 Good morning everybody. I'm Provost Arbri, Provost and Senior Vice President at Tufts University. I'm delighted to welcome all of you to the 36th Norris and Marjorie Bedinson Epic International Symposium on China and the World. First, let me express my deep appreciation to the Bedinson family. You are wonderful friends of Tufts and of the Institute for Global Leadership, IGN. I'm also extremely grateful to Abby Williams, Director of IGN, as well as to the IGN board. Your active engagement and support of IGN help enable Tufts to be a global leader. Thank you also to all the speakers participating in this symposium, especially today's Dr. Jean Meyer, Global Citizenship keynote speaker, Ambassador Harry Harris. IGN provides students with robust academic and experiential opportunities, a unique approach to education that empowers our students to apply theory to practice in addressing some of the world's most pressing issues. IGN's excellence in teaching, research, mentoring and internship placements, prepares students across the university to be true global citizens who create positive change in our global society. This is of utmost importance for each and every one of us. Congratulations to the EPIC students for your hard work and dedication in organizing this symposium. EPIC is a transformational experience as many alumni attest. The knowledge and skills that you have gained will be of lifelong benefit to all of you. Finally, I would like to thank the IGN staff for your commitment to Tufts and for the work you do to accomplish IGN's important mission. Over the next few days, I hope you all enjoy the keynote address and the panels, but also exchange ideas through the breakout sessions. Again, a very, very warm welcome to all of you. Thank you so much for joining us and all the best for a wonderful, wonderful symposium. Thank you. Thank you very much, Provost Aubrey, for those remarks and for your support of IGN. I am Abby Williams, Director of the Institute for Global Leadership and Professor of the Practice of International Politics at the Fletcher School. I am delighted that so many of you have joined us for the 36th annual EPIC International Symposium on China and the World. IGN's mission is to develop new generations of effective and ethical global leaders who are able to comprehend complexity, reflect political and cultural nuance and engage as responsible global citizens in confronting global problems. The Institute integrates intellectual rigor and experiential education, connects theory and practice, ideas and action. IGN's mission is encapsulated in its motto, thinking beyond boundaries, acting across borders. Our programs offer unique opportunities for tough students and faculty to make a difference in the world. EPIC is IGN's foundational program and challenges students to think critically about questions of pivotal importance to the world. Since September, the students in the EPIC Colloquium have been engaged in rigorous reading and discussion among themselves and with more than 20 guest lecturers to learn about China and the world. The rise of China is one of the most significant developments in global affairs and it is critical for our students to understand the country's growing influence and impact on the world. This symposium with panels and small group discussions happening over three days is a product of EPIC's student-centered learning. The students have also demonstrated remarkable creativity and adaptability in organizing a virtual symposium. We're pleased that over 60 students from Brazil, Canada, China, Greece, Ireland, Kenya, Russia and Singapore are participating in the symposium as part of TILIP, IGN's leadership and international perspective program. A warm welcome and thanks to our keynote speaker, Ambassador Harry Harris and as the provost has said, a warm welcome to all our panelists who are participating in this symposium. I am pleased that today we will honor Ambassador Harris with the Dr. Jean Maillard Global Citizenship Award in recognition of his distinguished service. I would also like to express our profound gratitude to the Bendensohn family, especially Bobby and Geron Bendensohn, the generous and steadfast friends of IGL. Sincere thanks also to the IGL's external advisory board, the members actively support us and we're grateful for their engagement. And of course, last but not least, thanks to the dynamic IGL team, Heather Barry, Saida Abdelah, Stacey Kasakova and Keisha Kanyada for your commitment, for your dedication and for being such wonderful colleagues. We look forward to our discussions today and the following two days. We hope that participants in the symposium will gain fresh and essential insights into the complex global role of China. So now I will ask when Maxis, a member of the 2021 Epic class to introduce Ambassador Harris. Over to you, Gwen. Good morning, everybody. My name is Gwen Maxis and I'm a senior in Epic studying international relations. Thank you for joining us today as we start the 36th Epic Symposium on China in the world. This weekend feels particularly timely for this topic as today marks the first high-level meeting of the Biden administration with their Chinese counterparts. Since September, our class has been diligently working together. Some of us socially distanced in person and others on Zoom to organize this symposium and we are thrilled to finally be getting it underway today. We also want to extend our gratitude to Professor Williams, Heather Barry and all of the staff at the IGL. Without their support and work, we would not be here today. On behalf of the Epic class of 2021, it is my honor to introduce Ambassador Harry Harris as our keynote speaker. Most recently serving as the 23rd United States ambassador to South Korea, Ambassador Harris is an American diplomat and highly decorated Navy officer. Prior to his tenure as ambassador, Admiral Harris was the commander of the United States Pacific Command, the 24th commander since it was established in 1947. As the first American of Japanese descent in this position in the highest ranking American of Japanese descent in the United States Navy at the time, he advocated for the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Ambassador Harris's career in public service began in 1979 when he was designated as Naval Flight Officer. He has served in every geographic combat and command region and participated in the following major operations. Operation Akili Lourero, terrorist hijacking incident, attain document three, earnest will, desert shield, desert storm, southern watch, enduring freedom, Iraqi freedom, willing spirit and Odyssey Dawn. Admiral Harris's staff assignments have included three tours on the staff of Chief of Naval Operations and his chief speechwriter to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He has also served as assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a position in which he was the direct representative of the chairman to the United States Secretary of State in the US roadmap monitor for the Middle East peace process. As a four-star Admiral having logged over 4,400 flight hours, including over 400 combat hours, he has received numerous awards and accolades for his lifetime of service, including multiple for his work in diversity and leadership. A graduate of the United States Naval Academy, Admiral Harris was the Navy's old goat, the longest serving Naval Academy graduate still on active duty in the Navy's 15th Gray Owl. The Naval Flight Officer on active duty who had held this designation for the longest period. As such, today I have the honor of presenting Ambassador Harris with the Jean Maire Global Citizenship Award. This award was established in 1993 to honor Jean Maire, the 10th president and chancellor of Tufts University by bringing to campus distinguished scholars and practitioners whose moral courage, personal integrity and passion for scholarship resonated Dr. Maire's dictum that scholarship, research and teaching must be dedicated to solving the most pressing problems facing the world. And without further ado, it is my honor to present Ambassador Harris with this Global Citizenship Award, which he is holding now. And thank you, Ambassador Harris. I'll now turn the program over to you for your keynote address. Okay. Thanks, Gwen, for that great introduction. And thanks, Provost Aubrey and Dr. Williams, for your remarks as well. You all set a high bar for me today. And a shout out to Ambassador John Hennessy Nyland who's in the audience who was in Fletcher's first Epic class back in 1986. And I think Dr. Williams was the TA for that class. So how cool is that? So ladies and gentlemen, I'm humbled to receive an award which honors Dr. Jean Maire and all that he did for Tufts as your fourth president, all he did for France and the Allies as a soldier with a free French in World War II and all he did for global health as a biomedical research leader. I'm honored as well to participate in this important event hosted by this amazing university and graduate school known globally for excellence and producing practitioners and scholars who work at the often dangerous intersection of law and the pumps. This symposium which examines the PRC's role in the world today is especially timely. At this, the advent of the Biden administrations and the importance of the president and his team places on the Indo-Pacific region. So good morning. In public speaking, we're taught never to lead with an apology but I'm going to do so anyway. I'm sorry for not having a lot of eye candy behind me. You know, a bookcase is full of memorabilia and the like. My wife and I arrived at our new home here in Colorado just over a month ago and I'm barely able to make myself look presentable let alone my home office. But this particular piece of eye candy is definitely cool. So thank you all again. Now I can't think of a better way to begin the new year and my post-government life than to share with you my thoughts on the alliance between United States and the Republic of Korea or ROK. But before I get started, I'd like to say a few words on the deplorable events of January 6th in Washington. The violent actions of the mob that attack the US Capitol and attack on US democracy itself serve as a sharpest reminder of America's challenges but also America's ultimate strength, resilience and commitment to democracy. I take hope from Amanda Gorman's inaugural poem that our nation, quote, isn't broken but simply unfinished, unquote. President Joe Biden is now the 46th commander-in-chief of the United States. I emphasize to my interlocutors and so before I left that the noble work of the alliance will continue and I express my confidence that President Biden and his team will continue to work with leaders there to strengthen the relationship in all its dimensions, not just the security one. There's a new sheriff in town, paraphrasing Gerta, divide and rule is one approach to governance, unite and lead is another. It's a powerful statement that the first overseas trip by this administration is to the Indo-Pacific region. Secretary of State Blinken and Secretary of Defense Austin are wrapping up their joint trip to Japan and the ROK. When I wore the uniform of the US Navy, I used to say the three great ships applied the seven Cs, leadership, stewardship and partnership. It's the noble mission of this university to teach leadership and imbue stewardship in the students and community. So I won't dwell on those ships. I'll spend some time on a third one, partnership, which is really a subset of a larger vessel and that's relationship. Relationships come in many forms and I'll speak a little about the people-to-people version then I'll spend a little longer on the nation-to-nation variety. I would not have become a flag officer in our Navy let alone a four-star Admiral without the relationship I had with your former Dean Admiral Jim Stavridis. He mentored me across my career, taught me to love books and learning, emphasize and exemplify principal leadership and rescued me professionally when I was adrift in a danger of running your ground. This is what leaders do. Fletcher was indeed fortunate to have had Jim Stavridis at your helm for five years so to you students out there, learn from your teachers, pay attention and pay it forward. Now, as I've said on countless occasions in uniform and in Mufti, internationally, relationships matter and alliances matter. They are the most integral element of US foreign policy. I hope you've had the chance to read the administration's brand new interim national security guidance. It recognizes that alliances are not luxuries, they are essentials. President Biden has called alliances our greatest asset. This week's op-ed in the Washington Post by Secretaries Blinken and Austin make clear that alliances are vital to our national security. They deliver for the American people. In my opinion, this guidance underscores that when working with allies, give and take is preferred to slash and burn. Case in point, the almost 71 year US ROK alliance was forged during a devastating conflict. It has stood the test of time. It's mind-boggling to consider how much has changed in the world in general, Northeast Asia in particular and the Korean Peninsula especially since 1950. Some changes have been for the better, such as the ROK's miraculous growth into an economic and cultural powerhouse, a high-tech innovation nation, which is leading by example in the battle against COVID-19. South Korea faced a third wave of COVID-19 outbreaks at the end of 2020, centered in the capital and surrounding areas. Korea went on virtual lockdown when they had a thousand cases a day across a country of 52 million people. We have plateaued at what, 60,000 cases a day. As of today, Korea experienced a little more than 97,000 total cases and little less than 1,700 deaths since the pandemic began over a year ago. Contrast those numbers with ours. Korea's approach to COVID-19 has been lauded and rightly so as a global model. It's not that complicated. Follow the rules and follow the science. I think Dr. Mayer would say the same. Other changes on the peninsula have been for the worse, such as North Korea's unrelenting pursuit of nuclear weapons. While the DPRK may no longer be the ROK's official enemy, it's helpful to recall that during the January 8th Workers' Party Congress, Kim Jong-un talked about strengthening North Korea's nuclear deterrent and military capabilities. Early this month, the IAEA expressed real concerns about the trajectory of North Korea's nuclear program. And just two days ago, Pyongyang yet again threatened the United States. But throughout the years, the US ROK Alliance has remained and continues to be the bulwark against North Korean aggression and the lynch pan upon which regional security and stability stand. There's a satellite photo out there of a nighttime view of the Korean Peninsula. This photo and the stark contrast between the beaming South and the pitch black North represents choices and their outcomes. What 67 years of our strategic alliance has brought to the people of the Republic of Korea. As the ROK has changed and developed over the years, so too has the US ROK Alliance. This Alliance is dynamic, a multi-dimensional partnership reinforced by shared values, shared concerns and shared economic interests and underpinned by the deepest of people to people ties. It has lasted generations and will continue to thrive for generations to come as long as we together, nurture it, reinforce it and remain committed to it. There are now over 2 million Americans of Korean descent, including four members of Congress, senior officials in our military, US diplomatic state and federal government officials, entertainers and wildly successful business leaders. American music and movies have long been popular in the ROK, but now Korea is a cultural force in the USA and around the world. These strong and growing people to people ties not only constitute the essential fabric of our dynamic bilateral relationship, but they also provide a resilience for us to overcome any and all challenges together. Naturally, there are disagreements within the US ROK Alliance, which is to be expected in any co-equal partnership spanning seven decades. The US and ROK continue to work at the highest levels on issues such as fair trade, defense, cost sharing in the future command structure of American and Korean forces on the peninsula as envisioned by the transition of wartime operational control or OPCON. I'm pleased that our country has reached an agreement on cost sharing. It was a slog getting to this point, but there's much to celebrate. My hats off to the negotiating team from both countries, to my former colleagues at state and the embassy and Seoul and the US forces Korea. The US is fully committed to the Alliance and it stands firmly with the ROK. So I believe the outlook for the US ROK Alliance is excellent. This is important because as you all are well aware, North Korea and the PRC will continuously test the resolve of this relationship and will seek ways to weaken our strong ties and so doubt in order to divide us. Now, while we hope for diplomacy with North Korea to be successful, we must recognize the hope alone is not a course of action. The US ROK joint military training is designed to support peace on the peninsula and in the region while ensuring that we maintain readiness and never let our guard down. The quest for dialogue with North must not be made at the expense of the ability to respond to threats from the South. Dialogue and military readiness must go hand in hand. Idealism must be rooted in realism. There are ample historic examples of what could transpire, including what happened on that fateful day almost 71 years ago if we're not ready. Just read TR Farron backs this kind of war if you remain skeptical. It's unfortunate that North Korea has not yet embraced the opportunity presented by three US and three ROK presidential summits. And if you believe the media of late, the reason overtures by the Biden administration to Pyongyang. The US continues to seek transformed relations between Washington and Pyongyang, lasting peace on the Korean Peninsula and the complete denuclearization of North Korea. All of which were agreed upon in Singapore in 2018 and was set to conditions for a brighter future for the North Korean people. Now, while I believe that Singapore was far from a perfect agreement, it brought us to a place we've never been before. I hope Chairman and now General Secretary Kim Jong-un seizes the opportunity. And now a word about the peoples of Republic of China. After all, this is the raison d'etre of this conference. I'm often asked about whether the ROK is being forced to choose between its only security ally and its number one trading partner. This is a false narrative designed to sow doubt about the history and strength of our alliance. Now, the United States has pardoned well with China on several important fronts, but the United States and Beijing fundamentally disagree on how to approach the current international order. The Chinese government doesn't keep its word from its treaty with the British on Hong Kong to its human rights abuses against the Uyghurs, Tibetans and others to its attempts at commercial espionage and its quest to isolate and then dominate Taiwan. As former Assistant Secretary of State Dave Stillwell recently said, the Lineness Politburo there runs China wants to set the rules for the whole world, which is why it's essential for free nations to exercise vigilance. This is why the United States has made it very clear through its Indo-Pacific strategy that the US rejects foreign policies based on leverage and dominance and seeks instead to strengthen relationships based on respect, equal footing and fair exchange. We believe in partnership economics. We won't weaponize debt. Instead, we strive to build environments that foster good productive market economies. We encourage every country to work in its own interests to protect its own sovereignty. As a former Secretary of State said, China's bullying and the South China Sea reflects a broader choice for nations in the region, coercion and control of freedom and rule of law. Now, while the how-to regarding dealing with Beijing were certainly changed with the Biden administration, I note that the fundamental understanding of the PRC has not. Consider that Secretary of State Blinken testified at his confirmation hearing that the previous administration's tougher approach is right, that what is happening in Xinjiang is genocide and that democracy is being trampled in Hong Kong. Secretary of Defense Austin testified that he's focused on the pacing threat posed by the PRC and he promised strong support for Taiwan. The commander of Indo-Pacific command, Admiral Phil Davison, recently testified before Congress that the PRC could invade Taiwan in six years. Former Deputy National Security Advisor, Matt Pottinger, recently endorsed the Biden administration's approach to the PRC outline in the interim guidance. I wonder if they'll all be declared for San Anangrata by Beijing. To protect the maritime domain, the US will continue to cooperate with Indo-Pacific partners as we've always done to maintain freedom of navigation and other lawful uses of the sea so that all nations can benefit from the maritime commons. In this time of COVID, there is a concern that the PRC is seeking to take advantage of the region's focus on fighting the pandemic to coerce its neighbors and presses provocative claims in the South China Sea as well as bully Taiwan. There are also concerns that the PRC will export nations in need of assistance by dangling medical aid in exchange for support of PRC talking points. We all must remain vigilant. So since the end of World War II, the network of US alliances and partnerships has been at the core of a stable and peaceful end of Pacific region. As I said at the beginning, relationships matter and alliances matter. No country can shape the future of the region in isolation and no vision for the region is complete without a robust network of sovereign countries cooperating to ensure their collective interests. So let me highlight at the end here the importance of trilateral cooperation between the United States, the ROK and Japan. It's crucial for our three nations to work together to enhance our security cooperation to preserve their international rules-based order. Now we're standing in the current tensions between Seoul and Tokyo, the reality is that no important security or economic issue in the region can be addressed without both the ROKs and Japan's active involvement. Now ladies and gentlemen, let me finish by saying that I was given an amazing chance to be an ambassador to Korea, though some of my former colleagues may beg to differ, I believe that there's no better place to serve as US ambassador and no better partner or strategic ally for the United States than the Republic of Korea. So thank you again for this opportunity to address you. Thank you again for this amazing award and I look forward to your questions. Thank you Ambassador Harris for sharing your thinking and thoughts with us in that keynote. Ambassador Harris will now take questions from the audience. Please submit your questions via the Q&A at the bottom of your screen. And I'll go ahead and get us started. You spoke about the importance of a relationship, of relationships in both a personal level and on a national level. I wanna talk a little bit more about the latter. How do American alliances with South Korea, Japan and other Indo-Pacific states shape the United States' relationship with China and affect China's ability to potentially seek regional hegemony in Asia? Well, it's a terrific question in the heart of this symposium, I believe. So the United States places great value in alliances. We know that we can't do it alone, whatever the it is. And as I said in my remarks, relationships matter and alliances matter also. I'm pleased that the new administration's Interim Security Guidance underscores this. China is, the PRC is the challenge of the age. It's the challenge that all of the current Epic students and all of the students that Fletcher will deal with for the better part of their careers starting from this point forward. I think that it's essential for the United States to have allies in the region, to be able to confront China where necessary and to work with China where we can, it's important. I think Evo Dalder from Chicago, former U.S. Ambassador to NATO said it rightly recently when he said that the United States has 55 allies globally and China has won, right? The DPRK, vice versa. So alliances matter. And I think a strong unified position to confront China and to demonstrate to China that we're watching that we're going to hold them accountable for their egregious human rights violations and their industrial and economic espionage and all of the other things that they do, I think it's important. Absolutely. So going off of that, do you feel like China poses the largest threat to the U.S. national security today? And if not, who do you think does? What state? I think that, I'll stick with what I said when I was the pickup commander. And that is that the greatest threat that we face today. I mean, this very moment is from North Korea. But China is clearly the biggest challenge that we face grandly speaking for the foreseeable future. And our next question is from a student, Epic Elliott. Given your experience working in the Pacific, how can the United States better position itself in regards to the actions that China is taking in the South China Sea? Well, I think that the recognition that alliances matter is the most important thing. And I think that what President Biden and his team have said that alliances aren't luxuries, they're essentials. Is a fundamental way forward here. In the South China Sea specifically, I think we have to continue to exert our right and the rights of all nations to sail the South China Sea and recognize that it is not China's South Sea, it is the South China Sea, that it is international water and that freedom of navigation there matters. And you guarantee freedom of navigation by exercising it and you lose it ultimately in the court of international law by not exercising it. And so it's important that nations join the United States in exercising freedom and navigation and fly or sail wherever international law allows. And international law allows us the freedom of maneuver in the South China Sea. You know, the recent 2016 now, five years ago almost, the International Tribunal for the law of the sea, the in-laws tribunal, which is part of the UNCLOS, United Nations Conventional Law of the Sea, of which United States is not a signatory, but which we follow, the in-laws tribunal rule that the nine dashed line was illegal. And the nine dashed line essentially encompasses the totality of the South China Sea essentially. And so the in-laws tribunal rule that was invalid. China is a signatory to the UNCLOS, United Nations Conventional Law of the Sea. So it should abide by the rules of the organizations to which it's a member. The United States is not a member, yet we do abide by those rules. So that's the difference, I believe, between our approach and the PRC's approach. Yeah, absolutely. And to continue this discussion on the South China Sea, we have a question from Professor White, who's the director of maritime studies at the Fletcher School. Professor White asks, what are your thoughts on the pros and cons of a much larger US Coast Guard presence within the South China in East China Sea with offshore patrol clusters cutters and national security cutters to help our partners in the Indo-Pacific combatant illegal fishing and Coast Guard rivalry with the China's Coast Guard? Yeah, so I'm a national security cutter so I'm a naturally, probably naturally giving my background. I'm a natural, naturally I'm a proponent of greater US Navy and US Coast Guard operations and presence in the East China Sea, in the South China Sea and in the Western Pacific in general. The importance of the Coast Guard presence out there, which we have not seen much in the last several years is that the Coast Guards of the world operate in a different space, if you will, legal space than the Navy's in the world and the Coast Guard can do things, the US Coast Guard can do things, the US Navy cannot. So it's helpful that the Coast Guard is out there and it's helpful that the US Coast Guard can be a counter to the CCG, the China Coast Guard. So I'm a big proponent of it and I'm pleased to see that the Coast Guard is operating now with greater fluency, greater frequency rather, in the Western Pacific. I wanna transition the discussion a little because we have a couple of questions coming in about the United States. So one question from Arjun, he's an Epic student. Does the fast-paced change of administrations in the United States affect the continuity of diplomatic relationships in the Asia Pacific region? Yeah, I think it's easy to say that, the fast-paced change affects our relationship but the reality is that it's not that fast-paced, right? I mean, we've had four years of the previous administration, eight years of the one before that and on and on for our whole existence as a country. So I think that our partners and others in the world recognize that the United States outlook is gonna shift with the change in administrations. What has generally not happened is a change in foreign policy, the fundamentals of American foreign policy and American defense policy with the change in administrations. You know, that old saw that foreign policy stops at the shoreline, right? That domestic politics only goes to the shoreline and then it's bipartisan. We've seen a more, in my opinion, we've seen a more partisan, not bipartisan, but a more partisan foreign policy shifts in the last change in administrations, several changes in administration, not just in the Trump administration before that even. But I think that fundamentally the notion that alliances matter and that our relationships with countries matter. I think that we have returned to that view, if you will, which is a, in my opinion, a fundamentally bipartisan view of US foreign policy. So I'm encouraged by, you know, I was in Seoul through the election, of course, and the two years before that. And for sure, there was, you know, the Koreans were swinging their heads wondering what was next and all of that. But I think that this outreach by Secretary Blinken and Secretary Austin, I think that outreach has demonstrated that we have returned to a collegial foreign policy where we rely on, we trust, we depend on our allies and that we can be dependent on in reverse. So I'm happy to see where we are. Yeah, absolutely. That's a really valuable insight on the longstanding importance of alliances. One question from one of our T-LIP students from Greece, Yonis, do you believe that South Korea is unwilling to align with the US's current approach towards China in efforts to maintain a more positive relationship with Beijing? Yeah, I don't know if unwilling is the right word, but South Korea is clearly in a hard place. You know, they have characterized it as a shrimp among whales. I think that's over-characterization, over-simplification really. What I reminded my Korean colleagues was when I was there, I reminded them that we're not asking Korea to make a choice today. The United States made a choice, right? We made a choice in 1950 when we decided to defend South Korea against communist aggression. South Korea made a choice in 1953 when they formally joined an alliance with the US. The PRC also made a choice in 1950 and the DPRK, North Korea made its choice in the early 60s, 1961. So choices have been made. So let's not talk about choices. That said, China is South Korea's number one trading partner and they are a trading nation. And so, you know, they have to maintain this important relationship with China for their economy. And we are their number one security partner. In fact, we're their only security ally. But it's a false choice when they are faced with choosing economics on the one hand and security on the other. And so, but they are cautious. There's no doubt about it. They are very careful in criticizing China and the like because of that relationship and because of China's ability to influence to some degree North Korea. So on that note of North Korea, we have a couple of questions coming in about the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and North Korea's relationship with nuclear weapons. One question from Frankie, an Epic student. What is China's role in the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula? Yeah, so China plays a key role, right? I mean, I'm a believer in sanctions and strong sanctions against North Korea. And the sanctions that were in place, brutal sanctions, harsh sanctions, I think contributed significantly to bringing North Korea, Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table in Singapore in 2018. So sanctions are important. Those sanctions are United Nations sanctions, right? They're not American sanctions. They're not South Korean sanctions. They are United Nations sanctions and we wouldn't have them without China, without the PRC because they get a veto in the Security Council. And so the PRC plays an important role in the DPRK and the way forward with North-South relationships, with the outcomes of the Singapore summit, the relationship between Pyongyang and Washington. And so in many respects, that's one of those areas that I spoke about in my remarks, where we partner well with China. So again, there are those other areas, which I won't belabor again, but we don't partner well with China. So going off of that, from your vantage point of South Korea and the Pacific Command, do you think nuclearization of the region is likely to increase, decrease, or stay the same over the next decade? Well, I mean, that's the hard work of diplomacy, right? So that it doesn't, so that the area, the region and the world, really doesn't proliferate. So that's important. I will say that even though Singapore, which is one of those issues that I hinted at, that it was far from appropriate agreement, that denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, that phrase is sort of electric now. And it's in play again, just in remarks, just coming out of Korea from the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense's visit and the foreign ministry of South Korea's comments, right? So is it denuclearization of North Korea or is it denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula? The words matter. And that's one of the things that Jim Stavridius told me, words matter, words are important. So we have denuclearized South Korea and we are after the denuclearization of North Korea. There are those who believe, and I'm in that camp, that the phrase denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is dangerous because it hints at breaking up the U.S.-ROK alliance because even though we don't have nuclear weapons on the peninsula, we offer, you know, we provide a nuclear deterrent, strategic deterrent, a nuclear umbrella, if you will, for our allies out there. And so, you know, if you're gonna, you can take quote-unquote denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula to, you can extrapolate the strategic deterrent that we afford our allies as part of that. And that would be a mistake in my view. So we are after the denuclearization of North Korea. It's not equivalent about it. Let's not, you know, get in the semantics. That's what we're after. And if North Korea agrees to denuclearize and does, if they denuclearize, there is a bright future ahead of them and their people if they agree to denuclearize. So I'll stop there and see what questions ensue from that. All right, well, we'll maybe come back to that conversation as more questions come up about it. A question from Ambassador John Hennessey Nealand, who'd like to ask a question about a particular type of ship, a partnership, an advantage that the U.S. enjoys with its networks of friends and partners in the Indo-Pacific. Could you provide your perspective regarding the importance of our relationship with small but strategic partners, such as Pala and the other island nations? Yeah, for sure. I think that, you know, the fact that we have a 30-year, senior veteran of the Foreign Service as the ambassador to Palau speaks to the importance that we place on those little nations. You know, I reminded my friends and colleagues around the world that the world's smallest nation, Nauru, gets the same vote in the General Assembly as the world's largest nation, right? So small nations matter. And when you consider the Unclossed, United Nations Commission on the Law of the Sea, and this idea of an EEZ, Exclusive Economic Zone, you know, 200 miles offshore, that makes these little dots of countries, big players in the world and search for food and search for resources and a lot. You know, I used to have a chart when I was in Hawaii as a PAKOM commander that I used to throw up there that the world's sixth largest country, the sixth largest country in the world is France. And it's France because of French Polynesia and the millions of square miles of ocean, ocean floor around French Polynesia, New Caledonia, and all of the exclusive economics going around that and other territories that France has around the world, have around the world. So EEZs matter, EEZs matter greatly. You know, we're seeing this play out in the South China Sea. This is really about the EEZs and the food stocks in the South China Sea. And then there are mineral deposits, petroleum deposits and all of that that are extant in the South China Sea. You know, this is on the one hand, it's about, you know, some historical issue dating back thousands of years, but in the reality, it's about resources. So I would say to Ambassador Hennessy Nilan and others at the US values these South Pacific countries, small countries, and if we don't, we should. And I'm hopeful that the new team will embrace the importance of our compact countries and others in the region. That's a really interesting answer. Thank you for expressing the importance of those relationships. Moving on to sort of more theoretical questions. Do you think we will see a rejection of the Western liberal world's order by China in favor of an Asian Pacific dominated order independent of American support? Well, I don't think it's theoretical. I think it's playing out now. I don't think it's a question of, will we see China's rejection? I think we are seeing China's rejection. I think that this idea that China is putting forth Asia for Asians and that kind of stuff, you know, that really smacks of an earlier time. You know, and that, you know, the idea that China is a central kingdom, the center of the world and everything emanates from Beijing, you know, this is not theoretical fantasy. It's happening today in the views that are put out from Beijing. So I think it's incumbent on all of us to remain vigilant. I say us, you know, I'm done, I'm retired. It's incumbent on all of you all to remain vigilant to China's activities, not only in the Pacific, but globally, you know, Admiral Feller, who's the commander of U.S. Southern Command, you know, based in Miami, responsible for U.S. operations in Central and South America. You know, he testified recently about China's growing influence in Latin America. And he's concerned about that. And so, you know, we see China operating globally. Just as we operate globally, right? I mean, it's, and so it requires vigilance and important and it's important that we call it out China. Excuse me, we call it out China when China does things that are counter to internationally accepted norms and standards. So going off of that and with this global perspective, a question from a TILIP student from Kenya. How can Kenya and the rest of Africa best navigate the contestation of its economic space by both the United States and by China? Well, you know, I would just say, you know, I'm showing our expert on Kenya, but I would say that African countries, just like countries in South America and elsewhere, just have to be careful when you enter into large scale infrastructure development projects with the PRC. The PRC does not have your best interests at heart. The PRC has only its interests at heart. I think you can see throughout Africa, the exoskeletons of projects that China has undertaken and abandoned. You know, you can look at Sri Lanka and the Hanban Toto port and the outcomes of entering into large scale infrastructure projects with China. You know, I talked about, I briefly mentioned debt diplomacy. I mean, that is weaponizing debt in order to further China's global aims. And sort of going back to your answer, two questions ago about the importance of being diligent with our relationship towards China, Atre and Epic student wants to know what tangible threats does China have that warrant the greater pivot towards Asia than what the US national security apparatus already spends in that region. And do you think that threat is ideological, the threat of the CCP model of governance or the fear of economic dominance? And can either of these threats actually be mitigated through an increased military presence? Yeah, I think that, I mean, that's really a complex question. I think that, again, it's not theoretical. China is on the move. And it's not a case of just another country that's just trying to follow Adam Smith's principles of enlightened self-interests, right? I mean, all countries should follow their enlightened, should operate and act in accordance with their enlightened self-interests. But China is doing so in ways that are contrary to international rules-based order. I mean, we think that many of us think, Secretary Blinken agreed, that what China is doing in Western China and Xinjiang province is genocide, right? I guess it's own people, the Uyghurs. What they've done in Hong Kong, what they've done in other places. This is how China moves forward and creates this unitary view of what China is. And I think that's dangerous. And then they're putting their money where their mouth is and increasing their military capability and all that. There's nothing wrong with having a strong military. United States has a strong military, China does, Japan does, South Korea does, Australia especially does, UK. I mean, many countries have strong military. But it's what you do with those militaries and how you treat your neighbors, how you threaten your neighbors is where the vigilance is required and a vigilant is important. And going off of the conversation about Uyghur Muslims, Alex, an Epic student mentioned, wants to know, given that you mentioned the importance of U.S. ROK, Japan alliances, how can these three actors work together to pressure the Chinese government to end the human rights abuses being committed against the Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang region? Well, I think, you know, calling them out is important. You know, we haven't called them out beyond a few years ago when we started to do that, you know? So calling them out on the international stage is important. China considers it's how it's held with importance. So I think calling them out is a fundamental thing. Getting nations to join in condemning China's actions are important. And this is where South Korea, to get back to an earlier question, would not join us in condemning China's actions in Western China, Muslim Western China. So that's important to get nations to join in calling, first calling out China and then condemning China for their actions. So you just speak of the importance of diplomacy. You have experience in both the military and in diplomatic realms. What is your philosophy and the balance of using hard power versus soft power, especially in regards to the Asia-Pacific region? Yeah, you know, I'm in the Jim Mattis camp, right? Former Secretary of Defense, when he said that if you go on to cut the State Department's budget, then you better increase my budget for bullets and guns, right? And so diplomacy is the first line of defense, if you will. You know, one of the things I learned throughout my military career, especially my latter military career and especially in my time after the military in Korea, is that the U.S. military has no monopoly on courage and dedication, right? I mean, we have young men and women running provincial reconstruction teams in Afghanistan and out there in Iraq and out there in many dangerous places in the world, essentially alone and afraid, right? I mean, in the military, when the military goes out, you've got a battalion behind them, you've got all this stuff. So the U.S. military has no monopoly on courage or dedication when it comes to public service, especially when you're talking about the State Department and your diplomats globally. So I think it's important and I think that diplomacy has to be the first line of defense. And then, you know, we're talking about Dr. Maier, you know, France and Free France and all that, way back in the day, there was a fellow named Talloran, Maurice Talloran, a famous foreign minister in France, and he was saying one time to the head of the French Army, he said, you know, in general, when my profession fails, yours has to take over. You know, that's a flawed view, right? I mean, it shouldn't be when diplomacy fails and military steps in. I think it's important and critical that the military and diplomacy work hand in hand so that there doesn't have to come a time when one has to step in when the other fails. You know, we should be working together. That's why I was so excited, really, thrilled to see the first overseas trip by the Biden administration be a joint trip. I mean, it's great that it was the end of Pacific. You know, I mean, that's fantastic. But the most important thing was the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense traveled together to a region and, you know, good on them that they end up Pacific, Japan and Korea, first region. But they went together to show that solidarity between the soldier and the sailor on the one hand, Airman, Coast Guardsman, Marina, I don't want to leave everybody out on the one hand and the diplomat on the other. Thank you for sharing that. I think as students of international relations, we're often taught to think about those two things differently, so that's a really valuable insight to try to think about them together. I want to transition the conversation because we've had a couple questions come in about Taiwan. Carlos, an Epic student wants to know, does the United States stand by its position of defending Taiwan by any means necessary, as President Bush said, and do you believe that conflict over the island will escalate in the coming years? Yeah, so to the first question, you know, I don't want to get technical or pedantic here, but we're governed by the Taiwan Relations Act, which is the law. And the law, technically, you know, you need to get into the law. The law doesn't talk about defending Taiwan. The law talks about ensuring Taiwan has the means to defend itself. So there's obligations in the Taiwan Relations Act, and one of those obligations involves, you know, foreign military sales equipping Taiwan, helping Taiwan to be a better position to defend itself. So we work closely when I was at the Pekong, now Indo Pekong, on helping Taiwan improve its defensive capabilities. So our obligation is governed by the law, and the law is very specific. And that's in the Taiwan Relations Act. I wanted to see, I advocated for, routinizing, is that a word, am I sure? We're routinizing foreign military sales to Taiwan. So we wouldn't have this spike and all the political drama associated with the spike in foreign military sales and then go for a few more years and have another big foreign military sales. You know, we should have a steady state stream of equipment that goes to Taiwan. We should also advocate for Taiwan globally, and we should call out China and we have for trying to oscillate Taiwan and all the things that they've done. Regarding whether conflict is possible, you know, you can go to CFR, Council on Foreign Relations, doctors at Blackwill and Zalacow recently wrote an article where they talked about the imminent, imminent, not theoretical, but imminent risk of conflict between the US and the PRC over Taiwan. And then as I mentioned in my remarks, the man on the spot, Admiral Phil Davison, the Indo-Pacific Command Commander, he testified that he thought it was possible that the PRC would invade Taiwan within six years. So when I was in Hawaii, I spoke about the 2020s as the decade of danger, right? I mean, if you look at 2049 as a benchmark and that's the hundredth anniversary of the founding of the establishment, not the founding, the establishment of the People's Republic of China and the PRC, and then if you think about Tiananmen and the Beijing Olympics, right? So I'm tying a bunch of things. I'm throwing out a bunch of ideas and I'm gonna tie together here. So if you look at Tiananmen Square and then the next milestone event that I'm talking about is Beijing Olympics, it took quite a decade or rather a decade for the world to kind of forget about Tiananmen and embrace Beijing and the Olympics, right? I mean, it was a giant celebration. And so if you go to 2049 as the benchmark that you want people to embrace China and the centennial of the PRC and all of that, then if they do anything forceful about all their issues, right? And all their issues are the South China Sea, the East China Sea, the Senkakus, Taiwan, Western China, all that. If it takes the world a decade to forget that. So now you're talking 2030s is when they'll act. So when the world will forget so that they can move into 2049. The 2020s, we are in the decade of danger, I think. So that's kind of a little fantasy there, but I think that we're in this decade of danger. And so Admiral Davidson has narrowed it down even more, right? I mean, this is not a decade of theoretical decade. He has said within six years and Blackwell and Zellicow have said imminent. They use the imminent word. So I think that the likelihood of conflict is possible. So it is the hard work of diplomats to prevent that from happening. And the hard work of the US military and their allies to present a strong face to the Chinese military and to reach out and demonstrate that we are with Taiwan and that we are ready to help Taiwan, to answer your students' question there. So continuing the conversation of increasing tensions and giving your naval background, Ben and Epic student wants to know what do you make of China building up its navy and could it prove a challenge to the US's naval dominance in the Pacific since the end of World War II? Yeah. Well, I think it's the right of all nations to have a stronger military as they want and can't afford, right? I mean, that's a natural tendency and it's nothing wrong with that. It's what you do in your military that matters and that's where conflict started and things like that. So the fact of a strong PRC navy of itself is fine, but it's what that navy represents and what they do with it and it goes back to all the things that we've been talking about, which are a matter of concern. Today, to be honest and not boastful, there's no contest between the capability of the PRC navy, the PLA, People's Liberation Army Navy, the PLA and in the US Navy in the Western Pacific. A lot is made of the Chinese aircraft carriers. They have two now, the CV-16 and the CV-17. They are basic in their ability to launch aircraft and fuel those aircraft to go on combat missions. The US Navy with our aircraft carriers can launch 70 sorties at a, you know, I mean just 200 sorties a day if necessary, area refueling the whole thing. You know, it's no contest. And then there are those people who talk about, you know, carrier killing missiles. You know, to that I would say, if the carriers are so vulnerable, they're why is China investing in building carriers, right? So, you know, there is a recognition that the aircraft carrier is an important vehicle of military power, but today there's no contest. That said, we have to continue to resource our military and develop it because China certainly is. You know, we are constrained and rightly so by law regulation and policy and in our military development, scientific developments. China's not. And, you know, they're out there trying to steal our technology as I hinted at in my remarks, alluded to in my remarks. So it's important that we continue to develop and resource our military because the PRC certainly is regarding its military. So continuing this conversation around security and military development, Luke wants to know what future do you think the Quad Country Security Group has and do you think it will be a successful way of balancing Chinese power in Asia? Yeah, so I'm a big believer in the Quad. I first advocated for it in 2016 at the Ryzena Dialogue in India. I was one of the keynote speakers there for that. I think Jake Sullivan, the national security advisor has it right when he says it's the foundation upon which to build a substantial US policy in the Pacific region. So I think it's good. I know regarding, I was often asked and I suppose we were getting at it circuitously now. I'm often asked whether Korea should be in the Quad or not. I don't know. I mean, that's up to Korea on the one hand, but there's no owner of the Quad. There's no gate guard or gatekeeper, if you will. And I always throw out American football, right? I mean, the big 10 has 14 teams and the big 12 has 10 teams. So there's nothing that says a Quad has to have four teams. So, but there are some essential parts of the Quad and not parts, there are some essential principles in the Quad, which I think are important. You know, the four leaders of the Quad, the four heads of government put out a joint statement a week or so ago, which is almost unprecedented, right? It may be unprecedented. Where they talked about democratic nations dedicated to delivering results through practical cooperation. You know, the Quad is clear on where the challenge lies and that challenge as we've discussed before is the PRC. So our countries like the ROK, you know, we talked about that also, are they willing to join a grouping of countries that holds the PRC as the biggest challenge and that the countries together are dedicated to practical cooperation. So, you know, I mean, there's a lot there. But again, to go back to the beginning of this question, my answer to this question, I'm a big believer in the Quad and I think it's vitally important now more than ever. Yeah, absolutely. In light of some things that have happened in the United States and what happened on Monday night, we have a question, do you believe that diplomatic tensions between the United States and China are at all causally linked with the rise of hate crimes against Asian-Americans in recent weeks in the United States? I'm so, Gwyn, would you say that again about the hate crimes and the link to the question? Yeah, absolutely. Do you believe that diplomatic tensions between the United States and China are at all causally linked with the rise in hate crimes against Asian-Americans in recent weeks in the United States? Yeah, so I'm Asian-American so I'm, as you know, so I'm sensitive to the question and it's an important question. I don't know if the relationship between the U.S. and China per se is directly linked to the increase in hate crimes against Asian-Americans in the United States. But the way you phrase the question, you know, I mean, it's certainly as possible. I mean, certainly it's possible that there's a linkage. I think the bigger issue that is contributing to hate crimes against Asian-Americans is probably coronavirus and the origins of the coronavirus. If you believe that the coronavirus started in China, then that is probably the, you know, a bigger source of the, a bigger linkage, if you will, to hate crimes against Asian-Americans writ large in the United States. It's not the tensions between Washington and Beijing per se, but it's the idea that the coronavirus began in China and there was a cover-up and all of that. That idea, I think, is a bigger linkage. I could be wrong, but that's what it seems like to me in reading. And it's not China per se. It's the coronavirus in particular. Yeah, thank you for your comments on that. It's an important conversation and a serious one and a sensitive one. I wanna end on a little bit more of a hopeful note. We have a lot of good questions, but one last one, especially seeing that so much of the audience are young people and students. What do you see as the role that youth can play in easing the US-China relationships going forward? Yeah, so I think the youth, that's the key, right? I mean, the youth of today would be the old folks tomorrow. And so it's in that span between today and tomorrow that everything is gonna happen, right? I mean, the military is gonna be populated by young people today who grow into old guys like me. Tomorrow, diplomats will start out as students in Epic and end up as ambassadors like Ambassador John Hennessey-Nilan and the like. But the youth is critical, right? I mean, just look at South Korea. I mean, look at BTS. And, you know, it's not a Korean phenomenon. BTS is a global phenomenon, right? I mean, look what happened when China had the audacity to climb that kimchi was somehow originated in China and what happened from that, you know? And then look at the actions of the young people in Korea. Look at the cultural phenomenon that's the movie Parasite or the current movie of note Minari and all that. So youth play such a vital role. The key though, I think, and, you know, speaking of a personal experience, you know, we lose that, right? So the key is to keep that energy and vigor and enthusiasm that exemplifies young people to keep that going as you go from young to old. And so, you know, I'm excited when I look at students at Fletcher and Kennedy School and Georgetown and other places and the idealism they have and I just hope that they can maintain that level of excitement as they grow. That's a really valuable answer and certainly something for all of us to keep in mind. Some of us I know are freshmen 18, others about to graduate and others beyond that. That's all the time we have with Ambassador Harris today. Ambassador Harris, I want to thank you for sharing your experiences and thinking, answering our questions. You certainly gave us a lot to think about as we start our weekend. To our audience, please join us tomorrow morning for our first panel of the symposium on China, U.S., Russia, Multi-Polarity or Polar Opposites. Information on the panel can be found in the chat right now. Ambassador Harris, thank you once again for being with us today and thank you all for joining us and we hope to see you tomorrow.