Speeches and Transcripts 2008
Interview with U.S. Ambassador to Korea Alexander Vershbow
The diplomatic and security situation surrounding the Korean peninsula is developing more rapidly than ever. On February 26, the world-renowned New York Philharmonic Orchestra played The Star Spangled Banner in Pyongyang, the heart of North Korea. From March 2, large-scale Korea-U.S. joint exercises Key Resolve and Foal Eagle have begun. On the morning of March 4, the reporter met with U.S. Ambassador to Korea Alexander Vershbow to find out in detail about Korea-U.S. relations and the newly-launched Lee Myung-bak administration as well as current issues in the Korea-U.S. military alliance.
-The Lee Myung-bak administration which places importance on relationships with the United States has been launched. What are the prospects for the new Korea-U.S. relationship?
“The United States is looking forward to working with the Lee Myung-bak administration. The Korea-U.S. partnership has been very strong for the past fifty years. I am confident that such a strong relationship will continue in the future. I am very pleased that President Lee has emphasized that the Korea-U.S. alliance has to be strengthened and upgraded. President Lee also recognizes that the Korea-U.S. relationship is broader than a military relationship. That is why the KORUS FTA and cultural and personal exchanges are also important. They are important so we can keep the alliance going for another 50 years. Of course, we have a common challenge, which is the North Korean issue. However, I am confident that Seoul and Washington will be able to work closely together. The most urgent goal is the denuclearization of North Korea. I am confident that the governments of Korea and the United States will resolve it well.”
-Some are concerned that the Korea-U.S. alliance is not like what it was in the past. What is the desirable present and future direction for the Korea-U.S. military alliance?
“What is very impressive is that the Korea-U.S. alliance has evolved and adapted to the strategic environment. Korean and U.S. armed forces are conducting missions together beyond the Korean peninsula. Of course, the priority is to maintain deterrence here on the peninsula. However, while we are performing that mission, the Korea-U.S. alliance is also contributing to stability in Northeast Asia. The alliance is also being used as a vehicle for resolving issues that are far away from Northeast Asia, in places such as Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iraq. The purpose and mission of the Korea-U.S. alliance have been important in the past, and will continue to be very important in dealing with the North Korean issue, and even after unification. This is because the alliance could contribute greatly to the strengthening of security in Northeast Asia even after the two Koreas are unified.
Having served as U.S. ambassador to NATO, I can draw a parallel between the two situations. Even after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the integration of Europe, NATO has played the role of contributing to stability in Europe. Of course, NATO’s mission and military structure have changed, but it continues to play an important role. It embraces not only NATO members but also former enemies, playing a stabilizing role in Europe.”
-Some say that the timing of the transition of the wartime operational control has to be readjusted. This is the most important issue for the Korea-U.S. military alliance. What is the United States’ clear position?
“The transition of wartime OPCON is part of the natural evolution of the Korea-U.S. alliance. It is healthy for the alliance that Korea is taking on greater responsibilities. At the same time, Korea and the United States have an implementation plan. This plan is being implemented at a deliberate pace to give sufficient time for training and exercises, and if necessary to give time for the creation of additional capabilities. By doing so, we are ensuring that the Korea-U.S. command structure works just as well under the new system as it does under the existing system. There are people who feel nervous about the OPCON transition. They worry that the transition might lead to the withdrawal of USFK or complete U.S. disengagement from Korea. This is fundamentally wrong. Under the new system, the United States will still be strongly committed to Korea. We are fully ready to help, in terms of military power or intelligence capabilities, if Korea faces a crisis. I know that the new Lee Myung-bak administration has said it respects the decision. Because there is time to review progress as it is made in the OPCON transition process, there will be opportunities to verify whether each step is being implemented properly. Korea and the United States as allies can make any adjustments in the plan if necessary, but I think there is sufficient time to think about and properly implement all these things smoothly.”
-Some people say that the time is limited until the OPCON transfer. As far as I know, the new administration seems to want to delay it.
“Of course, there could be different opinions. However, I think Korea and the U.S. can discuss various issues as allies, whenever an issue arises and whenever necessary. This is because ROK-U.S. alliance is as strong as any other alliance in the world. Some people argue that the OPCON transfer should be delayed because the nuclear threat from North Korea could still exist even in 2012; but we should keep in mind that the plan was established on the assumption that there would be a continued threat from North Korea. Of course, diplomats want to resolve the nuclear issue diplomatically, but the military authorities and the relevant officials wisely designed this plan assuming the worst-case scenario. Therefore, the possibility that the threat from North Korea might continue to exist by 2012 is not a reason to postpone. However, Korea and the U.S., as allies, will consult and review each and every step of the process, and continue to discuss it closely together, so that problems do not arise.”
-If so, are you saying that there is a possibility to adjust the timing?
“I think the current plan is rational and reasonable enough. It considered all the present and future threats. However, as allies, we will always work together and I think there will be no problem.”
-The defense cost-sharing between Korea and the U.S. is one of the big, pending issues. What is the clear stance of the U.S.?
“Defense cost-sharing is a sensitive issue with all our allies. However, Korea and the U.S. have successfully dealt with this issue. Every year, the Korean government has provided various assistance in cash and in kind. We negotiate a Special Measures Agreement (SMA) every two years. It is a tough negotiation every time, but Korea and the U.S. have found solutions each time. Now, we have to negotiate defense cost-sharing which will start from 2009. Deploying U.S. forces not only in the Korean peninsula but around the world costs a lot. As the U.S. is waging a war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan, the budget is a big burden. The U.S. would like Korea to share the level of support up to 50% in terms of Non-Personnel Stationing Costs (NPSC). My personal wish is that the new administration could reach an SMA for a longer term, instead of having to negotiate every year or a year and a half.”
-There were some reports that relocation of USFK bases to Pyongtaek could be postponed due to the budget. Is this project going as planned?
“I have seen the reports, but this is not something we have to worry about right now. We already had a ground-breaking ceremony (at Pyongtaek) last year, and I know that work is proceeding as scheduled. I know that the relocation was postponed from 2008 to 2012, but I don’t think there will be any further delays.”
-Recently, the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) bill, which is expected to strengthen the Korea-US military cooperation, was submitted in the U.S. Senate and the House. Would you tell us the significance of this bill and its prospects for the passage?
“I understand that the first version of the bill [to raise Korea’s FMS status to that of NATO countries, Japan, Australia and New Zealand] was presented by Senator Christopher Bond last August. Congressman Ed Royce offered a counterpart bill last month. I think the bill submitted by Representative Royce makes it more likely that the bill will be passed by the Congress this year. I can’t accurately predict the prospects of passage, because I’m not close enough to know the status of the review process. However, the fact that the resolution to support President Lee, Myung-bak was passed in the U.S. Congress in and of itself clearly demonstrates that the U.S. Congress highly values the Korea-U.S. alliance. Therefore, the FMS bill has a highly possibility of earning strong support.”
-There was an historic performance by the New York Philharmonic Orchestra in Pyongyang. The ‘Key Resolve’ exercise began on Mar. 2, 2008, joined by the world’s largest nuclear-powered U.S. submarine and an aircraft carrier off the coast of the Korean peninsula. The Korean peninsula is undergoing military and diplomatic changes. What is your view on this?
“We have to remember that North Korea also recently carried out its annual military exercises, with a higher operational tempo than in previous years. North Korea is always vigilant. Therefore, we shouldn’t have any illusions about them. North Korea’s nuclear program still remains as a fundamental problem. Of course, I think the New York Philharmonic’s concert was positive. It was successful in that many North Koreans were able to watch the performance and listen to the music of the symphony orchestra on TV. I believe this experience allowed North Koreans to see different aspects of the United States compared to the image they have received through education or propaganda. However, that does not necessarily mean that the New York Philharmonic’s visit has changed the political reality facing us. We still have the nuclear problem. Only after we resolve this issue will we be able to establish lasting peace on the peninsula. However, North Korea’s nuclear issue is a very difficult challenge, and the Six Party talks are currently in a difficult stage. North Korea hasn’t seemed to make a decision to be transparent and move on to the third stage. Accordingly, the situation on the Korean peninsula is very complex.”
-Do you have anything to say to Korean and U.S. men and women in uniform and Koreans as the U.S. Ambassador to Seoul?
“I deeply appreciate the hard work that Korean and U.S. soldiers do every day and their dedication to maintaining peace on the Korean peninsula. Whenever I visit military bases, I became deeply impressed with the strong partnership and friendship between Korea and the United States. At the center of the solid bilateral relationship lies the Korea-U.S. alliance. Therefore, I am very optimistic about the future of the alliance between the two countries. Both Korean and U.S. men and women in uniform and their families take great risks and make a lot of sacrifices. The peace and stability that we enjoy now was made possible thanks to their dedication, sacrifice and efforts.”