>> good afternoon. i'm the senior director for congressional affairs and trade at the korean economic institute. i would like to thank you for coming. this past fall south korea went through a process that ultimately led to early this winter the impeachment of former president, which the resulted in a snap presidential election in south korea. we have gone through the election and moon jae-in has become the president of south korea. unlike prior presidents, because of the nature of this election he has a transition period -- transition period. we talk about how this election will impact u.s.-korea relations, policies towards north korea, economic relations

between our countries and a series of other important issues. we are fortunate to have three very good experts, as well as john burton of the financial , now with the korea times. with john we have scott snyder from the council of foreign relations. we had bruce klinger from the heritage foundation, and for a chong.omen ho i want to turn things over to john. for more information on the speakers, you have their bios. thank you very much. >> thank you. i also want to thank our panel for giving their valuable time today to come here and talk about south korea under moon jae-in. -- i willuestion is

turn to you, scott first -- what won it what is it say about the social trends in korea? >> i think the major factor that shaped this election was the impeachment and public frustration and the corruption they saw in south korean leadership. it is a symptom of an underlying problem related to cozy, delete relations in south korean society that has become a flashpoint within south korea's -- within the society. was the firstand to face the protests. support for his party in south korea went up by about 10 to 15 points even before the election started. agenda for has an

thisting transparency and is synced way to say it would be moving towards a more fair and equal opportunity 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. this and women, would you agree with scott >> yes, i agree. i prepared a message. i think it's better to read this message. i think one of the biggest victoryfor mr. moon's is his own personality. power organization and the democratic party.

moon has early on mr. a strong commitment to justice and public service. loyalty amongs the people. he was not a politician he had been at human rights lawyer and an activist for more than 30 years. president roh started as a politician, mr. -- he had ton been decline it because he is a human right's lawyer.

he thought he is an activist. roh was elected in offered mr. moon state affairs, her thatted on the condition the secretary position is his role in the administration. heleft the blue house after was secretary. mr. moon helped the impeachment trial. side eight him

come back -- made him come back as a politician. he has returned to the political world. it is a destiny he cannot escape, i think. is a kind inn people person. he maintains an open mind. he keeps long-standing friendships. field eventical opposite politicians are impressed by his sincere loyalty. you -- 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. i put a lot of effort into ofntifying all the precepts the hillary clinton in asia policy would be. in all myrmined -- talking points were valid until about 9:30 tonight before. i was determined not to go through that. someone had an election apparently. [laughter] we will go from there. i think, as others have pointed out, you have to have a political pendulum in any country. after 10 years of conservative rule it's to be expected the pendulum would go the other way. after a while you want to throw , get a different group in an and you will get frustrated with them. liberals are he had an advantage. and as scott and song pointed out, with the impeachment it really just what is splattered the conservatives with a taint that really was a fairly difficult overcome.

alongnservatives imploded the lines they had been struggling with for five years of her term. i think it really was moon jae-in's or the progressive elections to lose. they were neck and that for a while. it appeared at least it might be an upset, but then moon maintained his core base of 40%. it was almost a foregone conclusion that he would be elected given the impeachment. he tried to appeal to whether his core base and did not seem to be a little beyond that number she had consistently throughout the election. he tried going to the center on national security issues. we will see whether he stays there and ruling from the center or respect for the left. >> you within agree that it was mostly domestic issues on which

the election was -- not national security? >> i think most elections in any country are really people voting their pocketbook. whether out of frustration with the party in power or whichever party they think will impact the economy or their economy the best. even though we have fixated on north korea, on the alliance or thad for south korea's relationship with the u.s. vis-a-vis china, talking with koreans they will say you guys are focused on that really korea was focused on reform and the economy. in termso you expect of north korean policy under moon? he has a very full record of statements, but do you think he will implement them? indicated --he has

i guess i would interpret broadly the direction he is headed. it is one that really wants to pursue every possible peaceful option by which to address the north korea issue. with the faith that will work. and maybe in a way that is the core, if we have faith in the work on either side in terms of the prospects for engagement and appeasement. -- in a peaceful, what. -- in a peaceful kind of way. and as he north korea as a market. that's also an area in which there is potential for contradiction between the pressure-led strategy of the united states and a possible emphasis on economic engagement with north korea. isally i think of thes

point these are issues that will have to be discussed between leaders of u.s. and south korea. there is probably a way of sequencing a lot of the elements of the strategy the trump administration has laid out together with the approach that sizingesidency is in the -- emphasizing in ways we can move forward. think we should automatically presume we are on a collision course. the fact of the matter is that this is in the concept of alliance. this is a family matter. within families you have to work through these issues in order to be able to move forward. as long as both leaders respect the fact that we are bound by the alliance, i am optimistic we will be able to move forward in a positive way. expect, mr.you

song, from mr. moon in terms of north korea policy? i think -- >> do you want me to ask the question again? >> what do you expect from president moon in terms of north korean policy? what do you think he will do? strengthening through u.s.-korea alliance one of mr. moon's major priorities. about north korea. he supports the maximum pressure and engagement.

the new administration will be according to the u.s. policy towards north korea. >> you don't see any clash seoul? washington and the consensus view. bruce, what do you think he is going to do? >> to be simplistic it depends on how he implements his promises just as the same with president trump. both presidents have said enough things that appear open to interpretation on a number of things. on the alliance, moon said i'm america's friend, the alliance is the bedrock of korean diplomacy or democracy. he wants to strengthen the alliance. you say that sounds like a conservative. how can you go against that? he also said things like he wants to negotiate the agreement

with not only united states but china. negotiating south korea's security of the country which has been putting forth disingenuous claims about the thad system. --wants the wartime transfer to south korea seemingly quickly. when that was done before it caused a great deal of angst and south korea. and also he wants to increase south korea's independent defense capabilities. continuing to have their independent missile-defense system not integrated with the broader, more effective ally missile-defense system. you can spend, yeah, he was to strengthen the alliance, or you can see a lot of cases where he wants to go in a more independent path even on the military structure. i think the same with north

korea. while maintaining a strong relationship with the united states, he wants to reach out to north korea. he was to have sanctions and engagement so he can say it sounds like statement from senior u.s. officials. four you can see it as he brings a lot of baggage to the table because his relationship and moo-hyunnt in the roh administration. >> what you think about and kason?ng caisson -- >> it would be a violation of un security council resolutions. he would have to work in conjunction with the u.n., the 1718 committee for prior approval of economic engagement with north korea and the transparency measures of previous resolutions. it would be a very troublesome

move forward if he does it without conjunction with not only bwest byte human action -- not only the u.s. but u.n. action. >> you indicated you are more optimistic about relations between the u.s. and washington. theou think some of constraining factors in terms of his north korean policy is that he can't afford to antagonize washington? at the same time he can't afford to antagonize the conservative opposition and the national assembly. since moon's party lacks the majority. do you think those are constraining factors on his room for maneuvering on north korea? >> yes, john. you have correctly identified

both a domestic and international constraint. they will influence how the moon administration will carry out its policies. we main issue here is really have seen this platform before. it has come back. if we think about what the , theyion was 15 years ago were tensions and frictions but we got through it. i think we will probably see something very similar. bruce put the notes arrington to a negative light, but on the other hand we have somebody who actually has some experience. 15 years ago we were dealing with a bunch of people who had no experience who took over south korean government. hoursk in the first 24 some of that experience is showing.

i think he did a very good job with his inauguration address. and also apparently there was just a phone call this morning between trump and moon. that seems to have gone ok. we know what the issues are. the outstanding question is chemistry. we will have to see how that is dealt with and will be tensions and fractions. -they will be manageable. -- i think they will be manageable. >>'s original washington consensus now about moon? is there a hint of suspicion or cautiousness about him coming to power? >> escott pointed out, there is a lot of concern or questions. i think given the fact he was chief of staff and a were tensions in the relationship between the u.s. and south korea during his presidency, i don't think it's overstating it to say they are concerns as to how

things will go. it matters in how the two presidents develop a relationship. sort of how strongly each one pushes a policy which on the surface seems to be very divergent. president trump talked about maximum pressure and engagement if certain conditions are met which i think are pretty high conditions. and if moon is willing to, fairly early or quickly, with north korea -- although he is also said if conditions permit, there is potential for the divergence --ebt divergence. there was the realignment of you down in thees country. --ive great kudos to know

the fact that he stood up for the free trade agreement between our countries. iraq, well,ps to there were a lot of things there were he said, maybe we should have a national vote on this, because i'm not so sure on this. he said publicly, i'm sending the forces to iraq because i'm hoping bush will soften his north korea policy. hethe surface, it looks like sent troops over on the u.s. initiative, but it was grudging and as a quid pro quo for changing u.s. policy in north korea. >> for the u.s., that issue is --

[inaudible] it may lead to an appropriate timeframe for an effective intervention, i think. this reality is the reason why north korea now owns its own arsenal. that's in order to prevent another disaster he and eliminate the dangers of north korea's nuclear threat. effortood to put in the workticulously assess the mooneate politics some mr. will do exactly that. sustain and strengthen the korea alliance and mutual trust.

i think that is the difference between the previous president and mr. moon. pointant to pick up a bruce just raise about chorus areas -- course. that is the u.s. korea free trade agreements. going -- iu see that mean, is that a potential clash point between washington and them given president trump's recent comments about renegotiating, or even ending the treaty, or do you think he has raised that as a pointed reminder that he could give trade issuesrea on unless they play ball on north korea. scott? to take itkorea has

seriously when the trump administration suggests that they want to advise the agreement. my understanding from moon's advisors is that they like the agreement because they begin the process of negotiating with the george w. bush administration. us asay, the risk for with for the risk of every major flashpoint issue, and the u.s. korea relationship, is whether we can manage them without them being politicized. there is probably some kind of wiggle room to discuss concerns that are outstanding relating to the agreements, but, in a way, the bigger issue is looking at the agreement from fundamentally different perspectives. the koreans call -- haven't to the fact that

in the traded -- trump administration, the contested , and it the u.s. probably will take efforts to absorb that and to respond to it on the korean side. it will need time to put that's together i think. bruce? >> i think it is a lot to do with the intent and messaging. maybe the things needing to between, and there is a mechanism for doing that, because maybe some things didn't work out as well as he wanted to so you have to tweak the language or provisions. is so old thatat their entire technologies -- why don't we get the folks together addresse it and technologies that are new or perhaps outdated. you can do that amongst trading partners.

if your messaging is, this is the worst ever, i want to blow it up, i want to pull away from it, you're going into the negotiations with greater leverage, you think, but you just signaled that you don't care about the agreement and you're willing to walk away from the agreement. counterproductive coming in guns blazing, and even laying a redline, in a way, saying if i don't get everything i want, we are going to walk away, and then later, we don't want to that we just want to tweak a little. you get whiplash on the messaging. comments with the during the campaign on cost-sharing agreement. want 100% reimbursement or we walk. a bit ofs an alliance a mercenary arrangement where, it doesn't address that it is a that it is in a u.s. national interest because we

national intra-goal interests not only in asia, but in europe, and it is in our interest to have our forces overseas as a staving mechanism for us, and our allies. is not that we need 100% reimbursement because a lot of it is serving our purposes. moon,you are advising mr. what would you say he should do to win the support of the american people? >> i would advise so many things. especially with the trump administration, it's very koreans.r to it is certainly about the trade.

i think the trade is very with security and foreign policy. alliesde between the two , usa and korea, must be differentiated from trade with other countries. accounte to take into one's ownnsuring country, but those of mutual benefits and consideration for all allies. we shouldn't just simply look at the amount of profit gained from it is a way to assure the alliance to assure a mutually beneficial situation.

to concern about these situations. >> scots, or bruce, do you have any advice for president moon? let me just say we have two people in the audience who are the people with the course issue should be directed to for comments. if i could address the political dimension of this, because i think the critical issue is -- if we look back at two is going to be advising, essentially what it means is that it is likely he has people in his camp, some of whom who are so -- pro aligns and others are pro-economy. this alliance versus autonomy tension is really a major tension that has always been there as south korean foreign policy.

u.s. can manage it well to ensure that we are promoting the and don'tce people get on the side of the , that would be good. i can think of a few examples on lateral statements that have an impact on south korea and a negative way. that is going to represent a setback for us to effectively manage the relationship. scots, you're writing a book about korean and japanese relations. tokyo's so expect relations to go under moon and, i would like to hear your views about beijing as well? the newly elected president

and his inauguration address indicated that his willingness to go to washington and beijing anothero, and possibly country on south korean interests, he has one major obstacle in terms of his own political presence during the campaign, and that is that he, and all the other candidates, pledged to reverse one of the agreements. how thea lot hinges on south korean foreign-policy advisers in the moon administration decide to frame the issue. if, trying to reopen the comfort agreement means putting themselves back in the same box , fore previous president all other ethics of the

relationship, you will see a six stalemate -- we will see a stalemate and it will be a drag on foreign-policy. a way of getting around the issues, addressing the past while also moving forward, then i think that's will create a pathway and we will have to wait and see. it is a good early task for the foreign-policy of the moon administration. sung, do you have any views about relations with tokyo and beijing, particularly with china?nd because of japanese past, the alliance is different between china. whether it is about the issue of comfort at the moment or territory issue, this issue can

with aly be resolved solution based on the information that will be accepted to agree with the nation and the people. because the administration didn't reach a -- that's satisfied satisfied those problems. persist, intinue to think, and the past administration wasn't the global norm. eventually -- it has eventually worsened it among the korean people.

i believe the agreement needs to be re-examined. >> bruce? fads inut in terms of china? will doyou think moon about that given that he is under a real dilemma? >> he has moved from opposition of sad to being on the fence. whenever asked, he kept saying the next government should deal with that. he said, the next government is you. he kept trying to punt on that. was recently, as he attacking the center on a number of issues, he said, if north korea does another test, it is a done deal. why wouldn't be a done deal after five or four? given the north korean threat to

you now, the north koreans have havenize, almost certainly nuclear tipped missiles today that can hit your country, and n the past, no meat on -- nomehun handled it. and my view, it is a question of south korea's sovereignty and national security in that if you are willing to negotiate that's what china, you're willing to negotiate anything away. south korea and the u.s. have her people he tried to offer technical briefings of beijing and they have reviews. -- refused. false,ow it is not only it is disingenuous. even the statements that he will negotiate with china about it, i

think that raises some concerns. >> we agreed before that the election was basically based on domestic issues. policy, of domestic residents moon has proposed ways -- president moon has proposed ways to restructure the conglomerate. he wants to spend public funds hecreating jobs before reduces the high on unemployment in the sector, and to spend more on infrastructure to stimulate the economy. given the fact that he only has a plurality now in the national assembly, how effective do you think he can be in getting that's legislation through parliament, scott? >> he obviously needs cooperation. the other aspect of the situation in south korea is that when the previous administration

came in, the national assembly reached an agreement that's nothing would move forward. that's unless all the parties had consensus, or unless a single party can mobilize at 60%. they have abandoned the nuclear option at the national assembly level for south korea. what's that means is it is a very high bar in order to get things through. it will require cooperation. his party is a minority, and if you add the people's party with the coalition, you barely get to the level where you get 3/5. he has real challenges. the advantage is that he has, in this environment, he has a lot of the elements in his agenda in expansion,ving job public-sector job expansion, in

order to address high unemployment you -- levels among youth. outneed for rolling stronger public services to support at woodley, the issue -- [inaudible]lderly, i thinke all things have relatively broad fields. we are come to a point where there is a recognition that it is a necessity to move forward. even park paid lip service to some of those issues. >> do you think we would see of, let'sof trade-off say, president moon softening his policy or what he wants to achieve on north korea in return for getting conservative votes for corporate reforms? bethe priority is going to

domestic. that's where you need to spend your political capital. we will have to see how it plays out. that. sung, do you think president moon can achieve his or, what typeals of deals will the need to cut with the conservative opera position -- conservative opposition? >> i can help him. now, party member right [inaudible]

most of all, i think two parties -- theyuite a different have a similar policy in clinical or economic policies and they are very similar. ahn have themr. interest in trying to make old political of systems and old custom politics.

take a similarn policy in the assembly. thinktt, what to do you will be president moon's priorities if you had to do the top three issues, where do you think that would go? is, think it is, most of it well, the way he warded his and i duration address, he put security first. i think there is an awareness of the importance and need to build a political vacuum that existed in south korea for the past six months. the real driver is going to be have to be trying to get the economy moving, addressing the issues of transparency. mentioned importantly

independence for the prosecution legal authorities, which of course, directly flows from the circumstances around the process. >> bruce, do you think that security will wind up being his number one concern despite what he said during the campaign? >> i think on reform, he has a very strong impetus to do something and, i think the korean public wants to do something to change endemic corruption with the government relationship. this is a symptom -- there is a tsunami to do things. i think it is a bridge too far to see the conservative party holding reform hostage softening -- or hardening north korea policy. regardless of that, i think of hun coming in nome

affecting their national economy, the people flip-flopped and said, let's not do that, it is hurting the national economy. to backople were saying off the reform. there was a bit of to and from on that. if the reform started to impact the moneymaking operations for the country, i think it is still 25% of the gdp in south korea if i am right, then, if it is impacting the national economy and a concerned where it is slow, that causes people to go against the reform, will it? we will have to see. wants to come in focusing on domestic issues, and that is what they feel the voters wanted, where the votes

were from. the world intrudes. certainly north korea doing something that it is not a gourd ignored,t it is not north korea doesn't stay quiet for long. whether they do more nuclear tests, any more missile testing or exercising of any kind, i doubt to that. have the next a test, the next missile test, particularly in icbm test, then you have a north korean crisis for both trump and south korea and we will see how they work together. it might be if north korea does this, increase sanctions, and others might say lower the tension and maybe they are doing it because of the u.s. actions. that is where you can have some convergence. right now, after the fourth nuclear test, we have this new

international consensus on the need to pressure north korea. it didn't happen after the first three, but certainly, after the fourth. you now have, not only the u.n. sanctions, but you have new u.s. laws that push the previous administration to do things that they had been reluctant to do. if you have a new administration willing to do that, and then, another parallel track would be south korea and others going to talk to north korea's partners raising climbs against humanity, slave labor, wages of the oversee worker to the nuclear program, crimes against the aspects.of nuclear if you think about it old wild west movie, the sheriff finally got the townspeople energized and deputized, and they got them cornered in deadwood gulch, are

they going to say, there's a secret exit over here and a couple bags of cash to. if south korea implements the required sanctions less vigorously, other countries will say, why should i do it? onel south korea closed section, they are saying you butld be top on sanctions you are siphoning 120 million to their program. if he backs off, we do see a softening of the coalition. mr. sung, do you think president moon will focus on the economy rather than security? >> yes. add to a misunderstanding, can i speak korean?

i think i want to correct a misunderstanding about mr. moon. often times people say that mr. moon may be pushing for a more government and that mr. moon would take away power from korea.m in the he wants for his party, they of ato make them more competitor. he wants them to be more transparent and that's would lead to the companies being more

tentative in the global market. the reformation is not by more regulations to these corporations but the vying for them to operate more on the global aspect. one these to be korean companies, he wants them to be global companies. policies,th korea and any coalitions that south korea has with north korea in terms of economy, it's not helping north koreans but more of a bilateral relationship if there is to the one. agents of the korea u.s. allies, we tend to resolve the north korean nuclear issues, and it is not like we won't be

an everlasting friend to north korea, no, that is not what he wants to do. >> son made some very important points. sung made some very important point. i think they are there in the pratt forms -- platforms. i think the question many people are still asking, is this lip service or is it going to really happen? wehink the answer is really, have to hold moon to his promises and platform, and if that happens, we will be on the right track. >> i think there been -- there has been some misunderstanding as to north korea opening the industrial complex. better to have a

dialogue with north korea and one way would be other measures, but he is not saying that these would be the preliminary things to happen. these would be the result of the alliance, the cooperation that we have together. ,nder the u.s. korea alliance the north korean problems would any opening would need to happen after. >> i think it's time now to open the floor for questions. i think we have people who are carrying around microphones. you can wait and raise your hand and wait until the person with the microphone comes and then identify yourself, if you could. ok, the gentleman in the front >> excellent discussion.

i'm a regional planning consultant with a focus and korean affairs. the area that was touched on a little bit but that we didn't talk about a lot was the beijing i think that hovering above all the points that you guys discussed was, i guess my question is where does repairing connections with beijing fit into moon's agenda? >> i think that even in the inauguration address he said he would travel the capitals. withinly, the relationship china is critical. it has deteriorated in the last number of months because of the really ham-handed tactics by china, economic warfare, threats of diplomatic and military

action. to the point where, now, the south korean public opinion of china is lower than that of japan, which given the history is saying something. i think that there is sort of a cyclical south korean view of china. the china will do things periodically and there will be a negative view taken by the south and either china stops doing that, the orationship will get better, they will see that the accolade -- economic relations are so strongly aligned with china. we will have to see area and i would hope that moon does not back down on south korean national security but points out that it is because of your ally, china, that has taken these offense of actions in capabilities and put them in place that are directly threatening south korea that we are doing this. sort of a -- it is a national security issue in a matter of

sovereignty, this one is not negotiable, but let's talk about a range of other things. just as when we had north korea, when it does its next action or the way that it continually insults the leadership of our countries and threatens, sort of raises the true nature of the regime. if china continues to pursue this economic warfare under a progressive president, someone who would be more likely to be aligned with china or wanting to improve relations with china, if china is even doing it to a progressive administration, i think the problems will continue. -- song: [translated] to theto his statement, beijing economic depression that

they are carrying out against it hurts not only the koreans, but the people in china. why does china keep on doing this damage? us.a wants something from by pressuring south korea, china wants to see a change not just in korea, but in the u.s. and japan, as well as north korea. actions, they want the parties to come together. all the interested parties to come together and discuss resolution. because we have decided not to discuss that or come to a , china is frustrated.

in that regard, i actually blame park geun-hye. refused to talk to china about these issues, including security issues. it's important that whenever we take measures, that we don't do it on our own, but as a result of having discussed these measures with others. i think that south korea needs to improve its relationship with china and having a new president provides an opportunity for a new start, but the way that they should proceed on that is to focus bilaterally on establishing good communication and cooperation rather than allowing themselves to be drawn into this strategic interplay. specifically as related to the issue here that crosses all of these lines. i don't think that that is going to be profitable for south korea , precisely because it

exaggerates the influence of this issue and plays into i think china's attempts to use it as leverage. and then also on the beijing , they have to realize that they have set their diplomacy back by taking the approach that they have. >> things are a much. great discussion, as always. i'm seeking clarity, and i guess you are, to. if there is to be a renewed south korean to thematic --tiative with north korea diplomatic initiative with north korea, is it clear that president moon will try to keep strategic issues off to one side and try to focus on the economic, the family in that kind of thing? or has he been clear that negotiations have to include

these strategic issues? and on these strategic issues, has he been clear on this key question? negotiating a freeze with north korea and what they have now runs the risk of accepting them as a nuclear power. i haven't found it or haven't looked hard. trump is not clear about it either. if you have some thoughts about what the u.s. may be heading towards" we may be willing to set terms of freeze talk, that, but if we are having talks, what is he going to talk about? and is he going to try to combine the strategic and the economic, or just one in the other? thank you. i would say that the first issue, moon has already issued his statement of desire to reengage as head of the national security, national intelligence service.

as a veteran of inter-korean talks in 2000, 2007, he's doing everything he can to signal and willingness to reestablish dialogue. frankly, on the north korean side, i don't think there is a bigger get, to be able to have a dialogue. they have basically got a military man whose life has been spent thinking about subverting , in charge of their south korea policy. it will be interesting to see how north korea responds and whether they can open some space. if they do have a dialogue, i think they are going to start with humanitarian issues and maybe focus on the family reunions and build up from there. there is ambiguity, i think, related to the denuclearization issue.

it may or may not be a i think that ad 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 is the challenge of north korea really wanting to talk denuclearization with the united states. yet over the course of the past decade, denuclearization has become an issue that south koreans, broadly speaking, feel they have a stake in. escapeinistration cannot finding ways to address that as part of their process for moving forward. but they are looking for flexibility in terms of how in there is a lot of internal frankly, i think will be influenced by the international environment and by

consultations with the united states. scott: we don't know the sequencing or conditionality, but he has raised a peace treaty, getting back to the six party talks. i believe he has talked about the freeze. he wants to have dialogue. as scott pointed out in the inauguration, he wants to strengthen defense and engage. so, he has also talked about south korea taking the lead on issues on the korean peninsula. that it shouldn't be the u.s. and china talking about north area while south korea is not there, which is the reason the talks.shed the six party the u.s. heard complaints from south korea about the framework where we were negotiating their security above their heads. that's why we wanted the six party talks to have all of those impacted in the room because

everyone has different priorities. how is that implemented? south korea taking the lead, is that in close consultation with the u.s.? they areth korea feel not getting satisfaction with the u.s. and will they go their own way or go further than we are comfortable with? just as they felt we were going to far on the agreed framework or when we met unilaterally? one issue i hope that moon brings up is human rights. the hunthave under administration, and administration staffed largely by human rights advocates but they never criticized north korea for their crimes against humanity. they felt that would undermine their traction with north korea. signhey refused to

agreements criticizing north korea for its atrocities. the allegations are that the administration contacted north korea, asking them what they thought about the signing of the resolution, saying -- you don't want to do that. i do hope that human rights is a strong issue in the dialogue. song: i think that mr. moon is a different, the time has changed. moon know about the human rights issues in north korea.

he also thinks about north korea and south korea having to get some channel to eliminate the nuclear weapons. so, i think he tried all kinds of ways to include human rights issues. i think he tried to get something and about the human rights issues. >> thank you, retired fema, currently teach disaster preparedness in japan and sometimes in south korea. asking about a domestic issue within the country, the south korean government has had real difficulties responding to emergencies within their country that hurt the civilian

population. thinking about the seawall ferry disaster from three years ago. any indications that that can of issue will be on the agenda for this new administration? thank you. >> disaster emergency response. >> is a going to be a higher government priority? >> i did not see that addressed among the top 20 policy priorities. >> [inaudible] didn't -- actually, under [indiscernible] there was an effective function within the blue house. we are working to see how the restructuring plays out. >> anybody else?

>> i have a question for scott and bruce. trump is that mr. really enjoying the relations between national security and the economic issue. for example, mr. trump requested china to control north korea terms of the nuclear weapons program. south korea come for example, mr. trump may suggest that mr. moon just take one of the two options. for example, option one is to just take some button on the

operation. or you could just give your idea of the plan. sooner or later there will be a summit. expectation for a summit in terms of what i pointed out? thank you. >> well, that's going to be a critical event in terms of framing the psychology and the relationship, both leaders i think will have an interest in establishing some indication that they can work with each other, because they have to live with each other for at least four years. i think that both sides will work hard on that. with regards to the issue linkage that he raise, i'm not personally a great freight --

fan of that particular approach. i'm not sure that it is really , but i think that those are the hardest kinds of negotiations between allies. are zero-sumthat issues. i am sure that both sides will try their best, but in the end i think they will have to find some kind of accommodation. frankly, moon has already indicated that he is willing. he wants a lot of this to be directed towards self strengthening. i think that that can be part of a discussion. we will have to see. with regards to the fed deployment, i don't see any possibility or any reason why the south korean government

would pay for the deployment that has already gone on. thatr as i understand, simply was never part of the deal. going forward, if south korea wants to buy some more batteries , though it doesn't; is interested in a product, i'm sure that we would sell it. so, we'll see. on linking economics and national security, on the one hand you look at the totality of the relationship between the two countries, but you don't want to hold sort of everything hostage over one issue. on the other hand, i don't think you want to make it a quid pro quo. ,ith the u.s. china summit yeah, i'm going to reduce trade pressure on china in return for their wonderful help that they have promised on north korea? shouldn't make that quid pro quo. you addressed each issue.

if you think there are economic issues to be addressed, you don't sacrifice them over, in my view, yet again another promise of china doing what it has promised before. you don't make that kind of deal. -- those, you don't still fight issues, they do kind of influence each other. i realize it is not a good answer, but you don't wanted to make it that we will sacrifice this economic issue in return for you paying for something or vice versa. >> anybody else? >> yes, dave fitzgerald, retired foreign service. some political science that questions.

at 41%, iscentage that less than he got five years ago? did he show great growth in his support rate over the course of the campaign? hong was thirdr. or fourth at one point in gradually moved up. was that done at the expense of drawing from other support? looking at the national assembly , which is now almost stagnant in terms of getting anything done, it seems that the third party there, the people's party has about 35 to 40 seats. are they the kingpin in how the national assembly, which will be around for another three years, unlike previous national assemblies and presidents, there was a change in the national assembly shortly after the presidential vote.

like we are stuck with a lot less than we were perhaps expecting in terms of the new administration. a weak president and a divided government or a stagnant national assembly and not much chance of really breaking that unless they join the conservatives. he was more with the democratic party in the past. what is the likelihood of the can of development coming forward in order to break through what seems to be a formula for stagnation and no progress at all? >> on pure numbers, moon had a different number this year, lower than five years ago, but it was a completely different race. now you have five different strengths. really think you can compare the numbers to if he had

a lower number, it shows he has less widespread support. it was just a very different race. obviously korea is divided. this south divide or ideological divide, this generational divide , there are a lot of schisms in society that he will now try to unite in order to rule, but a scott pointed out, the rule change in the national assembly, which was largely put in place to prevent fisticuffs on the floor of the national assembly, the use of fire axes and fire extinguishers and everything for a free and frank exchange of favoritee of my pictures from years ago was a photo of two national assembly members hauling off against each other. the caption was -- national assembly members debate he's initiative. [laughter] bruce: you know, sort of a great thing. i think rather than saying hey, folks, don't haul off against each other, they put in place

these measures that, as scott pointed out, created stagnancy in the assembly. the rule change, this division, it does seem a recipe for continued stagnation. they were complaining that things couldn't get done even when there was a ruling party. we will hope that they can move forward in the right direction. we can debate the direction, but just like in any country you're going to have a lot of stagnancy and difficulty in getting things done. every nation has division, woman and man. korea also has some division issues. for just four years, we were

never fighting the nationwide magically, we cannot. we could not with the fighting. that means that korea is and is going to a better politics system. as he said five years ago, mr. moon got maybe 48%. but he lost. this time he got a 41%, but he won. it is changing. there are so many changes.

especially because he really tried to focus before on all the customs and the politics and economic systems. expect the change in the new korea, we can expect, i think. >> it's an immediate test of moon's strength directly related to this question. , inamed his prime minister can't remember if it is south or , who will now be put up for national assembly hearings in the will be a vote. also, the main support from the people's party, the smaller progressive party, is really from that province. i think that moon is already essentially making a kind of did for support that is also

some kind ofuild working consensus that will allow him to move forward. if nothing else, you will have -- and in fact he exhibited stronger support from that province during the election campaign and has now provided a kind of reward to the province with a potential lever to be able to at least ensure that he has a working coalition in the possibility of gaining majority support. that doesn't mean that he can quite reach that 60% threshold. they are very close and i'm not sure the exact numbers. they would need to win a few by in order to be able to overcome that level.

>> the gentleman behind you. >> sorry. >> is there anything that president moon can learn from other world leaders, countries where the trump administration or trumpet -- president trump at hard words for them and how those leaders have tried to deal with him now that he's in office? i'm thinking in particular some of the asian leaders by prime minister abbe, or the prime minister from australia? >> play golf? [laughter] like i don't think that moon plays golf. >> you better learn. song: he really enjoys hiking. [laughter] song: hiking with mr. trump. [laughter] hiking places in mar-a-lago. [laughter] >> one more question.

>> to be a little more serious, to be simplistic, if moon complements trump, that will establish a good relationship. to moon would be -- sir, look, there are a lot of questions, concerns, perhaps even misperceptions about you, your policies, your platforms. moving on to you because you are the chief of staff, rightly or wrongly, you are carrying that baggage. calling for meeting with trump, highlight the convergence. we like hearing thank you for the korean war, the rebuilding of the country. that's an issue that others have always emphasized. highlighting the common values, facing common enemies, i think

you lead with that and that creates a good foundation. if you have a good foundation, a good personal foundation and bilateral relationship, if you then have disagreements you sort of deal with that. 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 was because the relationship was so positive at the time, a lot of people did a lot of behind-the-scenes briefings in newspapers and stuff of explaining the details, we had some differences, neither side won everything. whereas if the relationship had been more tense at the time, that could have led to ori-american demonstrations taken it a bit too far. i think you need to establish a personal relationship based on shared values and objectives first.

>> this is a brief two-part question, feel free to give short answers. i know we are close on time, but had them working with countries beyond northeast asia, but that somewhat fell law under park geun-hye. do you see president moon being more involved on a global basis? and then, scott, sort of a related question would be -- much of this cooperation was done with the united states on a lot of these projects. do you see the trump administration interested in continuing this question mark or uninterested? i think that mr. moon have ore policy about economic trade policies.

or not the same. i think maybe it's a developing policy. global, i think. you can find his policy in this isction, more globalization his policy, i think. >> i think that the precursors to the global korea policy were evident and i think this aspiration to play a broader role really comes clear in the moon platform emphasis on responsibility. i think we will see that but it -- we wille focused

have to see what the scope is. i have a feeling like if things were made more regional than the initial phase, the trump administration would engage in that way. those are kind of the parts of our broader policy that seem to or duress inss terms of budget support, etc., so we will see. >> on the global korea, i wonder if some of that was driven by -- the u.s. under bush was looking to do a number of things overseas. were we asking korea to do things or were they offering to do that? if trump is perhaps going to be more insular and not do a number of the things that bush wanted to do overseas, would he be more isolationist? transactional or whatever? then there is not that cold from the u.s. for of korea to be playing a larger role.

one thing that i often hear from korean colleagues is they will point to korea hosting some big event and they will say -- is this are coming out party? what about the g 20, the nuclear like, folks,rt of you have arrived. you are a small country but you are punching extremely above your weight. you are a player on the world stage, you have an impact disproportional to your size of population and geography. i think that whether moon talks about being a global country or not, korea does have an impact on the world stage. positive thing for whoever the south korean president is. perhaps they don't realize the impact that south korea does and can have. john: thank you very much. i hope you found it a

distinguished destine leading discussion. please give them a round of applause. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> south korea pozner president, moon jae-in, inaugurated earlier today and said that he's open to under theorth korea right circumstances.

you can see this whole thing available on a website at c-span.org, search for u.s. korea relations. in just a moment we will take you live to the white house and you will hear a bunch about james comey and the firing of the fbi director yesterday. the hill writing that democrats are threatening to slow things to a crawl. they write the durban launched the effort by objecting to the senate gop's routine requests to allow 13 committee hearings to take place today, saying that in part because of the decision by the department to terminate the director of the fbi and the questions that it raised, they gathered the democratic senators on the floor, suggesting a path to follow as an institution, facing this constitutional question. that is from senator dick durbin. read more at the hill.com. jeff grassley, suddenly adjourning the hearing bef