tv South Korean Foreign Minister and Madeleine Albright Discuss North Korean... CSPAN September 25, 2017 4:12pm-6:31pm EDT
the respected supreme leader kim jong-un, chairman of the state affairs commission of the dprk said, international justice is never achieved by itself. it can only be achieved when the independent countries are strong enough. unless true international justice is realized, the only valid philosophical principal is that force must be dealt with force and nuclear weapons apparently must be dealt with nuclear hammer of justice. the possession of nuclear deterrence by the dprk is a righteous, self-defensive measure taken as an ultimate option pursuant to this principal. recently, the dprk has successful conducted icbm mountable h bomb test as a part of the efforts to achieve the goal of completing the state
nuclear force, with this the dprk has entered a phase of completing the state nuclear force in accordance with its line of simultaneous development. >> for their support, we are very fortunate to have her excellency for the department of korea and the honestly mad am albright with us today to give some remarks before they come out on to stage i would like to begin with a few words about safety at csis. my name is lisa collins. i'm a fellow in the korea chair and i will serve as your responsible safety officer for this event. we feel very secure in our building but we have a duty to prepare for an eventuality. please follow my instructions should the need arise. police also familiar ammize yourself with the exits, emergency exits in the back of this room to the right and to the left. you will be preparing to have the minister come out in just a
tribung here today to give opening remarks. i would like to introduce them before they step on stage. dr. green is senior vice president for asia and japan charl at csis and chair in modern japan politics and foreign policy at georgetown university. he served as senior director for asia and special assistant to the president. dr. han previously he was a senior political scientist at the rand corporation and director of the korean studies institute and a professor of international relations at the university of southern california. he also worked at in paris and in seoul. dr. green will give remarks first followed by dr. han. please welcome them to the stage. thank you. [ applause ] >> thank you, lisa and enthusiasm so much madam foreign
minster for joining us today. and wonderful opportunity to hear your vision, not only for the u.s.-korea alliance for the foreign policy and for korea's thought leadership on challenges we face, most leadly of course the north korea nuclear missile problem, but whether it's the korean peninsula or democracy and development in asia or building rules for trade and investment, the same principal applies, we go together. and as my good friend knows well, this alliance is incredibly strong. opinion polls in the united states show when americans are asked should the united states go to the defense of korea if it's attacked, the numbers are the highest they've ever been, higher than japan, higher nan nato and the polls very strong so we face challenges but our alliance is strong and what we need is vision and leadership
and we'll hear some of that today. i'm going to ask my friend from the outside institute to say some words. he's been a great partner for csis. we host your fellows and do intellectual work together. you're publishing my book in korean. told him i'd get a plug in. and delighted you here so let me invite him up to the stage. [ applause ] >> thanks for the introduction. welcome. madam secretary, welcome. it's -- how do you put it? it's perfect timing that you're here. i think we're going through one of the most important significant phases in our nation's history, i think and of
course in terms of our bilateral relations. i think this kind of forum is exactly what is needed at this particular juncture. i'd like to thank csis represented by mike green for this -- for coorganizing and co-hosting this occasion. the alliance, our bilateral relations goes -- is much more multi-dimensional than i think a lot of you would suspect. i think today we have, of course, the most important policy makers with us. we have the foremost experts on security issues in foreign policy issues here as well but i think here some of you may know and mike actually mentioned it briefly that we actually have the future of our bilateral
relations here. other than organizing events like this we also send over 20 -- at any given time you would have about 20 odd number of young fellows interning at various organizations and think tanks including two at csis we're always incredibly grateful. can you guys stand up for a second? let me just try to identify you. where are you? stand up. come on, guys. stand up. [ applause ] >> so like to take this opportunity to thank you for welcoming them to -- you guys can sit down now -- for welcoming them to d.c., making it their second home and i think
the kind of networks, connections that they're creating while they're here and the experiences that they're bringing back with them really will under gird the future of the alliance and bilateral relations, i'd like to thank you for it. as i said, this symbolizes the multi-layered ways in which we work and the way in which csis asan work for all these reasons the future of the alliance is very bright and let's all hope that we get over this particular difficult juncture in history and i think we'll have a fabulous future for both of our countries, and we can build a much greater future for our region as well. thank you very much. [ applause ]
thank you, both for those welcoming words. on behalf of our president john hamry, and that is welcoming back foreign minister kong when he first came to washington for his first summit with president trump and of course we wanted to welcome her back. the next time she was going to be in the neighborhood and she happened to be at the u.n. last week, so we asked her to come down and join us, i'll properly introduce her in just one second. i just wanted to say it's personally for me a pleasure to have her here with secretary albright. i've known foreign minister for almost ten years now when we met that rainy day.
so it's really great to see you here with us today. foreign minister, as you know is a -- the minister of foreign archz for the republic of korea since june of 2017. previously she served as senior adviser on policy to the united nations secretary general antonio gutierrez. she's a veteran diplomat in multi-layer diplomacy having served both the korean government and the united nations. she served in key u.n. posts since 2006 and is the only person to be given positions in the organization by three secretary generals. before entering the u.n., she served in various positions in the rok national assembly in the foreign ministry between 1990 and 2006. at the foreign ministry she was appointed director general for international organizations in 2005 and also served as minister
counsellor and ministers permanent mission from 2001 to 2005 during which she chaired the commission on the status of women. so as i said, it's a really distinct honor to have the foreign minister join us today to give her foreign policy address on behalf of csis, please welcome foreign minister kong. [ applause ] thank you, professor for that warm introduction. all of it makes me feel very old in age but hopefully the experience has been worth it. professor chai, vice president michael green, the president of asan, madelyn secretary, ambassadors, thank you so much
for this warm welcome. i indeed had the pleasure of accompanying president moon jae-in when he came to address you in late june and it is indeed wonderful to be back in your midst. this is my first own visit to washington, d.c. as foreign minister but today's event is already my second one with csis following the first one in seoul just weeks after taking office, and much as we all know has happened since then and i'm very grateful to the csis and the asan institute for giving me this opportunity to share some thoughts on the abiding importance and strength of the rok-u.s. alliance, in particular visa have i the heightened threat of north korea's nuclear and missile programs. deep appreciation to madam secretary albright for being with us today. you remain an inspiration to all of us and we missed you at our dinner in new york last week.
i arrived here yesterday after spending a very eventful week in new york. the first part of it accompa accompanying president moon on his first engagement at the u.n. general assembly and the rest in bilaterals and group meetings with my counterparts from various corners of the world, including of course secretary tillerson and the u.n. secretary general antonio gutierrez. the north korean nuclear issue was the main focus of the high level discussions in new york last week. by many accounts, north korea's nuclear program seems to be at a tipping point. the yield of its sixth nuclear test on september 3rd was greater than all of the previous five tests combined. north korea fired two ballistic missiles over japan as if to substantiate its threat of indeveloping fire around the island of guam. the recent events this made in
north korea's nuclear capabilities have been much faster than anticipated and pyongyang seems fast approaching its stated goal of having nuclear tipped icbms capable of targeting the continent tal united states. ladies and gentlemen, in tackling the north korean issue the vital importance of close coordination between the republic of korea and the united states cannot be overemphasized. so at their second face-to-face meeting in new york last week, our two presidents once again condemned north korea's continued provocations in the strongest terms. they agreed that maximum pressure had to be placed on north korea in response and stressed the importance of faithful and thorough implementation of u.n. security council resolution 2375 and all previous resolutions.
the same -- was also expressed by members of the security council during the open debate on nonproliferation. there was also overwhelming support from my government's approach to the challenge. that is, firm and stronger pressure against the provocations while leaving the door open to dialogue should north korea change course towards a peaceful and diplomatic solution. the call for diplomacy is also the clear wish of the public, both in korea and the united states as recent polls indicate. sanctions and pressure against north korea are a diplomatic tool, they are not meant to collapse or bring down north korea, but to bring it to the negotiating table for serious denuclearization talks. further more they are necessary, but not enough. they must be accompanied by strong deterrent capabilities.
both presidents moon and trump reaffirmed that maintaining overwhelming military superiority over north korea was essential. the meeting between the two presidents served to underscore the clear focus of our alliance in achieving the goal of complete verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of north korea in a peaceful manner, and rallying the support of international community. toward that end, the close coordination between the republic of korea, the united states and japan is essential as is the constant engagement to win the full support of china and russia. ladies and gentlemen, i'm sure you've already seen the north korean leader's statement threatening and i quote, the strongest counter measures ever, unquote against the united states. this message delivered in his own name for the first time was
echoed by the north korean foreign minister in his speech at the u.n. and he ramped up the rhetoric this morning to the press stating and i quote, since the u.s. declared a war on our country, we'll have every right to take counter measures, end quote. indeed it is very likely that north korea will conduct further provocations and under these circumstances it is imperative that we, korea, and the united states together manage the situation with astuteness and steadfastness in order to prevent the further escalation of tension or any kind of accidental military clashes in the region which can quickly spiral out of control. there cannot be another war in the region. there cannot be another outbreak of war on the korean peninsula. the consequences would be
devastating, not just for the korean peninsula, but for northeast asia and indeed the whole international community. and we cannot put at risk the safety and security of our citizens who have worked tirelessly for seven decades to build a model democracy and market economy from the total destruction of war. at this very venue last june, president moon envisioned a very different future for north korea and the korean peninsula. he urged north korea to choose wisely in deciding its destiny rather than blaming others for its deepening isolation and economic hardship. in a speech to the general assembly last week, president moon once again stressed that the korean government does not seek the collapse of north korea, nor unification by absorb gs or artificial means, rather what we seek is permanent peace on the korean peninsula
and denuclearization of the korean peninsula in a peaceful manner and i echo president's message, which fully resonates with secretary tillerson's four nose policy calling for diplomatic solution as the first and foremost preferred approach. north korea must take heed of our messages and change course and the first step would be for the north to stop its provocations. the political and diplomatic effort toward the denuclearization of north korea and improvements in south korean relations can and must be pursued in a mutually reinforcing manner. in this regard, we once again urge the north to respond to our concrete proposals to revive south/north context beginning with two very small proposals made on july 17th and start laying the building blocks for inter-korean reconciliation and
lasting peace on the korean peninsula. as president moon remarked at the united nations, peace is our calling and our historical duty. ladies and gentlemen, the north korean nuclear issue is the most difficult challenge the korea-u.s. alliance is facing and it made the alliance even stronger. in fact, the alliance is as robust as ever and the ties between our two countries have been never so rich and diverse, so wide and so deep. over the years and decades we have seen the alliance evolve into a uniquely vibrant strategic and fulsome partnership of all around mutual benefit and ever expanding horizon for future growth. allow me to elaborate. first and foremost, the alliance has served as the anchor of peace and security on the korean peninsula and in the asia
pacific region. in the process, it has safeguarded the evolution of a vibrant democracy in south korea and it's emer jents as a an economic powerhouse of global stature as well as a reliable military ally of the united states in many corners of the world with increasingly robust capabilities of its own. in the process, korea's contribution to the alliance has continued to grow. korea is now spending 2.4% of our gdp for defense, bearing a significant cost of the stationing of the u.s. forces in korea and providing the lion's share for the relocation of camp humphreys which is the largest overseas u.s. military base. second, the economic pillar of the alliance, the course fta has enabled the u.s. to secure a strong foot hold in -- the northeast asia market. the chorus america's first fta
in the region has provided american companies with greater access to the korean market while inviting korean investments throughout many states in the u.s. the u.s. has the deficit in goods traded but a surplus in services and korean investments in the u.s. have grown many fold during the past five years since the agreement went into effect. overall, the course fta has been a win-win deal and a driving force for greater growth and prosperity in both countries. it is the material key if i may use that term way beyond an economic tool that locks in our peaceful and prosperous future together. third, korea has stood shoulder to shoulder with the united states in tackling global issues. we are working together to meet new challenges in many front tears and multilateral arenas, most of all the united nations.
our collaborations in global health, security, human rights and gender equality, science and technology and space and in fighting the threat of isis, terrorism and violence extremism are only a few of many good examples that i am proud to put forward. and last but not least, korea has become a strong hold of democracy and liberal values of free market economy and trade in a reejen of vital interest to the united states. the alliance will continue to safeguard the future of a peaceful and prosperous korean peninsula and the region and serve as -- serve our shared security and economic interests not to mention the values that we together stand for. our alliance is now 64 years old or young. it has achieved much but has a great deal more to do. this is an appliance forced --
forged in blood, transformed through decades of painstaking efforts and striving for peace, lasting peace and prosperity on the korean peninsula and beyond. but like all enduring and thriving relationships, the alliance also has issues to work through and problems to solve with care, attention and investments in time and resources. in particular, we must muster the very best of our security and diplomatic endeavors, in leading the global community to face down the north korean nuclear threat and safeguard our shared security and economic interests. this is also fundamental to preserving not -- nonnuclear proliferation. committed to denuclearization on the korean peninsula, korea is a leading voice in the wmd nonprelive ration regime which is are essential to the global security architecture. however, this is a task not just for our governments, at the core
the alliance is grounded upon the shared values of democracy, rule of law and human rights that are the foundations of both of our countries -- and there is nothing as abiding and strong as values that make for abiding and strong relationships. thus, we need the active interest and support of our citizens, especially opinion leaders such as all of you here today and future opinion leaders as the asan fellows who are having a great time here at the csis. ladies and gentlemen, born of the candlelight rallies and the ernst aspirations of the people for greater transparency and accountability in democracy, my government is committed to taking public diplomacy and outreach both inside and outside the country to a whole new level. and central to that effort, is to assure the continued
grounding of our alliance in the hearts and minds of our peoples. and we will take the alliance from good to great together and that calls for the active and thoughtful support of all of you here. thank you very much. [ applause ] >> thank you very much minister kyung. you'll be joined on stage by madam secretary albright and dr. chai. some parts of chif alary.
thank you. >> so just to get us started, the -- this and i will introduce secretary albright in a minute but this all came about because when president moon came here and the foreign minister accompanied him, secretary albright were in the lobby and i think we were waiting for the president to arrive and john hemry said we have the two historic women here, both the first lead diplomats for their countries and we have to have an event with the two of them together and so that's how this all came about and so you can see csis follows through on what we promise that we're going to do. but in but it's true honor to have the foreign minister and secretary albright here on the stage. we've already introduced the foreign minister but let me
introduce someone who needs no introduction really. i will introduce her any way. the honestly madam albright was the first woman to serve as america's top diplomat as the 64th u.s. secretary of state from 1997 to $2001. she serve as the u.s. permanent representative to the united nations from 1993 to 1997. currently dr. albright is chair of the albright stone bridge grum and chair of albright capital management. she is also a professor in the practice of diplomacy at georgetown university in the school of foreign service and is a member of the defense policy board at the u.s. department of defense. dr. albright received the presidential medal of freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor in 2012. so to begin the discussion, i thought -- i would ask secretary albright a question first and
given that as dr. green mentioned, north korea's so much the central issue it was a topic, the lead topic of the foreign ministers conversations in new york last week. i think the foreign ministers remarks on the alliance were very reassuring about the solidarity of the alliance and the face of the challenges that are so obvious today, however, when it comes to north korea, secretary albright, you were the last senior u.s. official to spend time in north korea and more importantly, to have direct contact with the north korean leader and i guess the question is, based on your experience there which is a unique and historic experience, what can you share from that experience that might help the rest of us in this room think about the problem today? >> it's wonderful to be here with the first and with you my
colleague at georgetown so it's very great occasion. thanks for following through on this. delighted. let me say, it's interesting that i was there in 2000 and that is the last -- i was the highest level -- i'm still the highest level sitting official to spend time in pyongyang and what i think is important for us to understand, this is not been an easy relationship all along, and when i was at the united nations, the north koreans were already threatening to pull out of the mbt. i remember this was just before my birth daily and the north korean perm rep gave this unbelievable speech and i was trying not to take the bait, but i said, basically, i would like to thank the north korean representative for his speech in making me feel 40 years younger with a speech out of the cold war. but we had begun to deal with a variety of issues and what they were doing in terms of their
nuclear production and bob galucci is here having negotiated the agreed framework which i think was a very important step forward. now i hold no brief for the north koreans on anything that i'm saying but one of the issues really was, were we delivering,ing were the light water reactors being built, what were the south koreans and the japanese doing and just generally how we arer were we going? the situation deteriorated in a number of different ways and the clinton administration did a review of the whole policy whaen did happen that was very interesting, vice marshal choe came to the united states and we, in fact, signed a no hostile intent agreement that i think was a very important part. he had come in order to invite president clinton to go to north korea. president clinton said maybe at some point but i have to send the secretary of state.
so i am very glad i went. dennis rodman is all my fault because the only thing we knew about kim jong-un was that he liked basketball and michael jordan so i took over an autographed basketball which in their holy of hol i didn'ts which kim jong-un apparently saw. so but i do think that it was a very important discussion because we were talking about material, about missile limits and really we're in the middle of discussions that then the election of 2000 was confusing to many people but the bottom line is that the policy that we were in the middle of working on did not get followed. ambassador sherman was with me. we actually were on a trip to south africa. she was all set to go to the continuation of the talks and all of a sudden that was all called off. and as a result of those discussions, there was no new
thesele material added. no icbm, no nuclear weapons. i think it was an important time and i have to say, you saved me on something that you may not even know. i was having dinner with kim jong-un and we're talking about many things and he threw an interpreter kept saying things like, what do you think of the swedish model and i was trying to figure out model/model, then he asked me through his interpreter, how does my interpreter compare with kim jong-un i'm going to have this interpreter killed, but i was able to say, he has the best woman interpreter i have ever heard. so we were connected very early and it helped, a lot, believe me. but i do think that what is interesting is that at that time they were prepared to have missile limits and, by the way, kim jong-il said to me we could
keep our forces in south korea, so any number of things and i'm very sorry that we cut that off as a result of a change in policy where the bush administration didn't believe in the sunshine policy. so there has been a history of this. this is -- and i think that we need to understand that this is an incredibly complex problem in every single way that has gotten more and more complicated and needs to be dealt with. we don't need to ramp up the rhetoric, we need to really work and it would be great if we had an ambassador in seoul. >> okay. so -- well thank you madam secretary, so given what the madam secretary said, i know it's always difficult when you compare -- do you feel like the situation today is different
from the one that secretary albright faced? do you see differences or slarts in the leadership today in north korea compared to what secretary albright had to deal with given the challenges that we have today? >> first of all, i would like to complete agree with the final point, but i think the nature of the regime at a fundamental level hasn't changed. it is in the end the close, most repressive and insulated country, but certainly the leadership changed from kim jong-il to kim jong-un has had significant consequences. we're talking about a leader that has not met a single head of state of any significance and therefore makes him much more
unpredictable and his actions seem to indicate a preference for brinkmanship and he's used that to his advantage in a certain extent in the sense that he has been able to make these advances in the nuclear and missiles technology. but, of course, a huge difference now is that the regime, by these provocations and going against the clear will of the global community is now under the most harshest sanctions regime ever in the latest adopted just after the six nuclear explosions. so the sanctions are, as i said, are -- in response to the provocations, but the point is there cannot be funds going into the development of their missiles and nuclear weapons program and the regime needs to
get the point that this is just absolutely unacceptable and in making that point it is not just korea and the u.s. and the surrounding, it is the whole of the international community through the u.n. security council, which has the authority, the one entity in the whole of the global community that has the ability and the authority to make decisions that are binding for all members of the international community, so the point of the sanctions that it is binding on the whole of the international community and therefore the implementation has to be the whole of the international community, so the global context surrounding the regime is a very, very different one than what it was prior to the sanctions kicking in. >> thanks. as you mentioned in your speech, the focus seems to be right now on so-called maximum pressure and sanctions in the aftermath of the six nuclear tests.
this is really to both secretary albright and foreign minister kyung. i guess there are two questions cong. there are two questions. do you feel like this effort at sanctions is working? do you feel like it is making progress. do you feel there is room fordy ploem agency? and under what conditions do you feel there is room for diplomacy? >> the sanctions, until the fourth, early last year, 2270 and i forget the numbers, prior to the latest resolutions, the sanctions were really targeting just the wmd programs.
it's an all around pressure to ensure the economic pressures are all around, and the funds eel really are dried up. so we -- you know, the effect of that kind of all around sanction has, of course, time to see the effects. but i do believe, especially with the latest ones, which makes -- targets those areas that are particularly -- gets to the economic lifeline of the country. the 30% cut in the oil refined oil products overall. the textile industry, coal's been cut off entirely.
by some estimates, this all will ends up in a 90% drop in the revenue gains. a 90% drop in the resources that could somehow end up in their missiles and nuclear program. i think we're together with our u.s. colleagues. there is still room for diplomacy. and they're in the lines of the statements that the north koreans themselves make. they're not quite there yet, but certainly time is running out. they are as i said. fast approaching. and we need to make sure therefore that the sanctions are implemented in a unified concerted manner. it's hugely important that we have china and russia on board. i think china is on board and we continue to make sure that they as members of the security council but the two biggest
neighbors of north korea with controls over the trade going in and out of the country. the continued engagement with china and russia is a very, very end federal part of this endeav endeavor. >> i very much agree. i think part of the issue here is to get multilateral help. and one of the things that happened for the agreed framework the japanese were involved with us working on all of that. you were talking about not just the region but generally. having the security council resolution with the chinese and russians participating in it, is very important. sanctions always take a little while to take their effect. and this set of them are complicated in terms of secondary aspects to them, with the banking sector in a variety of ways of trying to get complete action on them.
part of the issue is to cut off money to the north korean regime, because they need it in order to get the various component parts of this organize ed and also to get them isolated. we need to pursue that in a big way. i think it has to be a whole for both our countries. i think we need to be very firm in a variety of different ways with our governments and recognize what we're dealing with. the chinese are now participating, but they don't want to make it seem as though we're telling them what to do. i think it's important that it's been a security council resolution. and so -- the other part that i think is truly important is to kind of lower the temperature. because i'm kind of concerned about accidents of some kind.
we need to be very clear about what is going on. i know nothing beyond what i read in the papers. i hope there is some secret channel going on. i think there need to be discussions and an understanding. i am sorry, frankly. it was called the albright show agreement, it was a no hostile intent. i think it's clear that that was something that had an important role or potentially important role to play. this does have to be global, and i think your statements are just right on. >> thank you. so i'd like to switch topics now, if that's okay. i think everybody in here, we talk north korea all the time. what i wanted to shift to was the talk to ask secretary
albright and foreign minister as we mentioned at the outset, both of you are historic figures who have led your country's foreign policies. do you think there are additional burdens or expectations or considerations being the top diplomats for your countries that come with the job in this respect of being these historic diplomats? are there things that you feel that some of us, like in this room don't understand? that come with the job of being the top diplomat in your country? and how do you manage those expectations or burdens. >> i am historic because i'm so old. the bottom line is that it seems so unusual. so for instance when my name
first came up, people said, a woman couldn't be secretary of state, because arab countries would not deal with a woman then the arab ambassadors put out eye statement. we don't have any problems with ambassador albright, so we wouldn't have any problems with secretary albright. i ultimately did get to be secretary of state, and i actually had no problems when i went to foreign countries. i came in a very large plane that said united states of america, and everybody knew if they were going to have a foreign policy discussion, they had to have it with me. i had more problems with the men in our own government. and par shamly, because they couldn't figure out how i got to be secretary of state, when they should be secretary of state. and they had also known me so long, they knew me as the car pool mother or -- you actually had a real career. so i -- >> what happened, you know, and
somebody who made dinner and made a lot of coffee for them, i had been a staffer on the hill, so that was part of the issue. but it did work and it worked because president clinton wanted me there. i think that is a difference in how the president treats the secretary of state. when i got there in '93. i didn't have to cook lunch myself. i get to my residence and there's six other women there. out of 183 members at the time. and it was philippines kazakhstan, canada, trinidad, tobago and liechtenstein. being the american, i created a caucus, and we called ourselves the g-7. and we lobbied on behalf of
having women judges on the war crimes tribunal. because most of the crimes had been committed against women. when i became secretary i made the same thing with women foreign ministers and established the fact that we would get together. you said you had had a meeting in new york. >> it continues. >> so the more of us that there are, the better it is and we are able to support each other, and i think it's great jobs for women and men, by the way, my youngest granddaughter, seven years ago, said, what's the big deal about grandma maddie being secretary of state. only females are secretary of state. i think men are probably encouraged by john kerry and tillerson. >> well, i think -- 64th, i'm i
first and the 38th foreign minister in the seven years in the history of my country. in a way it's historical i think it's also a response to the times. i think the appointment was very refreshing. the process through the parliamentary hearing was grueling. but revealed a lot of existing stereotypes and social kpek takings about women and women leaders. whenever there were remarks that reflected that old way of thinking. there was immediate push back from women's groups against that. there was a lot of social debate going on the pros and cons, bad things and good things, it became almost a social
phenomenon. society coming to terms with the fact that, it's about time we had a woman at this important government position. i don't think the president himself expected that. i think he took me on because of being in the u.n. for 10 years, and being -- having on served the countries on a global scale he wants an outlook that is much broader than the traditional one focused in the immediate neighborhood and dipping into other parts of the region whenever we can. he really is about diversifying the country's profile. in the larger global scheme of things, i think he really thought that i would be able to bring that profile in.
it became a social -- i can't tell you how famous i am. i can't walk the streets because everyone recognizes me. the men in the country, many of them are not yet ready, so last -- two weeks ago, when i went to parliament, to -- you know, this is the season we -- there's a part where all the ministers go and respond to questions. one elderly lawmaker stood up on the program and started the questioning by commenting on my hair. that triggered a huge controversy, so we didn't have time for the question and answer which i thought was a shame, and what a waist of valuable time, these things happen.
with every incident like that that was so publicly played out. people learn at least he would have learned. i don't think he would have questioned my hair again in such a public setting. i do feel that the establishment whether it's the foreign ministry bureaucracy or the government establishment in general is fully comfortable with againeder equality. even though we have 60, 70% women coming in at the entry level the culture of the ministry is not that friendly to women or to families, women to have to work doubly hard to keep the balance between work and home going. one of my -- and i understand that, because i have -- i managed to have a career with three kids. and they're all young adults now.
there are concrete things that can be done to ensure that the foreign service is really welcoming of these huge numbers of women who want to become diplomats. >> yes, we have visits from the korean national diplomatic academy to csis and i'm always astounded that the vast majority of these first service candid e candidates are all women and they're much smarter than the men. so i wanted to give you a chance to not just talk to me. but talk to each other, this will be the last question.
for second albright, we're both at georgetown. you teach this great class all my students want to get into you've had great experience in this area, at the u.n. and as the secretary of state. is there any advice or is there like a cheat sheet you can give to foreign minister cong to help her succeed? >> okay. >> let me just say, and you've said a lot of it in talking about what it was like, i think the best advice i can give is first of all, i don't even have to tell you this, you havetalki. and i think you have to speak early in a meeting. you have to interrupt. if the men are talking over you. but i really do think that the most important part is to understand the breadth of what you're involved in in, which is
what is so interesting, because national security and foreign policy, i think is definitely a growth industry in terms of the various subjects that are out there. and in terms of being foreign minister of things that -- go beyond the national security issues, in terms of talking about climate and health and having a scientific basis, if you want do it yourself, you get people around you that know how to do that. the other part i would say, i was probably a bureaucratic disaster so i shouldn't tell you this, i was not real good about going through the chain of kmant. i wanted to talk to people that were doing the work, the desk officers and people that were really understood the great details. the other thing i liked was to have people argue in front of me. the last thing was because of my academic life, what i cried to
do was no fault dinners, i would bring outsiders in. it wasn't that they were afraid to say something to me, but the direction of the questions. i think it's good to bring outsiders in in some way and really get a feeling for what the sense is -- one of the hard parts frankly, and i do teach the practice of diplomacy is the academy and practitioners don't always connect. there are a lot of good ideas that are in the academy or out that need to be brought in. so -- >> i completely take on board all of that, and i think i'm already implementing some of that. i'm trying to introduce a program of reform in the ministry, the ministry has rightly or wrongly, always been
criticized as being too ins u lar. i am a special recruit. i joined the ministry mid career, that was a rare exception. the ministry was traditionally staffed by people who came through the program. that's slightly changed but still the same mold. it's revamping the way we recruit. all kinds of things that -- little changes that can be catalytic, but what i wanted to ask you, madeleine is sometimes it feels very lonely. how do you manage that loneliness? >> well, it is lonely, and so first of all, it's important to get the best women you can around you. one of the things that i have to tell you is, i brought wendy sherman in as counselor we had
known each other for a long time, you get criticized when you bring in a woman, they say, she's a23r5id of strong men. it's hard to get it exactly right. but i do think what is important is to bring people around you, that you don't feel lonely but the decisions are lonely in the end, i think. there is one thing i forgot to advise you on, which is, we have in our system there's the principles committee, where you argue about things before you take them to the president. one of the things, i was on it when i was ambassador of the united nations, i felt strongly about the fact that we needed to do more things in bosnia, i would argue and invariably one of the ming would say, don't be so emotional. i learned to argue differently. i think that's a very important part. also what i think is very important, never let them see you be angry.
but i do think the loneliness is something which is why it's nice to have a family. i have three kids. we kind of reversed roles. one of my daughters was in charge of my account life, and she would call me up and say, mom, did you really need those shoes. or when i was in bosnia, and i was subjected to stones being thrown at me, cnn said albright stoned in bosnia. my daughter called the state department and the operations center, have you heard from our mother. no. i came home, don't ever do that to us again you can't make us worry about you we reversed rolls, your family is what gives you stability. >> i want to thank both of you
a 15 minute break or so here in this event. and when they come back, we'll bring you back live coverage. in the meantime, let's show you the south korean ambassador speaking last week in new york at the united nations. >> the assembly will hear and address by his excellency president of the republic of korea. i request protocol to escort his excellency.
on behalf of the delegates, i welcome to the united nations his excellency. president of the republic of korea and to invite him to address the assembly. >> first of all, on behalf of the people and the government of the republic of korea, i wish to express my gratitude to the people of mexico and their families. i offer my respect and gratitude to all member states and the staff of the united nations for their contributions to world
peace and security. i congratulate mr. miraslov on his election to the general assembly. i expect this session will reap all the meaningful results under his excellent leadership. i wish secretary-general great success. the republican of korea takes a strong stance in support of the u.n. goals aimed at the prevention of conflicts and sustaining peace. i look forward to the rebirth of the united nations as a stronger organization, fostering peace and prosperity for all people during his tenure as secretary-general. as i prepared this address i thought about the spirit of the united nations and the joint
mission for us all. the united nations is perhaps one of the best institutional inventions created by human intelligence. it was born to save succeeded generations from the scurge of war and has met the challenges confronting humanity over the past 6 70 years. the rules and con twrib bugss of the united nations will continue to grow over time. today the number of trans national issues is increasing no country are resolve them single handedly. for this reason, we should truly fulfill the spirit of the united nations to find solutions to all the problems facing us. to this end i hope everyone will pay attention to the republic of korea.
located on the east end of the eurasia continent. i believe the candlelight rallies created a historic moment that is evidence of the brilliant spirit of the united nations, with the power of cooperation and solidarity, in defiance of challenges, the rallies forged ahead aspired by humanity. some of you may remember the scenes of the candle light rallies shown by the media. streets packed with billions of lights. people expressing their opinions freely and joining in discussions on every street corner, where there was singing, dancing and painting.
the faces of patients who took their children by hand to join rallies. and the pride of young people picking up trash on the streets afterwards. all these scenes were a sign of democracy and peace. the candlelight ceremony began in korea to awaken the citizens' collective intelligence, i participated in the rallies myself. just as a citizen the people of the republic of korea achieved democracy in the most peaceful and beautiful manner. they proved the power of popular sovereign
sovereignty the quintessence of democracy. the proved that the power of peace rather than violence can bring greater changes to the world. the new administration of the republic of korea made possible by the candlelight revolution. the administration was launched by the participation aspirations of the people and eagerness that they are rightful owners of the nati nation. i am standing on behalf of that administration, i'm gratified with and also proud of the fact that the republic of korea though belatedly a democracy, show the world a new hope for democracy. the republic of korea plans to address the community opinion
mr. president the republic of korea has always taken joint steps with the united nations. since the establishment of the government in 1948, the republic of korea has received significant help from the world. even though it was not until 1991 they could become a member of the united nations. from 1993 on ward, korea has continued to participate in peacekeeping operations. this year, as chair of peace building commission, it is focusing on resolving the root causes of conflicts. over the past five years the
republic of korea has increased financial assistance by 15 times, and last year it joined the whr as a $20 million plus bonus club. expediting the paris agreement, the korean government is taking its lead in supporting the climate change responses of developing countries through global green growth institutes and the green climate fund. my administration has met the goal of speer had heading the efforts to realize gender equality. in the years to come, the republic of korea will significantly increase its contributions to the united nations in all sectors. among other things, it's truly meaningful the session focusing
on people is in line with the philosophy of the new administration in the republic of korea. people come first, it is the slogan i have used for several years, to express my political philosop philosophy. and the people are at the center of all policies of my new administration. as of now, my administration is pursuing bold measures to change a paradigm in order to do away with economic inequalities that stand in the way of growth we are pursuing economic policies focusing on the economic growth of individuals and households. promoting an economy where the growth is led by job creation. this is what we call eye people centered economy.
my administration's determined to realize growth will not be confined to our country. in accordance with this new paradigm, the republic of korea will support for sustainable growth in developing countries. >> mr. president, secretary-general and representatives from around the world. i was born in a refugee town in the middle of the korean war. this war devastated the lives of countless people. over 3 million lost their lives and many of the survivors were deprived of leaving. my father was also one of them. my father who thought he was taking temporary refuge at the
time could never make it back to his hometown before he passed away. i come from one of the separated families, the victims whose human rights were violated by the war. the war has yet to come to a complete end. the korean war, a war that began as an offshoot of the larger cold war conflict continues to this day. although the war has ended, the last residual cold war order in northeast asia. the memory of war has become more pronounced.
this is the republic of korea on the peninsula in september 2017. for me, the president of the only divided country, peace is calling. and a historic al duty. i am representing my fellow citizens who sent out a message of peace through the candlelight protests. i am responsible to safeguard the people's writes to peace to an undisturbed daily life as a universal value. for these reasons i hope north korea will be able to chose on its own path leading to peace.
i believe peace when chosen willingly, becomes sound and susta sustainable. more than anything else, i am grateful that my convictions are joined by the international community. despite the international community's demand and warnings, and to our great disappointment and indignations, north korea carried out their nuclear tests. the korean government has made enhan enhanced decisions to make north korea stop its provocations and chew the path of dialogue i
highly appreciate the uj security council's unanimous adoptions of north korean sanctions resolutions with unprecedented speed and with tougher measures than previous resolutions. this clearly reflects that the international community is collectively outreached and responding under one voice, on the north korean nuclear issue. and the problem occurring on the korean peninsula. once again as the party directly involved with the issues concerning the korean peninsula. i would like to expression my appreciation to the infer national community for its shared understanding and support to the korean government. despite north korea's flagrant violations, the korean government and international communities are making every possible effort with great
determination to peacefully solve the north korean nuclear issue. the u.n. security council resolutions against north korea have articulated the principles of political resolutions of the north korean issue are also part of theser efforts, once again here where nations pledge actions for world peace, i make the following points very clear to north korea and the international community, we do not desire the collapse of north korea. if north korea makes a decision even now to stand on the right side of history, we are ready to assist north korea together with the international community.
north korea should acknowledge these facts as soon as possible. >> the north korean nuclear crisis. for this panel, we could not have put together a more impressive panel. i think it's an honor to have this discussion with you guys. i think it's not an examination race to say, if anyone has been following north korea for a while. there's always been crisis of some sort between the u.s. and north korea, south korea. we've had various crisis here and there, i feel like, at least for me the current state seems different. with north korea, two icbm tests in july, the six nuclear tests that followed.
and north korea has been close to completing the nuclear program, catering to their capable where they can attack the united states and it wasn't in the sense that it's not acceptable. it's a sense of urgency, that something new and different, whatever that is needs to be done about that. and, of course, we have president trump, who has increased the rhetoric against north korea, i'm sure everyone has seen his speech at the united nations, calling kim jong-un rocket man and threatening to destroy north korea, and, of course, kim jong-un following up with a personal statement, personally, i have not seen such a personal statement, first person with his name. just everything becomes so personal, and the north korean foreign minister following up with a threat to do another
nuclear test, this time over the pacific ocean. even today earlier with more threat to even possibly shut down one of our bombers, i think in the middle of all this, i don't think it's a majority, but to be very candid, there are voices out there who are advocating a preempting military action. or more accurate, military action. this is the state of the current state of play here. and to help us sort of go through these issues, we have these panelists, and none of these, no one here needs full introduction, you all have their bios in the program, i'll do a brief introduction so we can get on with the discussion. this brief introduction, we have professor young. professor kim is a member of the
policy advisory committee. and sitting next to professor kim is ambassador lippor. i think one of the many reasonables he's so popular. he embraces all things korean, even his love for korean food, learning the language, and giving his children korean names, et cetera. sitting next to him is ambassador galucci, a distinguished would h professor at georgetown university. serving various government positions. including special envoy for the state department. also, chief u.s. negotiator in the early 1990s next to me i
have the vice president of research, a premiere independent think tank he also served as a senior adviser during the kim jong-il administration. how this is going to work, i'm going to ask each panelist to give brief opening remarks. we'll use that as a spring board for further discussion. i'll open it up for questions from the audience. let me ask all of you two basic questions. given the current state of tension, and given that
president un is -- does this new tension mean that u.s./south korea alliance is getting stronger as we talked about earlier? and what are some of the challenges and opportunities for both administrations in terms of north korean policy. and if the koreans can talk about the administration, the americans can talk about the trump administration secondly, i think a big mac row question on north korea. particularly, given the two icbm tests in july and where they're headed. are we reaching or have we already reached a critical threshold that requires a different type of response? whatever that is. what would that be, so if you could comment on what you think should be the path forward. in terms of practical,
practically speaking, where do we go from here, where we are today. >> would you like to start? >> me? okay. thank you for having me here. i was higher three weeks ago, i don't know what i can add at the moment, about the second question. i'm a little concerned about the peaceful resolution -- of course, we are trying to have diplomatic resolution by enforcing sanctions and the military exercise, those things have not prevented north korea from doing the things we don't want them to do. north korea is determined to have the completion of the nuclear program. why we are bringing these efforts to the table, maybe we have to think about how to live
with a nuclear north korea if that's the case, we have to think about how we're going to upgrade our posture in a more comprehensive way. we're talking about the missile defense, is it good enough to defend south korea. one battery, how many batteries do we need? we have to think about a totally different war. not just externally, but internally. one of the factors which contribute to the legitimacy of kim jong-un, he's heir of the family. he's legitimizing his rule as the north korean leader, it's almost impossible for him to give up nuclear weapons. . i'm a little pessimistic about the project. at the end of the day, maybe north korea can gradually give
it up, he will take a long time. that's my first response about whether this is between president un and president trump of course maybe we can say united states tilting more toward the military options. after seeing a series of provocation of north korea. they've become much more tilting toward more pressure. he's talking about pressures and sanctions, and it's clear it's not the right time to talk about north korea. we have north korea's response. he has no intention to approach north korea independently from the other side. because actually, he's not seeking autonomous approach in handling north korean problem, despite a proposal, a two
proposal, actually, one is nuclear options, the other is a humanitarian dialogue, at the moment, he has not stated any strong desire to follow the proposal he made on july 17th. on the other, koreans have become much more concerned about the possibility of military options. regardless if you are conservative oar progressive. still actually, we should not drop any kinds of military options. in korea, you see all the options they're talking good preemptive strike or decapitation. below that level, we have various options, we have not
built any kinds of options. it will neutralize the military utility of wmd. to a certain degree, that's why there's a constant demonstration of force by the united states. sometimes jointly. we have to think about, what kinds of day tant measures are necessary to enhance our position. there's a way to deliver assurances to the public. and clear message to north korea. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'm frankly confused by the current situation. because the way i look at it, and i'm confused, i was talking to a colleague a little bit about ago. i was trying to capture what it is that -- what is this current situation similar to in all of
our experience. in that what i'd liken it to is when you watch the television, and you hear, you see a picture of somebody living in a beach house in florida or houston or some place, and the national weather center is telling you there's this category 23 hurricane about to come up and everybody should leave, and they're drinking martinis and hanging out. nobody's going anywhere. and you say, well, what? there are people evacuating, but they're staying put, it's okay. so that's -- and you wonder, well, what are they thinking, i've never lived in a beach house, so i don't know, but i do have the feeling now -- and sumi you said today, many of you must have heard your young hosts say that he took -- or his government took the words of the president of the united states as a declaration of war.
when is the last time you heard a country's foreign minister say that your president had declared war on his country? and if you didn't get the significance of that, he then went on to say that that would mean that even over international waters, we might shoot down american aircraft, which he knows and you all should know, we have flown for the first time in a couple decades, north -- you know, this is a bomber, b 1 with fighter escort, north of the 38th parallel, and let's have another martini. i mean, there's no -- i have not heard the words -- some people in this audience will recall them from 1994 when we got a blistering cable in from -- it's known in the state department as the luck laney cable. that was general luck and ambassador laney. sent in a cable essentially
asking whether we in washington were nuts? with what we were doing and planning to do in june of 1994, and we hadn't started neo operations. that's a couple hundred thousand people out of seoul. we weren't behaving consistent with the level of threat we were beginning to define in washington. this is going on now for some months, and people have said extraordinary things. they're not random people, we're talking about the president of the united states. the leader of the dprk. and yet we're leaving everybody in place. and i think we are -- so my contribution here, i think we are within hours of a military
exchange. within hours, i may have misunderstood, and it wouldn't be the first time, if there's a splashdown of irbm's around guam, if there's a test of an icbm at range instead of altitude. if there is even a brushback of u.s. military aircraft of some kind, i think it's quite plausible that the secretary of defense wasn't kidding when he said certain things happen, it will be game on. and tag will certainly appreciate what that phrase means, and certainly everybody else should too. what i'm expecting, in other words -- and i want to say, i will not be surprised if the hurricane doesn't hook right and miss us entirely, if we get hit by this hurricane, i don't think anybody should get up in the morning and say, how could that
have happened. now, i don't want to completely ignore your question. but -- so what does this mean for the alliance? i noticed that president moon said something like -- and somebody here, maybe you all can correct me, something like, the united states has assured him that we will not act in it a kinetic way. no, he didn't say that. but in a kinetic way, without first getting approval from seoul. certainly consulting, the consulting is a soft word. but approval is another word. there might not be time. what i'm saying is that i think -- to go through a crisis like this and have nothing happen, i think is terrific for at lie answer. i think to go through a crisis like this and have it tested
where we strike, and our allies is the most probable to suffer is most probable. i want to say finally that i hope we can avoid saying the kinds of things that have been said. i think most sharply by a guy who used to work in the white house by the name of bannon, who said, there is no military option. ladies and gentlemen, there are many military options, there is just no free military option. there's no military option which is without risk.
if someone is without military options, i would argue it is the dprk not the usa. >> thank you for sufficiently scaring us. hopefully you have something more uplifting to say? >> i have a little more of a glass half full assessment, i would say this. as tom and sandy know well, when you're the ambassador, you're charged with maintaining the bilateral relationship, and what ends up happening is that you manage -- what you try to do is manage through the disagreements, because you're never going to disagree or never going to agree on anything, you're two sovereign countries, two different peoples all of that, you try to accentuate the
positives, you're trying to take stock of where the alliance is, what i would say is, on north korea policy, a couple points. what's interesting is that north korea policy has dominated the alliance, right? i would say toward the end of the obama administration, we were obviously very focused on the north korea threat. rightly so, and i think president obama would tell you upon leaving office, it was the number one -- or right there with isis, he had held that view for some time, i think the question is, we were looking at that, but obviously looking at all the other facets of the bilateral relationship. one of which flaired up in the news a week ago. what i would say is on the north korea situation, what it has done, it has drowned out a lot of the other elements. in terms of bandwidth, and i always say that the scarcest commodity in washington is the time attention and energy of
senior policy makers, and it's rightly fixated on the north korea threat. probably at the expense of some other facets that are important and really livelihood and the american people. so i think that's one point that you do see that's interest iing. again, you do see this real focus. but there are only so many hours in a day to work on these issues. the second is taking apart north korea or unpacking north korea. i don't see a lot of daylight in policy between the administration and president trump's madministration, at leat right now. three or four months ago, i might have said there's a potential, but i do think that the provocations and the escalating nature of the situation is outlined has caused the two to sort of cling together on a range of issues.
they are basically on the same page in terms of pressure. they are basically on the same page in terms of what i would say in the defense sphere in terms of communication through our military channels, through our capable upgrades. you don't see major issue there is. and what i would also say is they are being fairly creative in terms of their military thinking, posture, planning and you don't e see a lot of riffs, at least outwardly so. i would say there's general alignment and i think the question is a couple of things. one, how is this going to hold up over time. two, i think the u.s. does need some of its people in place to help manage these alliances. you can only manage these at the top for so long before you start to see some cracks or dropped balls. this is not a situation for dropped balls. three, finally, that there is, i would say, a general agreement
on the assessment. marcus could speak to that. kim jong-un is not his father. it's a very different situation. and the situation is very dangerous. much more dangerous than it was five to ten years ago. finally let me just say in terms of the other facets of the elements, because we would talk about other elements. bob is here working for five and a half years or at least on and off and as a a private citizen. i think the jury is still out. we have to see in the other elements and those are important elements going forward, but rightly so to repeat myself, north korea has been in focus and in sharp focus because it is a serious and dangerous problem. we'll stop there. >> thank you. >> hello, everyone. i think you already noticed that i'm kind of the new face here.
and at least the famous least known person. i'm honored to be surrounded by the famous people. i was a member of the foreign policy team. in 2012 the election campaign and we failed. 2016 i rejoined and regarding policy. i'm free to criticize rather than the minister. because i sound a little different from my opinion.
from other people. so i will give three points and maybe i could go over a little bit longer, but bare with me. we might all have to confess that we reach the point that nowhere to duo. as far as the nuclear problem is concerned. north korea is the defacto nuclear state, even though it's not a state of policy. and kim jong-un is different from his predecessors. it's about gaining nuclear capability. it is a little exaggerating things, but it's not a total post. and he is in on his pace.
. and it doesn't want to have dialogue now and it's not going to rush for dialogue until completion of nuclear development. and north korea may not be solvable at this moment. and for the time being. but at the same time, we all know we cannot accept this situation. and accept that north korea is a nuclear state. as a state of policy. and what do we have now? everybody says, especially leaderships talking about all options on the table and military options. to me, it's unthinkable. and majority at this moment many people share the opinion that increase the pressure over north korea.
and inkrecrease the capability, deterrence capability until what? until north korea is giving up or collapsing. or coming to the table with that. i don't think it's possible in the near future. and having said that, right now, everybody knows candle light demonstrations. he's sandwiched by conservative ends, he's a supporter. i'm kind of in between progressive because i can now fully criticize him right now, but progressives are really frustrated. they expected him to be different. and many people agree he
has-and-a-hahas navigate a very narrow path. there's so many obstacles. and challenges and pressure from washington. and although moon has not done much on ebb gaugement issue, yet, but still the widespread concern if not suspicions on his weak point. he even trump said his appeasement. the deployment become a litmus paper from both directions. from u.s. and from progressive in south korea. he's being sandwiched by these two. i'm really worried he's a losing support base of progressives. and domestic audience becoming much more important in both countries. that's the issue here too. and although trump has pledged a top priority and outline has
been provided through interviews and speeches and tweets. policy seems to me as influx. it's strategic patience or confusions. and why trufr wants to differentiate himself in the name of maximum pressure and engagement, his policy has emphasized pressure with a little clarity on what conditions for engage mement. my last point. trump continues to give mixed messages. he thinks by doing so creates additional leverage. maybe he's right. but too risky for south koreans.
e he has to decide to solve the problem or to use the problem to accomplish other goal containing china or domestic purpose. because i think cannot have both. because china's help is critical. both as washington should continue to try to work with north korea because there can be no serious progress without china's cooperations. understanding china's interests as leverage of gaining trust can be the best way to draw chinese commitment to solve the problem. i'm going to finish my comment by quoting jeffrey bather's
recent report. the attitude of the public debate in the u.s. over north korea problem that obsesses over the threat to the u.s. mainland why ignoring the clear and present danger to allies on the doorstep has revived lock debates in the region about u.s. reliability in the face of c china. >> thank you. so i have so many questions, but i'll just ask few and open up to the audience. just the follow up on your statement on how do we need to consider leading with nuclear north korea. there's a debate here. i have a couple questions. first question has to do with containment. because we don't want to go there. we don't want to publicly extend the nuclear power and all that. i get that.
but after all the diplomatic, economic long distances. the big question is were containment in terms of traditional nuclear deterrence like it worked with soviet union and russia over 50 years have worked. i think there's a debate ultimately whether containment can work with north korea and given how little we know about kim jong-un's intentions, what his thinking is, how sure are we that how confident can we be to work with north korea. and this second question is on china because we brought it up a little bit but haven't talked about it. in terms of dealing with north korea. . china announced saturday it would halt exports of some
petroleum products to north korea and stop um porting textiles and this is after and obviously this bares watching because we watch for a long time. and we have been disappointed over and over. the spotlight fades. so what is your assessment. is it tactical? is it hedging tactics they have always done? or is there something more fundamental going on that you're seeing? and one question for you. when you say he's losing progressive votes, i'm not quite sure what are progressive expecting from president moon. he has reached out to north korea many times asking for dialogue and engagement. north koreas that are not accepting it. they are saying no, we're not going to deal with south korea.
what is president moon supposed to do about that? >> containment, we have to think of the different posture is actually now why some people argue the nuclear weapons. upgrading the systems they have now so these options should be seriously considered by u.s. they have isolation. after we have just started the real sanctions by having 2375,
but we have not gone to the level to be on that case. we can think about it. i saw maybe the people who suffered from that kind of comprehensive sanction. so we have been followed very now we are shifting toward sanctions. it's very critical. you remember. finally a second. how we can dry up. information influx sags in north korea. that actually leads change. now people are popular what they call market of the economy. we have to think about how we can utilize or use the market of
north korea. and the other i like to implement it. but that must be guaranteed. actually theerer verification, we cannot be sure about it. we can think about the views of international monetary mechanism. so those are things i can think of. a different way to approach the nuclear and missile program. >> first, my glass is half empty. i think that we go to the point that you made, one can look negatively if you live in south
korea at the united states' current fixation with missiles made with nuclear weapons. a situation which the south koreans and japanese have been living with for quite some time. that would be a negative interpretation. i live here and have great affection for my country so i don't take it that way. i think it as a structural problem, which we have long recognized with extended deterrence. we had that problem as the europeans came to understand one of the problems that we have done with the nato guarantee. when the soviet union has extraordinary nuclear ca capability. could we still be trusted.
the deterrence lose any credibility once we become vulnerable. i have a short answer for that, no. but the question stands. the second thing is what do americans particularly want or ask of their government with respect to the north korea capability to take one of those boosted or truly thermonuclear weapon asks put on an american city. do they expect our government to stop the north koreas from this, as you said correctly, not a preemptive strike, but a a preventive strike to stop that capability. knowing that it not only would
be catastrophe plausibly if not inevitably for south korea, but a second korean war. or do we instead of going that way and risking that, we risk the vulnerability of uncertainty of deterrence of the leader of north korea. so this -- i like this a as question for the american people. i know what my answer is. i don't know what the american people's answer is. the third point is china. american presidents always discover china. and i'm prepared to believe that the chinese have figured out what e we want them to do. we don't nooen need to send envoys to explain that to them. i would like an envoy to go and
be as clear as possible about american thinking and behavior. and. expectations for my restraint under certain circumstances. that's what i'm all about now. not getting the chinese to act responsible in northeast asia. and finally, sanctions. i i recognize there are different kinds of sanctions that we have a model in the iranian case ask sanctions played in our model a a key role and i'm prepared to believe that's true, but i'm noot prepared to believe we should fall in love with sanctions. i think sanctions can increase pressure and that may be good or bad depending on what we want to achieve. it is not going to stop their programs. i don't believe this is even remotely possible. that it would cause sufficient pain that they may decide that if they could have that pressure released by negotiation they will have a fake one or a real
one. they may get them to the table. if that's your objective, okay. you can have another objective, which is getting them to their knees, that's not going to. happen. we shouldn't make believe it will. >> let me take a stap at a couple of these. i would say on tactical nuclear weapons, i'm not a fan. i'm with bob on the deterrence issue. i think the american commitment is strong and real having worked at the highest levels of the pentagon. we take these extremely seriously and put resources against them and we practice and are prepared tr them. so i think that's the first one. the second pointed i would say,
a lot of the arguments when you hear them about reintroduction on the peninsula tend to be around a trip wire. if we have tactical nuclear weapons there, there's a trip wire and the u.s. will be less able to be coupled in the event of some sort of threatening with nuclear weapons from north korea. the trip wire is there. it's 30,000 troops and all the american citizens. it's the treaty commitments. there's deep and abiding commitment there. so i would say finally undermine your moral authority. you're trying to get rid of nuclear weapons in one part of the peninsula, i think it undermines your credibility. to help e effectuate this policy. i would say just on the american involvement, look i think if
there's a silver lining here it shows that this crisis shows how deep committed the united states is. this is the highest levels of this government. very committed. i would say it was a bipartisan basis back through the obama and bush administrations. and i would argue clinton as well. the point is i was at a lunch today and off the record so i'm not going to cite it, but a well known hand was citing polling data that's publicly available that shows americans continue to believe asia is the most important part of the world. shouldn't defend if there's an attack against them. so not just the government at high levels but the american people are deeply engaged with this issue as well.
>> questions just short absentees for the rep. like a conservative some kind of heading ground on nationalist sentiment because of the crisis. by north korea. so it's not the solution for the crisis. you have to understand, first, it's the outcome of candle light demonstration. and the big problem is campaign promise is the different approach toward north korea. even don't consider them. they understand the grave situation.
they understand why inclined to the hard line policy. they are trying to get assurance from the u.s. he tried to clarify and make him understand and get the assurance to avoid sabotage but it's too much. and too much work. they know this is not the time for engagement, but at least they want moon to show some kind of positioning. and get the vision and persuade
u.s. they were so happy that they are sbielt led to have a leading role. there's the point. and the mixed messages from the specifically three things. and the comment and over abol h abolishing. >> after having the resolution, they used to comply. and they have a a way of doing the business. so i don't think china has made
a specific decision. the preservation of the regime is most important national security interests. so i don't think they will push to the limit because they are afraid of the collapse of the regime. china is complying with the resolution, by i don't know how long they can enforce and they can't enter the next loefl sanctions. so i'm cautious about the chinese corporation enforcing the sanctions. but actually, the problem in having china's cooperation is how farther willing to go. >> well, right now, it looks
like they are fully going to have a secondary sanction. u.s. government is committed to that. but since we're running out of time, i want to take some questions from the audience. and i'll just take a group. if you could identify yourself. >> my name is abigail dau sob. i'm a first year student at georgetown university. i have a question r for the ambassador as well as anyone else who would like to offer thoughts. do you think there would ever be a a point in the future at which it would be reasonable and realistic to consider placing tactical nuclear weapons in south korea? and if so, what would that point be? thank you.
>> good afternoon. i'm a research intern and thank you very much for the speech. i really enjoyed and learned a lot from you guys. i have a question that what are the other options rather than the more advancive weapons or impression on the china with the north korea, what are the options left for south korea and republic of south korea and u.s. cou to deal? what initiative we can take for today? >> why you ask such a hard question. >> i think we're all dumbfounded by all the questions and inability to answer. one thing we haven't talked about is generational.
and i know it was rather intriguing that president moon had had said his dream was to take his elderly mother back to north korea to his home. he would prefer to live there as well. i don't know how long ago he wrote that. but you have that on the one hand. is that the progressive or we have not heard the word renunification once. and secondly, how many of the south korean young people feel anything other than just the security, military threat and are they just in their own other world. thirdly, how many people in north korea would be just devastated if kim were to depart.
>>. >> i think we just have one more. and then we'll let the panelists answer. >> i have a question. my question is everybody agrees that china has a kilo when it comes to dealing with those issues. but it seems like everybody kind of read it's very important. but what if they turn out to be unsuccessful. does the united states go forward to impose secondary on china? >> so we have a first question on tactical nuclear weapons. maybe not now. but maybe your question is at what point if maybe north korea has this capability to attack, at some point is that acceptable or not.
the e second question is what other options are there when it comes to north korea. third question, last if sanctions fail, what is next? >> maybe i'll lump the first and the third together because they are both directed a the me. in a situation like this, i don't think you want to take options off the table. this is a dangerous, delicate and complex situation. you don't want to start ruling things in or out forever and ever or saying that you'll never do something. i think that's the first point. on tactical nuclear weapons, i would still say the bar is high. extremely high for reintroduction, proliferation concerns, proximity concerns, your moral e e situation concerns. so i wouldn't hazard a guess
because i can't predict the future, but i would say it's a high threshold. and you have seen ib creasing proximity to engage in secondary sanctions as well. that's something that both administrations, obama and trump, have been exercising judiciously because the issue at hand is if you do too much, one, you actually release all your leverage, and what you're trying to do is speed up the chinese clock. so you sort of implement the sanctions and that's all you have. but the second is that you risk turning the chinese the other way. as everybody here has said today, the chinese are a necessary part of this e equation. so i'll stop there. >> it's a hard question you raised. i think from my personal experience with president moon, he's more like resembles more
he's such a pragmatist to me. he's very progressive in certain areas. but after he became the president, i think he became more. so you don't have to worry about much about his ideological coverage. he's really pragmatist. they are the ones that suffer the most. but has at least resource and leverage to solve the problems. so korea to be in the driver seat, we need help from china and the u.s. both becauoth countries have th leverage. so here's my ideas. get the leverage from the two countries and for the past 25
years, we never, many people said you edadjust all the optio. but we never used this pressure and engagement at the same time. so at this moment, it's not like saying that. we need some kind of relation between the three trilateral cooperation. not among u.s., japan and korea. but among korea, u.s., china. so u.s. and china is maximizing pressure. and they outsourcing to south korea. i think that's the one inside that's why progressive are arguing and asking moon to have a position rather than
zigzagging to people. and about young generation, they worry about but many americans are surprised how calm korea and south korea is against this situation. maybe one reason is because it's been awhile. and north korea is always like that. we are really worried because of unpredictability from president trump. and nuclear bomb. so junk young jgenerations prefr peace. i don't think they care about unification at this point. and moon cares about the peace, rath en rather than unification. maybe outside they will be sad, but inside they will work ob it.
>> i hope president moon stays with the current cause by enforce iing the sanction. and upgrading by spending more money on defense. e he promised to spend dl 2.9% of gdp ob defense. so the sooner the better. he is going to actually preserve combine defense posture and combine forces command. so i hope he will maintain the current cause as we can. china actually i don't know is a possible to have a corporation. you say china's role is the responsibility. china actually has led the situation. if they helped us and corrected, ten years ago, it could be better at the moment. china sees most of the nuclear
problem as a u.s./china rival. at the moment, china has. cooperated. how far and how long. i don't know. >> this is the last word and i'm sure he will disagree on something. which is good. that's what panelists are supposed to do. >> i would like to end on a proposal of two-step program to solve north korea problem. ste one would be the judicious application of duct tape in two capitals. step two would be an agreement to have fairly senior representatives of both governments meet without
preconditions to have talks about having talks. >> with that, i think we'll conclude this panel. please thank them with a round of applause. >> thank you very much. e we'd like to thank our panel and everyone for coming today. hope to see you again some time in the future. thank you. our partner for this speech. i'd like to thank them too.
paul mitchell discusses tax reform. skpefrt s and efforts to reform the air traffic control system. ask our c-span bus 50 states capital tour continues in maryland. lieutenant governor boyd rutherford will be our guest to talk about top public policy issues in maryland. then ohio democratic congresswoman marci kapter on nafta negotiations and manufacturing. be sure to watch washington journal loif at 7:00 a.m. eastern tuesday morning. join the discussion. next former ambassadors to russia and ukraine on whether the u.s. should arm ukraine. it focused on russia's aggression, the role of the european union and the current military power. this runs an hour and a half.