John Chipman
Mr President I think you have just heard how very much your remarks and direct assessment of the security concerns are – not just of your own country, but of the whole region. You have very kindly agreed to take a few questions.
Professor François Heisbourg, Chairman, IISS
Thank you very much Mr President for a comprehensive and extraordinarily thoughtful speech. Like many others, I have been following, with great respect, the deliberate and careful manner in which you have been handling the Cheonan crisis. What can two major powers do to further the resolution of the crisis? First of all China – what should China do that would to lead to greater stability in this context. Secondly the USA – what do you expect from the USA, in particular would you consider that a heightened American military presence – for example, in the form of a carrier task force – would be a useful contribution to the message of firmness which you mentioned in your speech?
Lee Myung-bak
[As translated from Korean: Thank you for posing a question at IISS. Your question is difficult, however. For the Cheon-an incident, the attention is on six-party member countries that oversee the North Korean nuclear proliferation issue. China has made a considerable effort throughout this time as the chair country of the six-party talks. Recently, they have striven to resume the six-party talks. Amidst all this, the Cheon-an incident occurred, and I, along with all the other countries in the world, think that China is the only country that can talk to North Korea and have at least some influence. That’s why I exchanged opinions in depth with Prime Minister Wen Jiabao during his visit to South Korea several days ago.
I think that we had a very valuable conversation and said that China, as a responsible country in the world, will deal with issues responsibly. This can be interpreted in many ways, but I specifically mentioned this problem. Since we move on moderately every time North Korea causes these problems, we never get the opportunity to make changes. I said that by the international community handling this issue severely, we need to give North Korea the opportunity to change. Also, China knows many messages, such as that it is beneficial for North Korea to follow China’s development model.
In regard to China, my viewpoint is that China should make North Korea take this opportunity to admit its mistakes for this incident and promise that it will not recur in order for it to follow China’s developing path. This way, I think that the six-party talks can be resumed and in order to achieve this, China’s role is very big. I think that there is a big role that it could play. And I also hope it would.
As for the US, we are allies, which is why it is a country that is jointly dealing with various matters concerning the North. South Korea and the US are allies, but our goal is not to threaten North Korea or use armed forces. We are trying to stop and repress North Korea from using armed forces. And if in the future any incident occurs, we will definitely act correspondingly. However, all the activity of both of our armies are aimed at limiting North Korea’s military provocation, and the US-South Korean alliance probably thinks that more stabaility could be achieved by having North Korea abandon its nuclear programme and stopping additional military provocation.
But, I think that beyond China and the US, there is a need for Russia and Japan, which are both six-party talks member countries, to play a role. Even for non-member countries of the six-party talks, the right measure is for the international community to jointly, actively participate and allow North Korea to follow the right path since this incident has been submitted for review to the UN Security Council. I think that to merely overlook it would risk the possibility of more danger occurring and there would be no opportunity for North Korea to change. Because of such a point of view, I think that we should use this opportunity to give North Korea the opportunity to change. Thank you.]
Andrew Shearer, Director of Studies, Lowy Institute for International Policy; IISS Member
Mr President, thank you for a very powerful speech tonight. I think like many others here, I’d wish to commend you for your firm and resolute response to the tragic Cheonan incident. My question follows your interesting remarks about the possibility of a peace mechanism being developed in Asia. I’m hoping that you might be able to expand on that and share with us a little of your thinking about whether that would be based on an existing institution – one already present in Asia – or whether it might be something more like the Asia-Pacific community that Prime Minister Rudd has advanced - or perhaps the East Asia community that former Prime Minister Hatoyama advanced?
Lee Myung-bak
[As translated: Mr Shearer thank you. I spoke determinedly, but it was spoken very softly, not harshly. Now, as I have mentioned earlier, currently there are many types of meetings such as APEC, ASEAN, ASEAN+3 and +3. Currently, many issues concerning common-economic prosperity and profit or economic prosperity have been addressed, yet in the future the element of danger in the world will not merely be country to country provocation of war, but will come in many different forms. There is the threat of terrorism, and because there are many threats, since I think that the inter-country relations of a region are very crucial, though I’m not using this opportunity to suggest making a peace mechanism in a detailed manner, because Asian countries have many different types of inter-regional meetings including APEC, I am suggesting that it would be nice to discuss security issues beyond mere common prosperity, such as climate change, food security or energy security. I told you this because I think that there is a need to discuss these in a progressive manner with concerned countries.]
Mark Fitzpatrick, Senior Fellow for Non-Proliferation, IISS
Thank you very much Mr President for a clear-sighted message. It makes me feel all the more how thankful President Barack Obama must have been for the leadership stepping forward to host the second Nuclear Security Summit two years from now – a way to give a sustained international focus on President Obama’s desire to protect the world against the threat of nuclear terrorism and to lock up all the fissile material in the world in four years. I believe it is very difficult to host the second of such a summit; how do you follow that act? I am sure that through your leadership and the special style that you will bring to it, you will be successful. However, I wonder what particular emphasis the Republic of Korea will give the second Nuclear Security Summit. There is probably no better country to host such a summit given your country’s success in nuclear energy and the nuclear concerns that you feel. I wonder if the second Nuclear Security summit will expand beyond the exclusive focus on nuclear terrorism that President Obama gave in the summit in Washington; there was not much talk about the nuclear proliferation threats from Iran or North Korea. Will the Seoul summit address the proliferation concerns more as well as the threat of nuclear terrorism?
Lee Myung-bak
[As translated: Thank you for the question. While you were asking the question, you mentioned that I have a certain style and are expecting an effective outcome, and I would like to ask you what that style is, but given time constraints, I will not.
For me, I think that the first Nuclear Summit being held in Washington, DC, after the Cold War, where 50 countries convened to discuss this matter, is very meaningful in itself. Currently the US and Russia are working on disarmament and have reached an agreement in the Czech Republic. Of course we think that despite reducing the number of arms, there are still nuclear weapons with the power of destroying the earth ten times over. The path we must take is very far-off, I think. However, we have a proverb in Korea. There is a proverb that says ‘Starting is half the task’. Which is why I think that it is a very important beginning, and as President Obama said in the Czech Republic, it is meaningful in the sense that we can hope for a nuclear-free world for the next generation or the one after the next.
It is true that there have been many discussions on nuclear terrorism. But the truth is that almost every day, every hour, terrorism is underway around the world. However if this terrorism becomes nuclear terrorism and terrorist groups get hold of nuclear weapons, then no country in the world can help but submit to that nuclear terrorist group. Facing mass bloodshed, mass destruction, entire cities being destroyed, not one of us will be able to not surrender to thinking about these terrible outcomes. That is why this event should be prevented beforehand. This cannot be achieved by one country alone, and many countries must share information and prevent and stop the event beforehand through international cooperation, which is why the first Summit is meaningful.
Of course this issue will be discussed at the second round of the Nuclear Summit, but on how to develop and improve the agenda from here, relevant countries and main countries will discuss and determine an agenda. If I were to reply within the current limited scope, though reducing the amount of nuclear arms of current nuclear states is clearly important, as I have mentioned before, the more urgent matter is having rebellious states start to develop nuclear weapons. The point is that issues of prevention such as these require international cooperation, and from this viewpoint, I think that international cooperation should be strengthened.
However, while nuclear material may be used for such military matters, it can also be used in a very peaceful manner, especially for the earth’s climate. To prepare for the earth’s warming and climate change, the point that nuclear material can become a viable alternative energy source, for me, means that the peaceful use of nuclear material can be encouraged. However, while using nuclear material in a peaceful manner, it must not fall into the hands of terrorists, as I’ve mentioned before. No matter how peaceful the use of nuclear energy, we need international cooperation on managing nuclear material. I expect the second summit to discuss this matter more clearly than the first. Since we still have some time before then, a detailed agenda will be discussed additionally. Thank you.]
Robert Blackwill, Senior Fellow, RAND Corporation; IISS Trustee and IISS Council Member
Thank you again Mr President for your cogent and strong remarks. I have a question in response to your comment about deterrence and North Korea. During The Cold War, the USA and its NATO allies conveyed a clear message to the Soviet Union: That it would do everything possible to avoid a conflict, but if Moscow was to initiate a conflict, NATA would resist and would prevail. That message does not seem to be getting across to Pyongyang because, as you said in your numeration, they continue to test deterrence. Therefore, my question to you Mr President is, are we ready on our side ,should North Korea initiate a war, to resist and prevail?
Lee Myung-bak
[As translated: Thank you, your Excellency. Our representative has told me the most important thing is to stop the outbreak of war. I think that war should be stopped beforehand. However, we must not let the opponent look down upon us. I see that there is a need to give an impression that if they deal with us wrongly, they will receive greater harm. On this point, the current joint military handling that is being carried out by a US-Korean alliance can send a strong message to North Korea. Of course, having neighboring countries join in is also very important. That is why I understand well what you are saying. If I could reply here, however, the international society must show strength so as to stop North Korea from provoking any war, and if there is such a lacking point, we should use this Cheon-an incident as an opportunity for the international community, especially for interested party countries, to send a message to North Korea, I think. Therefore, the ultimate goal is to not have an outbreak of war and have North Korea to change its attitude and come out into the international society.
In my opinion, it is the Korean leadership’s most fundamental duty to abandon nuclear weapons and have 23 million people live more happily, instead of having nukes and living poorly. That is why the world must send out such a strong message, and it’s true that it won’t be easy.
I want to use this opportunity to say that there is a need to send out an even stronger message because it isn’t easy, and that there is a need to demonstrate with actions. Therefore, the Korean peninsula should attain peaceful reunification no matter what, and instead of being a region always wrought with instability or being a source of global worry, we must become a Korean peninsula that can send a stable, peaceful message as soon as possible. Yes, there is a problem with the directly concerned countries of North and South Korea, but I think that peaceful reunification must be achieved through cooperation with interested party countries. I would like to request your cooperation. Thank you. ]
John Chipman
Mr President, you have sent a very powerful message to this 9th Shangri-La Dialogue and given our deliberations a very special impetus and challenged the governments here to think imaginatively on how to build peace and prosperity in the region. For your leadership and your inspiration, we thank you very much Sir.
