tv CSIS Forum on U.S.- South Korea Relations - Panel 1 CSPAN June 25, 2019 4:26am-5:46am EDT
decades press journalist i'm a reporter at the washington post and victor has been a valuable valuable resource. both obviously the past two years but even before that, i was bugging victor and others in the program quite often, maybe even times when i necessarily didn't want to for traffic analysis and to help me walk through what is happening in the one that i need to think, the koreans are for that and congratulate you for successful tenures. i am a reporter for the washington post and a cover the white house and i've been doing that for about seven or eight years for the obama ministration and other past two and half are president trump. it is been quite an experience shifting between the two. but one thing i focus on the entire time is agent policy. it is so important starting with president obama pivot to asia.
it is my great honor to be hosting this panel and i wanted to say we will be discussing, there's three panels, will be discussing the alliance. but let me introduce the panel and then will have a healthy discussion about where we are it's been assist and train physicians week because he is headed up back for the g20 and then for an important summit and wasabi in a quite a bit about that. i'll be on the trip along with several of my colleagues and i leave tomorrow. so very much looking forward to that. quickly we have victor, he hardly needs an introduction. he founded the korea in 2009, he served after asian affairs and the national security council in the bush ministration. from 2004 to 2007 and victor was very involved with other
negotiations with north korea that appreciated where we are today he is an author of five books, including the possible states, north korea past and future and you'll see him quite a bit on abc and msnbc as an analyst. we have right next to victor ambassador, thank you for joining. he probably needs also very little introduction, he is a senior advisor at the u.s. institute of peace. before that he served 33 years as a diplomat and for two years you will know, from 2016 to 2018 was a special envoy to north korea and he is a key player in reestablishing communication and traveling to north korea to help cure the release auto war auto.
>> next to him we have doctor, he she is a professor at the university of department of international studies, conducted extensive research on the north uk lights. previously served as a director of security and diplomacy center. an independent think tank and he spent time prior to that as a visiting fulbright scholar at george mason university, not far where i grew up in northern virginia. thank you doctor kim. we have not, another diplomat, joy, took over as the director of the cree desk at the state department. assumed after serving as a minister counselor for academic affairs at the u.s. ability and
soul. we are very happy to have her with us and before that she served in china around the world and also close my heart was a former newspaper writer and she knows all my tricks and she's on the record today. this the big crowd and being broadcast. finally we have doctor, senior research fellow at the institute in korea. they served as the president of the korean nuclear policy society, doctor lee served as a director general repulsive cleaning and the minister of foreign affairs from 201-12-2013 and is author of numerous papers and analyses including a summary of the u.s. tp or case, and annoyed. they can from our panels. we are going to jump in to a dialogue then having opening presentations. as a journalist i mentioned, we are interested in what is happening.
no better time to have this panel the presidents trip, i went to get right at it. i think there is a lot of interest now after what was a dark. inner diplomacy inner dialogue after the hanoi summit, which is that about what will happen and how to get the cost back on track. now we've seen the path of the president in the ministration which is a direct leader to leader engagement and using the exchange of love letters that president trump i called them. but first kim jong-un to a letter to the president in the news all around his birthday and then you saw a reciprocal letter being reported over the weekend with kim jong-un received from president trump, the white house has confirmed the letter was sent in the letter contained according to the fake news agency excellent content. they said the chairman is considering.
that raised a lot of intriguing possibilities and another's been a lot of discussion about what the make of the summit between them coming up. but maybe i should start with victor and will go down the line about what we think about a third summit that we see now the exchange has renewed the idea that president trump -- we don't know what was in the letter but do we see a third summit and what does that mean and what would it take for us to get that way. >> thank you for the question. david properly introduced himself. because what he is known for in the korea policy expert community, he is only journalist that we know that has asked the question to it kim jong-un and got an answer. [laughter] i joke now in my tombstone that he shouted a question he's a dictator. and then for a while to tell about it. i wrote a story about that moment i was in the press and
hanoi and i'd been in singapore for the first summit and i was on the pool, the small group of 13 reporters allowed in the photo up. that pool was in television and radio and i was very disappointed not to be in the pool for the singapore summit and i had to remain in the hotel and helpers and briefings and went to ki kim jong-un's hotel. anna waited on the streets for the shopping quarter and the hot sun to get a glimpse of the motorcade and the ready bar card. i wrote why we wait on the street corner with her kids playing with her kids on the ipad to see this ruthless dictator. that's the closest i came to see him and it was very real. as we went as a group they said
you need to try to sell something to him. in president trump engage him so much after the photo up reporters immediately shouted to president trump, and he answered and i position myself closer to kim and was keeping an eye and him to try to make eye contact and then when i heard try stop talking i shouted to kim and said to feel good about adil? and he looked at me and as he wrote the piece -- this was a universal time if you feel good you feel good. time closed down and in the moment and then i saw, if you look at the replay, trump's interpreter leans over, and trump's interpreter leans over and interprets a question or indicates it's for him and then he responds. and then the moment at the end of the piece i didn't realize that no one never ever done that or got a response. but we are quickly ushered out because they didn't want to do is have a chance. and that's when i saw on twitter
and the semi- big news. what he said, i feel hopeful but is not in it. so at the time we were assuming there would be a review that led to that. but in reality he is not there yet. they may be hopeful and i use the quote at the end of the book of kim jong-un the hopeful dealing we will see. that was the experience but i would love to see if mccauley may have another chance because the scene certainly that another summit doesn't seem likely to be close to that. the president thanks differently and were coming up on a campaign to maybe good on the line for. >> i feel like. >> i want to echo what he said in the begin. there is something in the air. after the hanoi summit there was no dialogue taking place in all the efforts that they're working on to make contact or going into a black hole and also in this
particular letter comes from trimming kim to trump which he then responded to and then, xi jinping goes to pin young and whenever you see high-level weather and then the meaning, that is like the set up for third meeting. i have no inside information on this, but those pieces are pieces that we generally see before another meeting. in addition to that, based on my experience as a staffer, it is quite unusual for president trump to be spending two nights in korea. also the g20 summit. usually when we do these, it's in aro and in japan in early in the morning there is a trip to korea and you do the troops or whatever and move on.
this is a lot of time in korea. there is no doubt that the president will go. he has never been a and the last time he went he could not go in general brooks is there at the time and there was a lot, was really bad weather and really bad fog so he cannot make the trip but every u.s. president that could say anything but korea has to visit the tmz to see the division and how armed it is. so i'm pretty certain he's going to do that and the question is, is he going to make a big statement, he do it himself, will he do it with him? this president like surprises click.it looks like there's an t to reset after hanoi. maybe not a third summit
immediately but at least a reset that will allow working level to reengage. the problem is, as long as both sides don't put or don't empower working level to make agreements we will fall into the same trap that we fill in hanoi which is the working level meetings that is left of the two leaders and they cannot make you do. i feel a great now we're headed down the road and what the president did on iran in terms of pulling back at the very last minute with regard to retaliatory military strike only reinforces the view and north korea they have to talk to the leader. and so that means that the working level are not going to be able to make an agreement that they set up a successful summit. [crowd boos] what do you think would put us on a path to a summit that makes
more sense than a rush meeting certainly this trip and what kind of timeframe would be more sensible? >> i think fundamentally it's relationship between donald trump and kim jong-un and it's a mixture of both admiration for each other but the information said is quite symmetric. kim jong-un knows everything there is to know about donald trump. he knows exactly how the u.s. government operates, his key staffers, donald trump does not know anything about what is going on, there is a mismatch. so i think in my experience, north korea is nothing like you
remember back in government. november of 2016 i was talking with north korea and china set up a meeting for my then boss to go to china and they said we really don't want him we think is on fire. [laughter] and of course they were completely right he did get fired a few months later. in the underlying rationale is of course we all know historically true that north korea has been wanting something another difference is the u.s. side of donald trump want something. i have no doubt that will be a third summit, probably sooner rather than later. and what will make it a success
has to be worked on at a working level so there are no surprises. i am optimistic if you look at what's on the table in hanoi there was quite a bit on the table. from north korea inside, giving up -- they agreed essentially to open the offices and so, a key issue like definition of denuclearization, how much denuclearization, how much sanctions were left out but i do think intervention next level of video relatively quickly and in that sense is in both her interest to have a summit to a place where is sustainable at least for a while in donald trump's main goal is to win the
2020 november election and to get through that. fortunately for kim jong-un he doesn't phase in the elections. so i think you're looking at the short-term, a medium compare. >> can you give us a sense of how the blue house, south korean government has been trying to work with both sides. to try to reengage in. we know there's been very little communication after hanoi between washington of pyongyang and what is the view all about moving forward with the leader to leader dialogue and how important it is. >> the south korean government has no choice but to take part. [laughter] after four months of animosity
it seems like they recruit themselves minority too, in this discussion -- this is not return to giveaway this is the turn that you will protect or south korea has tried to persuade america. >> thank you. >> to me there is a second half. if they decided to, to negotiate table -- >> don't want to repeat what they had. >> and regarding the love letters excellent letter, this is what i heard from another
source, during the eight months and six month of double cluster, there were five unknown -- this is a special communication method. but i don't think there is a game changing proposal. even though they think it's interesting, they tried to maintain this on the table. now in these kind of letters and some kind of deal. >> i want to skip briefly but only because you can understand he's in a sensitive position. and limitations on what you can say about north korea. we will get right back to her about the alliance. what do we think about these letters? usually think, there
traditionally in the pomona quarters and flowery language. we know president trump read one letter last summer that he read from kim jong-un was very flowery. it didn't say holland, we doubt there's a lot of details and information necessarily. but i want to see if doctor lee has thoughts about what we think about the could be encompassed with these letters between the leaders in the president trump brings reporters into the oval office and have staff rings around him and brings about which was on the time magazine interview last week. which i think the reported attempted to take a voter, i don't know if you saw that in the transcript. the president got so upset he said i don't if you can read it but you could take a picture of her. and at one point he was put in prison if he did and violated the rule.
so the letter was very important to the president and he seems to want them to get out but not violate kim jong-un confidence i guess. but if you could toast a little bit more about what do you think is trying to be accomplished other than just praise. >> i would say, this is a good spot because both sides will continue the mortal bottle. and this is one thing, at the same time, since the hanoi summit many people are concerned whether this might be public class. nice to have some momentum. so i think that is really good spot. perhaps the visible -- that
perhaps may have a better deal. [inaudible] eventually what step must retake. and whether or not the denuclearization. >> i want to come back in a minute of what we can incur about some of the changes that have been reported about north korea and president trump contradicting john bolton at times on north korea and what that tells us about where this might be headed. first, since were on the presence of the strip, i noticed tricky to talk or not talk about direct dealings with north korea.
can you set the stage a little bit about the strip in terms of the relationship between president trump. i think we've seen a lot of work by prime minister abe for the whole two half years in the state visit in on the host of the big g20 summit, he is in the spotlight and has continued his diplomacy with president trump to flatter him and work his relationship and try to say he's his best in asia. and certainly has a different view of a how they should proceed the dialogue and north korea. i'm wondering if you can give us a sense of what the trip details for president moon and president trump's relationship and get a little bit beyond talking about north korea and other things are going to talk about and maybe a little bit of why you'll be spending for the money and on the agenda. >> it's only one night. there is no question that the
priority is a negotiated denuclearization of north korea. there is no question that this is the most important issue of the united states. and this will be the number one topic will president has a meeting. what we should also remember is what they will do and what they will commit to his enduring, strong bilateral relationship alliance. the alliance is more than just a pure key issue, it's about showing the world that these two countries, two government can do extremely things, whatever they want. and north korea is an example in the fact that we're working together to engage with korea and beyond that we've also shown we can work on economic issues
together, we negotiated changes with trade agreements that were difficult but we managed to come up with an amendment that are beneficial to both countries. and we made a deep commitment to work together in the pacific region. and under president trump the specifics strategy. between the two efforts and based on the fact of a goblet assistance talking to asia based on monument a free and open region based on the notion that they want to allow countries and enable countries to preserve their sovereignty to develop in ways that they want to and not because they are being forced into doing so. i guess what i'm trying to
emphasize, that this relationship is about the tpr k but please don't forget that this relationship is much more and we should make a commitment to improve that alliance in so many ways across the board and they also mentioned that we cooperate on health, sainted technology and energy. so i fully accept this commitment for alliance for these kinds -- will be party much of the constitution. >> i don't think resident moon please call. the president is the president. he plays a lot of interpersonal relationships whether it's with her alleys or other leaders and
even xi jinping. and on a trip like this is fairly quick. there is not a lot of time and i don't know if there's any relationship building yonder bilateral meeting even the one on one that you build into something like this even if you fully cannot tell us what it is. do they have effort to do that with president moon? >> the trip is not fully set in terms. [laughter] and toy tutors way and no. but believe me they are not fully settled on the schedule for this trip. there'll be other activities, hopefully something related to economics and helping related to the alliance of the speech. again i think that is to deal
with president trump in virtually every minute of the trip. >> i want to get into the little bit, but since doctor lee talked about the limits of leader to leader negotiating and i think we've seen the limits over the time. i'm wondering i said, plenty of reports of what happened with the uncertain space of kim jong-un's negotiating and some of been overblown in some wind event authentic and he may have wanted to start, i'm wondering even though we don't know exactly what those things are or what the ultimate result, i think there's been a sense the reporting is accurate that is me changes. >> people say there's only one decision-maker in north korea. in its kim jong-un. fifty deal with the leader. if you changed his team what that would mean for potential changes to the position or as some of her analysts have said, whether the u.s. attorney make a
significant contention or what looks like a movement and what that could be and maybe we can start with victor and get online. [crowd boos] i think that clearly has been a change and they were the key people for the chairman and the run-up to hanoi and clearly it was the first time that anybody in his life ever said no to chairman kim jong-un in this progress had to read on the train for 60 hours with kim jong-un back. they were probably in the last car in the bathroom for the entire trip. it couldn't of been an easy trainer back. in the second command, i knew him because he was on the six party allegation. he was one of the junior members of the six party delegate. the papers are saying alisa
chipping back to the foreign ministry and sort of a key. i think that's a good thing, it will certainly lead to much more fluid conversation between pompeo and begin in their counterparts and as many of you know he was ambassador in london and he gave the best transition in english of why north korea needs it. he was almost persuasive. he probably has the most experience of working with us on this because he has been involved in the negotiations in involved in the party negotiations. if there's anybody who understands somewhat technical details and at some point we have to get to the technical details.
she is probably the best equipped but even in her case she is not fully equipped and that sort of conversation. north korea has not yet brought to the table their boe counterparts. they're not brought the sorts of people back to the table. i think overall the change is public for the better. what was the second part of your question? >> how is it better that from what i understood, usa would say something even though they were in hanoi with a short time and everything would have to be sent back to p ongoing intervention anpyongyang.it can sound a litte fluid in terms of negotiation.
i think it'll be much easier to have side conversations because again both of them are fluent in english and i think it'll give our negotiation of butterfield of the situation. and i think that's important. they are not diplomats. they have not spent a lot of time outside of the country. >> in the ultimate position of both sides of annoy that led to the settlement, i was reported there and waiting in the lunchroom to see them laid out and all the sudden it was a 30 minute away and was on the rocks and it was quickly over and we got the spray snooze. if doctor lee was saying that he so upset and angry about why the
ended and does not want a repeat of this. what is the step that the u.s. could start a restore an open question. i wonder if you have thoughts about where the u.s. might move and offer them enough to get back. >> i think it's a good point. really north korea assistance is for sanctions and so the question has to be will the u.s. offer sanctions and what is it that north korea can offer. hanoi, what's on the table and plus with the u.s. in some kind of sanctions on denuclearization pre- >> this is only a question about, do you think inter-
agencies in washington are bad. it's not wise. you can go in a nice place like csis. [laughter] there you will end up at an education care. and that is not very pleasant. i do believe, and i agree with victor that the whole negotiation team was discredited in like different compartment team was discredited and now moving back with essential with handling msa, that is bad news and good news and they know the history, they know what u.s. will and will not do in the negotiations, i believe are going to be civil but has to.
we don't know how far they can go without angry the leader. to me it's very interesting that there is an north korea and open debate in media. on whether north korea should be negotiating this or rely on more traditional to me this indicates that there is not a complete control that you would expect from the leader but it is critically important for them and for kim jong-un right now that he stay straight. and whether the u.s. can do anything to say that i don't
know at this point and that is why they need to have a working group in meetings to probe each other to at least get a package. >> i'm wondering if you can address a little bit, we saw president moon in hanoi said the u.s. was moving toward some sort of interim step, step by step process and we saw that at this speech in the u.s. was entertaining the idea of middleground, and reports of smaller steps on sanctions, and they will allow the south to engage in north on joint projects, i'm wondering if you can give us a sense from soul about they hope to convince to move in that direction and offer something in the form of sanctions and is not built a valuable plan and how might he try to make the case cook.
so many things are on the menu so probably better if we have better. but i have a different opinion because it's more like a fight. we go to a small and then north korea is winning in u.s. is losing the maker to the big deal and tha that means north korea s losing. i think this is the topic of moving up. i want to pay attention to and after hanoi three arguments especially washington among
others are getting nowhere. number one, sanctions are moving. this is to not to stop. second, we finally find out the denuclearization, it means he has no intention to do nuclear pre-third, limitation of topline approach and we had to go back to negotiations and they are well aware of this, number one per section issue, instead in april speech by kim jong-un say we are ready to survive. regarding to, try to appeal toward russia and china in international organizations.
number three is the most import part. that is why we try to confirm how authority still usable. because he believes some people, people who support this negotiation bill actually do not want to pass down approach. same thing happened to president trump and president moon when they met in washington april 11. p. . . .
if it's not in the context between the leaders on the big deal over weapons for all the sanctions if they get agreement in principle and writing, that opens a space for taking the next steps for some sanction suspension. there is a deal that could be made that the working level is important because somebody has to set up a research. it's practically the only way that leaders need to set up success and it would be an
a i wanted to come to you not to say in on all the things the president is going to do their butt they hit the ground running and now culminate earlier for the time difference and so on but what struck me, and this was a difficult sort of question having come from the obama administration with th would woy to have the united states book or a little bit better working relationship between seoul and tokyo and there was a bilateral
agreement or one or two between the three leaders in the hague if i remember the relationships were really struggling. i think in the g. 20, the president is going to have a trilateral if i'm not mistaken japan and india as part of their broad alliance and framework of the policy. have there been any thoughts to doing a trilateral not necessarily in this trip but can you talk about how important it is to have this on the same page because we get the sense that there is quite a bit of friction between japan and south korea are generally but even working to get across different messages. messages. >> these are extremely important
getting these alliances right and having them cooperate with each other is essential. we are not going to be successful negotiating unless those alliances are strong and unless unfortunately at this particular moment i think the government would love to be involved it can be interpreted on one side favoring the other we encourage each side to work out these issues and the current
cases they are now disputing. if anyone has a suggestion where the government could be useful and helpful i think we are really hoping because these are important relationships and there ithatis something we can p japan and korea we would. >> the president made quite a bit of effort in 2017 on the trip to asia to talk about north korea and the importance and i wonder if the president has any sense of how he might come how much the issue will be part of the discussions and that mostly seems to be focused on trade but given what we have seen in the recent days how will they try to
get that message across, do you have any sense of? >> i don't make any predictions that it would be to assume that the great curiosity is this a priority for the united states they did a piece about a month or two ago on whether the escalating trade fight with beijing could lead over into his efforts.
at the time the analyst told me at the time they didn't see evidence that the two issues were necessarily affecting one another. i'm wondering what you were now read into pyongyang with the signals and did you have any sense whether that connects to the trade issue puts more pressure on trump to resolve that? >> i don't think so. i certainly don't think that he went to try to broker a deal for the united states. i don't see them doing that for the united states. for me, the significance of that visit and what it means more broadly for the long-term strategy on the peninsula vis-à-vis the united states
today china has twice as many railroads connecting to china then the south has in the north. they have for over a decade expected the resources out of north korea, and it's only a matter of time before they start financing one gold, one road so china is slowly growing its influence in north korea. that's something they would be very interested in. that is where that relationship is going aside from the u.s.
china trade friction. it's one of the big questions about the engagement with north korea. we were talking about this last night basically from the south korean viewpoint the argument to the engagement has always been about north korea is insecure, it wantif one's attention, inces and pressure but if you want to make the argument about engagement with north korea it should be in the context of if we don't engage, china is going to take over the northern part of the peninsula and defend unification if it ever happens with the much more complicated. from the washington swamp, that is one persuasive argument for engagement and to say what type of force for the fourth time.
one more lightning round question. >> maybe we should do a story at some point you are not there yet which countries are looking and hoping for the donald trump re- election in 2020 and one of the ones that came to mind a how interested are they and are they hoping for the broad public and how they view it and i thought about the democratic field we know a lot about the vice president foreign-policy but the contingency plan.
anything then they will reverse everything. this is where i feel like we are now in the post engagement versus the containment of stage because we just heard one of the most predominant progressives saying that donald trump would be good for the problem but is he good for the alliance and i would say he is not. here in we are in a completely a of conversation with any sort of a standard established guideli
guideline. this is a very tough question because even if you want to look at the foreign-policy, you have to look at the totality, iran, venezuela, trade, so all those things. to me, there is no question. look at both europe, the u.s. and korea. there is a kind of i would say conventional wisdom and in that sense we are looking at shaking up the political spectrum and with my friend said, it does make sense.
that is the only thing that matters. it's a complicated question. >> one more thing that maybe we can open up for questions. what are the biggest risks to the alliance we know it's strong but what is the risk? is it the first protectionist policy? what should we be worried about and since you cannot answer that question perhaps a comment on where we are.
>> the administration is reviewing policy worldwide and the president has made it very clear he wants our allies and partners to pay a fair share of the cost protecting themselves. we hope it is assumed that he we will begin again negotiating and we will be asking for more of the contributions. it is to criticize.
if he has the alliance come ashore he would take the alliance. the in 2017 we are in trouble with this kinfor this kind of tg advantage of the situation. they see the alliance is almost a religious myth. in a way it is a good way to secularize because from this perspective the problem but on the other side, if trump
[inaudible] perhaps it will impact the economy or something like that. and also, think about the position on the strategy enhancing the crisis so those are the issues or the revisions in the coming days. what i would like to see an answer to the question come ashore in north korea is the number one issue, but the focus on all of the other things the united states and korea are doing we have a progressive
government and had to talk a lot about north korea, but at the same time they were sending troops to iraq and had a prt in afghanistan and an alliance. we did a visa waivers and have been working with study program. we had a whole variety of things and i would direct you to a speech by the ambassador when he talked about the future areas of cooperation. everything from development assistance this is the proactive agenda i if i cannot solve north korea and it's about north 22 cities are all very difficult issues but there is a positive proactive agenda in the allian
alliance. alliances are like tending to the garden so we have to continue to tend to be in the alliance. i'm sure they are doing a lot of these things but i would like to see more of the narrative especially since the president -- maybe we are not doing a good enough job we have projects we are working on a in the initiatives and again i just think we have and done enough.
i would love to see president trump talking aboupresident ofte cooperation and the empowerment. on the trump question, i think all of those should be assumed on the question whether he's going to be successful in the commitment this next week is absolutely crucial because of these personal observations in which he has the chance to get out from under the anti-china and anti-russia hysteria from the british and the congress and his own cabinet. i'd like you to comment on the
question of the personal diplomacy that you're going to see. my own assessment is that in any of these areas he has to hit a home run or maybe the inception of mexico got some result and they are coming around to it. tensions are down but the reason they haven't been addressed you can see that if he were to blow
change. so, my question is we all know the importance of having that working negotiation talks, but what can be a practical outcome from those negotiations if they don't have the power to make a decision? >> that is more a question for people worried about the limitation of the approach. he talked about we shouldn't have this dichotomy of jurisprudence between the small
ideally they should come with a little bit of progress about the nuclear capabilities and a -- >> one more question over here. >> defense veteran association. when i was on active duty and worked with the commission, one of my jobs was to communicate with my north korean counterparts in the joint security area to de- escalate the situation. we know that they are there now
so if that sort of bogs down, cacan you see other ways of tryg to move forward in a creative way to? >> coming out of singapore as you know remains returned and if it is essentially the way to directly engage, so that may be certainly and president of trump likes back, so that maybe something. at this point it's not about the creativity coming at us as we get closer i thin think everyboy agrees there is going to be a third summit. in the government is going to be about what we do beyond.
it's going to be a knockout agency so we've been there and it's ugly. how much sanction suspension, how many should we suspend, and in the end that's what it is going to come down to to facilitate. the one thing good about the third meeting is both leaders know that they can fail and they are going to interact if we want the agreement at this time so maybe that is perhaps the best way to connect the leadership of the working level. >> if you have a third summit, i can't imagine it not going in thinkinbeing inthinking they woe
sort of deal. you see them a little bit on the ropes and how they certainly played a strong role in hanoi. do we think we are going to see some sort of deal before the end of the year, some sort of deal i won't say what it is that some sort of deal struck is that what we think? >> they may prefer not to have a deal because it becomes a target