Korean alliance. The center for stratic and International Studies hosted this hour and 15 minute event. Well, welcome back from your break. Im michael green. Im the Senior Vice President for asia and japan chair here at sic and a professor at georgetown and like victor cha, a veteran of the long forgotten bush administration. This panel is going to look at our alliance in the context of northeast asia. The previous panels touched on bilateral defense issues, on ways to deal with the rising threat from north korea. Those issues will come back in this panel, but what i hope we can do for the next hour and 15 minutes is provide the larger geopolitical context within which were now working. The north Korean Nuclear challenge cannot be divorced from the larger geopolitical memory and vision for the future of northeast asia. And we are confounded, we are obstructed in our effort to find a diplomatic solution by the fact that there are different ideas in North East Asia about what the regions past was and what the regions future should be. Views as diverse as china president s shes speech in shanghai several years ago where he called for a northeast asia without blocks which most people interpreted as without alliances. A vision of sort of lower u. S. Presence, diminishment or end of the alliances that held the u. S. And regional stability and proch perty together after the war towards something new, more defined by china. Others talk about the danger of a split in northeast asia, a divide between the continental and maritime powers. With china, russia on the continental side, perhaps the u. S. , japan, india, australia on the other side and korea as a peninsula stuck in between. Others articulate the vision for building on 70 years of progress and stability in the long run we obviously had the korean war and vietnam war where we had struggles. So another vision is one that continues spreading and forging deeper ties based on the rule of law and an open international order. The very different vision for the future of northeast asia, very different interpretations of what the past meant and its precisely because of those differences that we find it very difficult for the major powers to align on the north Korea Nuclear problem. Of course, new york uses these fissures and splits to try to maximize its own position, its leverage and its threat. So well come back to the north Korea Nuclear issue in this panel, but i think well want to put it in the context of larger geopolitical trends, memories that shape the region. And we have a panel who will talk about how our alliance figures in all this. Well begin in the order you see with professor kim john hun from hong done university. Eats an expert on northeast asia and has had various roles advising the government. Then well turn to Laura Rosenberger now at the German Marshall Fund who served with great distinction in the state department in the previous administrations. Then professor kim jong could you from add Joe University who has particular expertise on china. Dan blumenthal from American Enterprise institute, known to everyone here, doing a lot of work on chinese grand strategy and the future of northeast asia. And then professor song young who has a broad asia background but particular expertise in japan. Well hit the major powers, the trends in the region. And well talk about our alliance. Because in these different competing vision about the future of northeast asia i started with, probably the variable that will control those futures the most will be the u. S. Korea alliance. This Alliance Began in the wake of the korean war in the front line in the battle against communist expansion. It is now an alliance that will be perhaps more decisive than any other bilateral relationship in determining how the u. S. And japan, japan and china and the larger spread of northeast asian power plays itself out. And we have to get this right as allies. Hopeful the well point to some of the ways well do that. So im going to ask each of the panelists to give us a three to five minute top line, key take away set of points on their talking memos, which are in the conference panel. And then well come back and tray to get some debate and disagreement going and then open it up for your questions of the yes, sir. Okay. This is hugh i wrote this like seven page, but i have to talk to you in three minutes. And the question is the big picture of northeast asia. Actually, i rewrote in the morning when i heard it i have five minutes. Okay. As you all know that the present situation security structure is much more complex and it is therefore a multidimensional totally different from the dichotomy structure of the cold war. But somehow the appearance remains the same. The norn tie hang lar kind of alliance, even though its not really an alliance. North korea, russia and china and southern tie angle still kind of have at least a skeleton. So in a way good part is it is easy to draw cooperation from all the allies. The bad part, its harder to solve the problem because the problem is on the other side, north korea. So this complex, this complicated situation, we attempt to dichotomize the problem and then at the end of the day, maybe we are in the position that it didnt solve or failure. There are two main variables. One is divergence over north korean policy. But interesting point is the thaad issue is kind of litmus test paper between u. S. And rok. Because the trump administration, some suspicions, some doubt mostly from u. S. Towards moon. Second, divergence over north korea. Supporters, main supporters of moon government want divergent approach toward north korea. This is test paper, litmus paper that moon is not going to betray his voters. So hes kind of in between, sandwiched by these two. So how too solve this problem can decide u. S. Rok relationships. Early beginning stage i think first test is more satisfactory. That means u. S. Is satisfied with moons approach, but not the second. And i think i spent half of it, im going to raise four questions. Theyre provocative, but i want to race these questions. First, we have been talking about coworking, u. S. Rok consultations, but to me and to liberals, why only on pressures . Emphasized con certificate tagsz only on pressures . Was not for example, even in this grave situations, im sure u. S. Tried to have some contact toward the north like contact in new york, but i dont think this is preconcerted with south korean government. Second question is, i know the situation is so bad, but even seems more to say to talk about now, but we need so many for choice. Nobody is talking about engagement issues. Not many menus already. Number three. Third question. Domestic politics because leadership here, u. S. Leadership including president or senators or even some experts, their voice is much louder in korea. Sometimes inconsiderate. I know america is a democratic country, but there have been more careful and considerate. Its much more exaggerate and louder in korea. And considering the petition with supporters, finally china and korea relationship. We talked about the pictures. China and korea and good relationships are really important. Somehow always they had their cooperation is going on among u. S. , japan, and korea, not korea and china and u. S. Which is i consider really important to solve the problem. Great. Thank you. We will come back to some of those things. Great. Thank you. I want to start and i think mike did a nice job of laying out the visions for the future of northeast asia. I top the go into this by talking about the importance of u. S. Leadership in seeing that that direction continues in the interest of not only the United States, but the alliance and of many of the important values and rules that we have worked together so hard to cultivate over the past few decades. Let me start by talking about korea that sits in a very challenging location geographically. Korea has been doing a lot of work and its security relationship with the United States. I worry that if u. S. Commitments to korea became in doubt, that would play into it would strengthen chinas hands and lead to greater economic dependency between korea and china and make seoul resist the pressures they have seen from china on things like that and other questions about the security alliance. A lot of progress has been made in korea and trilateral relations are important in dealing with the korea crisis and managing the rise of china and its essential to security interests in the region. Absent u. S. Leadership, i dont think we would see the progress we have seen and i dont think it would continue in the direction that i believe is in our collective interest. We know the perils of china filling a vacuum in the region if u. S. Leadership were to be in question. We have seen china asserting its own Economic Vision for an Economic Framework for the vision with the tpp vision. There are other ramifications. They allow it to set different rules for the region. They flex russias region and the flights around the peninsula. What we heard from the chinese about that and other systems in the region. I think its important to bear in mind. We will certainly seek to if the u. S. Were to pull back in any way on the commitment to our allies and security. I say all of this not to be pessimistic. Im extraordinarily optimistic about the region, but its important that here in the United States we continue to put ourselves on a course in the region to make sure it develops in a direction that it gathered in this room and we all want to see it continue. Someone who carry that mantle of leadership when it comes to the International Rules and norms and values. And i had grown up and while reading it and i have the great honor to make the presentation and china is profoundly changing with the policy of great power. They have the new strategy and a new concept of policies. She xi ginning ping with his career policy and orientation that was in favor of south korea. He ecmphasized the normal state to state relationship with north korea. They have the force to north Koreas Nuclear mission as well as to her provocation. China has adopted an increasingly active stance on the peninsula that you see the proposal on the power of negotiation in 2016 and more so the suspensions in 2017. President xi was in collaboration with north korea on the july force. The United States and south korea. And the new policy to the Korean Peninsula may bring about the corporation with south korea and most korean case and the corporation really matters for the stability in northeast asia. The most challenging question is how to reserve this issue to control chinas corporation. Since the new government came in south korea and chinas opposition has been more test flights. The bilateral relationship between seoul and beijing is not likely to improve soon unless they are thabl to find the solution. Xi has an interest of when he met them in germany on july 6th of this year. In this case acquiring chinas corporation issued before south korea, i was saying the fundamentals of the u. S. Alliance. I suggest while deploying on the south korea to protect the u. S. Army and facilities from the text of south korea. If its not utilized against china and south korea supporting the policies not taking china as an adversary. Based on the months between south korea and the United States. I hope the United States also needs to provide Technical Assistance in the similar days. They alleviate chinese apprehension that most policy might be pursuing. In fact, and the policy and no regime change from the army. Almost identical with chinese north korean policies. In spite of the United States china increasing pressure and warnings on september 3rd of this year, they have this hydrogen bomb. Tim obviously revealed he would not pay any respect to chinese interest as well as the United States. As a consequence, northeast asia is falling into grave security dilemma situations. Nobody knows the outcomes. What is urgent is to establish a strategy or corporation among south korea and the United States and china. They need to understand each other and increase mutual trust. The u. S. Civilian and expert based dialogue. Then the three need to agree on the intend of nuclear weapons. The message to deal with these issues and crisis mechanism. They fly over the horizon and we need to move. The fresh ideas and determination. Thank you. Great topics for us to come back to. Yes. Thank you very much. I can only imagine how its nerve racking and distressing in korea. For us in the United States here too, but living with this threat with this kind of person in charge just must be awful. My heart really goes out and i think we will find a solution overtime. Geopolitically i think the context number one is that since the end of the cold war the president said the greatest threat that the post cold war world faces is terrorists or world regimes. We found out is that it can happen and it did happen. Thats a huge failure of the post cold war strategy. If you are a dictator hell bent on getting it, you will get one. That has enormous geopolitical consequences and consequences for the mideast and geopolitical consequences here. I can come back to this later, but the idea that we are treating it as a state rather than as a mafia or terrorist organization to boggles the mind. Its not a state in a real sense of the term. It should be treated as was treated for sometime as a Mafia Organization trying to get nuclear weapons. That has all kinds of organizations for policy. The second is as china and really the end of the period of reform. It ended probably 10 years ago and the reform period. They put a big explaination and changes the consensus for our eyes. At the same time that china actually has the most ambitious Foreign Policy plans that it put forth in the last 20 years. Less resources form an opening upside and expansive territory that goes from the person parts and eastern parts of afghanistan to claims near south korea. That in itself is the geopolitical context. When it comes to korea, the first unit has got to be that its an empire with this expa e expansive territory. Thats the way they had to pay tribute in the imperial era. They were repeated south korea got e nomous pressure and not to take care of its own security interest. If thats how it views asia as part of the zino sphere and that impinges upon the strategy inside the maritime east asia including korea and has been and always will be the cockpit of history. For china, thats where it began through korea and japan. Im not trying to justify and everyone knows needs to happen. The u. S. Dropped the ball on value and leadership over the last 10 or so years because we have not been employing or policy that speaks to koreans on both sides of the peninsula or moves towards what has been stated. Ill stop and we can this is a huge issue. At the very least you are prepared for that. From the point of view from the department of defense, korea and japan will get everything they want. They will have straight capabilities and the alliances will be tighter than they have ever been. Thats fine. Its fine to a certain extent with the push back with china and without an end state that leads to unification and demilitarizatio demilitarization. The president made a speech roughly two weeks ago. Thats an Independence Day speak about japan. He made a very careful wording over korea and japan relations. If this thing approaches to japan which is strickly bilateral and now you want to broaden the scope. The history problem continually drags down the bilateral relationship. The previous and this is something you have to translate that words translate into action. In other words, its the approach that you want to cooperate on Political Security and economic matters. With japan while separately discussing the history issues. It is not the ordinary one and incentives for cooperation also try from the benefit analysis in a narrow risk. Bilateral contest. The countries play and the choices before. The contest now, Political Economic incentives for japan has relatively decreased as is china plays a big power and economic benefits and incentives for cooperation in japan has been declined as the japanese economy. Thats the intriguing need for bilateral cooperation for a multilateral contest. They are not in the bilateral contest, but the trilateral contest. Thats very important. Thats the lingering problem derived from history between korea and japan. How you get over this. The issue of pe rrennial proble. Trilateralism is good for and crucial for north korea and handling the issues. If that is erected to china and containing china, this is what south korea has to avoid. The question is, how do they have that in . Thats what they have for the task. And the second is trade issues that you have a separate trade panel today. I cant say its a free trade regime, but you have a liberal regime that has been established and has been severely disrupted by the new American American government who ordered and also indicating repeal of korea. The countries really need to develop cooperative action. For the region and sustaining the liberal trade regime here in the region. We need to reactivate or multilateral free trade negotiations and also tpp minus alpha whatever you call it. We might be back to the history issue. We still have a challenge. Thats resilience. As you all know, bilateral relations has been really down to the bottom during the past four or five years. And that largely failed. In japan and korea, they can regard that that agreement as a failure. And then they have this particular problem. And the campaign thing. Now thats just a pledge and now the much more careful thing that she shows and he shows a careful approach not mentioning the renegotiation. And they have the minster of Foreign Affairs and they will be coming up. A