Minutes im the senior or for congressional affairs. The great economic institute. I would like to thank you all for coming. As you know this past fall south korea went through a process that led to earlier this morning which then resulted in a president ial election in south korea. Unlike others he has no transition period accept he assumes office in south korea. Ye are fortunate to talk about how this will impact the u. S. And korean relations, economic relations between the two countries as well and a series of other important issues and we are fortunate to have three very good experts and individuals as well as the financial times. We also have a bruise from the heritage foundation. Thank you very much. I also want to thank the panel for giving their invaluable time to come here and talk about south korea. My first question to what does that say about the political and social trends . The major factor that end up shaping this was the impeachment and public frustration and the corruption that they saw. It is a symptom of an underlying problem related to that delete relations in a society that has become i think a flashpoint within the society and force the pace along with other leaders os his party. As a result, it went up by 15 points even before it started and then he has an agenda for promoting transparency and i guess the succinct way to say it would be towards a more fair and equal Opportunity Society rather than one that feels like you have to be able to get ahead or stay ahead of. Would you agree . It is better to read this message. I think the biggest defector is for a the party that has a strong commitment and he truly values trust. He wasnt a politician originally but he had been a human rights lawyer and legal activist for more than 30 years. Then he started his career as as politician and hes also been offered but had a decline because he is a human rights lawyer. He was offered the trip under the one condition. He left the house after a the treaty and it made him back. He is a kind of people person and maintained an open mind and kept a longstanding friendship in the political field and was pressed. What do you think is the reason why . I was on a Panel Discussion after, and i had put a lot of information into identifying the precept is. I was determined not to end alll of my talking points were valid. I was determined not to goi wase through that. First things first someone had an election appearance fee and we will go from there. I think as others point out, there is a political potential y and after ten years in the conservative rule is to be expected pendulum would go the other way. After after why dont you want o throw them out and then you will get frustrated with them. So in a way they already had an advantage in certainly with the impeachment it splattered them into could be difficult to overcome so they ar are the progressives to lose and now it appeared at least there might be an upset but again it maintains the base of 40 or so it was almost a foregone conclusion. Now he tried to appeal to more of the base and didnt seem to be able to go abou above that nr he had consistently. He tried with some National Security issues and we will see whether he stays there. It will impact the economy. They fixate on the alliance and the creation and relationship with china and others there is a very full record of statements but do you think that he will implement those . Nt certainly he has indicated a as one that really wants to pursue every possible option by which to address the issue. It will work in terms of the prospect. The other distinctive element or priority is to see north korea as a market and that is an area noat there is a potential forr contradiction between the pressure in the United States and a possible emphasis on Economic Engagement with north korea. But these are issues that are going to have to be discussed between the leaders of and there is probably a way of sequencing a lot of the elements of this strategy together with the approach that synthesizing. I dont think we should automatically presume is a seems to be on a collision course because the fact of the matter is this is in the context of online games as a family matter and within the families you have to work through these issues in order to move forward so as long as both respect the fact. What do you expect in terms of the north korean publishinghn wax what do you expect in terms of the north korean policy what do you think that he will do first of all for strengthening is one of the major priorities [inaudible] said you dont see any clash between the consensus view. It depends on how he implements just the same withon president trump. They appeared open to the interpretation on any number of things. So on the online he wants to strengthen the alliance also says things like they like to negotiate with not only the United States but china and the country has been putting forth disingenuous claims and also wants the transfer to happens d quickly. When it was done i caused a great deal of angst. Also, he wants to increase the independence defense capabilities, so continuing to have the independent Defense System not integrated into more. Just from their they want to strengthen the alliance. They have the beaten path of the military structure and then the same with north korea while maintaining a strong relationship in the United States. He brings a lot of baggage to the table so you could see it as turbulence in the relationship. What do you think about him reopening the cases on the Industrial Complex do you think that he would go ahead with something . Security she would have to work in conjunction with the un and the committee for prior approval of Economic Engagement in korea and also the transparency measures and resolutions, so it would be a very troublesome move forward if he does it without conjunction not only with the u. S. You indicated you are a bit more optimistic about the relations between the u. S. And washington. Do you think that some of the constraining factor factors in f the policy is that they cant afford to antagonize washington and at the same time cant afford to antagonize the affordvative opposition in the assembly since the party has lapsed the majority of the [inaudible] the administration will appearaa he out the policy and here we see this Party Platform if we think about what the situation was 15 years ago between george w. Bush there were tensions between managed and we got through it and we will probably see something very similar. We have somebody that had some experience 15 years ago we were dealing with a bunch of people that came in and i think that in the first 24 hours, some of that experience is showing. I think that he did a very good job with his inauguration and apparently there was just a phone call this morning between trump and moon. Is there a general consensust now. As scott pointed out, theres a lot of concern or question. S i think given the fact that he was chief of staff and there were tensions in the relationship during the presidency if they talk about maximum pressure and engagement in certain condition. Its very quick although hes also cited the conditions permit theres a potential for the divergence. I would give great kudos to them and in a way they stood up against the Political Base to move forward on a critically important and truly beneficial Free Trade Agreement between the countries. Maybe we should have a National Vote on this because im not so sure about that and even publicly superintending the forces to iraq. It was a quid pro quo. Olicy on date accessed the political environment in the peninsula for the appropriate timeframe of the appropriate intervention i think the. It is strengthened to the alliance. That is different between. I want to pick up the point that was raised a abou devout te u. S. And korea Free Trade Agreement. Where do you see that going and is that a potential flashpointps given the recent comments about renegotiating or even ending the treaty or do you think that he has raised that as a poignant reminder that he could give trouble on the trade issues. My understanding for the advisors is that they like the agreement because of course they were the ones that began the process of negotiating. Its whether or not we can manage them. Its outstanding related to the agreement, but i think that the bigger issue is. Its the merchandise trade balance and even within the u. S. It will take some effort efforto absorb that and try to find out how to. All the things that need to be tweaked as a mechanism for doing that and some things didnt work out as well as he wanted to. But similarly theyve been created since i was assigned so why dont we get the folks together to sort of update it and address the technologies that are new or outdated. T you can do that among trading partners. But if youre messaging is this is the worst ever, i want to blow it up and pull away from it, you are going into the negotiations perhaps you think with a greater leverage, but you just said that you really dont care about that agreement and you are willing to walk away from it so if it is just negotiating leverage it may be counterproductive and coming in with guns blazing and then even. Laying out a red line to walk away and then later to say we are not going to are just going to tweak it a little bit. Then you kind of get whiplash a little on the message. Similarly, with comments during the Campaign Last year, on the costsharing agreement we want a 100 reimbursement. That sort of makes and alliance a mercenary arrangement where it doesnt address this in the u. S National Interest interest to he alliances in the National Interest because he had the interest and its important to have been overseas as a table listing mechanism for not only the allies but for us so its not that we need a 100 reimbursement but a lot of it is serving. If you were advising president moon what would you do to support the American People . I would try to advise so many things especially the Trump Administration is very unfamiliar. I think the trade is very related with foreignpolicy. I must be differentiated and should take account not only assuring its own country but also the consideration for all allies. There is a way to force the relations by assuring the medical longterm economic growth. I think we have too many concerns about this kind of situation. Do you have any advice . They should be directed for comments but if i could address the political dimension of this because the critical issue we look back at who is going to be advising and essentially it is likely that he has people in his camp, some of whom are pro alliance and some are pro autonomy. This alliance versus autonomy is a major tension thats always been there as a part of the policy so what that tells us i think is that if the u. S. Can manage it well in order to ensure we dont get on the wrong side of this than many of these issues can be dealt with in a rather quiet way but where we make unilateral statements and i can think of a few examples that have an impact that will resonate politically, thats going to represent a setback in terms of being able to effectively manage the situation. D japane what do you expect the relations to go under and i also would like to hear your views. In the inauguration address indicated that his willingness to go to washington, beijing and tokyo in order to further the south korean security interests he has one major obstacle and that is they pledge to reverse the agreement. I think i want hinges on how the south korean foreignpolicy advisers in the newn administration decided to frame this issue. If trying to reopen means putting themselves back in the same box that they had been in at the beginning of the Current Administration where all other aspects of the relationship that we will see a stalemate relationship and its going to be on the foreignpolicy. But if they can find a way to kind of bifurcate these issues and continue to try to address the past while also moving forward, and offers an then than alternative pathway and we will just have to wait and see. Do you have any views about the relations particularly for japan and china . As an ally [inaudible] there is an issue about the territory that can only be resolved with the Solutions Based on the International Law and those that are acceptable and agreeable to the nation ands its people. The other administration didnt reach those problems so they continue to persist. The past administrations were in the global norm and its eventually worsened the sentiment among the Korean People so therefore i believe the commitment to be reexamin reexamined. What about in terms of china what do you think that will do given that he is under a real dilemma . He ihes moved to freely bein defense. He just kept saying the nextxt government should deal with that. Wow, you will be the next government. So he just sort of kept trying to do that. More recently, as i said when he was attacking the number of issues, i think that it was if north korea does its test its sort of a done deal, which why wouldnt it be after 544 or three and given the threat now that they have miniaturized and weaponize they almost certainly have the Nuclear Missiles today which could hit your country and whereas in the past they said the missiles donthat the missia military target they are just a Political Tool is like okay the only military target they haveth in south korea said they have hundreds that are aimed at south korea. I think at least in my view it is a question of the sovereignty and National Security and that if you are willing to negotiate that along with china than you are willing to negotiateto negot anything away. South korea and the u. S. Tried to offer technical briefings and theyve refused. They try to talk about it duriny a summit and he turned it down because they know its not only false but its disingenuous, so i think even the statements that he will negotiate with chinath a about it i think that raises some concerns. We agreed before it was agreed on the domestic issues in terms of domestic policy, hes proposed ways to restructure the big conglomerate. He wants to spend more public funds before the unemployment in that sector and to spend more o infrastructure in the economy. Given the fact that he only has a plurality now in the National Assembly, how effective do youy. Think or can he be in getting that legislation through parliament . He obviously needs cooperation. The other aspect in the Current Situation in south korea is when the administration came in, the National Assembly reached an agreement that nothing would move forward unless all the parties have a consensus or unless a single party can mobilize 60 . Theyve abandoned their nuclear option. But that means is that its a high bar to get things through its going to requiree cooperation. His party is a minority and even if you add a working coalition, it barely gets to that level so he has some challenges and the advantage is i think a lot of the elements in the platform agenda in terms of having job expansion to address high unemployment levels, the need for rolling out a stronger set of Public Services to support the elderly, the issue of tryins to rebalance and readdress, those are all things that have a relatively broad field and we have come to a point theres a recognition that there is a necessity to move forward. Do you think we would see some sights you can type of tradeoff softening the policy or what he wants to achieve forgetting the votes for corporate reform . Thats where you need to spend your Political Capital and we will see how it plays out. Do you think that he can achieve his legislative goals . Or what type of deals will he need to cut the conservative opposition packs i am a party member right noa and i was editor [inaudible] and most of all, they have a similar policy in the political and economic. [inaudible] they have the same power agenda to make another and reform the political system in the politics so i think they can make the same or similar policies. What do you think things are going to be the priorities . If you had to do the top three issues, where do you think that is going to go . He puts Security First and there is an awareness of the need to fulfill the political vacuum that existed that the driver will be getting the economy moving to try to address these two transparency and its mentioned independence for the prosecution ended directly flows from the circumstances around the impeachment process. Do you think security will wind up being the number one concern despite what he said in the campaign . Certainly he has a strongthih impetus to. So i think theres a sort of tsunami of intent to do things. Maybe its to see the conserv conservative party holding the reform hostage to the north korea policy. They had very strong support. Once the reform measures starter impacting the economy is and then the National Economy, then the people kind of flipflopped and its hurting the National Economy because it is such an impact. Its still 25 of the gdp if im right then at the time there iss a concern but its very slow would that cause people to go back against the reform, wee would have to see. Certainly north korea because it is the next step in thechnolo development of north koreaev doesnt stay quiet for very long so whether they dont do any moranymoremissile testing or exf any kind, i doubt that. If it is a case of a database and we need to increase pressure or sanctions or do this they would say we need to lower theeo tension and thats where you could have some convergence. After the Nuclear Tests we have this international consensus. It didnt happen after the first three so you now have not only the un sanctions. They were going around talkingk about the legitimate Business Partners raising crimes against humanitys, slave laborr conditions, wages of the overseas worker to the program, crimes against humanity weapons of mass destruction. They finally got them backed. Other countries would say why should i because until they closed the countries were saying youre telling me you are siphoning 120 million, why should i be tough. If he backs off, we could sort of see a softening of Thee International coalition. Do you think president knew and will focus more on the economy and security . I think what is very important. That is and what she is intending to do. Its more transparent and that would lead to the countriesd undergoing the market. Policiess when it comes to the economy is going to be more of a bilateral relations and we intend to resolve the issues its not like it would be everlasting to north korea. He made some very important points in the platforms. The question that i think people here are his lipservice or is it going to happen, so the answer is weve got to hold him to his promises and platform and if that happens, then we will be on the right track. As to north korea supporting and opening up, basically it would be a dialogue with north korea and one way of having a dialogue with this measure is this what the result of the alliance and problems would be dealt with, so any opening a steady had after. I think it is time now to open the floor for questions and i think we have people carrying around microphones, so you can wait and raise your hand and wait until the person with a microphone comes and identify yourself. The gentleman in the front. Excellent discussion. The points discussed or where does repairing relations with beijing stack up in the agenda. Their relationship with china is critical and its deteriorated in the last number of months for the threats of diplomatic and military actions, so to the point that its lower given the history issues is saying something. This is a cynical view that china will do things periodically and there will be a view taken by the public and then either if china stops doing that the relationship will get better or they will see that economic relations were so strongly aligned with china so we will have to see. I would think that he will not back down on the National Security and that they will point out that its because of your allies its taken the as offense of actions and capabilities and put in place things that are directly threatening south korea that we are doing this. This is not negotiable but lets talk about the range of other things. I think just as when we have north korea when it does its next action or just the way that it continually insults the leadership of the countries it raises the true nature of the regime. They would want to improve their relations with china and if they are doing it in the progress of administration, then i think the problems will continue. The changing economic repression and retaliation that is carried out against, especially not just hurting the koreans but the people in china and why does china keep doing this when it hurts them as well, not just the South Koreans, so by pressuring south korea, china wants to see a change. By doing these actions, they want the parties to come together. All the interested parties to come together and discuss a resolution and because we decided not to discuss the dialogue multilaterally, china is frustrated and they are unable to bring the resolution. She had refused to talk with china on the issues including Security Issues and i think that its important whenever we take measures that we dont do on our own but actually as a result of discussing things with other neighbors. They need to improve the relationship with china and this provides the opportunity for a new start. But i think the way they should proceed on that is to focus bilaterally on establishing good communication and collaboration rather than necessarily allowing themselves to be drawn into this geostrategic interplay especially as its related to ie issue that crosses all these lines because i dont think that that is going to be profitable for south korea precisely because actually it exaggerates the influence of this issue and plays into the attempt to use it as leverage. Then also on beijings side, they realized that they set the diplomacy backed by taking the approach that they have. Great discussion as always. I am seeking clarity and i guess you are, too. If there is to be a renewed south korean Diplomatic Initiative with north korea, is it clear yet whether they will try to keep the Strategic Issues off to the onesided focus on the economic and Family Reunion and that kind of thing or has he been clear that the negotiations have to include from the south korean standpoint have to include these issues and on the Strategic Issues, has he been clear on this key question negotiating a phrase with what theyve got now but runs the risk of accepting the nuclear power. Has he talked about that, and im sorry i just havent found it. Donald trump is not clear on it either so if you have some thoughts on what they could be headed to words and whats the nice gift for these talks that would be useful but if we are going to have talks, what is he going to talk about and is he going to try to combin combininc economic or just one or the other . Thank you. I would say the first issue in a way he already issued this statement of desire to reengage and the point was that National Security, National Intelligence service who is a veteran of the talks in 2007. Hes doing everything he can to signal an openness and willingness to reestablish the dialogue and frankly on the south korean side, im sorry, the north korean side i dont think they are figured yet to have a dialogue. They basically got a military man whose life has been spent thinking about hurting south korea in charge of the south korean policy. So thats going to be interesting to see how north korea responds whether they can open some space. But if they do i think of a dialogue, i think they will start with humanitarian issues and maybe focus on some of the Family Reunions and kind of build up from there. Theres ambiguity i think that is related to the denuclearization issue. It is an essential objective as far as i can tell, but it may or may not be a precondition. And i think that a lot of the advisers seem to want to get back to simultaneous action, which of course north korea is the one that stepped away from simultaneous action when they left the six party framework. Then theres also the challenge of north korea wants to talk to the nuclearization with the United States and get i think over the course of the past decade, the denuclearization has become an issue that South Koreans broadly speaking fuel they have a stake in. The administration cannot escape finding ways to address that as a part of their process for moving forward. But they are looking for flexibility in terms of how and i think there is a lot of in kernel debate which frankly i think will be influenced by the International Environment and by consultations in the United States. He wants to have dialogue and as it was pointed out in the inauguration he said he wants to strengthen defenses and then engage. So, hes also talked about south korea should take the lead on issues on the Korean Peninsula that it shouldnt be the u. S. And china talking about north korea while south korea isnt there, which is the reason the u. S. Pushed the Six Party Talks because the u. S. Heard complaints from south korea about the framework where we were negotiating their security above their heads so thats why we wanted the Six Party Talks to have all of those impacted by the friends in the room because everyone has different priorities are different issues. So again, how, south korea taking the lead government to step in close consultation with the u. S. And we both agree on what south korea will do or is south korea feeling its not getting satisfaction with the u. S. Then will it go its own way or go further than we are comfortable with just as sometimes south korea felt we were going too far on the agreed framework or when we met unilaterally. So i think one issue i hope brings up his human rights. Here you have under the administration and administration staffed largely by human rights advocates and yet they never criticized north korea for its human rights conditions and crimes against humanity. They felt that would undermine their traction with north korea, so they refused to sign the un agreements criticizing north korea for its atrocities. And allegations are asking them what they thought about south korea signing the Un Resolution criticizing them saying you dont want to do that. I do hope that human rights is a strong issue in the dialogue. I think that hes quite different from before president. The time is changed and he knows about the issues in north korea and also thinks about those that are getting a channel to eliminate the weapon so i think he tried a method including the human rights issue. I think that he tried to do something about the human rights issue. I currently teach Disaster Preparedness in japan sometimes in south korea. On the point about the domestic issue in the country, the south korean government has had difficulties in responding to emergencies within their country that hurt the civilian population thinking especially about the disaster from three years ago. Are there any indications that kind of issue beyond the agenda for this new administration . Thank you. The emergency disaster and Emergency Response in the wake of this welfare be a high year government i didnt see that addressed on the top policies actually, there was a very effective Emergency Management function in the house and i think we will have to see how the restructuring plays out. Anybody else . [inaudible] i have one question both prescott and bruce. I believe mr. Trump has joined the trade relations between the National SecurityEconomic Issues for example with china to control north korea in terms of Nuclear Weapons programs and i think it is a cover to south korea for example he may suggest it will just take one of two options for example option one is the operation cost or you can just give me your idea plan to reduce the. That is going to be a critical event in terms of framing i think the leaders will have an interest in establishing a. The allies in the negotiations that involved zerosum. Im sure that those sites would try their best, but in the end i think that they will have to find some kind of an accommodation. Frankly, hes already indicated that hes willing to spend more on defense. He wants that to be directed and has raised fivepoint so i think that. As far as i understand it was never a part of the deal. Going forward if south korea wants to buy more batteries although it doesnt sound like he is really interested in the product, im sure that we would sell it so we will see. On the National Security, you look at the totality of the relationship between the two countries but you dont want to hold everything hostage on one issue. On the other hand i dont think you want to make it a quid pro quo. Im going to reduce the trade pressure on china in return for the hop help that they promisedn north korea. I dont think you should make that. You address each issue and if theres Economic Issues that need to be addressed you dont kind of sacrifices and over particularly my view yet again another promise. I dont think you make that kind of deal. So with that said you dont stovepipe issues. They kind of influence each other and realize that isnt a good answer but i dont think you want to sacrifice this economic issue in return for paying for something or vice versa. Anybody else . A Political Science type of question winning percentage is 40 come is that less than he got five years ago . Did he show great growth in his support rate over the course of the campaign . It seems like at one point he gradually moved up. Was that done at the expense of the support . And looking at the National Assembly which now i think of as a stagnant assembly in terms of getting anything done it seems the Peoples Party is about 35 or 40 seats. Are they the campaign and how the National Assembly which is going to be around for another three years unlike Previous National assemblies where i think it was a change in the National Assembly shortly after the president ial vote said it seems like we are stuck with a lot less than we perhaps are expecting in terms of the new administration and we have a weak president and divided government and stagnant National Assembly, and not much chance of really breaking that unless somehow disappearing to join the government or join the conservatives or i guess he was more on the Democratic Party in the past but the likelihood of that kind of development coming forward in order to break through what seems to be the formula for stagnation and no progress. I think moon have a lower number than five years ago but it was a totally different race. That race was two people, two candidates and now you have five with different strengths but i dont think you can really compare the numbers to if he had a lower number of initiatives he has less widespread support because it was just a very different race. Obviously korea is divided, so you have the south south divide or the ideological divide the generational divide, theres a lot of schisms and society he will try to unite but as pointed out, the rule change and the National Assembly which i think is largely put in place to prevent the National Assembly floor and use of fire access and extinguishers and everything in a free and Frank Exchange of ideas and one of my favorite pictures from years ago was a photograph of two National Assembly members hauling off against each other and it was the capture was National Assembly members debate peace initiatives. [laughter] it was sort of a great thing. So i think rather than saying youre not coming off against each other theyve put in place measures which as scott pointed out created stagnancy in the National Assembly so i think the rule change and this division does seem to be a recipe for continued stagnation. Today they were complaining things couldnt get done even when she had the unruly party so we will hope that they can move forward in the right direction and we can debate the direction, but i think just like in any other country, you are going to have a lot of stagnancy in the divisions and difficulty in getting things done. Every nation has a division [inaudible] a division issue. We have never seen fighting and we cannot. That is changing now and will have a better political system after you said five years ago is getting maybe about 48 now but this time he got 41 but it is changing. There are so many changes especially because he be retried to focus every form of the politics and the political system. So i expect the change [inaudible] there is an immediate test of the strength of his directly related to this question and that is he named his Prime Minister the governor of the province, i cant remember south or north who will now be put up for the hearings and there will be a vote but also the main support from the Peoples Party, the smaller progressive party. So i think that hes already essentially making a kind of bid for support that is also designed to build some type of a working consensus that will allow him to move forward. If nothing else, in fact he exhibited strong support from the providence during the election campaign. He is now provided a kind of reward to the providence and a potential leverage to be able to ensure that he has a working coalition as a possibility of gaining the majority support. It doesnt get me in he can reach the 60 threshold. They are very close and im not sure the exact number but i think they would need to win a few in order to be able to really be able to overcome that level. The gentleman behind you. Phd student at catholic university. Is there anything that he can learn from other World Leaders of countries where the Trump Administration or trump during the campaign had harsh words for how those leaders try to deal with him now that hes in office and thinkinim thinking in parte some of the asian leaders like the Prime Minister. Play golf. [laughter] but i dont think that he plays golf. He really enjoys hiking. [laughter] to be a little more serious though i think it would be simplistic to say if he complements trump that would establish the relationship but it would be look there are a lot of questions and even concerns and perceptions perhaps misconceptions about you and your policies and platform. People have been imprinted on to you because you are the chief of staff right or wrong but you are carrying baggage, so as you are calling or meeting with trump you know, highlight the conversions. We like hearing thank you for the rebuilding of the country, so that is a issue others have always emphasized so i think highlighting the common values and the embrace of democracy and rule of law and respect for human rights etc. , the alliance, the facing common enemies i think you lead off with that and that creates a Good Foundation. Then if you have a Good Foundation and a good personal relationship and bilateral relationship, then if you have disagreements, you sort of deal with it so things like the civilian nuclear deal, the 123 agreement between the u. S. And south korea, i thought that that would cause a lot more problems but it wathat it was because the relationship was so positive that the time and i think a lot of people did behind the scenes briefings explaining the details but it was sort of eight okay we have some differences, okay whereas if the relationship had been more tense at the time that could have led to antiamerican demonstrations or taking it too far but i think that you need to establish a personal relationship based on shared values and objectives for. So just a brief question and please feel free to give short answers. We are close on time. We had at the Global Policy where korea traded to work with countries sort of beyond northeast asia to do things around the world. That somewhat fell off. Did you see president newton trying to be more involved on a global basis or you see him focusing more on the region and then scott sort of a related question would be much of this cooperation was done with the United States under the various projects and you have done work on this. Do you see the Trump Administration interested in that order uninterested clacks i think he would have the same policy about the economic or trade policies. Or i think in developing the policy [inaudible] you can find the policies and this election where the globalization is in the policy. I think the precursor to the policy is evident in the administration and therefore i think that this aspiration to play a broad role becomes clear in the platforms and his emphasis on responsibility. I think we will see that i also believe it is going to be more focused on the have to see what the scope is in terms of how he defines his policy. I have a feeling it might remain a little more regional in the initial phase. While they engage in that way, those are kind of parts of our broader policy that seemed to be under stress or budget. I think just on the global korea i wonder if some of that was driven by if the u. S. Under bush was looking to do a number of things overseas and whether it was we were asking them to do things or whether they were offering that whereas if trump is perhaps going to be more insular and not do a number of the things bush wanted to do overseas if hes going to be more isolationist, transactional or whatever, then theres not that whole from the u. S. For south korea to be playing a larger role. But i think one thing i often hear from great colleagues is they will point to korea hosting a big event and save this our comingout party, what about a g. 20 or the Nuclear Summit or whatever and look, you have arrived. You are a small country, but extremely about your weight you are a player on the world stage, so you have impact disproportionately to your size of population and geography, so i think whether he talks about being a global country or not, it does have an impact on the world stage, so i think that is a positive thing for whoever the south korean president is and perhaps they dont realize the impact that it can have. Thank you very much. I hope that you found it to be a stimulating discussion and i want to thank our distinguished panel and please give them a big round of applause. [applause]