 cooperation. I mean there are different levels of strategic leads and different like perspectives toward final stages of tri-lateral cooperation and many different like issues we have to tackle now. And policy makers and also should have been more skillful at pursuing the tri-lateral cooperation efforts and also when they got a sale that issue to particularly political leaders. So for example like when the US and Japan announced their revised defense guidelines the policy makers in three countries US Korea Japan they spoke out one voice that Japan will seek an agreement as to when it will exercise its military within South Korean territory. To me I don't understand why they were focused on sovereign matter which should not be infringed. I know some of the South Korean policy makers they are they were trying to calm down some public concerns whether it was wrong although it was wrong. But if that is the reason for South Korean policy makers to take that action that reflects like there are more serious problem with South Korean policy makers views to deal with the tri-lateral issues. That's very interesting. I don't know Mr. Kim you are a businessman but do you are Japanese? Well when we do have a lot of problems in the businesses sometimes externally but also internally when we need more coordination cooperation among different business units and different functions and one of the practical solutions that we use really not joking is to bring everybody in one room and lock them up and have them talk to each other all the time until they find a solution and that really works and I don't think I can or anybody can bring Korean Japanese and US officials into one room and lock them up but if we can create more conversation discussions at the working level that would definitely do some good work to tri-lateral cooperation and also I think I agree with Professor easily which is that leadership should do no harm to they kind of cooperate the spirit at the working level. As I mentioned when we try to create partnership what is really important is of course self-interest is important but shared interest is also important but shared value compared to shared interest is very very important but between these three countries I see shared values at the end of the day and trust maybe achievable and if that is case then the working level people if they're given the opportunity to talk to each other and work out a solution to any problems or challenges I am pretty confident that they can work out a solution but the leadership should do no harm to that kind of cooperative spirit. That's right so with the political signal Abe and the President Park I call IC Queen and then the very strange emotional nationalist to get together and saying that we overcome the past that signal and they get together. I had actually experience in 1997 working for the Curt Campbell Assistant Secretary of Inside Pentagon. We had a T-Cog meeting to manage North Korean depot on a new crisis and Curt asked me we have to manage Korean and Japanese sit down together to help I said no problem. We will meet in Seoul so I said the first thing is that put them in the karaoke room with lots of whiskey. They really bonded smoke, drink and sang and the next morning the meeting was beautiful so in that sense I definitely agree with Mr. Kim. Now let me let me move a slightly away from whatever Japan, US and Korea centric question. I think the Korea has made the great contributions to global conflicts. I don't know how much you are aware of it but Iraq, Afghanistan and the oldest the East Timor and the Koreans and even in the North of the Aden. Yeah that all the its Koreans the Korean reputation of the Korean forces are really formidable and even in Africa and the contribution were great but there will be more potentially skirmishes and hot-flesh points not far away in the like Iraq and Afghanistan but maybe in East China Sea and South China Sea and it's a very sensitive area. Somebody I think in the previous panel mentioned Korea is a very Korean Peninsula centric world view. That's not our issue but in this kind of area if Korea has to play more role so-called partnership particularly let's say Korean Navy ship somehow ended up to be in the middle of the ocean where the conflict is occurring and US ships stranded and maybe somehow they have an engineering problem so in that case somehow that partnership means that you help each other because it's an ally's duty so I'm expecting more of this kind of role is requested by the US particularly. That's the actually the real partnership in terms of a conflict management so do you have any taking on this question is Korea will do well or Korea will avoid it or Korea will be in Beijing or Korea will be Gungho to help? Let's start with Mr. Kim. I think it depends really what kind of action Korea is asked to take on. Korea has its own set of diplomatic goals foreign policy goals and there are actions that Korea can easily take there are actions that Korea cannot really take not because we disagree with partnership but because the circumstances under which Korea is placed may make Korea to fill in more burdensome or complicated so for example certain action that the US might ask Japan to take on can be very difficult for Korea to take on but it doesn't mean that Korea doesn't want to share the burden or take partnership seriously so there should be I think a ongoing dialogue once again we should lock them up and figure out what Korea can really do to advance the partnership. If each party is not really sensitive to the needs and hearts of the other party then it is not a true partnership. Thank you how about Mr. Ba? Yeah I fully agree with his opinions and in following up from different perspectives I mean like the best thing is not to get involved in those like the situation we do not want but it depends on case by case. I think the the Korea is not accustomed to manage its relationship with neighboring countries or some countries might have some some strategic stake on the Korean Peninsula. Diplomatic flexibility should be maintained so that our partners even our allies can view South Korea's diplomatic stance as a valuable not a constant element so in some sense there should be nothing taken for granted from their perspective not from our perspective. So right now like the Park Geon-hae administration like a pursue so-called middle power diplomacy I mean there couldn't be many things we have to pursue to become real middle power the one of things like I can say is okay we can say yes and we can say no not depending on not looking to others before making our own decision so that's the one thing and then like some like South China Sea and East China Sea that is you within our capacity I think the Korea should be able to speak up. That's a good statement. For respecting international norms and rules not for the interest of U.S. or China or other countries. I would agree that that's probably around the expectation that that many both inside and outside of Korea have for Korea's role. Your contingencies that you were alluding to I think are probably beyond expectations of what ROK forces would do. I don't think there are many who expect ROK forces to be involved regarding the Spratlys or Taiwan contingency but but it is important that as a middle power and as a U.S. ally that South Korea has its voice its voice with its interests regarding the defense of international norms and while some Korean friends may say well the South China Sea is far away and issues over other contingencies are far away I would say that Korea's voice on international norms is incredibly important because it has interests in that international normative system and ultimately while there may be concerns about offending other relevant powers that have importance to South Korea's primary security issue vis-a-vis North Korea when you look far down the road when South Korea will need international support on unification or Korean integration I think that international norms will be incredibly important so Korea's excellent record in contributing to international norms I think will be an asset not only to its own reputation and the forthcoming cooperation of partners but also in terms of holding various actors to a high standard in in their relations and their roles on the Korean Peninsula. Okay I actually I will skip a couple of small things but I have one last question to a certain extent U.S. was a part of the division of Korean Peninsula and the the legacy still continues and we are now talking about foundation of unification I hope that at least the basic foundation is done so I can visit my parents country in Pyongyang if I die by the way I'm not that very young age so I'm hoping that things are revolving fairly rapidly but nonetheless U.S. forces provided regardless of some anti-American sentiment or some sour situation really the anchor and foundation deterring the all the threats from North Korea providing the sense of stability and security to the Korean people and role is very still critically important when the disunification process and the preparation and some of the like let's say even a positive dialogue between North and South Korea is going on there got to be some unique role of U.S. forces and the role can be either positive or negative and it's a little bit stupid question but do you see the U.S. forces role either preparation stage transformation post unification what's the positive role and what's the potential negative role I think it's indisputably positive because the U.S. forces Korea will have a stabilizing role it'll have a partnership role it could have a logistical support role certainly contributing to stability on an integrating Korean Peninsula the copy out of course is that if at the time when we come to a stage of Korean integration that could lead to unification if at that time U.S.-China relations are strained then it would certainly be a concern on the part of Seoul that China's role in that process on the Korean Peninsula would not be as positive as it could or should be and so I think that's why you see South Korea having a very keen interest not only in strengthening the alliance with the United States but establishing an understanding in Beijing including trust but also an understanding that a Korean integration process led by Seoul would be beneficial to Chinese interest and that the U.S.-Korea alliance is is going to be ready to coordinate with China on shared interest in the region excellent excellent anybody taking I can see more I can see more of the positive aspects of the alliance and USFK less of the negative aspects of the alliance and USFK if there is any negative aspects of the alliance and USFK I think that's because of like a political leader's decision not by like a USFK or the roles and missions of the alliance and also the in there is Korean saying more haste less speed so like at the listen summit there is some statement to intensify high-level some strategic consultation to create favorable favorable environment for peaceful reunification it sounds good and it's not clear to me because back in 2009 there was also a statement between President Obama and at the time then President Lee Min Park and I mean although there is chain of the government change of government in South Korea some working-level officials from both governments they do not do what they are supposed to do in following up the statement agreed by the leaders of Korea and the US that's why like what's being said at the recent statement intensify something strategic consultation it does not clear to me so I think more in South Korea but also in the Washington every administration is trying to have its own policy and particularly in South Korea like the president is trying to have some like his or her own some policy legacy on like the North Korean issues so from that perspective rather than intensify and strengthen what we are doing we have to focus on maintaining and keeping up some strategic consistency until we need North Korea excellent now the lack the room businessman watch your final word I think there's no doubt that USFK serves as a sort of tangible physical touchable guarantee of the stability in the Korean Peninsula there is no question about that at the same time like everything else especially in business there will be cost-benefit analysis and we are making that analysis every time every day every hour in the business and it cannot be in the foreign policy diplomatic area as well it cannot be just you know this absolutely positive all the time there is no such thing there will be cost-benefit analysis and as situations change we'll see different types of cost-benefit analysis and the policy makers in both countries should be able to sell this cost-benefit analysis to to the general public in a better way and in the US as you have seen there have been some comments about the need to maintain USFK in the presidential campaign and it's not going to be just one person asking that question we're going to whether or not speak loudly or just thinking in our own heads we're asking all those questions constantly and once again you know we are selling almost everything every day right I'm selling marriage to my wife every day whenever I go out of my house but unless we can do that better I think we are going to face a more serious cost-benefit excellent I think there was a very wise businessman's last word and we only have 15 minutes left I don't want to take away your pleasure to have a cocktail reception because you've been sitting in this stuffy room with such patience now I will open the floor to be very nice precisely say I'm James Brown I have one question no long statement please okay so let's open the floor ladies hand there right there yes my name is Bonnie Hiku I have one question the president Park's visit was accompanied by a huge business delegation nearly 100 businessmen having a meeting with American business people to build positive economic partnership and according to the Washington Post this delegation was formed because Korean economy was really bad and it shows us president Park's concern about the situation and my question is how especially the Samsung men how do you appraise President Park and her administration's ability to handle this frail economy and the outcome of that handling would have on international partnership and peace in that region thank you well this is you're asking me to make an assessment about President Park's domestic economic policy that is a dangerous territory that I don't want to get into I know there are two cameras right there so probably I should not make a comment about that but what I what I can tell you though is that in diplomacy everything it's not just dialogue between the two presidents it's not just dialogue between diplomats it's not just dialogue between government officials so on so forth but there are millions of other ways to build a stronger relationship and economic relationship is definitely an important aspect to it so having a larger economic delegation in the US I don't think it means that Korea is the Korean economy is in dire situation we want to get something out of the the trip right away but it I think it sends a signal to a lot of people having a economic delegation the US trying to build a stronger economic relationship sends signal to a lot of people around the world and for that purpose I think the delegation serve this purpose well and you probably know that the economic delegation coincided with what is called US Korea Business Council meeting in which both the US businessman and Korean businessman gathered together once again in a locked up room and talk about policy issues as well as business issues and that sort of stronger ties among business sectors really serves as a linchpin to building a stronger US-Korea relationship that's the reason why he's a Samsung president here so vice president now I have a blue lady here raise your hand so please who can take that well I think I I've said already that South Korea has a great interest in the international normative and international legal environment and I think as a middle power and a US ally it has a voice a very important voice to share on a number of these issues that doesn't mean that you know anyone including President Obama expects South Korea to raise some sort of anti-China banner I don't think that's the expectation whatsoever however I think Korea speaking out for international normative compliance is important and it allowed me to add that that sometimes actions speak louder than words and if South Korea determines that it's in its national interest to cooperate with United States in hosting THAAD batteries in South Korea then that's something that the South Korean government can come out and make a plan to do if if South Korea has concerns about Russia's role in Ukraine but feels some sensitivity about speaking about Russia in particular there are things that South Korea can do in terms of loan guarantees for Korean companies investment in Ukraine it can be very helpful for the Ukrainian economy without speaking out too loudly on on political issues that it finds sensitive and and on the maritime security issues there are things that South Korea can do like increased trilateral maritime cooperation with the United States and Japan starting with search and rescue and then perhaps going from there that can send an important signal about domain awareness about shared interests in sea lanes of communication and about freedom of navigation without having to speak out in some way that would be controversial for other interests that are important for South Korea and like it's already I said regardless of whether it is South Korea is U.S. ally or not South Korea should be able to speak up for respecting international rules and norms and I think the South Korea is working on it and might be like timing and manner might be different that if I just one add Mr. Kim you have a point no go ahead please so if I had one point that I've been dealing with the Chinese Japanese Korean Singaporean the Afghanis whatever you name it for the last three years with the Western Judeo-Christian the community or the civilization society speaking your mind is no problem but a lot of people kind of like if I speak up maybe I will not get a visa to visit China or stuff like that North Koreans as well but if you are very really truly believe that you are right and you are delivering the statement of justice and right statement you speaking one time I was worried that I may not be released from Shanghai to return to Korea but I was actually invited by Shanghai mayor because they thought that she was most nasty but at the same time honest critique of the Chinese policy so in a sense Korea not middle size small size entropy size not the size but if the Korea needs to do something as a sovereign state for the national interest that should be squeaking voice and raise the voice that's my policy anyway the gentleman there with the gray shirt you that's you yeah thank you I'm a science student I have a question about USFK so after unification do you think USFK should be maintained from both Korean and US perspective Mr Kim first to be honest I don't know once again we don't exactly know how reification will happen we don't know if it is going to be done under North Korean initiative or South Korean initiative even so I think it's premature for us to think about what we're going to do with USFK but they're having a history of discussions on what the USFK what kind of role it can play after reunification and there will be a basis for further discussion but I don't think I can make any comments for any of you I think if peacefully unification occurs on the Korean peninsula like whether it's going to stay or not that quite depends on some regional security environment but if it needs to stay with agreements between Korea and the US the term of like reference might be changed I think it's up to the interest of a sovereign Korea and the interest of the US Korea alliance but to be very frank with you I think that while we hope for a very gradual integration process with North Korea that's peaceful that elevates the human rights situation in the northern part of the peninsula that results in a democratic free and free trading Korean peninsula that gets along with all its neighbors to be very frank with you I think that it's not likely to see the current North Korean government decide to give up its control of half the peninsula through an integration process so in a situation where you start to talk about what's the role of the USFK after unification or during unification I think there aren't going to be many people saying Yankee go home because there'll be so many variables in flux changing the positioning on the stationing of USFK on the Korean peninsula is not going to be something that many people are going to think is wise I think that many Koreans are going to be looking for as much help from the USFK as they can get they're going to be looking for as much help from the Japanese they can get they're going to be looking for support from the World Bank ADB Europeans partners for their field and certainly Chinese friends so I don't think it's going to be an issue of is is the USFK going to be asked to to leave the peninsula during unification or anytime soon thereafter it is important however to the extent possible with Beijing to have conversations about what certain contingencies might look like so that we don't come to a historical situation of don't cross the the or don't approach the edge of the precipice kind of perception on the part of the Chinese and that involves of course various roles of forces in various contingencies and I think if if Chinese friends are willing to have that conversation it's better to have those conversations before a contingency rather than trying to figure it out on the fly thank you very wise answers all three and then this gentleman with the striped shirt with the white hair yes yeah you are right no I'm just designating so then that these helpers will have any trouble to find you thank you I actually don't have a new question I would like to answer to the previous question is that is that allowed oh well what is the previous question you are talking about yeah about whether USFK should stay in Korea after unification I have been thinking about that a lot and I have an answer to that we should declare at the early stage that US forces will leave a Korean Peninsula upon unification because we don't need US forces needed US alliance especially military alliance is needed because of a North Korean threat to take over South once we have united Korea we don't need we don't really need US to stand against across China you know China hates US forces across the Yellow River we don't have to have that so if we say that we are not going to stay I mean US will not stay after unification that will promote chances for unification which both you know South Korean US governments are seeking for China's help for peaceful unification thank you for your position you should write a paper and publish in the Washington Post but the lady with the glass is there I think maybe this will be the last one because I don't want to really make your tip toward on the on your time so please go ahead hi I'm okay I'm an intro with the Kato Institute I want to ask Mr Kim from your own personal view or the personal or the standpoint of your company do you like to see Korea joining TPP and also what are the obstacles for Korea to join TPP yeah of course as I I think previously mentioned in our closed sessions TPP is an important initiative that we would like to see as a company for example Samsung Electronics is a multinational company and it does businesses around the world and its supply chain exists in more than 30 countries around the world for example if you want to build a smartphone we create wafers in Texas Austin facility of ours then send it to Korea in Gihun where we make chips there may be modem chips or graphic chips but we create the chips and then we probably send it to China or Vietnam to assemble the smartphone so if that is the case as you can see the supply chain management becomes very complicated and the rules of origins and different rate of tariffs all makes this management of supply chain very complicated but if we can include Korea in the mix as you can see in the example that I gave US is included Vietnam is included but if Korea is left out then that creates some serious constraint on our ability to maintain our supply chain seamlessly so I definitely like to see Korea joining the TPP obstacles to that I don't really see a lot of obstacles practically the obstacles that I see is political so as you have seen trade international trade trade agreements have become a subject of political controversy maybe too much in both in Korea and in the United States and if that is the case and now Korea is separated from the original 12 founding members of the TPP and it will be under scrutiny by US industries and US Congress separately that can create a lot of political controversy and then maybe something that the political leaders of both countries should work together to resolve excellent with the globalization of the manufacturing process he revealed a little bit so the these three gentlemen really did a wonderful job in my opinion they all got so let's give a good hand thank you au revoir all done