 I see many dignitaries and distinguished guests from U.S. and Korea, former chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, General Jeong Seung-jo, and military attache, the major general Shin Gyeong-su, and Stanley Ross, good friend of the Korean Republic, and also good friend of the Korean-U.S. alliance, and many other guests. I'm not trying to take too much of your time, but I'll discuss some issues that I think is very important for us, for U.S., and for Japan in order to promote peace and stability in Asia, and thereby contributing to the global peace. The relationship between three countries, Korea, U.S. and Japan, has been characterized by cooperation and sometimes conflicts. In terms of the triangle, it's an economic triangle. Korea has FTA with the United States, well in place. You would like to implement the FTA so that we can have synergy from both sides. Japan is now a member of the TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership, to create a multilateral free trade network in the Asia Pacific area. Between Korea and Japan, we are major trade partners, but still we have to accomplish bilateral FTA, and maybe through the trilateral FTA with China, but in the meantime Korea is concentrating on our bilateral FTA with China. It's a democratic triangle because we share democracy, freedom, and human rights. Korea and Japan are the leading democracy in Asia by any standards. We are fully-fledged democracy, and that was supported by a strong alliance with the United States. Korea, United States sent its troops to the Korean War to defend our freedom and democracy vis-à-vis the communist threat. In the case of Japan after the post-war, United States again re-established Japan as a new democracy after the war, so we are a democratic coalition across the Pacific. Third, we are a security triangle. United States is a common ally of Korea and Japan. Between Korea and Japan, we are not an ally, but an indirect alliance through the United States. Certainly three countries have been making a lot of efforts to deter North Korea from its security threats. Nuclear tests and missile launching, the chemical weapons, the weapons and mass destruction as a one. So there is a very strong foundation for the triangular cooperative relationship among three countries. Now, I would like to start with a relationship with China. And I think that all three countries, Korea, US, and Japan, should all deal with China. China made a phenomenal economic growth and its power and influence have been increasing in Asia. We would like to have a very cooperative relationship with China because it is beneficial for us and maybe for China too to have a productive economic partnership. Between US and China, the relationship is perhaps the most important relationship in our global affairs. We need to exercise our concerted efforts to make sure that China becomes a constructive partner for peace and stability in Asia. At the same time, we want to make sure through our concerted efforts that this growing Chinese power and influence do not work against the peace and stability of the region as well. If the US-China relationship gets strained, it has a direct impact on North Sea Station, our relationship with China and perhaps our relationship with Japan as well. If the US-China partnership gets polarized, that countries like Korea and Japan certainly feel the pressure, if not a dilemma. And the venue where this impact of changing US-China relationship is most acutely felt is the Korean Peninsula. From a Korean viewpoint, cooperative US-China partnership certainly contributes to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and also for the inter-Korean relationship and eventually towards Korean unification. President Park Geun-hae, the Park Geun-hae government has been maintaining a very close and solid and robust Korea-U.S. alliance while at the same time developing a harmonious relationship with China. Alliance with the United States and harmonious partnership with China are not two contradictory things. For Korea, both countries could become a cooperative and beneficial partner for Korea's economic growth and Korea's free trade and also for the inter-Korean unification because that's our national interest and maybe for the national interest of other countries as well. We recently welcomed President Xi Jinping to the Republic of Korea. He visited the country, came to Seoul, met with President Park Geun-hae, and they jointly issued a joint statement that the two countries will expand, develop its strategic partnership, send a foreign message to North Korea that we oppose the development of nuclear weapons by North Korea. They also agreed to finish the Korea-China FTA hopefully before the end of this year. So all these partnership and cooperation are continuing at the moment. But there's an important caveat to our relationship with China. China has proposed to the United States the new style of great power relationship in the California sunny lands. I would like to interpret this proposal as something benign, something positive, something constructive. But also at the same time, we have to make sure that this great power relationship, the new style of great power relationship with the United States do not exclude the sovereignty and the interest of the countries in Asia, including Korea. United States and China, as we have seen in the strategic and economic dialogue in Beijing, this year should continue to closely consult with each other in order to develop its constructive partnership and to avoid any unnecessary conflicts. It is my view that it is not a good idea for the United States to contain China so that China can feel kind of intimidated by the U.S. policy. Moreover, it is not desirable that China try to exclude United States from Asia. The two countries should move towards constructive partnership. Next I want to talk about China-Japan relationship. This is the most important regional relationship in Asia. We have seen in the past that China and Japan were moving in a different direction or the collision course. China is a continental power in Asia. Japan is a maritime power with a strong alliance with the United States across the Pacific. Korea is in between these two powers. We have seen the sign of Japanese war erupting 120 years ago, and Korea was kind of devastated between the two powers colliding against each other. We have experienced the Korean War. It was started by North Korea, but China sent its forces. They made a military intervention during the Korean War. Japan was not directly involved in the Korean War, but Japan provided a rear area, so they could support to the United States so that they can exercise military operation in South Korea against North Korea and China. So again, in the Korean War, China and Japan were standing on the other side. In the post-Cold War era, Chinese has risen. Japan is now trying to research its national prestige and power. So in the 21st century, we are witnessing another trend of sign of Japanese rivalry in the region. In politics, as I have experienced, rivalry is not always a bad thing. The two rivals could end up being the president in the case of Korea, the famous two Kims episode. The rivals actually contribute to the development of the other side, if this is a benign rivalry. But if this becomes a malign rivalry, then I think it will create big problems, not just for these two countries, but for other countries like Korea, which is right in the middle of these two powers. We know that between China and Japan, they have historical issue, how to interpret the past history, and have a territorial dispute. And this is the most important source of regional frictions and conflict in Northeast Asia. We have seen the Chinese declaration of the Air Defense Identification Zone in Northeast Asia. Japan declared its own, and this region was overlapping between China and Japan, actually overlapped with the Korean maritime area as well. So we proclaimed our own Korean Air Defense Identification Zone. And this is a very graphic evidence that we are living too closely to each other, there is a kind of geographical proximity, while it encourages rich cultural and economic partnership and a military and security area, we are living dangerously. We should make every effort to prevent any incidental or accidental clash of competing jurisdictions in this area. And I talk with my friends from ASEAN countries, it's a group of 10 countries in Southeast Asia. They have another problem of their own, which is South China Sea issue. They try to create, they try to explore some sort of a caught up conduct in this area to prevent any unnecessary conflicts or direct clash with China, which claims its maritime territorial rights in this region. So in Northeast Asia too, I think we should make efforts to find some sort of a modest operandi or caught up conduct, which is acceptable to all the parties concerned, compared to Europe, we still do not have multilateral security framework. We don't have NATO, we don't have EU. But I think that crisis creates opportunity. And this maritime territorial issue could be a good forum where we can start to think about a multilateral security framework to make sure that this peace and stability can be maintained. We have Senkaku-Diawi Islands dispute. We have had a very dangerous context between the two airplanes, China, Japan, and also the United States airplanes coming into the area. It's a kind of a time bomb in Northeast Asia. We shouldn't wait for this time bomb to explode. We should actually diffuse this time bomb so that we can live peacefully. In that sense, I think it was very fortunate that China and Japan began to talk to each other through a high-level meeting in Myanmar on the occasion of the ASEAN Regional Forum. The Chinese Foreign Minister and the Japanese Foreign Minister got together, sit down and talk about the common issues. It was the first foreign ministerial meeting after almost two years. And this is the first such meeting after the inauguration of Prime Minister Abe in his second cabinet. I understand that there was some sort of preliminary diplomatic activity going on between the two sides, some sort of nemawashi in Japanese terms. Our Prime Minister, Fukuda Yasuo, is known to have visited China and met with President Xi Jinping to propose a high-level meeting and see if China can come to the table and talk about the common issue. And I think that this communication between two rival countries certainly contributes to the peace and stability in the region. From Korean viewpoint as well, the harmonious China-Japan relationship is certainly in our interest. We do not want China and Japan run towards a colliding course. And also, it expands our room for maneuver between China and Japan because you have to deal with the two countries together. And finally, this China-Japan communication and dialogue will contribute to the regional cooperation among three countries, Korea, China, Japan, another triangle in Northeast Asia. So I think that President Obama, the U.S. government, should continue to develop a strategic dialogue with China on the one hand and manage alliance with Japan on the other and therefore exercise and play its role as a strategic balancer between China and Japan. No other country can do it better than the United States. The reason is that we do not want either China or Japan to become an expansionist and dominant part in the region. That is exactly Korea's interest, and that is exactly, I think, American interest. Next, Korea-Japan relationship. Our relationship is supposed to be very close. We always say that Japan is the closest neighbor. But right now, the relationship is very much strained. So geographically, we are a close neighbors, but politically, we live far apart. During the last one and a half years, we haven't seen a summit meeting, top-level presidential meeting between President Park Geun-hye and Prime Minister Abe. And I'm concerned that this stalemate and non-dialogue are actually beginning to make negative impact on the public opinions of both sides, and that's what worries me. And I would argue that if this deadlock becomes too much prolonged, then we may pass the point of no return. And it will be difficult to recover our sense of friendship and trust between the two countries. We have the recent opinion poll in Korea, which shows that Korean perception of Japan is getting worse. At the same time, Japanese perception of Korea is also moving in the wrong direction. But it includes those Japanese, those Japanese with a moderate view, those Japanese who are interested in Korea-Japan partnership are also getting affected. And that's not a good news between the two sides. And if this stalemate continues, then China is certainly in a position to seek an opportunity to exercise its leverage to divide Japan and Korea. An example is President Xi Jinping's speech at the Seoul National University. He mentioned about the history. He mentioned about Japanese barbaric invasion and the acquisition of the territory which made Korea and China suffer together. He mentioned that because of our cooperation, we could overcome this Japanese aggressive behavior and so on. So it seems to me that this indicates the Chinese idea of putting Japan on the other side by trying to create some sort of a united front on the history issue vis-à-vis Japan. Now what can United States do to improve the situation? United States is an important partner and a common ally of Korea and Japan. So U.S. certainly has to be conscious and aware of the reactions from both friends, Korean reaction and the Japanese reaction. I have been in politics for 10 years and I've been leading the delegation from Korea to participate in a tri-lateral parliamentary legislative exchange in U.S., in Korea and in Japan. And I found that when we talk about sensitive issues between Korea and Japan, such as Dokto issue, which is our territory, Comfort Women's issue, the sex slave issue, very emotional, and Yasukuni Shrine, which is explosive, our Japanese counterparts from Tokyo tended to behave very rationally with our American friends. And maybe our Japanese counterparts think that Koreans behave well with our American friends as well. So I see there is some kind of spirit of dialogue and partnership, even when we talk about sensitive issues between the two sides. And mind you, United States cannot disregard the issues, the Sony issues between Korea and Japan. U.S. was the leading international leader after the war to make an arrangement for Japan and for Korea, including the Dokto issue, including the U.S. support for Korea-Japan diplomatic normalization, including our tri-lateral security framework to deter North Korean threat. So this is a matter for the United States as well. And in retrospect, the United States has played, whether it wanted or not, directly or indirectly, to close the gap, bridge the relationship between Korea and Japan. As I mentioned, when the normalization of diplomatic relations between Korea and Japan, there were quite controversial response from domestic population. Mr. Kim, sorry, Mr. Kim Dae-joon was abducted from Tokyo by Korea Intelligence Agency. The bilateral relationship got to the bottom. The United States was there to help improve the situation. There was so-called Moon Se-kwang incident where our first lady, President Park Jung-hee, was gunshot by a Korean Japanese who grew up in Japan and who came to Korea and assassinated the first lady. There was another disaster in the relationship between Korea and Japan. Korea thought Japan was responsible. Japan said, we are not responsible. So United States acted as a bona fide mediator. So this is not something new. And then I think this is, in my view, in its capable destiny of the United States to act as a facilitator or mediator between the two sides as long as the United States maintains alliance with Japan and Korea at the same time. The friction between Korea and Japan seriously weakens the synergy among triangle, Korea, U.S. and Japan. And also it undermines peace and stability in Asia and it is against the interest of the United States. So I think President Obama and Obama administration should not leave this prolonged stalemate between Korea and Japan. In that sense, the three-way conference among President Obama, President Park Jung-hee and Prime Minister Abe in Hague, Netherlands to talk about common issues, issues of security, North Korea nuclear issue, and how to promote the nuclear security in a dangerous world was well done. And I say that the U.S. government did the right thing at the right time. In my view, it should have occurred last year on the occasion of the APEC in Bali, Indonesia, where three leaders could get together. But at that time, unfortunately, President Obama couldn't participate in the APEC meeting because of the pressing domestic issue in Washington. But I think that this was well done. I propose that we should have a summit meeting between President Park Jung-hee and Prime Minister Abe in the near future. The two countries should make serious efforts to make it happen. We have not been talking to each other for too long, even in a family between husband and wife. If they don't talk to each other for one and a half years, this is a serious family issue. At the same time, the United States should make its own efforts to facilitate this encounter, friendly encounter between the two sides. I assume that a serious dialogue is going on between China and Japan. As I mentioned, we have seen the foreign ministerial meeting between two countries, China and Japan, in Myanmar. And who knows, there could be China-Japan summit meeting. I think we cannot exclude that possibility between China and Japan. And if China and Japan can get somehow agreed to holding this summit meeting between the two rivals, why can't we have a summit meeting between Korea and Japan? I think it doesn't make sense. The relationship between Korea and Japan should not be a zero-sum game. If we play a zero-sum game, it will be a positive sum game for someone else. And this is very fatal to the national interests of both sides. Korea and Japan are not enemies. We have had wars before. Korea went through colonialism. Certainly there is a potential anti-Japanese sentiment in Korea. But we are not enemies. I recollect the history of the Middle East, Egypt, and Israel reluctantly got to agree to meet at the Camp David by the diplomatic efforts of President Jimmy Carter in 1978 and signed the documents. Israel considered Sinai Peninsula, Nagaza Strip, so the Palestinians can settle down. Of course, we have another crisis going on in the Middle East, but if Israel and Egypt could get together and sign this Camp David agreement, why can't Korea and Japan do it? Also we have seen in Europe a historic reconciliation between Britain and Ireland, which has been there for a long time, the frictions and resentment and the conflicts could be overcome. And this is the art of politics and diplomacy that we can create a new history. And personally, I think that if we, Korea and Japan, can agree to hold the summit meeting before Chinese and the Japanese leaders can do it, it's much better, in my view. Because by doing so, Korea and Japan can be in a much more comfortable position to talk with China. The two countries, Korea and Japan, share democracy, market economy, and respect for human rights. We have opportunities next month in New York at the United Nations summit meeting. All the leaders will get together. The leaders from Korea, President Park, from Japan, Prime Minister Abe, and China. That's a good opportunity, in my view, for a meeting like that. I know it's a very short time left. And also, we have G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia in November. That's another opportunity for a Korea-Japan dialogue. And we also have APEC summit meeting, which is hosted by China. And I think there is a possibility that perhaps in Beijing, China and Japan can agree to meet. Because China is a host, Japan is a guest, so hosts should treat guests very well. So why not Japan-Korea dialogue? And if Japan could send the former Prime Minister Fukuda Yasuo to Beijing to arrange this foreign ministerial meeting and perhaps the summit meeting, I think Japan can also send special envoy to Korea so that we can begin our dialogue. Now, I'd like to take this opportunity to state my views to Prime Minister Abe and the Abe government in Japan. Japan is now trying to become a normal state, which means that from the perspective of the Japanese leaders, Japan is not a full state. Something has to be changed in order for Japan to become a normal state. And in my view, for Japan to become a normal state, the first thing that it has to do is to come to terms with its own history, to squarely face the past history. If it is a wrong history, you should learn lessons from it. If it is a wrong history, you should regret and apologize. If it is a wrong history, you should make sure that the same mistakes will not be repeated. That's the message that neighboring countries in Asia wants to hear. That's the message that Korea wants to hear from Japan. Of course, Japanese government says, oh, we have made many apologies in a Kono statement or the Murayama statement, which were acceptable to Korea, but still, from the Korean viewpoint, we are not quite sure that whether Japan has made a sincere, a genuine regret and apology to Korea, the number doesn't matter. This is not a political or legal issue. This is something on a different dimension. Last year, the day after Christmas, Prime Minister Abe made a surprising visit to Yasukuni. To me, it was like, to many Koreans, it was like a kamikaze visit by the prime minister, which gave an enormous shock to many countries. I think it was an unpleasant surprise to the United States as well. And that has made a very fatal blow to the perception of sincerity by the Koreans. Again, recently, Japanese government came out with an idea that we should review the Kono statement, which was an official Japanese admission of the mistakes and made an apology. Mr. Kono, who announced this statement, was a cabinet, chief cabinet secretary. There was a deputy prime minister and the leader of the Jiminto, Liberal Democratic Party. So he was a government's top spokesman. But we wonder why Japan at this time has to review this Kono statement. I think that it shouldn't have started in the first place because it gave the impression that Japan was trying to see if the legitimacy and the factuality of this Kono statement was wrong. But the most important thing is that through the review itself, Japanese government, Abe government, has voluntarily reconfirmed the contents of the Kono statement. I think that's an important aspect of this drama. I want to tell my Japanese friends and Japanese government is that comfort women issue, the sex slave issue, wartime sex slavery issue is not a political issue. It's not a legal issue. It's a moral issue. It's a universal human rights issue. If Japan, as the global economic power, wants to move towards normal state, then this issue has to be resolved by Japan itself voluntarily. I regard the Abenomics by Prime Minister Japan very highly. Japan had gone through more than 20 years of recession. And now the Abenomics is kind of pouring in a vitality into Japanese economy. And good Japanese economy is in our interest, in Korea's interest. And I also appreciate that Japan is offering the military base in the country so that the US could operate on the Korean peninsula peacetime and wartime. So Japan is playing its indirect security role in Korea-US relationship. We both share our traditional Confucian cultural tradition. We share democracy and free markets. And we have achieved a remarkable economic development. In that process, Korea learned lessons from Japan and we got economic assistance from Japan. Many countries in the world are envious of the miraculous success of Japan and Korea. And they want to study, research on how this is possible. Next year is the 50th anniversary of the diplomatic relationship between Korea and Japan. This is a historic year. We've been engaged officially for half a century. But unfortunately, the current relationship is going in the wrong direction. I think we should change this problem. Look at Europe. France and Germany could achieve a historic reconciliation because Germany came out with an honest apology and genuine repentance about its own wrong past. I think Germany certainly learned from the painful history. And they made an apology and also promised that the same mistake will not be repeated again. Germany didn't try to conceal the history. They made the Nazi concentration camp into a Holocaust museum. I think this is the real lesson that we should learn from history. I would like to remind Prime Minister Abe and the Japanese government of the importance of learning lessons from the past history. And this is the legitimate way for Japan to become a normal state. I think the US government has actually made its position clear on this issue. President Obama, when he visited Korea in April, mentioned that comfort women, sex slavery, is a terrible and egregious thing, which all Koreans agreed. US Congress has passed the resolution unanimously among 435 members on the comfort women issue. State Department in Washington has also announced its position, clear position on the comfort women issue. I think that the US government should continue to send this clear message to Japan that any careless remarks which remind people of the militarized past of Japan should not be repeated. And that is in the interest of everyone. Let me say briefly about this collective self-defense. Abe government in Japan is now pursuing the idea of collective self-defense. The cabinet has introduced this concept first of July through cabinet decision. I think that this collective self-defense should not in any way impair the peace and security in the region. For the US government, for the Obama administration, which is now pursuing rebalance to Asia, more proactive Japan's security role is something that could be acceptable or maybe something that could be welcomed. But the sensitive issue can occur between Japan and the neighboring countries. We have seen the post-war Japan faceably complying to the principle of self-defense in a very restricted way. The cabinet has made consistent interpretation of the peace constitution in the following way. That is, if Japan wants to exercise self-defense, it has to satisfy three conditions. One, there should be imminent and illegitimate act of aggression against Japan. Two, the right of self-defense should be exercised when no other means are available. Three, this right of self-defense should be exercised in a minimum necessary level. I think these are very painstaking principles that Japan has established during the last 70 years in order to keep in line with the spirit of the peace constitution. And Prime Minister Abe is now changing it, not by the parliamentary decision, not by the public referendum, but by the decision of the Japanese cabinet. So that creates concern on the part of Korea. When many Koreans still remember the Japan's past history, the atrocities and the wrongdoings, this can create security and political problems as well as diplomatic problems. It is true that the United States needs U.S. spaces in Japan, and Japan's support is necessary. But this should be exercised within the framework, within the parameters of U.S.-Japan alliance. This is a different matter from Japan's unilateral decision to break out of its 70-year-old pacifist principles and to expand its military operation outside Japan by participating in an armed clash. I look at the Japanese public opinion polls, and I see that more than a majority of the Japanese are concerned about this collective self-defense, and their concern is that Japan could be entangled in an armed conflict against the will of the people because that's the principle of the Japanese peace constitution. And also I can see the Japanese political parties like Komeito, which was quite critical of the collective self-defense idea as well. So there are domestic constraints on Prime Minister Abe's pursuit of his collective self-defense. Abe government would say, no, this is a proactive contribution to peace. Well, in my view, it's a problematic contribution to peace. If Japan pushes its idea without prior consultations with other Asian countries, including Korea, obviously, people in Korea suspect that this is a new attempt for Japan to militarize itself. The United States, therefore, as an ally with Japan, should make sure that this Japan pursuit of collective self-defense should be a limited concept, which operates within the parameters of the U.S.-Japan alliance, and it should not impair peace and stability in North East Asia, nor it should infringe upon the national interest and security of the Korean Peninsula. Therefore, the U.S. role is to resolve conflict between the two sides. And if this suspicions and distrust of the Japanese position on collective self-defense is resolved, then I think we can talk about the general security information agreement act between the two sides, the GSOMIA, which was derailed recently between the two countries. Finally, let me talk about North Korea. Three countries, Korea, US, and Japan, should strengthen its cooperation to deal with North Korea nuclear threats. I think that the situation has got worse and worse and worse. I know the rationale of the strategic patience of the United States, the Obama government, in dealing with North Korea. We have tried the carrots. We have tried the sticks. We have tried the sanctions. And we have tried the persuasion. We have tried diplomacy. We have tried pressure. We have tried deterrence. Neither of them worked. So I know there is a North Korea fatigue in town. But more important thing is that if we leave this issue as if North Korea is there, but somehow this nuclear issue can be resolved, I think it's a terrible mistake. We are faced with more and more dangerous situation from North Korea. The situation in the Middle East, the US air strikes in Iraq, the radical armed militants in the country, and so on. It's very important top security agenda from the global foreign policy from White House. But I think that if you allow North Korea to develop further of their plutonium extraction and uranium enrichment, then I think that we will have to pay even greater price in the future. North Korea, I think, is now concentrating on mini-autoration of the nuclear warheads and development of the middle and long-term missiles. If two get combined, then it can reach not only US military bases in Korea and Japan, Guam and Hawaii, but also Alaska and California. At the same time, there's an evidence that North Korea has been working closely with the countries in the Middle East, like Syria or Iran. And if this connection, which I think is a dangerous liaison between North Korea and the Middle Eastern countries, get developed, then the crisis could become beyond control, could escalate beyond control. So we have to make some genuine active efforts now among three countries, Korea, US, and Japan to give choice to North Korea, whether they would once still want to pursue this course of danger or make different choice. We should maintain sanctions, solid sanctions, on North Korea as a means of pressure. But at the same time, we shouldn't recoil from the idea of talks with the North, because we want to find out exactly what they think about the current situation and what can be done. And I always think that dialogue is better than confrontation. And we have to induce this progress, meaningful progress in North Korea and nuclear action. We have to make a breakthrough. Otherwise, things will become more dangerous. Finally, on FTA and TPP, as I mentioned at the beginning, that the three countries should try to expand the free trade regime in the Asia Pacific region. Corus FTA is in place, and we are negotiating with China. Japan is a member of the TPP, and Korea also expressed its willingness to join the TPP. Compared to this, FTA, triangular FTA between Korea, Japan, China is in a deadlock. And that's partly because of our problem of political diplomatic conflicts with Japan and also between Japan and China. Now, there are two emerging multilateral free trade blocks in Asia Pacific. One is ASAP, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership with 16 countries, including Korea, Japan, China, India, Australia, New Zealand, and Tennessee, and countries. On the Asia Pacific side, we have the emerging TPP, which is in negotiation. Now, are the ASAP and the TPP kind of counterbalancing trade blocks? Maybe, but I think it should somehow accommodate each other, eventually, to create a macro framework of extended Asia Pacific free trade network. I don't know. You may have a different idea, but can you think about Asia Pacific free trade without China? And can you think about East Asian free trade without United States? I don't think it makes sense. So that's where Korea can play its role. We are a strong ally of the United States. We have FTA with the US, which is a benchmark FTA. Now, in the TPP negotiations, all the countries are looking at the chorus FTA to see if we can introduce some principles and the regimes from the chorus FTA. So in a way, chorus FTA is playing a role of the tugboat, the boat carrying the big ship. I'm a former Navy officer, so I know how important is tugboat. And also, through our bilateral negotiation with China, we are doing our role, important role, of liberalizing the China market so that they can accept the global standard, including products, production, the service, intellectual property, and so on. So eventually, Korea's negotiation of FTA with China and the signing of it could be a good entrance for China to be invited to the TPP if they want. And if China doesn't want, then there is no entry. But if China wants, then we want to have China, which is more open than now, so that we can create a greater Asia Pacific free trade network. I think I've spent my time enough, so I'm stuck here. And thank you for your patience. I would invite your questions. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Park, for your very insightful remarks. You touched on very many important points about the US, ROK, Japan, trailer relationship. And I think that our audience has many takeaways from today's event, so I thank you very much. So since we are behind the schedule, I would like to go straight into the Q&A session. So if you have any questions, please raise your hand. Microphone is going around the room, so please identify yourself before you say a question. Yeah, this gentleman here. Do I need a microphone? Yes. It's on its way. Please identify yourself. Yoshiko Mori, the Sankei Shimpun of Japan. Thank you very much for your speech. I agreed with you wholeheartedly when you said that Japan and South Korea should have a summit meeting. The sooner, the better. But the fact that it has not happened is attributed by the Japanese political leadership. And in fact, Prime Minister Abe himself, to the South Koreans' precondition, a demand for precondition that Japan should meet. And that probably encompass the way the Japanese political leadership choose how they choose to pay tribute to the war dead and maybe a long-standing position on the Takeshima Island. So maybe you can react to that precondition business. And secondly, you blasted at Japan. I mean, you spent enormous time proportionately, a lot of time just publicly scolding Japan the way we have again chosen how to pay tribute to the war dead and how to interpret the history and all that. But it's such a sweeping statement such as Japan has not come to terms with its own history and that Japan has not learned lessons from its own history. It's really, especially when they are presented to the third party holding forums such as this one, is uncalled for. And I can counter to every single accusation that you made based on facts. But this is not the proper forum. So is that your precondition that Japan has to come to terms with its own history before we have a summit meeting? What's the connection between your accusation of the current present day Japan? That includes the US reservations about the way we plan to readjust our national security policy to the new reality. And you come in and demand to do this and that and that. Have we ever done that to your country? That's really uncalled for. So is that your precondition for the summit meeting? But you accused us of, thank you, that's my question. I can take several more questions. Yeah, is there any other question? Mr. Thompson? Thanks, Scott Thompson with Samsung. I'm just curious about the potential connection between trade and geopolitics here in the sense of TPP in particular. Assuming the agreement comes to successfully negotiate a conclusion and assuming Korea joins after that point could improve market access between Korea and Japan and lower consumer prices for Japanese consumers in each other's markets be a way to lessen tensions on the bilateral security front at all? Is there no connection between the two or could contentious negotiations in that multilateral format even, in fact, heighten tensions between Korea and Japan along the way on the geopolitical front? Yeah, hi, thank you. Elliot Waldman with Tokyo Broadcasting System. I wanted to ask if you could share your thoughts on Japan's negotiations with North Korea to resolve the abductee issue and how you see this impacting trilateral cooperation. One more question. Mikhail Skavronsky, Georgetown University. Thank you very much for your very interesting remarks and I actually have two questions. The first one is this, and you've talked a lot about history today and it seems that the biggest obstacle on the way to a Japan ROK summit is the problem of history and what do you think are the concrete steps the United States can take in order to exercise its leverage on Japan? My second question concerns the recent decision by Park and Hei to appoint a new ambassador to Japan. I think his name is Yu Hongsu, I'm not sure, but he's known to be a very good friend of Japan so what's your take on that? Thank you so much. Okay, well I have enough questions on my plate so let me answer the question. Mr. Mori, thank you for your question. I'm not surprised at your response to my speech. The fact that we have this difficult problem between Japan and Korea is in a way inevitable because our post-war arrangement for Korea and Japan still remains unsolved in my view. Well, politically we have had a normalization of relations in 1965 and next year as I mentioned we are commemorating the half a century of our relationship but I think that we have to go beyond our current mistrust and resentment against each other to make efforts to create a new history and that's the duty of the political leaders of both countries. You mentioned precondition but I think that we can meet as long as Prime Minister Abe clearly endorses the corner statement which was reviewed and Japanese government itself came to a conclusion that this is in fact the case. So I think that this creates a room for Korea, Japan talk and by doing so we can create a better environment but peace and stability in Asia. If Japan and Korea cannot come to terms with each other what can be done just to build a barrier between the two sides and Japan goes your way, Korea goes our way, this is not helpful to anybody so I'm trying to suggest that given all these difficulties and all these misunderstandings still there is a room for Korea and Japan to sit down together and talk about the future together because we are not enemies. You're friends. I had a chance to study in Japan myself. I have Japanese friends. I studied Japan's history and culture. I remember that in the long past in the 17th and 18th century we have had a peaceful relationship between the two sides without any war. There was when the Joseon Tong Shin-sa, the Korean delegation to Japan visited the country the Tokugawa Bakufu and then we had a political dialogue based on communication and trust. Why can't we reproduce the spirit of communication and trust in the 21st century only if we can learn lessons from the past history it is always possible for us to create a new relationship. So I appreciate your question. Let me agree to disagree with you but that's the reason why we should meet and talk. Okay, thank you. I appreciate your answer. Okay, thank you. About your question Mr. Scott Thompson, the bilateral relationship and multilateral relationship I think it is for the interest of all the countries in the region to move towards multilateral relationship especially in the area of trade and economic partnership because we are interdependent with each other and we are inseparable. And in fact the recent data of trade volumes and transactions among the countries in Asia especially Korea, Japan, China shows that our intrarisional trade is growing much faster than our trade with America and the Europe. So that's the point of the TPP in my view and that's why Korea expressed its intention to join the TPP while we are negotiating with China. So we can play our role on both sides. As I mentioned we can promote the Chinese market opening on the one hand and contribute to the TPP on the other. And I think that's the important role that Korea can play through the good implementation of the KOROS FTA which is a model FTA and the benchmark for the multilateral framework. For Korean-Japanese bilateral attention. Absolutely, because if Korea joins the TPP it has the effect of concluding Korea's FTA with Japan which we don't have now. So that's the beauty of the multilateral agreement and that is the way that we should move forward. And mind you Korea is an only country in Asia now which has FTA with both Europe and America. And if Korea successfully finishes his FTA with China for the time being will be the only country in the world that has FTA with all three major markets US, China and Europe. And I think that puts Korea at the center stage of the diversifying global FTA network. And third question about Japan, North Korea negotiation. Yes I'm looking at it with a very great interest on the one hand and some concern on the other. It looks like we are having a very ironic twist in our relationship with China and Japan. Because traditionally North Korea was perceived as a close ally of China. And Korea, South Korea was a major economic partner and close neighbor of Japan. But now the new trends are moving in a different direction. We know the tension between China and North Korea to the extent that President Xi Jinping visited Seoul before he visits Pyongyang. And now Japan is now talking with North Korea about returning of the abductees from North Korea. But I have no conviction that what the North Korea can actually deliver what Japan wants in terms of bringing back the abductees. If they are alive, then they should come back. If they passed away, they should have some remains of the abductees. So I think there are limits to what North Korea can do. And also, as we all know, we are imposing sanctions on North Korea, the United Nations, the United States, Japan also, and Korea too. So there is a concern, potential concern, that if Japan somehow take this opportunity to change its policy towards North Korea and change its sanction regime, then it could work in a different direction with the current multinational, international sanction regime of North Korea. So there's one potential concern. But fundamentally, I think that there are limits to what North Korea can do. And I hope that Japan could bring all the abductees back to Japan from a humanitarian viewpoint. That's the best scenario. I wish it can happen. Then there might be some room for further progressive bilateral relationship with Japan and North Korea. But I do see the limits on that front. Finally, Japan, Korea, bilateral summit. There are obstacles. What can be done? But I mentioned to Mr. Mori that we agree to disagree, but there is not a reason for non-dialogue. And since Japanese government itself has come to the conclusion that Kono's statement is indelible, it remains valid. That's a good start. I think Prime Minister Abe should make it very clear as a responsible statement that if he really wants to improve situation with South Korea, he should take the initiative. I mentioned that if Japan can send this special envoy to China, why not to Korea? And we need to talk. We need to start our serious dialogue between the two sides. And about the new ambassador designated to Japan, I was surprised too, that Mr. Yu Hong-soo is a very respected, distinguished Korean political leader of the country. He was a former chairman of Foreign Affairs Commission in the National Assembly by big senior in Korean politics. So I was surprised. Actually, Sankei Shinman made the first report about this appointment, but I thought to myself that there might be reason why the Korean government has chosen the senior political leader, Mr. Yu Hong-soo, to Japan. And I think the possible reason could be to strengthen political dialogue between the two countries. Beyond some kind of diplomatic negotiations, we need to go to the essence of the problem, the issues between the two sides. And Mr. Yu Hong-soo perhaps could be the right person to communicate with the Japanese political community. I understand that he was a friend of the former foreign minister, the father of Prime Minister Abe, Mr. Abe Shintaro, who was kind of very friendly to Korea-Japan relationship. So perhaps that's the area what the new ambassador designated can contribute to a deeper and a more serious dialogue with Japanese political leadership. I haven't seen him yet, so it's my tentative assessment. I'd like to take one or two more questions. Dr. Park. Jamie Nzon, with Gyeongyang Daily News, Gyeongyang新聞. You said that you suggested that United States should play a mediator role. Would you please specify how can they mediate between Korea and Japan? Because the US refuses to be a mediator. They don't want to take a risk of mediating between the two allies, but they want to be a facilitator. Can I take a couple of more questions? Okay, Jen, I'm over there. Hello, Dr. Park. Certainly enjoy your speech very much. My name is Zee from Georgetown University. My question is that on non-governmental exchanges between Japan and Korea, you emphasize in your speech the common confusion tradition between the two countries. And I believe in the past decades there's been many exchanges between intellectuals, scholars and students who emphasize on this common heritage. So my question is that could you please speak briefly about the cultural and educational exchange initiatives between the two countries? And do you believe this could lead to a foundation for perennial understanding and concord between Japan and Korea? You Professor Park, my name is Bing Ru Wang with Hong Kong Phoenix TV. You mentioned your concern regarding the new model of major power relationship. Could you elaborate more what exactly the concerns are? And as you know, the US has pushed back to this new proposal and they are asking for the details. So is it in the South Korea interest to see the United States and China confronting difficulties to establish this relationship? Thank you. Let me respond to the three questions first about the mediator role of US between Korea and Japan. I don't think US is going to kind of publicly mediate the relationship between the two countries. It could be counterproductive, but in retrospect as I mentioned, if you look back the history of the three-country relationship, we know that the United States directly or indirectly tried to facilitate the improvement of relationship between the two countries. Not just for the sake of Japan-Korea relationship, but for the interest of the US on its own. So this position and this role of the United States I think doesn't change and has not changed. And in fact, the US government is already working in that direction in my view. The convening of the three country leaders in Hague, Netherlands is one good example. And as I mentioned, in the United Nations or G20 or in the APEG in Beijing, why don't we have another trilateral meeting between the three leaders? Because I think we should talk about something beyond our security issue or strategic issue. We can talk about our economic structure in Asia, including the financial structure. Interestingly, the Chinese leader, Mr. Xi Jinping, made a proposal in Seoul about Asian infrastructure investment bank, the AIIP. I know there is a concern in the United States about that Chinese proposal, because US is running the World Bank and also together with Japan, the ADB Asian Development Bank in Manila is in operation. The Korean president, Park Geun-hye, did not make any commitment. She said, let me think about it. I think we can talk about this position, a proposal by China about setting up AIIB in a trilateral meeting among Korea, US, and Japan about whether this is a meaningful proposal or whether it could help the Asian financial situation and the Asian development or it works in discord with the existing financial system in Asia and in the world. I think this is a relevant topic for three countries to discuss because I think that before we make our decision, we need to make sure that the Chinese proposal is in line with the global governance, the global standard of governance in terms of the ownership of the bank, in terms of the proportion of the fund that Korea can contribute and also the Koreans responsibility and the rights in running this bank, which is not at all clear. So I think this could be a kind of relevant topic. So my view is that this momentum for three-way communication among the top leaders in Korea, US, and Japan should continue in some way possible. And that's the way that the United States can play its role as a facilitator of the trilateral dialogue. But I think it's different from overt mediation. In my view. Past history, the United States is making already its position clear about corporate women and sex slavery. The President Obama's statement, State Department statement, the US Congress resolution, all indicating that this is a moral issue, this is a universal human right issue, not just past history issue between Korea and Japan. So United States has been maintaining a kind of a neutral position between Japan and Korea. But on this issue, the US position to me is quite clear. On the second question from gentlemen from Georgetown University. I think this is really important, perhaps more important than the political or security issues that we are discussing. Because this is for the future generation of leaders between the two sides. The intellectual and scholastic and the cultural exchange should be strengthened between Japan and Korea. I mentioned the Joseon-Tong Shin-Sa history between the two sides. They have been communicating for more than 230 years between Jeong Yoo-Jae-ran and the Meiji Restoration. And this is a history that we should look into much more seriously. How come the two countries, after two bloody words, Im Jin-Wae-ran and Jeong Yoo-Jae-ran could manage to send and receive this large-scale cultural and diplomatic delegation reaching up to about 500 people for one year going back and forth and talking with the Japanese counterparts. From the Korean viewpoint, it was necessary perhaps to bring our people back. We call it Eptaptees by Japan. 75,000 people to Korea. And at the same time, maintain peace between Joseon and the Tokugawa regime. From the Tokugawa government's viewpoint, it was a good contact with Korea, Joseon at the same time, to establish its domestic political legitimacy and to stabilize the situation in Japan. So Korea wanted peace, Japan wanted stability. So I think there was a common ground upon which this large-scale, regular diplomatic and cultural contact could be made. Now, I would be very delighted to see the reproduction of this spirit of communication and trust between the two sides. Plus, we can create the young Joseon Tongshinza, the young leaders from college and from civic society to visit Japan. And we can also invite Japan's Tongshinza, the kind of counterpart on the Japanese side to come to Korea and to talk. I've seen a report by Korean high school students who spent five days with her counterparts in Japan through Korea-Japan Cultural Foundation program. It was very interesting to see that in the memo she said, I don't like Japan. I didn't like Japan. I don't like Japanese people. And I think Japanese don't like us, too. So I was reluctant to join this program because my mother wants me to study more rather than going to Japan. Just stay there for five days with the Japanese people. But after five days, my thought has changed. They say, Japanese are very polite people. They're friendly. They're very sympathetic, compassionate. I like them. So maybe in the future, I would like to find a job about some sort of cultural relationship between Korea and Japan. And she says, my parents are worried because I became too friendly to Japan. This is a fantastic memo, fantastic report that I see from a Cultural and Educational Exchange program. And I would like to let you know there is a foundation on both sides, Korea-Japan Cultural Exchange Foundation, which is doing a fantastic job of providing a golden bridge between the young leaders for the future. Finally, on the question from Hong Kong, new style of great power relationship. This sounds great. This sounds great. This is new and this is a great power relationship. But as I mentioned, this should not be an excuse for any country, US or China, to push ahead its own agenda without due respect and regard for the national interest and sovereignty of the countries in Asia. Whether it's Korea or other countries in the area. You said the United States kind of pushed back the idea. Maybe there are some reasons. And the reason is perhaps related to my observation that if China wants to use this concept to push ahead its own agenda to become a kind of dominant power in Asia, then US cannot accept it. But if it's another concept than what the US administration is thinking about, perhaps we can develop it into a more constructive concept. Whatever brand you name it, somehow as I mentioned at the beginning in my talk, having a constructive partnership with China from the US viewpoint is in the interest of two powers and also in the interest of all the powers involved. So Korea should, from our view, Korea should continue to play, to send a message to the US and to China. And perhaps to Japan that in order to create a stable and constructive international relations in Asia, US-China relationship, first of all, should be stable, peaceful. China-Japan relationship should be effectively managed and Korea should contribute to make it happen in whatever way possible. And that's in the interest of South Korea and that's the future of our foreign policy in my view. This is a good way to conclude the event. At the beginning of the event, I was a little skeptical about the future direction of the US-RK-Japan trilateral relationship because next year, as you said, next year marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of bilateral ties between Japan and Korea, but also it marks the 70th anniversary of the Korea's independence from colonial or Japanese colonial rule. So I think the bilateral relationship between Japan and Korea stands at a very important crossroads this year and I think that what both government will do in the remaining this year will have a really, have a big impact in their relationship, at least for the remaining years, for the Park and Sheik public government. But I think I'm much relieved to hear your comments today and I really delight that you could join us today and give all these insightful remarks. Thank you for, please join me. I'm both thanking Dr. Park Jin for his remarks. Thank you.