Press Briefing
Spokesperson and Deputy Minister for Public Relations Noh Kwang-il
Mar. 19, 2015 14:30 KST


Good afternoon. Let me start today’s briefing.

Today, I have two announcements to make.

First, Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se will meet with President Nguyen Xuan Thang of the Vietnam Academy of Social Sciences on March 20.

For your information, President Nguyen Xuan Thang is on a visit to the Republic of Korea from March 15 through 21 to attend the second ROK-Vietnam Future Forum hosted by the Korea Foundation.

In the meeting, the two sides will exchange views on the ROK-Vietnam cooperative ties and the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Moving on to the second and last announcement, the third meeting of the ROK-Poland Joint Economic Committee will take place at the Foreign Ministry on March 23.

The ROK and Polish delegations to the meeting will be led by Deputy Minister for Economic Affairs Ahn Chong-ghee and Deputy Minister of Economy Andrzej Dycha, respectively.

In the meeting, the two countries will discuss a broad spectrum of issues ranging from such areas of economic cooperation as trade and investment to public infrastructure, energy, healthcare and defense industry.

This is all for my opening statement.


[Q&A]

Q: According to a number of press reports issued earlier today, the ROK has already decided to join the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). Is this totally groundless?

A: As you may be aware, the AIIB issue is one that is being dealt with by the ROK’s financial authorities. What I can tell you in that regard is that the ROK government is looking into the possible participation in the AIIB in a serious and comprehensive manner, mainly weighing economic advantages and disadvantages.

Q: Please tell us whether the ROK government is looking into it in a serious, comprehensive and positive manner. According to some press reports, the ROK government has in effect decided to join the AIIB and notified it to the US government. Is this true?

A: Well, I have read those press reports myself. As you may assume, I deem it appropriate for the government agency in charge of the matter to confirm those press reports, although I am not trying to say that the Foreign Ministry is not doing anything about the AIIB issue just because another government agency is in charge of it. Rather, I want to let you know that as this is a matter that could have diplomatic implications as well as one that is related to international financial institutions, the Foreign Ministry is doing what it can. Nevertheless, I cannot disclose right here what is under interagency discussion, which I believe you can understand. I am not in a position to say more than that the government is looking into the matter in a serious and comprehensive manner.

Q: I can see that as you have just mentioned, not the Foreign Ministry, but the financial authorities are in charge of that matter. You have also said that a comprehensive decision will be made in a way that serves national interests. Should the ROK government judge that it would not be able to exercise adequate influence over decision making regarding investments and others in proportion to its stakes in the AIIB, thereby failing to serve national interests, it could decide not to participate in the AIIB, right? This may sound obvious, but you are saying that the participation in the AIIB will be decided based on whether it would serve national interests, and that if it is unlikely to do so, the ROK government could publicly announce its decision not to join the bank, right?

A: I will not answer that question.

Q: I see.

A: I will not answer that question because it goes beyond what I can say in that regard. As I recall it, I read in a press report yesterday that the Senior Secretary to the President for Economic Affairs had discussed the ROK’s position on that issue. What he said yesterday and what I am saying today is the ROK government’s position on the issue, I think. I expect that when we have anything further or new in that regard, there will be an opportunity to share it with you.

Q: With the deadline purportedly set for the end of March to decide whether to join the AIIB, can we expect the ROK government to make a decision by then?

A: I recall that I answered that question at my press briefing on Tuesday. The ROK government’s position remains unchanged, which, I reiterate, is that it will look into the matter, including that, in a comprehensive manner.

Q: Senior Secretary to the President An Chong-bum mentioned that the ROK government was looking into the matter and that no decision had been made yet. And, you, Spokesperson of the Foreign Ministry, are saying that “the ROK government is looking into the matter in a serious and meticulous manner.”

A: The ROK government is looking into the matter in a serious and comprehensive manner.

Q: What difference does the expression “comprehensive” make? The Foreign Ministry uses the expression “serious,” which sounds a little different from what Cheong Wa Dae said.

A: Well, then, let me rephrase it to “the government is looking into it.” Regardless of whether I say that the government is looking into the matter, with or without the phrase, “in a serious and comprehensive manner,” it is a fact that the government is reviewing it. With the review still underway, no decision has been made yet, which is also true. The use or no use of that adverbial phrase does not make any difference in the ROK government’s position on its possible participation in the AIIB.

Q: This issue could be brought up in an ROK-China summit and/or Foreign Ministers’ meeting, albeit not a formal agenda item, right?

A: Let me make it more accurate for you. At the forthcoming ROK-China Foreign Ministers’ meeting, the two sides are expected to exchange views on a wide range of matters of mutual concern, including bilateral relations as well as regional and global issues, including the situation on the Korean Peninsula.

Q: Will the issue of the possible deployment of a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) battery in the ROK also be covered in the discussion on the situation on the Korean Peninsula?

A: I expect that when we have the outcome of the Foreign Ministers’ meeting, there will be an opportunity to give you an adequate explanation about the outcome.

Q: Going back to the AIIB issue, a number of government agencies are currently looking into it. Has the Foreign Ministry, although it is not the government agency in charge of the matter, concluded its part of the review?

A: When something is under review, people communicate amongst them, expressing opinions when necessary, until a decision is made, right? So, you have to look at the whole process, where communication is still underway.

Q: On March 17, the Spokesperson of the Ministry of National Defense commented that China should not try to influence the ROK’s decision on the THAAD deployment issue. The Defense Ministry purportedly coordinated with the Foreign Ministry in this regard before making these remarks, which the Foreign Ministry purportedly denied. Please clarify whether there was such coordination or not. Should China in effect be trying to influence the ROK’s decision on the THAAD deployment issue in any way, what is the ROK government’s position on the Chinese move?

A: In answer to your question regarding whether there was consultation on the content of the remarks by the Spokesperson of the Ministry of National Defense, let me tell you this: As you may be aware and as I said at my press briefing on Tuesday, the US government has neither made a request nor consulted with the ROK government, and thus no decision has been made on the possible THAAD deployment. That is exactly the way things are at this point, amid which the Foreign Ministry and the Defense Ministry, the government agency in charge of the matter, are communicating with each other on the issue.

The reason why I am telling this is because you may be misinterpreting a Foreign Ministry official’s remarks that the Foreign Ministry has not held consultations. I also talked with the official and the official stated that his/her remarks meant to say that there were no consultations on the deployment of THAAD. The reason why there was no consultation is because, as I have already said, there was neither a request from the US nor consultations with the US and the ROK did not make any decision, so under the circumstances there cannot be any consultations on a hypothetical situation that will or will not occur in the future. We do not know right now if that situation will happen or not, but if there is a request from the US and consultations are needed, there will be consultations. However, we are not at that stage, so there has been no consultation. This is what the official meant to say.

If you ask if the Foreign Ministry and the Ministry of National Defense don’t consult on such issues as THAAD, I would say this. Concerning key security or diplomatic issues, the two Ministries always share their assessment of what the true nature of an issue is and what situation the ROK is in.

Within that framework, the Ministry of National Defense talks about issues it is dealing with, and the Foreign Ministry speaks about issues it is handling. Please understand it this way.

Q: I clearly understand what you have said, then is it ok to say that the Foreign Ministry also agrees with the remarks by the Spokesperson of the Ministry of National Defense that it is not desirable for China to try to wield leverage on the ROK’s national security policy?

A: I think the main point of the Spokesperson’s remarks is that on security issues, the ROK will make a judgment on its own and independently.

As you know, there was a report on Monday on Foreign Minister Yun’s interview with a domestic daily newspaper, where he said that the ROK will make a judgment independently on such issues as THAAD and AIIB without being swayed by neighboring countries.

I, in the same Spokesperson position as him, will not comment on his expression, but I think the essence of his comment is consistent with that of Foreign Minister Yun’s remarks.

Did this answer your question?

Let me add more. There have been some reports on the Foreign Ministry’s position on the THAAD issue. What we can tell you for sure is that the Foreign Ministry has always dealt with issues confidently and resolutely in ways that maximize national interests. Believing that any third country will respect the Foreign Ministry’s such position, the Ministry will continue to practice diplomacy confidently and resolutely in ways that maximize national interests.

In addition, as you may know, diplomacy is a synthetic art of strategy and timing. In the Foreign Minister’s interview I mentioned, he used some figurative expressions, though this was not included in the news report.

He said the following. A baby born naturally is healthier. There is a time for everything. We do not practice diplomacy that adjusts timing unreasonably for artificial delivery. There is a time when a decision-making can maximize national interests. We will announce our position and make a decision at such a time.

What I want to say more is that there is always an appropriate time for a diplomatic decision. Therefore, expressing any opinions based on insufficient information and analysis can somehow mislead the Korean people. That can not only undermine our national interests but also limit our leeway for strategic choices. We are taking such aspects into consideration for good timing. Please understand this.

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


*unofficial translation