[Global NK International Conference] Session 2: Building a Future Order on the Korean Peninsula and the Path to Grand Bargain

YouTube Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0MemcQJvM8

In the second session of the Global NK International Conference held by the East Asia Institute (EAI) on May 10, security experts from South Korea, the U.S., and China discussed areas where the three countries should cooperate, including nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear safety, to build a future order on the Korean Peninsula. While the U.S. and Chinese experts showed differing views on the responsibility for regional arms races, they agreed on the need to narrow these differences and strengthen mutual cooperation to jointly promote stability and peace on the Korean Peninsula.

■ Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2023, 11:10-12:20

■ Venue: Orchid Room, The Westin Chosun Seoul

■ Participants (in Korean alphabetical order): Kim Tae-hyung (Professor, Soongsil University), Son Yeol (Director, EAI; Professor, Yonsei University), Ouyang Wei (Deputy Director, Guancha Think Tank), Jia Qingguo (Professor, Peking University), Chun Jae-sung (Director, EAI Center for National Security Studies; Professor, Seoul National University), Francesca Giovannini (Director, Belfer Center, Harvard University), William Tobey (Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory)

■ Presentation: William Tobey (Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory)

“A Path Forward on Nuclear Nonproliferation”

• Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) has been a stable regime and a solid asset for international peace and security. While the death of NPT has been predicted many times, these predictions have been proven wrong. Yet this time may be different.

• Attack on the NPT regime will have a far-reaching impact on the Korean Peninsula. Since the 2000s, diplomacy to reverse the DPRK nuclear threat has stalled.

• The world changed in February 2022 when Russia violated and vandalized the international order. Russia and China, both members of the NPT and permanent members of the UN Security Council, are evidently rethinking or already directly attacking the NPT.

• In response, however, further proliferation cannot be the answer. Like-minded countries supporting the NPT and shared values must act together. They must prepare an active defense of norms, values, and laws, and achieve more tangible defense.

• Extended deterrence has been the most successful nonproliferation policy in the course of history. The best evidence is shown by the difference between Poland and Ukraine. Fortunately, ROK is part of the U.S. treaty alliance and a beneficiary of U.S. extended deterrence. More work is needed bilaterally and multilaterally to fight against the threat to nonproliferation.

■ Presentation: Ouyang Wei (Deputy Director, Guancha Think Tank)

“Seeking Cooperation Amid Strategic Dilemma”

• China-U.S. competition is intensifying while DPRK continues its weapon development, and ROK’s DPRK policy is becoming more hardline under the Yoon administration. However, basis and principles for cooperation among the relevant countries in the Korean Peninsula still exist.

• Regional order on the Korean Peninsula is less likely to turn into a “new Cold War,” since relevant countries still share the common interest of nuclear safety, security, and stability.

• Countries, therefore, still have a space to seek cooperation. Great power competition does not mean confrontation in all fields. Nuclear safety, security, avoiding nuclear war, regional stability, and nuclear-related environmental issues are some shared interests and potential areas of China-U.S.-ROK cooperation.

• Multilateral approaches like the Six-Party Talks have often been suspended, but the basic rules and principles are not outdated. Any possible bilateral or multilateral dialogues to promote denuclearization, security, and stability can be meaningful.

■ Presentation: Chun Jae-sung (Director, EAI Center for National Security Studies; Professor, Seoul National University)

“Navigating Future Security Challenges in the Korean Peninsula: Nuclear Deterrence and Strategic Engagement”

• U.S.-China relations may be adversarial on the surface, but this is based on strategic mistrust and misperception that can be resolved. U.S. thinks that China’s drive for economic development is revisionist in nature, and China believes that the U.S. is containing China unjustly by challenging its territorial sovereignty and integrity over Taiwan.

• After the Bali Summit in November 2022, there have been some signs of positive changes. Cautious optimism was observed from the Chinese side, and the U.S. tried to present a vision for ultimate goal of its China strategy.

• Yet to improve its position and enhance the credibility of such commitment, the U.S. should present a more explicit strategic framework implying that it wishes to manage the competition in a reasonable manner. In order to achieve mature relations, it is important to engage in continuous dialogue, diplomacy, and rules-based competition.

• For Korea, the U.S.-China arms race is increasingly more threatening. ROK should try to find a “strategic space” to enhance cooperation with the two countries.

• Washington Declaration was more focused on confirming reassurance for ROK. But this has provoked DPRK in some sense. We need communication with the adversary counterpart and send a signal to the DPRK that extended deterrence is inherently defensive, not offensive.

■ Discussion 1: Jia Qingguo (Professor, Peking University)

• As Professor William Tobey mentioned, the fact that the NPT is under threat is a matter of great concern. The NPT faces numerous challenges. The U.S. itself challenges the regime by deploying nuclear submarines to Australia, and Washington actively discusses deploying tactical nuclear weapons to South Korea and Japan.

• Nuclear safety is a shared interest in the region, and pragmatic steps are required to ensure this. In this front, both the U.S. and China want stability and have in fact voiced strong commitment. However, the reality is much more complicated. Nevertheless, U.S. and China should have benign competition and compete to be better.

■ Discussion 2: Francesca Giovannini (Director, Belfer Center, Harvard University)

• It is true that future East Asian order will be predominantly shaped by competition and cooperation between U.S. and China. This order will further shape the general international order as well.

• U.S. and China relations can be defined as “complex interdependence.” The competition cannot be understood in a merely “security dynamic” perspective. While the two states are engaged in competition, there exists a need for cooperation.

• DPRK can offer a valuable opportunity for U.S. and China to show the world that great power cooperation can work. China is a major player, a responsible actor in dealing with the Korean Peninsula. In this context, China should recognize and come to the table as it did during the Six-Party Talks.

• China and ROK-U.S. have different perspectives toward the DPRK, but this is due to a “sequencing dilemma.” China argues that economic cooperation must be realized first in order to reduce the DPRK insecurity, while ROK-U.S. believes that security guarantee must be achieved before any economic cooperation is realized. So in the long term, all parties must commit to dialogue to close this gap.

■ Discussion 3: Kim Tae-hyung (Professor, Soongsil University)

• Future of NPT is grim. U.S. already faces critical challenges, such as providing reassurance and efficient arms control to its allies. In current international politics, NPT is being increasingly threatened and the U.S., Russia, and China are all modernizing their nuclear forces.

• If ominous forecasts realize, great powers (especially the U.S.) will face immense pressure in terms of preserving the NPT and providing effective extended deterrence to allies. Therefore, it is urgent and imperative for concerned parties to proceed with nuclear arms control talks, which have been proven useful for quite some time.

• Today, significant level of technological advancement is helping some countries build better counterforce capability to nuclear powers. Consequently, some nuclear powers will have less confidence in their survival, which could lead to an arms race to develop more weapons. This trend is happening globally and has a negative impact on arms control as well as the NPT.

• Extended deterrence is important because it alleviates ROK’s threat perception toward DPRK. However, too much emphasis is given to nuclear weapons. This could give a wrong impression that maintenance of the ROK-U.S. alliance and deterrence against the DPRK nuclear threat is only achieved with nuclear weapons.

• It is true that common interests exist among relevant stakeholders in the Peninsula, but each country prefers to prioritize its own national interest. Every country is blaming each other for the DPRK stalemate.

■ Discussion 4: William Tobey (Director)

• Two clarifications must be highlighted: Australia firmly agreed to the legal and physical steps ensuring that fuels for the nuclear submarines will not be used for weapons, and no U.S. executive officials are considering the deployment of tactical nuclear weapons in Japan and ROK.

• Reemergence of great power competition is a great challenge, and this issue is larger than nonproliferation. EU, Japan, ROK, U.S., and other like-minded countries should bond not just for nuclear weapons, but for global security. These countries, when working together, will be extremely powerful.

■ Discussion 5: Ouyang Wei (Deputy Director)

• It is important to note that “nuclear safety” and “nuclear security” are two different concepts. The former also applies to non-traditional security issues.

• Since China and ROK are neighbors, they already have channels for dialogue. The U.S. does as well, since there are hotlines. So opportunities for restarting bilateral dialogues exist, perhaps through means like a 1.5 track.

■ Discussion 6: Chun Jae-sung (Director)

• To address Chinese concern toward ROK’s potential change in its Taiwan policy, ROK’s official policy on Taiwan remains the same—it supports peace, prosperity, and stability in the Taiwan Strait. While ROK respects the One China Policy, Taiwan Strait is considered important since it is directly related to ROK’s trade and military stability.

• However, Chinese question about ROK’s potential change in policy is understandable, because ROK President and Foreign Minister recently have been echoing U.S. rhetoric of opposing a unilateral change to the status quo. Seoul needs to do more work to clarify what opposing change to the status quo means for ROK.

• ROK is critically affected by and vulnerable to the growing U.S.-China competition. In this context, ROK hopes it can participate in a multilateral conversation to figure out where and how ROK can raise its voice.

■ Kim Tae-hyung_Professor, Department of Political Science and International Relations, Soongsil University.

■ Son YeolDirector of the East Asia Institute (EAI); Professor at Yonsei University's Graduate School of International Studies.

■ Ouyang WeiDeputy Director of the Guǎnguān Think Tank.

■ Zhai QingguoProfessor at Peking University.

■ Chung Jae-sungDirector of the National Security Research Center at the East Asia Institute (EAI); Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Seoul National University.

■ Francesca GiovanniniDirector of the Nuclear Management Project at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center.

■ William TobeyDirector of the Center for National Security and International Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory; Senior Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center.

■ Responsible and Edited by: Park Ji-soo, EAI Research Fellow

Inquiries: 02 2277 1683 (ext. 208) | jspark@eai.or.kr

Video Script

the second session um is actually it continues to the previous sessions agendas and the title is building a future order of the Korean Peninsula strategic communication extended deterrence and cooperation for uh the new area including nuclear non-proliferation those are the topics that we are going to discuss and um there are uh several key questions already offered to uh to the panelists that includes first it's about your views or United States China and and South Korea's view of the future of the

Korean Peninsula this is very wide the question um but our co-sponsor ministry of unification really wants to hear from you because they are very much interested in that topic and the second more directly to our uh you know today's discussion is how can we build a trust and confidence in deterrence extended returns Arrangements in Asia we can draw on several historical examples too and discussing that so it's a issue of strategic communication and transparency among uh concerned actors and three uh

what I think this is the ultimate goal of today's conference what are the areas of cooperation among three countries United States China and South Korea you know given the shared interest for example in the area of non-nuclear uh you know non-proliferation nuclear safety nuclear security things like that and so which could be a stepping stone for further cooperation and for a peaceful prosperous and symbiotic order of the region so with that let me uh very quickly introduce because uh you know for the sake of time uh I you will be

very brief first on my left William Toby who is an expert leading expert on on nuclear non-prolet operation terrorism and arms control he has a bright career so you can you can read on on this proceeding uh next uh oh young way Mr oyang way PhD in International Security who is a vice chairman of academic Committee of the Grandview institution he is a premier expert on National Security defense strategy and Christ Christ crisis management and border security in China and third uh presenter from eai who

chairs eai's National Security Program Center and also Seoul national university Pro Professor uh Professor Jason is uh is a leading expert literally leading expert in the field of international relations in Korea and three excellent discussions uh is present again you're busy today so I'll skip you and and next is uh Professor Francesca Gio Panini uh welcome to Korea uh she is an executive director of the project on managing atom uh at Harvard Kennedy schools Balfour Center and she's a non-resident fellow

of at of the Stanford University and served uh you know as a very important position for uh many many years she uh as you know is a the leading expert on uh you know Arms Control Regional nuclear proliferation Dynamics nuclear security and Insider threats finally uh I mean the last not police Professor Kim taehyung from Sunshine University he's a um also very well known experts on International Security nuclear proliferation and deterrence and he also specialized in middle and small Powers foreign policy with that uh

our time management would be uh you present I mean three presenter uh spend about maximum to 12 minutes sorry about that if you go over that you will not have time to respond later so uh and then eight minutes each for uh the discussions and we go uh this way so uh William you go first thank you very much it's a delight to be back in Korea one of my last trips before the onset of covid was to Seoul with John Park and um it's it's just great to see many old friends I should also say that um the views I'm

about to extend are my own and don't represent any other Institution I'd like to start I'm going to talk mostly about the non-proliferation and the npt I'd like to start by offering some context of my own views I'm both a non-proliferation treaty supporter and an optimist I think despite some weaknesses the treaty has performed well several decades ago there were nine states with nuclear weapons today there are nine states with nuclear weapons we've traded South Africa for North Korea arguably not a great trade

especially if you live here but still it's been a stable regime which is really been an asset to International Peace and security despite all that observers from Robert McNamara on have worried over the possibility of Greater proliferation and the death of the npt has been predicted many times all of those observers have been proven wrong I'm worried that this time may be different why um there's a saying in the nuclear safety realm that an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere I fear that the attacks on the

non-proliferation treaty in places away from the Korean Peninsula will have far-ranging effects to include on the north on the Korean peninsula the world changed as much in February of 2022 as it did in November of 1989 and December of 1991 when the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed we're in a very different world today than the last time I was in Korea Russia is not only violating the international order it is vandalizing it if I don't mean to trivialize this but it's it's the difference between merely

speeding and taking down all the speed limit signs they're trying to destroy norms and law that have been built up over decades this poses a direct threat to non-proliferation policy in several ways by attacking the Budapest memorandum they attack the security of non-nuclear weapon States everywhere by shielding Iran from responses to tehran's violation not only of the joint comprehensive plan of action but also its safeguards agreement with the iaea they undermine the non-proliferation treaty and I would just ask does anyone

believe that Iran worries that it might have to come before the U.N security Council when Russia wielding a veto is receiving drones from Iran by threatening nuclear use Russia directly attacks the non-proliferation treaty and most importantly by attacking the very idea of international law that cannot help but have consequences for the Korean Peninsula Russia was a party to the six-party talks and I would add that those countries who fail to oppose or Worse tacitly support the lawlessness that Russia is exhibiting are complicit

in undermining the non-proliferation treaty I was going to point out that sadly since the 2000s when there was active diplomacy attempting to reverse the North Korean nuclear weapons program and I attended the six-party talks hosted by China that diplomacy is essentially stalled that alone is of concern um I was even more concerned to hear Professor Gia raise the possibility that China might reverse its support for non-proliferation so what is to be done about all this um we Face a situation where two of the

nuclear weapons States under the non-proliferation treaty and two of the permanent members of the United Nations security Council may be either rethinking or directly attacking non-proliferation policy I don't believe that the the correct response is further proliferation I think instead that like-minded Nations must act together those that believe in democracy human rights and rule of law must stand together and support those values as well as non-proliferation those shared values are our greatest source of

strength in pursuit of those shared values we must prepare an active defense we must defend not only the Norms values and laws but we must also be prepared with more tangible defense I believe that extended deterrence is has been the most successful non-proliferation policy in history and that that the and the best evidence of that is the fact I think that um the difference between Poland which is a member of NATO and therefore a beneficiary of U.S extended deterrence and Ukraine has not been lost on on

other Observers fortunately South Korea is it is a treaty Ally of the United States and a beneficiary of extended deterrence both the United States and Korea will need to act more closely but also with others others in the region and others globally to stand up to the threats to non-proliferation thank you thank you very much next is uh Dr oil thank you president thank you for having me to have a time to share my personal point of view on this topic according to the meeting according to the topic I want to share

some of our view on striving for the cooperation industry strategic dilemma I think we fear the difficult times for all of you including several relevant countries around the Korean peninsula I think the no matter the global scope or Asian Pacific region especially on the Korean peninsula security issues are very prominent and risk level is rising is indeed but bearing in mind the human Destiny I always think the humans have their own wisdom and the common interests for the sake of a peace and the stability in Asian

Pacific region and the future of the world relevant countries should focus on the overcoming obstacles and seek cooperation in the face of strategic dilemma we do have a strict dilemma which is wrong with right and difficulties I think the first the basis and the principles for the cooperation between the relevant countries on the current peninsula still exist in recent years relevant countries in the current peninsula have undergone some changes many changes in their own strategies and Military

capabilities these changes are influenced by a major power competition here's the panelists said earlier on Regional security conflicts and are also related to their own static needs every country have their own interests the development of china-u.s relation is at a low point which defense security dialogue exchanges and cooperation are basically in a standstill stopped no any kind of a conversation dialogue officially the United States has intensified pressure on China and political economic and security fields

and China feels more more pressure from United States and the connotation between the two countries in many aspects is on the rise which is a negative impact as I said earlier on in several meetings on the cooperation of the nuclear issue and peace and stability on the peninsula the dbrk continues to develop nuclear weapons a Justice nuclear policy as some experts speak early on an aggregate is nuclear capability which is regardless of basic strategic means I think the not they are not just a focused on the

conventional Warfare but the nuclear weapons is basic strict means for their own National Security and regime stability at the same time fracking missile launches have increased his instability in the peninsula and making peace on the peninsula in the coming becoming more unpredictable the our case policy currently toward dprk is getting tougher darker U.S Alliance has upgraded and extended deterrence has become concrete including moving nuclear weapons in the use of four deterrents and even attempt to use the nuclear

weapons for retaliate the adjustment of the security relations between the ROK and Japan has made coordination and John command of military forces of RK Japan United States are easier but clearly it's not a really aligned triangle Alliance but coordinated much more easier I think therefore it is the meaning focus on the peninsula and Regional security issues but it's the obviously increasing the Strategic pressure on dprk I don't think the they they have not uh clearly response currently but they really think they're facing the

strike pressure more than ever and tension on the Korean peninsula the Russia Ukraine war has made Russia U.S relations in a quality hostile state something like the enemy the relationship between RK and Russia declined I think the government of South Korea will be sent some ammunition maybe to the Ukraine and relationships between Russia and the DPR case for instance so a lot of changes which made Russia's policy for issue of denuclearization on Peninsula with uncertainty I don't know despite this in general the basic

position of relative countries on the Declaration of current peninsula has not changed entirely I think the is is a common interest and overall strategic balance on the Korean peninsula what I mean is the overall strategic balance also fragile fragile but still exists therefore the possibility of Sudden Change I mean the crisis suddenly changed the peninsula within a certain period of time is relatively small someone maybe think is will be happen next time okay either very quickly I don't think so

and the basis on agriculture architecture for the relevant current parties the seeking cooperation is still exists we should look the other side second the original order on the Korean Peninsula is less likely to turn to a cold war many people like to talking about the new Cold War the initiative from U.S trilateral ministerial dialogue mechanism were established in 2010 with aim of coordination policy towards the dbrk this triparticide system is characterized by the U.S led security partnership but

it's still not stateable lines the there would be a part of components within trilateral security cooperation especially focused to China the people many people of China worry about that but the main focus is more likely on the possible crisis on current peninsula the recent Improvement of our Japan relations many people very interesting about this it's mainly due to the mutual political economic and security interests of the two countries yes we can focus on security matters but at the same time we have to look at the

political and the economic issues and reason had been told is increased security pressure on RK and Japan coming from a trans station in the current peninsula at the same time adjustment hour occurred to Japan relations we also have the United States coordinate security policies of the two Airlines on the other hand from the perspective of the maintaining the overall order of the Northeast Asia the normalization of relation between ROK and Japan especially end of the trade War also have certain conducive

and useful for stability and prosperity of the Northeast Asia my person from point of view the relevant countries no cessation should be normalized it may possible have a certain promoting effort on the construction of the free trade zone foreign the maintenance of healthy and balanced economic and trade relations among China Japan and RK is conducive to the prosperity and stability of Northeast Asia in general although relevant countries have undergone some strategic changes due to internal external

factors and have conflicting interests but they still share same overall interest in nuclear safety security and stability in the peninsula therefore in the future it is unlikely that relevant countries will abandon denuclearization policy and Regional stability who want to benefit about this and to pursue block confrontation leading to a cold war third in the complex International environment countries and still seek space for cooperation on current peninsula competition between the major powers

and disputes around relevant countries in today's world does not mean confrontation in no fields as long as there's no shop conversation in terms of core interest I mean the core engines I think Mr child just mentioned earlier cooperation in other areas is possible on the Korean Peninsula China and the United States and the hurricane should have the same general understanding on safeguarding nuclear safety security avoid nuclear war on Peninsula and preventing conflict in the war as for China it shared long border with

North Korea the software is the same if there is a military government conflict or nuclear security issue on the Communist law that leads to a nuclear war and interests of the old parties will suffer heavy losses and Regional International Security framework will be overturned I'm not sure is the overturned yet or not even a state of strategic competition between China and U.S it is still possible for China and the United States or China NR okay to cooperate in some areas related to the peninsula such as

nuclear safety and related environmental issues such as humanitarian assistance including short food shortages disasters and refugees bilateral and multilateral dialogue of the issue of nuclear safety on Peninsula including nuclear accident nuclear leak caused by nuclear pollution geological disaster caused by nuclear tests Etc nuclear security and Regional stability we can talking about this all parties should make practical efforts to reduce tensions on the peninsula it should be noticed that although bilateral dialogue between the

us and our DPR dprk is important but it's going to truly resolve the nuclear and security issues entirely on the peninsula because the peninsula issue involves interests of all parties three and lastly although the six-party talks which aim at resolving nuclear safety security and stability on the peninsula have been suspended someone said it stopped someone said it's failure but the basic rules and the principles are not updated if there is no effective framework for multilateral talks and dialogues for

time being in my perspective any possible biological maybe two maybe three maybe four maybe five and the multilateral dialogue with aim of promoting denucleation security and stability on Peninsula will be useful thank you thank you very much and next is professor John thank you very much I have a paper and the basic question is can we find the space for U.S China corporation which will give South Korea a better strategic space to find out our own national interests that's the basic question and it's great to have trilateral

conference here after several years so that we can find each two great Powers perception of each other and then how we can contribute software can contribute to promote cooperation in this relationship so the paper is composed of four parts I will go through a major arguments one by one the first one is about the general evaluation of vs China relations which is uh very well known but let me go to the very basic points I think the U.S China relations may be adversarial but still it's based on strategic distrust

that we can ultimately solve it's a logic of security dilemma there might be some misperception of each other from U.S perspective China is expected to surpass the U.S as the world biggest economy very soon there is still an argument about China's peaking but we'll see and China has been increasing his military expenditure and weapons technology so U.S doubts that China is China's increasing economic power may enable China's military overtake the main problem is U.S consider China as a revisionist state to expand this

military power over several areas the hot spots in East Asia eventually blocking the sea Lane of communication in East Asia in China is expanding its military influence by establishing military bases in countries belonging to Bri and other Pacific countries as well on the other hand China perceives that U.S is containing China to frustrate its development unjustly and to prevent it from expanded expanding its influence so China's sovereignty claims to the island over the South China Sea East China Sea

Taiwan and Hong Kong are legitimate to Chinese population and the U.S intervention to these issues are unjust actions to prevent China's development and we have Russia's Invasion as to previous presenters already talked about and there is a Ukraine China Taiwan analogy which aggravates the current situation but after the Bali Summit meeting last year November I find some positive changes uh so I wrote down the former prime minister uh China Wang Yi he notes that even though there are some confrontations between two countries but

he has some very cautious optimism so he stated that China United States cannot decouple or receiver Supply chains under new circumstances the common interest between two countries have increased not decreased so China has advanced the principle to reject block confrontation and zero-sum competition and maintain the Strategic stability in relation with other major countries on the other hand from U.S side very interestingly Jake Sullivan the security advisor recently suggests that many things the past 30 years world order has

made problems in US is trying to reorder uh the orders in many areas including security and economy so he tried to present a vision for the ultimate goal of U.S China strategy so far inside the U.S and also in South Korea many have criticized the lack of clarity in the purpose of U.S China strategies thus far so what is the ultimate goal of U.S China's strategy so from your side it's necessary to present a more explicit strategic framework in the long run the U.S does not want confrontational conflict with China but aims to compete

responsibly and manage this competition in a responsible manner which is very interesting so as Professor jar said in the procession the concept of competition I think that's the core question how we can interpret a competition from Eastern culture like in South Korea or in China competition maybe a sound some uncomfortable but South Korea has also a neoliberal country we think the competition is very important and productive uh so uh going back to Sullivan again see in order to achieve a mature

relations it is important to engage in continuous dialogue and restore diplomacy which is good so I termed that uh as rules based competition so competition is fine but it should be within some rules and norms and that rules and Norms should be made not just by two countries but also with the advice of other countries third-party countries like South Korea or other middle countries middle power countries European unions and so on so according to Sullivan these policies are not aimed at decoupling but at the

risking and diversifying as Professor johnbach mentioned so these points are echoed by uh Jenny Ellen the U.S treasury secretary so he she explains many things the basic argument is that bilateral economic independence is very important in all sectors except for cutting-edge technologies that have National Security and Military implications and complete decoupling from China is impossible and not beneficial however as China has persistently engaged in unfair economic practices that violate basic

Norms under the liberal trade regime tensions between us and China are inevitable until this is resolved so there is some uh differences in perspectives I guess between two countries than where is South Korea president uh the adoption of indo-pacific concept as a central political focus by the way China has argued that the concept of indo-pacific is basically to contain China so we have very different views about the Europe political Regional concept of in the Pacific but our government has issued as you know in the

Pacific report and that creates an impression that South Korea will take Chinese policy in this region seriously a little bit in a negative sense as manifested in the state visit president news emphasis on values especially the value of Freedom closely related to Human Rights will likely encourage the United States to expect South Korea stronger stands toward China the fundamental issue is whether both Yoon and Biden will be on the same page regarding the nature of the threat coming from China and the ultimate goal

of two countries China policy but South Korea has maintained a less alarmist view of China's rise there are indeed elements contributing to decreasing optimism toward China increasingly colliding economic interests between South Korea and China and also a very low level of favorability toward China these days in among South Koreans and China's passive and permissive stance toward North Korea's nuclear provocations however it is also true that China does not pose direct military and security threats to

South Korea because two countries lack a territorial disputes for example in Chinese diplomatic support for dealing with North Korea is still very important so under these circumstances uh the arms races between U.S and China is increasing a strategic competition is still there so we try to find out some strategic space South Korea to enhance cooperation between two countries uh but the real problem is how uh will these overall relations will influence security relations between us and China the second point so security conflicts

between us and China can be divided into three areas Gray Zone conflicts competition over conventional welfare and growing competition in the nuclear weapons sector this project is focused on nuclear issue because nuclear imbalance between two countries are in the background for all these Gray Zone conflict and conventional welfare so far we have maintained a great imbalance between U.S and China in nuclear weapons in favor of United States but as we know we see a rapidly growing uh China's capability in

nuclear weapons and Delivery Systems so how that will impact on the general U.S China relations maybe in the 2030s and after that will be very important and so far U.S has maintained several strategy nuclear strategies toward China uh we have to ask American a Specialists here but if China's nuclear capabilities continue to grow and force the U.S to recognize Mutual vulnerability is this asymmetrical vulnerability but probably we will reach at the point of uh mad Mutual assured destruction at some point

the U.S may change their nuclear police toward China from damage minimization strategy which is arguable but focus on more Mutual deterrence then how will this mad situation will affect the conventional situation between two countries for example stability instability Paradox where we have more risks in conventional welfare if China is confident about its nuclear capability to cope with the U.S military caution or you know policy then maybe we have a more violent conventional Warfare situations so we have to deal with that until we

reach that point so we have to uh you know make deal with overall U.S China relations so that we don't have that adversarial nuclear situations in the coming decade the third part is about North Korean nuclear issues which we have dealt with in the first session so I'll do a very quick for South Korea's point of view to have a reassurance from U.S part has been very important from last year we had a lot of conferences bilateral won between South Korea and the U.S but on the basis of Washington declaration I think uh most of the part

dealt with Assurance even though we dealt with the deterrence part so we have a higher level of reassurance between South Korea and the United States uh but what about the deterrence part uh as a professor Byrne talked about we are provoking North Korea in some sense so we have to maintain some communication you know the basic uh elements of deterrences to maintain the communication with the adversarial counterpart so we have to show some signals to North Korea that we are defensive and try to uh

you know he enhance deterrence not aggressive posture and also we have to talk with Chinese what are the basic intention of our enhancing deterrence but there is a still a growing skepticism about the complete denuclearization of North Korea North Korea has a very strong intention to increase their nuclear powers and Delivery Systems so this is a time not just for extended deterrence but also for extended negotiation or extended diplomacy with North Korea so we have to take all things into consideration

which is very hard because we have focused so much about deterrence and reassurance can we change the direction toward more effective diplomacy and engagement with North Korea so this is time to prepare a road map for negotiations with North Korea I'm almost uh time is up so the last part is can we find out some leeway for U.S China cooperation South Korea's basic position is that the significance of existing multilateral rules-based order is very important so we have to urge both USA and China to collaborate and enhance we

have many issues as Professor Hoya already talked about you know terrorism Health crisis all those things you know unregulated new technologies but a little bit abstract but important thing is that you know compromise and cooperation does not exclude competition so South Korea can benefit from a healthy competition between us and China so rules-based competition and competition-based new rules will be will contributing to a new order in a station so we try to find out as South Korea try to find some chance

to help these two countries and in that sense North Korea issue or issues on The Current financial level have a chance to contribute to the cooperation between two countries so how can South Korea contribute to this issue will be very pivotal in in the future thank you thank you uh thank you very much three uh speakers have have touched upon um you know assessment of the future uh particularly uh U.S China uh rivalry um and uh also it raised the issue of arms race nuclear arms race and potential

implications for uh South Korea I mean Korean Peninsula and uh also touched upon the issue of extended deterrence energy uh you know you you just uh used it as extended returns uh you know as non-proliferation so and a few other issues nuclear safety related environmental agendas um and uh we also I mean you also this we also discussed uh you know deterrence reassurance and negotiation um unfortunately we have uh 15 minutes maybe maximum 20 minutes so there are arguments and also uh you know raised questions

um so you uh I mean I don't know how you respond but it seems like you we have I mean each of you have about seven minutes uh less than seven minutes uh to discuss very sorry about that uh yes Professor you start first I'll be very very brief um you know I agree with uh uh Professor Toby's are point that his uh the non-proliferation treaty has been worked quite well until recently it's under threat is uh it's a great concern actually the it's a it's a very good regime uh it has worked to keep the world safe

from a nuclear disaster but the problem is you know we're not well we are facing a lot of challenges uh one of the challenges is the U.S itself you know uh it's selling nuclear sufferings to Australia how do you explain this uh and also it's actively publicly talking about uh deploying technical nuclear weapons in us in South Korea and and also maybe uh in Japan and uh so uh well that's U.S is the greatest supporter of the non-proliferation regime but then the recent development how do we explain this kind of thing

um the second question is to uh oh yeah you know he the top I agree that the nuclear safety is a shared interest in the region uh and then you mentioned that pragmatic steps have to be taken to uh ensure that maybe you want to elaborate uh you know what kind of pragmatic steps we can take now uh to address the current nuclear problem and for Professor Chung uh yeah both China and the US want stability that's true actually both have voiced a strong commitment to that but the problem is the reality is much more complicated

yeah I agree with you that we should well actually I I personally I think competition is not a bad thing but the problem is maybe I'm too uh I received too much Western education I argue that you know we should have benign competition instead of midline competition you know benign competition is com to compete to be bad to do better okay uh ourselves to malign competitions to make sure that the other side cannot do things so undermine others efforts so I think China and the U.S should engage in Malay income benign

competition if we have to okay but the problem is uh how to get there so my question to Professor Chong is uh in recent visit to Washington uh the South Korean president talked about you know the the Taiwan issue that caused a strong reaction from from China you know uh so uh could you explain the South Koreans uh position on that and why what's the background for that for that thing thank you well thank you very much and good morning uh it's first time I'm taking the floor so I really want to thank the

East Asia Institute for inviting me it's always wonderful to be back in Korea I come quite often so I think when one talk about the future a world order or the future order in East Asia I think two questions need to be raised one is uh this East Asia order is going to be designed how and composed by whom because there is a very fundamental difference between a regional order that is emerging out of a catastrophic competition and War and another one that instead you know made out of accommodation and diplomacy

and I think these two paths are not inevitable right so at this point we are at the brink of one or the other and so this is what at stake today now it is true though the East Asia order in my view will be shaped uh predominantly by the US China cooperation and competition and as a result of the East Asia order we will also shape the global order so very different from the Cold War I think it's going to be a regional order here emerging that will ultimately have deep repercussions at the global level

I think we when we talk about uh us and China relation I think the papers highlight two Dynamics but I want to emphasize them especially for students here of international relations I think there is no doubt that there is a security dilemma at place so the two countries are locked in and so they cannot increase their security without decreasing their security but there is a second Dynamic here which is what Bob Cohen and jonai called complex interdependence right and this is what John Park uh talked about we can't

understand China U.S cooperation and competition only from a security dilemma standpoint it is also true that their uh you growth their wealth their status in the world fundamentally depend on how well this cooperation between the two countries is going to go and so these two dilemmas this push and pulls make this this relation so interesting and so ambivalent right deep acute competition and deep needed cooperation now dprk and I think it's really interesting because here we are in a deep crisis dprk can

offer a fantastic opportunity it is in my view a great uh Power cooperation test right we can succeed and show the accommodation and diplomacy can work or we can fail so I think dprk as a crisis offer in fact President Biden and president XI and the future U.S president a great opportunity let me mention how this is the case now both papers explore how dprk put pressure on extended deterrence but I actually argued that dprk puts a lot of pressure on China too the Chinese have no interest in seeing

the South Koreans go nuclear or Japan called nuclear or Australia going Nuclear So the problem the crisis of North Korea cannot only be depicted as a U.S problem right it is a China problem too and North Korea puts pressure on two very important pillars of the nuclear order one is extended deterrence no doubt about it the U.S has been called out it has to be more credible provide more assurances you know develop you know better capabilities SketchUp with North Korea but he puts a lot of pressure on the nucleino proliferation

regime too and China has been a major player and a responsible power in that so both countries have vital Stakes here it's not that we have asymmetric States stakes in handling North Korea it is a symmetry of stakes and I think it's really important that China recognizes and gets to the table as he did by the way with the six party talks right so let's change this narrative all of a sudden is the U.S problem these are great powers that sit on the in the same region they have a serious nuclear issue at hand

now let me also mention that what I found interesting in the two papers is though um how I think the Chinese perspective on the North Korean crisis in the South Korean perspective differ I think both did a fantastic job in explaining exploring how acute this crisis is but here we have a problem of sequencing right I think the Chinese perspective is to say look we have a deep security problem in North Korea we need to go through the political and economic cooperation angle right this is the first step in order to reduce insecurity

I think the US and South Korea comes from a different sequencing First Security then political and economic cooperation and by the way this is sequencing dilemmas are not new they've always existed we have been locked into a sequencing problem with with the Soviet Union during the cold Wars these things we know how to handle them but that requires a very very long-term commitment to dialogue to resolve first this this sequencing strategy problem right we see probably the crisis the same way but we go at solving it in very

different now let me just raise three questions to our phenomenal speakers the first one is I think we need I think China and the United States need to clarify with each other the meaning of Crisis you know I've been in dialogues with many Chinese Scholars and I think we actually don't understand what crisis mean for both countries how does it look like do you need loss of life do you need major entanglements do you need so because I think you we can't talk seriously about crisis management or Crisis Prevention

if we don't know when a crisis starts so I think that would be very important second Point how do we insulate cooperation from Deep entrenched domestic factors I think especially in South Korea and in the United States the polarization of China has grown increasingly acute so even if people want to collaborate or cooperate with China the cost of cooperation are enormous domestically so how do we insulate this and finally what is the right level of institution to bring that dialogue to there I I would say in in the following

session that I think multilateralism really provides a fantastic Channel but I would like to hear whether you guys think as a mayor in informal cooperation is through Academia mail mail cooperation where should this dialogue take place thank you foreign Kim I'm greatly honored to be here it's to such a precedures conference I've been asked to comment on Professor Toby on and orangway so I'm gonna make my comment short um Professor Toby discussed about a passport on nuclear non-proliferation and the recent situation is not very

good because of the egregious violation of of Russia by invading Ukraine it's been a direct threat to Norms and rules of international Society and also direct threat to the npt and also nuclear Sable rattling by putting from time to time it's been bad for the MPT and also bad for the Korean Peninsula under this challenging situation uh what should should be done Professor Toby said that further further information is not an answer and extended deterrence has been the most successful npt Palestine history I

absolutely Target with him but I must say that I'm not as optimistic as Professor Toby regarding the future of the npt um it looks like uh in terms of nuclear weapons United States already confronts enormous challenges um nuclear force modernization providing reassurance through extended returns to allies and efficient nuclear arms control and the preservation of the MPT Etc but if you look at the current International Politics the what is the most determining moment is the great power competition is rising again

so the United States and Russia and China are also all of them are currently modernizing their nuclear forces United States has been modernizing its forces nuclear forces for quite some time all nuclear Triad has been being invested to modernize and upgrade and for the next couple of decades and Russia has been upgrading and building new weapon systems in nuclear nuclear forces like kinsar um or push it on and things like that and China in terms of China according to Pentagon reports China is substantially

uh building and increasing its nuclear arsenic so according to the estimate by 2030 uh China would have 10 000 I'm sorry 1 000 nuclear weapons and by 2035 uh fifteen hundred nuclear weapons if this kind of ominous focused materializes and then um countries the great Powers would have enormous pressure especially the United States would have been given enormous pressure especially in terms of uh preserving uh non-polarly reflection 3D and also uh to how to provide uh extended returns to its allies so

I think it's quite urgent and imperative for concerning the parties to proceed nuclear arms control talks which has been quite almost used to this for for quite some time because the only uh surviving significant nuclear arms control really is you start and each future is still very uncertain and since I think the micrograms controller among the great powers and npt need to go together to be more efficient um the talks need to be needed to start sooner than later and the another concern another concern

that I have is that um recent significant level of technological advancement uh in like a more Precision better censoring sensor systems and cyber and satellite has given has provided a better counter Force capability to nuclear Powers so if that's the case then other nuclear Powers would have less confidence about the survivability of their nuclear weapons then the Chain Reaction could happen they would need to build more and better nuclear weapons and that means uh more Fierce arms race and lower roaring

of strategic stability so I think this situation is happening to many if not or of the nuclear Powers around the world at this moment so then uh this also could get could have could give very negative impact on the arms control as well as and I'm probably different non-proliferation treaty so I'd like to ask Professor Toby what you think of this I my prediction prediction and speaking of uh extended returns uh the the last week South Korea and the United States agreed on the Soviet meeting agreed on and declared

Washington declaration and you know agreed to substantial increase in consultation and cooperation between the Allies on nuclear matters I think it's the right direction to go as an allies to uh to to more effectively deal with North Korean threat and also it could help to alleviate some of the concerns by some South Koreans who want to build our own nuclear capability but when I when I saw that I was kind of worried that there has been a bit too much emphasis on nuclear weapons um because this level of the salience of

nuclear weapons is that um it could give some wrong impression that the maintenance of the alliance between the United States and uh and South Korea um and the deterrence against the North Korean nuclear threat is only uh could only done by nuclear weapons that that is not good especially if you think about this kind of over emphasis of the role and function of the nuclear weapons uh because it could give it could give a negative impact on the airlines itself down the road and also to nuclear arms

control the npt so I'd like to ask the professor Toby about this situation as well and regarding um Professor Owen or young ways a presentation I agree with you even though the current situation is quite bad among the among the countries in the East Asia East Asia there are common grounds there are common interests we share and okay um but just one thing um the even though there are fundamental differences uh differences uh there is a common ground we all agree with but how to proceed and what to prioritize would

be very difficult because after all all of us all the countries in in the in the region are blaming each other uh because of you we are we are in the in this mess so what are you going to do we want this and the other countries say some another thing to even start the dialogue so what would be your answer to to start even to start and how to include uh the the most um a disobedient actor like North Korea to this dialogue and how to make agenda setting to start the dialogue thank you for listening

thank you very much uh those are um excellent uh comments uh we are over time but I think we will have to extend uh because you will have to respond to the great question so let me let me give three minutes each so we uh I think I will extend uh 10 minutes uh so why don't you start first thank you I should clarify that I'm neither a professor nor a doctor I was once a lecturer but that sounds bad even to me the so I'll just answer three of the points many good ones have been made but I I thought I should get back on three

of them um Australia has agreed to legal and physical steps that would ensure that the fuel in the submarines could never be used for weapons purposes and it also has an unblemished record of non-proliferation treaty compliance and support second I know of no U.S executive official who has suggested deployment of nuclear weapons in Japan or the ROK um that said we do have a free press and open debate including even views that are not official government policy uh third I agree that the re-emergence

of great power competition is the great challenge of our time the issue is larger than non-proliferation and that's why I am so firm in asserting that the United States the European Union South Korea Japan and Australia need to band together not only for non-proliferation purposes but for other security reasons and I'm also quite confident that we can be effective those countries together have a GDP that exceeds 48 trillion dollars that's an enormous amount of resources that can be brought to bear to provide

for International Peace and security okay thank you uh thank you for the three discussion the very good questions but very difficult to answer I think the uh uh I think these issues from my point of view we should divide the different issues nuclear safety for example and nuclear security the different concepts I think nuclear safety is a Among Us very serious problems nuclear safety also belongs to the NTS I mean a non-traditional security issues can we start on this I think the Innovative opposed it I think the UV sit

here and talking about nuclear safety I I think they even North Korean where we agree that because he is in the people's life you know you know we share border with the North and the North and share about it with the South I think either nuclear leak and the nuclear test around the environment problems I think the new human being problems so we like to start as some dialogue with the United States with CSL screen maybe the other parties I think look at the uh I mean uh Fukushima deity nuclear league I think that everybody

notice that is the disastrous so if the something happened in the North how do we deal with secondly we can share this some kind of information scientifically scientifically it's not a very sensitive there is a Beyond a big Power competition so as a military relations I like to maybe because we're a neighbor something like the China and the South Korea we do have a mechanism to dialogue I mean the hotline even we have the hotline with the United States we have a hotline in the in with the South Korean in the regional and mutual

region and a third Army I think is very positive can we restart our dialogues bilaterally maybe in the second track maybe in the 1.5 track thank you thank you for professor's question about South Korea's Taiwan policy if you read uh the summit statement from 21 22-23 we have mentioned uh the issues related to Taiwan straight three times it's exactly the same just one sentence we try to preserve peace and prosperity stability on the Taiwan Street it is not our Taiwan policies police toward Taiwan Strait so we still

respect One China policy we don't express any officially our police toward Taiwan as a political entity we just think that the stability and peace in the Taiwan trade is important because it's uh related to our trade military stability and so on so our official position uh is is just the same but I think I know why professor John asked that question because our statement uh seems to be changing for example our president and foreign minister mentioned that we are opposed to any efforts to change the status quo based on coercion

which is the U.S rhetoric so we are resembling or repeating to some part the U.S rhetoric so we have to work on that so what do we mean when we oppose to the change of status quo basic question it could be North Korea or it could be other other states but but basically uh we are affected by U.S China relations so we are in the middle uh we we are very difficult situation which is related to Francesca's question about the concept of Crisis because we are so much vulnerable to us China any possible

confrontation just still incident can be interpreted as a crisis for South Koreans so we just hope that as you suggested we can participate in multilateral setting where we can raise our voice about our concerns about U.S China relations