[The 2nd EAI-MBN Foreign Policy Strategy Symposium] The Next Government's Foreign Policy Strategy

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgTx15-VqRM

The East Asia Institute (Director Son Yeol) and MBN jointly held the <2nd EAI-MBN Foreign Policy Strategy Symposium: The Next Government's Foreign Policy Strategy> on Tuesday, November 30, at the Glad Hotel in Yeouido. The panelists engaged in in-depth discussions on four major tasks facing the new government: the complexification of diplomacy towards the US and China, the denuclearization of North Korea and the 21st-century resolution of North Korean issues, a new paradigm for Korea-Japan relations, and leading diplomacy that will guide new civilizational standards in the post-COVID-19 order, as well as successful foreign policy strategies.

This symposium was conducted in a hybrid format, with both on-site attendees who had pre-registered and real-time online participants.

Program

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

f2e34dd1a320d063

Video Script

Hello everyone. We will now begin the 2021 Foreign Policy Strategy Symposium, jointly hosted by MBN and the East Asia Institute, on the topic of 'Foreign Policy Strategy for the Next Government.' I am Lee Dam, an MBN announcer, and I will be your host today. Welcome. Given the current COVID-19 situation, we have invited many pre-registered attendees to be with us today. The event is also being live-streamed on YouTube.

Now, for our first session, Director Sohn Hyuk of the East Asia Institute will give the opening remarks. Please give him a warm round of applause. Hello. I am Sohn Hyuk, Director of the East Asia Institute, who was just introduced. I would like to thank everyone who has joined us today for this Foreign Policy Strategy Symposium, jointly hosted by our institute and MBN, on the topic of 'Foreign Policy for the Next Government.' First, I would like to express my gratitude to our partner institution, MBN, represented by CEO Yoo Jae-seok, and all other related staff members who helped prepare this event. I would also like to thank Minister of Foreign Affairs Chung Eui-yong, Chairman Lee In-young of the National Assembly's Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, and Policy Committee Chairman Kim Do-eup of the People Power Party for gracing us with their presence. And special thanks to our panelists: Professor Kim Sung-han, Ambassador Wi Sung-lac, Representative Tae Young-ho, and Representative Hong Ik-pyo. Finally, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to Mr. Ha Young-sun, CEO of EAI, Mr. Jeon Jae-seong, Director of EAI, and Professor Park Won-gon for attending on behalf of EAI.

South Korea, due to its geographical location and the nature of its system, is significantly influenced by external factors. This is evident in the reality of division and its geopolitical position surrounded by major powers. Furthermore, its export-oriented economic structure exposes it to the waves of international politics and the global economy without a breakwater. For this reason, it is often said that the President-elect, after taking office, has to personally handle foreign policy affairs that account for 40-50% of all presidential duties. Therefore, the President must understand major foreign policy and security issues that arise constantly and set strategic directions amidst an overwhelming flow of reports. To do this, substantial learning and training are required even before taking office. However, foreign policy issues have not been significantly debated during the presidential election process, including the primaries and general elections, despite their importance. This is true for most countries; even the United States, which manages global affairs, has rarely held elections where foreign policy was the deciding factor. The same applies to South Korea's presidential elections. Consequently, the candidates' qualifications and knowledge regarding foreign policy are often assessed only superficially. Except for a few past presidents, it is often said that some presidents, who had relatively limited knowledge of foreign policy and security, were elected and, to some extent, had to learn on the job to make policy decisions. This is akin to a CEO of a company in an industry they have no experience in. This situation is unlikely to be significantly different in the current presidential election.

To understand foreign policy and security matters and set a strategic direction amidst a flood of related reports, significant learning and training must be in place even before taking office. However, it is also true that foreign policy issues were not a major point of contention during the presidential election process, including the primary elections. This is the case in most countries, and even the United States, which manages the world, has rarely held elections where foreign policy issues determine the winner or loser.

The same applies to South Korea's presidential elections. Therefore, the verification of candidates' or their teams' qualifications and knowledge in that process is likely to be quite superficial. Consequently, with the exception of a few past presidents, there are analyses suggesting that some who were elected had relatively limited knowledge of foreign policy and security, and to put it perhaps a bit exaggeratedly, they had to learn from scratch to make policy decisions. This is akin to becoming the CEO of an industry one has never worked in before. Therefore, this presidential election is not expected to be significantly different.

Therefore, the roles of those who assist the president, who may have relatively limited knowledge, are extremely important, and policy pledges are also very significant. Thus, we have invited today the key figures in foreign policy and security who are assisting the presidential candidates of both major parties. These individuals can be said to represent both parties. Together with them, the East Asia Institute and MBN will first present the trends in public opinion regarding national diplomacy and then, for the selected important issues, we will hear and discuss the policies of both camps.

Following this, we will continue our discussion based on the contents of the 'Policy Proposals for the New Government,' published by the East Asia Institute, titled 'Diplomatic Policy Proposals for the New Government 2022.' Presidential candidates and their campaigns tend to focus on winning the election, making it difficult to prepare thoroughly for the conditions of a successful presidency after the election. However, if diplomatic policy goals and pledges are somewhat neglected during the nomination and general election processes, or if impractical pledges are made, there will be significant difficulties in implementation later, which can damage the authority of the government and the president. Under the current system of a single five-year term, if policies are not well-established at the outset, considerable difficulties will ensue, as we understand from history.

Therefore, I believe that having well-refined policy pledges from both party candidates and their campaigns is truly in the national interest. I hope that today's forum can contribute to this end, and I will now proceed with the conference. Thank you very much. Applause, please. Thank you for your remarks. You have highlighted the importance of foreign policy and provided a brief overview of the agenda. Next, we will have the welcoming remarks from the CEO of MBN, Mr. Yoo Ki-ho. Please give him a warm round of applause. I believe the introduction of guests by Director Sohn has made my remarks somewhat redundant. I have prepared something different, but I will keep it brief. I would like to express my gratitude to all the distinguished guests, including the ministers, chairpersons, members, and other guests who are present today.

I would also like to thank Director Sohn and the East Asia Institute for their efforts in organizing this event. As the presidential election approaches, we believe that the most pressing issue for the next government will likely involve the various diplomatic challenges surrounding the Korean Peninsula. Hence, this symposium has been organized. The recent urea solution crisis and China risk, which we have experienced, and the changes in the geopolitical landscape surrounding the Korean Peninsula, driven by the Moon Jae-in administration's pursuit of a declaration of the end of the war, are profoundly shifting beneath the surface, though perhaps not visibly.

Furthermore, the trade war between the United States and China is likely to intensify. As this happens, South Korea will increasingly face choices across economic, diplomatic, security, and technological domains. The issue of Japan also cannot be overlooked. The current state of Japan-Korea relations, which has deteriorated to an almost worst-case scenario, now requires bold political decisions to find a breakthrough. Voices calling for such action are emerging from various quarters. Present here today are the key foreign policy strategists from the presidential campaigns of both major parties, gathered to discuss all these topics. Therefore, our expectations are high. What strategies should the next president adopt to succeed in foreign policy? How will the post-COVID-19 era unfold? These are likely to be key discussion points today. Thus, we hope that this symposium, organized by MBN and the East Asia Institute, will serve as a crucial opportunity to lay the groundwork for the next administration's foreign policy strategy. Thank you. Thank you for your remarks. CEO Yoo Ki-ho has shared the purpose of the symposium. Next, we will have congratulatory remarks from our distinguished guests. First, we will hear congratulatory remarks from Minister of Unification, Mr. Lee In-young. Please give him a warm round of applause.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am Lee In-young, Minister of Unification. I sincerely congratulate you on the convening of the 2nd Diplomatic Strategy Symposium. First, I would like to express my gratitude to Director Sohn of the East Asia Institute and CEO Yoo Ki-ho of MBN for organizing this meaningful event.

I would also like to thank Lee Gwang-jae, Chairperson of the National Assembly's Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee, and Kim Do-up, Policy Chairman of the People Power Party, for their presence. I am also grateful to Chief Political Correspondent Jung Chang-won and Chairman Ha Young-sun for moderating the discussion on the next government's foreign policy strategy, and to former Ambassador Wi Sung-nak, former Vice Minister Kim Sung-han, Director Jae-sung Chun, Professor Park Won-kyung, Representative Hong Ik-pyo of the Democratic Party, and Representative Tae Yong-ho of the People Power Party for preparing the discussions. As experts with diverse perspectives are gathered here today, I hope this will be an opportunity to further advance South Korea's diplomatic and unification strategies and foster constructive discussions.

Distinguished guests, as you are well aware, the world order is undergoing a profound transformation. The ongoing strategic competition between the US and China, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, is testing humanity's collective will and capabilities. At this juncture of change, we must address the Korean Peninsula issue with great intensity and prudence, and formulate strategies to build a new future for South Korea. As everyone knows, the Korean Peninsula issue is complex and multifaceted.

It is an issue between North and South Korea, yet it is also an international matter and a challenging, future-oriented task that must be pursued with internal consensus. Therefore, I have always believed that we must strive to build a strong foundation of the three pillars that we must steadfastly adhere to. First, we must properly implement inter-Korean agreements based on dialogue and trust. The inter-Korean agreements, including the South-North Joint Communiqué of 1972, the Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression, and Exchanges and Cooperation between the South and the North of 1991, the June 15 Joint Declaration, the October 4th Summit Declaration, the April 27th Panmunjom Declaration, and the September Pyongyang Joint Declaration, are all significant achievements and assets painstakingly created by successive governments to develop inter-Korean relations.

I believe these should be respected and implemented in themselves. Of course, this is not a unilateral responsibility but a mutual undertaking. The South and the North must make concerted efforts through dialogue to implement agreements and build mutual trust. Second, national consensus and understanding are necessary to establish sustainable peace and unification policies. As part of this effort, our civil society has engaged in social dialogue over the past four years, involving conservative, moderate, and pro-North Korean factions, as well as religious circles. Various public opinions have been consolidated into a consensus document called the 'Unification People's Agreement.'

The government and political circles need to seriously consider and actively accept the results of these integrative efforts and fully implement them as policies. This is because we believe that based on national consensus and civil agreement, discussions on peace and unification on the Korean Peninsula can naturally evolve into a mature and constructive dimension that offers hope and anticipation to our people. Lastly, we must constantly strive to create a virtuous cycle that garners international support and cooperation based on the advancement of inter-Korean relations.

Looking back, in 2000 and 2018, when the momentum for inter-Korean dialogue was established and grew, we were able to lead the peace process on the Korean Peninsula through international cooperation. Conversely, when inter-Korean relations regressed, we were marginalized in Korean Peninsula issues, and the peace and security situation in and around the peninsula weakened, worsened, and tensions escalated. Therefore, when inter-Korean dialogue and cooperation are restored, even amidst the intensifying US-China strategic competition, the Korean Peninsula can be more firmly established not as a stage for confrontation, but as a space for cooperation and co-prosperity towards peace.

Through this process, we can also more persuasively propose to the international community a shared vision and bold imagination for the peace and prosperity of Northeast Asia and Eurasia, extending beyond the Korean Peninsula. Distinguished guests, since its launch, our government has actively sought the comprehensive and parallel development of denuclearization, a peace regime, and inter-Korean relations as a party to the Korean Peninsula issue. Furthermore, since the launch of the Biden administration, South Korea and the United States have closely coordinated to develop a North Korea policy based on diplomacy and engagement.

Currently, South Korea and the United States are jointly discussing the promotion of a declaration of the end of the war and humanitarian cooperation with North Korea. The United States emphasizes that it has no hostile intentions toward North Korea and is keeping open the possibility of unconditional dialogue and pragmatic denuclearization solutions, different from those of the Obama and Trump administrations. Meanwhile, despite concerns about military tension in the North, and while exploring the possibility of dialogue by setting preconditions, the uncertainty in the Korean Peninsula situation, which significantly increased in 2020, has relatively stabilized in 2021. The inter-Korean communication and liaison lines were reconnected in early October and are operating normally, maintaining at least the foundation for inter-Korean dialogue.

Overall, I would say that the situation on the Korean Peninsula is at a crossroads that could lead to another change. Will we capitalize on the momentum for dialogue to move towards a greater cycle of peace, or will we face prolonged stalemate and escalating new tensions in Northeast Asia? It now depends entirely on us. Therefore, I will listen attentively to what you have to say today. Distinguished guests who have joined us today, as the season transitions from late autumn to full winter,

Nature follows its course, but I believe that the history of the Korean Peninsula will advance in the right direction. Our government will not rush, but if there are tasks to be done during our remaining term, we will not hesitate and will make every effort to create a peaceful situation on the Korean Peninsula until the end. We hope that the diplomatic strategy for the next government will seek changes that are trusted by the international community, embraced by the public, and responded to by the North.

We respectfully ask for your cooperation in opening the door to a new future of peaceful coexistence and common prosperity for our Korean Peninsula. Thank you. Thank you for your insightful and heartfelt remarks. As the event is slightly delayed, we would appreciate a brief word. Next, we will proceed with the congratulatory remarks in order of the schedule. First, we will hear congratulatory remarks from Kim Do-up, Chairman of the People Power Party's Policy Committee.

Please give him a warm round of applause. Thank you, Chairman Sohn. I am Kim Do-up, Policy Chairman of the People Power Party. I sincerely congratulate MBN and the East Asia Institute on jointly hosting this symposium on the diplomatic and unification strategy for the next government. I also express my gratitude to CEO Yoo Ki-ho, Director Sohn, and everyone involved in organizing this event. If we were to evaluate the Moon Jae-in administration's unification policy over the past five years, what score would it receive? How would you assess inter-Korean relations and relations with China? Are we assertively pursuing our national interests while speaking our minds without hesitation?

Is the trust in the ROK-US alliance firmly maintained? Is there a solution in sight for ROK-Japan relations? In the midst of US-China confrontation, has South Korea's future direction been set? We are faced with extremely complex diplomatic issues. Therefore, the next government will have the task of unraveling a multifaceted diplomatic equation that is more intricate than ever before. A more sophisticated and meticulous diplomatic and unification strategy will be absolutely necessary.

I believe it is time to adopt a more rational and sober perspective. We must meticulously analyze the rapidly changing international landscape, including inter-Korean relations, the ROK-US alliance, ROK-China diplomacy, and ROK-Japan relations, and respond agilely. The world is currently at war with COVID-19. Even before the 'with corona' phase could fully take hold, the fear of the new variant, Omicron, is spreading. From a diplomatic perspective, the pandemic can lead to crises and conflicts, but it can also be an opportunity for fairness and solidarity.

We must also adopt a diplomatic strategy that leverages crises as opportunities to strengthen solidarity and cooperation with the international community. South Korea is now classified as one of the world's top ten economies and a developed nation. This implies that we must forge a new path, one that has not been trodden before. In this sense, today's event, where we are envisioning the diplomatic and unification strategy for the next government, is profoundly meaningful. I thank everyone who has worked hard to prepare this valuable occasion. Thank you. Thank you for your remarks. These were the congratulatory remarks from Kim Do-up, Chairman of the People Power Party's Policy Committee. Next, we will hear congratulatory remarks from Lee Gwang-jae, Chairperson of the National Assembly's Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee. Please give him a warm round of applause as he has prepared extensively.

Yes, as the saying goes, 'Before drinking from a well, remember the person who dug it.' Let us give a big round of applause to Director Sohn of the East Asia Institute, Mr. Ha Young-sun, and the MBN family. I would like to share a few thoughts rather than just offer congratulations, something to ponder. First, are we a nation that lives with dreams? Without Dokdo and the Meiji Restoration, Japan might not be where it is today. Without Bismarck's unification of Germany and the two wars, Germany might not be where it is today. Similarly, without integrating its neighboring countries, Britain might not be where it is today. If President Lincoln had not created the United States, it would have remained merely a collection of 13 states. So, do we have leaders who genuinely aspire to unify this peninsula, and do we live with such dreams? This is something we must consider. We need clear national goals. Second, I believe we are currently in a period of transition in the world order, similar to the eve of the industrial revolution, marked by technological revolutions.

The fundamental axis of this shift in world order lies in solving the riddle of the Sphinx. Those who solve the riddle are given opportunities; those who do not perish. Ultimately, the challenges we face are: Who will be the leading digital nation? Will South Korea transition from a climate-vulnerable nation to a climate-leading nation? How will we survive the next 50 years of US-China competition, which is shaking the global order? Furthermore, with the advent of a 120-year lifespan, what will people do for the remaining 60 years after retiring at 60 or 65? The one who creates a new order by fundamentally changing existing social welfare systems will become the protagonist of civilization.

We do not know which country it will be. As Kissinger said, the era of American dominance is over, and the era of Europe will not come. It will come from somewhere in Asia, but we don't know where that city will be. We must consider who will be the protagonist of this new era of civilization and this pivotal moment of global order reorganization, who will first solve these common challenges, including the pandemic. Another issue is peace and coexistence. Historically, during the Imjin War, the Sino-Japanese War, and the Korean War, cutting-edge weapons emerged.

Even now, the weapon systems surrounding the Korean Peninsula represent the world's most advanced weaponry. How crucial and significant is peace? We have failed to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue since the Kim Young-sam administration, spanning six administrations. Four US administrations have passed. So, we need to fundamentally rethink how to establish peace. Second, the division of the Korean Peninsula was already discussed during the Imjin War as the partition of Joseon, and it appeared in British diplomatic documents during the Sino-Japanese War, and it is the same now. So, I hope our leaders will consider how to fundamentally address the issue of peace and move towards peaceful unification.

Even now, the weapon systems surrounding this Korean Peninsula are all the world's most cutting-edge weapons. Peace is a truly urgent and critical issue. We have, in fact, been unable to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue since the Kim Young-sam administration, with four U.S. administrations having passed. Therefore, we need to fundamentally consider how to establish the issue of peace. Second, the issue of the division of Korea, which appeared as a division of Joseon during the Imjin War, as well as during the Sino-Japanese War, and emerged in British diplomatic documents, remains the same today. I hope our leaders will truly consider how to fundamentally prioritize the issue of peace and advance towards peaceful unification.

In this regard, I drew inspiration from a remark by a former UN Secretary-General. When he became UN Secretary-General, he noted that there were summit meetings for Africa, the Middle East, and South America, but no summit meeting for Northeast Asia. Summit meetings involving the leaders of South Korea, China, Japan, and North Korea were rarely held. In this context, former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon believed it was necessary to create a framework for a Northeast Asia Summit involving seven countries – the US, China, Japan, Russia, North Korea, and Mongolia – to shape our future.

Furthermore, as we move beyond the armistice to a peace regime, we must consider a North-South FTA at some point. Then-President Roh Moo-hyun stated that the ROK-US FTA is essentially a North-South FTA. When he proposed a North-South FTA to Chairman Kim Jong-il, Kim Jong-il asked, 'What is an FTA?' Ultimately, this leads to two questions: how to guarantee North Korea's system, and when, how, and by whom will North Korea's economy be rebuilt if it abandons its nuclear weapons? Will we merely say, 'We will provide $5 billion if you give up nuclear weapons,' or do we have a reconstruction program? Are we persuading North Korea with a 'Marshall Plan-like' plan? Considering these points, I suggest we also consider a North-South FTA.

We are entering an era of technological warfare. The US and China are strong in fundamental technologies. Therefore, I propose the following: We should host a global technology competition in Korea, at least for Asians, to foster groundbreaking technological evolution by bringing together major Korean companies like Samsung and Naver, Kakao, and large capital. Second, with companies like Microsoft implementing strategies to purchase goods only from those using renewable energy (RE100), I believe Korea should host the RE100 competition.

By hosting this competition, we can bring together leading global companies to Korea and demonstrate that we are a nation at the forefront of overcoming the climate crisis. Furthermore, the most famous entity in Korea currently is BTS. I believe the time has come for humanity to create a military force to respond to the climate crisis, beyond UN peacekeeping forces. Recently, there was a debate in the National Assembly about whether BTS should be exempt from military service.

Decades ago, author Lee Byeong-ju wrote about the difference between Maria Callas and Pansori singers in Spain. Those who succeed in classical music are exempt from military service. Therefore, we should have the same standard for those who have achieved global success in popular music like BTS. However, if the public values military service, I suggest we create a unit to respond to the climate crisis and allow them to participate in military service. Our military has military bands, right?

Then, by performing globally and delivering messages about overcoming the climate crisis, BTS could foster a love for South Korea among many friends worldwide. We recall how the Beatles sparked a cultural revolution among young people globally, promoting anti-war sentiments. I believe we should consider BTS in this light. Finally, while the Indo-Pacific strategy and others are good, what is our strategy? Looking ahead, the Arctic is opening up. This will lead to the opening of Arctic shipping routes to Europe, and as the ice melts, the Northeast Passage will open, allowing us to reach Canada and the United States.

If the Silk Road connected China and Rome, and Columbus's voyages connected Europe and the Americas, and if the internet connects the entire world as one path, then I believe the new routes of the Northeast Passage and the Arctic shipping routes, which connect these two, represent a new path connecting all continents for humanity. If these routes open, the United States, China, Japan, Western Russia, and the Eastern regions like Vladivostok, and from the US perspective, Canada and Alaska, will have new economic engines for development.

To create such an economic engine, the North Korean issue must be resolved peacefully; otherwise, these routes will not open. Therefore, we must have a grand vision like this 'Nabi Project' to persuade neighboring countries with economic benefits. Japan is already developed in the eastern Pacific, so its western region is underdeveloped, as is South Korea's eastern region. Therefore, I hope we can become a nation that dreams of challenging these regions with projects like the 'Nabi Project' to persuade our neighboring countries and make them our strategy.

Finally, if we live like Singapore, Singapore has a world-class 'A' system. We need to have a world-class 'A' system. If we work like Singapore, our GDP would be around $350 million, and if we were like Silicon Valley, we would be the third-largest economy in the world. I would like to make one proposal here: Asia currently hosts 7,400 multinational corporations and international organizations. Of these, only 92 multinational headquarters and research institutes are located in Korea.

The remaining 3,000 to 4,000 are in Singapore and Hong Kong. When these multinational headquarters and world-class research institutes come to Korean soil, our pride will be maintained, our national strength will grow, and we will be seen as a nation living in the world. I believe this is truly global strategy, not just international political strategy, because diplomacy without economics and technology does not exist today. Let us build such a nation together. Thank you. Thank you for your remarks. These were the congratulatory remarks from Lee Gwang-jae, Chairperson of the National Assembly's Foreign Affairs and Unification Committee.

Next, we will have a group photo. As this is a valuable occasion to discuss national foreign policy and security, we will take a commemorative photo with our distinguished guests on the stage. Please come forward. We will take a photo first with masks on, and then without masks.

The keynote presentation will now follow. Please be seated. Today's keynote presentation will be delivered by Director Sohn of the East Asia Institute, based on the results of the East Asia Institute's public opinion survey. Please give Director Sohn a warm round of applause. Director Sohn, you are being called up. As our time is significantly delayed, I had planned to present the survey results over about 15 minutes, but due to time constraints, I will proceed as quickly as possible.

This public opinion survey was conducted to aid the policy discussion forum today, where experts will be debating. We felt it would be beneficial to examine the general public's thoughts on key foreign policy issues, as diplomacy today, in what is termed 'diplomatic democratization,' must proceed with public support. Therefore, we will briefly look at what the general public currently thinks.

I will not go into detail about the survey methodology, but it was a web-based survey of 1,000 individuals. The age distribution was 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 60s and above, with approximately 15% in their 20s, 15% in their 30s, 19% in their 40s, 20% in their 50s, and 30% in their 60s and above. Interestingly, when we asked respondents about their ideological leanings and preferred political parties,

28% identified as progressive, while 26% identified as conservative, showing a similar distribution. We also found a significant portion of moderates in this survey. First, as mentioned by Representative Lee Gwang-jae, this relates to our national identity. There are those who view us as a peaceful Korean Peninsula state, and those who oppose this view. Others believe we should become an economically advanced nation, prioritizing the economy. Some advocate for becoming a respected power based on universal values and norms, and finally, some aspire to become a great power.

Overall, we researchers were quite surprised. We still think within a framework centered on the Korean Peninsula, but a little over 30% of the general public thinks that way. However, about 23% believe that we should become a respected power that actively contributes to establishing universal values and norms on a global scale. Looking at this by age group, the 20s generation shows a significant contribution. As you might expect, older generations, particularly those who are older, tend to prioritize peace on the Korean Peninsula.

Regarding the immediate threats, to proceed quickly, it is quite interesting that the highest response was for the crisis of public health and health security, such as COVID-19 and the spread of infectious diseases. Although the difference is small, the second highest was US-China strategic competition, followed closely by trade and high-tech competition. The traditional issue, North Korea's nuclear program, was relatively low at 34%. Climate change and the environment were also significant; when we surveyed, we included fine dust in parentheses for climate change.

This indicates that the public does not view North Korea's nuclear program as the primary threat but sees a multifaceted range of threats. This is reflected in the top foreign policy priorities for the next government. As you can see, people are likely most concerned about economic issues – strengthening economic diplomacy. This reflects the concerns about trade and high-tech competition mentioned on the previous page.

Second, strengthening diplomacy related to infectious diseases and climate change and environmental diplomacy are priorities. The ROK-US alliance follows. Inter-Korean exchange and cooperation expansion and international cooperation for denuclearization progress are also important. Combined, these account for about 35%, placing them second only to economic diplomacy. As you can see, diplomatic priorities are also quite dispersed and evenly distributed. The most important foreign relations are the ROK-US alliance.

Regarding inter-Korean relations, it accounts for about 26% to 40%, or roughly 60% of the total, and many point to coping with U.S.-China competition as a significant factor. I will briefly discuss four important aspects of diplomacy starting now. The first is policy toward North Korea. Here at the East Asia Institute (EAI), we refer to policy toward North Korea as engagement and deterrence. Engagement through economic systems and inter-Korean exchanges, and deterrence of North Korea through security posture and military strength. The public ranks these three aspects at nearly equal levels.

This suggests that the public believes these should be pursued in conjunction, without over-emphasis on any one aspect. Second, the alliance with the US is considered paramount, but not just a military alliance; it also includes economic and high-tech cooperation. This reflects the public's hopes for economic diplomacy, which has been a recurring theme. Notably, progressive factions strongly emphasize building a horizontal relationship with the US.

Regarding Japan, there are two main aspects: First, resolving historical issues is a priority for 40% of respondents. Second, prioritizing future-oriented cooperation in areas such as economy, technology, security, and the environment is prioritized by 35%, which is almost as high as resolving historical issues. This also reflects the current trend in public consciousness. Finally, regarding the priorities of China policy, no single issue stands out prominently.

There is a view that cooperation with China is necessary on various issues. In this public opinion survey, we found two significant findings: first, a considerable increase in favorability towards the United States, and second, a sharp decrease in favorability towards China. Looking at the data, the impression of China is worse than that of Japan. Even the positive impressions of China are less than half of those for Japan. This indicates that anti-China sentiment in Korean society has reached a serious level. Just as anti-Japan sentiment poses a significant burden in ROK-Japan policy, this anti-China sentiment, and perhaps pro-China sentiment in some cases, presents challenges for future ROK-China policy.

Overwhelmingly, China's rise is viewed as a threat, and few people see China as a leader of the future world order. Even if GDPs become nearly equal by the end of the next presidential term, Koreans believe that the US will still dominate world hegemony in 10 years. Furthermore, 61% of Koreans believe that we must respond strongly to human rights abuses in China. This figure is even higher than that of the Japanese public, who are often cited as having the most critical view of China globally. Given the time constraints, I will briefly highlight just two more points.

First, the perception of threats is dispersed and multifaceted. Second, the corresponding policies also reflect this. Rather than focusing on a single issue, such as North Korea or the Korean Peninsula issue, there is a call for addressing various pressing issues. Alongside the strong disparity in favorability towards the US and China, ideological polarization between progressives and conservatives is starkly evident on all important issues. This chart is complex, but it shows that for every issue listed, the blue indicates strong support from progressives, while red indicates opposition. This demonstrates a significant deepening of ideological polarization.

China is an exception. Regardless of whether one is progressive or conservative, there is a strongly negative view of China, as you saw. While there is no significant progressive-conservative divide on China policy, it is concerning that this polarization is occurring on all other issues. Finally, there is the issue of Millennials and Gen Z (ages 20-30). For the MZ generation, sensitivity to threats such as climate change, environmental issues, and infectious diseases is much higher than for older generations.

This is evident in their responses regarding COVID-19 and climate change. Their sensitivity to friction in trade and high-tech competition is also high. Therefore, we have identified differences in security perceptions between the older and MZ generations. I will conclude by mentioning that there are a few further points, but these will be reflected in the discussion. I will end my presentation here. Thank you. Thank you. You have provided a basic understanding of public perception regarding the topics to be discussed today through the public opinion survey.

We will now proceed to the main sessions. We will have a short break for session preparation.

Is the microphone on? Yes. A moment ago, we just finished the presentation by Son 10, Senior Fellow at the East Asia Institute. I am Jeong Cha-won, head of the MBN Political Desk, who will be co-hosting with Director Lee. While Director Lee takes a brief breather, I will introduce our two distinguished guests. First, from the Democratic Party's Election Committee, we have Chairman Wi Seong-nak, who is leading the Practical Diplomacy Special Committee as a former Russian Ambassador. Welcome. Next, from the People Power Party's Election Committee, we have Professor Kim Sung-han of Korea University, former Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs and a consultant for the Foreign Affairs, Security, and Unification Committee. Welcome.

With the next presidential election just 99 days away, I believe it is time for both the ruling and opposition parties to find a path for national interest. In that regard, I have high expectations for what both of you will share today. Due to time constraints, I will proceed directly to the first question. On the 16th, the first summit between the US and China was held since President Biden took office. It seems to have ended much colder than initially anticipated, to the point where there were immediate remarks about boycotting the Beijing Olympics. Amidst the US-China conflict, our options are of great interest. First, what are your thoughts on this US-China summit?

Director Lee, please share your thoughts. The competition between the US and China is not ordinary, is it? While the current US-China competition differs significantly from the past US-Soviet Cold War, its scope is globally pervasive and casts a large shadow. It has become an external environment that overwhelmingly influences South Korea's diplomacy. Furthermore, the Biden administration has been more aggressively containing China, which is why the recent summit was so noteworthy. The US held a summit, and I believe the outcome was reasonably good, better than we anticipated.

This is because I believe both sides engaged in dialogue with a desire to avoid conflict as much as possible while competing, confronting, and cooperating. In particular, the agreement to establish various consultative bodies to govern future relations is a relatively positive sign. This includes discussions on the North Korean nuclear issue and the Iranian nuclear issue. This is an area of anticipation and great interest. Regarding the issue of Taiwan, which is a major concern, the willingness and effort to avoid extreme possibilities were evident, so while I don't consider it an overwhelmingly positive outcome, it has eased our concerns.

Moreover, both sides demonstrated a willingness to manage the relationship with a degree of restraint. Director Wi, you also mentioned the presidential election. The US-China strategic competition is indeed not ordinary, right? Yes. The fact that the leaders of the US and China recently held a summit itself suggests a willingness to manage bilateral relations through dialogue, which is positive. However, during the summit, the US's view of China, which it perceives as a country that violates universal values and is undemocratic, was highlighted. And President Xi Jinping did not hide his displeasure, for example, regarding human rights issues. Amidst this, we could also confirm through the summit that the competition between the two sides is intensifying in military, economic, and high-tech sectors. Furthermore, President Biden subsequently hinted at a boycott of the Beijing Olympics. Overall, the US-China relationship is not good, which is one reason for holding the summit. However, the anti-China sentiment in the US is also significant, as Director Son mentioned earlier. This sentiment, which once approached 80%, has recently fluctuated around 50%. Therefore, we cannot ignore the aspect of reflecting such public sentiment. From our perspective, we must closely watch the bilateral relationship between the US and China and develop sophisticated strategies for each issue.

I believe we need to develop sophisticated strategies for each issue. I would like to ask a follow-up question after hearing both of your remarks. Amidst the US-China competition, a major challenge for South Korea moving forward will be the US's strategy to expand and strengthen its alliance and partnership network. In this context, recent remarks by Kurt Campbell at the US-IP suggest the need to actively expand networks like the Quad and AUKUS. In this regard, South Korea will be a crucial partner. The Quad, for example, and AUKUS are described as open architectures that allow for new members. So, when the US government makes such requests, how should the South Korean government respond? This issue, which the US also points out, is that the expansion of alliances is something that Xi Jinping fears the most. Conversely, this means that China is highly sensitive to it. In this sensitive US-China competition, I am curious how the next government should handle this issue. Either of you may answer. Yes, how to respond to US-China competition is, in my opinion, the biggest issue in our foreign policy. Arguably, it is a more critical issue than the North Korean nuclear problem. Internally, we have had several perspectives: Should we side with our ally, the US? Or with the rising China? Or should we maximize national interest on a case-by-case basis? I believe these have been the main viewpoints.

The government has not definitively settled on a position, but I believe it has generally pursued maximizing national interest on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, the pull from both sides has increased, and as US-China competition intensifies, we are caught in an even stronger pull. Therefore, rather than reacting sensitively to the pressures from both sides, I believe we risk inviting self-inflicted pressure if we continue to do so. Instead, I wonder if it would be better to start from a simple and clear basic principle.

The US is our ally, and China is our partner. Therefore, the alliance is undoubtedly a closer relationship. That can be considered a simple starting point. Another point is shared values. We share more values with the US than with China. In fact, over the past century, we have pursued the values of democracy and a market economy, which we share with the US, and achieved tremendous success. South Korea is the only country in the world that started as a colony, achieved democracy, and became an advanced economy. If we are to pursue a foreign policy based on such values and identity, I believe we inevitably have to set our coordinates and direction closer to the US. However, we cannot maintain a distant relationship with China, a rising power, our neighbor, with whom we are economically interconnected, and a country that has a significant influence on peace, stability, and unification on the Korean Peninsula. We must always maintain a good relationship with China as well. Therefore, we must approach this with coordinates that are close to the US but not too far from China.

Therefore, if we respond to the various initiatives the US is pursuing, such as strengthening alliances, the Quad, and AUKUS, as the moderator mentioned, South Korea's response direction will always be consistent, coherent, and predictable. Instead of wavering between the US and China, having a consistent direction will be better for both US-Korea relations and healthy China-Korea relations, and it will serve as an important guideline for everyone involved in policy. As you all know, Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol has repeatedly stated that he will develop South Korea-China relations based on mutual respect, centered on the ROK-US alliance. There are various implications in that statement. As you all know, if you compare the US and China directly, there might not seem to be a big difference, but what makes the US stronger is its alliance network. The US has alliances with numerous countries, and there are no countries that say they can no longer ally with the US. This can be seen as a tremendous power that China does not possess. Since we are allied with such a country, it is strategically advantageous for South Korea to overcome its geopolitical limitations through such alliances and networks. If Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol is responsible for the next government, as he has stated many times, a comprehensive strategic alliance, mutual respect in ROK-China relations, and the principle of separation of concerns will be in effect, and the cooperative relationship will be deepened.

Regarding the Quad and AUKUS, he has already expressed his view that a gradual approach will be taken towards the Quad. As you all know, three working groups have been established within the Quad: PEF, climate change, and emerging technologies. By actively participating in these working groups, setting agendas, and expressing South Korea's views, we can gain recognition as a necessary entity for regional peace and security. Then, when the Quad is fully activated, we will actively consider South Korea's participation. He is maintaining such a gradual stance. As for AUKUS, it was not something he mentioned out of the blue. Director Son mentioned the position of an open architecture, a consultative body that is open. However, efforts to actively involve other countries have not yet been formalized. It is expected that the next government will pursue efforts to maximize South Korea's national interests by maintaining a cooperative relationship with networks like AUKUS, which the US possesses.

The discussion has become somewhat specific, so I will add one more point regarding the Quad. What should South Korea do regarding the Quad? Candidate Lee Jae-myung has expressed the view that we should find ways to cooperate with the Quad, and that it is possible to find them, citing India's participation. Since India, which is not an ally of the US, is cooperating with the US, there is no reason why an ally like South Korea cannot cooperate with the US. He holds the view that there is no reason why an ally like South Korea cannot cooperate with the US. He emphasizes the importance of the alliance and, as I mentioned earlier, expresses gratitude for the help and support the US provided in our journey from a colony to a democracy and an advanced economy. He holds the alliance in high regard and simultaneously maintains the position of developing a strategic partnership with China while carefully coordinating relations with China. This is what I would like to add.

Therefore, if we respond to the various initiatives the US is pursuing, such as strengthening alliances, the Quad, and AUKUS, as the moderator mentioned, South Korea's response direction will always be consistent, coherent, and predictable. Instead of wavering between the US and China, having a consistent direction will be better for both US-Korea relations and healthy China-Korea relations, and it will serve as an important guideline for everyone involved in policy. As you all know, Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol has repeatedly stated that he will develop South Korea-China relations based on mutual respect, centered on the ROK-US alliance. There are various implications in that statement. As you all know, if you compare the US and China directly, there might not seem to be a big difference, but what makes the US stronger is its alliance network. The US has alliances with numerous countries, and there are no countries that say they can no longer ally with the US. This can be seen as a tremendous power that China does not possess. Since we are allied with such a country, it is strategically advantageous for South Korea to overcome its geopolitical limitations through such alliances and networks. If Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol is responsible for the next government, as he has stated many times, a comprehensive strategic alliance, mutual respect in ROK-China relations, and the principle of separation of concerns will be in effect, and the cooperative relationship will be deepened.

As you all know, Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol has repeatedly stated that he will develop South Korea-China relations based on mutual respect, centered on the ROK-US alliance. There are various implications in that statement. As you all know, if you compare the US and China directly, there might not seem to be a big difference, but what makes the US stronger is its alliance network. The US has alliances with numerous countries, and there are no countries that say they can no longer ally with the US. This can be seen as a tremendous power that China does not possess. Since we are allied with such a country, it is strategically advantageous for South Korea to overcome its geopolitical limitations through such alliances and networks. If Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol is responsible for the next government, as he has stated many times, a comprehensive strategic alliance, mutual respect in ROK-China relations, and the principle of separation of concerns will be in effect, and the cooperative relationship will be deepened.

Regarding the Quad and AUKUS, he has already expressed his view that a gradual approach will be taken towards the Quad. As you all know, three working groups have been established within the Quad: PEF, climate change, and emerging technologies. By actively participating in these working groups, setting agendas, and expressing South Korea's views, we can gain recognition as a necessary entity for regional peace and security. Then, when the Quad is fully activated, we will actively consider South Korea's participation. He is maintaining such a gradual stance. As for AUKUS, it was not something he mentioned out of the blue. Director Son mentioned the position of an open architecture, a consultative body that is open. However, efforts to actively involve other countries have not yet been formalized. It is expected that the next government will pursue efforts to maximize South Korea's national interests by maintaining a cooperative relationship with networks like AUKUS, which the US possesses.

Regarding the Quad and AUKUS, he has already expressed his view that a gradual approach will be taken towards the Quad. As you all know, three working groups have been established within the Quad: PEF, climate change, and emerging technologies. By actively participating in these working groups, setting agendas, and expressing South Korea's views, we can gain recognition as a necessary entity for regional peace and security. Then, when the Quad is fully activated, we will actively consider South Korea's participation. He is maintaining such a gradual stance. As for AUKUS, it was not something he mentioned out of the blue. Director Son mentioned the position of an open architecture, a consultative body that is open. However, efforts to actively involve other countries have not yet been formalized. It is expected that the next government will pursue efforts to maximize South Korea's national interests by maintaining a cooperative relationship with networks like AUKUS, which the US possesses.

As for AUKUS, it was not something he mentioned out of the blue. Director Son mentioned the position of an open architecture, a consultative body that is open. However, efforts to actively involve other countries have not yet been formalized. It is expected that the next government will pursue efforts to maximize South Korea's national interests by maintaining a cooperative relationship with networks like AUKUS, which the US possesses.

The discussion has become somewhat specific, so I will add one more point regarding the Quad. What should South Korea do regarding the Quad? Candidate Lee Jae-myung has expressed the view that we should find ways to cooperate with the Quad, and that it is possible to find them, citing India's participation. Since India, which is not an ally of the US, is cooperating with the US, there is no reason why an ally like South Korea cannot cooperate with the US. He holds the view that there is no reason why an ally like South Korea cannot cooperate with the US. He emphasizes the importance of the alliance and, as I mentioned earlier, expresses gratitude for the help and support the US provided in our journey from a colony to a democracy and an advanced economy. He holds the alliance in high regard and simultaneously maintains the position of developing a strategic partnership with China while carefully coordinating relations with China. This is what I would like to add.

He emphasizes the importance of the alliance and, as I mentioned earlier, expresses gratitude for the help and support the US provided in our journey from a colony to a democracy and an advanced economy. He holds the alliance in high regard and simultaneously maintains the position of developing a strategic partnership with China while carefully coordinating relations with China. This is what I would like to add. Thank you very much for your insights. Starting with the first question, you have provided frank answers on highly sensitive topics, and I thank you for that.

Regarding the Quad, it seems we have received opinions from both of you. Regarding joining the Quad, the general consensus appears to be positive consideration, but with careful consideration of the pace and approach, taking into account relations with China. Is this a fair understanding? Given the time constraints, we have a lot to discuss today. Let's move on to the second topic: the Korean Peninsula's end-of-war declaration. The Moon Jae-in administration is currently pursuing an end-of-war declaration. They state it has political significance and will not lead to the dissolution of the ROK-US Combined Forces Command, but interpretations seem to differ among recipients. I would like to hear both of your opinions on the end-of-war declaration.

Before discussing the end-of-war declaration, I would like to begin with denuclearization. Based on extensive experience in negotiations, it is impossible to achieve denuclearization without discussing peace. This is because the root causes of North Korea's nuclear issue are complex, involving security anxieties, economic factors, and various other elements. Therefore, it is difficult to anticipate genuine progress in denuclearization without addressing issues of peace and security. The end-of-war declaration is part of the peace process. Its purpose is to improve the denuclearization process through peace and to achieve a virtuous cycle synergy through progress in the peace process. Therefore, I believe that the current initiative is worth pursuing, and I hope it will lead to progress in both denuclearization and the overall peace process. The direction of discussions between South Korea and the US also seems to be along these lines: to effectively promote the denuclearization and peace processes, and to manage any potential side effects that may arise.

However, for an end-of-war declaration to be established, all parties must agree. First, an agreement involving South Korea, North Korea, and the US is necessary, and China's inclusion is also required. North Korea's position is quite demanding: if they are to declare an end to the war, they insist on the termination of hostile policies, setting a very high bar that does not seem easy to meet. Furthermore, the timeline is not very generous, with the current administration's term nearing its end and North Korea's stance being quite firm. Therefore, I am not entirely optimistic about the possibility of an actual end-of-war declaration. However, I believe it is worth pursuing as part of the denuclearization and peace process, and I hope it will lead to a virtuous cycle if pursued effectively. This is my perspective.

However, for an end-of-war declaration to be established, all parties must agree. First, an agreement involving South Korea, North Korea, and the US is necessary, and China's inclusion is also required. North Korea's position is quite demanding: if they are to declare an end to the war, they insist on the termination of hostile policies, setting a very high bar that does not seem easy to meet. Furthermore, the timeline is not very generous, with the current administration's term nearing its end and North Korea's stance being quite firm. Therefore, I am not entirely optimistic about the possibility of an actual end-of-war declaration. However, I believe it is worth pursuing as part of the denuclearization and peace process, and I hope it will lead to a virtuous cycle if pursued effectively. This is my perspective.

An end-of-war declaration is, as the name suggests, a declaration to end the war. I believe there would be no South Korean citizen who would oppose the necessity of ending the war on the Korean Peninsula. There are various efforts to establish sustainable peace on the Korean Peninsula, and denuclearization is undoubtedly the biggest challenge. To bring about an end to the war, North Korea must abandon its nuclear weapons development. However, perhaps due to a reversal of thinking, the situation has changed. It appears that the end-of-war declaration is being considered as a gateway to denuclearization.

In other words, the premise is that if an end-of-war is declared, the possibility of North Korea's denuclearization increases. However, as you know, North Korea has not stopped its nuclear development, nor has it agreed to a nuclear freeze or a denuclearization roadmap. Therefore, Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol's position is that while the necessity of an end-of-war, which we all desire, should not be denied, there is a lack of clear explanation as to why an end-of-war declaration should be made now.

This is his stance. Is an end-of-war declaration, rather than one aimed at eliciting North Korea's position on denuclearization, merely an incentive to bring North Korea to the dialogue table? If so, can it truly be a win-win situation? The US is calling for unconditional dialogue, while North Korea is demanding more tangible, concrete demands rather than an end-of-war declaration. As Director Wi mentioned, North Korea argues that missile test launches by the US are provocations, while similar launches by South Korea are acceptable. Do you know why? It is because North Korea is prohibited from conducting ballistic missile test launches by UN Security Council resolutions. Furthermore, North Korea is demanding concrete actions, such as the easing of sanctions and the cessation of hostile policies. From this perspective, would it not be better to utilize the end-of-war declaration as a means to promote tangible progress in North Korea's denuclearization? It is being reported that if an end-of-war declaration is made now, the Armistice Agreement will not be touched. This is like saying, 'We will have the wedding ceremony, but not the marriage registration.' If you have a wedding ceremony, you should proceed with the marriage registration. This creates a highly contradictory situation, causing significant confusion among the public.

From this perspective, it would be better to proceed cautiously, focusing on North Korea's denuclearization, and for the government to transparently inform the public about the procedures and consultation process. I would like to emphasize this point. Director Wi, do you have any counterarguments? If not, then Professor Kim Sung-han, you used an interesting analogy. What I understand from your analogy is that it's not about whether it's a wedding ceremony or not, but rather about continuing a courtship. It's about trying to resolve issues through courtship, and perhaps moving a step further in that courtship phase. That's how I interpret it.

Yes, you have both raised the issue of denuclearization. What is the denuclearization strategy of the next government? How is your camp preparing for it? Please elaborate. Professor Kim, please go first. Since you answered first, I will allow you to speak briefly. The denuclearization strategy is indeed not easy. However, based on the messages Candidate Yoon has conveyed through various channels, it is understood that to bring North Korea to the dialogue table, international pressure, centered on sanctions, must be maintained. In parallel, concrete incentives that can be provided when North Korea takes substantive denuclearization measures will be presented as a roadmap early in the administration. This means that by combining pressure and so-called rewards, North Korea will be encouraged to take substantive denuclearization measures. For example, freezing its nuclear program, accepting inspection teams, or agreeing to a denuclearization roadmap. While it may not be possible to achieve perfect, verifiable denuclearization immediately, it is necessary to achieve gradual progress in substantive denuclearization.

However, this cannot be achieved solely through unilateral incentives. It is not enough to simply coax and appease North Korea. While maintaining the robust UN Security Council sanctions that were painstakingly established, if North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-un, realize that continuing to possess nuclear weapons poses a significant burden not only on national security but also on the regime's security, they might at least consider abandoning them. This is the approach that will be taken. Specifically, in the September 22nd pledge, it is stated that dialogue channels are very important. Therefore, establishing a permanent inter-Korean liaison office is necessary to exchange messages proposed by the three-party headquarters. If North Korea desires, a liaison office could also be established in Washington D.C. If these macro-level efforts are combined with micro-level efforts, and if pressure and incentives are well-balanced, progress towards denuclearization may be achieved gradually.

However, this cannot be achieved solely through unilateral incentives. It is not enough to simply coax and appease North Korea. While maintaining the robust UN Security Council sanctions that were painstakingly established, if North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-un, realize that continuing to possess nuclear weapons poses a significant burden not only on national security but also on the regime's security, they might at least consider abandoning them. This is the approach that will be taken. Specifically, in the September 22nd pledge, it is stated that dialogue channels are very important. Therefore, establishing a permanent inter-Korean liaison office is necessary to exchange messages proposed by the three-party headquarters. If North Korea desires, a liaison office could also be established in Washington D.C. If these macro-level efforts are combined with micro-level efforts, and if pressure and incentives are well-balanced, progress towards denuclearization may be achieved gradually.

However, this cannot be achieved solely through unilateral incentives. It is not enough to simply coax and appease North Korea. While maintaining the robust UN Security Council sanctions that were painstakingly established, if North Korea and its leader, Kim Jong-un, realize that continuing to possess nuclear weapons poses a significant burden not only on national security but also on the regime's security, they might at least consider abandoning them. This is the approach that will be taken. Specifically, in the September 22nd pledge, it is stated that dialogue channels are very important. Therefore, establishing a permanent inter-Korean liaison office is necessary to exchange messages proposed by the three-party headquarters. If North Korea desires, a liaison office could also be established in Washington D.C. If these macro-level efforts are combined with micro-level efforts, and if pressure and incentives are well-balanced, progress towards denuclearization may be achieved gradually.

Therefore, specific measures in the September 22nd pledge also emphasize the importance of dialogue channels. Establishing a permanent inter-Korean liaison office is seen as necessary for exchanging messages proposed by the three-party headquarters. If North Korea desires, a liaison office could also be established in Washington D.C. If these macro-level efforts are combined with micro-level efforts, and if pressure and incentives are well-balanced, progress towards denuclearization may be achieved gradually. This is the general approach proposed. Regarding denuclearization, the current administration made significant contributions by opening the first-ever inter-Korean peace dialogue at the summit level in 2018 and 2019. I would give high marks for such policy boldness and passion. However, these efforts did not lead to substantial progress in denuclearization and peace. For a while, expectations for inter-Korean cooperation, improved US-North Korea relations, and trust-building were amplified, but since the failure of the Hanoi summit, a long-term stalemate has set in. The current situation could worsen depending on North Korea's future actions.

Given this situation, with the presidential election underway and a new administration about to be inaugurated, Candidate Lee Jae-myung recognizes the North Korean nuclear and missile issue as a grave security threat. He is strongly committed to achieving progress and creating momentum on this issue. Throughout the campaign and internal discussions, Candidate Lee Jae-myung has presented two main directions. First, the North Korean nuclear and missile issue stems from complex underlying reasons. Therefore, the countermeasures must also be multifaceted. This is the basic direction he has presented. The reason for being multifaceted is that the issue may stem from North Korea's distrust, its security anxieties, its attempts to use threats against South Korea and the US to achieve its objectives, or it could be a negotiating tactic, among various other factors. Therefore, our response should also be multifaceted. Second, when negotiating and dealing with North Korea, we should start with a relatively flexible approach, but we must be prepared to hold them accountable for any wrongdoing. This is the second coordinate he has set. Keeping these two basic positions in mind, we can consider various alternatives. This includes multifaceted approaches and, if necessary, a tough stance. Therefore, we must provide a framework for pressure. Also, as I mentioned earlier, it is difficult to achieve results in leading the denuclearization process without leading the peace process.

However, these two must be managed effectively to create a virtuous cycle. If managed poorly, they can hinder each other. Therefore, the question is how to synergistically integrate denuclearization and peace to lead negotiations. Another aspect of the multifaceted approach is the coordination between international cooperation and inter-Korean dialogue. To resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, international cooperation is essential. Maintaining sanctions through the UN Security Council is part of international cooperation, and coordinating negotiations with our key ally, the US, is also part of international cooperation. This applies to other countries like China and Russia, as well as Japan. However, inter-Korean dialogue is also an important negotiating mechanism, so harmonizing these two is crucial. Looking at the practical results, it is inevitable to resolve the issue step by step. However, if we get too drawn out in the step-by-step process, the steps may become too prolonged and be exploited by tactical maneuvers. Therefore, we must consider ways to prevent tactical exploitation even while proceeding step by step. Thus, it is proposed to pursue agreements in larger chunks rather than smaller steps, reducing the number of steps. These are the considerations being taken into account when formulating a plan.

Therefore, the countermeasures must also be multifaceted. This is the basic direction he has presented. The reason for being multifaceted is that the issue may stem from North Korea's distrust, its security anxieties, its attempts to use threats against South Korea and the US to achieve its objectives, or it could be a negotiating tactic, among various other factors. Therefore, our response should also be multifaceted. Second, when negotiating and dealing with North Korea, we should start with a relatively flexible approach, but we must be prepared to hold them accountable for any wrongdoing. This is the second coordinate he has set. Keeping these two basic positions in mind, we can consider various alternatives. This includes multifaceted approaches and, if necessary, a tough stance. Therefore, we must provide a framework for pressure. Also, as I mentioned earlier, it is difficult to achieve results in leading the denuclearization process without leading the peace process.

However, these two must be managed effectively to create a virtuous cycle. If managed poorly, they can hinder each other. Therefore, the question is how to synergistically integrate denuclearization and peace to lead negotiations. Another aspect of the multifaceted approach is the coordination between international cooperation and inter-Korean dialogue. To resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, international cooperation is essential. Maintaining sanctions through the UN Security Council is part of international cooperation, and coordinating negotiations with our key ally, the US, is also part of international cooperation. This applies to other countries like China and Russia, as well as Japan. However, inter-Korean dialogue is also an important negotiating mechanism, so harmonizing these two is crucial. Looking at the practical results, it is inevitable to resolve the issue step by step. However, if we get too drawn out in the step-by-step process, the steps may become too prolonged and be exploited by tactical maneuvers. Therefore, we must consider ways to prevent tactical exploitation even while proceeding step by step. Thus, it is proposed to pursue agreements in larger chunks rather than smaller steps, reducing the number of steps. These are the considerations being taken into account when formulating a plan.

However, these two must be managed effectively to create a virtuous cycle. If managed poorly, they can hinder each other. Therefore, the question is how to synergistically integrate denuclearization and peace to lead negotiations. Another aspect of the multifaceted approach is the coordination between international cooperation and inter-Korean dialogue. To resolve the North Korean nuclear issue, international cooperation is essential. Maintaining sanctions through the UN Security Council is part of international cooperation, and coordinating negotiations with our key ally, the US, is also part of international cooperation. This applies to other countries like China and Russia, as well as Japan. However, inter-Korean dialogue is also an important negotiating mechanism, so harmonizing these two is crucial. Looking at the practical results, it is inevitable to resolve the issue step by step. However, if we get too drawn out in the step-by-step process, the steps may become too prolonged and be exploited by tactical maneuvers. Therefore, we must consider ways to prevent tactical exploitation even while proceeding step by step. Thus, it is proposed to pursue agreements in larger chunks rather than smaller steps, reducing the number of steps. These are the considerations being taken into account when formulating a plan.

Therefore, it is inevitable to resolve the issue step by step. However, if we get too drawn out in the step-by-step process, the steps may become too prolonged and be exploited by tactical maneuvers. Therefore, we must consider ways to prevent tactical exploitation even while proceeding step by step. Thus, it is proposed to pursue agreements in larger chunks rather than smaller steps, reducing the number of steps. These are the considerations being taken into account when formulating a plan.

I have one more question. Many people are likely interested in an inter-Korean summit. What are the views of both camps regarding an inter-Korean summit? North Korea will likely set various conditions. Should we meet regardless of these conditions and talk, or should we only meet after certain conditions are met, as there will be no results otherwise? I would like to hear your opinions on this. Professor Kim Sung-han, please speak first. Regarding inter-Korean summits, Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol has expressed his views multiple times during TV debates. He stated that if necessary, he would engage in an inter-Korean summit. However, a crucial criterion, perhaps, is predictability. If the two Koreas meet without prior arrangements, there may be no results. Therefore, if a tangible outcome can be achieved through sufficient coordination at the working level, there is no reason to refuse an inter-Korean summit. This is the position he has expressed.

I believe that is a realistic approach. This relates to what experts often refer to as 'top-down' and 'bottom-up.' Top-down involves leaders meeting and reaching an agreement, while bottom-up involves coordination at the working level. I do not believe it is an either/or situation. If necessary, starting from the bottom-up and then proceeding to a top-down summit at a decisive moment to advance the issue is required. This is my view.

Candidate Lee Jae-myung maintains an open stance towards summits. When engaging in crucial negotiations with a unique regime like North Korea, interaction at the summit level is very useful and important. However, I believe the universal principles of diplomacy apply here as well. It is difficult to resolve issues solely through continuous summit-level interactions, as the Hanoi and Singapore summits demonstrated. While top-down approaches can help break through at certain moments, subsequent agreements must be solidified through working-level discussions and negotiations. These preparations must then be elevated. Therefore, the top-down and bottom-up processes must be managed to create synergy. This is what I believe.

A purely top-down approach is unlikely to yield results. However, the usefulness of a top-down approach at certain moments is undeniable. Therefore, a balance between the two is important. I often use the analogy of a tennis game: both forehand and backhand are necessary to win. Relying solely on top-down or bottom-up approaches is not effective. In fact, the bottom-up approach has been attempted for over a decade since the Six-Party Talks, so it is understandably less popular. However, believing that issues can only be resolved through a top-down approach is also not rational. Therefore, the harmonization and balance between the two are crucial. However, the usefulness of a top-down approach in breaking through issues is acknowledged. In that sense, while a summit would be pursued if an opportunity arises, it is important to prepare well at the working level to achieve concrete results. This is my position.

A purely top-down approach is unlikely to yield results. However, the usefulness of a top-down approach at certain moments is undeniable. Therefore, a balance between the two is important. I often use the analogy of a tennis game: both forehand and backhand are necessary to win. Relying solely on top-down or bottom-up approaches is not effective. In fact, the bottom-up approach has been attempted for over a decade since the Six-Party Talks, so it is understandably less popular. However, believing that issues can only be resolved through a top-down approach is also not rational. Therefore, the harmonization and balance between the two are crucial. However, the usefulness of a top-down approach in breaking through issues is acknowledged. In that sense, while a summit would be pursued if an opportunity arises, it is important to prepare well at the working level to achieve concrete results. This is my position.

A purely top-down approach is unlikely to yield results. However, the usefulness of a top-down approach at certain moments is undeniable. Therefore, a balance between the two is important. I often use the analogy of a tennis game: both forehand and backhand are necessary to win. Relying solely on top-down or bottom-up approaches is not effective. In fact, the bottom-up approach has been attempted for over a decade since the Six-Party Talks, so it is understandably less popular. However, believing that issues can only be resolved through a top-down approach is also not rational. Therefore, the harmonization and balance between the two are crucial. However, the usefulness of a top-down approach in breaking through issues is acknowledged. In that sense, while a summit would be pursued if an opportunity arises, it is important to prepare well at the working level to achieve concrete results. This is my position. Thank you. We have discussed US-China relations and North Korean issues. Next, I would like to ask about Japan.

As seen in opinion polls, 40% of the public believes that historical issues, such as forced labor, should be resolved with Japan, while 36%, a similar percentage, believes in pursuing future-oriented cooperation in areas like economy, technology, security, and COVID-19. However, the current Japanese government maintains the stance that future-oriented cooperation will be difficult without a satisfactory resolution to historical issues, particularly forced labor. Experts predict this stance will continue into the next administration. How should the next administration resolve this issue?

Professor Kim Sung-han, Ambassador Wi, please go first. Candidate Lee Jae-myung has expressed his strong will to improve ROK-Japan relations multiple times publicly. Improving ROK-Japan relations is not only necessary on a bilateral level but also crucial for cooperation between South Korea and Japan. It is also important for South Korea to respond appropriately to the changing dynamics in the Asia-Pacific region. Improving ROK-Japan relations will also help South Korea enhance its regional and global standing and role. Therefore, moving in that direction is a necessity.

However, as Professor Son mentioned, there are obstacles, and how to address them is the key. While it is difficult to present a specific roadmap here, I can outline the general direction. I believe that both sides need to move more flexibly on current issues, including historical issues such as comfort women. One side's movement should be met with a response from the other, creating mutual momentum. In this way, as we move forward step by step, if there are obstacles we have created, we should remove them, and Japan should also remove its obstacles, creating a responsive structure. As everyone says, the Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration is a good model. This declaration was originally initiated by former President Kim Dae-jung, who was affiliated with our party's research institute. Fortunately, Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol also endorsed it in its original form, which is very welcome. We intend to pursue ROK-Japan relations in the spirit of that declaration. The Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration entails mutual responsibilities. This includes Japan's position on historical issues, and South Korea's position moving forward. These must be harmonized, and measures from both sides must be linked to resolve the issues.

The Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration, or Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi 2.0, as Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol mentioned during his policy announcement on September 22nd. Similarly, Candidate Lee Jae-myung used similar expressions in a press conference with foreign media last week. The reason the Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration receives bipartisan support is that it exchanged apologies for the past with a vision for the future. Japan's sincere apology, and based on that foundation, South Korea's commitment to opening a future together with Japan. This can be seen as a chemical reaction. Despite this, relations between the two countries have continuously deteriorated since the 1998 declaration. The misuse of diplomacy for domestic politics by politicians from both countries bears significant responsibility. In such circumstances, relations have worsened considerably. It has reached a point where it is said that there is a basement beneath the floor, implying that relations cannot possibly get any worse. We are currently facing arguably the worst ROK-Japan relations since the post-war era.

The Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration, or Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi 2.0, as Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol mentioned during his policy announcement on September 22nd. Similarly, Candidate Lee Jae-myung used similar expressions in a press conference with foreign media last week. The reason the Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration receives bipartisan support is that it exchanged apologies for the past with a vision for the future. Japan's sincere apology, and based on that foundation, South Korea's commitment to opening a future together with Japan. This can be seen as a chemical reaction. Despite this, relations between the two countries have continuously deteriorated since the 1998 declaration. The misuse of diplomacy for domestic politics by politicians from both countries bears significant responsibility. In such circumstances, relations have worsened considerably. It has reached a point where it is said that there is a basement beneath the floor, implying that relations cannot possibly get any worse. We are currently facing arguably the worst ROK-Japan relations since the post-war era.

Therefore, we should place all pending issues on the table and resolve them from a broad perspective. This is the stance Candidate Lee Jae-myung is maintaining. While the step-by-step approach you mentioned has its merits, when issues remain unresolved, a bold approach may be necessary, even if it means escalating the problem. Coincidentally, Prime Minister Kishida and the new Foreign Minister Hayashi are considered relatively moderate. If Japan's current rigid stance continues, a breakthrough solution may not be possible. Therefore, Candidate Lee Jae-myung is also advocating for the restoration of diplomatic channels. This could involve frequent exchanges, such as the Foreign Minister visiting every other day, or the head of the National Security Council, or vice ministers, engaging in in-depth exchanges at the working level. This may not be impossible.

Therefore, Candidate Lee Jae-myung is also advocating for the restoration of diplomatic channels. This could involve frequent exchanges, such as the Foreign Minister visiting every other day, or the head of the National Security Council, or vice ministers, engaging in in-depth exchanges at the working level. This may not be impossible. Regarding specific campaign positions on each issue, I believe it is not appropriate to disclose them publicly for negotiation strategy reasons. Many experts have already proposed excellent solutions, which we will refer to and conduct negotiations with considerable depth. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why Candidate Lee Jae-myung considers ROK-Japan relations so important, and why he is pursuing solutions that seem to transcend anti-Japanese sentiment. The importance of ROK-Japan relations is often underestimated. It is a tendency to think that progressive governments prioritize ROK-US relations, while conservative governments prioritize ROK-Japan relations. However, this is not the case. The US always considers the trilateral cooperation among ROK, the US, and Japan. If ROK-Japan relations are not good, even if ROK-US relations are excellent, the US response will not be as favorable, and the perceived warmth will differ. The same applies to Japan. If ROK-Japan relations are not good, the US will not properly evaluate the US-Japan alliance. From China's perspective, it observes whether the trilateral cooperation among ROK, the US, and Japan is functioning properly. It does not focus on how ROK-US relations or the US-Japan alliance operate. Therefore, when this does not function properly, China may disregard us or adopt a highly uncooperative stance. This is why the emphasis is placed on ROK-US-Japan cooperation and ROK-China-Japan cooperation, creating synergistic effects. Therefore, we must not underestimate the importance of ROK-Japan relations. If we can draw out Japan's cooperation through strong negotiations and build a relationship where we can forge a future together, then within the framework of ROK-Japan cooperation, not only security issues but also economic security issues, as discussed today, can be addressed through cooperation, thereby maximizing South Korea's national interests.

Therefore, Candidate Lee Jae-myung is also advocating for the restoration of diplomatic channels. This could involve frequent exchanges, such as the Foreign Minister visiting every other day, or the head of the National Security Council, or vice ministers, engaging in in-depth exchanges at the working level. This may not be impossible. Regarding specific campaign positions on each issue, I believe it is not appropriate to disclose them publicly for negotiation strategy reasons. Many experts have already proposed excellent solutions, which we will refer to and conduct negotiations with considerable depth. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why Candidate Lee Jae-myung considers ROK-Japan relations so important, and why he is pursuing solutions that seem to transcend anti-Japanese sentiment. The importance of ROK-Japan relations is often underestimated. It is a tendency to think that progressive governments prioritize ROK-US relations, while conservative governments prioritize ROK-Japan relations. However, this is not the case. The US always considers the trilateral cooperation among ROK, the US, and Japan. If ROK-Japan relations are not good, even if ROK-US relations are excellent, the US response will not be as favorable, and the perceived warmth will differ. The same applies to Japan. If ROK-Japan relations are not good, the US will not properly evaluate the US-Japan alliance. From China's perspective, it observes whether the trilateral cooperation among ROK, the US, and Japan is functioning properly. It does not focus on how ROK-US relations or the US-Japan alliance operate. Therefore, when this does not function properly, China may disregard us or adopt a highly uncooperative stance. This is why the emphasis is placed on ROK-US-Japan cooperation and ROK-China-Japan cooperation, creating synergistic effects. Therefore, we must not underestimate the importance of ROK-Japan relations. If we can draw out Japan's cooperation through strong negotiations and build a relationship where we can forge a future together, then within the framework of ROK-Japan cooperation, not only security issues but also economic security issues, as discussed today, can be addressed through cooperation, thereby maximizing South Korea's national interests.

I would like to add one more point regarding resolving ROK-Japan relations. One of the key issues is public sentiment regarding past grievances, which inevitably becomes a political issue. Therefore, it is not easy to handle. Fortunately, both Candidate Lee Jae-myung and Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol have spoken about the Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration and share the same view on the necessity of improving relations. This indicates that if Candidate Lee Jae-myung is elected president, there is a foundation for bipartisan efforts to resolve ROK-Japan relations, despite the political sensitivities involved. This is a positive aspect. Of course, there are sensitive public sentiments and political issues, but I believe that by broadening common ground, political factions can work together to improve ROK-Japan relations. I am pleased that there is room for bipartisan approaches.

The US always considers the trilateral cooperation among ROK, the US, and Japan. If ROK-Japan relations are not good, even if ROK-US relations are excellent, the US response will not be as favorable, and the perceived warmth will differ. The same applies to Japan. If ROK-Japan relations are not good, the US will not properly evaluate the US-Japan alliance. From China's perspective, it observes whether the trilateral cooperation among ROK, the US, and Japan is functioning properly. It does not focus on how ROK-US relations or the US-Japan alliance operate. Therefore, when this does not function properly, China may disregard us or adopt a highly uncooperative stance. This is why the emphasis is placed on ROK-US-Japan cooperation and ROK-China-Japan cooperation, creating synergistic effects. Therefore, we must not underestimate the importance of ROK-Japan relations. If we can draw out Japan's cooperation through strong negotiations and build a relationship where we can forge a future together, then within the framework of ROK-Japan cooperation, not only security issues but also economic security issues, as discussed today, can be addressed through cooperation, thereby maximizing South Korea's national interests.

Therefore, when this does not function properly, China may disregard us or adopt a highly uncooperative stance. This is why the emphasis is placed on ROK-US-Japan cooperation and ROK-China-Japan cooperation, creating synergistic effects. Therefore, we must not underestimate the importance of ROK-Japan relations. If we can draw out Japan's cooperation through strong negotiations and build a relationship where we can forge a future together, then within the framework of ROK-Japan cooperation, not only security issues but also economic security issues, as discussed today, can be addressed through cooperation, thereby maximizing South Korea's national interests.

I would like to add one more point regarding resolving ROK-Japan relations. One of the key issues is public sentiment regarding past grievances, which inevitably becomes a political issue. Therefore, it is not easy to handle. Fortunately, both Candidate Lee Jae-myung and Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol have spoken about the Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration and share the same view on the necessity of improving relations. This indicates that if Candidate Lee Jae-myung is elected president, there is a foundation for bipartisan efforts to resolve ROK-Japan relations, despite the political sensitivities involved. This is a positive aspect. Of course, there are sensitive public sentiments and political issues, but I believe that by broadening common ground, political factions can work together to improve ROK-Japan relations. I am pleased that there is room for bipartisan approaches. Next question. We have discussed ROK-US relations and China, but some argue that South Korea is overly focused on diplomacy with the four major powers.

During the Lee Myung-bak administration, there was a push for 'middle power diplomacy,' advocating for cooperation with countries of similar size and standing, such as Australia and Indonesia. The Moon Jae-in administration strongly promoted 'New Southern Policy,' which received positive responses from ASEAN countries. However, there are concerns that these policies might be dismantled by the next administration. I would like to ask both of you: aside from diplomacy with the four major powers, are there any other diplomatic strategies that your respective camps are particularly focusing on? Please share your final thoughts. First, Ambassador Wi. It is true that South Korean diplomacy is heavily tilted towards the four major powers. We recognize the need to diversify and broaden it. While the current administration has achieved some results with the New Southern Policy, these achievements should be continued. Expanding engagement with Southeast Asian countries, and further to India, is important. We have also made efforts, though with limited success, in Russia and the Northern Policy, and further to European countries, which are crucial partners for us. However, European diplomacy has not been actively pursued by South Korea. Among European countries, there are two permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as other important players like Germany, Italy, and Spain. Some of these countries are influential in the G7, and others play significant roles in the G20. We need to build a multi-layered network that includes not only the four major powers but also ASEAN, Europe, Eurasia, and Latin America. This will allow a country like ours, which relies on trade, to continue to prosper globally and to conduct advanced diplomacy befitting its status as a G10 nation.

Diplomacy with the four major powers is important, and it directly impacts our national interests, so a significant amount of energy must be devoted to it. Its importance cannot be overlooked. However, it is certainly not the entirety of our foreign policy. One of the criticisms leveled against the current administration is that it has narrowed its focus to North Korea-centric diplomacy, deviating from the global trend. Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol emphasized 'contributory diplomacy' befitting South Korea's national stature in a press conference with foreign media on November 12th.

It is true that South Korean diplomacy is heavily tilted towards the four major powers. We recognize the need to diversify and broaden it. While the current administration has achieved some results with the New Southern Policy, these achievements should be continued. Expanding engagement with Southeast Asian countries, and further to India, is important. We have also made efforts, though with limited success, in Russia and the Northern Policy, and further to European countries, which are crucial partners for us. However, European diplomacy has not been actively pursued by South Korea. Among European countries, there are two permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as other important players like Germany, Italy, and Spain. Some of these countries are influential in the G7, and others play significant roles in the G20. We need to build a multi-layered network that includes not only the four major powers but also ASEAN, Europe, Eurasia, and Latin America. This will allow a country like ours, which relies on trade, to continue to prosper globally and to conduct advanced diplomacy befitting its status as a G10 nation.

We need to build a multi-layered network that includes not only the four major powers but also ASEAN, Europe, Eurasia, and Latin America. This will allow a country like ours, which relies on trade, to continue to prosper globally and to conduct advanced diplomacy befitting its status as a G10 nation.

Diplomacy with the four major powers is important, and it directly impacts our national interests, so a significant amount of energy must be devoted to it. Its importance cannot be overlooked. However, it is certainly not the entirety of our foreign policy. One of the criticisms leveled against the current administration is that it has narrowed its focus to North Korea-centric diplomacy, deviating from the global trend. Candidate Yoon Seok-yeol emphasized 'contributory diplomacy' befitting South Korea's national stature in a press conference with foreign media on November 12th.

Korea has emerged as a strong nation, ranking within the top 10 in the world in terms of economic size. As you may recall, in 2010, we joined the OECD's Development Assistance Committee, transitioning from a recipient of aid to a donor country. Therefore, in terms of development cooperation, Korea's contribution to the international community should expand in scope and breadth. In that context, when I was the Second Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs during the previous administration, one of my key responsibilities was multilateral diplomacy, with a particular focus on major power diplomacy. I was quite busy during that time.

This relates directly to the major power diplomacy you just mentioned. Furthermore, there's a debate among experts today about whether the term 'major power diplomacy' is even appropriate for Korea, or if it should be referred to as 'diplomacy with developing countries.' However, the important point is that we should not be consumed by major power diplomacy. Instead, Korea's contributions to global affairs should align with its national standing. Issues like climate change, global health, the recent pandemic, human rights, and poverty eradication, which are universal concerns, and the implementation of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) championed by the UN and deeply involved with by former Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, should also be reflected in our diplomacy.

Nowadays, corporations are taking the lead in implementing actions that align with SDGs and the UNHCR's goals. However, the government appears quite passive in this regard. If the next president takes office, I expect that diplomacy that reflects our national standing will be significantly revitalized. Shall we conclude here due to time constraints? Yes, I have one more question, but I will skip it.

Since time is limited, I would like to make a few points. A comprehensive evaluation will be thoroughly discussed in the next section. The concerns expressed by the public, as revealed in opinion polls, seem to be well-represented by the esteemed experts present today. Firstly, regarding diplomatic challenges, the public desires a certain balance in foreign policy matters. They seem to want a departure from overly tilted diplomacy, whether it's towards major powers or prioritizing North Korea. The experts' contributions have been invaluable in addressing this need for balance. Secondly, as also revealed in public opinion, there is a significant gap between conservative and progressive viewpoints on foreign policy issues. Today's discussion on the four major challenges, while significant, has revealed that the gap between the two sides might be smaller than anticipated. This is reassuring.

Hearing your valuable policy recommendations, I believe that refining the diplomatic framework to translate these policies into actual execution is a crucial task. I will conclude my comments here. Thank you very much. We will now conclude the first session. Thank you.

We will now conclude the first session on "Diplomacy for Presidential Success." Dr. Park, please proceed. Thank you. While the stage is being prepared for the second session, coffee is available in the lobby. Those who wish to have coffee may proceed to the lobby. We will now prepare for the second session. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.S. Korea has emerged as a strong nation, ranking within the top 10 in the world in terms of economic size. As you may recall, in 2010, we joined the OECD's Development Assistance Committee, transitioning from a recipient of aid to a donor country. Therefore, in terms of development cooperation, Korea's contribution to the international community should expand in scope and breadth. In that context, when I was the Second Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs during the previous administration, one of my key responsibilities was multilateral diplomacy, with a particular focus on major power diplomacy. I was quite busy during that time.

The theme of the second session is "Rebuilding Cooperative Diplomacy for the New Government." For this session, we have invited two academic experts in foreign affairs and national security, as well as two lawmakers from the ruling and opposition parties. We will continue the discussion from the first session. I would like to introduce the moderator for the second session, Chairman Ha Young-sun of the East Asia Institute. Please welcome him with applause. The second session, titled "Rebuilding Cooperative Diplomacy for the New Government," will begin with listening to the direction of unification policies for the next five years for the two candidates, followed by evaluations and comments from the four panelists.

First, I will introduce the four panelists. We will introduce them in reverse alphabetical order of their names: Ga, Na, Da, Ra. First, introducing Shin Dong-ik, a three-term lawmaker from the Democratic Party of Korea. As many of you know, he has served in key positions within the Democratic Party, such as Chairman of the Policy Committee and Director of the Minjoo Policy Research Institute. Most importantly, he has frequently participated in events like the EAI and MBN forums, and as a representative brain of the Democratic Party, he has contributed to discussions.

Next, introducing Tae Yong-ho from the People Power Party. I don't need to introduce him at length as he is well-known domestically and internationally. He had a long career as a North Korean diplomat and is currently serving as a member of the 21st National Assembly representing Gangnam. Third, Professor Chae Sung-jin from Seoul National University, who also served as the Director of the Institute for National Security Strategy for a long time. He is a distinguished figure in academia, requiring no further introduction. He is currently the President of the Korean Political Science Association for this year and is a leading scholar representing political science both domestically and internationally.

Finally, introducing Professor Park Won-gon from Ewha Womans University. He served in the Ministry of National Defense for over 10 years and is also a distinguished figure in academia. Recently, he has been active as a professor of North Korean studies at Ewha Womans University. As his career shows, having experience in both theory and practice, he is an important professor actively engaged in delicate North Korean issues. We will proceed with the discussion with these four esteemed professors. The first session's discussion was quite substantial. However, from a certain perspective, the discussion proceeded in a very sophisticated manner, considering the presence of many experts.

It was a discussion on practical and balanced approaches. However, in my opinion, the subtle differences and nuances could become quite sensitive depending on the situation. I believe the discussion revolved around four major themes for the next five years. Therefore, in the short term, during the presidential election campaign, these issues might be overshadowed by problems like the real estate market and economic recession. However, over the next five years, these could escalate into four major crises, potentially surpassing domestic issues. The question of whether conservative and progressive responses to these challenges, and the overall direction of South Korea, can safely navigate these turbulent waters remains a matter of urgent concern.

The discussion will proceed as follows: Each panelist will be given approximately 10 minutes for their initial remarks, totaling about 70 minutes for the initial round. We discussed four crisis issues, but I personally believe it's not necessary to comment on all four. Instead, focusing on the most critical issues with a concise approach would be more effective. This would be beneficial for the next five years, regardless of which administration, conservative or progressive, takes office. So, approximately 10 minutes per panelist would lead to about 40 minutes. In the second round, I will try to narrow down the questions, possibly in a more aggressive manner, dedicating about 5 minutes per person. If time permits, and if the panelists adhere to the time limits, we will have a brief opportunity for final concluding remarks in response to questions submitted by the audience.

I suggest we proceed in the order of introduction. Shall we begin with Professor Hong Ik-pyo? Yes, greetings. I am Hong Ik-pyo from the Democratic Party of Korea. It's a pleasure to see Chairman Ha Young-sun again after a long time. As mentioned, I attend many events like this, and it's always a pleasure to meet esteemed individuals. EAI is a leading think tank and research network specializing in foreign affairs and national security issues in Korea. I believe that many experts, including Chairman Ha and Director Son, who are leading figures in Korean foreign affairs and security, are present here, making it a representative think tank.

Thank you for inviting me today. In the previous session, it seems we had the representatives who are advising the candidates Yoon Suk-yeol and Lee Jae-myung on foreign policy. It appears they presented their positions with little difference, or perhaps they presented them comfortably because their careers, such as Professor Kim Sung-han's long academic background and his experience as Vice Minister of Foreign Affairs during the Park Geun-hye administration, and Ambassador Wi Sung-nak's extensive career in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, mean they are conveying the candidates' stances. However, it's possible they expressed these views more cautiously than the candidates' actual thoughts.

I hope that their thoughts are reflected, and that regardless of who becomes president, there will be a gradual, rather than abrupt, change in South Korea's foreign policy. Just as we often say for socio-economic policies, foreign and national security policies require a similar approach. However, foreign and national security policies should be changed like turning a large aircraft carrier, not a car. The side effects and problems that arise from frequently changing foreign policy in the manner of changing a car have been evident through past changes in administration.

I believe we face very challenging diplomatic issues, especially concerning China, given its economic size. It is difficult to handle these issues with our current diplomatic capacity and preparedness. Many issues make it difficult for us to lead the situation. The US-China conflict, for instance, raises the question of whether we can mediate or integrate it. This is nearly impossible. The US-China economic and political conflict has moved beyond simply military hegemony. Recently, it has expanded to semiconductors, 5G, telecommunications, and even science and technology, essentially reaching a level of total national war.

However, I still believe in the idea that "the world is flat," as Friedman suggested, regarding the US-China relationship. I think that for both countries, the benefits of cooperation still outweigh the risks of conflict. While the elements of conflict have indeed increased significantly compared to the 1980s and 1990s, breaking off the relationship and causing irreparable damage seems less likely than maintaining the current relationship to some extent.

The recent summit between President Biden and President Xi Jinping, which ended in a form of reconciliation or at least a clarification of positions at a certain level, likely reflects this situation. What should we do then? As I mentioned, we cannot lead the US-China conflict, so we must closely observe the flow of changes between the two countries. Another point is that when discussing the US-China conflict, rather than being caught in the middle, it is more necessary to form cooperative relationships with countries that share similar values or interests, based on specific agendas. The notion of "security with the US and economy with China," which was common in the past, is no longer realistic. Given Korea's current standing, it is "security with the US and economy with the US."

This is an unavoidable reality. Of course, this does not mean abandoning China. However, if we are forced to make an extreme choice, it seems we have no option but to choose the US. I believe the optimal choice for our national interest would be to prevent such a situation from occurring. China also understands that it is difficult for South Korea to fundamentally alter its alliance with the US. Therefore, China will not push South Korea to the extreme, as it would not be in China's interest. In this regard, maintaining the traditional framework of the ROK-US relationship for security and economic matters, while minimizing conflict with China, is a very difficult task for the next government, irrespective of whether it is conservative or progressive.

In this context, I believe that for ROK-US and ROK-China relations, we need a more diverse range of channels beyond government diplomacy. While government dialogue is crucial, parliamentary exchanges, public diplomacy, and various other channels are necessary to coordinate and address these issues. I believe a cooperative body involving the public and private sectors, government, and academic experts, including the economic sector, is needed to handle national foreign affairs and security matters.

Furthermore, I would like to briefly mention two more points regarding Japan and inter-Korean relations. Regarding Japan, with the change of administration in our country following the Moon administration, and the recent formation of a new cabinet in Japan, the next government will face a difficult path. However, due to the inherent historical and emotional issues involved, it will be difficult for the government to make easy choices. Especially since the Kishida administration is still in a politically unstable state, it is unlikely to make easy concessions to South Korea. Therefore, for the next three years, instead of worsening relations, it would be most realistic to maintain the current state and pursue minimal cooperation, rather than fundamentally improving relations.

Regarding inter-Korean relations, despite various issues, the next government will be directly influenced by the US-China relationship and the North Korea-US relationship. Regardless of the administration, it would be realistic to build upon the achievements of the current government. Even if the administration changes, seeking the next steps based on the current government's accomplishments is a realistic approach. Disregarding past achievements carries risks and potential disruptions in inter-Korean relations. Even with a conservative assessment of past achievements, the fact that the risk of war has been lowered compared to 2017, that North Korea has not conducted nuclear or missile tests, and that dialogue channels are open, represents significant achievements for the current government.

Therefore, I believe it is necessary for the next government to forge a path in inter-Korean relations based on these achievements. Thank you. Thank you. Greetings. I believe the title of this session, "Rebuilding Cooperative Diplomacy for the New Government," is very well-chosen. The words "cooperation" and "rebuilding" immediately catch the eye. When we consider the word "rebuilding," it implies the formation of a union or a partnership. Thus, the question arises: through what process of time and construction will the president, as the developer, choose a construction company and proceed with the resolution?

What I want to convey first is that in Session 1, we compared and contrasted the positions of candidate Yoon Suk-yeol and candidate Lee Jae-myung. I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss foreign policy or North Korean policy with Yoon Suk-yeol or his campaign. Therefore, what we discuss today may not fully align with candidate Yoon Suk-yeol's foreign policy and national security pledges or our party's platform. However, as a former North Korean diplomat with decades of experience in foreign affairs and national security, I hope to contribute to this session with my unique insights. As you all know, foreign affairs, national security, and unification are administrative domains.

Therefore, significant policy changes in these areas are very difficult. Particularly in diplomacy, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs may seem to be the most responsive to international trends, its style and hierarchy are often resistant to change. I would like to emphasize this point. In Session 1, the discussion revolved around whether the next government should pursue continuity or create something new. I believe that rather than a choice between continuity and creation, the next government will likely emphasize continuity more than previous governments. One reason for this is that both candidate Lee Jae-myung and candidate Yoon Suk-yeol have expressed support for the Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration. As someone who has worked in diplomacy, I believe the Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration is very significant.

The declaration includes a commitment to inherit the spirit of the 1965 treaty signed during the Park Chung-hee administration. As you know, President Kim Dae-jung, despite facing significant oppression and suppression during the military regime, expressed a willingness to inherit positive agreements and consensus from previous administrations in foreign policy matters. I believe this was a crucial aspect of the Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration. Therefore, in this presidential election, it is understandable that both conservative and progressive candidates would refer to the Kim Dae-jung-Obuchi Declaration. Moving forward, if we are to build a future-oriented ROK-Japan relationship, I believe it is most desirable to continue inheriting the technical and governmental agreements reached by all previous administrations in relations with Japan. Regarding ROK-China relations, I believe the Moon Jae-in administration has already established a very important direction.

Reading the joint statement from the ROK-US summit in May 2021, it ultimately contains agreements on the future direction of the ROK-US alliance and South Korea's position in Northeast Asia based on shared values. Therefore, regardless of which administration takes office, I believe it is crucial to maintain the spirit and principles established by President Moon Jae-in and President Biden during the May 2021 ROK-US summit.

Session 1 also extensively discussed North Korea policy. Regarding the issue of a declaration of the end of war, there is significant contention between the two candidates and parties. As the representatives from the respective campaigns mentioned, there is no disagreement between the parties in the National Assembly regarding the need for a declaration of the end of war. A declaration of the end of war is undeniably a crucial stepping stone towards a peace regime. However, the ongoing point of contention is where to place this stepping stone. If placed incorrectly, it could lead to a fall into the river. Therefore, I often ponder what issues need to be resolved before laying this stepping stone. A declaration of the end of war cannot be unilaterally pursued; it requires the agreement of both South and North Korea, as well as the US.

A declaration, if made, requires the consent of the other party. Therefore, it is crucial to understand the other party's intentions and the consensus between South Korea and the US. I believe that achieving a rational victory requires careful coordination. Currently, there is a significant divergence of opinion between South and North Korea regarding the declaration of the end of war. President Moon Jae-in stated that the declaration of the end of war is merely a political declaration that will not affect the ROK-US alliance or our security. However, North Korea's perspective is different. North Korea views the declaration of the end of war as a process of ending the Korean War and moving towards a peace treaty. Therefore, North Korea believes that the declaration of the end of war should be viewed within the context of ending the Korean War and establishing a peace treaty. This was evident when North Korea explicitly drew a line during the UN General Assembly in September 2018 when President Moon Jae-in raised the issue of the declaration of the end of war.

At that time, North Korea clearly stated that the declaration of the end of war is not a bargaining chip for denuclearization. Denuclearization is one issue, and the end of war is another. North Korea's first position is that the declaration of the end of war should be linked to the process of ending the Korean War. Second, North Korea is currently emphasizing "mutual respect" as a major slogan and seeks to incorporate details regarding the "cessation of hostile policy and mutual respect" within it. In simpler terms, mutual respect is a highly desired issue in inter-Korean relations. However, regarding the declaration of the end of war, which signifies the cessation of hostilities, achieving mutual respect is currently impossible. This is the biggest issue, in my opinion. As you know, the US and China agreed on "mutual respect" through the Shanghai Communiqué in 1972. At the time of agreeing to mutual respect, it was a political declaration, but after that, the US ultimately recognized China as a nuclear-possessing state and could not demand China's denuclearization.

Therefore, the question remains whether we can incorporate the details North Korea is demanding regarding the declaration of the end of war. There is a significant gap in this regard. Regarding the US side, as I mentioned in a previous discussion with the White House National Security Advisor, the US is currently discussing three issues: under what conditions it would proceed, whether it would be a phased approach, and the content of the agreement. Therefore, the declaration of the end of war is not merely a political declaration. When such declarations, communiqués, or statements are issued, they often signify the end of past conflicts, but they also provide a direction for future progress.

Therefore, the specific content of the declaration of the end of war needs to be clarified more explicitly, either during the remaining term of the current government or by the incoming government. Lastly, as time is running short, I will mention one more point. Regarding dialogues with North Korea, there has been much debate about the format, whether it should be direct engagement or a broader approach. The Lee Jae-myung camp has argued for pursuing dialogue without being constrained by the US or the end of war declaration, suggesting that if circumstances allow, they would pursue dialogue even if it means engaging in direct talks.

Conversely, the Yoon Suk-yeol camp has emphasized a more cautious approach. From my perspective, having worked in the administrative domain in North Korea for a long time, I can offer a tip: the Panmunjom Process and the inter-Korean summit process, which were progressing well in 2018, abruptly broke down in 2019 due to the Hanoi summit, and the situation has continued to this day. Therefore, the lesson we must learn is that the next government must adopt a customized dialogue approach that suits North Korea's characteristics. That customized approach is precisely the "step-by-step" method.

In the 2018 process, both Chairman Kim Jong-un and President Trump made mistakes. The overemphasis on the summit approach, believing they could resolve issues as problem-solvers, led to an inadequately prepared meeting. I believe this was the case. Therefore, the next government, while the president will naturally want to achieve significant accomplishments, should proceed with inter-Korean relations by building step by step, like laying bricks. Thank you.

Thank you. Professor Chae Sung-jin, please proceed. Yes, thank you. I have some thoughts based on listening to the second session. First, not only the second session but also the opinion poll results presented by Director Son earlier are very important. Overall, the two candidates' positions align relatively well with the framework of "Rebuilding Cooperative Diplomacy for the New Government" that EAI has been developing. There were also many points of resonance in the specific policy areas.

Briefly touching on the topics, regarding US-China relations, foreign affairs and national security issues do not typically rank high in election campaigns compared to domestic issues. However, once a government is inaugurated, these issues take on significant importance. In this regard, a thorough discussion on foreign affairs and national security is crucial. Although both panelists did not explicitly state it, their remarks implied that US-China relations might be more important than the North Korean nuclear issue.

However, looking at the presidential debates so far, the overall weight of foreign affairs and national security issues, and the fact that the North Korean nuclear issue is addressed to some extent, but concrete policy discussions on US-China relations are lacking. If this is a crucial issue that will determine South Korea's fate for the next five years or more, it is vital to present it to the public in the form of policy debates and make it a topic of discussion. This is further highlighted by the fact that while the public, according to Director Son's presentation, views the US-China competition as a top 2 or 3 issue, it is not reflected in the debates. Therefore, I believe it is necessary to emphasize this issue more during the remaining 100 days of the election campaign.

It is crucial to create a discourse or narrative for the presidential election regarding how to view US-China relations. Some use the term "US-China hegemony competition," while others use "strategic competition." The US-China summit held two weeks ago presented even more complex dynamics. The US primarily frames the US-China relationship as a stage of full-fledged competition, while China defines it as a relationship of mutual respect and coexistence. Therefore, given that the US and China define their relationship differently, it is necessary for South Korea to begin by discussing how to position its relationship with them. There needs to be a process of defining the level of competition, and this can be sufficiently addressed during the election campaign's policy competition.

The timeline of US-China competition is also very important. While the US and China are currently in full-scale competition, reports suggest that prolonged conflict or extreme clashes may be difficult in the long run, due to issues like resource recovery and environmental concerns, which compel cooperation between the two nations. Therefore, it is not advisable to formulate our US-China relations strategy solely based on immediate, short-term competition.

Therefore, it is more appropriate to discuss what we should do now, considering the overall roadmap of US-China relations beyond five years, rather than solely focusing on the five-year term of the next administration. The extent to which both camps and candidates can engage in such comprehensive discussions is crucial. Secondly, a discussion on the principles guiding us through US-China relations is necessary. While strategies like balancing or leaning towards one side have been mentioned, they are also very important.

Therefore, although the process of discussing the administration's policies over five years is long, it would be more appropriate to consider the overall roadmap of US-China relations beyond five years and discuss what we should do now. It is crucial to consider how much the two camps or two candidates can engage in such sufficient discussions. Second, there needs to be a discussion about our principles for navigating US-China relations. As mentioned earlier, strategies such as balancing diversification or leaning towards one side are certainly important.

However, a more robust strategy is needed to navigate the full-scale US-China competition. First, as mentioned, a phased strategy is required, extending beyond five years. Typically, strategies change with administrations, but if US-China competition is a long-term issue spanning more than five years, a long-term strategy that can be agreed upon by both ruling and opposition parties, or at least coordinated, is necessary. This is because it transcends politics and has a time horizon separate from domestic political cycles. Therefore, how to manage this is important. In this regard, while US-China competition may appear to be a competition between two superpowers, the US has many internal vulnerabilities, such as the decline of the middle class. China also faces significant challenges in its political system.

Therefore, although we may easily compare it to the Cold War, US-China competition is different from the past and can unfold in ways very different from general power competition. Thus, it is crucial to formulate our strategy based on accurate knowledge of US-China competition. For the past five years, especially since the THAAD deployment, our US-China relations strategy has faced various difficulties. During that period, simple solutions like strategic choices between the US and China were discussed. However, during the election campaign, it is important to compete with more complex solutions rather than simple ones.

Third, although the difference in opinion between progressive and conservative factions did not seem significant in the candidate discussions, Director Son's presentation revealed that regarding the ROK-US alliance alone, conservatives advocate for a military alliance, while progressives aim for a horizontal relationship. While this may not be fully reflected in the policy proposals, it is likely that once the government is inaugurated, public opinion will be taken into account, and these differences will become more pronounced.

Therefore, while it is natural to advocate for strengthening the ROK-US alliance and pursuing a future-oriented relationship with Japan, the clear differences in opinion between conservatives and progressives mean that how to reflect and coordinate these differences is crucial. Regarding the North Korean nuclear issue, the declaration of the end of war is essentially an issue for the current government, while denuclearization is an issue for the next government, which will have to deal with it for the next five years. Therefore, proposals that go beyond these two discussions are needed. The election campaign is precisely the time when bold and creative ideas about the North Korean nuclear issue can be discussed without the immediate burden of governing. However, a clear denuclearization roadmap for North Korea is still lacking. Within that framework, while strengthening pressure and incentives is the basic dual strategy, there is a need to present more concrete and tangible ideas that North Korea can recognize.

In relation to this, the Moon Jae-in administration has achieved significant progress in North Korean nuclear issues and the peace process. One point of controversy was the question of whether to address North Korea first or international issues first, which were perhaps the wrong questions to ask. The next government, depending on whether it is progressive or conservative, may still face conflicts between prioritizing North Korea and inter-Korean relations versus prioritizing US-China relations or broader foreign policy. While we have discussed these issues separately, the North Korean nuclear issue and US-China relations are closely intertwined. Therefore, a formula that connects these two is needed. Discussions on this are also necessary.

Finally, the North Korean nuclear issue is fundamentally an international issue, making North Korea-US relations extremely important. Currently, the North Korean nuclear issue is not a high priority in US foreign and national security policy. Therefore, while we address the North Korean nuclear issue and North Korea-US relations from our perspective, it is important to consider how these issues are viewed from the perspectives of the US and China. In that context, there is a high possibility that the North Korean nuclear issue may not be resolved within five years. However, realistic discussions about what can be achieved within five years are necessary. While ambitious proposals are needed during the election campaign, more rational alternatives should be discussed from a policy standpoint.

Professor Park, please proceed. Thank you for inviting me again to this esteemed event. I have worked with Chairman Ha Young-sun and Director Son for a long time at the East Asia Institute, and I also have many connections with MBN. I believe these two factors led to my invitation to this valuable event. I will speak candidly. I am not affiliated with either campaign. Sitting here, it might seem like I lean towards the People Power Party, but I know that Professor Chae Sung-jin and others are not necessarily aligned with them either.

Therefore, I have thought carefully about how to speak freely. Chairman Ha mentioned that the discussion would focus on four issues, so I will also speak more freely and critically, offering criticism of both campaigns. The session was conducted in a very sophisticated manner, which, in a way, made it less engaging. Overall, I found it somewhat uninteresting.

In a sense, both speakers, Professor Kim Sung-han and Ambassador Wi Sung-nak, have extensive experience in this field and have presented what could be considered the correct answers at this juncture. However, the question is whether these answers will truly be reflected when either Yoon Suk-yeol or Lee Jae-myung becomes president. I am not so sure. Ambassador Wi Sung-nak, in particular, presented views that are more conservative than typical conservative viewpoints, raising questions about whether these truly represent the mainstream position of the Democratic Party. If he were here, I would have liked to ask him some questions, as he presented answers that were fundamentally correct. Let me elaborate on a few points. Firstly, regarding the session's questions, perhaps due to a lack of opportunity, both sides should have presented an overall strategy for foreign policy for their respective campaigns, focusing on their core principles. Unfortunately, this was not evident in Session 1. While they discussed specific policy details, the biggest change in global politics is the US-China competition, and there should have been a broader vision and principles guiding South Korea's response to this change. In that regard, I felt that Ambassador Wi Sung-nak spoke more about principles. For example, he mentioned the importance of values and identity. He stated that South Korea, as a liberal democratic nation, should uphold its identity, which is a common argument in conservative circles. However, his current position is described as pragmatic. My first question would be: if he were here, how would he reconcile the concepts of values and pragmatism, which are actually different? And does this truly represent the fundamental policy direction of the Democratic Party? These questions would naturally arise. On the other hand, what Professor Kim Sung-han presented sounds like what we've always done: prioritizing our ally, the US, improving relations with China, and strengthening ties with China. However, we need to seriously consider whether this approach is appropriate at the current juncture. Regardless, the US-China relationship is expected to continue for years, with talk of a "new Cold War" and even the possibility of being forced to choose sides, including South Korea.

Given this situation, is our existing approach, which could be considered a strategic choice, still appropriate? The importance of alliances is undeniable; I am also someone who researches the necessity of alliances. However, we experienced significant policy shifts during the four years of the Trump administration, which destabilized alliances. We do not know the outcome of the upcoming midterm elections in the US, but there is a possibility of Trump or "Trumpism 2.0" emerging in the next presidential election. Therefore, can we solely rely on alliances? This is a question that requires consideration, but unfortunately, such considerations were not explicitly mentioned. I am curious about the extent to which the campaigns are contemplating this.

Secondly, the issue of the declaration of the end of war. Ambassador Wi Sung-nak has already covered this extensively, so I don't have much to add. However, he stated that pursuing a declaration of the end of war is worthwhile, suggesting that if the Democratic Party regains power, they will likely continue this pursuit. In this regard, I have significant concerns. As Professor Kim Sung-han also mentioned, the order of these issues is crucial. While I do not oppose the declaration of the end of war itself, the question arises whether it is appropriate at this time, given that North Korea declared itself a nuclear power at the 8th Party Congress and is demanding the withdrawal of US forces, essentially asking us to accept it as a nuclear power. What can North Korea achieve without making any concessions? This is the primary question. Secondly, regarding consultations with the US, while it is said that consultations are underway and the wording is almost finalized, personal experience suggests otherwise. A month ago, a friend in Washington contacted me, asking if I was missing something because the atmosphere in Washington is indifferent to the declaration of the end of war, while it is being discussed so intensely in South Korea.

To be precise about the declaration of the end of war, it has political and symbolic significance. Therefore, the political event of issuing a declaration is important. This event ultimately requires President Biden to meet with Chairman Kim Jong-un. If leaders from South Korea, North Korea, and even China were to meet, it is realistically impossible. President Biden's administration is facing significant criticism for its foreign policy, and his approval ratings are declining. Meeting with an individual like Kim Jong-un is an extremely unpopular policy in the US. Therefore, I believe it is impossible for him to risk his political capital for this. If so, why is there such a divided public opinion on this issue at this particular time?

Second is the issue of the End-of-War declaration. Since our esteemed speaker has already covered it extensively, I have little to add. Nevertheless, the plan for an End-of-War declaration mentioned by the former US Secretary of State is worth pursuing. If the Democratic Party regains power, it is likely to continue this initiative. In this regard, I do have significant concerns. As discussed with the Director of the Office of Strategy and Global Security earlier, there is clearly an issue of sequencing. While I do not oppose the End-of-War declaration itself, the fundamental question is whether it is appropriate to pursue it at this juncture when North Korea, having declared itself a nuclear state at its 8th Party Congress and demanding the withdrawal of USFK, expects us to accept its status as a nuclear state. This is the first question. The second question is about the claim that consultations with the US are ongoing or have been held. The phrasing itself...

Concerns and worries arise about pursuing this matter. If it is indeed worthwhile to pursue, will it continue in the next Democratic Party administration? I am very pessimistic about this prospect. Thirdly, connected to this, is the issue of denuclearization. Something not mentioned in this session is that denuclearization must be our core focus. In addition to denuclearization strategies, we must consider how to respond to North Korea's threats. The threats are present and escalating significantly. As Kim Jong-un announced at the 8th Party Congress, he plans to develop tactical nuclear weapons and is demonstrating them.

He continues to showcase KN-23 and KN-24 missiles, as well as cruise missiles. The weapon systems I am mentioning can all be equipped with tactical nuclear warheads. The KN-23, in particular, with its evasive maneuvers, cannot be intercepted by existing South Korean or US missile defense systems. North Korea will continue in this direction. Therefore, to engage in dialogue, we must possess robust deterrence capabilities. However, our deterrence capabilities are eroding. We are inevitably relying on the US's extended deterrence, but the US's nuclear commitment is weakening. I understand that the Yoon Suk-yeol camp plans to strengthen and institutionalize extended deterrence. However, I have not heard discussions on this matter from the Democratic Party camp.

Therefore, the question of how to engage in dialogue with North Korea while maintaining deterrence must be addressed. Regarding denuclearization, both sides speak of principles, which we have all experienced before, and there is nothing new. However, if we delve deeper into the fundamental question: will North Korea abandon its nuclear weapons through these actions? It is an uncomfortable truth. Will North Korea abandon its nuclear weapons no matter how hard we try? While we cannot cease diplomatic efforts, is this realistically achievable? Returning to the US-China conflict and the changing world order, we must consider this within that context.

Beyond this, we must prepare for a potential emergency situation. The urgency of this situation needs to be reflected in the approaches of both campaigns. Lastly, regarding the issue of Japan, Ambassador Wi Sung-nak rightly stated that it must be resolved flexibly and immediately. However, will the Democratic Party proceed in this manner? Both the Democratic Party and the People Power Party face public sentiment. What is Japan's clear objective?

This is a complex issue that requires careful consideration. In the context of US-China competition and the changing world order, we need to think outside the box. We need to prepare for potential emergencies with a sense of desperation. The question is, to what extent do both campaigns possess this sense of urgency? Finally, regarding the issue of Japan, as Ambassador Wi Sung-nak rightly stated, it must be resolved flexibly and immediately. However, will the Democratic Party proceed in this manner? Both the Democratic Party and the People Power Party face public sentiment. What is Japan's clear objective?

This is a complex issue that requires careful consideration. In the context of US-China competition and the changing world order, we need to think outside the box. We need to prepare for potential emergencies with a sense of desperation. The question is, to what extent do both campaigns possess this sense of urgency? Finally, regarding the issue of Japan, as Ambassador Wi Sung-nak rightly stated, it must be resolved flexibly and immediately. However, will the Democratic Party proceed in this manner? Both the Democratic Party and the People Power Party face public sentiment. What is Japan's clear objective?

The fact that it is a tonic for that, and also the forced labor issue, I asked again, and they are still not legislating what we asked them to legislate. The Democratic Party, with 180 seats, has not yet legislated it. Since last December, President Moon has taken a very forward-looking stance in Japan, but there has been no change. And whether the Democratic Party or the People Power Party comes to power, this is a very unpopular policy with the public. Will it be possible? I don't think just talking about principles will solve the problem. We are out of time, so I will stop here.

Yes, the four professors have shared their opinions, evaluating it like a chess game. We will proceed like this. To move on to the next round, if we don't want to be evaluated as having another uninteresting session, like the first one, which Professor Kang said was frankly not very interesting, and the second one also turned out to be not very interesting, perhaps we need to move towards a more confrontational format. So, I would like to briefly pose three or four questions and have you choose one of them to discuss in the second session. In the first session, we discussed what the future of South Korea's China policy will be for the next five years, but I think there are two concerns we need to address.

The issue we are discussing today is that the challenges facing the next five years, regardless of whether a progressive or conservative government comes to power, will likely encounter two major obstacles. First, the US-China relationship is unlikely to resolve as quickly as we expect. I am looking towards 2035 or 2050, as China is moving in that direction, so diplomacy will be quite challenging. Therefore, difficult decisions will need to be made. It's easy to say we will be consistent, but what choices will we make? In cases where we face much greater demands from the US than we anticipated, or much greater dissatisfaction from China, we need to have concrete preparations for how to respond. Second, and surprisingly, public sentiment shows over 70% anti-China sentiment. I am curious about this. Look at the National Assembly members. Is the sentiment in Yeouido any different from that 70%? Where does this come from?

This is something we need to consider: how can we manage the gap between the sentiment in the Blue House, Yeouido, and the general public? These seem to be the two major challenges for the next five years. Second, regarding inter-Korean relations, while the declaration of an end to the war has been mentioned, the biggest issue for the next five years remains the same. I still believe that pushing and pulling, and having different ideas about the peace process, makes it very difficult to achieve substantial meaning. The biggest dilemma for the next government will still be denuclearization. Regarding denuclearization, one important point was raised in the first session: whether it involves slightly more engagement or slightly more sanctions. However, recently, China's Xi Jinping government, although for domestic consolidation, made a historical decision at the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party.

Looking back over the past 100 years and looking ahead to the next century, there is a need for a historical decision. Some argue that what North Korea decided at that time was a partial denuclearization, not complete denuclearization. Therefore, perhaps a historical decision is needed. What are your thoughts on this? Simultaneously, as Professor Park pointed out, if a historical decision for complete denuclearization is difficult, what about the response? There are various scattered discussions domestically about how progressive and conservative governments should respond, but internationally, they are not accepted at all. How can we achieve a consensus on how to respond to issues such as self-reliant development or extended deterrence? Should we not improve the situation through step-by-step concessions rather than strict adherence to each stage? If that is not possible, how should we proceed? To what extent can we make unilateral concessions?

In such cases, how can we manage domestic sentiment? If domestic sentiment leads to a step-by-step approach, but that approach is not taken, then we must abandon certain aspects. This not only affects inter-Korean relations, economy, diplomacy, and security, but also the entire Asia-Pacific region, making the cost-benefit analysis much larger than expected. How can we manage this? Lastly, although we haven't discussed it due to time constraints, an issue no less important than the previous three is the true meaning of reconstruction. The newly emerging COVID-19 will eventually pass. In the post-COVID-19 era, what role can South Korea play? Both the US and China have failed. What is the direction in which South Korea can lead? Despite these four major challenges, we are struggling to find easy answers. Among these, please choose one that you find most pressing and discuss it.

There is a motto of the Taegeukgi. Within that, there is the issue of how to proceed with North Korea's denuclearization. This is the most important image. In reality, it is true that there is no clear alternative or practical method that North Korea can achieve denuclearization through our efforts. However, if there is a difference between us and the Democratic Party, it is that if my assessment is wrong, Mr. Ha will correct me. If we look at it from an economic perspective, which economists often use, in terms of opportunity cost and expected return, it is necessary to continuously show North Korea that it cannot achieve development without abandoning its nuclear weapons. This is the opportunity cost. So, what is the method? Ultimately, at this point, the only method we can choose is to continue to maintain sanctions against North Korea.

The reason we must maintain them is that North Korea's policy itself is to pursue nuclear weapons and economic development simultaneously. If this policy is not changed, they cannot abandon their nuclear weapons. So, what is the only way to change this policy? It is that North Korea, possessing nuclear weapons, can never achieve development. At this point, they must either stop or regress. The only way to convey this is through sanctions. What other method is there? Therefore, from the perspective of opportunity cost, if North Korea does not take denuclearization measures, we must continue. In this regard, the People Power Party and the ruling party have different stances. The ruling party believes that by partially easing sanctions, we can provide incentives if they abandon their nuclear weapons, and showing this synergy is important. There seems to be a difference here. Next is the issue of expected returns.

So, the fundamental difference now lies in inter-Korean economic cooperation and humanitarian aid. Our party's position is that as long as North Korea possesses nuclear weapons, economic cooperation should not proceed. We argue that humanitarian aid should be increased compared to the present. The ruling party's position, on the other hand, is that development cooperation, such as the Trans-Siberian Railway, and humanitarian aid should be pursued together. I believe this is the ruling party's stance. However, I believe that development cooperation and humanitarian aid should not be pursued together. Why? Because if they possess nuclear weapons, they must abandon them. If they abandon their nuclear weapons, they can receive benefits. But if we pursue development cooperation and humanitarian aid together, it gives them the impression that they can achieve both nuclear weapons and economic development. Therefore, instead of pursuing them together, before abandoning nuclear weapons, development cooperation for infrastructure like the Trans-Siberian Railway should not be undertaken. However, in terms of humanitarian aid, we should approach it by showing them the potential returns, such as through increased medical aid.

For example, regarding the COVID-19 issue, how can we achieve cooperation with North Korea? Realistically, if we go to North Korea and offer our vaccines, say $25 million, will the North Korean people actually receive them like we do? To receive them, as you know, vaccination requires extensive infrastructure. North Korea is a country that lacks the infrastructure to administer vaccines to its citizens, even if they are provided. Therefore, we need to offer not just vaccines, but also the equipment and facilities to administer them, such as power generation facilities, as a complete package. Only then can we truly show our sincerity and can North Korea accept it as humanitarian aid.

So far, for example, if someone has a digestive disorder, giving them rice won't help; they need porridge. This is the kind of approach we have in our North Korea aid strategy, I believe. I would like to offer this point regarding the issue with North Korea. Thank you for listening. Regarding Mr. Tae-young's remarks, there is not much difference in fact. As I have been at the institute for a long time and worked in the government during the Lee Myung-bak and Park Geun-hye administrations, the work done during the Lee Myung-bak administration has recently become a problem, and it is being reported as if the Democratic Party bears the original sin for North Korea. However, during the Lee Myung-bak administration, I also worked on government projects.

The difference is that when we say 'upon denuclearization,' when will that moment be? We believe that once the denuclearization process begins, we will provide customized humanitarian aid and development cooperation accordingly. However, without any progress in the denuclearization process, large-scale, full-fledged development cooperation is difficult to imagine. For example, as Mr. Tae-young mentioned, when I was interested in and researched many ODA projects in the past, such as those related to Mongolia, the most effective was the syringe project. In reality, for difficult countries, syringes and basic medical supplies like thermometers are absolutely lacking, which significantly impacts public health and medical care. X-rays are not the issue. Sometimes, in that sense, when we talk about humanitarian aid to North Korea and development cooperation, they are almost indistinguishable. In ODA, development cooperation and humanitarian aid are often bundled together. Therefore, from that perspective, instead of just providing rice and medicine, we should create a sustainable system for humanitarian aid. If possible, how about starting sustainable development cooperation projects in areas such as public health and medical care, or for vulnerable groups like women and children? This is the approach we should take before inter-Korean relations are fundamentally resolved.

I believe this. Regarding the next government, I think South Korea's foreign policy agenda is divided into about three areas. First, traditional diplomacy, such as ROK-US alliance, ROK-China relations, ROK-Japan relations, etc. These can be considered traditional agendas, encompassing both politics and economics, which we have commonly dealt with. The second major area is inter-Korean relations and the Korean Peninsula issue, including denuclearization. This is closely related to ROK-US relations, but it exists as a separate issue concerning North Korea. The third area is the newly emerging trend, such as responding to global pandemics like COVID-19, which is discussed in trend reports, or issues like human rights, climate change, energy, and carbon neutrality. Therefore, I believe that the new governance for these issues will be very different for the next government.

I believe that the agenda concerning the next government's foreign policy is divided into approximately three areas. First are the traditional areas, such as the ROK-US alliance, ROK-China relations, and ROK-Japan relations. These can be considered traditional agendas, encompassing politics and economics, which we have frequently dealt with. The second major area is inter-Korean relations and the Korean Peninsula issue, including the North Korean nuclear issue. While this is related to ROK-US relations, the North Korean issue exists as a distinct major area. The third area, which has newly emerged due to global trends, includes responses to global infectious diseases like pandemics, as mentioned in the book regarding vaccines, or human rights issues, climate change, energy, and carbon neutrality. Therefore, I believe the next government will have a significantly different perspective on the new governance for these issues.

In traditional governance, there was a difference in whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs or the Blue House took the lead, depending on the government. Regarding this issue, like a pendulum, some governments have had the Ministry of Foreign Affairs take the lead, while others have had the Blue House take the lead. For example, in the recent trend of the Moon Jae-in administration, it can be said that the Blue House had the stronger grip. Centered around the Blue House National Security Advisor, in the past, during the Park Geun-hye administration or the Lee Myung-bak administration before that, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had a stronger grip.

Therefore, I believe that this oscillation between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Blue House is problematic for our foreign policy. Unless we establish a new governance system, including the National Assembly, I don't think our foreign policy will be able to digest the agenda, regardless of whether the next government is progressive or conservative. Therefore, a fundamental change in the governance structure is necessary, I believe. Lastly, regarding one of the questions asked by Professor Ha, I will briefly touch upon it. It is difficult now, so difficult decisions are needed. I believe so.

As Professor Bu mentioned, it is possible to maintain good relations with both the US and China. However, for us, a clear message is that the need for ROK-US-China balance, as I mentioned earlier, may be a diplomatic rhetoric, but in terms of our political, economic, and international relations framework, it is very difficult to move beyond the framework of ROK-US relations. In that respect, we must maintain the basic framework of ROK-US relations. Conversely, precisely because ROK-US relations are important, the gap between politicians and the public arises because politicians inevitably have to lean more towards China. When we reach a critical moment, we have no choice but to rely on the US. Therefore, in normal times, the government and the ruling party have no choice but to try to accommodate China in various ways. Although we cannot chase two rabbits at once, to avoid such a situation realistically, we will try to soften our relationship with China through various diplomatic rhetoric, diplomacy, and other means. However, I believe that our system, built over the past 70 years, makes it difficult to operate without the ROK-US relationship when faced with a choice. This is not only true for South Korea but also for Japan, which is in a similar situation. Therefore, considering that aspect, I keep saying that I hope such a situation does not arise and that we manage our diplomacy accordingly.

At critical junctures, we are compelled to align with the United States. Consequently, the government and the ruling party face the dilemma of needing to consider China in their policies during normal times. Ultimately, while it is impossible to pursue both objectives simultaneously, realistically, to avoid such situations, we will endeavor to foster smoother relations with China through various diplomatic means, such as diplomatic initiatives and diverse approaches. However, I believe that if our system, built over the past 70 years, faces a choice, it would be difficult to proceed without maintaining relations with the United States. This situation is not unique to Korea; I believe Japan faces a similar predicament. Considering these aspects, I sincerely hope, as I have repeatedly stated, that such situations do not arise and that we manage our foreign policy accordingly. It is crucial to manage our foreign policy to prevent such confrontations.

Yes, it's good to be a professor because you can just criticize. I don't think there are any countermeasures. When I was introduced earlier, I worked at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses for 18 years. There, I was trained to focus only on policy proposals, ignoring theory and history. So, although I criticized earlier, I will now offer my countermeasures. I will offer my countermeasures briefly.

Regarding China policy, I believe a balanced perspective is necessary. I completely agree with Ambassador Wi's remarks. As a liberal democratic country, South Korea should respond to the US-China relationship based on its identity as a liberal democracy, and its autonomous international order, which includes universal values such as free trade, the rule of law, and human rights. The joint statement issued by South Korea and the US on May 22nd is, in my opinion, the answer. I believe its content is very good. Although it does not explicitly mention China or North Korea, it clearly expresses the will of South Korea and the US to jointly defend the liberal international order, as mentioned above. Furthermore, it includes aspects of supply chain reorganization and the creation of norms and standards for advanced industries. Unfortunately, our government, even before the ink dried, stated that this was not aimed at China, and China's Foreign Ministry spokesperson said, 'Who are they fooling?' Moreover, why is the US saying something different when South Korea agreed to it? This is a typical case of losing twice. I believe the next government should build upon this basis, which connects to the third question asked by President Aska Young-sun: what can South Korea lead in the post-COVID-19 era? I mentioned that the US is relatively declining. We don't know what will happen in four years. The Biden administration is also facing significant difficulties. Therefore, instead of leaving the liberal international order to the US, South Korea, along with like-minded countries, which we often talk about, should take the lead. Given that South Korea is the 11th largest economy and has considerable military power, it is time for us to pay the price and take responsibility, and actively lead this order with that resolve.

Regarding the dual policy towards China, I believe it is necessary to acknowledge it. I fully agree with Ambassador Lee. As a liberal democratic state, the Republic of Korea should respond to the US-China relationship based on its identity, which includes autonomous international engagement, free trade, the rule of law, and human rights, among other universal values. In this regard, I believe the joint statement issued by ROK and the US on May 22nd is the correct approach. I believe its content is excellent. Although it does not explicitly mention China, it clearly conveys the commitment of both nations to jointly uphold the liberal international order, as I just mentioned. Furthermore, it encompasses aspects such as supply chain restructuring and the establishment of norms and frameworks for advanced industries. Unfortunately, our government, before the ink had even dried, stated that this was not directed at China, leading to internal discussions about who was being deceived. Moreover, why did the US...

In that sense, I believe cooperation with Japan is very important. Together with countries that share these values, we must lead with the US. To that extent, I believe we must be prepared to pay the price. Regarding inter-Korean relations and denuclearization, as I mentioned earlier, I believe complete denuclearization is impossible. Therefore, I believe we have two options. First, institutionalize the US's extended deterrence. I wrote an article about this, and I propose amending the ROK-US Mutual Defense Treaty to include extended deterrence. That is my position.

However, those who take a stronger stance than the opposite side advocate for tactical nuclear weapons or South Korea's nuclear armament. I don't think that is the way forward. However, I believe this issue must be resolved with that level of resolve. Thank you. Professor Jeon Jae-seong, please. Yes, due to time constraints, I would like to follow up on Mr. Jong-hyun's last remarks regarding our position on US-China relations. As Professor Ha mentioned, there will be issues that the next government will face immediately in US-China relations. This is because the US views China as a competitor, and competition inherently involves a system. There are those who have power and those who don't. Depending on South Korea's stance on the international economic line towards China, the responses from both the US and China could be quite painful. Although we want special treatment, I believe it is important to accurately anticipate the cards and plays that both the US and China can use in this competitive system, not just for South Korea's sake.

In the case of the US, we have a very good comprehensive alliance, and the worst-case scenario is the withdrawal of US troops, but there is a wide spectrum in between. If South Korea does not align with the competitive system, the US can pursue various policies, such as being more lenient on the North Korean nuclear issue, being more lenient in providing passage through the South China Sea, or siding with Japan over South Korea. There are many such means available to the US. China also has strong economic sanctions, as seen in the Huawei incident, and a different lenient attitude towards the North Korean nuclear issue. Therefore, I believe it is important to anticipate the immediate problems that may arise.

It seems very difficult to persuade the public with abstract arguments like 'let's go together.' For example, people who suffer from Chinese economic sanctions will emerge immediately. Therefore, there are limitations to persuading them with abstract and macro-level logic. In that regard, I believe it is necessary to prepare concrete alternatives, such as sharing the burden of suffering or demanding certain guarantees from the US. There are no particular questions so far. It seems that no questions have been raised.

Since time is almost up, I would like to make a brief closing remark. If anyone has any final thoughts they wish to share, please. Professor Park Won-soon's remarks included a criticism that the diplomatic strategic value or vision of the Yoon Suk-yeol team was not clearly visible. Let me explain a bit. In my judgment, the key difference is that candidate Yoon Suk-yeol plans to pursue a foreign policy based on clear strategic clarity, similar to the US. On the other hand, candidate Lee Jae-myung, based on his past statements, emphasizes strategic ambiguity based on de-ideologization and de-valuation.

Therefore, the fundamental difference lies in whether it is de-ideologization or ideology-based diplomacy, de-valuation or value-based diplomacy, strategic clarity or strategic ambiguity. This is the fundamental difference from the starting point. If I may say one thing from the perspective of the People Power Party regarding the ruling party's or candidate Lee's strategic ambiguity or de-ideologization and de-valuation, these pledges and slogans are excellent. However, in the practice of diplomacy, it is structurally impossible for South Korea to pursue strategic ambiguity or de-ideologization and de-valuation, breaking free from ideological and value-based diplomacy. For example, because we have a military alliance with the United States, it is impossible to pursue strategic ambiguity-based diplomacy with a nation that has such a military alliance. If we were in a position like Finland or Sweden in Europe, we could pursue strategic ambiguity and engage in functional diplomacy.

Therefore, I would like to clearly state that there is a difference in this regard. Mr. Hong, since you mentioned it, please do not criticize the ideologically biased foreign and security policy of the opposition party. We are pursuing experimental and de-ideological diplomacy, and I believe that is the right approach. The trend is towards moving away from ideology in diplomacy, and such trends are increasing. I believe it is important to consider which path can secure the future of South Korea and that diplomacy is a lifelong endeavor. That is all.

This is why I want to clearly state that there is a difference in this regard. Mr. Hong, since you mentioned it, please do not criticize the ideologically biased foreign and security policy of the opposition party. We are pursuing experimental and de-ideological diplomacy, and I believe that is the right approach. The trend is towards moving away from ideology in diplomacy, and such trends are increasing. I believe it is important to consider which path can secure the future of South Korea and that diplomacy is a lifelong endeavor. That is all.

Approximately two hours have passed. After concluding the first and second sessions, I would like to make just two points. First, I believe that two people should have been present at this event: candidate Lee Jae-myung and candidate Yoon Suk-yeol. Why do I think so? First, as has been pointed out several times, the so-called four crises have the potential to lead us into a crisis that goes beyond the real estate and economic downturns that we are currently feeling. More importantly, unfortunately, I believe that both candidates are most vulnerable in these areas. Therefore, if they had participated in the first and second sessions today, it would have contributed more to garnering votes. I regret that the future presidents, who should be aware of their shortcomings and strive to maximize the benefits for the 80 million people over the next five years, seem to lack the humility to attend even small events like this and listen attentively.

Therefore, when selecting the next presidential candidate, I believe we must choose a candidate who has the foresight to attend such events. Second, regarding the issue of governance, which you rightly pointed out, it is a difficult problem. If the individuals who will become president are too busy to attend to these important issues, who should handle them? Why is this not working well? On the surface, everyone seems to be saying similar things, and they say, 'Don't worry too much; please focus on your livelihoods, and we will take care of everything.'

However, from my perspective of observing international politics and Korean diplomacy for the past 50 years, I feel that the problem arises because we cannot see the overall picture of the Go board. Are we still looking at the Go board as if we are playing Go, while surrounding countries are playing long-term strategy? To break this cycle, once presidential candidates are decided, their camps are formed, and they discuss issues in the short term to formulate new foreign policy, security, and unification policies for the next five years. This vicious cycle needs to be broken. While it is important for the government, it also needs to be resolved in Yeouido. I am not personally asking you to strengthen think tanks, but by looking at the example of the United States, we envy the fact that institutions like the Brookings Institution or the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) have been working on these issues for four or eight years. Therefore, in a sense, our campaign teams are not needed. Therefore,

the problem that Mr. Ho-yeon was concerned about will be automatically resolved. This is a problem for both conservatives and progressives, but why is it not being resolved? As long as this vicious cycle continues, presidential candidates will not easily attend this event, and even if we invite representatives from both camps, we will have to end the session with beautiful words. In reality, over the five years, there is always the possibility of a harsh five years. With this somewhat disappointing remark, I will conclude my presentation. I would like to express my gratitude to the two members of the National Assembly and the two professors who participated in the discussion session and hereby conclude the session. Thank you. Thank you.

This concludes the East Asia Institute (EAI) and the Institute for East Asian Studies Diplomacy Strategy Symposium on the topic of the next government's foreign strategy. Thank you sincerely to everyone who has joined us until the end. Thank you. 4 Ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah, ah,s. The Korean text is a transcript of a discussion or presentation, likely from an academic or policy-related event. It covers topics such as:

* **Forced Labor Issue:** Mentioned as an ongoing political and legislative challenge.
* **US-China Relations:** Discussed as a significant future challenge for South Korea, with concerns about rapid resolution and the need for difficult decisions.
* **Inter-Korean Relations:** The dilemma of denuclearization and the challenges of achieving a peace process.
* **North Korea's Denuclearization:** The difficulty of complete denuclearization and potential responses, including extended deterrence and the possibility of South Korea developing its own nuclear weapons (though deemed not the preferred path).
* **South Korea's Foreign Policy:** The need for a new governance structure, balancing relations with the US and China, and the role of new agendas like pandemics and climate change.
* **Presidential Candidates' Stances:** A comparison of the foreign policy approaches of Yoon Suk-yeol (strategic clarity) and Lee Jae-myung (strategic ambiguity).
* **Post-COVID-19 Role for South Korea:** What role South Korea can play in a post-pandemic world where both the US and China have faced challenges.
* **Governance of Foreign Policy:** The oscillation between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Blue House in leading foreign policy and the need for a more robust system.

The tone is formal and analytical, characteristic of policy discussions. The text includes references to specific political parties (Democratic Party, People Power Party), past and present leaders (President Moon, Xi Jinping), and specific events or concepts (forced labor, extended deterrence, ODA, COVID-19). The speaker(s) are grappling with complex geopolitical issues and the challenges they pose for South Korea's future foreign policy. The discussion also touches upon the importance of public sentiment and the need for concrete, actionable strategies rather than just abstract principles. The ending suggests a concluding remark or a transition to the next part of the event.```jsonjson{

This concludes the EAI and East Asia Institute Foreign Policy Strategy Symposium on the next government's foreign strategy. Thank you sincerely to everyone who joined us until the end. Thank you. 5 Ah eu eu eu ou ou