There is an active leadership for the white house correspondent. Particularly to the following issues so it is how we have the discussion and my idea i would ask our Prime Minister to put the peace building process in context on the specific issue but in a broader context in the same that would have been particularly after the summit and where we are now and with the upcoming last few weeks with what we can expect. [inaudible] and what you can expect for the upcoming several weeks time. On my left side hes reading heg from the Research Institute and is one of the more specialists in korea. Next to him she does with the Central Intelligence agency as an analyst and has been working quite extensively on korea, japan and the affairs. We have the professor here at the institute over the studies and now this one [inaudible] also been teaching you can expect in the discussion over the nuclear delegation some input from the European Union perspective. Currently a Senior Researcher at the policy institute where very interestingly she is a Nuclear Scientist and has a phd and currently the issues that relate to north korea so shes an expert. Each expert on this labor war to make a presentation on their own after they commit, a lot more than ten minutes. It is a privilege to be here and share my thoughts on what we are trying to achieve in the Korean Peninsula we have very frustrating. Co. In hanoi not having a working level negotiation that we have a very exciting week ahead. [inaudible] if so, before i proceed, let me show you what we are trying to achieve at this critical juncture of history in the Korean Peninsula. Peninsula. I would ask you to recall what happened in 2017, particularly the second half of this year, and also the beginning of 2018. There was a heightened threat of war, not a central thread, but they crafted a nuclear war and a son and both leaders of the United States and north korea of course initiated first saying [inaudible] and donald trump saying i have a bigger one and or powerful. At that moment, particularly those People Living in the Korean Peninsula were frustrated at those remarks by the leaders who treat Nuclear Weapons just like childrens playthings. It formed a consensus among people that never again. Enough is enough. We try to deal with the fundamental pressure of how to make it. We are almost resolved to deal with the root cause of the problem and how to dismantle when it was long overdue, more than seven decades long. That is what we are trying to achieve. I want to make a few points. We need to have a third summit in the United States and north korea, but the third summit should be a success otherwise there will be serious setbacks which we dont want to see it again. Another point we had in those days the rivalry and strategy with destruction. We were not totally sure that our safety so we try to have a protection of ourselves and again coming from the other si side. Questions like what if north korea decides to move to this post on the moratorium and Ballistic Missile testing when we think of a maximum impression that north korea on the policies the moratorium as i mentioned in another point i am trying to share with you is that south korea should and rely too much as we know they are sidelined to an extent. [inaudible] is totally unforgivable in 2017 another concern i have in the United States is to what extent they authorized. We heard about the idea proposed by donald trump and hanoi and we have the iranian case most recently a few days ago [inaudible] so what is happening here, and that is one of the concerns. Let me i dont know how many minutes to make a good summit a total success, we have to deal with the mismatches that we experience in hanoi in the sanction understanding the concept of sanction and as a policy to a its not even give and take, they regarded the precondition for the real give and take because sanction is regarded as towards north korea. The sanction is regarded by north koreans as a symbol of trust. A symbol of obsessing resistan resistance. That isnt a challenge in the other states continuing the negotiation so that something. One thing we can do is bring attention into the category of the give and take deal and i am. What can be done about this there has to be a tension release as an extension. We dont know exactly, but without that i think they would be giving us a very hard time. Another point with regards to reasoning the third summit has to be also has to do with what happened in hanoi. We are getting this information from the United States and north korea that the full account of exactly what happened, why and how did it stalled halfway, because of the process and what they had in hanoi for instance and finally, let me share with you the photo of the letter and many people particularly the reporters in the press on to to read itoreaders but as possiblef the photograph that appeared to on the backside of the letter it is thick leather provide more attention to the big act there were at least indications there were six people sitting together. The photo was taken before the discussion among the six info we all know that there is a criticism and recourse involved in the negotiations and reporters with other issues they didnt try to get into because it is left to the authority of the it has its own version of the National Security council and the photo that we saw is in indication of the discussion of how to interpret and respond to that. Let me close by saying [inaudible] think you. We still dont have a full account of what happened and it is much more needed. Needed. Thank you. I will keep my remarks brief. You are doing a lot of really good work and focus more on the european component. This is how i want to frame my remarks. I would consider myself more on north korea and what can europe do anything provide to the process that we are looking at because we have two processes one of them is denuclearization iand second is reconciliation process which is both with north korea and president clinton, i know he was in europe and a couple of weeks ago was talking about a european model of self reconciliation. In which at some point to continue the process. That there are three and south korea and the us. And that is quite relevant. But we need that process we need that to people process. So that the military military confidence in the measures between the us and north korea. That is the greatest risk but the fact that we dont have this process of one of the two parties and continue the process. And the point being that with that base commitment thats important to have those commitments and then to be enacted or south korea. And there is a second component to denuclearize i dont think he will but to take those meaningful steps but with that material component and process. Meant to come up from different places with the korean government to have the conversation of the process of the regular community that has been linked to the European Coalition of the 19 fifties. Its good to have this working level process, but once we had the economic cooperation, it became very difficult to have that with any other country. And then to engage in north korea and that is the right approach. And as the us for example with the european leaders and with that you quit on Economic Development and with that expertise. With that process and north korea the last one that i want to make for my opening remark is looking at the Korean Peninsula there is a lack of trust within north korea and it is quite clear but it is a lack of trust in north korea. So with these types of features in europe with the north Korean Peninsula to for those policymakers north korea has already signed those in the past and then thou weapons for National Security and with the process moving forward but on this particular issue it doesnt change the behavior but to start with us and south korea and this is something that is the process with that approach that we have mentioned before between the different leaders and also something that is missing. Between us and north korea. And the comparison with that nuclear is asian. And with that approach with that denuclearization. And with those creations. To talk about the process which is called to the process of the Korean Peninsula. We have two crisis on the Korean Peninsula and with the north Korea Program and then for the closure and then to organize this kind of effort with denuclearization. But in 2017 and with those capabilities. And for those who once again but then we realized it is totally different. And with those d Nuclear Programs. But from the first summit it might be without any details or procedures but then we find out and those planned procedures and from the summit we realize there is a huge discrepancy with denuclearization and the d prk. The concept of denuclearization this is just the level of detectable activities. Is different from the denuclearization. So we should do it with the bottom line and prepare with every calculation. But we have to think about that. John bolton mentioned it is determined with those weapons and we are a little worried about the term deliverable because they dont have to deliver the Nuclear Weapons for the United States but south korea there with Nuclear Weapons. So in the negotiation process how much they can tolerate with the Nuclear Weapons and what we should think about what north korea really wants for negotiation but this is also with the Nuclear Capabilities and that important to have the Nuclear Capability how maturity are they ready for with the negotiation . The International Communitys acceptance and we have to think about the International Community with israel or another iran or other d prk in the future. Is not ready to accept these kinds of conditions for the full d prk and if d prk accepts the denuclearization. And then issue to confirm and then to follow with the implementation. However it will be a long process and very painful. Because the d prk Nuclear Program has been around several decades and they are very diversified. And when your production and with those facilities are we fighting and with those enrichment facilities and just like the production and they already have some capability of producing the centrifuge. So for that production they produce the centrifuge or they have plans with the chemical production. And to those capabilities they have those production facilities and then we have to verify if it has really disabled so this process and we have a case in south africa that takes about two years. And they had to live primitive in the way of Nuclear Weapons but for north korea there capability is very diversified. We had to make exceptions or may be thousands of interviews because it is close as a society i wonder if they can allow their people to be experts so we have to look at the nuclear they should process and the denuclearize state. But it will be a long and painful process we have to move on to the denuclearization of north korea and the key goal is with the Korean Peninsula to ensure elimination of the program of the d prk. And to maintain dialogue it will be a long process and we have to empathize the importance of the denuclearization. And with the common interest. Thank you very much pointing out with the understanding of the basics with that denuclearization. Because that will make it quite complicated. Thank you. Good afternoon. I am the night person out of two panels talking about knife dash north korea. So that i can answer your question where i think we are. But with the view of the Us Nuclear Policy and a little over a year with a disappointing outcome. Wed even have that basic concept of denuclearization. But that said the first Panel Brought this up we are seeing some signals and to be true leaders and not only that but meeting with officials so all of this is a process and then last week talking about until the end of the year. So at the moment they are looking at the strategy of a combination of charm and collusion and into the failed negotiations. But obviously it is designed to pressure washington into negotiations and we set the terms of the negotiation. And then to launch though short range missiles are the icbm. So the deferment was that north korea can escalate and to bring down the negotiations that is favorable to north korea. So contrary to very hastily arrange but contrary to that it is not the will to continue the dialogue. So he does want to appeal directly to President Trump and then pass that engagement of dialogue. And obviously we have seen President Trump on his part with negotiations shooting with those short range missiles and with the Prime Minister of tokyo. And he said he is open to another summit. So i think that is positive. So that we have at the moment with the intercontinental and nuclear we have a freeze on that. For the us and south korea doing military exercises and therefore speaking wrongly of each other and we have not returned to those days. So where are we with that . So i do agree with the first panel i do think it is certainly possible and the United States reportedly was ready but now all of that remains in play. The difference has not been given because i think it was over reach. But all of this could be forthcoming in the future. So what we all talked about today and the scenario of the summit i dont think that would be a big deal to be honest both leaders want to make this happen and that other scenario is without the dialogue. Because we will have a summit and everybody raises their hand. And then you have one us president and then he just proves everybody wrong. And then instead of giving a bad deal in hanoi then maybe we wont forget that. [laughter] but i do think it is possible that we could do this for some time. He did tell the chinese president he went through the end of the year. So i do think he could help offer on the negotiating table that he used to work in hanoi. I dont think unfortunately they will not agree to a timeline. I do think that is too much. I certainly do not think of that denuclearization stockpile but the calculation could be it is still worth it. And this is obviously with some sanction relief. But i havent started necessarily getting there because of the Trump Administration does not but right now we have a Bipartisan Legislation that under the new sanctions any person or entity doing business with north korea has to approve that. So my point is that there is some momentum so it just depends on how much he wants to have this summit. I do think they do have to resort to plan b and in that second scenario thats a better moratorium for the nuclear test because then they can continue to pressure the Trump Administration. And then there would be the crescendo through the end of the year. And now i have one last comment for the Korean Peninsula. I think the main difficulty is a timeline. The challenge is the necessary condition is unacceptable to north korea. But that demand of that condition but those talks of already been suspended but not lifting the sanctions but they are ready to move forward. Thank you. But to talk about what has happened but to see what we experienced in hanoi so now you can see typically changing from chairman kim. So again, in that way you see that. And to move forward from here we can see what is most urgent immediately . Between the approaches of the invasion on the north korean side . And the good faith approach . And then asking them to reconsider with any statebystate element of that approach or all or nothing approach. Small in the g deal and then what happened is a big deal, comprehensive packaging out of borders and how to give and take in these allimportant items in the context of the big deal. In the context of the big deal in that regard what has to be done was revealed in hanoi and as i said, in my presentation there is a need to have a full account of what will happen. Between the true negotiators and the talks that already happened i think it is in the period of hope and dialogue we are going to have to talk about when the summit will be taking place in to begin the working level negotiations first with the natural process of reaching the talks. I hope you know both sides are together and have a challenge at the problemsolving fashion about what has to be done to understand and narro narrowed tp of what happened. I think there was a statement we can now see we didnt make any progress it wasnt sufficient it was too aspirational. Working levethe working level i. I am not sure if that is where they are at why we can say this is what we want to see im not sure that is necessarily possible but what is possible is a majority to be lifted and can he give them up for something more in here we can get the sanctions lifted i think there is a medium space of whether they want to do that are not. Im not disagreeing with. In the working level negotiations and having the talks at the level there is a difference in order to have a level i dont see a difference between the facetoface approach because if we cant agree about the concept it doesnt matter for me. The first thing we have to do it is know t