tv Forum Focuses on Policy Implications of South Korean Election Results CSPAN May 10, 2017 8:28pm-9:54pm EDT
with cia director mike palm may and nsa director michael rogers and national intelligence director dan coats. former fbi director comey was expected to appear but deputy director andraw mccade will testify. live coverage begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service boy america's cable television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. next, the implications of the presidential election in south korea looking at how it will affect relationships with china, japan and the united states. this is an hour and 20 minutes.
economic relations between our two countries and a series of other important issues. we are fortunate to have three very good experts, john baurd burton of the financial time in sole. we have scott synder, bruce clinger and former assembly man song. we have fortunate to have them all. i know we have a lot to discuss so i will turn it over to john. for further information on the speakers, you have their bios as well. thank you very much. >> thank you, troy. i also want to thank our panel for giving their valuable time to come here and talk about south korea's new president.
why do you think moon won and what does it say about the political and social trends? >> i think the major factor that shaped this was the impeachment and public frustration they saw in south korean leadership. it is a symptom of an underlying problem that is a hot spot within the society and moon came along and was first the face of the protest along with other leaders of his party. as a result, support for his party went up 10-15 points
before the election even started. then he has an agenda for promoting transparency and really, i guess the simple way to say it would be moving toward a more fair and equal opportunity in society rather than one in which it feels like you really have to have money in order to be able to get ahead or stay ahead. >> similarly, song, would you agree with scott? >> yes, agree. i have prepared and it is better to read the essay. i think one of the biggest reason for moon's victory is his personality and power of the organizatio
organizations. from very early on, mr. moon has a strong commitment to justice and public service. he truly values trust among the people. he was not a politician originally but he had been a human rights lawyer and civil activist for more than 30 years. the former president started this year as a politician and mr. moon but he had declined because he is human rights
impeachment trial and that made him come back. his return to the political world is a destiny he cannot escape, i think. and president moon is kind and people-person. he maintains open mind and people -- long standing friend. in this particular field, it is a priority. >> bruce, what do you think is the reason why? >> first of all, thank you for the opportunity to be here.
i was on a panel discussion the day after the u.s.' election and put a lot of effort into identifying the preceptions of the clinton-asia policy. i was determined not to go through that so first thing first. someone had an election apparently. okay. we will go from there. yeah, i think asports pointed out. you have the -- others pointed out -- after ten years of conservative rule it is sort of to be expected the pendulum would go to other way. you want to throw the group out and after a while you will get upset with the new group. certainly as scott and sung pointed out with the impeachment it scattered conservatives with a paint that would be extremly
difficult to overcome. the conservatives employiemploii think it was the progressive's election to lose. su polled neck-and-neck with moon and feared there might be an upset but moon maintained his core base of 40%. he tried to appeal to more than his core base and didn't go beyond that number he had consistently throughout the election. he tried tacking to the center on nation issues issues and we will see if he stays there or goes back to the left.
i think most elections in every country are people voting their pocketbook whether frustrated with the party in power or which ever party they think will impact their economy the best. you will say you were focused on that but carbon monoxide is really -- >> he has a full record of statements but do you think he is going to implement those and
there is a way of sequencing a lot of elements and the presidency is emphasizing and ones we can move forward. i don't think we can automatically presume as seems to be the dominant theme we are on a collision course. the fact of the matter is this is in the context of alliance and means it is a family matter. we have to work through the issues in order to move forward. as long as those leaders respect the fact that they were balanced by the alliance i am optimistic
>> you don't see any clash? as scott said, that seems to be the consensus. >> it depends on how he implements the budget. both presidents have said enough things which appear to open interpretation on any number of things. on say the alliance, moon has said i am america's friend, the alliance is the bedrock of korean diplomacy or democracy and he wants to strengthen the alliance. you say that sounds like a conservative.
but he has also said things like he wants to negotiate the agreement with not only the united states but china and how do you negotiate with a country that is putting frrth -- it frank he wants the transfer quickly and when that was done before it caused a great deal of angst in south korea. he wants to increase south korean's independent and having the missile defense system not integrated you can see it as
maintaining a strong relationship with the united states but he wants to reach out to north korea and have sanctions and engagement. you can say that sounds like statements from u.s. officials or you can see it as he brings baggage to the table because his relationship with the hunt administration. you could see if not divergence, turbulence in the relationship. >> what do you think about him reopening the case on industrial complex? >> that is a violation of u.n. security council resolutions if he does that so he would have to work with the u.n. and 1718 committee for prior approval of economic engagement of north kor
korea. it would be a troublesome movement if he does it. >> scott, you indicated he is a bit more optimistic about the relationships. do you think the constraining factors is he cannot afford to antagonize washington? and at the same time he cannot afford to antagonize the national assembly. do you think those are extreme facto factors or is there room for maneuver? >> yes, john, you correctly
identified both domestic and international constraints that will influence how the new administration will carry out the policy. the main issue is we have seen this platform before. you think about the situation between george w. bush and the president of south korea and there were tensions but we got through it. i think we will see something similar. bruce put the no experience in a negative light but on the other hand we have somebody who has experience and 15 years ago we were dealing with a bunch of people who had no experience who came over and took over south korean government. i think in the first 24 hours, some of that experience is showing.
i think he did a very good job with his inauguration kind of address. really the outstanding question is chemistry. we will have to say how that is dealt with. there will be tension and frictions but i think they will be managed. >> bruce, is there a general washington consensus now about moon? i think as scott pointed out, tlbz concern or questions and i think given the fact he was chief of staff, there were tensions in the relationship between the u.s. and south carolina. i don't think it is overstating
to say there is concerns as to how things will go. if president trump talked about massive pressure and expert conditions on that and if moon is wanting to be fairly early or quickly with north korea although he said if conditions permit there is the potential for divergeance and if you have divergeance you can have pension. they will say how can it be so bad because we got things accomplished.
>> it will be changing the political environment and they need to have an appropriate time frame for effective intervention i think. so, this relative position and in order to prevent and eliminate the dangers of north korea's nuclear threat it is necessary to put in the effort to meticilously assess and work how to create concrete politics. so, moon will do exactly that. it will sustain the strength into the u.s. alliance and
>> i think korea has to take it seriously when the trump administration suggests it wants to review the agreement. my understanding from advisors is they look the agreement because they began the process of negotiating with the george w. bush administration. in a way the risk of everyone and the flash point issues, and there is probably some room to address concerns that are outstanding related to the agreement, but i think in a way the bigger issue they are both looking at the agreement from a fundamentally perspective. the koreans have caught up to
the idea that to trump the merchandise value is the only thing matters. that is contested in the united states and it will take efforts to figure out how to respond to that. they will need time to put together a strategy on that, i think. >> bruce? >> i think a lot of it is the intent and messaging. you can say cyber is old and maybe things need to be tweaked and there is a mechanisms for that. maybe some things didn't work out well so let's tweak the language or the provisions. similarly are nafta you can say that is so old their entire technologies which has been created since that cause signed. let's get folks together and address technologies that are new or perhaps outdated.
you can do that among trading partners. but if you messaging is this is the worst ever, i want to blow it up, you are going into negotiations with greater leverage but just signaled you don't care about the agreement and you are willing to walk away. if it is negotiating leverage, it may be counter produkt ctive. and laying the red line if i don't get everything i want we will walk away. it doesn't address it is in u.s.' national interest because we have, you know, such
i think we have many concerns about this kind of situation. >> do you have, scott or bruce, do you have any advice for president moon? >> let me just say, we have got cutler and marcus millian in the audience who are people this issue should be directed to. but if i could address the political issue of this, i think if we look back we have some that are pro alliance and some proantonymous. and this is a major tension that has always been there as a part of south korean foreign policy.
if the u.s. can manage it well in order to make sure we are promoting the pro-alliance people than many issues can be dealt with in a quiet way. it is going to represent a setback for us in terms of being able to effectively manage the relationship. >> scott, you have written a book, or co-authored a book about korea and japanese relations. what do you expect tokyo-sole relations? i would like to hear views about sole-beijing as well.
therefore i believe the agreement -- >> what about in terms of china what do you think that will do, given that he is under a dilemma? >> she's moved from opposition to being on defense. he kept saying the next government should deal with it. you will be the next government. so you just sort of kept trying that. if they do the six tests then it's sort of a done deal then why wouldn't it be a done deal after 544 or three and they have
miniaturized and westernized they almost certainly have the nuclear missiles today which could hit your country and whereas in the past day or just a political tool. those are the only military targets they have so they've got 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 if you are willing to negotiate that along with china than you are willing to negotiate anything away. south korea and the u.s. try to offer technical briefings and how can they tried to talk about it during the summit because they know it's not only false, it is disingenuous. i think even the statements that he will negotiate with china about it raises some concerns.
the park administration came through nothing but move forward unless all the parties have a consensus and unless a single party mobilized 60% they've abandoned their nuclear option on the national assembly level. it's going to require cooperation. his party is the minority and if you add to the people's party and the working coalition he has some real challenges and the advantage he has is in this environment a lot of the platform agenda in terms of having job expansion, public
sector job expansion would address high unemployment levels in the need for rolling out a stronger set of public services. it's the issue of trying to rebalance and the kind of advanced. even in parts they paid lipservice to a lot of this issue. >> do you think we would see some type of trade-off in the policy or what he wants to achieve on north korea for getting the consumer to vote for corporate reform?
he also mentioned independence for the prosecution and the legal authorities which of course directly flow from the circumstances around each process. >> do you think that security will wind up being the concern despite what is in the campaign. >> certainly he has a very strong impetus to try to do something. i think right now the public really wants to do something to change what seems to be endemic corruption in the government relationship. so, i think there's a sort of tsunami of intent to do things. i think maybe it is a bridge too far and the conservative party holding the reform hostage in the policy but regardless, i think back on the reform and
they had strong support. once the reform measures started impacting the economies, then the national economy and the people flip-flopped and it was hurting the national economy because of such an oversized impact. so then people said let's back off of the reform, so it was a bit of to and fro on that. so if the reform started impacting the moneymaking operations for the country, then i believe there would still be 25% of the gdp if i'm right. then if it impacts the economy at the time there is a concern that it's very slow, would that cause people to go back against the reform? >> i think on the priorities, any president not only south korea but the u.s. comes in wanting to focus on domestic issues. that's what they feel the voters
want and where the votes were from. but the world tha of truth, certainly north korea whether it is doing something an and is not ignored or it is doing it because it's the next step in the technological development, north korea doesn't stay quiet for very long so if they don't do any mor anymore missile teste exercising of any kind, i doubt that'back. so if it is the next missile test, then you have the north korean crisis for both trump and then we will see how they work together. if it is a case of north korea did this, we need to increase pressure, more sanctions and if they say no, we need to lower the tension, maybe they are only doing this because of the u.s. actions, that is where you could have some convergence.
so right now after it floods the nuclear test, we have a new international consensus on the need to pressure north korea. it didn't happen after the first three that after the four. so now you have not only the un sanctions, but the u.s. law which is pushing the previous administration to do things they had been reluctant to do and if you have a new administration that is willing to do that, then another parallel track is south korea and others going around the world to talk about the legitimate business per as raising crimes against humanity's, slave labor conditions, siphoning the wages to their nuclear program, crimes against humanity, use of a chemical weapon and a civilian n airport. it weaned away more of this north korean business partner so if you think of it like an old wild west movie, the sheriff finally got them energized and deputized and finally got the
secret exit over here and here's a couple bags of cash and at south korea implements the sanctions must vigorously then why should i do that. you are siphoning the 120 million on the program. why should i be tough, so if he backs off, we could sort of see the softening of the international coalition. >> do they focus on the economy, security?
the companies in the global market. the reformation isn't by way of more reformations to corporations, but allowing for them to operate on a global platform so he wants them to be global companies as to the north korean policies of the relations when it comes to the economy is going to be more of a bilateral relations and we intend to resolve the issues it's 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 we've 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.
military actions, so to the point that it's 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 it's because of your allies it's taken the a's 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 let's 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 it's important whenever we take measures that we don't 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 it's related to ie issue that crosses all these lines because i don't 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 beijing's 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 one-sided 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 they've got now but runs the risk of accepting the nuclear power. has he talked about that, and i'm sorry i just haven't 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 what's 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. he's doing everything he can to signal an openness and willingness to reestablish the dialogue and frankly on the south korean side, i'm sorry, the north korean side i don't 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 that's 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. there's 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 there's 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, he's also talked about south korea should take the lead on issues on the korean peninsula that it shouldn't be the u.s. and china talking about north korea while south korea isn't 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 that's 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 it's 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 don't want to do that. i do hope that human rights is a strong issue in the dialogue. >> i think that he's 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 didn't 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 security economic 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
the allies in the negotiations that involved zero-sum. i'm 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, he's already indicated that he's willing to spend more on defense. he wants that to be directed and has raised five-point 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 doesn't sound like he is really interested in the product, i'm 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 don't want to hold everything hostage on one issue. on the other hand i don't think you want to make it a quid pro quo. i'm going to reduce the trade pressure on china in return for the hop help that they promisedn north korea. i don't think you should make that.
you address each issue and if there's economic issues that need to be addressed you don't kind of sacrifices and over particularly my view yet again another promise. i don't think you make that kind of deal. so with that said you don't stovepipe issues. they kind of influence each other and realize that isn't a good answer but i don't 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 people's 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 presidential 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 don't 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, there's 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 you're not coming off against
each other they've 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 couldn't 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.
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 can't 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 people's party, the smaller progressive party. so i think that he's 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 doesn't get me in he can reach the 60% threshold. they are very close and i'm 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 he's in office and thinkini'm thinking in parte some of the asian leaders like the prime minister. >> play golf. [laughter] but i don't 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 anti-american 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 he's going to be more isolationist, transactional or whatever, then there's 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 coming-out 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 don't realize the impact that it can have. >> thank you very much. i hope that you found it to be a stimulating discussion and i
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on