the authenticity of the records?

A: I can’t understand you clearly. Could you please repeat that slowly?

Q: You said that the Foreign Ministry delivered the border crossing records received from the prosecutors to the Chinese side. Did the Chinese authorities in Helong confirm the authenticity of the records?

A: As I said repeatedly, the Foreign Ministry relayed to the prosecutors the result received from the Consulate General in Shenyang.

Q: Then, there was nothing that intervened between the Foreign Ministry and the Consulate General in Shenyang, wasn’t there? The Foreign Ministry delivered the document received from the Consulate General to the prosecutors, leaving it untouched, didn’t it?

A: I am repeating the same answers time and again here. To tell you once again, the Foreign Ministry relayed to the Consulate General in Shenyang the request from the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office for the verification of the authenticity of Yoo Woo-sung’s border crossing records. After receiving the result from the Consulate General, the Foreign Ministry delivered it to the Prosecutors’ Office.

Q: This case was made public on last Friday afternoon and a little time has passed since then. I believe that the Foreign Ministry must have seen news reports showing the document submitted to the court. Is the document the Foreign Ministry relayed to the prosecutors the same as the document submitted to the court?

A: I don’t think the Foreign Ministry is in a position to confirm that. To repeat what I said, the Foreign Ministry provided such cooperation I mentioned moments ago. The Ministry is not a party to this trial. That is why the Ministry sent the request for cooperation to the Consulate General in Shenyang and relayed the result to the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office.

Q: I think the Foreign Ministry must have checked with the Consulate General in Shenyang. Did the Ministry check if the Consulate General fabricated or forged the border crossing records? What was the result, if it did?

A: That is not an issue that should be investigated by the Foreign Ministry. If it is true that the records were forged, I think it should be investigated by the prosecutors or relevant authorities.

Q: I don’t have a clear picture of this. When the Foreign Ministry first asked China to verify the authenticity of the records through the Consulate General in Shenyang, didn’t the Chinese side say that the records from the prosecutors were forged?

A: The Consulate General in Shenyang requested China to verify the authenticity and the Foreign Ministry relayed to the prosecutors the result received from the Consulate General.

Q: Isn’t it that all overseas diplomatic missions, including Embassies and Consulates General, fall under the jurisdiction of the Foreign Ministry?

A: Yes, it is.

Q: Then, if the Consulate General did something illegal, shouldn’t the Foreign Ministry take responsibility for it?

A: What do you mean by “did something illegal”?

Q: If an official document was forged or fabricated, it would be a violation of the law. Then, shouldn’t the Foreign Ministry also take responsibility for that to a certain extent?

A: First, on whether there was a violation of the law, the trial is underway, so should there be any problems, I think the judicial authorities in charge of the trial will launch an investigation. I believe the truth of the matter should be found out through such process.

Q: Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se met today with Chairman Ed Royce of the US House Foreign Affairs Committee. I’d like to know if they discussed the conflict between the ROK and Japan over historical issues.

A: I have no information on that yet. I will check and let you know later.

Q: As far as I know, ROK Ambassador to Japan Lee Byung-kee visited the Japanese Foreign Ministry yesterday and met with Vice Foreign Minister Saiki. Please tell us what was discussed and if the ROK-Japan Foreign Ministers’ Meeting or Summit was addressed. Also, I’d like to know if Ambassador Lee’s visit to the Japanese Foreign Ministry is related to today’s Director-General-level meeting.

A: First, let me say that there is continued communication and dialogue between an ambassador to a certain country and the Foreign Ministry of the host country. As such, Ambassador to Japan Lee Byung-kee, as an ambassador to the country, also met with Vice Foreign Minister Saiki. It is not the first time for them to meet. I understand that they exchanged views on a range of issues regarding the ROK-Japan relations. Please understand that I cannot give you all the details here. On whether the meeting is related to the visit to the ROK by Director-General Ihara of the Japanese Foreign Ministry's Asian and Oceanian Affairs Bureau, as I said earlier, I understand that Director-General Ihara came to the ROK to attend a meeting of heads of three Japanese missions in the ROK, which will take place in the ROK. It is a planned meeting, so I have no idea if the two are related.

If you have no further questions, I will conclude today’s briefing. Thank you.

*unofficial translation