2015 아산플레넘 만찬사(영문)

Chairman Chung,
Dr. Hahm,
Former Prime Minister Lee,
Distinguished participants,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Yesterday, I came back to Korea after an exhausting but rewarding two-week visit to South America with my President. But seeing so many friends here today, I feel myself being charged up.

It was almost exactly this time last year that I spoke at some length in this Plenum about the “future of history.” In that keynote speech, I pointed out the “return of geopolitics” and how the world order is going through a major transition. So for me, returning to this forum one year later, to discuss whether the “the U.S. is back” feels very timely and relevant.

America’s rebalance to Asia is unfolding in the context of this region’s relentless geo-political and geo-economic transformation.

Over the last year, we have witnessed several new developments in the fields of politics, security and economic cooperation – such as the China-led Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank; the new U.S.-Japan defense guidelines; Russia’s push for engagement with Northeast Asian countries, amid the Ukrainian situation; and North Korea’s acceleration of its nuclear weapons capability and its cozying up to Russia, and recent reports suggested the North Korean leader Kim Jung-un may show up in Moscow. 

And as the latest U.S. Congressional Research Service report points out, history issues could upset regional relations for reasons very well known to you – but with some encouraging signs of reconciliation, such as the Korea-Japan-China Foreign Ministers’ meeting in Seoul, the Korea-Japan leaders’ conversation in Singapore, and the China-Japan leaders’ conversation in Bandung.

Furthermore, more than any time before, regional integration is a hot topic, with the FTAAP (Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific), RCEP (Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership), and especially the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership), together with the ASEAN Economic Community to be launched later this year.

This brief juxtaposition of developments may help you realize why I call the current regional environment a complex multi-factor equation. For this reason, solving this intricate bilateral and regional matrix constitutes a key part of our foreign and security policy to achieve our goals of peace and prosperity in the Korean peninsula and Northeast Asia.

The most important factor in this is the role of the U.S. in Asia. Interestingly, the theme of today’s discussions is in the form of a question. There are different perspectives and analyses on this. Some argue that the U.S. actually never left Asia, so there is no return. Others counter that the U.S. was preoccupied with the Middle East and Afghanistan, and couldn’t afford to concentrate on East Asia, at least until a few years ago; that even now it has challenges in the Middle East, as well as the sequestration problem.

But for me, whichever way the argument might go, the bottom line is that the U.S. forward presence has been an integral part of our life in the region. As a matter of fact, U.S. involvement with the region has been adjusted in line with East Asia’s situation and strategic imperatives – for example, starting from the Nixon doctrine of the 1960’s, the East Asia Strategic Initiative and East Asia Strategic Review of the 1990’s, to the recent rebalance to Asia.

From my perspective, it is clear that the U.S. rebalance to Asia is not just a matter of rhetoric. Despite pressing issues such as Ukraine, Syria, ISIL, Israel-Palestine and Iran, the U.S. is showing a renewed commitment to and focus on Asia. President Obama has visited the Asia-Pacific more than any other region. In fact, his most frequent destination has been Korea.

And last February, at a major speech announcing the new National Security Strategy, National Security Advisor Dr. Susan Rice reaffirmed America’s rebalance to the region. And translating words into action, she announced the invitation to four key leaders – Korea, Japan, China and Indonesia – to visit Washington, D.C. this year, a very unusual gesture and commitment. 

This demonstrates that in word and deed, the U.S. – already engaged with the East Asia Summit (EAS), APEC and leading the TPP, is really investing in alliances and partnerships in this part of the world – not to mention its contribution to peace and prosperity over the last few decades.

Yet, in order for the rebalance to Asia to be a real blessing to the region, several factors should be taken on board.

First, the U.S. needs not just to retain but also to reinforce its leadership role as a stabilizer in the face of regional security challenges. The importance of America’s forward presence cannot be overemphasized.

A latest case in point is the U.S. collaborating with Korea and other partners, in deterring North Korea’s fourth nuclear test, as well as major strategic provocations since early last year. Certainly, the firm stance on the UN Security Council sanctions against North Korea, as well as the unity of the five parties on the nuclear issue, is another contributing factor.

Even though the Iranian and North Korean nuclear cases are different in nature, one good lesson we can take from the Iranian nuclear case is that on the North Korean nuclear issue too, the collaboration of the U.S. and others among the five parties has an important role in achieving a negotiated settlement or a modus vivendi.

As you already know, very early this morning the new U.S.-Japan defense guidelines were announced. Like my spokesperson has already stated, it should contribute to the peace and stability of the region by being implemented transparently within the framework of the U.S.-Japan alliance and the exclusively national defense-oriented policy.

As I have emphasized on many previous occasions, bilateral arrangements are only a necessary condition for peace and security unless they are reinforced by regional dialogue mechanisms. In this regard, countries in Northeast Asia can take advantage of the EAS, the ASEAN Regional Forum, and the Northeast Asia Peace and Cooperation Initiative, or NAPCI for short.

Second, is how the rebalance to Asia can be conducive to narrowing down differences and moving to constructive and harmonious ties between and among regional countries, not to magnify or aggravate tensions. I believe that the Plenum’s sub-sessions reflected on these very questions. Indeed, in recent years, there have been some heated discussions on geopolitical rivalries in this region, including at the Davos Forum this past January.

At the center of these lie the relations between the U.S. and China. On the one hand, some in China think that America’s stronger ties with its allies are to contain her. On the other hand, others in the U.S. view the AIIB initiative as an attempt to challenge the U.S.-led post-war global economic order. In short, the suspicions run both ways. The key question is how to turn this into a win-win situation by synergizing all the efforts for peace and prosperity in the region. In the case of Korea’s participation in the AIIB, we carefully weighed up various aspects, including governance, transparency and development needs.

The volatile situation in Ukraine seems to have some ripple effects, including in terms of Russia-North Korea relations. Under its desperate circumstances, North Korea may wish to use the Russia card. So, if Kim Jong-un travels to Moscow in May, I hope he will mingle with international leaders to make the trip a true eye-opener. There is much he could learn from foreign leaders, such as Vietnam, Cuba as well as East European transition countries.

On Korea-Japan relations, the U.S. has also played a constructive role, including a series of trilateral coordination meetings at many levels. Cooperation among Korea, the U.S. and Japan is crucial to deal with the strategic threat posed by North Korea’s nukes. The U.S. takes its alliance with Japan seriously, but as we can see from President Obama’s strong comments on history in Seoul, April last year, the U.S. has been working hard to ease the strains caused by wrangling over historical issues.

In this regard, the eyes of the world are now set on Prime Minister Abe, who is in Washington, D.C. at the moment. There have been strong voices from Korea, the U.S., regional countries and the international community urging him not to miss this year’s golden opportunities to make a clean break with the past as the Germans did. Like they say, only Nixon could go to China. Prime Minister Abe could show that kind of leadership to steer Japan’s future towards the right direction.   

Some of you in the audience may be wondering how the latest regional developments are viewed in Korea – because some in Korea tend to equate a bolstered U.S.-Japan alliance to a somehow diminished Korea-U.S. alliance, or even view it as evidence of Korea being isolated or secluded. Some tend to consider Korea-U.S. ties and Korea-China ties as in conflict with each other. However, I would humbly submit that these kinds of views do not reflect reality. As President Obama remarked in Seoul last year, Korea’s ties with the U.S. and with China are completely compatible. And for us Koreans, an alliance is an alliance, and a strategic partnership is a strategic partnership, and both relationships are valuable to us. In a similar vein, it hardly needs explanation that a robust Korea-U.S. alliance and a sturdy U.S.-Japan alliance can go hand-in-hand. The Korea-U.S. alliance, which is known as in its best state ever, cannot and will not be weakened or marginalized because of the U.S.-Japan alliance. We need to overcome this mentality of zero-sum game.

There are also some views that the latest Japan-China leaders’ dialogue happened over Korea’s head. But the truth is that Korea has always welcomed such dialogue over the past years. As a matter of fact, Korea, as the chair of the Korea-Japan-China trilateral Foreign Ministers’ meeting, spent the better part of last year to resume this meeting despite the respective bilateral tensions. Thanks to our efforts, this meeting offered opportunities for bilateral dialogue in the sidelines between Korea-Japan and Japan-China. More importantly, the three countries agreed to hold the Trilateral Summit at the earliest convenient time. The U.S. welcomed this development among the three neighbors. I am reasonably optimistic that this summit will be held within this year, especially in the wake of the leaders’ meetings in Singapore and in Bandung which I have mentioned. Such a summit would go a long way in reinforcing America’s efforts in the region.

In a similar vein, confidence building measures, either bilateral or trilateral, could ease tensions in the East China Sea as well as the South China Sea and Northeast Asia. Indeed, this is the very reason Korea proposed NAPCI, which is a regional mechanism involving key stakeholders.

Third, the rebalance to Asia needs to be in sync with an open, inclusive regionalism. Regional FTAs, whether the TPP, RCEP, or FTAAP, may start off with limited membership, but then, the doors should be opened for all other qualified regional countries as well.

At last year’s APEC Ministerial meeting, I paraphrased Richard Bach’s “Jonathan Livinston Seagull” to suggest that the Asia-Pacific region should aim higher, faster and broader to boost the regional economic integration. This reinforced my President’s message at the same APEC summit, that when it comes to the region’s FTAs, the various side streams should ultimately converge into a bigger waterway. 

You are reminded that the TPP negotiations were to some extent energized by the successful conclusion of the Korea-U.S. FTA. The TPP, in turn, has galvanized discussions on the Korea-China-Japan FTA.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The U.S. rebalance to Asia is an important part of the foreign and security policy debate.

However, these days Korea has now grown, and is reaching out of the confines of Asia. I already spoke about my President’s visit to South America, completing her tour to Pacific Rim countries. She will be also active in multilateral diplomacy, including the UN General Assembly, sustainable development goals and other global governance issues. All this demonstrates that Korea is actively engaged in global agendas as a responsible global member of the global community.

Of course, this is not an easy task. As I have already mentioned, I sometimes compare Korea’s current diplomacy to a multifactor equation because of its complexity. However, I believe that as Korean diplomacy has overcome many daunting challenges in the last couple of years, it will continue to do so. 

Having said all that, allow me to conclude on the following note. In the longer term, the course of history has been about the progress of human dignity. And time and again, the tides of change and reform have proved to be unstoppable. Only those who stand on the right side of history have prevailed and will do so. Like an American history professor eloquently said recently, “we must look back before we look forward.”

In this regard, today and tomorrow, we have the sharpest minds in foreign and security policy, as well as history, as our friends and companions. I thank Chairman Chung, Dr. Hahm and the Asan Institute for organizing this magnificent event, and sincerely hope it will continue to grow as a major Seoul-based forum with a world-wide reach.

Thank you.