tv U.S.- South Korea Relations Part 3 CSPAN September 8, 2017 1:01am-1:29am EDT
>> ok, great. we will get started now with our keynote speaker for the luncheon. minister cho is the second ice minister for foreign affairs for the republic of korea. before stemming this position he served as the south korean ambassador to india and austria to --. permanent mission he is worked on a variety of issues during his distinguished career including trade, nuclear security, energy, and climate change policy. he was recently a visiting
professor at a university of foreign studies. please give a welcome round of applause to minister cho. we will have him come to the podium now and give his remarks. thank you. >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. i am delighted to be here today to attend this forum. hosted by career foundations and the csi s. talk aboutld like to the three challenges we have koreaacing recently -- has been facing recently and how has beenhe u.s.-korea in facing those challenges. my remarks today, however, are not expressions of the official position of the korean government. as in fact i do not deal with the issues i am going to talk
about today. i would rather therefore present my own personal observations on me korean government policy on these challenges. ago, i was here in anhington, d.c., working as officer of the korean embassy. at the time, korea was on the and to make things worse, we were about to hold a presidential election in december. it was indeed a very tense and precarious time. i did not know what would happen tomorrow.ton for as you are well aware, however,
we were able to overcome quite successfully with the imf bailout program. furthermore, we elected thisdent kim jong-un in difficult time, assuring in a democracy afterwards. that all of this was possible with the support of the united states. to that aify today few form-hearted officials in koreas. government helped ,o navigate unchartered troubled waters at the time. 20 years later, today, your ally korea is again in trouble. we need your help again.
to the threeve on challenges we are facing now. had from challenge we 10 months ago when inn-president was embroiled influence-pedaling and corruption scandal, hundreds of thousands of koreans took to the aneets and demanded immediate resignation of the president. asas then in india ambassador. i was holding my breath because of this very volatile situation and create. however, the demonstration into the candlelight vigil turned out even very peaceful and clean. demonstrators swept the streets
after their demonstrations. more importantly, the procedures with our legislative branch and the decision of our constitutional court turned out in a very legal and orderly manner. the election was held it may and we had a fresh, new start. i am proud to say this was the victory and triumph of the rule our ally,ch came from the united states. this of course would not be the end of the story. the remaining part of this how the newll be government will accommodate various endeavors and voices of the people on the street.
without fully taking them to populist parties. the second challenge lies in the socioeconomic area. before i went to india, i had teaching university international relations and getting along with young students. i was surprised to know how frustrated they are. theirworried about resentment. were sneering at themselves spoone born with a dirty in their mouth. korea.in hell's
with people are struggling many difficulties. normal procedure for my generation now seemed to be a difficult task to achieve. the window of opportunity for them are becoming narrower and the social stratification is getting more distinct and rigid. opportunitiesjob and growing inequities. this is being addressed through income driven growth. conglomerate-dependent structure. government policies, however, will be in accordance with the principles of market economy. role-basedalso be a
approach such as application of antitrust law. in other words, will overcome ofs problem with application a stronger market economic principle which again we share with the united states. the third challenge, the most daunting one, while i was in the air on the way to washington, d.c., the day before yesterday they claimed to have tested a hydrogen bomb. north korea is continuing its reckless provocation with ballistic missiles. they have tested many this year alone. one of which flew over japan.
income of guam is under threat. north korea's rapidly becoming a threat to hard to bear. survival tactic or is this lunatic simply trying to change the status quo? is he a consumer of his own propaganda? does he believe in what he says and rhetoric? whether he does all of these and grandiose plans of the peninsula under his , there are two things we cannot upset.
north we should not upset korea as a nuclear weapon state. 50 million south koreans will ourselves being cowed by their nuclear threat. the u.s. will not accept this either. north korea will challenge and bring about a -- well, change, to the international nonproliferation regime himuding the ante at system. we cannot accept in any case a war on the peninsula. given the calamity a war would bring about, we cannot accept a war as an option. this is not because we are weak or we are cowards, but indeed because we have only two vivid
memories of the korean war. acceptstand the need to that all options are on the table, emphasizing it is needed or ok. but we should be careful that this does not translate into escalation of war or false miscalculation of north korea. to dealw are we going with north korea under these two things not to do? first, we will continue sanctions and pressure which will eventually lead north korea to dialogue. the only solution for north geta, encouraging china to on board in this campaign will be crucial.
second, we will enhance our deterrence efforts. defenseupgrade our capabilities, including air and defense missile systems. context, our two presidents also agreed to revise .he current missile guidelines with regard to the president, he made a decision for the temporary deployment of four faceional launchers in the of north korea's provocations. nutshell, cooperation isween our two governments crucial. indeed, our two countries have been closely coordinating a
joint approach to tackle the everykorean issue and possible occasion. the recent summit in june and the meeting and july and numerous telephone calls, including the one yesterday between our two presidents demonstrate how closely we have been working to adapt on this issue. ladies and gentlemen, i still would like to make additional successful for a resolution of the issue. master with the question? what went wrong? obviously, north korea's holy to blame for this situation. the responsibility rests with kim jong-un and his father. however, if we look back on the
past years we might be able to strategic --and two intrinsic constraints from our side. first, we are a democracy. as a democratic country we have elections and change our government and accordingly change our policy which north korea has been taking advantage of while speaking to their aim of nuclear ambition. , the unitedu.s. states is a global power seems at times to have been distracted by some other priority issues. this may have left several for north korea to pursue this nuclear ambition. fair,s assessment is
well, if we agreed that we have had problems of first continuity and concentration, i would like to suggest that at this 11th hour we redouble our concerted denuclearization of north korea. we need more focused effort and a longer time. well-tuned bygy our two countries. finally, with your indulgence i would like to talk about war and dialogue. i am often asked by many are so,rs why koreans in sanguine about their future, aloof, when a bomb exploded in
the north. tested in the north. my answer is that maybe we have been in yard to that kind of are immunemaybe we to that kind of threat. they think maybe we do not understand. a think, they do not say it, but they seem to be thinking that we notsomewhat unrealistic if daredevil. the, if we talk about possibility of war, some people appeasers. we are cowed by them. we should be even more brave. so, we have to be balanced. at least we should be thinking andt an escalation
miscalculations and we should be wary of it. that does not mean we are weak or cowards. -- leadses me to between other issue that we try to talk about the need for having dialogues with north korea and we are criticized for being in pertinent. -- it may sound like that under the circumstances, but we need this. toause actually, we need understand it because actually there are two parts of dialogues. one dialogue for denuclearization which should be resumed under the right
conditions, including cessation of north korea's provocations and threats. is aboutialogue humanitarian issues and reducing military tension in the dmz at the later stage. such dialogues should not upset our efforts for sanctions and pressure on north korea and should not be subject to mistake. instead they will help us ease tensions at the korean and itula and many hope that will eventually create an toironment amenable dialogue. the first dialogue for denuclearization. it may sound unrealistic today but we cannot abandon it.
ladies and gentlemen, i am well aware of your affection for korea as well as sure enthusiasm for and dedication to the ties of our alliance. i count on your support. thank you. applause] >> thank you vice minister for your remarks. we will now take a couple questions. the vice minister has graciously agreed to answer. if you could please give your name and state your affiliation before you give your question, we'll take some from the floor right now. we have a question in the back there. >> hello. thank you for being here. my name is isabel hoagland with inside you astray. ism curious as to how the --
dealing with these threats to its job. what is the view over there with regard to these threats. you for raising the question. some years ago, i was chief legal -- for the renewal of the agreement. i negotiated with bob einhorn. that thise, i argued this wouldeement on be the third pillar after the alliance and the --. so it is very important. people worry about it, but as i know, our negotiator kim jong-un happens to have many friends in the beltway. you will sort it out.
thank you. [laughter] >> we have a question here on the side. >> thank you very much for your speech. you mentioned there are two things you cannot accept. one was a nuclear north korea and one was a war on the korean peninsula. mindful of the other actions involved, china or kj you, if you were forced, which one would you prefer to have? laughter] >> we will take one more, there was a question the front and we will take it as well. microphone over here, please. >> florence from global american
business institute. this is a follow-up on the first question about the 123 agreement. you had a passion and you were negotiator for 123 agreement but right now the current administration policy is nuclear programming in korea. how do you feel or is there any sort of viewpoints from your negotiator on your perspective? >> well, the phasing out of nuclear reactors in korea is not imminent. was a long time ago in the country, maybe 50 years. i do not know. by the time we will work on it, because it is leading us to abandon our technologies and
expertise that had been accumulated for decades. shared interest that building nuclear reactors around the world should not be left to countries other than korea and the united states. so we will closely work on it. regarding the question on this -- andi would prefer that i will not answer to that very hypothetical question. for onenk we have time or two more questions and we will take them together before the minister answers for the last time. thank you. we have one there in the back. and then one of her here. carlo unitas.e is i'm with the washington times. i wanted to follow-up follow up, you said the white house seem distracted at times which could
allowed an opening for north korea to press ahead with weapons programs. in your assessment of the white house response, has it been adequate enough to sort of temp down pressure on the peninsula or in your opinion can the u.s. do more and if so, what should they do? ui. >> with regard to the current white house, i do not see any problem. due attention has been given to this issue. as for previous ones, well, understandably there have been importantimminent and issues all around the world. casesre have been some where i cannot say very nice it in a way about that --, for instance.
korea's continued provocations, we cannot afford such things recently. overthink we had one more here. this will be the last question. >> mr. minister, think you presented a conundrum for us. i would like to discuss it. you have suggested we need a dialogue. on the other hand, you have also suggested you cannot have a nuclear-armed north korea. how do we enter into a dialogue without first having an understanding that there be denuclearization. it is good to see you after some 20 years. i hope i could answer your question. luckily, i do not deal with the issue full-time at least. questionswer to your
is i think it can be done andugh close corporation, making a kind of road map and then we will ask china to jump for peacework with us and prosperity of northeast asia. of course, the devil is in the unfortunately i cannot go further. >> thank you. please join me in thanking vice miniatureoe -- vice -- vice minister cho for his protection agency. later, a discussion about the strategic and economic alliance between the u.s. and south
korea. funding for the children's health insurance program, known as chip, expires at the end of this month. at the senate finance committee hearing, several advocates for the federal program urged congress to reauthorize chip. senator orrin hatch chairs this two-hour hearing. before i begin, let's call the meeting to order. before we begin to take just a moment to say that our thoughts and prayers go out to those who have been impacted over the past few days by hurricane irma. of course, we continue to keep those suffering from the