New Year Press Conference of President Roh Moo-hyun
Good morning, fellow Koreans.
In the New Year Address to the Nation the day before yesterday, I talked about the nation's development strategies for the era of US$20,000 in per capita income as well as the issue of the economy as it affects ordinary people. Given the special importance attached to these issue, which I particularly value, I would like to bring them up again in my opening remarks today.
Among the strategies that I have mentioned, you may be familiar with such issues as democracy, the market economy, innovation and openness. The general public may be well aware of them. In addition, the Participatory Government is specifically emphasizing such topics as broad-based growth, balanced regional development, investment in the social infrastructure, development of human resources and expansion of social capital. These issues are different from other national development strategies in nature. I would like to put special emphasis on them because they are very important contemporary issues. They will remain as exceptionally significant tasks to be addressed by society over the next 20 to 30 years.
New strategies are needed because of changing times and circumstances. That Korea is faced with a unique stumbling block and daunting task is another reason. The changing era means that the ongoing globalization and knowledge-based economy have expanded the market and accelerated the pace of transformation. The changed situation means that Korea's economy has risen to become one of the advanced and that it should compete with new rivals now. In the past, all we needed was to emulate developed economies to catch up with them. Now it is time that the Korean economy should take the lead, not just follow in the footstep of others. Otherwise, we cannot succeed.
The unique obstacle is that there are still some sectors that are lagging behind and are not performing commensurate with the era of US$20,000 in per capita income. The low investment in welfare is in stark contrast to that of the advanced countries. Consequently, the level of welfare services in Korea is bound to fall far behind. Korean society is also lacking in trust and social unity because of a lack of transparency and abiding principles. Differently put, we have a great dearth of social capital.
The unique daunting task stems from the fact that we cannot be optimistic about future human resources because of such emerging problems as the widening socio-economic divide, low birth rate and aging of the population. The future seems to be uncertain.
The crux of the strategies of the Participatory Government is notably highlighted by the above sticking point and challenging task. For the sake of a successful economy and upgraded public welfare, we need to make comprehensive efforts to develop democracy, the market economy, and the social and security environment, in addition to pursuing economic policies. I would like to emphatically reiterate this point.
Just as important as the Government's strategies is the pace at which reforms are carried out. A strategy alone does not perform wonders because what's important is what actually gets done. What needs to be done has to be prepared in advance and carried out in a timely manner without delay. Once we lose that right moment to do the job, we are bound to lag behind. I believe that ensuring that a job gets done at the right time without putting it off until later is what responsible governing and reform are all about. Simply put, I believe that the extent to which reforms barrel along at full tilt will determine the success or failure of the nation.
The Participatory Government has taken responsibility for doing what needs to be done, doing its jobs in the belief that they shouldn't be deferred to a later date. I have been pushing reforms that were set aside in the previous period and dedicating my efforts to carrying out, without delay, what must be done at this point. The idea of building an administrative capital was hatched 30 years ago and has been on the table since then. The Government's drive for balanced regional development developed from this idea and is going forward. The relocation plan for government agencies was also a difficult issue, yet I did not set it aside. The relocation of Yongsan Garrison was an issue that previous administrations·led by the associates of those now in the Grand National Party (GNP)·promised to address, but fell short of honoring and ended up shelving indefinitely. National defense reform was another issue that was first discussed as far as 20 years ago, and so is the transfer of wartime operational control, which the previous administrations put forward as a campaign promise and worked toward. The Administration finally put to rest the selection of a nuclear waste disposal site, an issue that a number of administrations in the past grappled with during the past 19 years, stirring up great turmoil, but to no avail. But this has also been resolved.
The restructuring of the labor supply at ports is a long-standing issue that has festered for more than 100 years in Korea and one for which many countries around the world underwent a great deal of travail during their reform process. This has also been settled under the Participatory Government. I am still trying to flush out and finally round out hidden issues that have not been scrutinized, including the deficit incurred by Korea Railroad Corporation and the financial structure of the aerospace sector. I have not passed the buck to anyone.
The Civilian Administration of Kim Young Sam took a first crack at judicial reform, but the Participatory Government responded to the challenge and submitted the final package to the National Assembly after three years of deliberation. After years of hard work by the members of the Presidential Committee on Judicial Reform, representatives of relevant interest groups reached a consensus. I was not personally involved in this initiative, but the Presidential Committee on Judicial Reform deserves a great deal of credit for resolving this very difficult issue. Speedy enactment of judicial reform into law is essential to establishing advanced legal education and services with a better competitive edge. Brandishing the private school law as an excuse to block judicial reform is simply a non sequitur. Why should the judicial reform bill have to be held hostage to the demand to undo the revised private school law and revert it to its original state? I have tried to find an answer, yet I can't. This is obstructionism and certainly not the way things should be done.
Instead of talking about the things in the future, we first need to try to solve problems at hand. I say this because it is important.
National pension reform has to be dealt with swiftly. For some reason, the issue is not moving at all. I hope it will be taken care of at an early date. Many prospective government leaders keep saying what they plan to do after they are elected. But wouldn't it be better for them to first do what they can now and say what they actually achieved at a later time?
The decision on which method to adopt for digital broadcasting was delayed because of disputes; nonetheless, it has been resolved belatedly. I am afraid that convergence of broadcasting and communications is dragging behind too long. The issue should also be settled at the earliest date for the development of the broadcasting industry. If the new law is being delayed because of the provision concerning the President's right to appoint members of the new broadcasting and communication commission, the National Assembly should be able to make it take effect after the next Administration is inaugurated. I do not insist on appointing the members. But the issue involves the state's intrinsic administrative operation; therefore the appointments have to be made by the Government headed by the President. Besides, the appointment of the commission members may be made after forming a consensus among several Government organizations. These matters should not be swayed by any organization whose accountability and legitimacy are not readily clear.
If the National Assembly thinks differently, it should come up with its own alternative legislation expeditiously, so that the broadcasting and communication convergence industry will be able to spread its wings and make Korea's presence felt in the competitive international market. Whatever form the new system takes, the National Assembly must finalize it. I also hope that the broadcasting industry would refrain from pressing its own arguments too much and asking for a special position. Let's solve this issue together.
There are other difficult problems like the Korea-U.S. FTA negotiations and integration of the billing functions of the four major national insurance agencies. These are so controversial that it takes courage even to introduce them for discussion. But if we keep procrastinating, who will take care of them? We have to tackle them now. Some people say that they should be entrusted to the next Administration. But I do not agree with that. We can do a lot of things in the next one year. We can put many items on the agenda, systemize them and carry them out. If you feel that I am certain to ruin something, don't let me do it. But if you think that I may be able to do something as well as anyone else, let us do it together because time is flying.
I proposed the need to revise the Constitution in this context. We have to do what we have to do. There is no special political motive.
Thank you. If you have questions on other issues, I will answer as best as I can.
Question and Answer Session
QUESTION (Cho Jae-ik from KBS): Mr. President, in the written text you could not cover during the New Year Address to the Nation because of the time limit, there was a line saying that the door to an inter-Korean summit is always left open. Of course, you put a condition that the summit is not likely to be held before reaching any conclusion at the Six-Party Talks. Recently, however, there seems to be some signs of progress in negotiations between North Korea and the United States over the issue of the North's frozen accounts with the Banco Delta Asia. The Six-Party Talks is also expected to produce some outcome.
Under these circumstances, your mention that the door is always left open appears to carry some implications. Would you please unveil any preparation now underway, if any, for an inter-Korean summit? The opposition party is now dead set against the idea of holding a summit before the presidential election. The current situation notwithstanding, are you intending to push forward with a summit within your tenure or before the presidential election once certain conditions are met?
ANSWER: The line "the door is left open" in the address was my position on principle. It is no different than my past stance. I think that a South-North summit could hardly be held at this juncture. Some matters can be juggled at the same time, but some need to wait until others are finished. Democracy, the market economy and social welfare should go along together simultaneously. But the Six-Party Talks and inter-Korean summit need to come consecutively. The Six-Party Talks is the bigger framework. A summit between the South and the North will only end up forging an atmosphere detrimental to the North if the nuclear issue is still stalled. It is no better for the South in the same situation. I am convinced that these two issues should be dealt with one by one, so I have not worked on an inter-Korean summit so far.
Many, including those from the ruling party, called for an inter-Korean summit, but like I said, there is no strategic consideration when they are talking about it. The key issue here is the North Korean nuclear issue, the discussion of which pivots around the U.S.-DPRK axle. Only when a solution to this issue is found, will the pursuit of an inter-Korean summit commence at full speed.
What the Republic needs to do at this point is to keep moving at the current level of effort to foster an amicable environment for both the United States and North Korea to come to the negotiating table. The Government should give incentives when the centrifugal force gains momentum, pulling each side closer, and at times clearly voice-how should I put it-an opinion that may not be music to their ears. I believe that this is what the Administration should do at this point to keep the Six-Party Talks afloat.
All of sudden, however, the opposition party says, "Don't do it, not that way." A while ago, the ruling party pressed the Government over and over to hold an inter-Korean summit. Don't you agree that the objections voiced by the opposition party have been born out of a political maneuver as much as the ruling party's demand to push for the summit? They are plucking a non-existent issue out of thin air and trying to make it sound as if I am doing something that I shouldn't be doing-like stealing. How would your peaceful next-door neighbors feel if you kept saying to them, "Don't stop by my house, please don't." That certainly would not make them feel good. The attacks that have been launched on this issue are meant to be a political maneuver and mudslinging; this is not the best way to voice an opinion.
We still have more than one year until the next President is inaugurated. Regardless of the forthcoming election, isn't the President supposed to do what he is mandated to do? I am talking about performing presidential duties at least until just before the short official election campaign starts. Critics should not act like that. I would like to hear them say, "Do your presidential duties until the end of your term. Do all the work you are required to do. When you hold an inter-Korean summit, you should not yield in such and such matters. You should not make concessions that go against basic principles." But what they are saying is, "Don't hold the summit." Does our Constitution have any provision that limits the authority of a President whose term is expiring in one year? Can the opposition party say that? Can a party with a high popular support rating do that? I myself once enjoyed a popular rating of 60 percent. Even though a candidate has a high level of popular support, he/she shouldn't do that.
I would rather not hear people speak about a future inter-Korean summit, which is non-existent as far as I am concerned. I rather want the press not to mention the summit as long as there are no concrete activities for one. It is only proper not to mention it. When there are concrete activities, you can start writing about it. When we decide on a summit, we will announce it. But I have no intention of holding one for now. As a matter of principle, I could say that I may hold a summit when conditions are met. But when I say this, some of you may be tempted to take my remark out of context and say in your media "Roh may hold a summit." So I am not even going to say that today. All I can say now is that I don't know anything about it. I am not planning one now. In this environment, it is difficult. That's my final answer to your question.
QUESTION (Park Hong-gi from the Seoul Daily): I have a question for you Mr. President, regarding the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS FTA). The aim for the negotiations on the KORUS FTA is to reach a conclusion by the end of March but major controversial issues for the deal are still tangled. The stance of the U.S. side is rigid as well. Would you please clarify your position whether you put more weight on striking a deal through making concessions or intend to reconsider the negotiation process itself if the United States does not accept Korea's demands? Thank you.
ANSWER: Your question touches on what Korea's strategic principle for sealing the KORUS FTA is all about. In a nutshell, that is our strategy. If it is revealed, we will lose bargaining power. We will do our best anyway. But that does not necessarily mean we will ram through the deal recklessly. It is a fundamental principle. When engaging in negotiations for the FTA, we should exert the best efforts. It may be an insincere attitude if negotiators are sitting at the table with the intention of aborting the deal. We will negotiate with our counterpart to the best of our abilities to conclude the agreement. But, we will not concede our interests unilaterally. The principle is that we will not let the negotiations be tilted lopsidedly serving the interests of our counterpart. We will meticulously calculate and weigh gains and losses.
One thing I can assure you is that the Government, which to be honest with you does not seem to be trusted that much by the people in this matter, will regardless be a fairer judge than anyone else when it comes to this issue. The Government cannot take the side of farmers nor profit-seeking businesses. People with a biased point of view are bound to advocate one side over the other, but the Government stands in the middle. Even though not technically perfect, the Government may be the one that is versed in this matter the most. I hope you can show a little more trust in the Government. It will be appreciated. This is the essence of the mandate of politics in democracy.
Once a CEO is selected by a company to run it, the executive is delegated all responsibilities for management issues, including decisions about in which category and projects the company's investments should be made. The CEO can be replaced after evaluating his performance in, say, three years. If shareholders meddle with every single decision and say, "I think you are wrong, so let me have a look at some data," do you think that the company can effectively run its operation? A somewhat similar rule applies in the government as well. Freedom of information is important, but the society would be better off if the citizens' right to know is not insisted on to the extent that it leads to the disclosure of the government's strategy of this nature. The right to freedom of information is not limitless and needs to be exercised with prudence.
QUESTION (Jonathan Thatcher from Reuters): Good morning. Mr. President, do you have any concern with respect to the possibility of an additional nuclear test by North Korea? If the DPRK does go ahead with a nuclear test, how will you respond?
ANSWER: I am the President. Everything I say word by word does not have to carry so much weight, but talking about such an issue as whether North Korea will conduct a nuclear test is an entirely different matter. This is where I just can't make comments on a whim. I will summarize what I think as follows; not only do I not know precisely whether there is a possibility of an additional nuclear test, I also don't think it is proper to voice my opinion outright. I think that the most difficult aspect of diplomatic and security affairs is none other than the coverage by the foreign press. The U.S. media, for instance, express many different ideas on how the United States views the DPRK issue. So, to them it doesn't matter whether their coverage projects a unseemly image of North Korea to the rest of the world, or whether tension is escalating on the Korean Peninsula, since none of this presents any immediate threat to the folks working for those people. The same can be said for Japan too. Korea is an entirely different story because the country's economy is closely correlated with its geopolitical position, so much so that once tension starts bubbling up, it immediately rocks the national economy.
For this reason, whenever I hear or read press reports on situations involving North Korea such as its nuclear test, I feel pain. It's agonizing. In this environment, if I say, "There is a possibility of another test," I will only be aggravating the situation. Meanwhile, if I say, "There is no possibility," some people will say, "What makes you think so?" If my answers turn out to be wrong, problems will go from bad to worse. You may also ask me how will the country respond to the test or why won't the country respond. Again, I would rather not answer these questions. I can only say that the country is prepared. In this case, too, I cannot explain in detail because the preparations will take a different form according to the kind of test. Even though we make preparations, our response will vary depending on the complex situation at the time of the test. So if I say something now, it will not necessarily be the measures that will be required at that particular time in the future. In the same context, even though some measures are going to be taken exactly at that time, the Government cannot reveal them now. Some foreign press organizations have made groundless reports about things involving the North. I hope the Korean press makes reports differently than they do.
QUESTION (Takata Hirotsugu from NHK of Japan): There still remain problems between Korea and Japan, including those concerning the Japanese government leaders paying tribute at Yasukuni Shrine and the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Korea also seems to have differences with the Abe Administration, which advocates giving the highest priority to resolving the North's abduction of Japanese citizens in the past. Meanwhile, you have said that you would visit Japan at an appropriate time. When would that appropriate time to visit Japan be, and if you go to Japan, would you discuss these subjects I have mentioned? What approaches are you going to take vis-à-vis Tokyo during the remainder of your term?
ANSWER: I believe all Koreans well understand the sentiment of the Japanese people regarding the abduction issue. In general, Koreans would also agree with the Japanese Government's claim over the issue. But, I think few of the parties at the Six-Party Talks want to give the highest priority to the issue or even propose it as an issue that has equal weight with the nuclear problem, which constitutes the framework of the multilateral confab in the first place. The Korean Government thinks that the North Korean nuclear issue has priority more than anything in the Six-Party Talks. The proposition put forth by the Japanese Government is not always the highest priority of the Korean Government. That's the difference. To the Korean Government, the Japanese proposal can be very important, and, and the same time, it can be less important than others depending on the situation.
Regarding my visit to Japan, I don't want to schedule the time on a conditional basis. I do not want to tell the Japanese Government to do this and that before I decide to go to Tokyo. As far as Korea-Japan relations are concerned in recent years, I declined to have a meeting or dialogue with former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi because he continued to visit the Yasukuni Shrine, which represents an outright violation of the basic principle of bilateral ties because of the implications Yasukuni portrays. But, I understand that, his successor, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, has not made a shrine visit so far. I don't think it is diplomatically appropriate to tell him that a certain thing is a precondition to a certain other thing. But I surely would like to see him restrain himself.
Not only I personally, but also the Korean people should certainly feel the same way. They would not accommodate their President doing business as usual with the Japanese leaders when the situation is aggravated. I hope that the Japanese public as well as their leaders give serious thought to the issue. It is a weighty issue, indeed.
In the interest of bilateral ties, the two countries may be able to delay discussions of difficult issues to a later time, and I hope the Japanese Government will show good faith in solving less difficult problems first. In this way, we should be able to solve the history issues. We should be able to solve the problem involving Yasukuni Shrine. My question is, "Why does Japan alone want to be treated differently? Why does Japan alone act differently?" That has to change. Japan should try to behave based on universal principles as well.
The two countries should try to do something proactively to promote a cooperative atmosphere. Small things can add up. Even though I was rebuked by many Korean people for saying we may well call the East Sea/Sea of Japan the "Sea of Peace," I did not propose it casually. I mentioned it at a recent Korea-Japan summit as I didn't think it was something that could be proposed formally through diplomatic channels. It was an informal suggestion that I came up with after mulling it over for a long time. It was not a spur-of-the-moment thing.
Don't you think the proposed name sounds fair enough? The body of water in question is called as the East Sea by the Koreans and the Sea of Japan by the Japanese. Hasn't the usage of the latter become more prevalent worldwide since the beginning of the Japanese colonial period on the Korean Peninsula? If both Korea and Japan compromise by budging an inch and decide to call the waters as the "Sea of Peace" or the "Sea of Reconciliation," all conscientious people would give it a nod.
The heads of state can have heart to heart talks concerning such issues and make such suggestions at a summit. That's why leaders hold summits. That is what summits are all about. I hope the people on the both sides will give serious thought to the issue. Whether they are willing to accept the idea or not, I want them to sincerely mull over this issue.
Any issue between two countries is likely to run into a snag if both sides face off against each other with your-yard-is-yours-and-my-yard-is-mine attitude. The gist of the discussion is that the issue needs to be viewed from a broader perspective and hopefully will lead to a national dialogue among the Japanese leadership and the country's public. What I would like to remind those who express objection here in Korea is that searching for daylight to show the way somehow is the name of the game in politics and diplomacy. I also hope everyone understands that this type of suggestion cannot be made in any other venue than a summit.
Thank you.
웹사이트: http://www.president.go.kr
올인원 PR 플랫폼
기자 검색부터 배포·모니터링까지 한 곳에서 끝내세요
-
2008년 8월 6일 17:22
관련 분야
