U.S.-ROK Relations: Looking to the Future

Alexander Vershbow
U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea

Remarks to the National Strategy Institute
September 12, 2007

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to the National Strategy Institute this morning. Thanks in particular to Ambassador Yang Soo-gil for hosting this event. This organization has hosted some very distinguished speakers, including Prime Minister Han Duck-soo, GNP presidential nominee Lee Myung-bak, former GNP Chairperson Park Geun-hye, presidential candidate Sohn Hak-kyu, and many others. I am honored to be included among them.

I’m here to talk to you today about the state of U.S.-ROK relations. The relationship between our two countries is a long one. In fact, our landmark friendship and commerce treaty was signed in 1882, 125 years ago. This was among the first international treaties for Korea. And it was also among the earliest treaties we signed with an Asian country.

At that time, Korea was very concerned about the geo-political situation in Northeast Asia, especially the competition between its powerful neighbors. Therefore, Korea sought a relationship with the distant United States.

Now you must bear in mind that the United States of 125 years ago was a very different country from today. It was a young country, just over 100 years old. Less than twenty years before we had experienced a brutal civil war, and reconciliation and recovery between the two halves had by no means concluded. Globally, we were a middling power, both politically and economically.

At that time our interest in Asia was largely economic. Essentially, we were seeking trading partners. We wanted to make sure our traders had some access to Asia, because they confronted tough colonial competitors from Great Britain, France, Russia and others. Our political interests in Northeast Asia were quite limited, which in my view explains the events surrounding the Japanese annexation of Korea in 1910 and the 1905 Taft-Katsura Agreement, which is so hated in Korea.

Of course, our political perspective changed dramatically as a result of the Second World War. We fought in Asia and we were determined to secure the peace. I believe that the 1945 allied victory over Japan and the subsequent Cold War represents a turning point in our history. Put simply, the United States became a Pacific power with deep stakes in Asia. This is why we entered the Korean War in 1950 and signed the Mutual Defense Treaty with Korea in 1953.

Since 1953, many things have changed in this region and beyond. But we have remained the closest of allies and partners. Our alliance will go down in history as among the most successful partnerships. The alliance has provided peace and prosperity to Korea and the region. Of course, there have been ups and downs, but the fundamental value of the alliance has never been seriously questioned.

I believe that it is this deep-rooted consensus support by Koreans and Americans alike that has allowed the alliance to be strengthened and, equally important, to evolve to reflect the changing circumstance in Korea, America and the world.

As I see it, there are three defining aspects to the U.S.-Korea relationship: the political and security links between our two countries, our economic partnership, and our people-to-people ties. Perhaps you can picture the relationship as a three-legged stool, providing stability and comfort.

The first leg is our political and military alliance. This alliance has grown from a war-time necessity to a dynamic partnership grounded in the shared values of freedom and democracy. Increasingly, the United States and the Republic of Korea are working together, across the globe, to address common threats and promote peace and prosperity.

Here on the peninsula, in recent years our military alliance has undergone some of the most significant changes since its inception, reflecting a more balanced sharing of responsibility that recognizes South Korea’s tremendous economic and technological advancement over the past several decades. We have solved the issue of transferring wartime operational control between now and 2012, and the implementation of the Yongsan Relocation and Land Partnership Plans is underway.

The transfer of OPCON and the U.S. military’s move to its new location in Pyeongtaek will make our alliance more sustainable for the long haul. Some have tried to characterize these steps as a weakening of the U.S. commitment to South Korea. This is fundamentally incorrect. In the case of OPCON, the five-year transition period will allow plenty of time to ensure that our forces are equipped and trained so that we are confident that the new command system works as effectively as the existing structure. The realignment of U.S. forces will allow a more modern, more capable force to maintain deterrence on the Korean peninsula, while returning valuable real estate in downtown Seoul to the Korean people. And, of course, there will be no change in our commitment to reinforce U.S. troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula with the full weight of U.S. land, air and naval forces – along with our extensive intelligence capabilities – in the event of a threat to the security of the Republic of Korea.

Another crucial aspect of our strategic alliance is, of course, our nations’ partnership and close cooperation in the Six Party Talks. We both have an interest, along with Japan, China, Russia, and indeed the rest of the world, in seeing a peaceful, denuclearized North Korea. If North Korea fulfills its commitment to completely abandon all of its nuclear weapons and existing nuclear programs in accordance with the September 19, 2005 Joint Statement, the United States is prepared to normalize relations with Pyongyang and work with the ROK, DPRK and China to establish a permanent peace agreement to replace the armistice that ended the Korean War. Normalization and a permanent peace regime are achievable goals, but as President Bush said last week, they can only happen with the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and nuclear programs. As he said, “It’s up to Kim Jong-il.”

North Korea and its long-suffering people stand to gain the most from denuclearization. The North is already receiving substantial assistance to its energy sector in recognition of having shut down the Yongbyon nuclear facility. This month, the Six Parties are expected to meet in Beijing to establish a detailed plan under which the DPRK is to disable its nuclear facilities and declare all of its nuclear-related programs by the end of this year. In exchange for these actions – consistent with the “action-for-action” principle – North Korea will receive additional energy assistance, including equipment and supplies from a list that North Korean engineers created.

In short, there is a path to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula that could end North Korea’s isolation and open the way to a better life for the North Korean people. Denuclearization can create the conditions for genuine peace and reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula, and for closer cooperation and integration among all the countries of Northeast Asia. The United States is committed to moving forward on that path as long as North Korea does its part. We do so in close partnership with the Republic of Korea. In fact, a major reason for the significant progress we have made over the past year in the Six Party Talks is the close coordination and partnership between Seoul and Washington.

That partnership was on display this summer, during Six Party meetings at the heads-of-delegation and working-group levels. In early August, the Economic and Energy Coordination Group met in Panmunjom, under the chairmanship of ROK Ambassador Chun Yong-woo. The meeting produced significant progress in identifying the different forms of energy assistance that will be provided to North Korea if it fulfills its commitment to declare and disable its nuclear facilities and programs.

A few weeks later, the Denuclearization Working Group met in Shenyang, under Chinese chairmanship, and held very good discussions on the programs that must be covered by the DPRK’s declaration, and on the technical steps required to achieve the disablement of the North’s nuclear facilities. In addition, the Northeast Asia Peace and Security working group met in Moscow to talk about the longer-term objective of building a new structure for regional security cooperation that can build on the experience of the Six Party Talks.

Thereafter, Assistant Secretary Hill met his North Korean counterpart in Geneva at the beginning of this month to discuss normalization of our bilateral relationship. I am very pleased that these discussions led the DPRK to agree to provide a full declaration of all of its nuclear programs and to complete the disablement of its nuclear facilities by the end of this year. In turn, we agreed to advance the process of removing the designation of North Korea as a State Sponsor of Terrorism and the process of terminating application of the Trading with the Enemy Act to North Korea.

There are still many details that will have to be addressed when the Six Party Talks reconvene at the plenary level in the next few weeks. To help move the process forward, a team of U.S., Russian and Chinese experts is now in North Korea surveying its main nuclear facilities so that we can arrive at an early understanding of what concrete actions will be required to disable those facilities.

Despite the complexities, we are hopeful that we can complete phase two of the denuclearization process by the end of 2007, so that we can turn to the most critical, and most challenging, third phase – the complete abandonment of the North’s nuclear weapons and programs – during 2008. The United States will continue to work diligently with South Korea and the other six party members until we have achieved the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The second of the three legs of our stool is our economic partnership. Last year, total trade between our countries rose to over 78 billion dollars. We now have the chance to increase that trade volume through ratification and implementation of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, or KORUS FTA. The agreement is a well-balanced one, providing opportunities for exporters of South Korean products like semi-conductors and electronics to expand even further into U.S. markets, while at the same time giving Korean consumers wider choice and lower prices, especially as the tariffs on 50% of agriculture products disappear when the agreement comes into force.

The KORUS FTA will help create new businesses and new jobs. It is forecasted to expand Korean GDP by 6 percentage points over the first ten years of its existence. This growth will not only aid the major Korean exporters like Samsung, Hyundai and LG, but also the small- and medium-size enterprises that are so crucial to the Korean economy.

Moreover, the KORUS FTA puts Korea in a unique position as the only top-ranked Asian economy with an FTA with the United States. Evidence of the KORUS FTA’s profound impact on Korea’s relations with its other trade partners is abundant: consider that, after the conclusion of the Korea-U.S. FTA negotiations, the European Union quickly sought to emulate the United States by entering into FTA talks with Korea. As protectionism and global nationalism rise, it is up to the United States and Korea to demonstrate the benefits of free trade, namely, great choice and affordability for consumers and liberty for each country to pursue its comparative advantages through free and fair competition and unfettered markets.

We expect that there will be some lively and strenuous debate in the National Assembly and Congress when it comes time to ratify the FTA. Naturally, there are elected representatives in both countries who are concerned about how the KORUS FTA will affect their constituents and their regions. One major issue, as I’m sure you all well know, is the limited availability of U.S. beef in Korea. The World Organization for Animal Health (the OIE) has pronounced that both bone-in and boneless U.S. beef, of any age, is safe for consumers. Judging by the press coverage of the first U.S. beef sales this summer, Korean consumers clearly want to have the option of buying delicious, safe and affordable U.S. beef. I therefore believe we will be able to find a balanced way to fully open the market to U.S. beef that gives greater choice to consumers while upholding international food safety standards.

In summary, the KORUS FTA will greatly enhance the prosperity of our two countries, boost both Korean and U.S. competitiveness, and add a new dimension to the U.S.-Korea alliance. The economic and non-economic benefits of this agreement to both parties are clear-cut. This agreement strengthens both parties’ economic position in Northeast Asia and sends a strong signal to the rest of the world that the United States remains actively engaged in this region. Because the arguments in favor of this agreement are so decisive, I hope that our respective legislatures will ratify it as soon as possible, so that the citizens of both our countries may begin enjoying its benefits.

The third element of our alliance is the people-to-people ties between Korea and the U.S. This is our strongest tie to each other and thus the sturdiest of the three legs of our stool. It has been fortified through mutual affection and sacrifice. During the Korean War, nearly 34,000 American soldiers lost their lives to defend freedom and bring peace and democracy to South Korea. Our bond is also strengthened when we share each other’s joy; the United States rejoiced with South Korea at the release of the remaining 19 hostages the last week of August.

I have been Ambassador to Korea for just about two years now, and I am continually struck by the depth and breadth of the personal ties between Korea and the United States. Currently, over two million people of Korean descent live in the United States. Also, more than 85,000 Koreans are studying in the United States. I would bet that if we took a poll of this room, we would find that many of you, perhaps even a majority, have a son, daughter, or grandchild who has studied in the United States, and that many of you have yourselves obtained educational degrees from U.S. universities.

And it’s not just students who are visiting the United States. Last year, my Embassy processed over 450,000 visitor visa applications. We will surpass that number this year. That number makes U.S. Embassy Seoul the busiest visa-issuing post in the world – a designation we hope to shed soon, when Korea enters the Visa Waiver Program. On August 3, President Bush signed what’s known as the “Homeland Security Bill” into law. This law provides for changes to our current Visa Waiver legislation so that more of our close friends and allies, including South Korea, can enter the program, perhaps as early as late 2008.

As you may know, the Visa Waiver Program is only for short trips to the United States for tourism or business, so anyone who wants to study or work in the U.S. will still need a visa. But the Visa Waiver Program should reduce our Consular Section’s workload by two-thirds and, we hope, encourage even more Koreans to visit the United States. And where visas remain necessary, both now and in the future, our staff there will be working very hard to make the visa process as efficient, transparent and friendly as possible.

I’d like now to return to our imaginary three-legged stool. You can imagine the disastrous consequences of removing one of the three essential legs, or if one of the three were to weaken. Such is the case with our relationship.

The U.S-ROK alliance is a testimony that the real world is not a zero-sum game and that the sum can be greater than the individual parts. Every day I see inspiring examples, large and small. The vibrant and colorful Ssamzie Space in Insadong, its great spiral walkway and sunny courtyard buzzing with activity, is the result of a collaborative effort by an American architect and a Korean architect. Christopher Park, a Korean-American architect, draws inspiration from Seoul to design high-rise living spaces in Los Angeles.

Perhaps the most spectacular example, however, is Incheon Airport, an awesome monument to our shared achievements. The airport, designed by a team of Korean and American architects, is one of the largest in the world, employing approximately 25,000 Koreans, serving over 24 million passengers a year and offering flights to over 120 cities in over 40 countries. Passenger surveys named it best airport in the world in both 2005 and 2006.

These structures are material evidence not only of the subtle interplay between the interpersonal, economic, and political ties between our two countries, but also of what we can achieve when we work together.

Of course, my own work is less artistic, but what I do on a daily basis is to pursue the goal of closer relations between our two countries: by deepening and modernizing our political and military alliance through transfer of OPCON and our move to Pyeongtaek; through our close collaboration in the Six Party Talks; through ratification of the KORUS FTA; and by bringing Korea into the Visa Waiver Program.

I believe that what we are doing now will make the alliance stronger still and pay enormous dividends for years to come, just as we are benefiting from the decisions of our predecessors in the 1950s to form a strong partnership.