The center for strategic and International Studies enables a host of todays forum with indication to speak. I thank this isit the ninth or tenth such forum and is the great opportunity in a timely to discuss a lot of critical issues. I also want to congratulate the csis andat john and victor cha, for the tenth anniversary for the korea chairs csis. It marks a decade of contributions of nonpartisan objective research has made to the Public Policy debate on korean issues that are so important to the American People and to the korean people. Its really been a significant accomplishment for victor and john and all it csis. I am delighted to be here today. Im also sure the leadership of north korea is delighted that i am here today and a private capacity. [laughter] at least thats what ive read. Perhaps there will be a little less delighted now that i can speak in unvarnished terms. About the grave and growing threats the north Korea Nuclear Weapons Program poses to International Peace andm security. Lets start with a couple of what i thank the main precepts im dealing with north korean Nuclear Weapons threat are. First, it remains unacceptable for north korea to have deliverable Nuclear Weapons. By the word unacceptable, i do not mean some rhetorical floors, by politician. I mean, that our policy should be that we do not accept it. We will not accept it. Second, it seems to be clear, the dpr k has not made the strategic decision to give up his Nuclear Weapons. In fact i thank the contrary is true. I thank the strategicsi decision that Kim John Young is operating, is that he will do whatever he can to keep a deliverable Nuclear Weapons capability and to develop and enhance it further. And we try to relief from International Sanctions he may make some concessions. But on current circumstances, he will never give up the Nuclear Weapons voluntarily. This is if you will permit a personal observation, this question of both of there is a strategic decision to give up Nuclear Weapons, is what the libyan models 2003, and 2004, properly understood what it actually means. At that period, we saw make and im ambiguous decision that he and libya, would be better off that went out developing Nuclear Weapons. He came to that decision for a variety of reasons because of theri overthrow of saddam husse, by a u. S. Led coalition. The subsequent capture of sodom hussein, and the seizure of the ship the bbc china and its deliberate and Nuclear Components uranium enrichment components, manufactured by the a coupon proliferation network. The told him that we knew what he was up to. At that. , he made that clear decision that he was going to give up Nuclear Weapons. We have seen not only nothing like that from north korea as i say, we have seen the opposite. The is important to understand that the current north korea moratorium, on testing of Nuclear Weapons and testing of icbm intercontinental range Ballistic Missiles, tells us nothing about either north koreas intention or its strategy as is playing out. One reason one very good reason and troubling reason why there is no more testing of Nuclear Weapons for the moment, or of longrange missiles, is that north korea has in his judgment for well rl, finished testing. And its can produce Nuclear Warheads longrange Ballistic Missiles. This not an encouraging sign, is assigned to be worried about. Moreover, the testing of the shorter range Ballistic Missiles that weve seen in recent months, doesnt give us any reason to thank that those are not threatens. Because the capability and the technology and things like maneuver and ability of close range or short range Ballistic Missiles, by definition can be adopted to longerrange Ballistic Missiles. So i did the testing this going on no, its not an threatening and this course you have to be in south korea within range of muscles. Those poorly for the defensive capabilities of japan and even the United States we do get to the intercontinental range. In the past, we had been very clear what her expectations were of north korea both received respect to Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missile testing. If you look back to Un Security Council resolutionte 1695, adopd on july 25th 2006, and Security Council resolutions 1718, adopted on october the 14th, 2006. After the and in the first instance in 1695, after north korea broke its moratorium on large testing of Ballistic Missiles from the Korean Peninsula, for 1718 after a Nuclear Weapons test. The United States and the Security Council were very clear in the response. Boi know this because i helped write both of those resolutions. 1695, dealt only with missiles in 1718. With both and i quote from 1718. An operative paragraph two, the unanimous Security Council said in a quote demands that to be k not conduct any further nuclear testar or launch of a Ballistic Missile. An operative paragraph five, the council said thatc besides, the dpr case shall suspend all activities related to his Ballistic Missile programs and in this context, reestablishes preexisting commitment to a moratorium on this earth launch. North korea today as we speak, is violating those resolutions. I say this not because of a theological commitment, to Un Security Council resolutions, i say it because when the United States having led the fight to get those resolutions says we really dont care. Other countries can draw the conclusion that they dont really care about the sanctions contained in those and other resolutions. So we do ask for consistent behavior from others, you have yourself. Rate and we failed to do that, we open ourselves and our policy to failure. Remember also what it is that because the concerns, in 2006, when north korea broke this moratorium. In 1998, north korea for the first time launch the Ballistic Missile that landed in the Pacific Ocean east of japan. Needless to say, got the attention of people in that country. In the moratorium was intended to signify that people are in north korea, having in a more responsible fashion. And yet the only thing it really gave up was launched testing. Static testing continued, very important part of Missile Development and all of the evidence we ve have in the public domain, is the north korea simply shifted its emphasis on launched testing to collaboration with iran. This was also developing scud based technology. To create Delivery Systems for Nuclear Weapons. So that they 1998, launched by north korea, and the subsequent enhancement of cooperation with iran, was actually a clear demonstration, dominant responsible behavior but of the continued aspiration half deliverable Nuclear Weapons. So i thank right now, we are in a classic standoff with north korea. They want a piece of something that we should notot be prepared to give them. People was staying look to be heard. What can bewh lost. By negotiation. What about partial agreements. When i have some progress with some indication of something that north korea can do that will allow us to alleviate the sanctions. There are h several points i thk that are important to understand here. If you believe in you may not, if you believe its unacceptable for north korea to have Nuclear Weapons, first for the would be prayerful later, a partial listing of sanctions is far more importantmp than it is to the opponent of proliferation. To have a partial cessation of the Nuclear Weapons program. The history both of with respect north korea or iran is very clear that the economic kick to the proliferator of getting economic benefits and relief from sanctions is far morel beneficial than marginal production in the Nuclear Weapons effort. From the perspective of the philippian country, action for action as North Koreans call it, is the way to sustain their authoritarian political system, keep their economy going, and yet still have the benefit of the bulk of their ballistic programs. D nuclear and theres a world out there, this ready to fall sucker to that kind of argument even now we see, governments particularly south korea, watching. North korea test can 23 and can 25 missiles, but providing them food aid, because the north korea and say their harvest had been bad in Economic Conditions are difficult. Not so difficult they cant launch Ballistic Missiles. The two difficult to buy food for their people. Are people whose a come to that line of argument. I thank this is something that weekend apply this lesson both to a run and north korea. Because there is a second Common Element as well. That is the element of time. Time for wouldbe Nuclear Weapons stay its not a neutral factor. In fact, the more time goes by, almost inevitably, benefits of proliferation. Because it takes time to overcome complex scientific and technological difficulties inherent in Nuclear Weapons program. So when weewe say, why no rush r no cute good negotiations, learn no rush for resolution of this. We are staying to north korea and iran, take your time and keep going. Youve got more time to plan to utest and to produce to deploy, these capabilities. Time works against those who oppose nuclear liberation. The relaxed attitude of time, is the benefit to the legs of north korea and iran. And finally, and this applies specifically to the circumstances on the korean liz mileti, for about a year and half, the United States and south korea have not had what is some has called wargames. We have not had largescale military training exercises. Ill leave it to the pentagon to describe exactly what we have been doing but i thank you are all familiar with what i am talking about. It is inevitable that when exercise are not taking place, readiness can come into question. Any failure to be militarily prepared, results in a weakening of structures of the turns. Im not going to make any assumptions here today. But the loophole american and south korea red isay on the peninsula. But seven day, both of from the department of defense or congressional investigations, we are going to hear judgments on what military readinessss is. And i thank, that this is something that should be a priority both for americans and for South Koreans. There are other issues here that i dont thank are currently adequately addressing the public debate. Not only should we be concerned with north korea his own weapons technology, but to the ongoing danger that north korea will sell Nuclear Weapons and Ballistic Missile technology or actual weapons and missiles themselves to other aspiring political brent states. That is a risk of a Nuclear Capable north korea with north korea itself is the threat in its immediate region. Analso believe that there is only one country in the world that can stop nuclear for pollution. And we are in it. We can use help over this for sure but this United States fails in this mission, there is no other state or combination of states and no International Organization that can be a substitute. If we fail, Nuclear Proliferation succeeds. Now we just readat to you a quotation from winston churchill. Its very optimistic statement. He made it to prone parliament 1935. I thank it applies to american policy over Something Like 30 years when it comes to north korea. A. Churchill said describing germany of course, he said when the situation was manageable, it wass neglected. And now that it is thoroughly out ofn hand, we apply to late n e remedies which then might have affected the cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibling books. It falls into that long dismal catalog of the fearlessness of experience. And they confirmed im teachability of mankind. Boats of foresight on willingness to act, when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking. Confusion of counsel until emergency comes until selfpreservation strikes its jarring gong. These are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history. Lets hope that churchill his pessimism, its not borne out in the case of north korea. There are things we should look to and have serious discussions about. One is the possibility of limited its it may be a regime change in north korea. Second, we should look at and discussed with china, and we shouldve done it long ago, aiming toward the ratification of the peninsula on a freely elected government like that and south korea. And third, if you believe in you may not, that is unacceptable nuclearh korea to have weapons, at n some. Military fore has to beha an option. This is obviously the most controversial subject and many people say just unimaginable. The you would usese military f force. Sonic what to you, the words of general joe denver, the chairman and the joint chiefs of staff on his last day i might say the chairman. He said an outstanding job. He said this to the Aspen Institute seminar in the summer of 2018. Its on this question on what is unimaginable. General gever said as i told my counterparts, both friend and foe, its not unimaginable to have military options to respond to north koreas nuclearil capability. What is unimaginable to me, is allowing the capability to allow Nuclear Weapons to land in denver colorado. My job will be to develop literary options to make sure that doesnt happen. Thank general dunfordrd was completely correct. If you dont like his options, there are others is it too. The ensue when north korea keeps Nuclear Weapons. The dpr case could become the new a coupon. The walmart of the amazon of deliverable Nuclear Weapons. We could have more Nuclear Weapons states in asia. Japan, south korea, so these are questions that need to focus our attention. Not can we get another segment with kids on film. Or what the state of staff are to achieve commitment from north korea. It will never honor. Before i close, what to take one minute on the subject of usjapan south korea relations. This is also not a happy subject for discussion. It is well below the radar screen here in the United States. Its a big mistake for our country and not paying more attention to it. I am almost that went out words to describe how distressed i am that these tensions between south korea and japan have grown to the point where they currently are. I believe that over the past period of time, that american past 70 on this. , has been a mistake. Im not staying that the United States should engage in a public mediation, between the two countries. I thank in fact the Public Participation would be a mistake. And not underestimating how serious the issues between south koreat and japan are. I have heard at length from both sides. I thank i understand well both their logic and their emotions. But i thank if the United States does not operate here, we face a very serious deterioration of Alliance Capabilities at precisely the wrong time. We see at this. , that the hub and spoke system of alliances, that they had in the asiapacific region, is in need of modification towards a richer and deeper cluster of relations. Mixing efforts of trilateral spot with the use japan and australia. Yes japan and india, also the progress. To see south korea and japan moving in effect in the opposite direction from the u. S. Of view, is extraordinarily troubling. This is something that if the other disputes that have been suede the best you must have a clear, south korean decision to suspend the general security of military information agreement, social media has really no right to an acute. Because this has a palpable impact on america ability to cordate among our various allies. I put this down as something that requires urgent attention to the United States. All of these concerns, and everything we could say about chinaat, their growing International Threat militarily, philip legally and economically. They. To significant dangers in and around korea. I thank that there should be better burden sharing on issues like military base cost. As are now discussing in a different context. This its not the time for u. S. Disengagement or withdrawal. It is a time for more u. S. Involvement and leadership. On the Korean Peninsula in asia, and worldwide. More, not less. Thank you very much. [applause] thank you ambassador. That was wonderful remarks. More broadly about Foreign Policy in asia. My name is victor and i am the professorre in Georgetown University i want to we will everybody to the csis forum. I hope that you will stay with us. I know ambassador is your Main Attraction with a hope youll stay with us because we have a great deep great day plann including two additional keynote people. My role here is to facilitate a conversation with the investor. Based on his remarks. As well as asking some questions from the audience which we have collected in advance. My challenge is that youve answered almost all my questions already. Let me begin with where you left off which is the japan korea relationship. Ion guess the question i would have for you is what specifically she would be doing. Should we be proposing some sort of solution. For the koreans, at least immediately about the white list and for japan. The termination. Is there anything specifically that you are proposing on this. Also is this dysfunctional relationship is become who is benefiting. I thank the answer to the last question is the easiest. Thank china and russia benefits. It is something they can only take delight in. That this effort to try and leave together a more effective south korean japaneseamerican present in the region bringing others in as well. We have free and open open. Th its a major conceptual step forward on this administration. His assault thrown in severe jeopardy. P its by the split. From the problem and the display dispute is is asymmetric from the south korean side, at least in some parts of the political spectrum, the origin of the split is the perceived unfairness in the 1965 treaty, that at least at the time both sides saw as turning a page of history. They said whatever japan did before, in 1895 to 1945. , were going to resolve an essay. It is finished. That is now been called into question. Its obviously caused a deep uncertainty about the future relations in japan. And not because everybody here to understand that would put any uncertainty in any possible japanese involvement. Economic development in north korea if never there was b successful nuclear deal. If anybody thinks adjournment japanese are going to openn ther checkbook to north korea after they thought they had solved the problem is south korea and it was not soft, saw it on going to happen. That is a very broad and difficult historical issue to talk about in both countries. Japan responded with economic retaliation that i thank took south korea by surprise and i thank it unnerves south korea, i dont thank they understood the risk that they had undertaken when they challenge the 1965 treaty. And then it did terminated or deteriorated further the suspension of termination which is sonja. So the best i can say at the moment, release i hope the best i can say is that they have hit a plateau if things are not deteriorating further. At this. , im not sure that the discussions that are going on have any bilateral discussions have any prospect of reversing the conflict as it now stands. So i thank theres an awful lot of work to do, in trying to get this back on track and not even this. , that i would know where to begin. And that is something people should be thinking about becausi the longer the split goes on, that i do have confidence in. It weakens all three of us. The very last line of your speech you said this its not a time for u. S. Disengagement from asia. I thank theres a risk of it. I dont want to make this a partisan, but ill just say it are two great political parties. One has a very National Security winning. You dont hear about the Scoop Jackson democrats anymore. Not even that Joe Lieberman democrats anymore. Within the republican party, there has always been a residual isolationist component. I would have to be it pains me to say this, but i would have to say that the strength of that component has been risingg recently. In the notion that you can have both major parties, with a withdrawn sense of american involvement in the world other than more slavish devotion to with the Un General Assembly does, i find very prevalent. You mentioned in your remarks about exercising andod writing. We are in. Now for u. S. And south korea have greatly modified and moderated loophole of exercising, doing on the peninsula and you mentioned it could individually hurt readiness. If he its not happening today but eventually it will hurt resident readiness. I guess the question there is more broadly speaking, do you thank that is the bad policy to negotiating equity in our alliance for something that i assume you thank its not achievable. At least the strategic decision by north korea. I i thank the u. S. And its allies should be able to walk into gum at the same time. I thank its a high priority the United States in particular. Not to let north korea do as it shared to drive a wedge between us. Sometimes its easier for them to do it and sometimes harder. I thank it would be better to have an adult conversation simultaneously with an adult conversation on what we really thank they are going to do. This is the question obviously that divides the body politics in both countries and well see happens in the nextl several months. Thank of the readiness. , im not making any judgments or myself. I do thank that authoritative voices on this need to be heard. People need to decide if you are not going to be ready to fight, the slogan of our forces in korea, is fight tonight. That is the only slogan that they in the South Koreans that have. If theyre not ready to fight tonight, i have to ask for the safety of the americans, both of they should be there or not. Thats why this question of the effect of the exercises and military readiness, seems to me to require authoritative study. We were last in government and the bush administration, remember that you were quite involved in the creation of the smart sanctions campaign in north korea. I thank back then we go to defensive measures. You were alsoore involved in the creation of psi. Im curious we need came back into the government this time, and you saw the portfolio of Un Security Council north korea is very different from back then we had basically two. So my first question is, do you feel like the current sanction regime against north koreas more robust. That it was we do were last in government and is this something that the United States should give up and negotiate away or is it something that we should hold onto. Since those two initial resolutions each time north korea has detonated a Nuclear Device or done some other forum of testing or taking other unacceptable action, or sanctions have been posed. I dont thank frankly that even the way we did it in 1695, 1718 was right. I thank we do impose sanctions incrementally over a long period ofst time, the venture being sanctioned will find ways to mitigate against the sanctions. Thank i run was expert at that as well as north korea. Thank sanctions have to be imposed massively. Ing the forest. That is something we should learn going forward. We now have a body of security counselor resolutions and statues that make up this web of sanctions. The issue today is are they being enforced effectively. The same question you can ask with respect to iran. The answer is they are not being enforced effectively. We have seen the development of something that im sure a chord in the past but which was never much the subject in conversation that we now call ship to ship transfers. Ships come out of north korea, they transfer coal or other motel errors on two of the shares then take them around the world. Ships come in to north korea to drop off oil, then they take them port. These ship shouldd transfer oil from iran, around the middle east. Take place at sea, that take place sometimes that went out because ourabout it intelligence capabilities are not a hundred percent perfect. And its a way to evade sanctions its very troubling. I thank there are steps we can and should take. To reduce these ship to ship transfers. In some cases requires greater cooperation from china russia when the ship to ship transfers take place in their territorial waters. Or very close to them. If you are going to have sanctions make them effective. Ifif you dont, and get a different policy. I know that you are restricted in terms of talking about things while you were in government but i just want to ask you selfimposed distinction. A couple of questions but they dont touch specifically board generally though. So we do are in the u. S. Leader in north korea met, there is about ten months into your job, as National Security advisor. [laughter] you have years of not get decades of experience on this issue as you made clear in your remarks. So i guess the question i wanted to ask you is what is the problem than our current North Koreans were not giving enough for that they wanted the United States to give is it too much. I can only speak for my personal. Of view having followed this issue for 30 years. I dont thank the North Koreans will ever voluntarily give up enough. What they have to give up to satisfy me is their entire Nuclear Structure and the need to agree of an Inspection System that is so robust and so thorough that they could well thank that it threatens the stability of their gene. I dont want fake inspections. Weve got plenty of those are in the world as it is now. We need real verification of any agreement given to the trustee worthiness to the north korean regime. This is a government that is essentially violated every agreement and every International Agreement in his ever made. There is no basis to trust any commitment that jim makes. Absent some fundamental change inside the north korean system. You mentioned the model. Do you thank that olivia model is possible the country warfare that has advanced so far in terms of its program now, libya his case, they have not reached an Operational Capability or come close to it. I guess the question would be is that we may have been feasible before. Is it still feasible today . It is if they can conclude that they are better off and safer that went out this program. If you believe north korea has undertaken the development of Nuclear Weapons. Not simply for defense of it prefaces because they still believe north korea theology that korea would be reunited on the rules is the very good reason for them to have these capabilities. So if that is the conclusion that i thank you have to look at other methods to do it. It may be the libya model its not possible but what i regard even worse in a way, is pretending that you are getting to a resolution of the Nuclear Issue we do simply allow north korea still to have Nuclear Capability but given enough economic assistance through direct Division Resources which is the release of sanction against the region a lifeline that currently doesnt have. In theory you are not against incentives on the right circumstances. We have libya plenty incentives. After the allowed u. S. Uk and other International Personnel to come in and dismantle the Nuclear Weapons programs which was verym, limited. Dismantle it t and put it on shs and take it to oak ridge tennesseey, where the libyan nuclear his program now resides. By the way, this playroom north korean Nuclear Weapons program there. Is socalled romance diplomacy the best way to try to get to that. Civic im not going to comment on that. [laughter] nice try. Me just ask you another question. Youve met kim . What is he like . I put it this way, i believe he is thoroughly in charge of the country. I have nodo doubt, i know when s father died, there were a lot of questions, was he sort of a puppet of his relations. As he controlled by the militaries. Controlled by otherer factions within north korea. I thing ishe clear, he is in charge. He is clear that he makes the decisions. And thank he feels very countable that role. And the remaining time we do have some questions that we have collected from the audience in terms of efficiency of time we ask all of you by email present questions. We have some. The question is about you mentioned burden sharing your remarks. The United States is asked korea fully supported to pay 5 billion. U. S. To deliver thatng news. What you thank is going to happen if they cant meet that number. Let me answer the more general fashion. This is an issue i thank has real residence in the United States. I thank there is a feeling that we have carried more of the burden then we should have toond the world for is it long. And that rebalancing with the allocation particularly Financial Measures should be as overdue. Weve done this before. I recall vividly in 1991, during the First Bush Administration women who should dom hussein invaded kuwait. The United States first through Desert Shield and then through storm, push the iraqis out of kuwait and liberated the country and moved on from there. President bush 41, decided in a very early stage that the ladies were way to pay a very substantial part of deliberation to the country. They were going to live in fine hotels in london and not there. Im sure that caused another issue as well. The countries like japan and europe and others. Senior american officials, Vice President and secretary of jim o baker, sick cheney, center of the world to raise money to pay for the deliberation. They fell a little embarrassed by it. It was certified to say in your shares how many of her billion was. They called it the tin cup exercise because as i say, they were a little embarrassed by it but i thank the historical record would reveal that we mayday profit. A smallha profit. We hadad our costs reimbursed. Some people would say thats just mercenary. I suppose it is. The coit is the free country today. In saudi arabia was not invaded. My. Is that its not inappropriate to ask people to pay a fair share of the cost. In particular now, we are having a debate in the nato contacts over appropriate allocations and expenditures. Here is very interesting, and 2014, and the obama administration, the nato countries voluntarily agreed in their target for defensive expenditures would be 2 percent of gdp. The target they would all commit by 2024. Ten years later. When the Top Administration came in, that commitment came at a much higher sale than the menace obama administration. We would all agree on s that. Nato secretary has supported as a result of the pressure that has been applied, aggregate nato expenditures from expense from january 20 2017, forward have increased by over a hundred billion dollars. That x the United States. It is a very significant increase even though many countries still are nowhere close to 2 percent and dont have a path to get to it by 2024. Implicitly, if we are allowing nato members not to live up to that commitment, while we are spending or 4 percent of our gdp on global defense, we are subsidy sizing european welfare systems. Its a very hard case to make to the American People. All were seeing to others is if you believe in your own self defense, live up to the commit you voluntarily made. I remember one european leader at the natole summit in 2018 sad we were trying to make up move up and get closer the 2 percent of the gdp that our economy is growing so fast is hard to get there because 2 percent now is thee higher currency figure. Steve got to cut her some slack. Its a statement we are staying were doing so well economically that we cant afford to defend ourselves. Thats not acceptable. I would say to korea and japan, i thank there will be in there should be a rebalancing. You are going to negotiated out. An opening bid off whatever number see what happens. But dont thank. Next question comes from lindsay the george w. Bush institute. He asks to your knowledge at any time during this three meetingso with ken, as President Trump issued the issue of human rights. Will speak moree broadly. I thank it is inherent in americas concept of itself. That we believe in free people. I thank its mistake and is one reason just to look footnote on myself here. Not im not neoconservative. I dont thank its my job to promote democracy around job and imposing upon other people. But if asked, what is the american response to the question of what kind of government should we haveki. We actually favorite monetary. But thats not how we do that. So of course we talk in terms of our values. Its inevitable. Its one reason why religioustam freedom is such an important value for us. That there was a high correlation between countries that worked for weapons of mass description disruption and proliferation. And then the last question. Is a president close to getting a deal with north korea or is he over anxious and i know you may not want to pass that directly but you did mention in your remarks so when are we out of time when it comes to north korea quick. I hope we have time left. When the danger is perceptible and the cost g of action that failure to act in the ultimate cost is higher. Every day that goes by makes north korea t more dangerous what about today what about weapons that could be delivered to american citizens . Do you want to wait until then where do you want to act now . Today is better than tomorrow and tomorrow is better than the next day. Thank you for taking the time to open the conference. [applause]
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.