Speeches and Transcripts
New Developments in U.S.-ROK Relations and Peace in Northeast Asia
Alexander Vershbow
U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea
Korean Council for Reconciliation and Cooperation
Seoul - May 4, 2007
Thank you Minister Jeong Se-hyun and thank you all for coming here early in the morning to talk about U.S.-Korean relations and prospects for peace in Northeast Asia. The Korean Council on Reconciliation and Cooperation and the United States share the important goal of a peaceful reunification of the Korean Peninsula and a peaceful Northeast Asia. I am really pleased to have the chance to talk with you again, and I look forward to learning your views during our discussion period.
I propose to talk about four related issues this morning. You might consider them as overlapping circles on the map of Northeast Asia.
- First, what is the status of United States - Korea relations? The short answer is that this pillar of the U.S. relationship with Northeast Asia is in very good shape, thanks to our recent agreement on the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, or KORUS FTA (though this still requires ratification by our legislatures), and thanks to recent progress on the modernization of the ROK-U.S. military alliance.
- Second, what is the status of the Six Parties’ effort to denuclearize North Korea? The short answer is that we are suffering an unfortunate delay, but the February 13 agreement still stands, as does the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement, and both offer a clear way forward.
- Third, how does the U.S. regard South Korea’s deepening engagement policy with North Korea? The short answer is that we support engagement as a way of promoting reconciliation and cooperation on the Korean Peninsula, but we also see the need for denuclearization and engagement to go forward in a coordinated fashion. We also regard South Korean attention to the real conditions in the North as an important component of an effective engagement policy.
- Fourth, and finally, how does the U.S. see the future of Northeast Asia? The short answer is that we would like to see the growing economic ties among the countries of the region translate into greater political integration and trust. There may be ways to catalyze this process.
I begin with the good news. U.S.-Korean relations are in excellent shape; we should celebrate that. After ten months of tough but fair negotiations, our governments recently agreed on the KORUS Free Trade Agreement, which will immediately eliminate most tariffs on both sides, increase exports in both directions, and create jobs and investment opportunities both in Korea and the United States. As you know, both of our legislatures need to ratify the FTA. I’m gratified that a majority of the Korean public supports the agreement, and during my recent trip to the United States, I heard about strong support on our side as well. Assuming the KORUS FTA is ratified, it will be like a trans-Pacific bridge that further strengthens the already solid linkages between our two countries for decades to come. I’m proud of my Embassy’s active involvement in achieving the FTA, and we also appreciate the professionalism of the Korean negotiating team.
Of course our relationship is not only, or even primarily, economic. We should also celebrate our military alliance, which continues to evolve and mature, while continuing to fulfill its original mission of preserving peace on the Korean Peninsula. Earlier this year, our Defense Ministers reached agreement on transitioning wartime operational control to the ROK military in five years, by April 2012. Our military experts have the highest respect for ROK defense capabilities, and together our governments agree that this transition makes sense, recognizing Korea’s tremendous economic and technological progress over the past several decades and the need for a more balanced sharing of responsibility. At the same time, the United States reaffirms its intention to retain a strong military presence in Korea, now 29,000 personnel, not only to prevent war with North Korea, but also to maintain stability in Northeast Asia.
We are also making progress on restructuring the U.S. military presence in Korea and returning installations to the Korean people. To date, we have closed 36 installations with a value of over $500 million and returned 30 of them to the ROK. Along with these camps and in accordance with our Status of Forces Agreement, we have transferred to the ROK – free of charge – the full range of buildings, capital assets, and improvements found on these camps.
Beyond the military alliance, we have remarkable people-to-people ties: the many Korean students in the United States are a tremendous asset on our campuses. Over 100,000 Americans live and work in Korea, and there is a vibrant Korean and Korean-American community in the United States. Many Koreans I have met have a U.S. connection – study in the United States, a relative living in the U.S., frequent travel to the U.S., and even experience on Washington’s Capitol Hill. Not as many Americans know Korea, but that is changing.
For over sixty years, the United States has maintained a strong presence on the Korean Peninsula. I believe that we have played an instrumental role in the economic and political development of Korea. The United States regards its relationship with democratic, free-market Korea as at the core of our interests in Northeast Asia. Together, we are trying to do difficult things: preserve peace on the Korean Peninsula; denuclearize North Korea; and work for peace and stability in the wider region – so it’s good to have this pillar of strong bilateral relations for support.
Let me turn to a more difficult area: the Six Parties’ efforts to denuclearize North Korea. The February 13 “Initial Actions” agreement to implement the September 2005 Joint Statement was – and remains – an important step forward. We see this as a strong agreement for two reasons: first, it makes clear that North Korea and the Five Parties have specific “action-for-action” commitments to each other, with clear timeframes; and second, it outlines the next phases, showing the road ahead. In short, it offers North Korea a clear choice: between denuclearization and all the benefits that will bring the DPRK; or deeper and deeper isolation.
Regrettably, the process of implementing the February 13 agreement has been delayed due to problems connected with the transfer of North Korea’s funds at Macao’s Banco Delta Asia. I believe this is a technical banking issue, but still, it has led to an unfortunate loss of momentum. Even so, we remain encouraged that North Korea has stated publicly that it does plan to invite IAEA inspectors and does plan to shut down and seal the Yongbyon nuclear facility.
More important work lies ahead after completion of this Phase 1 effort: in Phase 2, we expect to see the disablement of all the DPRK’s nuclear facilities and issuance of a declaration of all the nuclear programs and facilities slated for elimination in accordance with the September 2005 Joint Statement; and in Phase 3, the complete dismantlement of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and programs.
I have to be frank and say that, based on North Korea’s actions to date, we cannot be sure that they have made the strategic decision to denuclearize. It is clear, however, that such a decision would benefit North Korea and its people. It is also clear that, if North Korea is prepared to proceed on the path for denuclearization, the United States is prepared – as stated in the February 13 agreement – to move toward full diplomatic relations, remove North Korea’s designation as a state-sponsor of terror, and advance the process of terminating the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act to the DPRK. As President Bush has made clear, the United States is also prepared to work with the involved parties to replace the Korean War Armistice Agreement with a permanent peace regime. In other words, we seek an official end to the Korean War. This would represent fundamental change on the Korean Peninsula; but it requires a decisive shift away from nuclear programs on the part of North Korea.
The implementation of the February 13 agreement remains central, and the United States is committed to implementing it. But it’s also important to step back and look at what the Six-Party Talks have done – apart from their focus on North Korea’s nuclear issue – to the map of Northeast Asia: the Talks have, for the first time, brought close cooperation among countries in the region.
From the United States’ point of view, our close partnership with Korea in these talks is extremely valuable. My colleagues who were there tell me that the Korean delegation showed leadership and creativity at the February session of the Six-Party Talks that helped achieve the Initial Actions agreement, just when it seemed that the Talks might break down. Furthermore, the Korean government is chairing the Economy and Energy Cooperation working group that will coordinate fuel and other assistance to the DPRK in connection with North Korea’s implementation of its commitments. We appreciate Korea’s leadership in this important area.
We also greatly appreciate China’s effective chairmanship of the Six-Party Talks and the fact that it is also chairing the important Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula working group. China has had to show endless patience during long, often frustrating negotiation sessions in Beijing. The United States places great value on being a part of this unprecedented regional cooperation, and we see value in continuing to develop this forum. I’ll return to this issue in a moment.
I’d like to comment on Korea’s engagement policy with the North. First, let me reiterate the United States’ consistent policy with regard to the Korean Peninsula: we strongly support the ROK’s goal of peaceful unification of the two Koreas, and we stand behind the Korean government in working to achieve that goal. Second, we also support constructive engagement with the North, as a means of reducing tensions on the Peninsula and as a means of introducing elements of free-market economics into the North. Hence, we have a favorable view of the increased level of engagement that was agreed at the latest round of Economic Cooperation Promotion Committee talks. But we also believe that it is very important, as ROK government officials have stated, that this increased level of cooperation go forward hand-in-hand with progress in Six-Party agreements on denuclearization. Thus, we were encouraged by Minister of Unification Lee Jae-joung’s recent statement that continued progress on engagement, including rice aid, requires continued progress on the February 13 agreement. [1]
I think it’s important that Korea and the United States, along with our Six-Party partners, maintain a consistent and mutually reinforcing policy toward North Korea, so that the Six-Party Talks and North-South engagement send the same message: that North Korea has clear prospects for improved relations with all of us provided that it continues to make progress on denuclearization. To continue with all aspects of engagement regardless of progress on denuclearization would be to pretend to be promoting peaceful reconciliation when a primary cause of those tensions – North Korea’s destabilizing nuclear weapons program – was undermining peace on the Peninsula and in the region. In other words, relations with North Korea can be seen as a railroad track: one rail is North-South engagement, and the other is progress on denuclearization; the train needs to roll forward on both. I hope the test run of the trains from South to North, planned for May 17, goes forward on that basis.
From our point of view, the ROK policy to accept and accommodate North Korean refugees is an important humanitarian issue and an important aspect of its engagement policy with North Korea. The 10,000 refugees now living in Korea have clearly better lives, better health and better opportunities to educate their children. The United States also has a policy of welcoming North Korean refugees who seek resettlement in the U.S., and we have accepted some. But we understand – and appreciate – that the ROK remains the primary destination for most North Koreans because North and South Koreans are one people, with a shared culture, history and language. We are proud to work with the Korean government in its efforts to resettle North Koreans and help them to adapt and prosper in South Korean society.
South Korea also plays the important role of providing news and information about North Korea’s closed society, and progress on engagement should mean that more information flows in and out of North Korea. We admire the Korean reporters who report on conditions in North Korea, and I personally would welcome much more daily news about North Korea in Korean newspapers: economic conditions; health issues; and any other available information. I think the international community depends on South Korea’s media to tell us all what is happening in North Korea, which lacks the free press that we consider central to a democracy. By the same token, we admire the Korean NGOs that are working to deliver aid to North Korea in an accountable fashion, making sure their aid funds are used properly for the benefit of the North Korean people.
I would also suggest that one aspect of increased engagement should be an increase in information about the ROK provided to North Koreans, through educational DVDs, books and magazines, more radio programs and, when conditions allow, student and teacher study exchanges – the kind of “active exchanges of civilians between the South and North” that KCRC Chairman Jeong has called for. My point is that engagement should not be restricted to meetings between government officials that result mainly in aid packages to the North; it should be a much broader project that results in increased people-to-people contact and added knowledge on both sides.
In addition, I believe engagement with the North should ultimately focus more attention on improving the economic well-being and human rights conditions of the North Korean people. In this regard, I would note that this is North Korea Freedom Week in the United States. To commemorate this event, President Bush issued a statement on April 27, in which he said:
Those living in North Korea regrettably know first-hand the meaning of deprivation of freedom….I believe the 21st century will be freedom’s century for all Koreans. One day every citizen of that peninsula will live in dignity, freedom and prosperity at home and in peace with their neighbors abroad. Until that day comes, we will not rest in our efforts to support the North Korean people as they strive to achieve the rights and freedoms to which they are entitled as human beings.
The international community was very encouraged last fall when the ROK, after years of abstaining, voted to support the UN General Assembly’s resolution on North Korean human rights issues. I hope that, as the Six Party Talks move forward, our two governments – both bilaterally and through the United Nations – will be able to work together to convince the North Koreans that addressing international concerns on human rights is important to the establishment of normal relations and the building of trust between the DPRK and the rest of the world.
As a final topic, let’s take a step back together and look at Northeast Asia as a region, with the overlapping circles of influence of the Koreas, China, Japan, Russia’s Far East, and the United States, which has abiding interest in this region.
From the U.S. perspective, this region’s growing economic clout is remarkable. China, Japan, and the ROK together account for almost one-quarter (23 percent) of the world’s population; 18 percent of world income; and 14 percent of world trade. Russia’s Far East, with its vast natural resources, adds to this regional significance. China’s exports – over $760 billion in 2005 – increased 186 percent since 2001. Over that same four-year period, ROK exports – now over $300 billion – increased 89 percent and Japan’s 47 percent. Within Northeast Asia, trade has expanded markedly as well: as you know, Korea’s trade with China reached $118 billion in 2006, a 24-fold increase over the $5 billion in two-way trade in 1992, shortly after official relations were established.
As President Roh Moo-hyun said in his 2003 inaugural address, “Northeast Asia, which used to be on the periphery of the modern world, is now emerging as a source of energy in the global economy.” Economic integration – driven by individual business and investment decisions – is underway in Northeast Asia (with the exception of North Korea – by its own choice). We see such integration as a favorable development, and we see U.S. economic interests as closely tied to this region, which is one reason that Americans are excited about the KORUS FTA. But my question for you is: Can you see this economic integration leading to increased political integration and closer people-to-people ties within the region? Are there ways that the private sector and governments could work to foster such integration? Can Koreans (North as well as South) see themselves as part of a broader Northeast Asian community?
Here are two ideas for your consideration. First, what if the countries of the region, including the U.S., offered “Northeast Asia” scholarships to the best and brightest multilingual students from all of the countries, who would then attend each other’s leading universities, perhaps followed by selective internships? I see this as a way of getting young people to think of themselves as Northeast Asians, along with retaining their sense of being Korean, Japanese, etc. That’s the way it is now in Europe – where people now carry European Union passports and attend one another’s universities under the Erasmus program. Such a scholarship program would build on the “Future Leaders Forum: Japan-Korea-China” that the three countries have held each July since 2003; it should also include Russia.
As a second idea, what about increased cooperation among the region’s countries on energy issues – perhaps through a joint institute – to look at alternative fuels and renewable energy? The best scientists and engineers from the region could cooperate, and the countries could agree to share the research results. In this context, Northeast Asian countries could talk about joint oil and gas projects and pipelines, linking energy-supplier Russia more closely to Northeast Asia’s huge energy markets.
That kind of regional identity won’t come about overnight, but the effort seems worthwhile to me, as a step toward focusing on the region’s common challenges in the future. Regional leaders – in addition to President Roh – have been talking about such ideas. In a speech last year, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso spoke about the need for an East Asian community, saying “it is critical that there be cooperation between Japan and both China and the Republic of Korea” to foster the idea of an East Asian community. During their November 2006 meeting, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed, as part of a joint statement, that their nations should make “joint efforts to promote peace, stability and development in Asia.” The Six-Party Talks, which have already brought us together, can be a part of the process of Northeast Asian integration – and perhaps the nucleus of a permanent forum to promote cooperative solutions to the region’s problems.
Let me close by suggesting how the four issues I have discussed fit together. First, we have a robust ROK-U.S. bilateral alliance based on economic and military partnership and deeply shared values including support for democracy, human rights, and freedom; we also share interests in a better future for our children through high-quality education. That’s the strong pillar that supports our other common efforts in other areas. Second, I have argued that the Six-Party Talks and South-North engagement policy need to be complementary and coordinated, since both are seeking to establish real peace and security on the Korean Peninsula, and both are aimed at improving the lives of the North Korean people. Finally, building on our efforts to achieve peace on the Korean Peninsula, I suggested to you that we should even aim beyond that goal and work together toward increased integration and cooperation among all of the people of Northeast Asia. I hope that we can walk away from today’s discussion with a better idea of how to achieve real progress for future generations.
Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to hearing your views and fielding your comments and questions.