SEOUL — President Roh Moo-Hyun's newly appointed spin-doctor has come out fighting against foes of her government's policies, charging them with being overly influenced by "U.S. neocons."
Cho Ki-Suk, senior secretary for public relations and a former political science professor at Ewha University, is responsible for smoothing over relations with the foreign and domestic media. She has a reputation of a feisty talker who has no qualms about frankly expressing her views. And she is living up to her reputation.
First, she blamed U.S. non-governmental organizations and the conservative Korean scholars they invite to conferences for the rift between Washington and Seoul on North Korea and other critical issues. She also backed Roh's outspoken words against Japan.
Cho avoided names and details — either of the Korean scholars or the American NGOs she had in mind — but held the opposition Grand National Party in large measure responsible for misunderstandings.
Cho repeatedly used the term "participatory government," adopted by Roh to indicate participation by a wide range of citizens groups, as she expanded on the theme before journalists, diplomats and government officials at the Seoul Foreign Correspondents' Club.
"Moreover," she said, "lawmakers of the Grand National Party who are familiar with international relations made the rounds of U.S. politicians, criticizing the participatory government and making statements not necessarily reflecting the government policy." So doing, she said, "they only say what the U.S. neocons want to hear."
Cho, who speaks good English, talked in Korean from an English-language text.
"While in the United States, I was surprised to see that both the U.S. government officials and private groups had little understanding of the participatory government," said Cho. She acknowledged, "The public information policy of the participatory government might have something to do with that," but quickly added: "There is a limit to any public information activities of the government."
"For better or worse," she went on, referring to the impression made on influential Americans by her government, "few believe what is offered by the government."
Indeed, "American NGOs or research institutes routinely invite Korean scholars who speak fluent English but, as I began to find out, were generally conservative and invariably critical of the participatory government."
That, said Cho, "is why incorrect and distorted press reports are abundant in the United States."
The scholars that bring their news and views on Korea to America "are not even experts in domestic politics as their expertise lie elsewhere and invitations are offered mainly on the basis of their linguistic capabilities."
Moreover, she added, in a direct slap at the hereditary influence that accounts for the power and prestige of some Koreans in high places, "they have to network through their parents."
Cho maintained that such misstatements did not "reflect the inadequacy, if any, of the participatory government's policy toward the United States," but rather the failure of the nation "to carry out bipartisan diplomacy."
In response to a question, Cho addressed the issue of differences over North Korean policy between hardliners in Washington and her government, which favors reconciliation.
"Pro-North Korea has been interpreted as anti-American," she said, but "there is one part about North Korea that the United States does not understand sufficiently."
Cho compared South Korean attitudes with those in the United States after the Civil War when "North and South tried very hard to be one nation again." It is in that spirit, she said, that South Korea seeks reconciliation with the North.
"We are both pro-American and have a deep affection for the North Koreans, who are our compatriots."
Cho was equally firm in her defense of Roh's blunt criticism of Japan, first in his speech on the March 1 anniversary of the 1919 revolt against Japan and later in a statement from the Blue House declaring a "diplomatic war" against Japan.
She emphatically denied the claim of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi that Roh had spoken out "to raise his popularity domestically." Rather, she said, his remarks were "a warning to Japan to reflect on its past," — a rhetorical statement because he had given up on Japan as it had failed to reflect on its past repeatedly in history.
Roh, she said, was "offering a window of pardon to Japan after painful deliberation on the issue because he wanted to build a viable future instead of adhering to the past."
Nor, she went on, did Roh's comment indicate "inconsistency on the part of the Korean government," which has sought to improve relations with Japan in recent years.
"The Korean government was forced to say that by events in Japan," she said, referring specifically to Japanese claims of sovereignty over Dokdo, the islets known in Japan as Takeshima.
"Japan is accountable for that. The Korean people feel that remarks by high-ranking Japanese government officials on Dokdo Island and distortions found in Japanese history books cannot be justified for any reason."
Cho said the Korean government had "refrained from challenging Japan head-on about its improper comments and behavior in an effort to maintain neighborly and friendly relations" but "now recognizes that the shameless acts by some Japanese have reached an intolerable level in view of the Korean government's principle of pursuing peace in Northeast Asia."
The new position of the government, she said, is that "history has to be scrutinized under a bright light, indeed, in the interests of promoting cooperation in the future."
