Partnered with the foundation today to bring you this discussion. Camp david on august 18. We will do this and to be of parts. Colonel luc deckard from the pentagon. It will be an independent look. A colleague we will have time many of you watching online, submit your questions at any time. First, seth is the director of the office. A country director for national affairs. I will ask a question. If you bumped into a friend down the street and they asked you how it went, what would be your brief explanation . Thank you. It is a pleasure to be here with you. It is a pleasure being on this panel with you as well. I think there are three things that are the top line big things to take away. One of the most exciting moments of the press conference was when President Biden paraphrased his now famous line and was talking about the Affordable Care act. He said this is a big this is historic. It is a big deal. The reason it is a big deal is because of the leadership and the initiative has gone into this historic summit. It is easy for me to think about the effort and the way it works to bring it to pass. But i think it is very appropriate for us to acknowledge leadership and the courage and the way this came together was monumental. That is one important thing. The foreign minister level, the finance minister and so many others. I think that the most important are the annualized meetings. I think that is very important. It is my second top line. I am focused on myself and my team. I think there is a lot of very important deliverables that are in the summit and we will be working over the course of the next month and year, whether it is cyber or people, Economic Technology and deliverables. All of these things are important. Those are my top three takeaways. We have a lot of work to do. Mark you can what would you tell your friend . If i was talking to any of my friends, i would stay is at a turning point. There was not a plethora of new initiatives. Between the military, the defense sectors, what this does is it gives us the opportunity to do more. Particularly in exercises. I think now, we have an open door to increase the amount, level and scope of exercises that we do outside of just the maritime domain. There are other exercises that happen, but they are generally multilateral in nature. With this we have the opportunity to focus. We need to combine it into one. I would tell my friends that we are very we work very closely with japan, but what i have noticed is that south korea is at a turning point. I believe this trilateral is set to lead more so than it ever has in the past. Mark thank you. There is a lot of terminology. I have seen requisites for the camp david agreement. There was camp david principles. The second institution, we talk about the quad. We talked about the office but what do we call this thing . We need a good acronym. We have focused so much on the substance but we need to figure out. Beyond calling it a big deal, we do not have yet. There are generalists who will come up with a name for it, but the substance is very clear. How we described it may not be a bumper sticker, but one of the things that stands out to me is the way the very first to be of sentences began. He talked about the countries coming together. We do so at a time where there is an opportunity. It could be a challenge or trouble, that that is not what it said. Become together at a time on unpaid a time of unparalleled opportunity. When i think about camp david that this is the president s first use of camp david as a symbol of peace and opportunity. I think it fits very nicely with what we know about camp david. Do they have different status . I do not think they have different status. I think they serve different purposes. It has quite a lot of detail in it. Commitment to consult is quite short. One paragraph explains what it is and another describes what it is not. The spirit of camp david we talk more about the impact and the focus. I think each play an Important Role in explaining and demonstrating the intention of the summit. Each stands on its own as well. I think we have a suggestion box out side the cafeteria. The president talked about this being security pact. Is that an accurate way to describe it . When you hear a lot of the media, it makes it sound very similar, but it is far from that. It is a way for the organization to communicate closer with each other. A lot of those terms were used frequently with information sharing. I think that is what the media is saying when they talk about a security path. It is a form of communication. I think when the media explains it, it implies that japan might be willing to come to the defense of korea and vice versa. I think leanne just on the cooperate, communicate and consult level. Immense you mentioned we already have treaties. We do joint exercises. What would camp david add that is new to this . All three of those words were used in the press conference. We already have the treaties and although i believe this was a turning point in the relationship, it does not add much on top of what was already there, but it gives us an opportunity to act more. Speaking of domains, there is a lot of exercise, a lot of cooperation that happens, but not at the level it could have been in the past. With the summit meeting, we have a push for information sharing to increase even more. We have mechanisms to utilize that. We use them to share more information and discuss more at that level and through defense channels. I was alluding to it earlier. There are a lot of maritime exercises. This gives us the opportunity to increase those exercises into the land domain and space domain. Cybersecurity and Information Security as well, which is very important. To go to your question about the difference combined. It is difficult to explain sometimes. Multidomain is essentially all the domains integrated into each other, instead of taking a layered approach. They are focused on a layered approach and if you look at the other domains, they have been called a layered approach. They are all integrated in the same fight. A Task Commander is utilizing all of them. All the services are creating their own operations within the services as well. All these services fighting together or operating together, combined for multiple countries, operating together. To confuse you more, some countries like japan do not like to use the word combine, instead using the word joint. There can be some confusion there. Combined is something that we specifically use in the last to talk about multiple countries operating together. Im thinking about this in general. They were not doing exercises. Can you address a little bit the photo ops to show the flags flying together . . Military definitely needs to do exercises together. We need do exercises. Although it did appear that maybe we were not exercising together, there are always small exercises happening. The Ballistic Missile dissent exercises that happen have have been happening for years now. I do not think there was ever really a pause in those, even during covid times when exercises were having trouble. They continued quite successful. What is the significance of commitment to consult . The u. S. Consulted. Will a commitment to change what we actually do . I think the answer is yes and no. Im glad that you raised the most creative example because i think that is a quintessential example of the past and how we consulted with each other. I can tell you that whenever there is a north korean provocation, it is often times a matter of minutes when we engage our counterparts. It happens very quickly and it is very well organized. I think that our responses have been clear and easy to understand. I think that the commitment to consult is something that encompasses more. I think what you are going to see is a commitment to consult across multiple publications. We will consult trilateral he in an expeditious manner. That is not limited directly. It can mean a lot of things. Could it be natural or Cyber Attacks . How broad is it . It is not just limited to security issues. What we see is a commitment across the governments with the breadth of challenges that face us. That is what it is. But it is not is an abdication of authority making abilities. They will continue to make those decisions for themselves. We will get together and we will share information, relying on our institute and coordinating action. Is it just on the hotline . It is more than just a hotline. It is on the working level. The response that we coordinate happens at multiple levels. It is well organized. Talk about the reaction from other countries. Im surprised. I might have missed something. China has been very vigorous. It is appropriate to say that camp david summit is are you surprised by that reaction . I have known him for over a decade. I am not surprised. It reminds me of when lever at the dialogue in mongolia and there were a number of presentations, including one from kicker. Associated with state security. She had a presentation and she spent about 17 of those 20 minutes focused on a relationship and the last few minutes talking about the progress that was made and how the countries were coming together. And so, clearly they have been focused on this presummit as well and after the summit. I think that is the best response is that it is not in a cold war. It is not an opening shot. We have focused on managing our relationship in a constructive way. We have seen the special envoy and so on. At the highest levels, you see a commitment in a constructive way. At the same time, addressing very serious concerns that are destabilizing in the region. I think President Biden at the press conference said that it is not all about china. It is about that. It is about much more than that. After having spent the better part of the decade in china, i feel reluctant to try to get in their head and channel what they think about these things. I do not know whether they were evaluating stronger or less strong. I know that the summit was not meant as an attack or a direct drive. It was designed to create deeper and more constructive relationships. Thank you. Forces operate under a combined forces command. It is a complicated structure. Does involving japan further does it complicate an already complicated mechanism further . Militarily, what does japan have to offer . Incorporating japan into military planning is more important than ever right now. We do not have something with japan and i do not believe we will have one with the pen, but they are very distinctly Different Military ways of cooperating between the countries. I think, even when you look in korea, there are a lot of complications already associated. Korea has a desire to move all of the issues that have come with getting towards that goal. When you look at the perspective , modeling, any relationship with japan we should not do that. There will probably be something in between what we do now. We are very much in parallel with japan, but something in between would be very beneficial to us and japan. It is critically important to continue working with japan. If anything from an integrated perspective. Security cooperation does not have to be contingency planning. A lot of it is Campaign Planning and japan has a lot to offer. It is one of the ways that their selfdefense forces get into the strategy that comes out of their government. The last question you asked me, which was, what capabilities . Do you mean specifically about what japan has to add or vice versa . Both. Talk about it in a military sense. I think that is where the summit may have really increasing readiness, having the countries train together and learn how to operate, how to utilize their equipment, learn how the u. S. And japan operates, and that korea observed that. Vice versa, let japan observe how korea and the last works together. That will increase that military capability. There is a lot to be said with Security Cooperation and the Defense Industry. Both countries rely very heavily on the u. S. I would like to see both the countries pick up a greater amount on their own, and start providing, not only their own forces, but forces outside their countries with that Defense Industry capability. I know that japan is working on that. It would allow them to potentially export potential articles to other countries. If they can move forward with that, there is an opportunity for japan and korea enhance their capabilities. The Defense Industry is one of the sectors they would like to grow. Does the less welcome not . I think our Defense Industry would want them to use our Defense Industry. But from a partner perspective, i think the correct answer is, we want our closest allies to be able to produce their own defense capabilities. Of course, we can benefit from that. If a country finds ai, space or Something Like that. We may be able to reverse the way that we do our sir Security Cooperation. We can use those capabilities from another country and our own Defense Industry. Thank you. One of the most impressive aspects is institutional arrangements. Not just the free leaders to meet annually. One of the things you look at is how we commit time. Does that replace the bilateral work . It feels like it is all in addition to what we are doing. The trilateral relationship, as significant and important as it is and as historic as this summit is, it is not meant to replace the individual, bilateral relationships. It is between the u. S. And japan and u. S. And the republic of korea. This will augment that. There will be an additional level of work, but we are looking forward to it. It is not going to result in a shunting aside of bilateral relationships. It will only make them stronger. Back to the word security. There seems to be a dissolving line between security and economics. Is it still in terms of hardware and proper military . You cannot separate the two these days. They are all 100 integrated into the way that we are looking at the future and campaigns. Of course, space operations, we created a new space force and i know japan is getting more actively involved in space. The Defense Industry and ai and particular is still unknown right now. It poses such a potential threat to the u. S. And all three of our countries, many countries throughout the world. It is not integrated early on in the Defense Industry. The way that we operate, especially with our allies and partners we will be behind very quickly. Specifically with japan, i know that we are talking more and more about how they can, and i do not know if those decisions are happening with korea right now. They might be, but we are looking to our allies and partners to try to contribute to ai as a security initiative. Can you comment on that . Absolutely. If you look at korea and the way their industries are developingc vehicles, batteries, semiconductors, of course, they are the global leader, and ai and quantum computing, where they are making a right i think it is incredible strides. I think it is extremely important that the trilateral focuses on those economic areas. It will bring us closer together and make the countries more competitive. Like i said, it is not just about the security aspects of the relationship, it is much more than that, and this is one area where the economic them of the technological, cyber domains, those things are really right for additional cooperation between the countries. Mr. Tokola before i turned to audience questions, looking at the Jigsaw Puzzles of the agreements, theres not enough now. Korea and japan add to or detract from the others, how do they fit together, how do you work with all the and apap, the new aipac, the new relationship. How they fit together . Lt. Col. Deckard they fit together. [laughter] there is certainly some overlap. You do not want each of these things to be discreet, because then you end up having gaps between them. I think that, for example, you may be referring to the indo pacific dialogue, that is an ordained dialogue between the United States, japan, and the republic of korea that is focused on discrete, specific issues that some other dialogue dont. So that is still to be worked out in terms of we have a pretty good sense of exactly when and how and where we are going to do that, but im not prepared to make any specific announcement that this point. But all joking aside, they absolutely do fit together in a way that i think creates something that is bigger than the sum of their parts, and, you know, it is expansive but still very valuable. Mr. Tokola im going to ask you guys one more question. I said i would not, but i have to. We talk about security aspects. Do you think the economic parts have been underreported . Mr. Bailey yeah. I dont know about underreported, but the economic parts of it cannot be over emphasized. I think they are extremely valuable. I think of jake sullivan, when he was talking about this presser before the meetings began, he spoke about the moment before inertia, and i think that is applicable when we are talking about the economic relationship. Remember that this summer and the trilateral relationship, it did not just kind of happened now, it was not created in a vacuum. It is, in fact, built upon the work of others that have gone before, for years and decades, and that is true, especially the economic relationship, where have freetrade agreements, where we have business to business and people to people ties that are decades old. I thank the deliverables that are coming out of the summit, the technology deliverables, those things are taking into a new level that i think really should be focused on and on. I think the business communities are actually going to be quite pleased with. But it is probably being overshadowed a little bit by the security aspects, commitment to consult and those types of things. Mr. Tokola i think youre right about that, and i think agreements are sometimes not in the texts, sometimes universities or think tanks, industries, or maybe trilateral, just because they have seen them together. Mr. Bailey yeah. Mr. Tokola ok, let me turn to audience questions. Lets start right to left. When i listen to this, i go back in time, the 1960s, we have the tonkin gulf resolution, telling people you are going to go up against the mighty United States if you do anything. Itd not work too well, did it . Now i look at the treaty resolution, and i cant help but wondering, why is this going to turn out any better . Mr. Bailey let me make sure i understand the question. The question is, essentially, is the trilateral relationship destined to fail on the rocks of past efforts that have not been completely fulfilled . Theres a saying, history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes, and im hearing an echo. Weve got this arrangement. Weve got another. It is not identical, but it is similar. Mr. Bailey well, i will take a stab at that, and then maybe you can answer it. I can tell you, having been involved in a number of these discussions for quite some time that you have people who have looked at the ways in which past efforts have either succeeded or, in some cases, not succeeded, and have worked very, very hard to address the weaknesses of past efforts. And i think that the relationship, as it relates now, the trilateral relationship is well calculated and designed to succeed, and i think that in reality, we are seeing it succeed already in many was next. It is not just about the summit, as i said. There are a number of efforts that have gone on before this. In some cases before, for years and for decades. And a lot economic and otherwise. My sense is there are many reasons to be optimistic, not pessimistic, about the future of the trilateral relationship. Lt. Col. Deckard i agree with that as well, you know, especially within defense channels, the trilateral relationship has existed for quite some time. It has just reached a new level with this summit. I do not think it is comparable to nato or an office right now. There is very little official cooperation that has been designated compared to those organizations, but just the fact that, again, the trilateral relationship has existed for years now is bringing it to a new level. I think it is one part of many multilateral establishments, dialogues, engagements that are all part of the Bigger Picture throughout. Mr. Tokola next year if the 75th anniversary of nato, so sometimes these things happening during have an enduring value. You had a question, you had your hand up . Thank you so much for your comments. I read an interesting article pretty much saying how with the United States limited, with its china policy, with its bipartisan position, aggressive china policy, but not being the case with japan, it is unclear who wants a better relationship with china for several reasons. It is kind of a missed opportunity that the summit did not include any diplomatic efforts to reach across the aisle with other rival countries like china and north korea, even though they include a lot of diplomatic efforts among each other. Indicating a missed opportunity to cooperate with china and north korea, that they will try and cooperate with them, do you think that is beyond the scope of this summit . Thank you. Mr. Bailey yeah. I think i would disagree a little bit with the characterization in that article. I think that, in reality, the United States places a great deal of focus and attention on managing its relationship with p. R. C. And, for that matter, dprk, in a constructive way. Taking the dprk first, we have made it clear have no hostile intentions toward north korea, and convey that message both privately and publicly. Of course, north korea has engaged in an unprecedented level of missile testing, very aggressive rhetoric, and despite that, we continue to explain, both publicly and privately, that when north korea is ready you are ready to engage in direct discussions in an effort to manage and lower tensions. With respect to the prc, as i mentioned earlier, we have haddix really high level engagement with china we have had an extremely high level engagement with china. I completely disagree with the assessment of the trilateral summit. What we do seek our opportunities and ways to explain, our very real concerns about the p. R. C. s behavior. Some of those were outlined directly in the joint statement, especially with respect to the South China Sea and what is happening there now. We will continue to be very clear and very vocal about those concerns while at the same time were to engage directly with the working to engage directly with p. R. C. Lt. Col. Deckard the only thing i would add to that is, particularly with the p. R. C. , all three countries have mechanisms to cooperate with the p. R. C. In their own way. I think it is outside the scope of this trilateral summit to consider the trilateral as an opportunity to communicate or cooperate with the p. R. C. Or the dprk. Mr. Tokola on the side, in the back. Thank you very much. Thank you very much for doing this. Can you talk a little bit more about the Nuclear Issue . Are you going to consult with japan and south korea try laterally for Nuclear Planning or response to north Koreas Nuclear weapons . Thank you. Mr. Bailey so, it was discussed that both countries would remain under the policy of extended to tourette, and extended deterrent, and separately, there were conversations about consulting and increased communication. However, i think extended deterrence will be more focused on bilateral than trilateral in the future. We will see how that turns out. I dont think you will see major changes, the way it has been already bilateral with the two countries. Mr. Tokola here in the front. Grace i am grace ckhan. I have two points. Given the emphasis on the rulesbased International Order and while supporting japans dramatic increase in military strength, why doesnt the u. S. Pressure japan far more to take legal responsibility for its world war ii crimes against humanity . And my second point is actually a comment. I believe colonel David Maxwell has come up with an acronym, jrkus. I think that is right. Throwing that out there. Mr. Bailey jrkus sounds as good as anything out there. That is great. Your first point is a very important question to address. I think if you take a look at the way japan has responded, fo, to Prime Minister kishida in hiroshima. All of these things suggest a real development, a real change, a maturing, and improvement in the relationship that is, in fact, based on the genuine feelings and concerns of the government of japan from other people of japan, the republic of korea. Beyond that, i think you would have to ask your questions to the government of japan from a government of south korea, but my sense is that things are improving, and that we should focus on that. Mr. Tokola in my sense, history is not being forgotten. The statements read like an agreement, historical issues, important cooperation now, like we have in the past. The gentleman here with the glasses. Thanks. About the nuclear, does that contribute to the nuclear nonproliferation, keeping the genie in the bottle . Can you Say Something about the economic level . But ai, i can see stuff like con academy khan academy, can into leveling the Playing Field in schools. Can you Say Something about the economic, nonproliferation . Lt. Col. Deckard yeah. So, you know, i mean, i think that, call it a relationship, the nuclear umbrella, the Nuclear Consultant group, all of these are to assure the republic of japan, the republic of korea, and the republic of the United States, our solution is ironclad. It does not change. There are documents that are publicly available. You see a commitment and a desire to find a way in the future to move away from nuclear weapons, and i think all three countries are committed to that goal and that objective while at the same time, the United States detaining it reform, ironclad commitment to the defense of our partners and allies. With respect to the atomic deliverables, im sorry, i did not quite hear your question. Do you mind saying it one more time, please . [inaudible] mr. Bailey i see. Mark asked this question about whether or not some of the economic deliverables were being overshadowed by the securityrelated aspects of the summit, and i said that is true. I think it is more than what people call the military industrial complex. Because across all sectors. If you look at the deliverables in the documents, i think you will see that they are incredibly rod, they will read a lot of new moment between the united and the republic of korea and japan, including momentum between our industries and such a way that all our countries, economic prospects are going to improve over the course of months and years. Lt. Col. Deckard i think maybe a little bit to answer your question as well, i know in the u. S. , we are interested in increased multilateral issue initiatives, and ai would be one of them. Primarily, they are focused bilaterally right now, but this opens the door for Trilateral Research development, evaluation within defense channels. Mr. Tokola these are wonderful questions. I am a former diplomat. Justice this piece of technology, japan now has the ability to pick up ultra low sounds, like when there is a nuclear test in north korea, they can hear it. Shockingly, that includes missile launchers as well. So if kim jongun is stupid enough brilliant enough to launch his missiles during a typhoon, we cannot see it thank. The only thing that is going to save us is the ultralow sound. For years, weve had to use the United States as a postbox to change intelligence from korea to japan and vice versa. Does this agreement do away with that and allow for direct transfers, with the u. S. Being footnoted . And, if i may, any mention at all of dr. Nakashima . Mr. Bailey can you clarify your question on intelligence . Unless it is really important, they said that the u. S. , within minutes, the u. S. Has been a postbox. Does this now eliminate that . And on the hotline, the ability to pick up the phone, have a translator Standing Bear in both leg which is, that kind of standing there in both languages, that kind of stuff. Mr. Bailey the facilitator between two countries, the mechanisms are not in place, and we have the prisons or systems that need to be created could we already have systems in where japan, the u. S. , and south korea are connected. They are in those two countries versus having the u. S. Use them independently. As far as a bilateral summit, that system is probably going to be utilized more now than it ever work, so that information would be open to all three countries not pass through one, not past u. S. To the other. There was no discussion of any territorial disputes between the countries. Mr. Tokola we are going to give you one last chance to Say Something you wish to have said wished i had asked any last thoughts . Lt. Col. Deckard last thoughts . Well, i think that i come back to the courage that has been displayed by world leaders, President Biden, president moon, Prime Minister kishida, and this is a relationship now that, as biden said at the conference, is going to exist and move for decades. Sometimes theres some discussion about, well, what about this or that . And i think the relationship is on solid ground and has been built on a very important history that is going to continue to grow and rest over the years to come. Mr. Tokola lt. Col. . Lt. Col. Deckard i think it is built on a little bit of security, especially being focused on at the ap level and below, which is really able government approach, trilateral cooperation, so i think that it is safeguarded from future administration changes, just for the fact that theres multiple levels of government that are proceeding with us. Mr. Tokola thank you very much. Thank you for addressing administration changes. Please join me in thanking seth bailey and lt. Col. Deckard. [applause] we will take a very brief pause to reset the channels, maybe five minutes. [indistinct conversations]