If people could take a sheet, please. Our second panel, the unofficial view, with us is eric, formerly of the office of trade representatives. The associate director of the managing foundation, this afternoon, so thank you for that. It is a great pleasure to work with you. And the fellow and director of Academic Affairs and my colleague here at ke i. The first panel, made each of you could give a description of what you were saying is the most important thing for people to know about the camp david meeting. Eric, do you want to start . Eric happy to. First of all, i want to thank kei and mansfield for allowing me to participate in this very timely discussion, and i really appreciated the first panel as well. I think our government colleagues probably do not want to brag as much as they should about what was a, during the trilateral summit, but i do think it was remarkable, both a symbolic and a substantive standpoint. I think people dont necessarily appreciate just how difficult it is to reach all of these agreements, to enter socialized cooperation across the security and economic agenda of important issues, for the three countries, in the context of all the challenges, particularly in the japankorea relationship which are well understood and which we began to delve into in the q a in the previous panel. I think it was remarkable what has been accomplished over the past several years, and particularly over the past year with the leadership and courage in tokyo and seoul enabling this kind of collaboration to even being realistic. Yet if i want to make a little of institutionalization that has been accomplished in this meeting. We now have commitment from great countries from the three countries to have annual lateral summit between the leaders and annual trilateral cabinet level meetings among all of the major security and economic officials of the three countries. Im frightened the amount of work for folks in government who have to staff all of these trilateral initiatives, but it is all worth the investment of effort from the three countries, and i think the joint statements really reflected the increasing scope of the multi dimensional cooperation that is so important to all three countries, so i look forward to the discussion. Mr. Tokola that is a good point. The press conference was about the fact that the president and the secretary of state and defense, but this will be very interesting. What is your take away . Yeah. Can you hear me . Great. So first of all, the Mansfield Foundation is happy to jointly host this event with kei. It has been great working with you, mark, and your team. Dear question, thats to your question, i went to committed to your question, i want to commend the leaders. The meeting is unprecedented and it was really unthinkable just two years ago. I think there have been many effort, as we heard from the previous panel, efforts behind it here in the last couple of years in each country, but i think leader really stepped up and took some action to really seize the unparalleled opportunity that is described in the spirit of camp david at the right time to make this summit happen. First of all, i think this is historic. It is all great news. I think it is important to note that the scope of this summit goes beyond the korean peninsula. It goes beyond the immediate pressing 30 cents in the region. This was not only about discussing these regional concerns but it was about creating an important precedent. It was a trilateral partnership, elevating it to a broader level. It was an effort to individualize this partnership and to establish some kinda of initial, strong, and durable framework. And it was an effort to make it last beyond the current administrations, as the word forever, and others, for generations to come, were heard. I want to add the timing of the summit were also significant, emphasized by the commitment to consult. This explicitly underscores the importance for the United States to work with allies. As opposed to walking away from them which would make the u. S. The current so i think this would them which, would make the u. S. Weaker. Mr. Tokola President Biden use that word forever, too, which is a very serious commission. Thank you also to the Mansfield Foundation for partnering with kei. I dont think i would disagree with my fellow panelists, but i want to pump the brakes a little bit. There has been a superlative soup, new ever, new chapter. Nobody said end of history, im glad. [laughter] i dont think there is a reason to bill it as that, for the reasons that have been mentioned, which i will not who, but i do think we have to be careful, though, about setting up Unrealistic Expectations paid i think expectation management moving forward is going to be really. I get this is not a onetoone comparison, but we were engaged in historic diplomacy with pyongyang years ago. Where did we stand today . It cannot be more different, and it is unique, i get it, but im highlighting it to say that two years ago, this would not be possible, because leadership changed, conditions changed. Leadership is going to change again, and additions are going to change again. So, you know, we have, of course, we have our own election, and a possible multiple fell excuse me, alleged multiple fell in, who openly decries elizas, and i think a second term would lean more into that narrative,. But i think the Biden Administration is trying their best to move this forward, so it has not been is visualized yet. That will take time. I think, frankly, decades. But i think seth was right to point out National Security advisor sullivans expression of this is Building Momentum and potentially inertia. I added potentially myself. I think those are keywords, because they denote movement and access. Inertia of course you against forces that challenge the arrangement. So i think that is very clear right from i think that is where the language is good and can help, but i think it is also important to remember, and i will stop after this remark, is that, i guess the joint fact sheet that maybe some of the other documents, but im still parsing over, mentioned, they were this did not occur in a vacuum. There are existing relationships, existing as additions. They are building on these, and they said they affirmed excuse me, reaffirmed existing understandings and affirmed new ones. So, again, they are building on an architecture that exists, but it will, you know, and counter rocky soles in the future. Mr. Tokola i want to clarify, kei is an independent, nonpartisan organization. I would like to say, at the matter among privatesector friends, i would like to be a conversation, so be sure to talk to each other, too, and interrupt. Sayuri that i will. [laughter] i said this is an attempt. Mr. Tokola ok. Eric, most of the press conference out of camp david, the you think the economic parts were underreported . Eric thanks for the question. I do think, and many ways, the reporting was accurate, as with all highlevel me like this, they always have limited bandwidth. In a former life and i was the director for asi Economic Affairs ata the National Security counciln and was involved in planning and preparing for a variety of the president s participation in different agent summits asian summits, and it is a brutal process to tell all of the agencies which are critical deliverables left on the cutting room floor before meetings of this kind. So i think it is unsurprising that the focus was on a cooperation initiatives with a major focus on the National Security agendas, the commitment to consult, the rule association the institutionalization of trilateral organizations, including these joint military exercises, the creation of new dialogue, regular highlevel dialogue channels, focusing on these National Security issues. All that i think is unsurprising and appropriate. But there was some discussion of Economic Issues and some elevation and institutionalization of discussions of the economic agenda. It should be said that much of this economic agenda was characterized by the merging of economic and Security Priorities into the sort of broad Economic Security policy basket. So a lot of the discussion, supply chain security, ensuring the safeguarding of critical and emerging technologies, together to create Early Warning mechanisms to identify threats to critical supply chains, enhancing cooperation to respond to those threats, including potentially to economic coercion. And the subtext of all of this is an effort to trilateral eyes cooperation on export controls and other potential mechanisms to deal with technology leakage that could undermine National Security. There was no less than action of up in investment reviews, which of course the u. S. Has just issued the executive order, beginning the establishment of a upend investment reviews, which i think the topic was discussed among officials. The significance of these issues, albeit largely through the framing of Economic Security as opposed to what many of us use to work on it Economic Issues in the u. S. Government, which was trade and investment, liberalization and promotion, after which there was, again, not surprisingly, relatively little discussion. Mr. Tokola asking about the difference in why do we need the policy. In the trump administration, everything is bilateral. Under the Biden Administration, everything is multilateral. Is that a return to normal, or is multilateral something new . Eric well, i think it is, in many ways, part of a longstanding evolution of u. S. Policy, particularly policies intended to strengthen our ability to affect outcomes in the indo pacific, as we now refer to it, and also to respond to the challenges proposed by china. I think there is a growing understanding that it requires broad coalitions and broad partnerships to address the sort of multifaceted security challenges in the region. So trilateral initiatives with key partners like japan and korea is very much a natural effort. Of course, the Biden Administration had a particular motivation, to focus on both bilateral and multilateral alliance, maintenance activities, because of the trump administration, which was, in most ways, quite hostile to multilateralism, with the exception of a few things, like the quad. But i do think it is a return to an existing trajectory but an important augmentation of an effort. Clint just very briefly, i want to give my colleague credit for these, because he talks about the speed when we talk about these mechanisms that were rightly mentioned, they really cannot be effectuated without european participation, so it really does, the nature of the issues go beyond the trilateral, right . Which i think is helpful, too, to remind ourselves of. Mr. Tokola the press conference after the summit, they talked about security. I dont recall hearing much of anything about Climate Change. Does that because theres already so much cooperation on Climate Change . Sayuri in a press conference, there was no mention of that, but the Climate Crisis was mentioned in the joint statement and in the camp david principles , there was a joint Commission Commitment to cooperating and addressing Climate Change. I think it is good that it was there, but there was no elaboration, no further elaboration on how nations would be collaborating on that front. And i think the Biden Administration, especially in the last two years, has made some important progress, to work more closely bilaterally with japan and was north korea to address Climate Change. But we have yet to see how these three countries will need to be will include this area in this trilateral framework. And it will be interesting to see how japan and south korea will be working together on that front. Of course, all three countries have shared interest in Energy Security, especially promoting alternative sources of energy, generation use of natural gas, so the discourse around Energy Security is definitely linked to Climate Change policy, but at the end of the day, i think the specific summit was an effort to establish a first record of trilateral cooperation on a much broader level, and a higher level, Prime Minister kishida repeated multiple times, multilayer cooperation, so i am interested to see what the bilateral initiative we will see develop in the coming years. Also, how do they align their Climate Change targets . And especially how to consult for any joint messaging on that. Mr. Tokola ok. This lends to your expertise to answer a question a lot of people are asking, and japansouth korea relations, does meeting change relations, or is it a point in a cycle of up and down relations . Sayuri definitely the latter, a high point in a cycle of up and down relations. I think the historical relations are here to stay. They are lingering, they are not going away anytime soon, or ever. I think it will be really, really difficult for historical issues to be resolved. And i think the legal questions regarding forced laborers that has been the media really hinted at that this solved it, but actually it is not solved. It is still partial. There is still so much to talk about. And bilateral relations are the weak link here. I think the biggest threat to sustaining this japansouth Korea Partnership is the domestic public in each of the countries, including the u. S. , for the trilateral part of this discourse. Of course, the Position Party and south korea is very vocal about anything that president yoon does and they are describing president yoon, as a way to suppress korean independence and getting closer to the u. S. And japan. So theres a lot a very loud discourse in south korea and i think in japan as well. Prime minister kishida, his Approval Rating they are is 50 , very low. I mean come in his Approval Ratings i mean, his Approval Ratings are very high. People in japan are probably not thinking that much about Foreign Policy. So it will depend on domestic, public, public and polarized politics in all three countries, i think, and especially in japan and korea. Mr. Tokola people say that these issues are generational, that they will soften with time. History stays with you. It does not fade with generations. Saying the past is never dead it is not even past. Sayuri yeah. I think it is good that history stays with us, but i the same time, there is so much polarization politicization on all sides. They hit an emotional chord in the public. Clint can i just jump in . I think it was proven, and you mentioned in the press conference afterwards, that they are trying to create a bridge between the legal issues in the court cases and the higher level sorted diplomatic agreements. But to sayuris point, and is maybe what you were alluding to, there are still lots of cases and korean courts that are working their way up. Some will get to the supreme court. This is not going away in peoples minds. They are going to be pertinent legal questions that have outcomes that have to be dealt with. And you have the leadership this is before the trilateral summit of the opPosition Party in south korea that said that yoon is moving the country one step closer not an exact quote, but the flag once again flying over sovereign and korean territories. It gets politicized, and that is not going away. Sayuri that is what i was alluding to. [laughter] you are right. There will be, after this meeting, the summit, after the summit, there will be some news about that. Clint theyve already spoken. Sayuri right. Yeah. So many levels of the court in korea. They are always trying to emerge, and they are not going away. Eric if i just jump in on that point again, i unfortunately have to agree with all of those cautionary comments, but i do think there is value in the institutionalization of the highlevel dialogue mechanisms, because it increases the costs, the diplomatic costs for korea for undertaking a particular policy shift. I would think that it should have at least some mild impact in the sort of decisionmaking process of the relevant government officials, the korean court, and the public and other stakeholders, in thinking about all of the disruption that is caused when there is a breakdown in relations caused by the handling of these particular types of cases. And i can say that, having spent some time in seoul and tokyo, as im sure my colleagues have during the downturn, it was really terrible. The lack of trust and the inability to move forward with a host of ongoing cooperation, either government to government or disruptions to business and commercial relationships, it is really significant. So i think anything that can be done to try and create a buffer but also to make explicit the cost of handling this issue in a way that causes another major disruption in the relationship. And i think the other aspect that, you know, everyone should consider is the state of feeling to have the timed, coordinated security responses to the challenges faced, north koreas challenge with the continuing provocations from the dprk, with a Missile Program and Ongoing Nuclear weapons program. But many of the serious issues in the region more generally, including those relating to chinas activities in the South China Sea and the taiwan straits. These are important issues to all three countries, and theres a lot that can be lost when the wheels come off. The bi