Ambassador Speeches

Strengthening the ROK-U.S. Alliance to Meet New Challenges Remarks by Ambassador Christopher R. Hill Korea Institute for Defense Analysis

September 24, 2004

Thank you very much, Dr. Hwang for such a kind introduction. Thank you so much Dr. Hwang for putting together such a distinguished group here. There were some suggestions for my mentioning several people, but I don't want to leave anybody out. That's very dangerous, as we know. Let me just say it is such a pleasure and such an honor to have this opportunity to address this distinguished group, especially members of the National Assembly, ministers and former ministers, thank you very much. Today, I'd like to make some comments about the U.S.-Korean relationship and where we go from here. After those comments, I very much look forward to a more interactive process because I would like to hear some questions, and comments and speeches from other people and then have the opportunity to respond.

Let me just say that arriving in Korea exactly six weeks ago, I have really felt the deep strength of the alliance between our two countries, and the fact that we have a foundation, a very strong, a very deep, a very broad foundation that has been based on 50 years of cooperation. That will surely provide the means to go forward for another 50 years. To be sure, there have been changes in this relationship and there will be more changes, but our task is to manage these changes and to make sure these changes result in strengthening this alliance. I'm confident we can do so.

Many of these changes have to do with the fact that there have been changes on the Korean Peninsula. There have been changes especially in the ability in the Republic of Korea to field a substantial security deterrent of its own, but also changes due to the Republic of Korea's entry, really, onto the world stage as one of the most important industrialized countries in the world. Many of the changes in this ROK-U.S. alliance are also ones that derive from broader changes in the world, especially the fact that old structures, obviously the Cold War structures, but older alliance structures are very much changing. The nature of the threat that we face is also changing.

We no longer face a world where overly powerful states threatening their neighbors constitutes the major threat to global peace and security. Instead, we must now contend with failed states, rogue regimes, transnational criminals, terrorist networks and the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Al-Qaida, especially, a decentralized, franchised terrorist network has operated out of failed states, but can also operates on the Internet, has shown that it can unleash horrific destruction on civilized countries. So our task is to respond to these threats, to be strong in responding to them, and to understand that we need to stay together if we're going to be successful.

I think the U.S.-Korea relationship is strong because it rests on a firm foundation of shared political values. It rests on our strong economic ties and our close people-to-people links.

Our alliance also faces a threat and a danger, that is the North Korean nuclear issue. But that is not the only issue that holds our alliance together. Korea has now emerged as the 11th-largest industrial country in the world and the United States' seventh-largest trading partner. It is taking advantage of its position in Northeast Asia to become the region's economic hub. That position allows Korea to serve as a key partner for the United States in this part of the world.

Investment by U.S. companies alone in Korea is almost $100 billion, two times our investments in our good friend and ally Poland. We know see growing Korean investments in the U.S., including most recently a new Hyundai Motors factory in Alabama.

But perhaps the strongest bond between our two countries remains the connections between our peoples. We recently celebrated the 100th anniversary of Korean immigration to the United States, a process that began a full 50 years before we established our military alliance. There are now some 2 million Koreans and Korean-Americans living in the U.S.

Korea sends the third-largest number of students to the United States, surpassed only by China and India. Last year, the United States, through the State Department, continued to send many distinguished Korean visitors to the United States through bilateral programs. The Korean government itself has many bilateral programs. I would say the amount of exchange between our two countries is the strongest it's ever been.

All this is to say that we have something worth working together on. We have some common interests, some very much shared interests, shared aspirations for the world and we need to figure out how we can strengthen the alliance and protect those interests, those mutual interests.

The first task that we have, and indeed the cornerstone of our relationship must be continuing to maintain the peace that we together have maintained on the Korean Peninsula for 50 years. We are today working to modernize our military arrangements in the Future of the Alliance Initiative (FOTA). We are seeking to make U.S. forces in Korea more effective while we lessen the burdens on local communities. We will relocate all U.S. forces out of Seoul and consolidate our military facilities into a more sustainable and effective presence. The process of giving land back to the Korean people has already begun, and it shall continue.

While we reduce the number of U.S. forces in Korea, we are making those forces more effective. We will spend some $11 billion in the next four years to equip our forces with the best technologies available. We know that smaller, more mobile, more technologically advanced military forces are the right way to meet the fluid threats of the 21st century.

U.S. forces in Korea will continue to be numerous. They will continue to be technologically well equipped and, most importantly, they will continue to be highly motivated and well trained.

On Monday, I went down to Kunsan Air Base and met with our airmen down there and went on a ride in an F-16 and went over to the Pilsan range where we did some practice bombing runs and strafing runs. My pilot took my plane to some 50 meters and then pulled us up over a mountain with G-forces of 6.5 Gs. So, I can assure you our guys are well trained, even if our Ambassadors are a little afraid of that.

My pilot told me he wanted to be lower to the ground, but because he had a passenger, he thought he shouldn't do that.

Our military has demonstrated and continues to train with the ability to airlift forces in a rapid way. We now have the ability to airlift an entire Stryker Brigade Combat Team from the U.S. to Korea in less than 12 hours. We use our unmanned aerial vehicles to conduct real-time reconnaissance to give our military commanders accurate information. We have also deployed Apache Longbow helicopters, which are the most advanced platform of its kind, and we've deployed those to Korea.

We are also deploying one of the most advanced defensive systems of its kind, that is the PAC-3 Patriot missiles, and when I was in Gwangju last week, I had the opportunity to meet with some of the U.S. forces there and to discuss the expected deployment of these systems to Gwangju. They are purely defensive systems, one of our most technologically advanced and they will protect airbases and cities from ballistic missiles, which continue to pose a threat. I was extremely impressed by the technology but even more so by the cooperation between U.S. and Korean forces. I was also very much impressed by the effort to reach out to Gwangju citizens to explain these deployments, to explain the technical and military tasks that they have, and to explain the fact that these deployments will be very good for the citizens of Gwangju.

There's an enormous amount of change going on and no more so than in the effort to find a scope for the Korean military to take on a greater role in the defense of Korea. Korean forces now patrol the Joint Security Area and they will take on additional critical missions in the future.

All this is to say that the technical, the military, the security task of maintaining stability on the Korean Peninsula is very much foremost on our minds and the process is going very successfully.

One should not just talk about security without talking about my profession, which is diplomacy. Here too, this is an important tool as we ensure stability in this region. Together with China, Russia and Japan, the U.S. and Korea are using the Six-Party Talks to find a diplomatic solution to the North Korean nuclear issue. It is very important that we continue to stay together, to work together, to think together in order to bring a positive outcome to this.

We must to make it very clear to the North Koreans that they face a strategic choice: either begin the process of joining the international community or keep their weapons. They cannot do both. This is a very difficult process, make no mistake about it. There will be moments of great frustration, but I am optimistic it will succeed because the logic of this situation is that it must succeed.

Nuclear weapons will provide nothing to North Korea in terms of security, in terms of the things they think that they want, including economic development. They must give up their weapons.

I believe that the Six-Party Process could actually yield further benefits for the future, even beyond the immediate and critical task of disarming North Korea. I believe the Six-Party Talks could actually have a broader strategic significance for the region. The Six-Party Talks can provide an initial framework for thinking in terms of what can be done to further strengthen this region of the world, which is really going to become one of the prime areas of the world: North America, Europe and Northeast Asia.

Our security cooperation between the United States and Korea has matured greatly in recent years. It has moved beyond just a focus on the critical problem of North Korea. It demonstrates the growing global sense of Korea, that it needs to be a player in a number of different areas. Korea has worked with members of the international community under UN Security Council resolutions to bring stability and peace and democracy in East Timor and also working in Afghanistan and now in Iraq. The United States is deeply grateful, especially for all of these contributions, especially this last one, which we knew was not easy.

The deployment to Iraq is going well and our two militaries and our embassies in Baghdad are cooperating closely. We believe that this deployment will help stabilize Iraq and the region around Iraq and will make this world a safer place. This is very much in our two countries' interest.

Let me conclude by saying that the U.S.-Korean relationship, the U.S.-Korean alliance is one of the most important of its kind anywhere in the world. Those of you who worked for many years on building the relations between the Korean military and the U.S. military should feel a special sense of satisfaction because you are the ones who created the foundation that will allow this alliance to prosper in the years and the decades ahead.

So, as we look ahead I think we need to look very carefully at our mutual interests and I think we will both see the logic of maintaining this very healthy alliance. It is a good alliance for Korea because it allows Korea to develop its relations in Asia and in the world to have this special relationship with the U.S. I think it's a very valuable tool for Korea. For the United States, it's also a very valuable thing that we have a very, very good and reliable partner here in this critical corner of the world.

I am very honored to be able to play a part in reshaping and in building this alliance for this next critical phase. I can assure you I'm going to work very hard, even attending these early morning breakfasts to do so. Thank you very much.

---

Q&A Session

---

Question: First of all, thank you very much for the good lecture; I will only ask a simple question. I know that you recently mentioned that you have to think about the fact that why is it only the U.S. that does not have a good Embassy building in Korea. I think that this is one reflection of the recent trend of anti-Americanism in Korea and many people are concerned that this is a serious problem. So, I would like to hear from you your thoughts on this trend in Korean society; and also, what do you think about the Korean government's response to this situation?

Ambassador Hill: Thank you very much for raising the new Embassy. I think this is the first group where I haven't raised it actually, so thank you for bringing it up.

First of all, I think we need a new Embassy because I think we need a facility that reflects the strength of our relationship. There are a number of new embassies in a number of important countries in Asia. I think Korea is an important country. I don't like to see our facility worse than our facilities in many other important countries in Asia. Our facilities here should reflect what we have done together and what we will do in the future. I can assure you, we are going to get this done.

Now, let me make some comments on what you referred to, that is your comment about anti-Americanism, but with the understanding that one thing that I have maintained throughout my career, I do not interfere in a country's internal affairs. I don't even interfere in my country's internal affairs.

It's not for me to be taking sides between the opposition and the government. It's not for me to say that I like one and not the other. That is not my job and shouldn't be my job. If I did that, I wouldn't be able to do my job.

There are some very strong emotions in Korea about the U.S. relationship. What is ironic about the U.S. relationship is that ours is a country that is very far away from Korea, yet many Koreans have, in some respects, felt we're even too close.

In many instances, I do not agree with some people who characterize my country's role. I don't agree with them. But at the same time, I have to respect their emotions; I have to respect their feelings; and I have to listen to them and try to understand them.

So, I do spend a lot of my time, and thankfully more than 50% of my time, listening because you can do a lot more learning when you listen than learning when you talk. It's clear people want to hear our arguments. They want to hear our point of view and sometimes they want to hear it in different ways, in ways that they can understand a little better. I understand that. I understand that a young person cannot simply hear about the U.S. relationship in terms of the Korean War. Although I wish they understood that. I need to explain it in different ways.

To understand the strength of our relationship is to understand what we have been through for these 50 years, especially for those first years of those 50 years. It's to understand that, but it's also to understand the potential; it's to understand the future. I believe that I can convince people that it is in Korea's interest to maintain this special link with the U.S. as it goes forward, as it maneuvers in this new Asia space, in this space in Northeast Asia. As it maneuvers in its interests throughout the world, a country that is such a large trading country has interests all over the world, not just here on the peninsula.

I believe I can explain that to people, young people. I believe I can explain that to a lot of different people if I am patient, if I'm willing to listen and if I can convince them to listen.

So, if sometimes I sound optimistic, it's because I am optimistic. I believe we have a lot of material to work with and I believe this relationship is going to be just fine.

Question: I have two questions for you, the first question is: in your opinion, how has the ROK-U.S. alliance evolved since the diplomatic mission back in the mid-1980s? What do you think will be the main driving force over another 30 years? That is my first question. My second is: in your speech you mentioned that the international community is faced with failed states, rogue states and terrorist networks. You gave the example of al Qaeda. Is North Korea improving? And if it is, (inaudible) you said in your speech, what are the responses (inaudible)?

Ambassador Hill: There have been a lot of changes in the 16 years I've been away, although early morning breakfast at the Chosun Hotel is not one of them. Clearly, in terms of decision making in the country, one cannot just talk to just people in the government. One has to talk to the NGO community. One has to talk to the institutes, which continue to strengthen and play a key role in policy issues. One has to be very close to the National Assembly. One has to understand what they're thinking in the National Assembly, because often they're reflecting very much the thinking that goes on all over Korea. So, there's no "one-stop shopping" any more in terms of understanding opinion here. It's a retail business. You have to go to a lot of different places to understand it.

Fundamentally, I think Korea is developing, much more so than in the 1980s, a sense of being on the international stage; a sense that it has interests throughout the world; a sense that it has to follow those interests throughout the world. You could see a little of this in the 80s. For example, Korea was very aware of issues in the Middle East. There were many Korean construction companies operating in the Middle East because there was an understanding that Korea's energy supplies came from the Middle East. Now I would say that process is much broader. There's a greater global perspective, I think.

I think Korea, too, is facing many changes in the economic area as it moves in many instances to a post-industrial structure. These changes are also not easy within Korea. I think you can see the problems of dealing with unemployment rates and with sluggish growth rates; problems that are associated with economic transformation.

Finally, you have the issue of bringing so many new and diverse groups of people into the political process. They have very different views of how the political process is to operate. That is always a challenge: to figure out how different people can be integrated. This is a challenge faced in all pluralistic countries. So, I think the good news for Korea is that in the 80s there was a lot of discussion about the uniqueness of Korea and I think now there's a greater understanding that Korea is undergoing changes and processes that are familiar in many different countries.

As for a description of North Korea, North Korea is what it is. You know what it is. I know what it is. We need to deal with it and we need to get a solution to this nuclear issue. I don't think trying to give it another name would really help.

Question: I'm a researcher at KIDA. From the past government, so called "people's government," to the current participatory government, we have single-line policy towards North Korea. Of course, the name was different, it referred to as the Sunshine policy in the past and now it's Policy of Peace and Prosperity. On this policy towards the North, what do you think are the accomplishments that we have gained? Some people point out that the U.S. and the ROK have differences of opinion over whether North Korea is truly changing and what truly is the nature of North Korea. Could you share your views on these problems?

Ambassador Hill: That's a very good question, a very difficult question. In terms of what are our accomplishments with North Korea, sometimes accomplishments are very hard to see and very hard to evaluate until after the process. That is we may not really know what are accomplishments are until we look back. That was certainly the experience in the 1980s in Eastern Europe. There were accomplishments, but we were hard pressed to identify any back in 1984.

I think with respect to coordinating our policies, I think it's very important that we're on the same team. I don't think that means we have to always be doing the exact same thing. I think the Republic of Korea will have a different role than the United States does, but I think that we can really be on the same team.

I think what we have to respect is the fact that North Korea is, for better or worse, your neighbor. I think that calls for, sometimes, different approaches, but what's important is that we stay on the same team and that we communicate. I plan to very much work on that process. I think, frankly, we're succeeding.

The North Korean leadership has some very fundamental decisions to make, which I hope keep them up late at night thinking about what to do. Not unlike in the life of an individual, there are some times when a nation simply has to look at its accomplishments and decide that what it's doing isn't working and it'd better do something different.

Question: I'm an editorial writer from the Seoul Shinmun. In Korean society right now there is a debate going on about what is exactly President Roh's perception toward the U.S. Some time ago, he appeared on a television show and said that currently the U.S.-ROK relationship is one in which Korea can sometimes be frank with the U.S. and, because of that, the U.S. is a little bit surprised, not that much but a little bit surprised. He said that if we kept up with this relationship for 10 years then we are going to have an independent and equal relationship with the U.S. This means that President Roh does not think that currently we have an equal relationship and, therefore, it should be corrected. Do you agree with this view?

It may be coincidental, but following that President Bush in his Republican acceptance speech, left out mentioning Korea and President Roh in mentioning the allies for the efforts in Iraq. The Embassy clarified that it was simply a mistake, but when I inquired about it to Korean experts, no one offered me the same explanation as the U.S. Embassy.

Later on, the explosion in North Korea followed and the IAEA raised issue with the past nuclear testing in South Korea, leading some people to think that this me be a conspiracy by the U.S. to express its displeasure. You mentioned in your speech that there is really no problem between the two countries, that we have a good relationship. Do you really think so? Do you really think that there is no problem, as you said, or if you do think that there are some areas that need to be improved, how serious do you think they are? What is the way to improve them?

Ambassador Hill: That's a big question. It's sort of like the old MIRV (multi-independent reentry vehicles). There are different warheads on this question.

Let me say, with respect to the nature of our relationship, I am not going to paraphrase your president or tell you what your president meant to say. You should ask your president.

With respect to the nature of the relationship I can assure you that we want a relationship with the Republic of Korea that is based on mutual respect and based on shared values and shared interests.

I have absolutely no interest in being called "big brother." It is simply a concept that does not appeal to me. This is a relationship that really needs to be built around horizontal lines, not vertical lines. We're ready to do that. You need to tell me whether you're ready to do that.

With regard to President Bush's political speech to an internal American audience, which I guess was covered on CNN International, but which was a speech for American voters, actually specifically Republican voters, I'm not sure there's much more I can say than has already been said on that issue. President Bush has on many occasions said how important the ROK-U.S. relationship is and how much he values this relationship. He's said it on many occasions in the past. He'll say it on many occasions in the future. You need to understand this is an absolutely sincere, strongly felt view of my president and of many, many Americans.

With respect to the so-called nuclear testing, the Korean government is cooperating fully with the IAEA. The IAEA is looking into the matter, as it does in all such matters, and if every country cooperated with the IAEA the way the Republic of Korea has, we would not have these problems in the world.

I know that this is an issue that the North Koreans say is important to them. They should cooperate with the IAEA the way the Republic of Korea has cooperated with the IAEA.

As for whether there is some conspiracy here, there is no conspiracy. This is a matter that is being dealt with transparently and I have no doubt that this matter will be resolved to everyone's satisfaction.

I don't recall saying that there are "no problems" in our relationship. If there were no problems, I would be very bored and I'd probably be sleeping late and not having much to do. Of course there are issues we face in our relationship and that's what makes diplomats wake up in the morning and feel good about what we have to get accomplished that day.

I truly believe that the problems that we have in our relationship are ones that can be solved. I believe that for every problem we have, for every issue we have, we have the means to solve these. I look forward to addressing those.

Some of the problems, however, are ones that have been built up over the years. Obviously, there are people in Korea who worry about the nature of the relationship, who worry whether it is horizontal enough rather than vertical. For those people, I need to convince them of what we want to do. That's my problem and I know I can solve it.

When you address problems like that, you have to do it with a certain amount of energy and a certain amount of optimism. That's what I plan to do.

Question: I'm from Seoul National University. My question is on the U.S. If Kerry wins the November elections, how do you expect the U.S. policy towards North Korea to change? For your information, even if the U.S. says their policy is bipartisan, we saw a difference in the Carter policy vs. Reagan policy and Clinton policy vs. Bush policy. So, we feel that if Kerry wins there will be a difference in the Bush versus Kerry policy. So, how different or what are the differences?

Ambassador Hill: I guess I told you I didn't want to interfere in Korean internal affairs, now you're asking me to talk about U.S. internal affairs.

Let me say, I think there's a consensus in the U.S. among all political elites that North Korea must get rid of its nuclear weapons. There is no tolerance for North Korea to retain nuclear weapons.

I think if you look at the Democratic Party statements, you will see that over the months there's been strong support for the Six-Party Process, for the multilateralism of the Six-Party Process, although it was the view of people in the Democratic Party that there should have been additional bilateral mechanisms to run parallel to the Six-Party mechanism.

In fact, as you know, Secretary Powell met with his North Korean counterpart and there have been some bilateral mechanisms. The main problem is that North Korea has refused to negotiate and to give up its nuclear weapons.

As we move into the last six weeks of the U.S. Presidential election, of course the debate very much sharpens. President Bush is very much sharpening his attacks on Senator Kerry. Senator Kerry is very much sharpening his attacks on President Bush. In the latter category, in the latter group, Senator Kerry is looking to identify areas where President Bush's policies have not achieved the desired effect, and with respect to North Korea, we still have a situation where North Korea has refused to negotiate. So, understandably, this issue has come up in the context of our political campaign as an example where a goal has not yet been achieved.

But, to get back to the essence of your question, I'm simply not in a position to answer the hypothetical question of first of all, if Senator Kerry were to become president would he have a different approach to this? Would it be more successful? Would it be less successful? I'm simply not in a position to analyze that any better than you are or anyone else is because the central issue is that North Korea has refused to negotiate and refused to signal its willingness to get rid of its programs.

Question: Two questions. First, we hear often in the news reports these days about USFK reduction. That is how much interest we have in this issue. Two days ago, Secretary Rumsfeld in a Senate hearing said that the USFK reduction will proceed as was originally scheduled, whereas the press reports go into the possibility of a delay in the reduction schedule. So, could you clarify this?

Secondly, it seems that there are signs that North Korea may launch a Rodong missile. Secretary Powell, in a meeting with our Foreign Affairs Minister Ban, said that although there are signs that the North may be preparing to launch one, it is not likely to happen. If you compare the response of Japan and Korea, it seems Japan is overly concerned about this possibility, while things are quiet in South Korea. There is even a guess that a big event will happen in October. Do you know anything about this? If you do know, can you share this information?

Ambassador Hill: Yes. No. Seriously, I think Secretary Powell is reading the same information I am, and I really don't have anything to add to what he has said publicly on the issue.

With regard to the issue of the ground troop reductions, this is being discussed in a framework and we have negotiators and I think they've made a lot of progress. I think they've agreed on sort of the number of years that this will take. I think they're addressing how many troops in year X versus year Y. I don't think they have finished this, so I really can't discuss it except to say that I am very confident that there will be an agreement and a lot of progress has been made on this.

I really do want to stress this issue of upgrading capabilities. Many of you work in the defense field and you know what capabilities mean. You know that a company of troops in 1950 has a different firepower from a company of troops 50 years later. You know that these capabilities are very serious capabilities. I hope that there's some focus on that rather than just on the issue of ground troops because I think our capability to defend, and I emphasize that as what we are doing, we are defending and maintaining deterrence, our capabilities in that respect are improving.

If I can just say what a pleasure it's been here. These were great questions, very tough questions. That's good for me. I hope the answers were okay for you.