Ambassador Thomas C. Hubbard
Lotte
Hotel - Seoul, Korea
March 7, 2003
Thank you very much chairman Sung. I'm pleased to have the opportunity to talk with the Chungcheong Forum today. I look at this as an opportunity to lay out the state of the Korean-American relationship, as I see it, and then to hear your ideas during the discussion. So I'm not going to give a very long speech. I've always believed that we need to talk to and understand each other, so today I hope to listen more than I talk.
I've been a U.S. diplomat for more than 35 years. It's a wonderful job. People who aren't familiar with diplomatic work may associate it with travel and glamour. Certainly, diplomats get to eat a lot. Travel there certainly is. But really one of the greatest pleasures of diplomatic life is intellectual. Diplomats work with people. Their goal is to generate understanding, to reach agreement. To do this, you have to understand people. You have to learn about their cultures, their histories, their politics, their psychologies. Sometimes - and this is often more difficult, you have to get others to understand you.
Cross-cultural communication is never automatic, or easy. This quest for understanding and communication is an aspect of diplomatic life that never loses its interest. In our relationship - the relationship between Korea and the United States - the last years and months have brought this need to the fore.
The United States, since 9/11, has felt itself threatened as never before. We've sought to communicate the urgency of the situation that we see to a world that has shared our experience much less directly.
I've spent much of my time in Korea trying to convey the extent to which this era of terrorism has changed Americans thinking about themselves and the world. Meanwhile, Koreans, too, have been going through a process of self-examination, prompted, I think, by a healthy new sense of self-confidence. This played a part in the election of President Roh Moo Hyun, and the generational change we're witnessing in Korean politics and in the society at large.
These two processes - U.S. thinking after 9/11 and the generational change in Korea -- are having an effect on how we think about our relationship. I want to discuss them, and I want to consider some of their consequences. But first, I need to examine who we are, where we stand, and what we have in common. I hope that the result will be to let us see our present situation in a positive perspective.
Over the years since World War II, the nations of the world have built a system that has brought previously unimaginable health, peace and prosperity to a much broader range of people than had ever enjoyed these treasures. At the same time, democracy has flourished, and unprecedented millions of people gained the right to vote, to choose the people who would govern them, and to determine the rules and the institutions that would guide their nations.
Of course these developments are not unrelated. These systems are those of the democratic nations that led the world to victory in 1945. Forty-five years later, at the end of the Cold War, we emerged with a system of organizations, treaties, rules, and customs that, together, provided the foundation for the democracy, peace, and prosperity. This is a system based on democratic norms: transparency, trust, discussion, negotiation, and compromise. And it is a system that yields democratic benefits. By compromising, by our willingness sometimes to sacrifice an immediate, individual benefit, we all gain a more stable world, a world that delivers enormous shared benefits, both economic and political.
Not all of the world's people share in the benefits of liberal democracy, and some reject these values to the point of hatred. One manifestation of that hatred was the attack of 9/11 in which eighty countries around the world lost a total of nearly 3,000 people. These are horrifying losses, but we have survived them. The greatest threat of terrorism is to the systems I just talked about. How can openness and trust survive when people who preach hatred use these very aspects of your way of life to attack you? The U.S. has been struggling with these questions for 18 months. This has been our ordeal of self-examination.
Over the last few months, we've seen the Republic of Korea go through an exciting transformation and examination of its own. This process was reflected in the recent election, in which a remarkable generational shift contributed to the election of President Roh Moo Hyun. The U.S. has warmly welcomed the inauguration of your new President, and we look forward to working with him. We are already off to a good start, as witnessed by the excellent meeting between Secretary of State Powell and President Roh on Inauguration Day.
Our two countries have an important agenda before us as we seek to work out practical solutions to some of the issues we have been tackling over the last few months. Let me review the issues we face. I'll treat them in three groups: the basic bilateral relationship; our joint approach to North Korea; and the future of the U.S. military presence on the Korean peninsula.
First the bilateral relationship. In the months since the election, we've repeatedly heard expressed Korean desires for our relationship to be defined in different ways. People have asked for an "equal" relationship, one that's "fair", "mature", and "respectful". This desire is natural and understandable, if somewhat abstract and inchoate. And we want to understand it. But perhaps I am going to disappoint you by saying that I think our relationship already is mature, fair, and respectful. There are of course differences between some of our goals and our policies. These are inevitable. Maturity in a relationship doesn't mean that differences vanish, it means that they are managed systematically. Still, our mutual interests are enormous, and we cooperate closely to ensure that they are sustained. But nevertheless, if there is a perception that our relationship needs to be rebalanced, then we need to deal with that perception. So one of my main tasks in Korea is to listen to your ideas on how to ensure that, in terms of perception as well as reality, our relationship is seen as being a fair and balanced one in all respects.
Turning to North Korea, contrary to media speculation, our governments are in basic agreement on the challenges posed by the DPRK. We both agree that the Korean peninsula should be free of nuclear weapons, and we agree that we should seek to resolve the current situation by peaceful diplomatic means. Towards this end, the U.S. has proposed that we engage in a multilateral dialogue to resolve the challenge posed by Pyongyang's pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the Korean government has expressed support for this approach.
Finally, let me address the U.S. military presence here. As you may be aware, my government has been working with yours to reduce our base footprint in Korea for more than a decade: our two countries agreed to move the Yongsan base in 1991 if a suitable alternative could be found, and just last year we agreed upon the Land Partnership Plan, which will reduce our military base land holdings in Korea by more than 50%. None of that should be news by now, although your press treats it as revolution each time I say it. Today we are looking again at how to implement our longstanding agreement to move our facilities from Yongsan to another location.
We are also looking at ways to modernize the military aspects of our alliance to take account of both our countries' greater capabilities. Our two defense ministers agreed to do this when they met in December. This dialogue to look at the future of our alliance is underway and, while it has reached no conclusions, I can say with absolute certainty that conclusions will be reached jointly and cooperatively, our military presence in Korea will continue, and our combined deterrent will remain strong as a result of this process. Let me add that we are also seeking - and finding - ways to make the implementation of our Status of Forces Agreement more acceptable and transparent to the Korean people.
I want to conclude by mentioning last autumn's public discussion of what Korea is now and what it wants. An analysis that was often offered was that the younger generation hadn't experienced the Korean War and therefore didn't understand the importance of the U.S. to this country. With all respect to our history and our shared sacrifice, allow me to suggest that a war that ended nearly 50 years ago should not be the focal point of our relationship. The real elements that binds us together today are Korea's emergence as a democracy and as a market economy, and the need, working together, to maintain peace amidst the challenges we face today. The form our bond takes is our mutual acceptance of customs, organizations, agreements, and beliefs that I described earlier, the systems that bind the modern world together and enable us to bring the enormous benefits of democracy, peace, and prosperity to our citizens. Today's younger generation in Korea has just as much at stake in those systems as their parents' generation does.
Today, the greatest threats to the international system we have created lie in the increase of terrorism and the related danger of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The weapons of mass destruction pursued by North Korea are very much a part of that danger. In an important sense, this is where American determination springing from 9/11 and our mutual concerns about North Korea overlap. Dealing with each of these challenges will require us, as friends and allies, to work even more closely together in coming months. And we will do so. We have a history of shared effort and a partnership that is strong, responsive to changing times, and based on important shared values. If I have sounded to you today like I am confident that we will weather our current difficulties and challenges, then you have understood me well. Now I'd like to make sure I understand you, so I'm ready for your questions.
Thank you.