Ex-spy agency chief questions summit minutes

Rep. Jun Byung-hun, floor leader of the main opposition Democratic Party, asserts that the original copy of the minutes of an inter-Korean summit should be made public at a meeting with senior party members at the National Assembly, Friday. / Yonhap

Kim Man-bok, former NIS director

By Jun Ji-hye

A former director of the National Intelligence Service (NIS) has cast doubts over the authenticity of transcripts released by the spy agency of a summit meeting between former leaders of South and North Korea in 2007.

Kim Man-bok, former NIS director during the Roh Moo-hyun administration, said that the documents released by the NIS last month appear to have been edited.

“We produced the transcripts in October 2007 immediately after the summit between then President Roh and then North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Those transcripts were a final version and we made report regarding this to the presidential office,” Kim told reporters, Thursday.

On June 24, the NIS released the transcripts of the two late leaders’ dialogue following a decision by the present director, Nam Jae-joon, to declassify them. The front page states that the transcripts were produced in January 2008.

The NIS argues that the minutes made in 2007 and reported to Cheong Wa Dae was a tentative version, and that the transcripts were completed in January 2008.

Kim rebutted this. “The one we reported to the presidential office was a final version. How could anyone report a tentative one to Cheong Wa Dae?”

Regarding a claim by the NIS that the agency completed the transcripts in January 2008, Kim said, “Not to my knowledge.”

“I may not have a photographic memory. But what I remember is that Cheong Wa Dae asked us to make two copies of the transcripts, one to be kept in the presidential office and the other to be stored in the NIS, and we were asked to discard all the remainders,” said Kim.

The Roh government records were moved to the National Archives of Korea after Roh left office in February 2008.

If, as is argued, the NIS completed the transcripts in 2008, this indicates that two records, one in the NIS and the other in the archives, were produced at different times.

Rep. Moon Jae-in, then presidential chief of staff, made similar remarks.

Earlier he said he would not rule out a possibility that the two versions are different.

He tweeted, “The original minutes were completed within a week shortly after the two leaders’ summit finished. However, the timing of the creation of the NIS-released records was January 2008.”

Moon argued that somebody in the NIS could have produced other transcripts to deliver them to former President Lee Myung-bak’s power transition team or his administration.

The NIS denied the allegation. They said the records they released last month were the only ones that the agency has kept.

A NIS agent was quoted by Yonhap news agency as saying, “We started producing the transcripts from October 2007 after former director Kim ordered us to do so. We completed the task in January 2008.”

The agent added the one reported to then Cheong Wa Dae was an unfinished version, which was later discarded.

The National Archives of Korea plan to allow lawmakers to have access to the original records stored in the institute soon following the National Assembly’s approval of a motion to allow access to the confidential information.

The main opposition Democratic Party (DP) expects that, although the assembly has not yet decided whether to make the minutes public or not, disclosing it strengthens their argument that Roh did not negate the Northern Limit Line (NLL), de facto border in the West Sea, and that the NIS manipulated the earlier released transcripts.

Rep. Hong Ihk-pyo, DP spokesman, suggested Friday that 10 lawmakers, five from each party, should read the presidential material together.

Rep. Jun Byung-hun, DP floor leader, and Hong made it clear that his party is willing to make the originals public, saying this is the only way to settle the controversy.

Anyone who reveals the content of confidential documents can face up to three years in prison or the suspension of professional qualifications for seven years.

The opposition party is considering making public the originals in the National Assembly because any statements made there are protected by parliamentary privilege that exempts them from civil or criminal liability.