Ambassador Speeches

Remarks by Ambassador Christopher R. Hill to The Korean Council for Reconciliation and Cooperation

Westin Chosun Hotel, Seoul, Republic of Korea
October 25, 2004

Introduction: Thank you for taking time in your busy schedules to be with us here today at this early time in the morning. I would like to thank all of you for your contributions for promoting peace and reconciliation of the two Koreas. Also, as you all know, we have here with us today Ambassador Christopher R. Hill. He has not been in Korea for that long a time, he only came a couple of weeks ago, but before this time around, he had previously worked in Korea in the 1980s.

I understand that he is a well-known gentleman among the American diplomats. It is indeed a pleasure and a privilege for us to have him here as our Ambassador to the U.S.

I'm sure that you all know what kind of a state we are in today, as in the state of the Korean Peninsula. We are faced with the North Korean nuclear issue. Also, we have domestic problems that we must solve. We are currently facing a dangerous situation. We can say that it is a somewhat dangerous situation in the eyes of the international community. I believe that the current period will have a great influence on the future of our nation.

I feel that it is very unfortunate that we are not able to live our daily lives, have ordinary conversations and meals with our fellow North Koreans, but I do believe that that is our given task: to bring reconciliation on this land.

For the past 60 something years, the United States has become our closest ally and has helped us pursue this goal. There were some difficulties between our two nations, some confrontations or misunderstandings. But more than that, there are so many things that the U.S. has given to us. So, I think that we should focus on that, the contributions that they've made for our nation and, therefore, we must work towards the future in cooperation with the U.S. So, we must continue to promote the trust that we have for the U.S. and the respect that we have.

Today, Ambassador Hill will be talking about the relationship of the U.S. and the ROK. When he speaks, I hope that you will listen very carefully

I hope that you will give him a loud round of applause, thinking about the close relationship that we have with the U.S. Let us now have Ambassador Christopher Hill come to the podium and give us his speech.

(Applause)

Thank you.

Ambassador Hill came to the podium before I gave his introduction, but let me give you his brief biography. He came to the U.S. Embassy in Korea on August 11. Before that, he worked in the State Department. He was an Aide for the President on East European Affairs. He was also on the Central European Desk. He was also part of the Macedonian negotiations in the past. He also worked in Belgrade, Seoul and Tirana and also the Policy Planning Department of the State Department. He also provided advice for Senator Solarz. He was also part of the Peace Corps and received a medal from the State Department for his contributions in Kosovo. He speaks Polish and a number of languages mainly those of European countries. He received his Masters degree at the U.S. Naval War College. He is married to Patricia Hill and has three children.

Once again, please give Ambassador Hill a big round of applause.

(Applause)

Ambassador Hill: Thank you very much for those very fine words of introduction. I am very pleased to be here this morning and honored by your presence. This is a big day for me because some 12 hours from now, I will be standing out at the airport waiting for my boss, Colin Powell, to arrive. So, what better way than to start this with an early morning here at the Chosun Hotel?

I have felt since I returned to Korea some two months ago, I've really felt very warmly received by the Korean people and, for that, I am very grateful. When I was here in Korea almost 20 years ago, in many respects it was a different country. Yet, I have some very warm and long-lasting memories of this country some 20 years ago. Of course, the first of which is that my daughter was born here. That's something that you never forget. I also have political and other memories of Korea.

Perhaps none of those memories is as strong as the memory that I have from the late summer and early fall of 1985 when, for the first time, the Red Cross was able to organize family unifications. I always remember that many of the families from the Republic of Korea were able to gather in a hotel like this and wait at round tables like these for their family members from North Korea who were arriving on a bus to come and see them.

I remember seeing this, some of it of course was on television as well, and seeing the great sense of joy at families who were finally able to see each other after so many years apart. I also remember on that day that for whatever reason, sometimes just bureaucratic reasons, some of the family members from North Korea were not able to come that day. And I remember the look of anguish and terrible disappointment from the Republic of Korean families who were waiting at that hotel and the sense of grave disappointment.

For me, that was a memory that will always stay with me because I think for anyone coming to Korea, we need to understand the deep sense of sadness that this division, this unjust division of the Korean Peninsula has meant for Korean people.

I want to stress, and I know that this has been stressed maybe a thousand times before, but I want to stress it again: the United States is truly deeply committed to the peaceful reconciliation of the Korean Peninsula. We absolutely look forward to the day when the people of North Korea are able to experience all the freedom and prosperity that is here in the South.

I know that it's not going to be an easy goal to accomplish. It will involve many years of hard work. But I think that it is a goal that will be accomplished at some point in the future and when it is finally accomplished, I think we will look back at the role played by organizations such as yours in bringing this happy day to reality.

I want to congratulate all of you who work so hard on this very important goal. This historically just goal of bringing these peoples together and of really reconciling some of the terrible, terrible differences that this century, the 20th century, a century of conflict, brought about. The role of people to people exchanges, that is, bringing individuals together, is in many respects just as important, in fact even more important sometimes, as the official exchanges.

One of the great changes in coming back to the Republic of Korea is to see that it's not just the role of government that is important; it's also the enormous growth in the role of civil society - the growth in the numbers of organizations - the growth of the non-governmental organizations, the NGOs as they are affectionately known. I think this is part of political pluralism and really an essential part of the successful creation of democracy. Elections are, of course, essential as well, but a country that only has elections and doesn't have civil society doesn't really have democracy. I think all the Korean people ought to be congratulated on what is really probably the fastest growing sector in Korea: the NGO sector.

I want to stress that the United States is very committed to a strong and close relationship with the Republic of Korea and that, what holds us together, what holds the United States and the Republic of Korea together is not just North Korea, not just Kim Jong-il. I think long after the terrible problems of North Korea are finally solved, we will see that we will be together and that we have many shared interests, not only here on the Korean Peninsula, not only in Northeast Asia, but strategically as well.

Indeed, as we go forward today with a six-party process aimed at finding a solution to the North Korean nuclear problem, I think we should also be thinking in terms of what that six-party process could become beyond or after this nuclear problem is solved. I think when you look at Northeast Asia, you can see that compared to Europe, for example, there is an inadequate number of multilateral organizations. There's an inadequate amount of institutionalization. I think we should try to think of the Six-Party Talks as being a sort of embryonic organization that could eventually become something more than just one dedicated to a single, albeit very, very important issue: the permanent disarming of North Korea from its nuclear weapons.

The nuclear weapons program of the DPRK serves absolutely no useful purpose. These weapons not only take food out of the mouths of children. They not only prevent or impede peaceful reconciliation on the peninsula, they violate every international agreement there has ever been on nuclear weapons and, moreover, they ultimately pose an enormous barrier between North Korea and the international community.

These weapons threaten peace and stability not only here, not only in Northeast Asia, but also throughout the world because of the threat of proliferation. Therefore, it is very important that all our countries, not just the United States, not just the Republic of Korea, not just Japan and China, but all of us work together to try to deal with this problem. We need to find a solution. We need to work together in a six-party process. We don't need mediators in this process. We need a process where all six parties sit down and come up with solutions to this. I can assure you that the United States is very much committed to this diplomatic solution of this difficult problem.

Secretary Powell, who is coming some 12 hours from now, when he comes here, will have already visited Japan and China. He will come here carrying the same message of the need to work together to try to resolve this.

I'd also like to address some of the problems that go beyond just this immediate and enormous problem of nuclear weapons. I'd also like to address some of the problems of human rights in North Korea.

The issue of human rights is a relatively new phenomenon in the international arena. It's only some 25 years that human rights has played a prominent role. Yet, it is a very essential part of any agenda, of any bilateral agenda, of any international agenda. Human rights are really derived from certain rights that every individual has in the world. Human rights are not a weapon to be used against a country. They are not an effort to topple a regime. Rather, they are an expression of what individuals have a right to expect from their government.

Human rights can never be an internal affair. They cannot even be a regional affair. They're an international affair. Countries that try to ignore human rights need to understand that, in ignoring human rights, they face the risk of not being able to join in the international community.

I think that human rights are a difficult problem to deal with because in many respects human rights are an absolute concept, whereas in international politics we are dealing not just with absolute concepts however with relative concepts. Concepts designed to solve problems.

In fact, human rights can sometimes seem to many people to be a bit of a burden. Human rights can seem to be an inconvenient problem because when you're dealing with something as tough as nuclear weapons, people don't want to hear that there is another issue called human rights. Because it is inconvenient, people would like to push it to the side.

Yet, I think it's pretty clear that the international community has a great concern about human rights in North Korea and the North Korean government needs to understand that its treatment of its citizens is simply inconsistent with any desire to join the international community.

It's fair to say, certainly in the past, many diplomats were a little troubled by human rights concerns. They would rather simply deal with some negotiating of arms control or issues like that and when human rights concerns come up, it's somehow inconvenient to that negotiation. But I think people need to understand that human rights are a reality. They are something that people all over the world understand and therefore, I think, the North Koreans need to understand that, if they want to join the international community, a human rights record is definitely part of the price of the admission ticket.

I think the North Koreans also need to understand, the North Korean government needs to understand that human rights are not just an American issue. I'm very proud that in the United States we have many people who care about human rights, but I'm quick to add there are people all over the world who care very strongly about human rights. This is not a U.S. issue. This is an issue that people all over the world are dealing with. I think we need to find ways to get the North Koreans to understand that disarming their weapons is essential, but the beginning of a process of treating its citizens with dignity and respect according to international rules is also essential.

I also want to say that the United States carries no hatred, carries no animus, toward the people of North Korea. It is the behavior of the government that we are concerned about, not the people in the government. In short, we are looking for change of behavior, not necessarily a change of people. I believe in redemption and many other people believe in redemption. What the North Korean leadership has is the opportunity to make the right choice.

Obviously, we cannot solve all of North Korea's problems for them. The North Korean government, just as in the lives of individuals, so too in the lives of nations, needs to make some important decisions about what they are going to do.

If the North Korean government truly harbors ambitions for their people and for their country, they will look at the fact that they cannot dictate to the world what they are going to the world what they are going to do in terms of their weapons. They cannot dictate to the world a North Korean view of human rights. They need to understand that human rights are an international issue, not just a North Korean issue. So, I hope that they will figure out a way to make the right decision.

The United States understands that solving the North Korean issue is important for Northeast Asia for decades to come. We stand committed to work not only with the international community, but also we are working very closely with our friends in the Republic of Korea. We know that we are many, many thousands of kilometers away from this peninsula and we really respect the fact that the Republic of Korea has to deal with North Korea today as a neighbor and, indeed, with North Korea as a divided people.

The United States respects absolutely the feelings and the strong-held beliefs in the Republic of Korea on dealing with the problems of North Korea. We also respect the fact that the Republic of Korea will look for other solutions, in addition to the Six-Party Talks, will look for ways to strengthen the spirit of dialogue. I think Kaesong is an example of this, where the Republic of Korea is leading the way in trying to create some economic linkages and trying to show to the North Korean regime that it's prepared to extend its hand to it and to try to help find ways that the North Koreans can benefit economically.

We think, in the United States, that this is a very understandable, indeed a very just policy and we stand ready to help our friends in the Republic of Korea carry out these policies. I think what's important to understand in the six-party process is there is room for pluralism within that process. That is, we are all on one team. We need to avoid creating a situation where the North Koreans will try to shop for initiatives from "Country A" versus "Country B" versus "Country C" and will understand that there is one initiative, it's called the six-party process. But within the framework of that process, there can be different ideas and different approaches. I believe that what's essential for us, together with the Republic of Korea and the other members of the six-party process is to be in close contact, be in close consultation and to find ways to address these difficult problems.

Part of that process of being in close contact will be very much apparent in the next 24 hours as Secretary Powell visits with his counterparts here in the Republic of Korea and hears first hand what people in Korea believe is essential to dealing with this problem.

When I see him tonight, I will certainly tell him about the many people that I've met today, the very important work that you're engaged in, and the fact that there is a dimension to the North Korean issue that is the fact of the families that are still not able to live together and families that have been torn apart by this terrible conflict. I will talk to Secretary Powell about our efforts to understand this and the importance of maintaining this North Korean issue as one of the top issues in the world agenda so that we can find a solution. First finding a solution to the problems posed by the North Korean nuclear programs, but also finding longer-term solutions.

Long after the problems of North Korea are resolved, the United States wants to maintain a very close relationship with the Republic of Korea. It's a relationship that will be based on shared values; a relationship that will be based on mutual respect and mutual interest. I do believe that long after this problem of North Korea is resolved, we will continue to have a very close relationship between our two countries.

Thank you very much for your attention. I look forward to taking some questions. Thank you.

(Applause)

Question: I think it is important to share the economic interests in South Korea and the United States of America by supporting the Kaesong Industrial Park. Many worry that the United States has been an obstacle based on the Wassenaar Arrangement to sending the materials, manufacturing equipment and things like that to the Kaesong area.

I believe that the United States should support South Korea policy in trying to develop the Kaesong Industrial Park as soon as possible and that will enhance the human rights of North Koreans because North Koreans will have more than 700,000 jobs by the Kaesong Industrial Park.

I believe that economic support to Kaesong will eventually solve the world crisis between North Korea and the U.S.A. So, the nuclear crisis actually can be solved by supporting the Kaesong Industrial Park and the economic development of North Korea and, at the same time, the six-parties are working very hard for CVID, but actually the United States is working friendly with Russia, China, India, those nuclear regimes.

One of the questions is: How about accepting the fact that North Korea is a nuclear regime and then befriend, make friends with North Korea for the United States interest on economic benefits out of the area of North Korea as one of the free-market places for investment and inviting North Koreans do some investment in the land of the U.S.A.?

Ambassador Hill: Well, thank you very much. I was promised some direct, tough questions and I think that's a good example of one so thank you for asking that, professor.

With respect to the Kaesong project, I want to emphasize that the United States is supporting the Kaesong project. We do, however, have some issues involving export control. There are two sets of issues. There are bilateral export control laws that we have. There are also international agreements on export control. We're going to find solutions to these problems, but the solutions that we find will be legal solutions. We are not going to violate our laws in order to go ahead with some of these technologies, because ultimately we have to proceed in a legal manner.

We have managed to reduce the number of problems down to a few and we're working very hard with ROK experts on this matter. Our experts are working very hard with ROK experts. I think we have gotten to the point where we can assure that, if Kaesong succeeds or doesn't succeed, that the issue that will determine success or failure will not be the export control issue. That is, we have pushed it to such a point that it is not going to be the make-or-break for the project.

But I also think you are putting an awful big burden on Kaesong by saying that somehow this will be the means by which the North Korean economy will be reformed and that they future will be very bright. I think Kaesong is a very good idea. I support it, but I would not put such a burden on it. I think you have too many expectations for what is essentially a good idea but an idea that should be seen more as a pilot project rather than one that will, in and of itself, transform the entire DPRK economy.

For example, there's an essential question of who are the North Korean workers who are actually going to be working in this project? Where are they going to come from? Because this question of who the workers are will provide some of the answer of whether this project is going to be successful in the beginning in being a beginning in the transformation of the North Korean economy. That question of who the workers are, has nothing to do with export control issues.

With respect to the question of the nuclear ambitions, with all respect to your question, professor, I simply cannot accept the idea that we should just allow and somehow welcome North Korea as a nuclear power. I think this is a country that clearly has violated international laws and procedures to the point that, were we to accept this violation, it would simply make a mockery of everything the international community stands for. That is, this would be a real mockery of the entire process of nuclear controls to allow this regime that, by the way, doesn't even feed its own people, to allow its regime to divert its precious resources to become a nuclear country for the purpose of threatening others.

I want to stress that, with respect to the broader economic issues that you raised about the U.S. having economic relations with North Korea, you know frankly anything is possible provided that North Koreans understand that there's going to be a price to this ticket and the price has got to be this dismantlement of its nuclear programs and the beginning of acceptance of international norms, including in human rights.

Moderator: Because of the lack of time, we will only receive a limited number of questions.

Ambassador Hill: I'll try to be shorter in my answers. That was not very well disciplined on my part. I'm sorry. But it was such a stimulating question, I couldn't avoid it.

Question: Prime Minister Koizumi recently had mentioned that Japan will establish normalized diplomatic relations with North Korea, at least within a year. Now, if we look at diplomatic relations with China, we can see that the U.S. established them in January of 1979. Before that, in August 1978, which is about four months before the U.S. normalized ties, Japan established such relations with China.

Now, I'm sure that some time in the future, Japan and the U.S. will be forging such diplomatic relations with North Korea. So, my question is what is your view on the possibility of Japan establishing normalized ties with North Korea before the United States. Do you believe that it is good or bad? What are your views?

Ambassador Hill: I don't think it's for me to comment on what the Japanese do in terms of their diplomatic ties with North Korea. Japan has an additional set of issues with North Korea that they're working on. I don't think it's constructive for me to comment on Japanese diplomacy. I have a hard enough time commenting on U.S. diplomacy.

I think it's very important for all countries, within the six-party process there are going to be some different approaches. What's very important for us is to be in close consultation and coordination so that the North Koreans do not try to divide the process. I think what's very important is that we be in close coordination and I think Secretary Powell's trip to Tokyo is part of that overall process.

Question: This was a question on the USFK. Now, sending the USFK outside of Korea to areas of conflict has become an issue of controversy for the Korean people, especially sending the troops to Iraq has become an issue. This has led to Koreans fearing for their security and also the reason that this came up is because the U.S. government did not consult with the Korean government before sending some of the USFK to Iraq.

According to the Status of Forces Agreement that the U.S. has with Japan and Germany, in order to send troops outside of the host country and in order to send lethal weapons that existed within that country possessed by the U.S. forces outside to another region or country, the United States must consult with the host country government beforehand.

However, in Korea's case this did not happen. So, my question is: Do you have any intention of taking this issue to the U.S. government? In other words to ask the U.S. government to come up with a Status of Forces Agreement with Korea that is similar with the one that the U.S. has with Japan and Germany, which states that the host country must be consulted before sending the troops to another region or country or before sending lethal weapons possessed by U.S. forces out of that host country.

I think that establishing that would be in line with the Mutual Defense Treaty that the U.S. has with South Korea. What are your views on this?

Ambassador Hill: I'm not sure I can accept the premise of the question that the United States did not do any consultations before sending the combat brigade of the 2nd ID to Iraq. I think there were considerable consultations on this issue.

Now, I wasn't here at the time. I was in Poland a long way away, but I think we're in pretty good consultations with the Korean government on these issues and I think if you look over this weekend, the Korean defense minister was meeting with Secretary Rumsfeld and there was a large Korean-U.S. meeting to discuss the overall issue of our troop posture in Korea. Of all the problems that we have, I'm not sure consultation is a big one right now. I think we're doing a pretty good job of staying in touch.

I think, too, if you look at the types of forces that we have in Korea today, they are extremely well equipped forces with some of the most modern systems available. I think what is clear is that there is no reason to doubt our resolve in living up to our commitments to defend the Korean Peninsula.

But, if there's a difference between our SOFA, our Status of Forces Agreement, here and in Germany that would be different in terms of our consultation, I'm not aware of that, but I'm writing a note to myself and I'm going to check on this.

Question: In order to redefine the basic concept of ROK-U.S. relations, in order to further promote it, I would like to ask these following questions.

First of all, on August 15 of 1940, the United States took victory over Japan in the Pacific War. However, as a result, the Korean Peninsula was divided. I would like to ask, in your view who is mainly responsible for such a division? Is it Korea, Japan, the past Soviet Union or the U.S.?

My second question is: The former U.S. President Roosevelt had called for self-determination. Do you believe that this principle of self-determination has worked in Korea, on this divided land? Do you think that it is also in effect here today?

The third question is: Next year marks the sixtieth anniversary of the division of the Korean Peninsula. So, I would like to ask you, ever since the division or even before that, ever since Korea was freed from Japanese colonial rule, I'm sure that the U.S. has had a policy towards the Korean Peninsula. So, have the basic principles of the United States policies for South Korea or the Korean Peninsula changed, or have they been consistent?

Also, I would like to just make a last comment which is: All of the Korean people vividly remember the history we have with the United States going all the way up to the first treaty that we forged with the country, which is in the late 1880s, which was a trade treaty. I'm sure that for all Koreans the issue of whether we can trust the United States, that we should trust the U.S., is a major issue and I hope that in the future we will be able to continuously have trust in our ally country. Thank you.

Question (same topic): I would like to just go over the basic problems that I see in the relations between the U.S. and South Korea. First of all, I would like to extend my gratitude for the U.S. and its contributions for ending the Japanese colonial period and during the Korean War. I have personal memories of a U.S. soldier called Charles Dial (phonetic) who made his contributions or who helped in an incident in the Korean War in 1948 at the Masan shooting site. So, personally, and also based in our past history, I feel great gratitude towards the United States.

But, there are some issues that I would like to point out. There is a philosophical concept called "joong-nyong," which means that you have to be in the middle of the road. You should not go towards the left or the right, but you should stay in the middle. Also, there is a word called "yeokjisaji," which means that you should try to place yourself in the position of others. So, if we think about joong-nyong and yeokjisaji then I believe that this will further promote our relations with the U.S. and also help us resolve the issue of North Korea.

However, unfortunately, the U.S. is rather going towards a unilateral position or direction. For an example, there are some elements within our relationship so that it seems that we do not have an equal relationship, such as the Status of Forces Agreement. Some people even call the U.S. forces military that had freed our country, but once again had occupied the land.

When I think about true friendship, I believe that true friendship is based on the two philosophical concepts of joong-nyong and yeokjisaji that I just mentioned. So, with such true friendship I think we can promote peace on the Korean Peninsula. I must also like to say that everything changes and so the United States must change itself. And I think that a true friend is a friend that tells the counterpart what is wrong, or criticizes his or her friend's action when it is wrong. With that in mind, I would like to add my comment.

Ambassador Hill: Thank you very much. These are historical, political and philosophical questions that are not easy to answer in the timeframe afforded by a breakfast. Let me do my best.

First of all, with respect to the historical question with respect to the division of the Korean Peninsula, there is no question it was a terrible tragedy. It was seen, in 1945, as an effort, really a tactical effort, to prevent Soviet forces from continuing what was by then a very rapid advance against the Japanese on the Korean Peninsula with the result that our concern was, of course, that the Soviet forces would cover the Korean Peninsula and that, therefore, all of Korea would become what is today North Korea.

Some of these same problems took place in Europe and in Europe this was a more formalized structure derived from the agreement in Yalta to divide Europe and, indeed, that took a long time to (tape cuts off).

I went to an international meeting in Warsaw, Poland, in May. In the course of this international meeting, there was a Korean speaker who spoke at this international meeting. His words were very moving because, in Warsaw that morning, he had noticed some signs advertising an exhibit called "The End of Yalta" and the fact that, with Poland entering the European Union it symbolized the end of this division of Europe. He made a very important statement to this largely European and American audience that, in fact, the Yalta system that divided Europe still persists on the Korean Peninsula. He made a great impact in talking to these European and American audiences about the continuing tragedy in Korea today.

Koreans have an historical entitlement to reunification, but there are no military options in this regard.

But, I want to stress that the United States, and maybe because of this view of self-determination, very strongly believes in this unification. As proof, I could mention to you that it was the United States that was strongly in favor of German unification back in 1990. This German unification was very different from Korea. That is, there were reasons for Germany's division after World War II and very different reasons from Korea's division.

Finally, let me stress with respect to U.S. forces in Korea: they are here to help Korea maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. We have no interest in having our forces here if they're not wanted here. We have no interest in concluding unfair agreements. We want to be here to help and to preserve the peace and stability that has allowed Korea to gain such prominence in the world in the last 50 years.

But we do look forward in the next 50 years to be building this relationship on the strong foundation that we already have and to do it on the basis of an equal relationship that's mutually respectful and is based on our common interests, which are interests that go well beyond just Korea but also our international interests.

Let me just finally say, even though my answer is inadequate to the question, I respect the feelings that you have, the emotions that you have on this issue. My real answer to this question is going to take, probably, the full three years that I'm here in Korea.

Question: I have visited Pyongyang and I have met Chairman Kim Young-nam of North Korea with the delegation. During our discussions, Mr. Kim Young-nam said that the reason North Korea (inaudible) develop a military-first policy is because North Korea believes that the United States is pursing a military attack against Pyongyang. So, my question is, does the United States actually have intentions to strike against North Korea, and if South Korea emerges into war with North Korea, then will the United States automatically be involved in such a conflict?

Ambassador Hill: The United States has absolutely no military plans to solve the North Korean issue. Absolutely none.

But, at the same time, we are absolutely prepared to defend South Korea with all that we have available and we will do so. And the North Koreans should understand that their investments in their military are a completely and colossal waste and what they should be doing is investing in their economy and looking for ways to join the international system.

Often in diplomacy, you have to be careful with your answers. There is no need to be careful with answers here.

If I could just say one more thing. First of all, I'm very honored by the interest in asking questions and I'm ashamed that I took too long in answering earlier questions, although they were such good questions I felt I needed to give them a good answer. Perhaps what we could organize is maybe a coffee and get together some afternoon and just go right to questions and maybe we could answer all of these remaining questions.

(Applause)

I would very much like to spend more time here, but I have my boss, Colin Powell, coming to Korea tonight and I have a lot of work to do at the Embassy today. Also, Secretary Powell will be in a very bad mood because my baseball team, Boston, beat his baseball team, New York. It's going to be a very difficult visit, I think.

(Applause)

Thank you.