Press Briefing
Spokesperson and Deputy Minister for Public Relations Cho Tai-young
Feb. 27, 2014 14:30 KST
Good afternoon. Let me start today’s briefing.
Today, I have two announcements to make.
First, Crown Prince Mohamed of Abu Dhabi of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) arrived in the Republic of Korea on February 26 for an official visit until February 28.
During his visit to the country, Crown Prince Mohamed will attend to official matters at the presidential office of Cheong Wa Dae, hold a meeting with the Prime Minister and attend a signing ceremony of agreements between the governments of the ROK and the UAE.
At the agreements signing ceremony to be held in the Prime Minister’s office at around 10:00 a.m., tomorrow, five agreements on cooperation will be signed between the two countries.
Among the five, Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se and his UAE counterpart Abdullah will sign two instruments -- a treaty for judicial cooperation in criminal matters and a memorandum of understanding on development cooperation.
Moving on to the second and last announcement, the Youngsan Foundation will hold its “2013 Diplomat of the Year” Awards ceremony at Plaza Hotel, Seoul, on February 28. Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se will deliver congratulatory remarks at the event.
The “2013 Diplomat of the Year” Award in the government category will go to Director-General for Cultural Affairs Hahn Choong-hee, while Moon Yoon-mi at Cuba’s Jose Marti Cultural Center will receive the award in the civilian category.
The Youngsan Foundation has been presenting “Diplomat of the Year” Awards on an annual basis since 2008 to honor and encourage efforts by government officials and civilians on the diplomatic front to enhance the ROK’s international image.
This is all for my opening statement. I will now take any questions you may have.
[Q&A]
Q: The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress of China is currently in session, during which September 30 and December 13 would reportedly be designated as national days of commemoration marking the victory of the Chinese people in their war of resistance against Japanese aggression and the Nanjing Massacre, respectively. What do you make of this move by China?
A: I deem it inappropriate for me, as Spokesperson of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Korea, to comment on such moves by some other country. I consider it something that the government and the people of China should consult with each other and decide on in terms of their history.
Q: Does the ROK government have plans to designate similar national days of commemoration or hold relevant events?
A: What do you mean by “similar”?
Q: Does the ROK government have plans to designate national days of commemoration similar to those to likely be designated by the aforementioned Standing Committee of China?
A: I understand that the ROK has already designated national holidays related to its modern history. It is my view that the ROK government has designated national days of commemoration and/or holidays in a way that suits its own case.
Q: It seems unlikely that the ratification bill for the ROK-US agreement on defense-burden sharing would be passed by the National Assembly in February. What does the ROK Foreign Ministry make of this situation? The Ministry has said that unless the agreement is ratified in February, the Korean civilians working for the US Forces Korea (USFK) would go unpaid. Will that actually happen? The ROK political community appears to hold the view that there is enough unspent fund to pay salaries to Korean workers with. What does the ROK Foreign Ministry have to say about this?
A: With the ninth ROK-US Special Measures Agreement unlikely to be ratified during the extraordinary session of the National Assembly in February, there are concerns that it could lead to some problems.
First, there are concerns that unpaid leave could be enforced on Korean workers and that the combat readiness posture of the USFK could weaken.
Second, there are concerns that there would be fewer new projects in defense industry and construction, leading to an increase in unspent fund this year.
Third and last, there are concerns that the decrease in projects in defense industry and construction would dampen operations of Korean companies, especially small- and medium-sized enterprises in the defense sector.
As you must be well aware, more than 90 percent of the ROK’s contribution eventually goes back to Korean companies and workers.
The USFK has reiterated to us time and again that unless the ROK-US agreement on defense-burden sharing is brought into force by April 1 this year, it has no choice but enforce unpaid leave on Korean workers from April 1.
Under such circumstances, the ROK government strongly hopes that the agreement will win agreement to ratification from the National Assembly as soon as possible.
Q: You have just mentioned that the USFK notified you that it cannot but enforce unpaid leave on Korean workers. To my knowledge, there is a considerable amount of unspent fund just lying there. Can’t this money be used?
A: As I understand it, the USFK shoulders some 30 percent of the total salaries for its Korean workers, while the ROK shoulders 70 percent of it. To my knowledge, it is the position of the US side that its 30-percent share will facilitate salary payments until the end of March.
Q: Are you saying then that the fund earmarked for salary payments is enough only until the end of March? Is there any other reason for not being able to pay salaries to Korean workers?
A: The USFK shoulders some 30 percent of salaries paid over a year. I understand that with that 30-percent share, salaries can be paid until the end of March.
Q: It appears as though the US side can in effect pay salaries for only one month. The Korean people believe that the amount is staggering. In a nutshell, you are saying that the US side can pay salaries for one month, and that we will have access to money after the ratification bill for the ROK-US agreement on defense-burden sharing is passed by the National Assembly, right?
A: Which month are you referring to by “one month”?
Q: You are saying that the US side can pay salaries until the end of March, but not after that, right?
A: I understand that the US side shoulders salaries for not one month but three months.
Q: Three months?
A: Yes.
Q: Can it be construed as indicating that there would be no more unspent fund after that?
A: Again, the ROK and the USFK shoulder 70 and 30 percent, respectively, of the salaries for workers. It is my understanding that with the contribution from the US side, salaries can be paid until the end of March.
Q: I have a question on another matter. The US and Vietnam concluded a bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement, whose text doesn’t include stipulations prohibiting nuclear enrichment and reprocessing.
Has the US ever concluded a similar nuclear cooperation agreement with countries other than Vietnam? How do you expect this agreement to affect ROK-US negotiations on their Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement?
A: For starters, the text of the US-Vietnam agreement remains undisclosed. Under the circumstances, I find it inappropriate for the ROK government to publicly comment on an agreement between other countries.
The ROK government has been making efforts to revise the ROK-US Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement into an advanced and mutually beneficial one. It is also paying close attention to similar agreements the US government concludes with other countries.
Q: According to a press report issued yesterday, a Korean professor at a university in China said that a Chinese government official had mentioned in a meeting with him that if the ROK requests, China would consider labeling the body of water between the Korean Peninsula and Japan as the East Sea as well as the Sea of Japan. Does the ROK government have a plan to make that request to the Chinese side? Has this matter been raised between the two countries?
A: I know that there was a press report to that effect. We deem it something to be considered after the Chinese side formally expresses its position.
Q: You have just cited it as a matter to be considered after the Chinese side formally expresses its position. I am of the opinion that the ROK government should proactively seek to have the dual-name policy put in place for that body of water.
A: There is a position that the Chinese government has so far upheld. I said what I said because it would be appropriate to make relevant decisions while taking into consideration the position of the Chinese government.
The ROK government, of course, has been explaining to China and other countries that the name of the East Sea should be used, alongside the Sea of Japan at least, to refer to the body of water. Regardless of our position and explanations, there is the position that the Chinese government has held. So, the ROK government will seek to promote this dual-name policy while taking into consideration the position of the Chinese government.
Q: With regard to whether Mount Geumgang tours, when resumed, would constitute a violation of sanctions under relevant UN Security Council resolutions on North Korea, you mentioned two days ago that the position of the ROK government is that “it is up to the UN Security Council to make an authoritative interpretation” on that.
Can your remarks be construed as indicating the ROK government’s plan to ask the UN Security Council to make an authoritative interpretation?
A: What about an authoritative interpretation?
Q: Can your remarks be construed as indicating the ROK government’s plan to ask the UN Security Council to make an authoritative interpretation?
A: The ROK government, the ROK Foreign Ministry to be more specific, announced its position the other day. That position still stands.
Put differently, it is up to the UN Security Council to make an authoritative interpretation and determine whether any particular aspect of inter-Korean relations is subject to the relevant provisions. Please understand this in a literal way.
I have read in some press reports that the Foreign Ministry and the Unification Ministry are not on the same page and are split with regard to this matter. Briefly speaking, this is not true. I understand that the Spokesperson of the Unification Ministry also said in his press briefing that he shares my view.
Q: When the issue of resuming Mount Geumgang tours comes under discussion in the future, the ROK government will have to look into the possibility of North Korea using the money it earns from the tours in the development of its missiles and other weapons. Has there been any intra-government consultation on this issue?
A: Speaking in general terms, the ROK government will look into such issues when relevant progress is made and as needed, and give relevant explanations.
Q: Going back to the issue concerning Korean workers for the USFK, I would like to ask you a question just to make sure.
You mentioned that the salaries for Korean worker will be paid with the 30-percent share shouldered by the USFK. The USFK pays the salaries for Korean workers for the months of January, February and March, with those for the remaining months – April and on -- paid with the contribution from the ROK. Nonetheless, with the ROK-US agreement on defense-burden sharing having yet to be ratified, the Korean workers will have to take unpaid leave.
The ROK’s political community, saying that the greater part of the unspent fund is money earmarked for military construction projects, wants to know whether or not this fund can be used to pay the salaries with. Is it impossible to use this unspent fund for purposes other than those they were initially earmarked for?
A: As I said moments ago, I understand that there are set purposes to use the unspent fund for. In terms of the salaries for Korean workers, it is my understanding that they are paid with the defense shares of both countries and the USFK budget.
The US side explained to us on numerous occasions its position that, with its 30-percent contribution to salaries, the salaries to Korean workers can be paid only until the end of March.
As I explained this to you moments ago, under these circumstances, there is concern that unless the ROK-US agreement is ratified at an early date, the USFK would enforce unpaid leave on Korean workers.
Q: To my knowledge, some precedents of this agreement were ratified even after the month of May or June. Were there cases in the past where Korean workers had to take forced unpaid leave?
A: I will check and let you know.
I will conclude today’s briefing. Thank you.
* unofficial translation