tv U.S.- South Korea Relations Part 1 CSPAN September 11, 2017 1:57pm-2:56pm EDT
that throws net neutrality out. >> watch the communicators tonight at eight eastern on c-span2. >> the center for strategic and international studies held a daylong event recently to discuss the u.s. south korea alliance. the north korean nuclear threat came up frequently throughout the discussion with current and past south korean leaders, former u.s. officials and policy experts. in this session we heard from florida democratic represented stephanie murphy who serves on the house armed services committee and we also hear from a former international relations and ambassador to a south korean. this is about an hour. >> good morning. thank you for coming to thegi 2017 u.s. strategic form. we would like to thank our partner for this event, the korea foundation for their support. we are fortunate to have richard and the president of
the korea foundation and the ambassador here to give some opening remarks.before before i introduce them, is would like to say a few words about safety. we feel very secure in our building but we have a duty to prepare for any event. my name is lisa collins. i'm a fellow and i will serve as your responsible safety officer for this event. please follow my instructions should the need arise. please also familiarize yourself with emergency exits in the back of the room on the right and on the left. now to introduce our first two speakers, the investor is currently the president of international pretty with the deputy of state and the deputy assistant secretary for defense for asia and east pacific affairs in the office of defense.is he has had a distinguished career in government and policy. he was south korea's
ambassador to the oecd from 2013 until 2015. investor lee has had a long esteemed career working in south korea's ministry of foreign affairs. they will give her marks first followed by ambassador lee. >> thank you very much. good morning everyone.yone. welcome to csis. somet quite a crowd. is there something going on in the peninsula in koreag that i haven't heard about. when i was asked to speak and make a few remarks, i was wondering what we're going to talk about. within the spacing of a couple weeks or ten days we've had an icbm shoot over the area, we've had an alleged hydrogen bomb, we have icbm moving to the coast in north korea, we've got a
president here in the united states that is bellowing about appeasement from south korea and bellowing about the possibility of removing ourselves from course was is exactly the wrong thing to do in my view at this time. this is not, this doesn't recognize the spectacular things we've witnessed in the public of korea in the past several months. it wasn't very long ago we were here for dinner. there was a wonderful presentation in this very room and they made a wonderful presentation at dinner. there's a republican korea that had just come out of a beautiful, peaceful democratic election while the previous president was being put in jail and on trial. it was all done seamlessly.thisi this is a nation that deserves support. so, i have a charge for aller
the americans in the room. when this conference is over, there should be no doubt in the mind of any of our friends from the republic of korea that the united states is one 100% behind them, behind them in military and security terms, behind themli in economic terms, behind them politically. this is a charge i give to my american friends. [applause] i have spoken my peace. you know what i think and now will hear from someone who really knows what he's talking about. presently.ent [applause] >> thank you for your strong commitment. thank you very much. to
[inaudible] very good morning and welcome to the form 2017. on behalf of koreait foundation, it is my pleasure to stand here once againncorpo incorporation with ci csis here in washington d.c. i would like to express my gratitude to all of you for your commitment in participating in this form. my special thanks go to those who traveled here from outside washington d.c. and especially those who made the long journey from seoul. a couple three in attendance arrived after midnight last night. was the it was exactly nine month ago today when i stood here as we
open the first korea strategic form. at that time, i remember the sense of anticipation we all had for the new resident elect, u.s. president-elect and the concerns and anxiety that we shared over the thenid president of the republic of korea. many changes have occurred since then, each requiring our time and attention and radical analysis. i think we can all agree that the form in 2017 was too long issuest and we move today's forum to september due to the critical issues at hand. i would like to draw your attention to several points of common interest of particular note.
first, this year marks the 135th anniversary of the establishment of the korea u.s. diplomatic relationship in 1882. it was a small port city on the western coast, peoples of the u.s. and korea encountered each other as almost total strangers and finally signed the first agreement between our two countries. secondly, this year marks the fifth anniversary that was the result of several years of negotiations. even after the deal was reached, five more years were needed for the grand side to gain approval of national assembly. the interdependence of our two countries, not only as ans
integrated market, but also as even stronger security allies has become increasingly reinforced. the new administration launched in washington d.c. and seoul respectively. while americans were experiencing a different style of leadership, koreans were exercising their democratic freedoms as they changed in a lawful and peaceful manner. they turned a political crisis into an opportunity for rebirth serving as an exemplary model. seventy to 80% approval rating reflects the pride of the korean people.
lastly there is a long dark shadow over this partnership. there is, of course, north korea. the day before yesterday, i was awoken by breaking news on my mobile phone. it was about president trumps announcement of possible withdraw. by then i thought my opening remarks were in need of change and modification. then by midday, the latest news on north korea broke and i sat there transfixed gauging at the news on my tv and computer screen. most of the text i had prepared for this moment lost its relevance i began to think what message i could deliver in my brief remarks. i couldn't find words to replace the already prepared once and decided to delete the whole part.
i felt helpless as i watched north korea bragging about its successful test of the h-bomb. what shall we do. do we have any option other than another round of verbal condemnation and just notth with the tensions stop north korea from becoming a nuke state?at can we expect any effective dialogue with kim jong-un if and when it becomes a nuke state? i have no answer to those questions. i'm hoping some of you do. however, as a citizen of korea who was born right after the war, one thing i am sure of is that no matter how great the situation becomes, any military action that
risks ending up with full-fledged war on the peninsula can never be an option unless it is truly the last resort for the survival of our people and allies. let us not forget the fact that beyond the nuclear issue there is another issue that demands our attention. economic cooperation. in addition to security cooperation, economic cooperation has stood as a second foundation of pillar for our volatile relationship. when it was signed was the most significant trade agreement for korea. for the united states it was the first commercially meaningful trade since the signing of nafta.. despite the fact that it has continued to flounder and the rapid rise, our two nations -
enjoyed a rise in trade value and market share last year. it was held on august 22. i must concede i have no knowledge of whether president trumps announcement from saturday about possible withdraw was based on the testaments of this first joint meeting or not. i carefully read the article written with renewed respect for her insight and i could not agree more with most of the points she made.
i'm confident that this will be productive to show the way how to succeed proceed the next steps with the government delegation.e too mu and yet i do not wish to take too much time away from the wonderful speakers we hav' lined up for today's forum except for a few words. every year the korea foundation puts a heavy emphasis on program in the united states. we have provided the lion share funding available to it for the programs proposed by the u.s. universities and think tank since establishment in 1991. these efforts have further strengthened the relationship between our two countries and have promoted that understanding between our peoples.
they have invited thess scholars. [inaudible]can si among the current delegate you can find a few familiar faces you may remember from our form last year. at the same time, you can see scholars and formal government officials. most of whom should be no stranger to you, even if this is the first time for you to see them at our forum. i'm especially glad that hepe was able to find his time to speak at a luncheon hereha today. we're ready to share our personal views of the newly formed government. this is the first occasion to arrange a form with a partner of the u.s. in this town since the government was formed. on the security front the
alliance is facing perhaps the greatest threat on the korean peninsula since the cease-fire was put on place in 1963. obviously due to that. [inaudible] it seems we stand at a crossroads where the future is to be decided. we have to overcome this crisis and bring our corporation be on the fta. this is why i believe this form will provide us with the timely ability to share our views with each other. i'm certain as a result of this forum emma we can offer guidance to both the u.s. and korean policymakers now andli in the future of the alliance. last but not least, i would like to express my sincere
appreciation who we are going to meet with tomorrow.nk you v all the staff for their hard work to make this form possible. thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. the cas will introduce stephanie murphy who will come out and give a speech shortly. thank you very much. bear with us as we introduce congress and stephanie murphy. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning everyone. my name is victor.
i'm a senior advisor here at cs ism professor at georgetown. on behalf of of john hammer he, the investor and everyone here, we want to welcome you for what should be a very interesting day long series of discussions about critical issues regarding korea at a very critical time. my goal is to introduce our keynote speaker, congressman stephanie murphy, congresswoman stephanie murphy. as many of you know this is the first day back from recess but congressman murphy was kind enough to join us this morning. we were talking backstage, they have a very full schedule over the next 12 days and so we are especially grateful she was able to join us this morning. she represents the seventh congressional district in the u.s. house of representatives. io she currently serves on the
house armed services committee and the small business committee where she serves as ranking member on the subcommittee on contracting and workforce. previously she was a businesswoman and college instructor. after serving as a national security specialist in the secretary of defense where she received numerous awards for her distinguished service including the secretary of defense medal for exceptional civilian service. she worked on a variety, a range of security issues from counterterrorism to military relations to strategic planning for the defense department. prior to her public service, she was a strategy consultant.sf she holds an ms in foreign service degree from georgetown university and a ba in economics from college of william and mary. ladies and gentlemen if you could join me in welcoming her as morning.
>> thank you. thank you to see sis and the korea foundation for inviting me to speak.k i'm honored to be here this morning, especially given recent events on the korean peninsula, i don't think this event could have been more timely. victor, thank you for that warm introduction. in addition to serving as a senior advisor, as he mentioned he is the director of asian studies at georgetown university which is where i received my masters degree. victor is a terrific teacher and an even better public servant. i'm really hopeful that his distinguished career in government will soon have another chapter.ss i also hope that professor chart is not grading my performance today. if he is, i hope i do better than my average in grad school. so, for the benefit of the audience here and online, let me briefly reintroduce myself.
i'm stephanie murphy and i'm a first-term member of congress. i was born in vietnam and i came to the united states as a refugee with my family several years after the fall of saigon in 1975. i'm honored to represent a district in central florida that includes orlando and the northern suburbs. i'm also a member of the house armed services committee where i serve on the committee for readiness and emerging threats and capabilities. in addition, along with congressman from massachusetts and jimmy pannetta from california, i cochair the house democratic caucus national security task force. the purpose of this recently established taskforces to help democrats in congress purports strong, strategic national security policy.ad to support the current administration when it advances policy that align with our nations core interest in values and opposeon the administration when it
proposes policies that undermine those interests and values. as leaders of the task force, f we don't really see any value in reflectively opposing the administration, now are any more value in blindly supporting them. i think it's about being fair and presenting smart and strong policies that work for this country. before coming to congress, i worked in a variety of roles as a civilian employee at the department of defense. my primary regional focus was the asia-pacific. although identify as a moderate in congress, i staff to secretaries of defense who are appointed by republican president. donald rumsfeld and robert gates. i can't tell you how different those experiences were. i'm a firm and fanatical believer in the old-fashioned that to the greatest extent possible, politics should stop at the water's edge. despite the divided washington, i continue to
cling to this principle with determination and desperation.k. in my brief framing remarks, i would like to underscore the importance of the alliance between the united states and south korea. to identify what i believe are the main challenges to this alliance and to offer some views to how these challenges can be addressed and let me begin with a few words about the alliance itself. >> it has become something of a cliché for government officials to assert that the relationship are built on common interest in common value. in the case of the u.s. andnt south korea, the statement, however trite it might sound is true. of course it goes well beyond that. this alliance is special because it was built in battle, forged and fire, and shaped by shared sacrifice. between 1950 and 1953, the citizens of our two nations fought and often fell side-by-side to repel north korea's invasion of south korea and to preserve south
korea's very existence. in 1953, we signed a mutual defense treaty that commits each country to come to the others defense and in the decade sense, south korea has of all from a dictatorship to democracy. from an underdeveloped country to an economic powerhouse. the u.s. has been consistently there to lend a helping hand through the provision of economic and security support. there are currently 28000 u.s. troops stationed to help defend our allies. make note mistake about it. the success of the years is attributable first and foremost to the talent, and genuity of the south korean people and their leaders. put differently, south korea's remarkable ride, like so many consumer products the world has come to depend on remain in south korea. the pho products like the phones i see many of you using to fact check my speech.ght
because our two nations fought together in a war that has never really ended, and because our service members continue to stand together along perhaps the most dangerous border in the world, our relationship is the first for this thing from transactional or tactical. it's authentic, personal and resilient. despite the setbacks and differences of opinions that are in evitable between any partnership between proud,e sovereign and democratic nations. at the same time, i believe a warning is in order. the proven depth and durability of our security and economic relationship should not breed complacency. a strong alliance, like a strong marriage is not self-sustaining. just asked my husband. it requires patient and persistent upkeep by officials in both nations. it should never ever be taken for granted. so let me now turn to a identify what i see as the two broad challenges to the
u.s. south korean alliance and how each challenge should be confronted to maximize the chance of success. the first and most obvious challenge is the one posed by the increasingly belligerent, unpredictable and dangerous regime in north korea. the alliance original. [inaudible] as everyone in this room knows painfully well, north korea has now conducted six nuclear tests since october 2006. each one, a violation of international law. the last four tests were conducted under the current leader kim jong-un. this past weekend north korea carried out its latest detonation of a nuclear device, one that appears ton have a vast more powerful yield than the device it tested in septembe september 2015.stabiliz this is a dangerous, defiant, and destabilizing event. as expected, the test has generated verbal condemnation from the international community including china and russia. it is too early to say
whether the strong words will be followed by strong action, and if so, what those actions will entail. and, whether or not they will make any difference in altering north korea's strategic path. north korea continues to develop and test missile delivery system 70 increasing range and sophistication.n. having already conducted approximately 16 separate test this year alone. test conducted in july led the un security council, including china and russia to vote unanimously to tighten existing sanctions and impose strict sanctions on north korea which is cause for co cautious optimism. it remains to be seen whether these new sanctions will be adequately enforced, especially by beijing who accounts for upwards of 85% of north korea's international trade. it also remains to be seen whether the security council will agree to strengthen these sanctions even further
in light of north korea's latest nuclear test. more generally, it's unclear what precise impact sanctions will have on north korea's economy and on the regime's inclination, if any to negotiate a nuclear freeze or reversal in exchange for some degree of sanctions release. in the short term, north korea responded to the new sanctions and its typical fashion, firing a missile last month that flew over japan. of course, north korea proceeded with its latest nuclear test in a face of broad international opposition. the reality is, we are now in uncharted territory and we've not yet cracked the code on how to influence decision-making. north korea's goal is to develop an arsenal of ballistic missiles that can reliable it the u.s. territory of guam, hawaii and eventually the u.s. mainland. according to conventional wisdom, his primary reason for pursuing this capability is to avoid the state and leaders like saddam hussain
and gadhafi in libya and deter outside forces and ensure regime survival. this rationale bewilders policymakers in the u.s. and other like-minded countries.s we made to test the regimeme but we regard north korea's relentless progress in its nuclear and missile progress as the sole behavior that could compel the international community to take action that would result in regime change or collapse in north korea.re from this perspective, north korea seems to be making a fundamental miscalculation regarding what's in its own test interest, and its provocative conduct could bring about the exact result, regime extension that they seek above all to avoid. this is the conundrum that lies at the heart of the debate over what to do about north korea. how do we get kim jong-un to conclude that a negotiation
leading to denuclearization is the best and indeed the only way to ensure his regime survival. as victor has argued, north korea has another less obvious goal in pursuing nuclear missiles capable of reaching the united states. that is to weaken the u.s. south korea alliance that we are all gathered here today to discuss. specifically, he has assert that the u.s. threatens to attack the homeland to reduce our nuclear umbrella. i agree with his analysis.e unil he may well believe his actions could cause u.s. policymakers to act in a more unilateral fashion,cae undermining the alliance.king af can even believe that the u.s. would hesitate to come to south korea's defense if the u.s. perceives that doing so could expose the u.s. to direct attacks. again, however, i believe he is making a fundamental miscalculation. if anything, the increasing threat to the u.s. homeland posed by north korea should bring the united states and south korea closer together,og not drive a wedge betweens
us. our states are so closely intertwined. u.s. policymakers must makeporte crystal clear that the u.s. commitment to south korea and the importance that washington attaches cooperation with soul isis stronger than ever. as victor and jake sullivan noted, north korea is wildly out of options but those options only become worse if there is any real orse perceived erosion in the u.s. south korea relationship. that leads me to what is the second main challenge to the alliance which is that the changing dynamic in washington, with the recent elections of president trump, let me focus on the former. i think it's safe to say that we have a significantly unconventional leader in the white house.s fall i when it comes to the trump administration and its approach to the multifaceted u.s. south korea partnership, my concerns fall into two categories. first i'm concerned about the
apparent inability of the administration to nominate and secure senate confirmation of qualifiedd individuals to fill positions d responsible for policy toward korea nearly eight months into this administration, there is no nominated u.s. and east asia. for example, nearly eight months into this administration, there is no nominated u.s. ambassador to seoul.edet there's no nominated assistant secretary in east asia and pacific affairs. there's no undersecretary for arms control. there's no special envoy.stant e they haven't been nominated or confirmed for secretary of defense for asian pacific affairs. i mean absolutely no disrespect to the individuals who may be holding these positions on an interim or acting basis. some of them are excellent. we all know that senateen confirmation provides to instability. when it comes to international affairs, and
alliance preservation, personnel is policy. i am heartened that irresponsible parties. [inaudible] that experienced national security professionals like the white house chief of staff, john kelly, the secretary of defense james mattis and the national security advisor, hr mcmaster seem to be gaining an influence. nevertheless, the fact remains you need subject matter experts in place at every level in the national security bureaucracy to develop and execute policy, to reassure allies and deter adversaries. the administration has been severely lacking in this respect.self my second concern is this. too many members of the administration, including the president himself do not appreciate that the rhetoric they use and the actions they take to appeal to certain domestic political constituency can cause
relationship with foreign allies harm and therefore undermine our national security. consider for example president trump's reaction via twitter to north korea's most recent test. if there were an event whose gravity called for a thoughtful response, not limited to 140 characters, this was it. unfortunately, the president turned again to social media and even more troubling thanag the medium through which he chose to deliver his message, was the message itself.ement. the president accused south korea, under president moon, of appeasement.cal memo that evoked the historical memory of chamberlain's failed effort to stop german aggression to agree to hitler's demand.d use of such a loaded term may play well with a certain segment of the president space, but it's hard to overstate how foolish and how potentially damaging this claim can be.
: facing a threat by a rogue nuclear state. the leader of the most powerful nation on earth chooses to twitter shame and twitter our close ally. if one of north korea's goals is to test the south korean alliance, pyongyang must be positively people over this twitter exchange. i am also worried by i am a story by the trump administration with an eye of making an audience could announce that it intends to withdraw from fda. this agreement was initiated and bind under the bush 43 administration. it was modified and approved by congress with bipartisan support under the obama administration. united states and korea are major economic partners and it is the second largest trading partner after china and the cree is united tree partner.
fda is the centerpiece of this important economic relationship. my purpose here is not to defenc every cause although i do believe it is on net a beneficial agreement for both countries. instead, i want to emphasize that both president bush andes president obama saw the fda as more than a trade deal for the also correctly viewed it as a vehicle to deepen and expand influence as a vital ally in a key region. china has an fta with korea and for many other reasons us policymakers should want ou' economy korea's to be tied more closely together. against this backdrop a unilateral decision by the withdraw from the agreement even as a tactical ploy to renegotiate aspects of the agreement is likely to be seen by south korea as a betrayal of america's commitment to the broader alliance at an incredibly precarious time.ust d
the united states can be trusted to do business with south korea, on the basis of a mutual agreement negotiated by two presidents of both political parties, why should we believe our security assurances arehis real. i hope the trump administration is asking itself hard questions like this and that it will proceed with wisdom and care. virtually, two characteristics a have seen in short supply thusco far in this administration. let me close with the thoughts about the importance of us leadership in the role of congress in ensuring that our f congress does not retreat from its global responsibilities in an age of rising populism. i understand why call to put america first can resonate with hard-working families throughout the united states who are struggling here at home and sincerely wonder why our country is spending precious taxpayer dollars on defense, diplomacycy and development abroad.hat at the same time, i firmly believe that the united states is safer, stronger and more
prosperous when our servicemembers are diplomats from our trade officials and our aid workers are sufficientlynt numbered, adequately resourced and deeply engaged with the world. the world is a better place when we worked side-by-side in the asian regions, both to prevent conflict and to prepare ourselves to prevail should conflict occur. i have a little personal story to share how strongly i support this principle that the us and global security flow from and depend on global engagement and leadership. earlier this summer i had a chance to host ten six-year-old from my kindergarten class and that is bravery, just saying. they were visiting washington and we were walking towards the world war ii museum and one of the little boys asked me, ms. stephanie, why hasn't therer been a world war iii. i gave what i believe a truthful
and perhaps not exactly age-appropriate response. i told him there were two more reasons why we have not experienced direct and devastating conflict between major powers in the last six years and the first is us leadership around the world and the second is a web of institutions and alliances that the united states and its partners in asia and europe established after world war ii. so, rest assured that this child grows up to be the next us pacific command or i will take r credit.ill my experience on capitol hill has led me to believe that there is a strong bipartisan recognition and congress that us global engagement, leadership and alliances matter. and they matter a great deal which is good because i'm also of the view that congress as a coequal branch of government and the one with the primary power of the purse should not be timid about exercising its considerable authority when it comes to foreign policy we
should use the power conferred upon us by article one of the constitution and wield it in a way that is consistent with our long-standing national interests and values. ideally with the approval of the executive branch but over its b objections if necessary. if congress sees the trump and ministration take any step that would weaken our alliance with south korea congress should step in. with that, i will wrap up here and i look forward to the q and a. thank you again for the imitation. [applause] >> thank you, congresswoman murphy. she has agreed to take a few questions. again, despite this being herr first day back from recess and a very full agenda. i will open the floor in a minute and let you think of a couple of questions.
in the meantime if i could ask you, stephanie, there are -- congress has been quite active on the north korea issue passing a lot of arming the administration whether it's republican or democrat with the tools to move forward in terms of sanctioning. in your discussion i found a thoughtful discussion on north korea you mentioned that part of his they have to recognize that their survival comes from negotiation and at some sort of negation settlements. i think the question then is from your perspective and your colleagues what is -- what does the congress he in terms of that side of the equation? in terms of this question of negotiation and some sort of diplomatic settlement. >> i think there is general agreement that the best path forward is diplomatic. we have to exhaust all means
possible in that. though we have provided the tools on sanctions there is still a level of uncertainty as to how well implemented the stations have been. it is why earlier this year il introduced the bill to call for eight north korea is held but within the intel fusion cell was all the agencies working together and cia has put together their own intel fusion cell but i think it needs to bee expanded and within that one of the areas of focus was to gather the information we need towh ascertain whether or not how well these stations have been incremented and whether or not they are having an effect. you know, as you said, people think sanctions don't work untig they do but it requires everybody being on board and actually executing on their
piece of that and so, you know, i think that we need to push forward and those sanctions are implemented to the full extent possible and the what otherr means we can apply to create pressure and to encourage north korea to come to the negotiating. >> great. the other place that congress has played an important role is the human rights in north korea and it's up for renewal pretty soon there was a ground swell with the issue of commissary report a few years ago and -- to what extents does congress you and your colleagues see yourself playing a role and in what way would the tax be renewed and what is the deal -- the attention for that issue seems to have dissipated in the past few months. >> one area that we have
expressed through a letter to the administration is that appointment of that special envoy on human rights and that had multiple cosigners. i think there is still an interest in seeing human rights addressed. particularly because of the connection that you have often raised which is that there is a connection between north korea's human rights violation and the way that getting resources to fund some of its missile development.r to >> things. perfect. let me open the floor now to questions. if you ask a question please first tell us who you are and for the sake of our guest and the audience we would appreciate questions rather than questions disguised as something else. >> that is a hard task. that's like asking a politician to be brief.
>> we have one right here. rob, wait for the microphone. it is coming. >> this woman, thank you for an excellent address. president has indicated that perhaps he is considering giving notice that he would withdraw from the fda and this is a six-month trigger i believe and what it be possible that congress could override him on this. you had bipartisan support overwhelmingly before the course and do you think it would be again and initiative could be taken? >> i think that withdrawal is a huge mistake. it has been beneficial to a lot of states in this country and i think members of congress are deeply interested in seeing it continue. there are ways from a technical
perspective that congress could if the president were to announce that prevent it from happening to put it in a appropriations bill that no funds shall be used to implement or withdrawal. that would be one option on how congress could intercept something like that. >> yes. the mike is coming. [inaudible] you stated in your speech that the trump administration has yet to feel many important solutions for its policy toward asia with in their executive branch. in your observation, why? why do you think that reason? >> well, we can go with
conspiracy theory or we can -- you know, i think -- when it comes to the state department there been a number of articles that have been written about the dismantling of that department.e i really believe that if you look at your budget and your t personal policy you will see what your priorities are. i am actually fearful that the lack of personal appointments and also some of the funding cuts that i have seen in the diplomatic and development states have actually of reflection of where this administration parties are. again that is an area where i would disagree. you know, our terms of national power include diplomacy and intel and economics, not just military. we can't just fully fund -- and rely fully on that.
>> right here. >> tv producer. a representative of one of the member states of the un made the following statement. when a rogue regime has nuclear weapons and an icbm pointed at you, you do not take steps to lower your guard. no one would do that. we certainly won't.ta was the speaker representative of the united states or north korea, in case you haven't guessed it was nikki haley our representative but if you polarize a nuclear weapon any icbm could north korea make the same statement equal legitimacy? >> could you repeat the last part? >> couldn't the north koreans make the same statement that nikki haley did with equal legitimacy? >> you know, i think that north and a's development of nuclear
weapons and their missiles are in violation of international law. the possession district us possession of all weapons is non violation of international law.a >> thank you. yes, i will go to the site in a second. >> visiting fellow at the us. institute at the johns hopkins university. the american handling of the. [inaudible] looks interesting to me. the normalization of q but may be in danger or not but what kind of implication can i find from the case? >> at a time when north korea is so aggressively and dancing its
nuclear weapons and its missile technology in a violation of international law it is hard to imagine some to return toik normalization like with cuba.e'' i think those are very different scenarios. what north korea is doing right now in the region is aggressively destabilizing, wanting international norms. i think that moving towith normalization without some sort of halt or agreement to rollback what they have done illegally would be a mistake. >> yeah, i feel like that -- quite often for those of us who studied this people bring up cuba and iran and try to draw
parallels and, i think, on the surface it may look parallel but if you look at with any degree of detail they are very different.bu in the cuba case, the obvious difference is cuba didn't have it was not testing an aggressive testing campaign to threaten us territory which made the conditions for any sort of human internal discussion about the cuban model very difficult. let me go over to this side of the room. i can't see behind the podium. yes ma'am. right there. >> christina, u.s. air force legislative fellow. i think in light of recent events the big elephant in the room is this question of south korea rising south korea and earlier this year president trump has stated that he would be open to considering a nuclear
iced south korea or that south korea developing nuclear capabilities. if you could please share with us the pulse of the u.s. congress on this particular issue. >> we have spent decades with a lot of effort for non- proliferation and reducing nuclear weapons around the world. i don't think that necessarily that we should allow what is going on here with north korea to escalate and nuclear eyes further. that is the point of the collective deterrence or nuclear umbrella so that south korea does not have to develop its own nuclear weapons. so long as that commitment exists it is a firm commitment on the us part there shouldn't
be a need for south korea to develop its own nuclear capabilities. c but, having said that, there ary a number of areas where it appears this administration is making some adjustments to south korea's defensive capabilities. we all understand that even those conventional weapons, those thresholds and payloads changing, creates a response by china and russia. we have to proceed very carefully how we allow our response to north korea's actions to contribute to or take away from the stability of the region.. >> you mentioned china, could you say, you know, something about your views on how you think china has been handling this and whether you think that the administration's policy of having the secondary sanctions
sort of in their back pocket to directly sanction chinese companies and entities if the chinese are cooperating. is that a sound strategy contract i love to hear your views on the china. >> i think china has a really important to play here and whether or not it is exercised its full range of ability to influence the situation, i think, the answer is fallen short. although, chinese government officials will tell you that we are overestimating china's power over north korea and so, secondary sanctions are just too encourage china to think differently about it. i do wonder if this nuclear test doesn't make it think differently about a troll. i think in terms of carrot and stick. what we have been pushing china
to do is sanction north korea, make it painful for them -- not to continue the "game of thrones" the but winter is coming on the korean tesla. one would imagine any sort of oil sanctions at this time would be particularly pronounced and felt strongly by north korea. that is the stick part of it but what are the carrots that are available to korea? how do you look at what north korea is trying to achieve an and -- i don't know that the us is ever going to assure north korea that we won't topple them. no matter how many people say it. but can china provide some sort of assurances on that carrot side, in addition to the sticks to get some traction in the
scenario. >> the "game of thrones" went over my head. i'm not a "game of thrones", 99% of the people here are. no offense to hbo. yes, take the question here. [inaudible] i i have two questions to you. first question is about is actually under this alliance that is part of the alliance and i would like to know under the bush administration and the trump administration what are the commonalities and differences between the policies toward the korean peninsula. the second question is about the. [inaudible] he was nominated as the newe, ambassador to korea and what
will your be arrival date to the korea as an investor -- [inaudible conversations]tratio i hope you can answer this question or why has it been delayed so many positions that have been under this a trump administration. which you briefly touched onp. today, there are many positions regarding asian issues are still empty. i want to know the reason that as well. thank you. >> you want to go first? >> i will except that you can take a moment to look at your position. as with many things with this administration there is more rhetoric than actual substantivi change in policy, as of yet are busy, if we move forward that would be a significant change in policy but right now we are just hearing a change in tone and tenor of how we are talking to a deer ally. if you look at what we have done is the government, in the end da
that was passed there was significant investment in asia's securities and we continue to do exercises with south korea --nu all of the things that have been cornerstones of the alliance for continuing to date. but that is not to take that for granted that it will continue. i think right now we are trying to deal with a little bit of thl rhetoric and that has been the main change. >> great. stephanie, thank you so much for commng the time.e. [laughter] i thought your comments were extremely thoughtful.ul i know that you traveled to the region and you are merging is one of the leaders on asia policy in korea, on the hill. again, knowing that this is your first day back in the agenda you
have in front of you we really do appreciate you taking the time to be with us. ladies and gentlemen, if you think the congresswoman very much. [applause] >> tonight at "the communicators". mark jamison, a visiting scholar at aei on net neutrality. he's interviewed by waiters telecom reporter, david shepherdson. >> take for example, what we call fifth-generation wireless. 5g. it is a technology that will start being rolled out next year and it will be in place for about a decade or so. it has specifically built into what they call slices. each slice can be customized to a particular service or particular customer or particular edge provider. it is designed to do that. that violates of that idea of same treatment. that throws net neutrality out. >> watch "the communicators"